TexasCHLforum.com

Dragonfighter wrote: I should have premised my post with an:

IANAL, and YMMV, but +1

I shoulda shut up about two pages ago!

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...)

Dragonfighter wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:A qualified "Yes." If it were a suicide mission, then no, I would not shoot. I won't casually throw away my life for a total stranger as long as I have a family that needs me to come home to them each day.

Calculated risks, some chose to go into burning buildings to save lives and property of strangers. Believe me, it's not the money. But there is something to being able to do something that others may not be able to do by training or heart; and then to not do it would burn a hole in the middle of my spirit. Yes, if I could I would.

I think we're saying the same thing. That's why I said "a reasonable chance of success." It doesn't have to be 100% in my favor, but there has to be some possibility of success. I am not an LEO, and I am not a firefighter, and I don't claim to be either of those things. But IF I could help, I would. The calculation is in the IF, and as the odds increase that helping will result in my own death and not much else, then my willingness to help decreases proportionally.

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.

I'm not saying this to put a damper on this particular thread, but we've had similar discussions to this in the past. Opinions tend to range from "I am under no moral obligation to a total stranger and would only shoot to protect me and mine," to "I am Ninja!" I personally believe that society functions precisely because we all look out for one another when we can. I will, and have on many occasions, ministered to the chronically homeless. But I will not sell my house out from under my family in order to pay for housing a chronically homeless person — because A) I have a family responsibility; and B) a chronically homeless person will just be homeless again soon enough, and my house will have been needlessly sacrificed. Similarly, I would help a victim of violence to the extent that I am able, but I will not sacrifice my own life on that principle when there is very little possibility of success — because A) I have a family responsibility; and B) the victim is going to die anyway.

Others may view things differently, and that is fine; and I am not proselytizing here, just trying to explain how my mind and heart work... but as a follower of Christ, I am categorically unable to view the world and my place in it through any other lens. I believe that the Lord demands that I be willing to help the poor, downtrodden, and oppressed to the extent that I am able. It is equally true (for me) that the Lord gave me my wife and son and expects me to be their husband/father for as long as I am able, or until He calls me home. God also expects me to be a good steward of everything that He has given me, including my very life.

So that is the calculator through which I would likely process any shoot/don't shoot decision.

A qualified "Yes." If it were a suicide mission, then no, I would not shoot. I won't casually throw away my life for a total stranger as long as I have a family that needs me to come home to them each day. OTH, if I had a reasonable chance of success, then yes, I would shoot. It doesn't have to be 100% odds, just a reasonable chance. Even so, a pistol is not the ideal weapon with which to engage an active shooter. Give me a rifle and I'm a happy camper. Unfortunately, while walking around with an AR15 strapped to your back may be legal, it seems ill-advised in most situations I am likely to find myself in, which is why I carry a concealed pistol in the first place instead.