TexasCHLforum.com

barstoolguru wrote:

jmra wrote:

barstoolguru wrote:

jmra wrote:I think someone fell off their barstool and hit their head.

maybe so (in your words) but this man has stood on the wall so you have the right to talk free so go praise the man that ran; just seems fitting for you.

Served my country straight out of high school. I was a year older than you when I joined but I thought it important to graduate high school first.

My father, a very wise man, always said if you have nothing good to say then say nothing at all. So I guess our conversation is over.

your old man was right... you have nothing good to say.... so bye

Very classy. Thank you for your service.

OK folks I have deleted several post now. This has gone far enough. Many post have been disrespectful and it needs to stop.

Take this right back to topic about the man who had a CHL in the mall. Not that he ran, hid, didn't take the shot etc. . . NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY WILL DO UNTIL IT HAPPENS. That has been said enough we should take that to heart.

Thank you to all who have fought for our freedoms. Those of you have who have been on the front line we cannot thank you enough for sharing your experience with us.

2. No personal attacks on other members - NONE! We can be respectful even in disagreement. If you're talking about the person rather than the issue, then the post will be deleted.

"Be sure of your target and what is behind it."

A sworn officer may have to take the shot, it is his duty to protect the public, etc. A CHL has no such responsibility, but if one has a clear shot, taking it might be a very helpful thing to do.

As former Congressman David Crockett is reputed to have said, "Be sure you're right, then go ahead."

We don't know enough detail to judge this fellow, it seems to me, the distance, his cover, experience, etc. Drawing and being ready was probably a good thing, then retreating to protect his friend and child. Maybe he would have had a good shot later. Who can say?

Impossible to know all the "what-if's" or to criticize when not actually being there as part of the situation. I get all that.

However, consider this scenario where I had an active shooter in my sights, determined I could not shoot without risking 3rd parties, chose to retreat, and then the shooter went on to kill more people. I would find that very, very difficult to live with.

barstoolguru wrote:

They train LEOs for this type of situation

so was Audrey murphy or Alvin York trained for what they did. Warriors are forged on the battle field but heroes are found in the most unlikely places. He could have shot up in the celling, could have yelled, could have done something but he chose to go hide

we seen teachers with no training (woman, god bless them) and men die to protect others so say what you want this guy needs to find a rock

Uh yes Audie Murphy and Alvin York were trained as they were members of the military. They had combat training and made decisions in combat that were later proven to be above the call of duty. Comparing a civilian who probably sat through an 11 hour class with 1 hour of range time is not similarly trained in the least to members of the military so expecting this guy to do Medal of Honor worthy actions is ludicrous. If his story is true then just give him credit for not adding to the civilian casualty count. You weren't there and he was so it was his call to make.

For everyone wanting to pile on barstoolguru, I suspect part of this is generational differences.

People who are born in the mid-fifties or earlier grew up with a completely different sense of what being a man meant when compared to the current generation of young men raised in an educational system and culture heavily slanted towards the femininization of men in America.

Leave aside the whole issue of whether he should have taken a shot or not. When I saw the video of him sitting there quivering, I couldn't help picture John Wayne saying to him, "Come on, Pilgrim, pull yourself together." That was my cultural conditioning.

Do not misunderstand me, my point is not that he should have been more stoic. My point is men raised in the 50's had a much different cultural conditioning than men raised in the last 20 years.

Jumping Frog wrote:For everyone wanting to pile on barstoolguru, I suspect part of this is generational differences.

People who are born in the mid-fifties or earlier grew up with a completely different sense of what being a man meant when compared to the current generation of young men raised in an educational system and culture heavily slanted towards the femininization of men in America.

Leave aside the whole issue of whether he should have taken a shot or not. When I saw the video of him sitting there quivering, I couldn't help picture John Wayne saying to him, "Come on, Pilgrim, pull yourself together." That was my cultural conditioning.

Do not misunderstand me, my point is not that he should have been more stoic. My point is men raised in the 50's had a much different cultural conditioning than men raised in the last 20 years.

John Wayne was an actor and frankly not a very good one (my opinion) and while he set a standard for a generation it doesn't mean he'd act that way in an environment so chaotic such as mall shooting. I can go play Green Beret but it doesn't mean I have the skills of a Green Beret. This guy was scared yet he was still aware enough to know that he didn't have a shot if his story is true so in my opinion he was in the right because he judged the situation and took an action that after the fact he was able to determine was appropriate. Sure he might be more "feminine" than those from 1950 but keep in mind that in 1950 CHL was for mostly if not entirely LE only.

CoffeeNut wrote:John Wayne was an actor and frankly not a very good one (my opinion) and while he set a standard for a generation it doesn't mean he'd act that way in an environment so chaotic such as mall shooting. I can go play Green Beret but it doesn't mean I have the skills of a Green Beret. This guy was scared yet he was still aware enough to know that he didn't have a shot if his story is true so in my opinion he was in the right because he judged the situation and took an action that after the fact he was able to determine was appropriate. Sure he might be more "feminine" than those from 1950 but keep in mind that in 1950 CHL was for mostly if not entirely LE only.

So I see you missed my point.

I'm surprised he even came out to the media.

Jumping Frog wrote:So I see you missed my point.

Must be generational differences...

This stood out to me during a movie last night.

Bilbo my dear boy, "True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one."
-Gandalf the Great
the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

handog wrote:This stood out to me during a movie last night.

Bilbo my dear boy, "True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one."
-Gandalf the Great
the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I'm going to see The Hobbit today, I have high expectations.

But I don't believe an active mall shooter is the place to spare a life. At the same time violating rule 4 is a bad time to take a shot, so I commend him on his discipline of the rules.

I also see frog's point, don't sit there and act all shook up for the camera, man up and say you didn't have a good shot due to what was behind your target, so you took cover. General Patton might have slapped him.

Personally I believe moving to the threat in an attempt to neutralize it would have been heroic, as was done in the New Life Church by Jeanne Assam. But not everyone is heroic, otherwise it wouldn't be considered as such.

Jumping Frog wrote:For everyone wanting to pile on barstoolguru, I suspect part of this is generational differences.

People who are born in the mid-fifties or earlier grew up with a completely different sense of what being a man meant when compared to the current generation of young men raised in an educational system and culture heavily slanted towards the femininization of men in America.

Leave aside the whole issue of whether he should have taken a shot or not. When I saw the video of him sitting there quivering, I couldn't help picture John Wayne saying to him, "Come on, Pilgrim, pull yourself together." That was my cultural conditioning.

Do not misunderstand me, my point is not that he should have been more stoic. My point is men raised in the 50's had a much different cultural conditioning than men raised in the last 20 years.

I haven't spoken yet, but my problem with barstoolguru is recalling his angry tirades against the female CHL who chose to shoot recently.

He has different standards for different situations.

Jumping Frog wrote:For everyone wanting to pile on barstoolguru, I suspect part of this is generational differences.

People who are born in the mid-fifties or earlier grew up with a completely different sense of what being a man meant when compared to the current generation of young men raised in an educational system and culture heavily slanted towards the femininization of men in America.

Leave aside the whole issue of whether he should have taken a shot or not. When I saw the video of him sitting there quivering, I couldn't help picture John Wayne saying to him, "Come on, Pilgrim, pull yourself together." That was my cultural conditioning.

Do not misunderstand me, my point is not that he should have been more stoic. My point is men raised in the 50's had a much different cultural conditioning than men raised in the last 20 years.

I see your point, but I also know that despite any "generational conditioning" folks in every decade who have faced horrible situations have suffered from what we now term PTSD. The idea of John Wayne being able to tell someone to tough it out is just silly, he acted like a tough guy he did not have to be a tough guy.

Jaguar wrote:

handog wrote:This stood out to me during a movie last night.

Bilbo my dear boy, "True courage is about knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one."
-Gandalf the Great
the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I'm going to see The Hobbit today, I have high expectations.

But I don't believe an active mall shooter is the place to spare a life. At the same time violating rule 4 is a bad time to take a shot, so I commend him on his discipline of the rules.

I also see frog's point, don't sit there and act all shook up for the camera, man up and say you didn't have a good shot due to what was behind your target, so you took cover. General Patton might have slapped him.

Personally I believe moving to the threat in an attempt to neutralize it would have been heroic, as was done in the New Life Church by Jeanne Assam. But not everyone is heroic, otherwise it wouldn't be considered as such.

You won't b disappointed.

When I took the shooting part of my CHL there was a petite,older lady next to me. She was shaking so bad the instructor let her skip that part of the test. (For our safety) for some once adrenalin kicks in they can't hit the side of a barn. The life spared in this situation was likely an innocent bystander.