Last semester, I wrote a 15 page paper for Constitutional Law concerning students carrying guns on campus. A female friend who was helping me track down the books I needed asked me while in the library one day, "If you were dining out, and at a nearby table were members of the gun-control movement, either politicians or just citizen members, and a gunman opens fire (ala Luby's style) what would you do to help them?"

I looked right at her and said, "Absolutely nothing". I think it bothered her a bit, but this is the 2 reasons I gave her:

1: There is a difference between someone who chooses not to carry a gun for defense, and someone that chooses not to carry AND doesn't want me carrying either. Even if I knew about the shooting in advance, I wouldn't do a single goddamn thing to help them. They tried to strip me of MY rights, not the other way around. I hold no religious faith, and my moral code is far different than most peoples. In my mind, a typical non-armed individual is deserving of my trying to help them, but an active anti-gunner? If a gunman is aiming at one and their only hope is me shooting the gunman before he gets his shot off, they are FUCKED, period.

I told her the second reason is that these people want us to depend on police protection, and that they are opposed to a citizen using a gun to stop a violent crime. In an effort to respect their wishes, this armed citizen refuses to use my weapon to save them. Let them call 911, when the police arrive, I'll point them in the correct direction of the anti's so they can start drawing chalk lines.

Comments?

I do not see it as a morality question ... I see it as a matter of empathy, and whether or not you are a "turn the other cheek" type.

I will not be the savior of my tormentor.

I will not put myself in great danger to protect those who wish to destroy my very ability to protect myself (and them).

I will not "forgive and forget" in a situation like this, as far as I am concerned these people have drawn a line in the sand and they now must live or die, literally, by their actions and beliefs.  

To potentially sacrifice yourself to save those who would rather see you perish than have the ability to survive is not heroic or divine, it is pure blasphemy and utterly unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

They chose not to be armed and they are doing everything in their power to disarm you ... why would you lift a finger to save your enemy?

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend by a long shot.

As the poster above said, if they were saved, it would be because I was forced to take down the shooter in order to protect myself of my family.   The fact that they were taken out of harms way is pure coincidence and a correlating effect ... not at all the cause of my actions.

I see no reason to have empathy when it comes to dealing with those who have no empathy for me and my desire to adequately protect myself.  They chose to be sheep, let them live by their choices ... for better or worse.  

This of course is all assuming that you KNOW that the people being shot at are hardcore anti-gun activists ... which is reality is not likely to happen.  But if was to happen, this is my stance.

topic=

i would intervene...not necessarily b/c of "morality" or faith or whatever, its the logical thing to do in that situation imo

an active shooter nor his bullets/weapons does not discern amongst "victims" and a gun does not protect you from all dangers––you will ALL get FUC*KED, wether you are "anti-gun" or not


"All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing"––Edmund Burke

....and that goes both ways imo

YMMV

+1

I couldn't have said it better,

YES!!

I could not think of a better way to convert non-believers.

Depends, is one of them a hot female who will provide her savior with gratitude pie?  

Seriously, depends on the situation.  If there is a likelihood that my family or I would be a potential target of the shooter I would have to act regardless of my feelings for the antigun victims.  If we could withdraw safely that would be the preferred response.

No

I’ll double check the envelope, but I am pretty sure my reason was self defense and there was not a set of colorful tights & cape included…

I trained and take my responsibilities seriously. If you did not, you are on your own sport

Field expedient body armor...




Who knows, maybe you'll win a convert or two..

I've made the choice and gone to the expense to avail myself of firearms and train in their use protect to my family, my loved ones, and myself.

Anti- gunners have proactively chosen that they will not, and have gone out of their way to force their anti-gun choice, and the consequences of that choice, upon me.

"Collateral save" of individuals in the immediate vicintiy; yes.

But if I'm able to extricate my family and myself from an active shooter situation, or need to use deadly force to that end, I'm going to do exactly that and only that.

The anti-gun people can wait for the "professionals" to arrive.

I can't in good conscious stand and let evil prey on any victims regardless of political, racial or religious guidelines. I believe the path to heaven is based on my actions and not my judgements. I'm not a turn the cheek kinda guy.

The point of carrying a weapon is to be able to stop a scumbag from harming others. To be a shepherd.



To choose to allow someone to be murdered by your inaction (when you can act with a reasonable chance of winning the battle) makes you complicit in their murder.

If I choose not to save them... the (political) result would be massive tv coverage of anti-gunners being killed by a gunner.  NOT GOOD MEDIA FOR US!
If I choose to save them... I might just change their perspective from "guns kill people" to "guns save people".  Much better result imo.

The original question to this thread .    

Sorry, but in my opinion you need to recalibrate your morality meter.  Standing by and letting innocent people die, just because they disagree with your viewpoint is wrong.  

I see that you are a law student. Based on your argument, it is apparent that you lack the basic understanding of our system of government and the Constitution. Perhaps, you should re think your career choice.  If you fail to understand, that by standing by and letting innocent people be murdered, when you have the capacity to intervene and fail to do so, you will be complicit in their murder tells me, you should not be practicing law. Just my humble opinion.

ETA:Yes, I would intervene and try to save their sorry butts.

I don't think the "choice" is whether to 'save' them. The choice... do I have the opportunity? Do I have wife/ child w/ me, that I must protect 1st by shooting or escaping? The question is seriously flawed as is the OP's answer. To assume there is a 'professional' hit on these people and you would be safe enough to just sit and watch is laughable. But, I gather from the fact that you are speaking of a college paper, that you are still on the younger and naive side of life, which isn't meant to be a put down in any way. But, if you were 10 years older w/ a wife and 2 yr old son in the situation, your answer would be much different.
a Big + would be... you'd have the chance to show these 'anti-gunners' the error of their ways, first hand.

If I could do so in a way that wouldn't endanger myself and my family moreso, yes.

I'm not going to risk my loved ones for anyone.. anti gun.. pro gun..

If I saw a situation where I thought I could safely resolve the situation without causing harm to my loved ones, I would save anyone I could

In my opinion if you let someone die because the believe differently than they do, you're as bad as the one's gunning them down. That's just IMO, touchy topic

Law enforcement has no legal requirement to save someone. A CHL doesn't legally require you to do so either.

ETA: to the OP, the more likely result of the above scenario is that you don't really have a choice. You act on the best information you have at the moment and live (or die) based on the action. We're not some omnipotent gods that knows exactly everything we need to do to achieve the most positive outcome.

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing"––Edmund Burke

Just ask yourself WHAT WOULD RAMBO DO I think he would pull his 1911 out and go to work!!!

I would if they were held for trial for treasonous acts if they actively supported anti causes.

Absolutely correct.  However, the question was:  If you knew they were anti-gun, would you save them?  Meaning, would you make the choice to not save them.  Once you make that choice, you are no better than someone who watches a scumbag methodically kill twenty-five black people, and only pulls out his weapon to save a white man.

I would try to help them, maybe I could convert them over to the dark side?

I would save them in hope that they would see the light afterward, although there are people in this world that are too stupid to figure out that a big bad gun saved there life. I would then have to pity them, but I would feel better that I did something to save there life even if they would never thank me for it. It's more about doing the right thing than getting even with the enemy. It's about saving lives, no revenge.

Sounds like he'll probably be a wildly successful attorney, to me.

I once took an oath to protect them and their right to free speech.

Nothing has changed for me. I still believe in that oath.  

Will I be a "Superhero"? No. Could I turn my back if I could safely change the outcome just because of their beliefs?  No.

The point of CCW is to be able to protect you and yours from BGs.  It is called self defense, not community defense.  When I was a LEO that was my job, taking care of others.  Now I'm retired, my job is to make sure me and mine get home at night.

Here's another way to look at it:

If you do nothing the massacre will be national news.  The state-run media will go on and on about evil guns and how the .gov should do something to keep this from happening.

On the other hand.

If you successfully engage the shooter and stop them, at the very least, you get to look at the table of gun-grabbers and say "told ya so, bitches."  We all know the state-run media won't carry that story, though.

My morality meter works just fine, as does my understanding of the Constitution. The anti's have the same opportunity as me to carry a weapon legally, and they choose instead to trust in the Government to keep them safe. I am a very big fan of Darwin and natural selection. If you, knowing that violent crime is a reality, choose to go unarmed under false beliefs, then thats a shame. But when you choose to go unarmed AND attempt to disarm others, perhaps you deserve to be shot/injured. I wouldn't stand by because they disagree with my view, I'd stand by because they struck first by attempting to remove my right to carry. They made their own bed, now they can lie in it.

Edit: Regarding the "convert them" idea, I have no interest in converting them. Anybody as anti-gun as Feinstein will remain anti-gun even if a CC holder saved her sorry ass every week. They will just spin the encounter and make YOU out to be the bad guy for "adding more flying bullets to the mix". I think I'll do just fine as an attorney. I operate with cold logic, and logic tells me it is their own fault they have no means of protection. If they get saved by accident, as someone pointed out earlier, fine. But as for intentionally going to help them? I refuse.

Except legally he could stand around and watch everyone in the place get killed and be alright. Just like if you see someone drowning you can sit in the chair by the pool and watch them drown and you can't be charged with anything. Basically nobody is responsible to save the lives of others, even if it's in their control to do so. (Obviously situation might be different for a LEO or something)


Also the most effective lawyers would be those with no emotion/moral compass. It takes a special kind of person to be able to help murderers and rapists walk free, even when sometimes they KNOW the person is guilty.






As for whether or not I would save them it's hard to say. Someone walks into a place with a gun my first instinct will probably to get behind cover, anyone who carries would like to think they would be the hero and save the day, but really none of us know what we would do when faced with that situation. Although I suppose ideally saving the anti gunners could possibly work out in the favor of people who carry. Basically it'd be a big media story about how something they hate so much just saved their lives. If you let them get killed it'll just get twisted as a gun fan kills anti gunners.

Third option...you engage and accidently shoot an anti or get killed by the BG, thus giving the antis still more ammo about how CCW is a danger to the license holder and the community.

If you don't think you can engage a bad guy when forced to do so without hitting innocents then shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place.

The point of carrying a weapon is for self defense.  I don't have a badge and therefore my defense will be limited to myself and loved ones.  If I happen to help others during that process then so be it but they are not my priority.

The part highlighted in Red, I agree with.  The part highlighted in gold holds the fallacious thinking. Our system of govt and the Constitution allow for differing beliefs and the ability tho petition the govt to change things. They are exercising their right to change something they think is wrong (I disagree and am a staunch 2A person) and the fallacy is that, they have not denied you your right.  Just because they are petitioning, protesting, etc, they are merely exercising their right to do so.  

Regarding your edit, I agree with your logic in your first  2 sentences. (Yes, you probably will do ok as an atty).  However, I believe there was a gang rape about 20 years ago and if I recall correctly, several people that were standing around witnessing the incident were prosecuted for failing to stop the attack.   What's the difference?

A strawman.The OP never stated that he would only act if a pro-gun person was in danger. He never mentions color either.

As I and others have pointed out, there isn't really a choice. Unless you're god-like and can predict the precise order and timing the gunman will chose targets, it is not up to you to decide who dies and lives. If you are in the position where you have a good sight picture on the gunman AND his/her attention is not on you, I would find it hard to believe anyone would hesitate and think about politics.

I've discussed this with friends/family before, and the answer depends greatly on the situation.

My personal conclusion is that you make the "shoot or don't shoot" decision more complicated by picking and choosing who you wish to protect.  Personally, I carry to protect "innocent" life and limb (and property in Texas).  If someone is going to threaten "innocent" life or limb, I will do my best to stop them.  If I begin to question whether or not I should with a complicated thought process, it could cause a slight hesitation that could have horrible consequences for myself or others.

In a world with no consequences for me, I believe in darwinism and all that as well and I'd like to say "you had a chance to have the tools to defend yourself, and you chose not to".  But it is difficult for me to think of a scenario that could play out like you describe.  Likewise... most people just don't give self defense that much thought.  That sounds crazy to people like us, I guess.  But thinking about defensive scenarios can depress the hell out of a person if they let it.  Some people just choose to have fun and don't consider the "unheard of" consequences.  Maybe because of immaturity.  Maybe because of the circle of friends they have, etc.

That said, there have been plenty of times where I've made a similar decision when the circumstance didn't physically exist.  For example, when I was a student back at Virginia Tech, there was a fugitive who had killed two people at a hospital and was "at large".  A house of 4 girls, a New Jersey guy, and a Boston guy called and asked me to come stay with them because there were reports that the guy was seen in their area.  The only request they made is that I do not bring any firearms.  So I politely told them that they were on their own.  It was amazing to me they made that request.  I was usually this group's designated driver, I had cleaned my AK in their garage twice, and I had cleaned up their backyard because no one in their house did any manual labor of any kind.  And in a moment of crisis, they ask me to come protect them and to not bring the number 1 piece of hardware that would allow me to do so?...  Pshh.

If you think that you are infallible and will always win any fight you are in without any problems then perhaps you shouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place.

nvm

I would not risk my ass for them, but would try to help.

So you're just a sociopath, then?

Hypothetical:

One of your loved ones who does not or cannot carry a weapon is gunned down while an armed citizen watches disinterestedly through a window (because he got out of there).  How would you feel?

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing"––Edmund Burke

No offense, but maybe you should study history.  

My gun and my skills with it are to protect myself and my family members.  



Anyone who accidentally profits from me acting in defense of myself and my family  is welcome to it, but other than that, they're on their own.

Don't forget about your friends!  Assuming you have some...

No! Antis need to be the willing victims of our society if they want us all to disarm. A scarlet letter V on their forehead would do nicely. You will spend about 100K in attorney and court costs if you are involved in a self-defense shooting. Let them reap what they sow.

NAD

In the scenario as described - I think all of the people saying, "I wouldn't lift a finger" are kidding themselves.  An active shooter in a confined space?  You have to end that threat ASAP to protect your family and yourself.  If his weapon is out and firing, even if not aimed at you, it can still BECOME aimed at you and dump a few rounds before you get your weapon into play.

Yet another hypothetical:

One of your loved ones carries a weapon (non-LE) and intervenes in the situation to save someone. A bystander is wounded in the exchange. Your loved one goes through grand jury indictment and then a criminal trial because the city is political motivated to make the case as an example to others. Your loved one is vilified by the media and a civil lawsuit is brought against him. The original victim doesn't raise one dollar for the defense fund nor gives any thanks. How would you feel?

Not sure what that has to do with this:

Jay

Is that right?  Around here, the police usually tell you to have a good night before they leave.

Jay