Would you search for a shooter?

[nightmare69]

If I was close enough to see it happen then yeah I would do what I could to help but as far as going looking for the gunman, doubt it. I would be too afriad of being shot by responding officers.

[Chris]

If I was close enough to see it happen then yeah I would do what I could to help but as far as going looking for the gunman, doubt it. I would be too afriad of being shot by responding officers.

You face the same obstacle an off duty officer does. My department policy recommends I be armed at all times. State law doesn't make distinction between duty status. I don't know about you, but if I'm a lone Ranger and the heavily armed and armored cavalry shows up, I'll gladly put my weapon down and let them take over. I never want to see a funeral happen when there exists the tiniest chance I could have prevented it.

[Oldgringo]

So, you charge into the fray and see folk in street clothes shooting at each other. Who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys'? For that matter, who are you to either group?

Nope, really dumb idea; however, YMMV.

[Jumping Frog]

Well, I've kept my mouth shut for the first 30+ posts for one simple reason. As has been previously noted, once does not know whether he will run towards gunfire or away from it until one actually faces it. I've never been in that situation, so I truly do not know how I would react.

But there is one thought nagging at me. When Columbine happened, there was tremendous criticism because the police arrived, set up a perimeter, and did not act right away. Meanwhile, children were killed. Now, the "best practices" within law enforcement procedure for "active shooter" situations is to respond immediately because time lost means more dead bodies. Well, the data that has led law enforcement to conclude that immediate response -- even by one or two people -- has a high probability of saving lives would also apply to a citizen on the spot responding immediately. The old cliche, "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away" became a cliche because has a high degree of truth. Just think "Luby's Cafeteria".

I am probably in the last 25% of my life span. My children are raised. I am a Christian, so I have faith in what awaits me. If found myself in a situation where I truly believed that my immediate action could make the difference between additional innocents being killed or saved, I would hope that I would take action to prevent murders, even at the risk of my own life. I could be at peace with injury or death for doing the "right thing", whereas I suspect turning and running would be a choice that would haunt my conscience.

Please understand my most sincere hope is that I die of old age and can joke with my wife that, "jeez, I really wasted my time carrying a gun all those years." I have zero desire to be a rambo or batman. But if life places a choice in front of me, I hope that my response is one I can be at peace with.

[rdcrags]

Well put, Froggie

[treeman]

I couldn't have said it better Mr. Jumping Frog. I don't think very many could watch video of the Columbine shooting and say they would not help in any circumstance.

[cconn]

Hasn't happened so I can't say with 100% surety. But I believe I would go toward it. Especially if it was at a school or other place with lots of children. I would hate to live with myself if there was a possibility my action could have saved innocent kids lives.

I have trained and prepared myself as best I can in case it ever does happen.

[Gunner4640]

Well, I've kept my mouth shut for the first 30+ posts for one simple reason. As has been previously noted, once does not know whether he will run towards gunfire or away from it until one actually faces it. I've never been in that situation, so I truly do not know how I would react.

But there is one thought nagging at me. When Columbine happened, there was tremendous criticism because the police arrived, set up a perimeter, and did not act right away. Meanwhile, children were killed. Now, the "best practices" within law enforcement procedure for "active shooter" situations is to respond immediately because time lost means more dead bodies. Well, the data that has led law enforcement to conclude that immediate response -- even by one or two people -- has a high probability of saving lives would also apply to a citizen on the spot responding immediately. The old cliche, "when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away" became a cliche because has a high degree of truth. Just think "Luby's Cafeteria".

I am probably in the last 25% of my life span. My children are raised. I am a Christian, so I have faith in what awaits me. If found myself in a situation where I truly believed that my immediate action could make the difference between additional innocents being killed or saved, I would hope that I would take action to prevent murders, even at the risk of my own life. I could be at peace with injury or death for doing the "right thing", whereas I suspect turning and running would be a choice that would haunt my conscience.

Please understand my most sincere hope is that I die of old age and can joke with my wife that, "jeez, I really wasted my time carrying a gun all those years." I have zero desire to be a rambo or batman. But if life places a choice in front of me, I hope that my response is one I can be at peace with.

Very well said I liked the "last 25%" I am in that boat also.

[jmra]

So, you charge into the fray and see folk in street clothes shooting at each other. Who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys'? For that matter, who are you to either group?

Nope, really dumb idea; however, YMMV.

1. I wouldn't charge in. I would do my best to observe and move into a position to best defend myself and any innocents.
2. If people are shooting at each other I would not attempt to engage either shooter. In this case either two bad guys are shooting at each other and hopefully they take each other out. Or a GG and a BG are shooting it out. In either case the GG (if there is one) is not defenseless.

My objective (in most situations) would be to get as many innocents to safety as possible while maintaining cover and attempting to identify the location of the BG. If the opportunity arose to remove him from the equation I would attempt to do so.

[gringo pistolero]

Years ago I would have gone toward the problem to solve it and I did once when I was younger. My time on this forum has taught me a CHL is not a Batman license so now I resist the urge to get involved in other people's problems.

[jmra]

Years ago I would have gone toward the problem to solve it and I did once when I was younger. My time on this forum has taught me a CHL is not a Batman license so now I resist the urge to get involved in other people's problems.

I don't think people know what a batman license is. Protecting a third party (running to gunfire in order to protect an innocent) is not a Batman license activity. Driving around looking for opportunities to use your gun against a criminal is.
Lately the Batman license term seems to be used as an excuse for people to relieve any felt obligation to their fellow man. It is a very sad state we find ourselves in today.

[gringo pistolero]

It sounds like we grew up on different Batman stories. Carry on.

[jmra]

It sounds like we grew up on different Batman stories. Carry on.

Yes it does. Along with a different sense of what it means to be a community. Carry on.

[MoJo]

This is an article written by Evan Marshall I give a copy of it to each CHL student I teach. It should be required reading for every gun owner.

http://www.stoppingpower.net/commentary ... ention.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aaangel]

even if I locate the shooter, they are most likely armed to the teeth. i'm here with my 5 shot revolver.

all I can do is hide and create the "tunnel of death".