TexasCHLforum.com

Salty1 wrote:if a person is shot then the scenario changes

It changes pretty dramatically if that person is YOU!

"if a person is shot then the scenario changes"

"It changes pretty dramatically if that person is YOU!" very true, have you also considered how dramatically it could change if some hero wanna be shoots at them under the posted scenerio and both robbers start lighting up every person in the bank? Under the posted scenerio I personally cannot see a logical reason to start shooting, ceiling tile are cheap, innocent human life is not. Active shooter situations is yet another reason why crimson trace grips are valuable, no need to line up sights or perform the spray and pray and hope the right person is hit..... too many variables, I do stand by my statement that I am not protecting somebody elses money.............

with regards to not protecting someone's money.

Protecting someone's money is one thing. Defending oneself from an active shooter is quite another.

I understand laying low and waiting to see what happens next. That is an option and sometimes a good one - perhaps the best one.

I also understand that the perpetrators have and are in the act of threatening the lives of everyone in that area. By firing, they are getting attention and demonstrating that the weapons and the threat are very, very real. They have also crossed yet another line toward killing. Money, at that point, doesn't matter. Protecting life does. How you do that is a very personal decision.

It is also likely that when they start shooting, you may not know exactly what is being shot.

Implying that responding with violence is somehow illogical or glory-hunting does not help this conversation.

threoh8 wrote:Implying that responding with violence is somehow illogical or glory-hunting does not help this conversation.

Very true but neither does blurring the line between shooting the ceiling to get everyone's attention and shooting the bank president to get everyone's attention.

threoh8 wrote:Protecting someone's money is one thing. Defending oneself from an active shooter is quite another.

I understand laying low and waiting to see what happens next. That is an option and sometimes a good one - perhaps the best one.

I also understand that the perpetrators have and are in the act of threatening the lives of everyone in that area. By firing, they are getting attention and demonstrating that the weapons and the threat are very, very real. They have also crossed yet another line toward killing. Money, at that point, doesn't matter. Protecting life does. How you do that is a very personal decision.

It is also likely that when they start shooting, you may not know exactly what is being shot.

Implying that responding with violence is somehow illogical or glory-hunting does not help this conversation.

Yes, at the point they start shooting ceiling tile, walls or other object I feel my life is in danger but I don't want to start shooting unless I feel I have a clear shot without hitting a friendly.

threoh8 wrote:Protecting someone's money is one thing. Defending oneself from an active shooter is quite another.

I understand laying low and waiting to see what happens next. That is an option and sometimes a good one - perhaps the best one.

I also understand that the perpetrators have and are in the act of threatening the lives of everyone in that area. By firing, they are getting attention and demonstrating that the weapons and the threat are very, very real. They have also crossed yet another line toward killing. Money, at that point, doesn't matter. Protecting life does. How you do that is a very personal decision.

It is also likely that when they start shooting, you may not know exactly what is being shot.

Implying that responding with violence is somehow illogical or glory-hunting does not help this conversation.

I have had my CHL since 1997 and have not had to point my gun at anyone, and would like to keep it that way. The question to engage or not to engage has nothing to do with someone's money or how I may be judged but has everything to do with the sanctity of human life. I do not relish having to use my gun but I do carry a gun for a reason and that is to survive and in rare cases help others survive (I know thats not popular). The fact is, good or bad, I dont get a do over so I had better have some rough guidelines of when to fight back. The life I save will hopefully be mine.

AEA wrote:

Brian Mobley wrote:one starts shooting the ceiling and orders everyone to the ground. What is your plan?

If he's shooting, so am I.

Yup, me too.

williamkevin wrote:

AEA wrote:

Brian Mobley wrote:one starts shooting the ceiling and orders everyone to the ground. What is your plan?

If he's shooting, so am I.

Yup, me too.

Me too even though it is perhaps legally inadvisable.

I guess we need to have handgun classes where remote controlled dummies move around in bank and you are asked to pull and neutralize the threats!

That' s cool

Interesting scenario/thread. In terms of "takeover bank robberies" my mind always goes first to the infamous "North Hollywood Shootout" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bad guy fires into ceiling. You fire into bad guy's chest. Bad guy falls back. You stop to assess and perhaps try one of those "tactical reloads" you learned at your local IDPA match. Bad guy - uninjured save for severe bruises - levels his AK at you and pull the trigger ... GAME OVER.

Personally, in the exact scenario as described in OP, I would be retreating, seeking cover, and making sure I could access my weapon to use it quickly if absolutely necessary. But I would not return fire on behalf of the ceiling tiles. If they want to defend themselves, they can fall on the bad guy's head.

Really, the more I think about it, you have more of chance being injured in the local mini stores or liquor stores than from the bank robbers. I have seen very few bank robberies where there was needless violence, but the local corner story the crooks seem to think that they need to hurt the checker and customers.

Fast Food store robbers seem to want to march everyone into the cooler and then execute them.

You should have situational awareness everywhere, but it are the placed that you least expect it when it really hits the fan.

A-R wrote:Interesting scenario/thread. In terms of "takeover bank robberies" my mind always goes first to the infamous "North Hollywood Shootout" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bad guy fires into ceiling. You fire into bad guy's chest. Bad guy falls back. You stop to assess and perhaps try one of those "tactical reloads" you learned at your local IDPA match. Bad guy - uninjured save for severe bruises - levels his AK at you and pull the trigger ... GAME OVER.

Personally, in the exact scenario as described in OP, I would be retreating, seeking cover, and making sure I could access my weapon to use it quickly if absolutely necessary. But I would not return fire on behalf of the ceiling tiles. If they want to defend themselves, they can fall on the bad guy's head.

This is why they have the Mozambique drill. double tap plus in the melon.

Beiruty wrote:

A-R wrote:Interesting scenario/thread. In terms of "takeover bank robberies" my mind always goes first to the infamous "North Hollywood Shootout" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bad guy fires into ceiling. You fire into bad guy's chest. Bad guy falls back. You stop to assess and perhaps try one of those "tactical reloads" you learned at your local IDPA match. Bad guy - uninjured save for severe bruises - levels his AK at you and pull the trigger ... GAME OVER.

Personally, in the exact scenario as described in OP, I would be retreating, seeking cover, and making sure I could access my weapon to use it quickly if absolutely necessary. But I would not return fire on behalf of the ceiling tiles. If they want to defend themselves, they can fall on the bad guy's head.

This is why they have the Mozambique drill. double tap plus in the melon.

Agree. But you gotta admit, easier said than done with a handgun on a real, live bad guy. Especially if bad guy has accomplices.

A-R wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

A-R wrote:Interesting scenario/thread. In terms of "takeover bank robberies" my mind always goes first to the infamous "North Hollywood Shootout" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bad guy fires into ceiling. You fire into bad guy's chest. Bad guy falls back. You stop to assess and perhaps try one of those "tactical reloads" you learned at your local IDPA match. Bad guy - uninjured save for severe bruises - levels his AK at you and pull the trigger ... GAME OVER.

Personally, in the exact scenario as described in OP, I would be retreating, seeking cover, and making sure I could access my weapon to use it quickly if absolutely necessary. But I would not return fire on behalf of the ceiling tiles. If they want to defend themselves, they can fall on the bad guy's head.

This is why they have the Mozambique drill. double tap plus in the melon.

Agree. But you gotta admit, easier said than done with a handgun on a real, live bad guy. Especially if bad guy has accomplices.

Excellent point.

Those 3 aimed shots take time.

The satisfaction of a perfectly executed failure drill on one bad guy deflates quickly if you're taken out by his buddy.

For the GG, the result is the same as 2 shots into the first guy's BR vest and his counterattack - game over.