TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:I may be in the minority, or I may be seen as cold hearted, but I don't carry a gun to protect others. I would have taken those I care about and attempted to flee the scene or find cover. The only way I would take action with my firearm is if the killer enters my immediate threat zone. By this I mean he would have to be in a position to threaten me or mine directly, and only then will I engage him. Everyone else decided not to be armed and they can live, or die, with the consequences of that decision.

I agree with you G.A. However, one doesn't always know what one will do unless they have already faced the situation. So my plan is to get out but...

In Texas anyone who is 21 or over (plus those 18 and over in the military) have had the same chance to acquire a CHL and carry a firearm to protect themselves. In Arizona, if you are legal to own a handgun, you can legally carry openly or concealed without a license making things somewhat easier for those who wish to have the ability to defend themselves. So everyone else who is an adult has the same opportunity to defend themselves as I have. I do not choose to smoke, but I won't make anyone else quit smoking on my account and I sure don't plan on paying for their cancer treatments. I use CFL and LED light bulbs, but I don't make others and I don't plan to pay their electric bill. I carry a gun to protect myself, but I don't make others and I don't plan to pay with my life for their decision.

If there are 10 CHL's and 50 non-chl's and the guy is randomly shooting people I don't see how the chl's could fail to engage, at least this one.

No the plastic doesn't make me John Law but being a decent human being I could not watch a slaughter. Would I take precautions to lessen my chances of injury yes but could I watch a nine year old get gunned down and not respond NO. I have 7 grand kids and I would hope someone would cover their backs in a situation like this. I've never had to pull my gun but I have jumped in when a guy with his 2 kids was jumped by 3 guys out in the stockyards, I was 30 years younger and at 180# about 60 lighter. But no one is going to hurt kids when I can stop them.

I really don't think anyone is saying they would watch the slaughter of children. Just saying that putting our own lives and finances at risk for a person that doesn't think enough of themselves to take responsibility for themselves is not in our plan.

IMO thats the wrong answer. IMO that line of thinking is making this country go downhill the way it has. The whole, its all about me, I'm not gonna help others, if they think enough of themselves they would have some way to protect themselves lie of thinking is just wrong. What happened to helping your neighbor? What happened to helping those in need?

"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."

Well said!!! ED45

G.A. Heath wrote:In Texas anyone who is 21 or over (plus those 18 and over in the military) have had the same chance to acquire a CHL and carry a firearm to protect themselves. In Arizona, if you are legal to own a handgun, you can legally carry openly or concealed without a license making things somewhat easier for those who wish to have the ability to defend themselves. So everyone else who is an adult has the same opportunity to defend themselves as I have. I do not choose to smoke, but I won't make anyone else quit smoking on my account and I sure don't plan on paying for their cancer treatments. I use CFL and LED light bulbs, but I don't make others and I don't plan to pay their electric bill. I carry a gun to protect myself, but I don't make others and I don't plan to pay with my life for their decision.

I very much understand this point of view.

However, self defense and personal responsibility has been whittled down in this country to an afterthought. People are told not to bother, because someone else will do it. It is a very deliberate process to create dependancy on the state.
Stepping up and breaking the mold sets the example for others to follow.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:IMO thats the wrong answer. IMO that line of thinking is making this country go downhill the way it has. The whole, its all about me, I'm not gonna help others, if they think enough of themselves they would have some way to protect themselves lie of thinking is just wrong. What happened to helping your neighbor? What happened to helping those in need?

"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."

While i agree that this is a major problem, what happened IMO is there is now a greater fear of all the financial and legal ramifications of trying to do the right thing. What if im trying to engage the threat and someone runs right into my line of sight at the exact moment the trigger breaks and fires the round? In a crowd like that, firing your weapon, to me, is a very big risk. Now i have to deal with the legal battle of trying to defend myself since i shot an innocent person. While it was unintential and my motive was to stop the threat and the killing of innocent people, that person i accidentally shot wont see it that way. I feel everyone here has a good heart and would like to help someone in need but there are alot of people in society who would sue you in a heart beat even though you were trying to help. Back in college, i remember studying a court case where a person who was rendering CPR broke a rib of the individual that needed CPR. That good samaritian got hit with a law suit. Hey thanks for saving my life, but im still suing you for breaking my rib. I believe the case was tossed but that person still had to pay the lawyer.

Screw that. If he had been shot halfway through his spree, half a dozen people may have been spared injury or death.
In a mass shooting scenerio, I can only hope I make the decision in the split seconds that matter, but I'm not standing by, afraid of hitting an innocent bystander vs. watching him gun down 5 or 10 more people. No sir.

I liken this to what I was told by my lifeguard instructor. Do attempt to save anyone if you are likely to die in the process. All that accomplishes is two bodies instead of one. I am not advocating not helping I am suggesting that dieing for someone else is not all it is cracked up to be. If there is a mass shooting going on and I can't escape and I have a clear shot I will do what is right and necessary as I believe the vast majority of the members here would.

cubbyjg wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:IMO thats the wrong answer. IMO that line of thinking is making this country go downhill the way it has. The whole, its all about me, I'm not gonna help others, if they think enough of themselves they would have some way to protect themselves lie of thinking is just wrong. What happened to helping your neighbor? What happened to helping those in need?

"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."

While i agree that this is a major problem, what happened IMO is there is now a greater fear of all the financial and legal ramifications of trying to do the right thing. What if im trying to engage the threat and someone runs right into my line of sight at the exact moment the trigger breaks and fires the round? In a crowd like that, firing your weapon, to me, is a very big risk. Now i have to deal with the legal battle of trying to defend myself since i shot an innocent person. While it was unintential and my motive was to stop the threat and the killing of innocent people, that person i accidentally shot wont see it that way. I feel everyone here has a good heart and would like to help someone in need but there are alot of people in society who would sue you in a heart beat even though you were trying to help. Back in college, i remember studying a court case where a person who was rendering CPR broke a rib of the individual that needed CPR. That good samaritian got hit with a law suit. Hey thanks for saving my life, but im still suing you for breaking my rib. I believe the case was tossed but that person still had to pay the lawyer.

In your accidental shooting scenario of accidentally killing an innocent in the process, you go to prison. It would be man-slaughter at least... and possibly murder.

That is a HUGE reason I wouldn't engage in a robbery where there's only a 'chance' that someone may get shot.
I think it's worth the risk if it's a killer who is only intending to kill as in AZ or Luby's.

BTW, in Texas, there is a 'good samaritan' law that protects you from suit when you're trying to render aid like performing CPR, etc.

Once again, a CHL holder isn't another arm of law enforcement nor obligated morally to act as one.

First and foremost, I'll protect me and mine - period.

If after that, assessing the situation very carefully, if (you) decide to help out, I hope to God you aren't thought one of the mass murderers and get shot yourself...

How the heck is SWAT (or pick your favorite example) gonna immediately know you're one of the good guys?

Sure a CHLer could step up to the plate to do the right thing for all and BLAM - some other good guy blasts him out of his shoes as soon as he clears leather, certain HE's done the right thing...and the list of the hypothetical horribly unexpected result is endless.

As CHLers we aren't law enforcement and insisting we are is ludicrous.

We kid a lot here about CHL badges, sashes and tiaras, but there's a segment here who not very deep down think we're obligated to act as if we do carry LEO badges if a law enforcement scenario presents itself.

Better be really careful with that quasi-vigilante thinking...

This guy's gun reviews I typically enjoy. There's something very likable about him and his delivery. I don't agree with a lot of what he says beyond the review of fire arms hardware.
He is one that talks about 'sheep dogs' a lot. There's a bit of mall ninja that comes from him and this mentality.
I'm not endorsing this by ANY means, but thought you'd find it interesting in context of our discussion here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH3GV7EmzI4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


When he talks about 'unlock codes'. I do agree with that piece. I stated my codes above (robbery, no-go unless in life danger personally, killer-yes-go)... essentially a murderer/killer would be worth engaging if I am in the immediate vicinity and/or witnessing it. I definitely would not do what he says in the video of 'close and engage'.

Life is a series of decisions.
Some will be good and some will be not so good to downright bad.

I was also a WSI in early life and what you say is true.
The first rule of a lifeguard? Don’t go in the water unless absolutely
necessary.

This is one of those threads that will never be answered agreeable to everyone
and incorrectly by anyone.

Of course after that statement comes the proverbial my .02 cents.

I look at it as a choice between what will happen and what might happen.
In a situation like Arizona where an individual pulls a gun or any kind of weapon
and starts to dispatch the local innocent populace it would be an easy decision.

The will happen is he/she will continue to wreck havoc/kill innocent people until
stopped or out of ammunition or overwhelmed by desperate unarmed participants.

The might happen is if I were to pull a gun and engage the individual I would probably end the carnage. Either by stopping the threat or by turning their attention to me.
Once engaged, not often has a shooter continued with
with their perceived mission.
It is also possible one of my rounds might hit another individual.
That is a might happen. It is not a will happen. Being confident (practice) and aware (practice) I would take the might happen to the will happen in this scenario any day.
When in a crowded room we have all considered, gee, this would be a really bad place
to be in a shootout. Tell me this. Where is a good place to be in a shootout?

This is not saying you or I would not have immediate and that particular circumstance reasons for not engaging. We are not talking about some stop and rob incident where you are just a bystander we are talking about an active shooter taking lives.
This is of course just my opinion but I would have to thoughtfully engage.
You have to stop the will happen before you worry about the might happen.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote: The whole, its all about me, I'm not gonna help others, if they think enough of themselves they would have some way to protect themselves lie of thinking is just wrong. What happened to helping your neighbor? What happened to helping those in need?

You've got it wrong, at least when it comes to why I would consider retreat over engagement. When I worry about any negative ramifications such as my death or going to jail, I'm more worried about the impact on my wife and my family than myself.

This isn't all about "me". This is simply putting family in front of strangers. I owe so much more to my family then I do to someone I don't know. If you're comfortable doing things the other way around, be my guest.

And I understand that in an active shooter situation, all bets are off for some. However, please consider this off duty cops story about engaging an armed robber in a McDonalds. http://www.mdshooters.com/archive/index ... 44308.html

Quick Summary: He tried to evacuate everyone, a door was locked so while everyone was still inside, robber comes back up front. Cop pulls a gun and orders him to stop, he opens fire. Cop returns fire and hits robber. Unfortunately, one of the robbers bullets struck and killed a 9 year old. If he had just let the guy run away, perhaps the little one would still be alive.

a quote from the cop:

The smartest, most responsible thing I could have done would have been to take care of my family first. I should have seen personally to their safety. If I had grabbed them and gone outside, I would have spared them this entire experience and that little girl would probably still be alive today.

Moral of the story to me: sometimes a little cash from a place isn't worth the risk of a shootout if they're not actively trying to hurt people.