TexasCHLforum.com

I regularly see two conflicting statements here.

As to how others should view your having a CHL, the argument usually is that you make the place safer because you can take out a bad guy and people around you should be happy you are carrying.

As to how you should respond when an incident happens, the argument is that you take care of yourself and your immediate family and if they wanted protection, they should have been carrying.

I don't have a problem with either of these statements in isolation, but when the same person/community is regularly espousing both, I have to call it as bunk. You can't have it both ways. If you're one of the people who says both, please re-think which of these is more important to you and only run with one of them.

Okay.

I think I understand your comment...

My CHL is not a Batman license nor am I a vigilante or a LEO looking for evildoers or scofflaws. My CHL allows me to carry a concealed weapon in certain locations for the protection of me and mine should the need arise.

As defined, "concealed weapon" means "concealed weapon" and I sincerely hope that the need to employ my legal CCW never arises.

Did I pass?

"Communities" are comprised of individuals.
Personally, I agree that "they" should have been carrying TOO, but even if they aren't, I am still my brother's keeper, a/k/a a "neighbor". I intend to protect life if I am able.

When i lived in Houston, and two guys were robbing the electronics store where I worked, I could have disarmed the guy with the gun at my head, but checked up front and saw his buddy holding a gun on our manager and cashier, so instead, I asked "You gonna lock us up?" and his called out to his buddy, "Lets lock them in the back room" ...they had no forethought plan. None of us were armed, we laid down on the floor like they told us to, glad they decided not to execute us, I guess we were terrible witnesses and couldn't describe them well anyway.
Every situation is different.
Another time another store (lumber yard/hardware store) was robbed by 5 men, police helicopters etc caught them; they had left a Kroger grocery store employee in critical condition earlier and they got noticed and caught leaving our store.

Hoi Polloi wrote:I regularly see two conflicting statements here.

As to how others should view your having a CHL, the argument usually is that you make the place safer because you can take out a bad guy and people around you should be happy you are carrying.

As to how you should respond when an incident happens, the argument is that you take care of yourself and your immediate family and if they wanted protection, they should have been carrying.

I don't have a problem with either of these statements in isolation, but when the same person/community is regularly espousing both, I have to call it as bunk. You can't have it both ways. If you're one of the people who says both, please re-think which of these is more important to you and only run with one of them.

I've seen a slightly different version of the first statement, which I believe is more accurate and is not in conflict with the second statement. "CHL holders make the environment safer by the fact that BG's are aware that some percentage of the population MAY be carrying". The data seems to support this.

I would actually espouse both statements, because the implementation of such is extremely circumstantial because, when I am out in public, I am most often accompanied by my family. In other words, if I can render aid to another without placing my family (first) or myself (second) in extreme danger, then I will. But if rendering such aid places my family (first) and me (second) in extreme danger, then I might not because my primary responsibility is first to those whom I love, and secondarily to anyone else after that.

That is my thought out in advance opinion, and it is based on risk analysis performed in the quiet of my own home, while I listen to my wife make breakfast. Mmmmmmm.... Bacon!

But when the lead starts flyin', I have no idea what I'll actually do. I just hope that I do it honorably and acquit myself well, and that I don't freeze. We can train, and it is commonly and rightfully said that we devolve to our level of training under extreme stress, but I am physically limited from much of that training, and was already in that condition before I got my CHL and started to carry a gun. So what I can do is train my mind in the hope that, under extreme stress, I will still be able to do a quick and accurate risk analysis and then react appropriately. Olympic athletes employ the technique of visualization. They visualize themselves winning the race, or lifting that weight, or whatever. So I think through survival scenarios and visualize myself surviving. Sometimes that includes visualizing what I would do if confronted with the possibility of intercession on behalf of a stranger.

Beyond that, when we happen upon a situation, of how much can we truly be certain, and how much is guess work? We come around a corner to see a woman on the ground, with a man standing over her holding a gun. Is the woman on the ground a victim being threatened by the guy with the gun; or was she a jealous ex-girlfriend assailant who was disarmed by her former boyfriend who is now holding her at gun point with her own gun, and wishing he had brought his cellphone so he could call 911? You come upon two men, one is down and shot, and the other is holding him at gunpoint. Is the wounded man a perpetrator and the gunman a cop, or is the wounded man a cop, and the gunman a bad guy? Is the guy with the gun a CHL holder (without a badge and sash)? Given your stumbling upon either scenario, do you try to aid the person on the ground, or the person with the gun? Or, do you turn around and walk the other way before you get shot, and call 911? See what I mean? There just isn't any way to know sometimes, and so I'll have to simply rely on instincts and risk analysis and react accordingly.

That will have to do for me.

Hoi Polloi wrote:I regularly see two conflicting statements here.

As to how others should view your having a CHL, the argument usually is that you make the place safer because you can take out a bad guy and people around you should be happy you are carrying.

As to how you should respond when an incident happens, the argument is that you take care of yourself and your immediate family and if they wanted protection, they should have been carrying.

I don't have a problem with either of these statements in isolation, but when the same person/community is regularly espousing both, I have to call it as bunk. You can't have it both ways. If you're one of the people who says both, please re-think which of these is more important to you and only run with one of them.

I don't think there is necessarily a contradiction. Even if it turns out to be only in a small minority of self-defense incidents there will be some circumstances where taking care of yourself and your immediate family will result in preventing others from being killed or injured --so the general statement that people being legally armed makes places safer is true. And the statement that "places are safer" can only be true in the general sense because there are obviously many particular cases where it isn't and can't be true.

TAM, I really liked that last paragraph about different situations.

When I resolved to get my CHL and start carrying 24/7 (almost) I thought if such & such happens I will (boldly) do this or that but upon getting the CHL and carrying reality set in and I erased the above from my mental hard drive, or as the wife would say, hard head. In reality drawing your gun for any reason will have very real and serious consequences and must be a last resort to ending/altering any situation. The possibility of expensive litigation, possible conviction and possible death or injury resulting from the decision to engage can not be ignored and will factor very much into any decision by me to involve myself in someone else’s problem.

Hoi Polloi wrote:I regularly see two conflicting statements here.

As to how others should view your having a CHL, the argument usually is that you make the place safer because you can take out a bad guy and people around you should be happy you are carrying.

As to how you should respond when an incident happens, the argument is that you take care of yourself and your immediate family and if they wanted protection, they should have been carrying.

I don't have a problem with either of these statements in isolation, but when the same person/community is regularly espousing both, I have to call it as bunk. You can't have it both ways. If you're one of the people who says both, please re-think which of these is more important to you and only run with one of them.

I see the apparent conflict between the statements, but I don't think they necessarily have to be conflicting.

You carry your pistol for the purpose of defending yourself and your loved ones, not to go out and play cop.
On the other hand, the more armed citizens we have, the more dangerous the criminal's career becomes because the chances of his victim being armed is higher.
Also, if a CHL sees someone shooting at or about to shoot innocent people, and has a clear shot without unduly increasing the risk to himself or those with him, I think many (most?) would take the shot rather than stand back and just "be a good witness." I realize that opens up a huge can of worms. Do you know that shooter was the bad guy and not someone defending himself from another threat you can't see? Do you know he's not an undercover LEO pointing a gun at a suspect?
I believe that if Suzanna Gratia had her handgun with her that day in Luby's, she might have saved her parents and a few others. She might not have. But I have to think that the people in there would have been a little safer if she had been armed. George Hennard killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before he committed suicide. One armed person might not have saved them all, but might have lowered those numbers a bit.
Say that had taken place a few years later, and she was carrying legally under the authority of a CHL. Defending all those other people wouldn't really be her business. But if she popped the guy who was shooting, maybe he would have only killed 15, maybe only 5, maybe none. We can play "what if" all day and we'll never really know. But I think everyone in there would have been "safer" had she been armed.

EDIT: I was typing when TAM posted. His last paragraph summed up what I was trying to say before I got into the Luby's example.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Beyond that, when we happen upon a situation, of how much can we truly be certain, and how much is guess work? We come around a corner to see a woman on the ground, with a man standing over her holding a gun. Is the woman on the ground a victim being threatened by the guy with the gun; or was she a jealous ex-girlfriend assailant who was disarmed by her former boyfriend who is now holding her at gun point with her own gun, and wishing he had brought his cellphone so he could call 911? You come upon two men, one is down and shot, and the other is holding him at gunpoint. Is the wounded man a perpetrator and the gunman a cop, or is the wounded man a cop, and the gunman a bad guy? Is the guy with the gun a CHL holder (without a badge and sash)? Given your stumbling upon either scenario, do you try to aid the person on the ground, or the person with the gun? Or, do you turn around and walk the other way before you get shot, and call 911? See what I mean? There just isn't any way to know sometimes, and so I'll have to simply rely on instincts and risk analysis and react accordingly.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I would actually espouse both statements, because the implementation of such is extremely circumstantial because, when I am out in public, I am most often accompanied by my family. In other words, if I can render aid to another without placing my family (first) or myself (second) in extreme danger, then I will. But if rendering such aid places my family (first) and me (second) in extreme danger, then I might not because my primary responsibility is first to those whom I love, and secondarily to anyone else after that.

That is my thought out in advance opinion, and it is based on risk analysis performed in the quiet of my own home, while I listen to my wife make breakfast. Mmmmmmm.... Bacon!

But when the lead starts flyin', I have no idea what I'll actually do. I just hope that I do it honorably and acquit myself well, and that I don't freeze. We can train, and it is commonly and rightfully said that we devolve to our level of training under extreme stress, but I am physically limited from much of that training, and was already in that condition before I got my CHL and started to carry a gun. So what I can do is train my mind in the hope that, under extreme stress, I will still be able to do a quick and accurate risk analysis and then react appropriately. Olympic athletes employ the technique of visualization. They visualize themselves winning the race, or lifting that weight, or whatever. So I think through survival scenarios and visualize myself surviving. Sometimes that includes visualizing what I would do if confronted with the possibility of intercession on behalf of a stranger.

Beyond that, when we happen upon a situation, of how much can we truly be certain, and how much is guess work? We come around a corner to see a woman on the ground, with a man standing over her holding a gun. Is the woman on the ground a victim being threatened by the guy with the gun; or was she a jealous ex-girlfriend assailant who was disarmed by her former boyfriend who is now holding her at gun point with her own gun, and wishing he had brought his cellphone so he could call 911? You come upon two men, one is down and shot, and the other is holding him at gunpoint. Is the wounded man a perpetrator and the gunman a cop, or is the wounded man a cop, and the gunman a bad guy? Is the guy with the gun a CHL holder (without a badge and sash)? Given your stumbling upon either scenario, do you try to aid the person on the ground, or the person with the gun? Or, do you turn around and walk the other way before you get shot, and call 911? See what I mean? There just isn't any way to know sometimes, and so I'll have to simply rely on instincts and risk analysis and react accordingly.

That will have to do for me.

TAM. What I really like about your post, besides the great summary, is the amount of thought you have put into 'the moment' and various scenarios - and the realization that its quite possible none of it will matter. It will come down to instincts and training (or practice). Hopefully if/when that moments comes to each of us - it will be enough.

Keep in mind that if a CHL steps into a situation, he/she may be creating more trouble in spite of the best intentions.

Situations are not always what they seem, and when defensive weapons are involved, time to sort out the situation is a luxury.

My opinion has changed over the years about what I THINK I will do. My plan is to escape and avoid any use of my weapon at all. That is the smartest and most logical thing to do for a CHL holder. The thing is that once I see innocent people being hurt and knowing that more will be hurt unless I act I can't say. I know I want my loved ones out of the way but after that will I turn around and go back?

I don't know what I am going to do in any given situation because I don't know the full details of that situation. Will fear overtake me and I run or will I fight? Don't know until it happens. My opinion is that many of us continue to come here so we can try to decide what we will do as well as what is best to do NOW before we are put in the situation. It may seem odd but one posters argument might have me thinking one way in one post and another way in another post. We must be fluid if we are ever forced into a situation where we have to decide or we may make mistakes. In order to properly do that we have to have a foundation of thinking gained by other peoples thoughts as well as our own opinions and experiences. I think part of what we are doing on this board is preparing that foundation for that decision of shoot or not to shoot. If I knew exactly what was going to happen and what I was going to do I wouldn't bother with spending time reading what other people have to say.

If I'm in a group setting (ie Walmart, HEB, etc) , I'm taking my family/ whoever I care about thats with me out of there via whatever exit is furthest from the problem. Everyone else can see the same news reports I can. They can apply for a CHL like I did. Not my job to risk my life and my family's future protecting those who didn't bother to face the real world. The sheeple are on their own.

TAM, I really liked that last paragraph about different situations.

Well put!

TX CHL 1997
CO CHP 2005