TexasCHLforum.com

There are so many different variables in these situations I can't see how any one answer covers them all. But I do agree that I will protect myself and my family first. This is the same mentality they use in the old airplane safety demonstrations - put your mask on first, then assist your children or others with their masks. Once I am sure my family is out of harm's way, if I have a chance to engage from cover or make a surprise attack in open while advancing from cover and the situation is obviously an active shooter just methodically shooting one person after another, then I would feel an obligation to engage if reasonably safe to do so from a tactical standpoint (I'm not expert in this - just mean that I'm not going to wildly fling myself back into the situation, and certainly into the shooter's field of vision or fire).

I'm certainly no expert in such things, but just spitballing here it seems that defending oneself and loved ones first falls right in line with the general description I've often heard discussed amongst LEOs and trainers even if you're alone ... retreat to cover, reassesss situation, form a plan. Perhaps you need to put a few rounds toward the bad guy in order to give yourself the time to seek cover - but I would think that is a severe tactical risk, as doing so, while it may put the shooter on the defensive momentarily, definitely puts the spotlight on you in the shooter's eyes, and possibly the eyes of others in the area with guns - be they police, other CHLs, or even other "sleeper" shooters in a multi-threat scenario.

What I would not do and don't think anyone should do is to "stand your ground" firing flat-footed in the open back at an active shooter as if he/she is just one more paper target at the 7-yard line of your favorite range. This very likely WILL get you killed.

SEEK COVER. Then reassess. You have no obligation to engage. It may be unwise to engage. But try to make that decision from a relatively safe position of cover and not in a split-second while exposed in the open.

I've thought often about the various scenarios from the Virginia Tech and Luby's massacres. Seems the Virginia Tech situation gave ample opportunity for an ambush of the active shooter with closed classroom doors giving an obvious choke point and place to hide in wait for the ambush etc. Luby's however seems like it was instant mass chaos, madman crashes truck into open dining area, people are shocked, thinking someone needs help. Then the driver starts shooting people. Panic. People running, tripping, falling, knocking over chairs and tables etc. No where to run. No where to hide (at least not to seek cover, concealment behind a downed table perhaps your only option). ..... point is, two very different scenarios. This Tucson scenario happened so quickly and started at point blank range ... seems the only logical choice is to run (either away from the shooter if you're far enough away already to give yourself a reasonable expectation of not being shot in the back) or lunge toward the shooter if your close enough and at an advantageous side or rear angle. Dropping to the ground alone - with no retreat, just lying there trying to "stay low" seems like an excellent way to get shot in that particular scenario in a wide open parking lot (at least the immediate field of fire of the shooter seemed relatively wide open - certainly the buildings to one side or the cars to the other provide some cover if you can get there quickly enough).

For me personally it comes down to one thing.....were my loved ones there and in danger. If they were,draw and fire if appropriate. If they were not in danger, protect them. When they are safe, and only then, intervene and do what ever is appropriate (maybe nothing) in relation to the perp. I don't think this is selfish in any way. I have a CHL to protect my family and myself. Anything beyond that I cannot say as to what I would do. Each situation brings with it many variables and assessments. I hope that I will make the appropriate choice if ever put into a bad situation.

Again no wrong answer no right answer.
We react in the way we see and perceive things.

The active shooter in Arizona is a perfect example of
action will always trump reaction every time.
I truly believe you have to do what you decide to do
at that moment in time. It will not be decided on this forum or in your/my
what if scenarios.

Your family and loved ones come first. That should be a given without
mention.
I will say that if my loved one was the sixth or ninth or last person shot
and there was a chance someone could have with any degree of skill changed that outcome I would be disappointed that they did not try. Suppose your son/daughter was in that situation without you there to protect them, would not you want someone to help them. Would you be satisfied that although they were not obligated they chose to do nothing and observe rather than trying to help.
I am sorry but while I might not expect others to help I would certainly want someone to help.
We all want all the variables in a scenario and can say, it depends, as much as we want
but that is not reality. The truth is if when the decision was due we had all the variables and known outcomes the decision would make itself.

I do not for certain know what I would do I can only say that short of putting my loved ones in direct danger I just do not see doing nothing (non engagement) as an option.

This is of course just my opinion. I see correct mental preparedness to be as important
as correct technique. I just don’t think I could do nothing.

IMHO

I am not talking about just shooting. I am talking about taking action any way that you can. To sit back and watch it happen and know you could have done something about it (thats not always the case) is wrong.

G192627 wrote:
---snip---

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.

The reason I no longer teach CPR is because Good Samaritan Laws only cover the one actually performing the 'good deed'. I was involved in a situation where the family of a deceased claimed the person that performed CPR was not properly trained--they could not sue him. The technicality that caused dismissal was the fact the Good Samaritan's certification had expired therefor he was not trained. They also sued the private emergency transport because they went to the hospital they were affiliated (that had a cardiac emergency room) versus a hospital in the other direction that was less than a mile closer.

No, I will protect mine! I will get my family to cover (and/or concealment) and only engage if the threat 'follows'.

What if a LEO shot an innocent by-stander when trying to engage? Would they be prosecuted? Just asking.................

Well that sucks.

I didn't know about that loop hole. I hate our litigious society.

Do what's right first, deal with the consequences later. I do understanding making sure your loved ones are safe first, but I'm going to assume that they don't need your help to run away from an active shooter (although if there were multiple shooters, or you are the only parent with small children ect.). And I think failing to do the right thing (any situation) because the possibility exists that you might be sued if something goes wrong is immensely selfish.

Well I am a little late on this but I just wanted to refer to the over penetration pertaining to the 10mm. I own a 10mm Glock 20 and have done some limited hunting and finishing shots on wild game with the 10mm. So here is my 2 cents on that! If you are carrying 135-165 grain in full house loads you should not have that much of a greater chance of over penetration then a 9mm with hot loads. Anything above 165grain should be left for hunting unless it is something like the Federal jhp or Winchester Silvertip.

People carry .357 mag with hot loads all the time and don't really worry about over penetration. It is the grains you need to worry about more then the velocity. A 200 grain Hornady XTP moving at 1050 fps is going to penetrate much farther then a 135 grain Double Tap at 1600fps. Same goes for the .357 mag, that’s why the most popular load for carry is the proven 125gr federal load.

I personally carry 155xtp Hornady 1265fps. & 551 ft. lbs with an extra mag of Winchester silvertips. A 175 grain Winchester silvertip will drop a full grown white tail buck like a sack of potatoes with a chest cavity shot, what more do you really need? The Hornady round still trumps all but the hottest loads in 45ACP+P in the energy department. It is really just a hot .40 S&W load. I carry it because my grouping increased significantly over Double Tap and the other hot stuff. I leave the really hot stuff for when I go hunting or backpacking out west.

The 10mm is a very versatile gun and there is really no reason to carry 180grain JHP for personal protection against humans in 10mm that runs 1300fps+. Save that for the boar and white tail. I know some of the die hard 10mm guys are going to tell me that I carry watered down 10mm but I can shoot it with better accuracy then my brothers Glock 17 and it still throws a bigger bullet with more speed and energy then a 9mm, just my 2 cents.

Of course over penetration can happen with even a 9mm and does happen. I would be worried about to little penetration more then anything. Based on what I have seen 10mm do to wild game I am sure that 155grain bullet moving between 1200-1400 fps will drop a man instantly if not take all the fight out of him if shot in the chest. It leaves a serious wound cavity!
Now that I have gone on my rant what round do you carry in the 10mm anyways?

G192627 wrote:Well that sucks.

I didn't know about that loop hole. I hate our litigious society.

Everyone is sue happy!!

Zoomie wrote:Do what's right first, deal with the consequences later. I do understanding making sure your loved ones are safe first, but I'm going to assume that they don't need your help to run away from an active shooter (although if there were multiple shooters, or you are the only parent with small children ect.). And I think failing to do the right thing (any situation) because the possibility exists that you might be sued if something goes wrong is immensely selfish.

While it may be selfish, and it sucks, who will pay my legal expenses? Who will take care of my family if i am convicted of shooting an innocent person while trying to defend others? What if another CHL holder shoots me by accident because he thinks i am a threat while i am engaging the real threat? If i were to survive, i think i would most likely say no to a lawsuit and forgive him or her. I dont want to put that person in a financial burden. Its very very easy to confuse a who is a good guy and who isnt. Its a decision POs/ LEOs have to make all the time and it is very very difficult so i applaud them. We are human beings and we make honest mistakes even when trying to do the right thing. The possible legal and financial ramifications are something that every CHL holder inherits when they decide to become one. Being a CHL holder is a right that i really appreciate but with it comes alot of responsibility. If people would forgive and forget when honest mistakes are made, there probably wouldnt be so many people suing each other.

For me it's simple. If I'm in a mass shooting situation and I have a shot, I will take it. If I die in the process, my family will survive. I have planned well enough that when I am gone my family will be taken care of and will not have to worry about finances. I don't fear death. Death comes to us all. At the most I have another forty years, but even then I will die at the end of it.

You have to remember, in a mass shooting situation, as soon as people realize a gun is being fired, they hit the deck or run for cover. That means the only one left standing is the shooter and all the movement is away from him or her. I will use whatever tactical and cover advantages there are, but I will take the shot. And I will continue shooting until he's down and no longer a threat. I doubt seriously some innocent person will be in my line of fire, because no one is going to deliberately expose themselves to his shots.

In the Virginia Tech shooting, the killer entered the same classroom three separate times. All the students and the professor were hiding under their desks. He just walked around the room and plugged each one of them each time he entered the room. And they knew he was coming. In that situation, the moment he walked through the door the first time I would drop him right then and there. No weapon? I'll beat the daylights out of him. I am not waiting for him to execute me. I'm going down fighting.

We don't know the details of the Tuscon situation except that people were standing in line waiting to talk to the Congresswoman and others were simply shopping in the store. I think it's reasonable to believe that people nearer to the shooting would be ducking and running away from the sound of the shots. People farther away might be looking around trying to locate where the shots are coming from. I might get behind a display or column or car or whatever was available, but if I have a clear shot, I'm taking it. I will not leave or try to escape.

Robbery, armed robbery, whatever other scenario you want to throw out, it depends on the circumstances, who's with me, my position relative to the bad guy(s), how much risk is involved, etc., etc. But in a mass shooting, if I can, I take the shot and I continue shooting unless and until one of us is down and no longer able to fight.

baldeagle wrote:For me it's simple. If I'm in a mass shooting situation and I have a shot, I will take it. If I die in the process, my family will survive. I have planned well enough that when I am gone my family will be taken care of and will not have to worry about finances. I don't fear death. Death comes to us all. At the most I have another forty years, but even then I will die at the end of it.

You have to remember, in a mass shooting situation, as soon as people realize a gun is being fired, they hit the deck or run for cover. That means the only one left standing is the shooter and all the movement is away from him or her. I will use whatever tactical and cover advantages there are, but I will take the shot. And I will continue shooting until he's down and no longer a threat. I doubt seriously some innocent person will be in my line of fire, because no one is going to deliberately expose themselves to his shots.

In the Virginia Tech shooting, the killer entered the same classroom three separate times. All the students and the professor were hiding under their desks. He just walked around the room and plugged each one of them each time he entered the room. And they knew he was coming. In that situation, the moment he walked through the door the first time I would drop him right then and there. No weapon? I'll beat the daylights out of him. I am not waiting for him to execute me. I'm going down fighting.

We don't know the details of the Tuscon situation except that people were standing in line waiting to talk to the Congresswoman and others were simply shopping in the store. I think it's reasonable to believe that people nearer to the shooting would be ducking and running away from the sound of the shots. People farther away might be looking around trying to locate where the shots are coming from. I might get behind a display or column or car or whatever was available, but if I have a clear shot, I'm taking it. I will not leave or try to escape.

Robbery, armed robbery, whatever other scenario you want to throw out, it depends on the circumstances, who's with me, my position relative to the bad guy(s), how much risk is involved, etc., etc. But in a mass shooting, if I can, I take the shot and I continue shooting unless and until one of us is down and no longer able to fight.

Well said baldeagle

Those of us that choose to take whatever action necessary in these situations DO NOT think NOR DO WE INSIST that we as CHLers are LEOs. We think that it is important to do the right thing. Those are two different schools of thought. As I have said before and baldeagle has also stated it doesn't matter if I have a gun or not (if I did it would be nice as it is a way to engage the enemy at the safer "projectile distance"). I believe that it is right to engage the enemy and to stop the threat if I can. I have taken an oath to protect this country and our constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic. I have been trained to close the distance with the enemy and to finish the fight. I cannot and will not sit and watch people get slaughtered. It is not right in my mind and if I have the ability I will use whatever means necessary to stop the threat AKA the enemy.

XtremeDuty.45 wrote: Well said baldeagle

Those of us that choose to take whatever action necessary in these situations DO NOT think NOR DO WE INSIST that we as CHLers are LEOs. We think that it is important to do the right thing. Those are two different schools of thought. As I have said before and baldeagle has also stated it doesn't matter if I have a gun or not (if I did it would be nice as it is a way to engage the enemy at the safer "projectile distance"). I believe that it is right to engage the enemy and to stop the threat if I can. I have taken an oath to protect this country and our constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic. I have been trained to close the distance with the enemy and to finish the fight. I cannot and will not sit and watch people get slaughtered. It is not right in my mind and if I have the ability I will use whatever means necessary to stop the threat AKA the enemy.

I definitely appreciate all you said here and agree.
I'm conflicted because you like the Cardinals and this makes everything you say suspect.

G192627 wrote:

XtremeDuty.45 wrote: Well said baldeagle

Those of us that choose to take whatever action necessary in these situations DO NOT think NOR DO WE INSIST that we as CHLers are LEOs. We think that it is important to do the right thing. Those are two different schools of thought. As I have said before and baldeagle has also stated it doesn't matter if I have a gun or not (if I did it would be nice as it is a way to engage the enemy at the safer "projectile distance"). I believe that it is right to engage the enemy and to stop the threat if I can. I have taken an oath to protect this country and our constitution from all enemies foreign AND domestic. I have been trained to close the distance with the enemy and to finish the fight. I cannot and will not sit and watch people get slaughtered. It is not right in my mind and if I have the ability I will use whatever means necessary to stop the threat AKA the enemy.

I definitely appreciate all you said here and agree.
I'm conflicted because you like the Cardinals and this makes everything you say suspect.

OUCH! Low blow. I do not want to hijack the thread but I will be PMing you to talk some more trash

just found this link to a video on CNN
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestof ... cnn?hpt=T2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Joe Zamudio, an armed man who helped restrain the Tucson shooting suspect, explains how he avoided a tragic mistake.

This person explains what he experienced as a person carrying a firearm. He almost engaged another person who was trying to do take down the threat as well. Provides some great insight and tells his thought process. I especially like the mans comments about the whole magazine issue.

And i love this forum and this discussion because its causing me to really think what i would have done in that situation. I am definately taking what XD, baldeagle and others have said into strong consideration as well to hopefully do what is necessary if i ever exerience a situation similar to AZ though i pray that never happens.

"That means the only one left standing is the shooter"

Unless he's deaf and hasn't had time to immediately understand what just happened...and head down he's been texting on a cell phone - which could look like a gun in an adrenaline soaked atmosphere and very quickly you decide to shoot him... There's a wide variety of other scenarios where things AREN'T what they immediately appear...and in your haste you decide to do what you THINK is right...

The general philosophy of "Stop and Render Aid", if you will, is a noble and well accepted idea, but stepping up to the plate with a gun is a huge step and you'd better be able to absolutely know when that is.