TexasCHLforum.com

Kevinf2349 wrote:"Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for others"

I would have to live with killing someone, but to me that is easier than living with the thought of being able to do something and not doing so. I just hope and pray I don't have to make that choice.

I voted yes for the same exact reasons that Kevin gave. Well put Kevin.

joe817 wrote:

Kevinf2349 wrote:"Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for others"

I would have to live with killing someone, but to me that is easier than living with the thought of being able to do something and not doing so. I just hope and pray I don't have to make that choice.

I voted yes for the same exact reasons that Kevin gave. Well put Kevin.

+1 from me

davidtx wrote:

KC5AV wrote: This took place in Tyler. The CHL was killed because the perp was wearing body armor and a flak vest. The CHL got so caught up in 'center of mass' that he kept shooting even when it became obvious that he wasn't having any success. The perp shot him when he stopped to reload. A single, well aimed head shot by the CHL would have ended it with much better results.

Something to keep in mind in general and for those scenarios where the perp is obviously well prepared.

This brings up an interesting side issue. I usually practise with a double tap to the center mass then one to the head.

Why doesn't the CHL shooting portion of the test do this? Is it just because center mass is an easier target and therefore has a greater chance of success and less chance of colateral damage to others?

Kevinf2349 wrote:

davidtx wrote:

KC5AV wrote: This took place in Tyler. The CHL was killed because the perp was wearing body armor and a flak vest. The CHL got so caught up in 'center of mass' that he kept shooting even when it became obvious that he wasn't having any success. The perp shot him when he stopped to reload. A single, well aimed head shot by the CHL would have ended it with much better results.

Something to keep in mind in general and for those scenarios where the perp is obviously well prepared.

This brings up an interesting side issue. I usually practise with a double tap to the center mass then one to the head.

Why doesn't the CHL shooting portion of the test do this? Is it just because center mass is an easier target and therefore has a greater chance of success and less chance of colateral damage to others?

Mozambique drills are a more advanced technique. Many folks taking the CHL test are barely able to pass the COM shooting due to poor or rusty skills and nerves. If you added the movement to the head, our numbers of CHL brethren would drastically decrease.

Kevinf2349 wrote:"Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for others"

I would have to live with killing someone, but to me that is easier than living with the thought of being able to do something and not doing so.

I just hope and pray I don't have to make that choice.

I was a Sheriffs’ Deputy for a period of time and placed myself in harm’s way countless times for people I did not know, not only from firearms, but careless speeding drivers while directing traffic around accidents etc.

Do I need to tell you how I voted?

Kevin, I hope you never have to make that choice either and if you do I hope you go easy on yourself for killing someone if you have no choice.

I know that if the shooting is justified and I had no other choice, it wouldn’t bother me at all.

I would like to say to all that responded that I believe it is good to run as many scenarios like this as possible through your mind. Know what you will do before it happens. That way should a situation occur, you are more likely to react correctly.

One last thing, when you see those red and blue lights, move over if possible but slow down. You never know if the officer will suddenly be in a wrestling match with the perp and stumble into your lane.

I voted yes and would like to think that I would. There are so many variables that will come into play.

1. Am I alone? Then yes.
2. Is my daughter with me? Not unless our lives are in danger. I will make sure she is safe first.
3. Is my wife with me? See #2.
4. Are my wife and daughter with me. If my wife can get our daughter out safely I will stay and engage, but if our lives are at risk I will shoot asap.
5. The same will apply if any other family members are with me. If they can get to safety I will stay and engage or shoot asap if directly at risk.

This is all subject to change at a moments notice depending on the situation, but I'm one of those people that are usually running towards a problem rather than away from it.

To the annoyed man.

“Then there is the question of skill level and competence. Someone without proper training, or without enough physical capacity, can actually get in the way of the efforts of more qualified people. I'm a fat older man who is a competent (but not great) shot at the range when nobody is shooting back, and I have some physical limitations. I've never had any "tactical" training. In fact, one of the reasons (not the only reason, but one of them) I obtained my CHL was because I am increasingly physically unable to defend myself by any other means.”

You and I have some things in common. I am 63, not overweight but disabled and walk with a cane. I too obtained my CHL because I am increasingly physically unable to defend myself and my wife by any other means.

We are discussing personal values and there is no right or wrong.

Personally I consider myself a good shot but if I did not have a gun, I know I would put myself between a shooter and a child or another defenceless person younger than myself and take the bullet. No calculating to it. I am not a hero. I am approaching the end of my life and if there is any possibility I could give a young person the opportunity to enjoy as much life as I have, and to make the contribution I have, it would be worth it.

Many others have done as much.

joe817 wrote:

Kevinf2349 wrote:"Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for others"

I would have to live with killing someone, but to me that is easier than living with the thought of being able to do something and not doing so. I just hope and pray I don't have to make that choice.

I voted yes for the same exact reasons that Kevin gave. Well put Kevin.

I am not a bad(rear end) nor am I bullet proof but I was always taught to help others.


Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

I firmly believe the above statement. When good men sit back and let bad/horrible/evil things happen then all good has left mankind.

I posed a question like this to a good friend on mine who is not a CHL.
I am currently "Processing Application" so I dont even have mine yet.
I have been going through all kinds of scenarios in my head.

When I asked him this question it was under the assumption that I wouldnt do anything unless MY life was at risk and I couldnt flee.

He said " so you have a CHL, You have a weapon on you, you see innocent people getting killed and you would run away because YOUR life is not in danger? I hope that is just you. Otherwise, what has our society come to when we refuse to each other?"

Needless to say, this gave me a lot to think about.

If I was there alone, without my family (married, no kids. this could all change the day she says honey Im pregnant) and there was actual gunfire and I had a good shot, yes. I would do whatever I could to help even at the risk of losing my own life.

Easy to type, so lets pray none of us ever has to be tested.

Ty

P.S. This reminds me of that news video of the guy at the mall that stuck around and helped direct a cop to the BG. He stuck around and didnt even have a gun!

VoiceofReason wrote:To the annoyed man.

“Then there is the question of skill level and competence. Someone without proper training, or without enough physical capacity, can actually get in the way of the efforts of more qualified people. I'm a fat older man who is a competent (but not great) shot at the range when nobody is shooting back, and I have some physical limitations. I've never had any "tactical" training. In fact, one of the reasons (not the only reason, but one of them) I obtained my CHL was because I am increasingly physically unable to defend myself by any other means.”

You and I have some things in common. I am 63, not overweight but disabled and walk with a cane. I too obtained my CHL because I am increasingly physically unable to defend myself and my wife by any other means.

We are discussing personal values and there is no right or wrong.

Personally I consider myself a good shot but if I did not have a gun, I know I would put myself between a shooter and a child or another defenceless person younger than myself and take the bullet. No calculating to it. I am not a hero. I am approaching the end of my life and if there is any possibility I could give a young person the opportunity to enjoy as much life as I have, and to make the contribution I have, it would be worth it.

Many others have done as much.

And like you say, who the victim is is part of the equation for me. But honestly, there would have to be some compelling reason for me to take a bullet for someone else who is a stranger to me. There is no question that I would do it for my wife and/or son, whether or not I was armed. That's what a man does. To protect a small child? Possibly. To protect a pregnant woman? Possibly. To protect a 20 year old man who is perfectly capable but who will not fight for his own life? No, probably not. But in each of those scenarios, I begin with the assumption that I am armed, because I simply don't get dressed in the morning and go out of the house without strapping on a gun. I am currently 57, which is why I used the words "older man," and not "old man." I may be closer to the end of my days than the beginning, but I'm not dead yet and I have at least another 20-25 years in me, hopefully more. I love life, and I'm unwilling to needlessly throw it away; so I am going to be very discriminating about under which circumstances I would be willing do so (take a bullet). And any such assumption includes the fact that I am not going down without a fight. If I step in front of bullet aimed at a helpless person, it will be while I am shooting back, 'cause I don't want to die.

The problem is that each of these scenario discussions is highly speculative, because until one has actually had to face the real deal, none of us really knows how we are going to react. Some of the most timid soldiers go on to become the greatest heroes, while some of the biggest chest thumpers turn out to be some of the biggest cowards. Most of us will (hopefully) go through our entire lives without ever being tested. But since I don't know for sure how I will react, I consequently hesitate to say with finality "I would do such," or "I would do so." I'm no hero either, and I don't want to be one. Ultimately, if given the choice between being a live jackal or a dead lion, I pick being a live lion. I just hope that I'm man enough to back that up, and I also hope that I never have to find out.



(edited to correct the spelling of "dead" in the last paragraph...)

VoiceofReason was very good.
I need to consult my lawyer to answer the question.... OK "what if questions" are good for Saturday morning coffee. The real anwser will be my training and emotional response at the moment. I agree with all of the yes and no response. I just do not know what the emotional response will be.

The premise here is that I have encountered a killing in progress, and that the armed criminal is clearly identified.

In reality, what would give me a *******LOT******* of pause is the question about whether I am seeing what I think I'm seeing. If I saw a man shooting another man, am I absolutely,100% sure that the armed guy who is shooting is the criminal? Any chance it could be a LEO, or one of you?

It depends where I am. In a society with unrestricted carry, where good guys get civic awards for shooting criminals, I would shoot. In a society where I'm carrying illegally, I would not shoot except to protect myself and people I would donate a kidney to save. In between it depends. In a society where getting a license means jumping through a bunch of hoops, and then you still can't carry at football games, I probably would call 911 and only shoot to protect people I like.

Also, one has to consider the shooting is gang-against-gang, like what happened at the Crossroads Mall, OK.

The shooter was gangbanger who shot at another gangbanger from a rival gang. The shooter was taken off line with a bullet to the head from off-duty LEO.

I voted yes but it would have to be under ideal conditions that were very clear as to who was the victim. I could come around the corner to see a man stabing a woman and fire upon the man only to find out the woman was a drug crazed psycho and the man was defending himself and his young daughter who ran away from the scene to get help. We all want to do the noble thing and protect the innocent but we must be very careful in our actions. Lots of ifs, ands, or buts in determining the final decision.
........and you would have a split second to make that decision..............

When someone is attacking me or the person(s) I am with, there is no second guessing.