# Move towards the sound of gunfire?



## michael P.

First of all, this line of thinking is not for, nor should it be for everyone. I know that I have thrown some ideas out their that have not been well received. However keep in mind that this is not intended to be written just to, "stir the pot". I really believe this stuff and I think it is worth passing on.

This is about deciding weather to move towards gunfire, or away from it. Question? If you saw a trained life guard watching somebody drown, would you be upset? What about a doctor who had a medical bag in his car, passed an accident scene, where people were injured and no other medical personnel were on scene. Would you expect him to help? If an off duty fireman watched some kids die in a fire, when he could have used the ax in his car to break a window and try and save them. What would you think of the fireman? All of the examples above require that the person put themselves at some risk to save the live of another. But we kinda expect them to do it, because they have the equipment and have been trained.

A handgun is a live saving tool. Hopefully you have had the training to use it. This is no different than watching somebody drowning, or bleeding to death. Take a situation, where you are at the mall, by yourself, and you hear gunshots inside of Sears. Do you run away from gun fire, or towards it?

There is an article out their called Sheep, Wolves and Sheep dogs. It basically states that there are three kinds of people in the world. The sheep, who just want to graze happily and live peaceful lives. They don't really have the mental make up to kill and are not violent. Then there are the wolves. The wolves pray on the sheep and take advantage of them. Then there are the sheepdogs. The sheepdogs, are tough like the wolf, they both have long fangs. The difference is that the sheepdog protects the sheep and would never hurt them, in fact he would risk his own live to protect them form the wolf. The sheep however don't like to think that the wolf exists and dose not really like the sheepdog either, because he looks like a wolf and reminds them that there is danger out their. 

Long story short. I am a sheepdog. I have and will always move towards the sound of gunfire. It is not relevant that I am a Cop. Cop or no Cop, for the rest of my live I will move towards the sound of gunfire, because I am a sheepdog. There is no duty to retreat when other people are being hurt.

Call me silly, stupid, or what ever. I don't care, I will throw myself into the meat grinder to help those that can't help themselves. If this is foolish, then I will die a fool. I have children whom I love dearly and I want to bounce my grandchildren on my lap some day. And if Daddy didn't come home at night, it would not be good for them. But I will gladly die to save your children today, or you, so that you can go home to your children.

I am crying now, as I write this, at the thought of not been with my children. But I also nearly cry every time I hear about another mass shooting, where kids and adults were killed by some punk with an AK. I cry then not because of the deaths, but because I couldn't be their to stop it. How badly I wish that I was in the school at Columbine, Jonesburro, or Virgina Tech. The list goes on. What I wouldn't give for a chance to save those lives. 

These active shooter situations will increase, you need to decide how you will respond. All nineteen of these major active shooters were not stopped by responding police officers. They were all stopped by concealed carry holders, like in Colorado Springs and off duty cops who were close by. As fast as the cops can get their, it is not fast enough. Bang, Bang, Bang, somebody dies with each shot. Many of us have the hardware, our cool new gun. But do we have the software programed into our heads to be sheepdogs. You guys are their only hope, the Police can't get their quick enough. Don't think it can't happen to you, denial is your worst enemy.

If your kids are with you, then get them to safety and then get back into the fight. This might mean engaging the bad guy with a gun, or helping drag people to safety and applying first aide. If you think that Law Enforcement can take care of all of this by themselves, you are wrong. Cops are trained to by pass the dieing to go to the treat and stop him from hurting somebody else. Keep a first aide kit in your car for gunshot wounds. Do something!

What is the opposite of FEAR? LOVE!

Mark 12:31
Love your neighbor as yourself, there is no commandment greater than these.

John 15:13
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down is life for his friends.


----------



## Joeywhat

The problem is any moron can get a concealed pistol permit. It's not _that_ hard to obtain, and judging by the guys I saw while my dad took the class a few years back they are the norm. If everything with a CPL thinks they can handle all those situations, you'll end up with people taking pot shots at what they may think is a threat, when in reality they either are in not a proper position to discharge their weapon (too many people directly behind/around target) or the "threat" isn't really a threat.

Don't get me wrong, if you're qualified, by all means go ahead. I'm sure there's plenty of CPL holders out there who are more qualified then some Police forces.

I know I'd never do it unless my life or the life of my loved ones' are in direct danger. It's not worth it, otherwise. If I miss, someone else - an innocent bystander - may die, and the threat could still kill more people. If the threat sees me pull a gun, I'd be damn sure he's going to start shooting at me. And if he/she wasn't drawn my way in the first place, then pulling the gun may just put my/others' lives in greater danger.

Basically I'm saying a doctor passing by an accident scene, or a lifeguard watching someone drown is different. Those people are trained and deemed as a "competent" person. OSHA says a "competent person as

_"an individual who, by way of training and/or experience, is knowledgeable of applicable standards, is capable of identifying workplace hazards relating to the specific operation, is designated by the employer, and has authority to take appropriate actions"_

I quote that since I work in a manufacturing plant and must follow OSHA regulations. What I mean by that is that the state you reside in deems lifeguards, doctors, and police officers as "competent persons", as they are qualified to do their line of work through proper training, and also have the authority to do so. Otherwise you are just "qualified". Yes, you know what to do, but you're not allowed to.

Lets say you took some emergency medical classes, and know how to perform a tracheotomy. You may know EXACTLY what to do for the person laying on the ground outside their car, but are you allowed to help them? At least here in MI, that answer is no. Doing that is a damn good way to get sued, as you are not allowed to perform medical operations.

Wow. that was a long post. If you feel such a deep desire to help people, perhaps you should be a police officer?


----------



## gmaske

Sounds to me like you are right were you belong being a LEO.


----------



## godsdaddy

In case my chosen profession (Soldier) doesn't give it away, I instinctively move towards the sound of gunfire. It's just a mindset I guess. The writing that Michael P. quotes regarding Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs is an excellent piece (written by a retired Army COL I believe) that hits the nail squarely on the head. Those who would act in a life-or-death situation need not explain why, they just do. It is part of their nature to defend others before themselves. 

There is a very valid point made about some of these "everyday heros" who can (fairly easily) attain legal CCW status. Not every Tom-Dick-and-Harry who "can" get a CCW "should". And not all that "should" have the skill set necessary to go "blazing away" in a crowded public place. 

While I applaud the efforts of most of the "will issue" states to require a basic level of training and demonstration of competence with a firearm before someone can be issued a CCW permit, the skills needed to effectively employ a weapon in "combat" (define it however you want, if you are shooting (at) another person you are engaging in a form of combat) are extremely perishable and must be constantly maintained. I cannot speak for the frequency of this training for LEOs (I’m sure it’s quite often), but the military requires even the most docile and far-removed-from-danger Soldier to qualify with their assigned weapon at least twice a year. Range time is a weekly occurrence in my "non-standard" unit, with each of us putting thousands of rounds down range every month in order to ensure our skills and minds stay razor-sharp. Is this level of training necessary for the common armed citizen to intervene in a lethal situation? Absolutely not. As with everything, there is a fine balance between not enough and too much. Where that balance lies is up the individual to decide.

On top of the moral consequences of possibly missing one's mark and injuring (or killing) an innocent, there is also the ever-increasing threat of legal action (criminal or civil) if you employ a firearm in a manner that could cause harm to another. Even if you stop a murder/rape/robbery, you still stand the chance of facing criminal charges, and you are most certainly guaranteed to face civil action (get sued) from the perpetrators’ "distraught" family. (especially if you are not in one of a very few states (FL, GA, ??) that protect legally carrying citizens from civil penalties in “justified shootings”) This alone might dissuade many people from ever drawing their legally carried firearm in defense of anyone other then themselves of their loved ones.

So the short answer? There isn't one. It's a very personal choice to what extent someone will sacrifice themselves to protect another, just like the decision to carry concealed. I would employ my legally-carried weapon without hesitation to protect someone else, regardless of the legal or morale consequences. I do it every day over here, and I sleep well at night knowing that the world is probably just a little bit safer because my fellow Soldiers and I took a life in defense of someone else. Just my .02


"It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."
"When in doubt, empty the magazine."


----------



## michael P.

Full article on Sheeps, Wolves and Sheep dogs.

http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm


----------



## submoa

This is sounding like a 'good samaritan' scenario.

See a woman dragged into a car, a crowd kicking one person on the ground, a child getting the crap beat out him by his parent in the street, sure I'd intervene. I'd also have my cellphone on 911 with speakerphone on.

If I hear gunfire but not see anything immediately what I'd do would depend on circumstance:

If military, follow rules of engagement / mission objectives / subsequent orders.

With the exception of July 4, NYE, Cinqo-de-mayo, if civilian I'd call 911. Next,


If I'm off-duty LE, report 10-10, approach moving from cover to cover.
If 911 orders you away, do so, otherwise you can be charged with obstruction.
If family present, get family out of area PDQ.
If 911 reports 10-97 or movie filming, leave.
If 911 reports 10-2000 or 10-00, only if OK'd by 911 approach under cover to render (medical, not gun) assistance, provide description of self to 911 for IFF.​
In civilian circumstance, do not draw until required, leave cell on speakerphone, mike open, speaker off. The last thing you want is any cop arriving on scene to think you are the BG, or your cell to ring on approach under cover.

There is no reason why being a samaritan, thinking clearly and acting responsibly are mutually exclusive.

PS>

Sheep get slaughtered.
Wolves get shot.
Sheepdogs eat dogfood.

Real men don't need of animal metaphors.


----------



## Mike Barham

I think the whole sheepdog analogy is entirely stupid, and mainly appeals to people who want to puff themselves up and act like tough guys because they have a government-issue permission slip to carry a pistol.

I'm not a "wolf." I'm not a "sheep." I'm not a "sheepdog." I'm just a regular American man who happens to carry a gun. I want to protect myself and my family, and don't feel like I have some special duty to society to protect people who have the very same opportunities I do: they can get a carry permit, they can learn to shoot, they can defend themselves.

I am certainly not going to run toward gunfire if I am not obligated to do so. I need to be alive to protect my wife and child, and quite honestly, they are a far bigger priority to me than strangers who need protection.

Hell, I've been to war, but I don't call myself a "warrior." I want to avoid fighting whenever possible. Maybe I am just insufficiently macho. :mrgreen:


----------



## michael P.

Believing that their are not wolves, sheepdogs and sheep out their if fine, but it dose not make it true, in fact this is a part of the denial issue I was talking about, which is kind of a sheep quality. A good example is the 911 attacks.

I think that you could safely call the 19 highjackers on the four planes wolves. Men who premeditated and took part in the murder of thousands of peaceful non combative people. Most of these good citizens were sheep, I suspect that a great majority of them were for gun control, and didn't think anybody would want to do them any harm. Nice people, but also a good example of sheep. Then you had the sheepdogs, the 411 emergency workers who lost their lives trying to save the sheep that were put in danger by the wolves. I am sure there were several civilian sheepdogs who went back in when they didn't have to to help as well or that helped people down the stairs when they could have gotten out faster on their own. If you think that these men and women were just trying to be macho and puff them selves up, then I think you are mistaken. If you think that they were just doing their job then I think you are also mistaken. What would the city of New York do if they had runaway, fire them? If it was all about the job, then they all made bad carrier choices by going back in and dieing. No they were sheepdogs.

You are right that we are not literally sheepdogs, sheep and wolves. Brilliant deduction. In fact because we are humans, we have the ability to be whatever we want to be. We can decide, no I'm not going to save those people, because I might get hurt, but I wouldn't let anyone hurt my family. Or we can decide that we will go back into the burning building and pull people out, because they have a family too. We can chose to be sheepdogs and that is why I am writing this to inspire you to be one.

Joining the military and going to war dose not make you a sheepdog, nor dose becoming a cop or a firefighter. Nor dose it make you a warrior. I know people in all of these professions that are more sheep than sheepdogs. Being shoot at or even shooting somebody dose not make you a sheepdog. As mentioned earlier it is about love for others around you. 

It is not a black and white issue. Most of us are part sheep and part sheepdog. If you carry a gun and use it to protect loved ones around you, then you are a sheepdog. You are the protector of your flock. And God bless you.

It is interesting Mike that you brought up your children for the reason that you would not help other in need. Because since I have had my twin boys, 1. I have been motivated a thousand fold to help others in need, because I would want somebody to help my children. 2. They are my responsibility, I will not always be their for them, but I can demonstrate what I think is right, and I think it is right to help those in need, when I can make a difference.

Thanks for listening to me guys. I know this is not the right path for everyone. Nor am I giving out advice on how you should respond to any given situation. I am just forcing you to think about the issue and make decisions now so that when the time comes, you know what you are about and you can live with your decision afterwards. As for me, sue me, put me in jail. My kids can come visit me their. Be sure that you are right and then go ahead. If you are a pure bread sheepdog(hummer me on the expression Mike), and you will lay down your life for anyone who can not do so for themselves, then we are the same bread of men and I say thank you for being willing, when and if you are able, to risk your life to save my children, who are so important to me. Thanks again!


----------



## michael P.

Sorry Mike I intended to say humor me, don't get the wrong idea. :smt033


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

I think the points made can't really be compared. You want to be there for your family and loved ones to protect them if necessary. A stranger...it's their family and loved ones that should be protecting them. But what if someone isn't protecting them...will you take the place of their guardian angel, or will you chose not to, guaranteeing your ability to continue to guard your loved ones?

I thought exactly the same way when I first joined the forum. I relish the thought of being a hero...but often times, heroes become heroes not because they chose to, but because they had no other choice. That choice may have been physical, or psychological/mental/emotional/moral. If I were to come across a girl being beaten half to death by some drunk idiot, physically I would have the choice to intervene, or to walk away and not risk injury or death. Morally, I would have no choice but to step in and do what I can.

There are no bold lines of separation on this topic. Each choice depends exactly on the situation, and what is going on that can only be determined if and when it happens. Even if they can theoretically be interpreted when they happen, the human mind believes what it wants to believe. Your interpretation of something may not be what's really happening.

Death does not scare me. However, what death brings me terrifies the living daylights out of me. I've got a career to follow, I've got a 13-month old puppy that I love more than anything in the world. I've got a family that wants nothing but the best for me. That all comes into play if and when I am put in a situation that gives me the option of defending another, or escaping (and surviving). Like I said, this is all gray area. It's different for every person.

If you feel a calling to protect citizens in your community (which are mostly strangers), law enforcement is the way to go. You're LEGALLY trained, qualified, and paid to protect innocent citizens from crime. You may not be the best person for the job, and there may be some average Joe would could do your job better than you. But by the justice system, once you earn that badge, that's your job. And even if the average Joe can do it better, he doesn't have that badge, and therefore is limited in what he's allowed to do, according to state and federal law.

The justice system is what it is. Hypothetically speaking, if I were to CC into the White House on a tour and a group of terrorists decided to break in and try to kill people, but I was there and put all of them down, preventing injury and/or death to innocents inside, I'd still be breaking the law. Regardless of the outcome, I broke the law and I would be persecuted accordingly. Even though I might be a hero, I'd still be a felon.

The same is true for many circumstances. While I don't advocate "bending the rules" based on outcomes, I would hope, given the scenario above, I would be praised instead of jailed. But laws are in place for a reason.

The question often comes down to laws versus morals. Do you obey the law and go against your morals? Or do you break the law because your morals don't agree with the law? As ordinary citizens, we don't make the laws. While we have a wee bit of say so in what laws are made and unmade (because we're a democracy), we can't just open the rule book in Word 2007 and change something whenever we feel like it.

The best quote I've ever heard was in Rules of Engagement. Major Biggs said, "Whether a man is charged with murder or hailed as a hero is sometimes a very thin line." That line may be dictated by the justice system, or personal values of individual persons.

But as Mike is saying, he goes by the philosophy that he will do whatever it takes to get home to his family at night. If he hears gunshots, he will take the route that gives him the best chance of getting back to his loved ones and let LEOs handle the rest. Why? Because that's their job...it's what they've chosen to do, and it's their responsibility as police officers. Even if his morals told him to go toward the gunshots and do what he could to protect someone else's life, he doesn't have the option of screwing up. If an LEO takes a shot and misses, killing an innocent bystander, they won't be charged and jailed for manslaughter like Mike, had he done the same. "It's the thought that counts" doesn't mean jack crap in a courtroom. Mike is realistic about the situation, and unless there is a 100% guarantee he can be the hero, he won't take the risk. And there is never a 100% guarantee you'll do the right thing, because what the right thing really is may have different definitions between you, the one(s) you choose to protect, bystanders, and the law.

IMO, the best thing to do in a situation like this is realize what is most important to us as humans, citizens, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, role models, etc., and act accordingly. If I was in the mall and heard gunshots, I would protect myself, but that's it. I can't stand the thought of my puppy sitting on the deck, waiting for me to come home and play with her, and never seeing me again. The fact that I felt the need to go protect someone else doesn't change the fact that I was seen by a LEO holding a gun, and was shot and killed. It doesn't change the fact that I will never play fetch with my dog again, or change the oil in my car, or duck under a rope on a double-black diamond, or even have the chance to get married and raise a family. Just like if I'm sitting at a light that's just turned green and notice a semi running a red light on my right side...I can yield to his error, hit my brakes, and go on. Or I can say, "My light's green, his light's red so I'm going because he's supposed to stop," take the hit and it's "his fault," but die on impact...life is something that can't be given back once it's taken away. Sometimes you have to let others make their own mistakes, avoid them instead of fighting back, and make it home at night to your loved ones.


----------



## BeefyBeefo

There's a lot of questions here, but I must say in general that I am with *Mike Barham* and *fivehourfrenzy*. *IF* I currently lived in a state where I could carry, my primary concerns are my immediate family, my girlfriend (and family if we had one right now), and myself. I wouldn't be out there carrying a firearm to protect everyone else. If I was in close range and had an easy shot, then I would take it as long as my family (mother, father, GF, children if I had them) was safe and had cover from the situation. That would be my primary concern and I would NOT go towards gunfire unless it was necessary to protect my loved ones or myself. That's the bottom line and that's really how it should be for every armed citizen except for LEO's in my opinion...If I am in a position to leave the scene without any type of confrontation at all, then I would leave. I am not a LEO and it is not my job to protect every other citizen out there. *IF* I could currently carry, then I would be carrying a firearm to protect my loved ones first, and then myself (and in that order as well). Nobody else would come before them or myself and that's just how it is (call me selfish if you want, but I personally believe that that's how it should be and the reason that MOST people carry.)

-Jeff-


----------



## submoa

Michael P.,

Is there a reason for only frontal assault strategies in all your scenarios? All variations of frontal assault require superior force for success. A "mass charge" of 1 with a handgun into a numerically superior or unknown force has low survival probability, regardless of surprise, handgun skills, or your kungfu.

While I've played along, I am now concerned of the influence these posts may have on others. Specifically, openly encouraging civilians of unknown levels of training to engage in dangerous hero-status seeking behavior in a public forum.

Frankly as someone claiming to be a cop, I am even more disappointed that you have repeatedly failed to encourage calling 911 in favor of vigilantism. And in this thread, you promote action that distracts 10-97 LE, risking obstruction charges.

Again as a cop, what you post publicly is held to a higher standard. As someone who should know better, you are flirting with negligence.


----------



## Todd

Mike Barham said:


> I'm just a regular American man who happens to carry a gun. I want to protect myself and my family, and don't feel like I have some special duty to society to protect people who have the very same opportunities I do:  they can get a carry permit, they can learn to shoot, they can defend themselves.
> 
> I am certainly not going to run toward gunfire if I am not obligated to do so. I need to be alive to protect my wife and child, and quite honestly, they are a far bigger priority to me than strangers who need protection.


Mike and I share the exact sames views on this one. I carry to protect my family and myself, not anyone else. I have no delusions of grandeur of being a hero and am not going to willingly run head long into a situation that could cause me not to be there for my family the next day.

If I hear gunfire, you bet I'll be running .... the opposite direction with my wife and/or kids in front of me.


----------



## Old Padawan

WOW!! Do you even realize that your opinions sound like they come right off of Warrior talk?

I read and liked the sheepdog article. It’s an oversimplification of attitude. There are a lot of sheepdogs that do not herd sheep and have no responsibility to the herd. They simply stay in their yard and watch their pups. If a wolf comes into the yard the dog will respond. It has no responsibility to the farmer down the lanes herd of sheep. If this dog hears the bleating of sheep being attacked, its responsibility is to gather its pups and insure their safety.

You act as if there is a responsibility to respond. There is not.

Young men with guns often fantasize about being the Hero. Wise men with guns realize that their family is more important than a spotlight and accolades.


----------



## Todd

Old Padawan said:


> WOW!! Do you even realize that your opinions sound like they come right off of *Warrior talk?*


Holy shiitake mushrooms! I just lurked over there for a few minutes and couldn't take it any more. I now know where the Holy Land is for mall ninjas and armchair commandos.


----------



## michael P.

To be clear, the senario here dose not invovle vigilanty activity. If somebody is being rapped, stabbed or shot in front of you, you are not being a vigilianty by stoping that person form commiting thouse acts. The fact that this act is happing right around the corner from you dose not change the fact that it is happeing at that moment. If you hunted somebody down three days after a shooting and killed them, that would be vigilanty in nature.

This senario is one where their is an ongoing loss of life. Bang, Bang, Bang, lots of screems, Bang again. If you think that you are not allowed by law to stop this person from hurting other people, then look at the lady in Colorado Springs at the Church shooting. Has she been arrested? Don't trust what I say. Study the law for yourself and determine what is legal or ilegal. I don't think that my moral obligation is in conflict with the law. Generaly the law allows for you to protect somebody that is being killed if you are the only one their to stop it. The fact that you might accidentaly shoot an inocent person is something to consider, however consider the fact that inocent people are being killed every second that you do nothing.

The fact is if you don't feel like you can do anything to stop it, then run or seek more training so that you are more confident when the times comes. By the way Cops can be personally sued just like any other citizen. Even if there actions were done in the line of duty. I am not telling you what to do, I am simply telling what I would do in your shoes. God forbid anyone thinks I am giving out legal advice.


----------



## Mike Barham

One of the guys in my unit who was killed in action in Afghanistan had a wife two small daughters. Now his young wife has no husband. His two daughters will grow up without a father. This family is essentially destroyed by his absence.

I was called away to Afghanistan on the same mission. Would I have run toward the sound of gunfire there? Yes, and in fact _I did_, because I was obligated to help protect my base and my comrades. I would fully expect a cop in America to do the very same, since that is his obligation.

But an armed citizen in America has no obligation to kill or be killed protecting anyone but himself and his family, and certainly no obligation to intervene in some "active shooter" scenario at the risk of destroying his own family.

If you want to use the sheepdog analogy, feel free. But I think it's just a pseudo-intellectual free pass so that guys can strap on guns and feel like macho white knights (sheepdogs) who will someday slay the world's AK-toting dragons (wolves) and save the damsels in distress (sheep). They'll use Glocks instead of swords, but hey, maybe they'll get laid by some modern-day Guinevere (Hooter's Girl) because they're so very tough and heroic and manly.


----------



## TOF

I hope when I throw a rock to make noise the bad guy will go towards the noise. I plan to move my flock away.

Michael, if you are practicing writing Hero novels I suggest you start using spell check a bit more often. I don't believe anybody should run up and shoot all the "Rapper's" they can find. I also find it difficult to believe should I see a Cop shooting a "Rapper" that I should shoot the Cop.

Yes I know I am being onry but this thread deserves it.

Enjoy what life you have left. It sounds like it will be a short one.

:smt1099


----------



## Todd

michael P. said:


> This senario is one where their is an ongoing loss of life. Bang, Bang, Bang, lots of screems, Bang again. If you think that you are not allowed by law to stop this person from hurting other people, then look at the lady in Colorado Springs at the Church shooting. Has she been arrested?


I don't think many people are challenging the_ legality_ of the action, they (including myself) are questioning the _prudence_ of suggesting the "Average Joe" go running into a gun fight.


----------



## submoa

I'd have to +1million to OP, Mike B., FHF, Todd, BB and others who have posted stating their first priority is to their families and act responsibly.



michael P. said:


> To be clear, the senario here dose not invovle vigilanty activity. If somebody is being rapped, stabbed or shot in front of you, you are not being a vigilianty by stoping that person form commiting thouse acts. The fact that this act is happing right around the corner from you dose not change the fact that it is happeing at that moment. If you hunted somebody down three days after a shooting and killed them, that would be vigilanty in nature.


Responding to acts right in front of you is reasonable defense of others. Seeking out trouble to dole out 'justice' when you are not LE is by definition vigilantism. The difference is proximity not timing.

ie. in the Colorado Springs church example:


> "I saw him coming through the doors" and took cover, Assam said. "I came out of cover and identified myself and engaged him and took him down."


http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html



michael P. said:


> Occupation:
> Detective, SWAT, Firearms instructor, martial arts instructor


Umm... in light of michael P.'s postings... I've become skeptical..:numbchuck:

"When you buy a new hammer, an amazing number of nails need a good hit. When you buy a gun...."


----------



## michael P.

But an armed citizen in America has no obligation to kill or be killed protecting anyone but himself and his family, and certainly no obligation to intervene in some "active shooter" scenario at the risk of destroying his own family. 

This is true Mike, their is no obligation.

Todd, I understand that there are thouse that are underqualifed to do this. That would have been talked about at a later date.

As far as the spelling issues are concerned. I don’t take the time to use spell check, because I don’t really have the time to be talking on hear at all, let alone prepare my thought for publishing. At this point I am sure that I don’t have the time. Thank you all for listening to me. Good luck.


----------



## Todd

michael P. said:


> Todd, I understand that there are thouse that are underqualifed to do this.


There are indeed many who are under-qualified and frankly, I am shocked that someone with your professed skills and credentials would even suggest that a person who is under-qualified put themselves into a situation where they are clearly in over their head.



michael P. said:


> That would have been talked about at a later date.


No, it would not have!! Giving advice is one thing, but giving "lessons" is another. The appropriate place for lessons is at the range, hands-on, with a competent and qualified instructor, *NOT* on an Internet forum. There are a lot of new shooters here, and starting them off with potentially bad information or habits is not something we as a community on HGF want to foster. New shooters need hands-on instruction, not a step-by-step lesson plan with no one there to correct their mistakes. I cannot speak for the other mods, but I know I would, and will, lock and delete any "lesson" thread that is posted by any member whose credentials I am not 100% sure of.


----------



## Mike Barham

michael P. said:


> The fact is if you don't feel like you can do anything to stop it, then run or seek more training so that you are more confident when the times comes.


Huh. At what level of training would a lone armed citizen - with probably a single pistol - feel "confident" blindly running toward an unknown number of possible murderers with unknown numbers and types of weapons? I don't mean to sound like a jerk about it, but I have taken several upper-level training courses with nationally-known instructors, graduated the Army's infantry and airborne schools, been in a shooting war, and shot in countless practical pistol matches (I even won a few). I think this is a fairly adequate level of training, in terms of both mindset and technical skill, yet in no way would I feel "confident" in charging toward a potential firefight with my trusty Glock in hand.

Better training for most people would be really fast one-kilometer runs. Maybe they can get a nice sheepdog as a running partner.



> I understand that there are thouse that are underqualifed to do this. That would have been talked about at a later date.


Jeez, "don't try this at home, kids, because you aren't as high-speed as me" disclaimers are usually posted at the beginning of a thread, not after twenty or thirty responses.

And so I ask again: what level of training brings a pistol-armed Joe Sixpack the "qualifications" to do the job of a SWAT team? What cool-guy training, purchased from which high-speed instructor, will be his salvation? What warrior skills must he acquire to bring him to the level of a one-man infantry fire team, who can successfully close with, engage and destroy the enemy?


----------



## Joeywhat

IMO, you're qualified to pursue those situations when you carry a badge that says "police" on it.

Otherwise, get out of the way and let the paid professionals do their job.


----------



## Todd

Joeywhat said:


> IMO, you're qualified to pursue those situations when you carry a badge that says "police" on it.


You mean this doesn't count?










I hope I can get a refund! :anim_lol::anim_lol:


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Todd said:


> You mean this doesn't count?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I can get a refund! :anim_lol::anim_lol:


:anim_lol: I sure hope the Kentucky CCDW permit doesn't look like that. No way in hell I'd wear that on my shirt..


----------



## zhurdan

Can I say it now...?

I told you so.

I said it once before, I'll paste it here:


> (to Micheal P.) Now, that being said, you may very well be an accomplished individual in the topics at hand, but remember that if you know more than someone, it should be your first duty to teach first, test second. Putting the proverbial cart before the horse (test before teach) in this case may appear as arrogant and disingenuous. I mean no ill will toward you, but the internet can be a ruthless place, be wary.


You seem to have struck a particularly unharmonious chord. Wisdom isn't something you can convey in a forum post, just as skill isn't something you can get from a book. Sure, over time, one can learn from others thru conversation, or from books and articles, but not until there is a sense of mutual understanding about where one is coming from. Make sure your horse is ahead of your cart. What I mean is, if you are talking to people of similar skill, that has been demonstrated to you, then by all means, tell them what you know. BUT, if you have the distinct posibility that there are people of lesser skill who might read what you have to say, they may feel overconfident and act when they should not, resulting in horrible consequenses. Let's not boost peoples perceived skill until there is a better understanding of who may be listening.

Zhurdan


----------



## TOF

That's neat Todd. Where can I get one for the next trip to the big city. I might see a mugging or murder going down and need to be fully prepared to blow the perps away and impress "The Folks".:anim_lol: :anim_lol:

:smt1099


----------



## TOF

michael P. said:


> But an armed citizen in America has no obligation to kill or be killed protecting anyone but himself and his family, and certainly no obligation to intervene in some "active shooter" scenario at the risk of destroying his own family.
> 
> This is true Mike, their is no obligation.
> 
> Todd, I understand that there are thouse that are underqualifed to do this. That would have been talked about at a later date.
> 
> As far as the spelling issues are concerned. I don't take the time to use spell check, because I don't really have the time to be talking on hear at all, let alone prepare my thought for publishing. At this point I am sure that I don't have the time. Thank you all for listening to me. Good luck.


Michael,
Many people can't spell correctly and I do not criticize them, but when an individual tries to "Teach" me something I expect a reasonable degree of attention be paid to the lesson details.

If you are in fact a LEO/Swat team member etc. I can only hope you pay more attention to the details of your job performance than we have seen in your posts. If you don't I certainly hope you work far far away from my location.

Have a nice day

:smt1099


----------



## Todd

TOF said:


> That's neat Todd. Where can I get one for the next trip to the big city. I might see a mugging or murder going down and need to be fully prepared to blow the perps away and impress "The Folks".:anim_lol: :anim_lol:
> 
> :smt1099


I found the picture here. http://www.popguns.com/badge/heavybadges.htm

Only $27.95 plus shipping. :smt023


----------



## Old Padawan

michael P. said:


> The fact is if you don't feel like you can do anything to stop it, then run or seek more training so that you are more confident when the times comes. By the way Cops can be personally sued just like any other citizen. Even if there actions were done in the line of duty. I am not telling you what to do, I am simply telling what I would do in your shoes. God forbid anyone thinks I am giving out legal advice.


Does your arrogance know no bounds? If you read more than you wrote (listened more than you talked) you would know that the people disagreeing with you have the abilities to run to the gunfire, but the wisdom to know not to.
Yours is an opinion born of youth, training videos, TV, comic books and video games. Please quit trying to take us to school on tactics with your unbelievable credentials and your superior attitude.
Hit the button to un-pause your X-box and go back to your game of Halo.


----------



## brokenviewfinder

Sounds a lot like the Pink Floyd album "Animals." The songs _Pigs on the Wing, Dogs,_ and _Sheep._ Same kind of thing, basically compartmentalizing human behavior into three categories.

:smt102


----------



## GTD

I'm going to turn and run. Illinois, well enough said.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

GTD said:


> I'm going to turn and run. Illinois, well enough said.


Odds are, that's what everyone else is gonna do. I'd take cover and let everyone else clear out for several reasons. First, running with the crowd is a great way to get trampled. Secondly, you can still get shot when you're in the open. Lastly, if the entire place did clear out and the BG was walking around in the open with no one else around, I might have a clear shot at him while holding the element of surprise. This is on the grounds that he came to me. I wouldn't go looking for him...that's left to the LEOs.


----------



## submoa

fivehourfrenzy said:


> Odds are, that's what everyone else is gonna do. I'd take cover and let everyone else clear out for several reasons. First, running with the crowd is a great way to get trampled. Secondly, you can still get shot when you're in the open. Lastly, if the entire place did clear out and the BG was walking around in the open with no one else around, I might have a clear shot at him while holding the element of surprise. This is on the grounds that he came to me. I wouldn't go looking for him...that's left to the LEOs.


Missed point of everyones comments.

Possible outcomes...

A cop arrives on scene, sees 2 armed men - you and BG. The cop is a _sheepdog with OODA loop training_, shoots you both.

- or -

You do shoot bad guy. Cop arrives on scene. You standing over dead body, gun in hand. No witnesses. You get tagged as bad guy.

- or -

You shoot straggling bystander. Bad guy shows up as you are admiring the hole in your victim.

-or -

Bad guy holsters weap, leaves with crowd. Cops show up. You are the only one around with a gun.


----------



## GTD

fivehourfrenzy said:


> Odds are, that's what everyone else is gonna do. I'd take cover and let everyone else clear out for several reasons. First, running with the crowd is a great way to get trampled. Secondly, you can still get shot when you're in the open. Lastly, if the entire place did clear out and the BG was walking around in the open with no one else around, I might have a clear shot at him while holding the element of surprise. This is on the grounds that he came to me. I wouldn't go looking for him...that's left to the LEOs.


Wow you got all the bases covered!:numbchuck: I've made it forty years on good judgment and staying out of trouble, and being unarmed. I hope to make it another forty doing the same. Although I would like to conceal carry some day in Illinois.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Read this part:


fivehourfrenzy said:


> This is on the grounds that he came to me.


"came to me" does not imply sniping him. It implies I am poised and ready if and when he steps close enough to where I am to justify shooting in self defense, or escape if he turns and goes the other way.



submoa said:


> probably in the back.


Wrong.



submoa said:


> "was your life at risk when he couldn't see you."


No, but it was when he came around the corner, spotted me, and went to shoot me.

You got pretty close on calling me out on this one, but not quite. Your assumption of what I would do in a given situation is quite impressive, only short of it being correct.


----------



## Todd

GTD said:


> Although I would like to conceal carry some day in Illinois.


It's nice to have dreams. :smt033


----------



## submoa

fivehourfrenzy said:


> I'd take cover and let everyone else clear out for several reasons... I might have a clear shot at him while holding the element of surprise. This is on the grounds that he came to me.


Its called an "ambush"



fivehourfrenzy said:


> if and when he steps close enough to where I am to justify shooting in self defense


He steps into your trap with no one around and you having taken cover, is self defense?



fivehourfrenzy said:


> You got pretty close on calling me out on this one, but not quite.


Sure, sure.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

ALRIGHT, perhaps I should've been clearer. :mrgreen:

Instead of running with the crowd, I take cover and hide. While being hidden, I analyze the situation from a protected state. From this spot, I can dial 911 and if I can physically see the BG, I can direct LEOs to this location. If he turns and goes the other way and out of sight, I can escape. However, if he continues his rampage and happens to come across where I'm hiding, I draw, and it's like any other self defense situation. Either he drops his weapon and retreats, I reholster my weapon, and the situation is over without more bloodshed, or he acts in intent on shooting me, so I shoot him in self defense. 

I just don't like making a break for it out in the open with lots of panicked people along my side. I've never been in this kind of situation, but I have been in several free-for-alls on a dead sprint in a crowded area, and somehow I always managed to get tripped, thrown to the floor, and stepped on. I'm not the biggest guy in the world, so by not running with the crowd, I'm avoiding getting trampled.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

GTD said:


> Although I would like to conceal carry some day in Illinois.


Is a CCW permit in Illinois difficult to get?


----------



## BeefyBeefo

fivehourfrenzy said:


> Is a CCW permit in Illinois difficult to get?


You can't get a CCW permit at all in Illinois or Wisconsin unless you're an LEO. Todd sure is right about the dreaming :smt076

-Jeff-:anim_lol:


----------



## NCstarter

drom this link posted above in the thread 
http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

paragraph 4 "I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep"
varrients of this phrase are found throught this article and then near the end

"If you are authorized to carry a weapon, and walk outside without it, just take a deap breath, and say this to your self,,,'Baa'."

so there's nothing wrong with being a sheep but if you are one you should practice self degradation?

somehow that doesn't add up.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

BeefyBeefo said:


> You can't get a CCW permit at all in Illinois or Wisconsin unless you're an LEO.


That sucks. What about open carry?


----------



## BeefyBeefo

fivehourfrenzy said:


> That sucks. What about open carry?


Nothing. Just to give you an idea how bad it is, you can't even have a handgun present in the town I currently live in back home. So us residents have to store handguns in a bordering town to be legal. Even if you live in a bordering town, you can't legally drive through my town with a handgun in your car. Yea...sucks...I hopefully won't be there too much longer tho :mrgreen:

-Jeff-


----------



## Todd

fivehourfrenzy said:


> That sucks. What about open carry?


That's funny! :anim_lol::anim_lol::anim_lol: Well, not for the people that live there. IL is Non Carry State.

Hmmm, isn't Obama from IL? Make you wonder what will happen to gun rights if he gets in? :smt017 Is that a toilet I hear flushing?


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Are there any presidential candidates that support 2nd amendment rights?


----------



## BeefyBeefo

Todd said:


> Is that a toilet I hear flushing?


It sure is....

-Jeff-


----------



## Mike Barham

NCstarter said:


> drom this link posted above in the thread
> http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm
> 
> paragraph 4 "I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep"
> varrients of this phrase are found throught this article and then near the end
> 
> "If you are authorized to carry a weapon, and walk outside without it, just take a deap breath, and say this to your self,,,'Baa'."
> 
> so there's nothing wrong with being a sheep but if you are one you should practice self degradation?
> 
> somehow that doesn't add up.


I agree completely. The whole analogy is offensive, and only offered up so that guys who carry guns can feel superior to those who don't.

For example, I know lots of _real_ warriors who don't carry pistols in civilian life, yet they are among the most dangerous and skilled men I have ever met. Anyone who insultingly calls them "sheep" would almost certainly fare poorly against them in battle. These guys have simply weighed the advantage of carrying a pistol against its many disadvantages and decided carrying isn't worth the trouble. Just because we gun carriers have come to a different conclusion doesn't make us any better than they are, and for some of us to mock these tough men by calling them "sheep" is beyond stupid.

Just because someone doesn't agree with our lifestyle choices does not make them bad or stupid or evil or sheep-like. Blatantly insulting our fellow Americans merely because they choose not to carry guns is plain stupid, on the personal, political _and_ philosophical levels.

Stuff like this makes me wonder how often some of us talk to people who travel outside the closeted little society of gun carriers.


----------



## mp4094

*Wow*

Hey guys. I usually just browse to see what everyone is chatting about but this is the first time I feel obligated to post a response. Michael P.----you really need to improve upon your spelling and grammar. I doubled over laughing when you mispelled humor (hummer). Your sheepdog idea is bogus and you should really rethink this ideology. I'm not trying to sound harsh but your ideas are way out there man.


----------



## Mike Barham

To be fair, *michael P.* didn't come up with the sheepdog thing. I think that was Dave Grossman. But lots of defensive-oriented shooters have (sadly, in my view) uncritically swallowed this view hook, line and sinker.

I know Grossman's work is widely admired in the defensive shooting community, but not only is the analogy illogical, it's insulting. Why on earth are gun carriers going around mouthing off and insulting the very people who will determine our ability to own and carry guns?

_Baa_, indeed.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Saying there are three kinds of people in the world (sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves) is like saying there are three calibers (.45ACP, 9mm, and .22LR). Kinda silly.


----------



## kenn

*Damn!*

:watching:

i leave for a week or so to get my colon cleansed (by a professional this time - not 2 tatood carnies in a van) and all the posts get all serious and s#%t. This is why I do all my shopping online. If a crazed maniac pulls out a gun it's probably my wife and I probably deserve it (or it's foreplay and either way she wins.)

:mrgreen: Ps. - actually, I have been putting in hardwood floors.


----------



## Old Padawan

Its painting with a broad stroke. Its like saying that a Gemini is kind and caring but a Taurus is prone to anger. They are generalizations.
This is one of the few things that my mentor and I disagree on. I like the article. It needs a few more classes 
The Hyena for those that think they are wolves but cower when confronted
Poodles are guys like Michael P. who bark a lot to impress the sheep but are useless when confronted by a real wolf (unless you count showing their belly and piddling to be an effective distraction)
Hounds, they just kind of lay around in the shade but heaven help any wolf that wanders into its yard.
There are of course many more to be added. I think the sheep are the liberals that think if all guns go away so to will violence and theft.


----------



## Mike Barham

Well, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Closed. No more personal attacks, please.


----------

