I'm going to have to respectively disagree with the "police force of one" idea. You cannot call for back-up, you cannot communicate with law enforcement and you will quite possible stir up a hornet's nest that could cause more collateral fatalities. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT what personal protection is about and certainly not what is taught in our CHL training. Going out of your way to enter and participate in a gunfight is simply vigilantism and an absolute validation of how the left has portrayed us.
Even if we were just as well trained and experienced (like a combat vet) would a cop walk into a combat theatre alone without calling for back-up, armed with only a .40 caliber handgun and NO idea what's actually going on?
Embalmo
I specifically remember the instructor in my CHL class saying it is totally legal to use deadly force in defense of yourself or others. If I see someone in a library with an AK, shooting wildly, I can make a pretty quick assessment, and I cannot imagine a situation where more lives would be lost with me trying to stop a threat than by letting the shooter continue his killing. (If you had an AK, could you kill more people if one person with a handgun was trying to stop you, or if you were left to your own devices)
Imagine you're walking past a hall full of classrooms, and you hear shots fired an people screaming. If your only concern is your safety, then by all means, run away, and seek cover, but I would imagine the people being slaughtered by a madman might appreciate a good Samaritan, regardless of his own safety, attempting to eliminate the threat.
One of the reason's the columbine shooting was so deadly was because police formed a perimeter and waited for SWAT, allowing the killing to continue for a significant amount of time.
If my life and that of my family is not in danger, I will not intervine. I will escape and call 911. I did not get a CHL to be the protector of all man kind. That is the job for the police. There are so many people who ridiclue my choice to get a CHL and they CHOOSE to not get one themselves. I will not have guilt for that decision.
Like others have said, the true arguement isn't CHL holders could stop the killings...but rather that state should not take away the right of that CHL holder to protect HIM/HER SELF.
“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
NRA- Life member
TSRA - Conditional Life Member
SlickTX wrote:He goes on about the average CHL holder, as opposed to LEOs, does not practice as much and is likely to choke at the time of need.
Sorry, not sure I believe that. To the cops on the board, how often does the average patrolman go to the range? I know I personally try to put at least 50-100 rounds down range every month, at a minimum. Just curious how often cops really go to the range.
Granted, I assume someone like SWAT gets in lots of range time. But the most likely first responder is going to be a CHL holder or a patrolman. Which one practices more?
I have worked with the police for over 8 years, and I can tell you that most only fire their weapons once a year when they do their annual qualify. Heck, I know officers that refuse to chamber a round while it's in the holster. I have heard of one that was rusted shut from all the coffee that was spilled on it over the course of a year.
“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
NRA- Life member
TSRA - Conditional Life Member
flechero wrote:I'd much rather chance being hit by a chl's fire than be a sitting duck in a room with a crazed guy with a (pick your weapon).
So what you're saying is that CHLs know better than law enforcement, who were (one of) the reasons that so many died at Columbine? That is a dangerous, premise to base your ideas on
I bet there are a lot of families that would have liked to see if a chl could have ended it sooner.
To think a chl could stop a shooter is just as valid as the anti's using the 'what if' argument that a chl may kill an innocent bystander. And if they did nothing... it's just like no one with a chl was there. And if an innocent person got shot, that would be tragic but no less tragic than all the others shot by the active shooter.
A CHL should protect bystanders when possible and appropriate, but a CHL cannot go looking for an opportunity to be a hero like following the sound of the shots-That is vigilantism and pretending to be a cop. The CHL movement will come to a grinding halt when CHLs all begin to think, "We're just like cops, only smarter."
