RobertNashville

I've probably heard statements like the above hundreds, maybe even a thousand times but I've never found (and I've looked) any study or reputable source that supports the assertion that openly carrying has ever "educated" anybody which causes me to think the claim is more of a wish than it is based in fact. That said, if openly carrying does educate people it doesn't take much of an imagination to imaging the education that goes on when someone who is openly carrying acts like a jerk to the police. ;)

  No, the cops weren't obligated but that's not my point...my point is about not being a jerk for no other reason than being an a jerk. Unnecessary confrontations like this do a disservice to everyone that wants to foster acceptance of of civilian carry among those who think civilians shouldn't be allowed to carry (concealed or open).

I get that they aren't doing anything illegal but as someone said earlier (and I'm highly paraphrasing here); openly carrying, especially in a very public place, is somewhat like baiting a hook, throwing it into the water and then complaining when you catch a fish.  If an open carrier is going to go fishing that way there is no benefit to anyone by being unnecessarily confrontational.  

Just my opinion but I believe that when someone who openly carries gets this confrontational with police; I suspect they are openly carrying for the express purpose of getting into a confrontation and starting an argument about the "law" on the sidewalk (or in this case, in the middle of a shopping mall).  Some may see this as simply standing up for our "rights" but I say that these people do NOTING GOOD for promoting support for civilian carry or the for supporting the Second Amendment.

I don't disagree...I wasn't trying to suggest that a person doesn't think about such scenarios. I see it no differently than thinking about an escape route if I'm in my vehicle and someone starts shooting at me or tries to car jack me or where my closest firearm is if someone comes through a particular door or a window in the living room vs a back bedroom, etc.  :)

In my opinion, you have the right outlook. For me, I believe that an armed civilian is NOT obligated, morally or otherwise, to engage a shooter and thereby, put his own life in danger and as much as this guy I was dealing with thought otherwise, it's not a decision that anyone can (or I think, should) make unless or until they are faced with that situation; there are just too many variables. Certainly, there are armed civilians who have stopped active shooters and almost certainly saved innocent lives...they are a hero for doing so; but that doesn't mean every other armed civilian "should" do the same.   I carry to protect me and those I care about first; all others come second...that doesn't mean I won't try to protect others; just that I'm not going to blindly say I will or that I have an obligation to do so. :)

I wouldn't be surprised if he does!  :) Your post does raise one of the problems I see with being an armed civilian considering engaging an active shooter because I don't carry an AR around with me and if I did have an AR slung over my shoulder I would expect an active shooter to target me first.  Unlike me, however, the active shooter may have an AR (or two and who knows what else)...meaning that the bad guy is probably going to have an advantage, maybe a big advantage, in weapons. He is likely to have both a more powerful weapon(s) and more ammo as well and he may not be alone.   I don't know about anyone else here but all I'm going to have on me is a .45 with 13 or so rounds, probably one extra mag (and at the most, two extras) and perhaps a .38 as a backup weapon. Sometimes I only have my little .38 with five rounds and maybe 5 or 10 extra.  Some folks only ever carry a .380. Of course, one perfect shot, even with a .380 can take down a guy with an AR or a 12ga or whatever but I think we all know the odds of surviving such an encounter don't favor the guy with the .380. The active shooter is already going to be at the ready and who knows how much distance may separate us...there may be (likely will be) innocents between me and him.  Realistically; I would have to ask myself what my best course of action is and whether I can engage this guy or guys and have any real chance of succeeding or am I just going to get myself killed and maybe even more innocents killed?   My gut and the training I've had tells me that every single incident is going to have a completely different set of circumstances and whatever I do has to be based on those particular circumstances.

He said he carries...the disagreement between the two of us was mostly regarding this person's assertion that an armed citizen has a "duty" to confront an active shooter and that I and others would be "wrong" if we didn't do so.   He took a great deal of exception to my comment that I carry to protect myself and my loved ones; not to protect him or other strangers. If I'm ever in that situation and I believe I can make a difference without making things worse I'm fairly certain I would do what I could to take out an active shooter but I don't feel that I have a duty to do so. My impression of this guy, which could be totally wrong given we are talking only about printed words, is that he is the type of guy who hopes he is "lucky" enough to be in an active shooter so that he can show everyone how brave he is. Again, I may be very off base and he my simply be the kind of person who truly believes that he should/has an obligation/has a duty to engage! 

You got it!  :)   The first time I hear him say that was when I was a 6th grader and he came to speak to all of us involved in sports in any way. Woody always got questions about why OSU didn't pass more and of course he would quip "when you pass the ball only three things can happen and only one of them is good". :)  It's difficult to argue with logic like that; even if you don't agree with it. LOL  

Hello, everyone.  It’s been quite a long time since I posted here but I still “hang out” here now and then. I’d like to hear from some of you regarding your thoughts on engaging “active shooters”.   I’ve been in a discussion on Tom Givens’s Facebook page regarding what an FBI Crisis Intervention trainer recently told to some college professors/students on a college campus (I think in Memphis). Anyway, the discussion turned to armed civilians engaging an active shooter and the person I’ve exchanged most of my posts with seems to come down on the side of not only should an armed civilian do so (i.e. engage) but that an armed citizen has an obligation...a duty to do so. That strikes me as both short-sighted and frankly, a decision that has to be made by each individual; not something that can be decided for him.   My position is that I carry first to protect myself and equally if not more importantly, to protect my loved ones…protecting others, especially strangers and especially strangers who could have decided to be armed themselves but chose not to, is very secondary to me. I would say that if I think I can engage successfully I probably would but I don’t feel I have an obligation or a duty to do so. To paraphrase a long-ago mentor of mine; when an armed civilian chooses to engage an active shooter (or shooters) with innocents all around; lots and lots of things can happen and only one or two of them are “good” (special recognition to anyone who knows who I stole that analogy from LOL).   Anyway…what do you folks think?  Are we obligated to engage no matter what? Am I obligated to engage but only if there is a reasonable chance of success?  Not obligated at all? Etc.   I’m interested in what others think about this.   Thanks!

Sometimes that's for good reason. ;)

A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to hear Adam Dread (co-counsel on Rayburn's lawsuit to stop the original bill) talk about the lawsuit and the "Guns in Bars" bills...he must have said "guns and alcohol don't mix" 100 times in a 45 minute talk.  After hearing him speak I came to the conclusion that both Raeburn and Dread were asses who obviously know little about firearms, firearm owners. As history has now shown, their position was idiotic and whatever rely drove their position was not based on logic or facts.   I don't really know why his flagship restaurant has failed...maybe it's just bad food/poor service...maybe it's because business has fallen off because of his politics on this issue.  In any case, I feel no sympathy for Rayburn or his restaurants.

Or we could return most power back to the States where it was supposed to be.

Ultimately, I am expecting very little improvement nationally with the Republicans winning the Senate and picking up seats in the house.  Obama will veto anything truly good and frankly, if they send him any bills he won't veto we would probably be better off if he did veto them. Further, he'll continue to ignore the Constitution and the laws of the land just as he's been doing because I don't see enough men and women with the backbone to take him on with the remedies allowed for in the Constitution.   I would say that these next two years could be the most dangerous to the country we've ever faced and while I'm happy that last night's wins for Republicans and believe that is may slow down the fall over the cliff I am as convinced as ever that nothing short of a Constitutional Convention can actually put the country back on the right path.

My final “book report” on the 299 Days series…   I usually don’t listen much to “online opinions” but I suspect that in this case, reading the true “final” book in the series called “The Colonels” would be a letdown to an otherwise enjoyable series. So, I’m ending it with my finishing “The Restoration”.   In my opinion, this series, while not perfect, is worth the time to read I suppose one of the reasons I like the series overall is that the cause of the breakdowm is a realistic one. Also, If we do ever have a breakdown of society whether due to an EMP (attack or natural event), pandemic, some other kind of attack from another country or simply from our continuing rising debt and increasingly worthless currency; then the events described in this series is probably as good of an outcome as one could hope for. Rather than a complete and utter breakdown in society, we see the ultimate failure of a bloated, liberal government that cares nothing for individual liberty and freedom and the rise of enough patriots to set things right. While many people die (as one would expect in a collapse of society) there are plenty of people who hold things together and in the end, are able to actually start over with the kind of freedom and liberty the founders wanted us to have (along with some improvements learned in the intervening 200 plus years).  I think it would be difficult to imagine a better outcome.   I will admit that two or three of the books were not really enjoyable; I wouldn’t go so far as to say they were bad but those installments, in my opinion, kept a good series from being a great series.   I’m not sure what I’ll read next…unfortunately my shelf of books waiting to be read keeps getting bigger and my free time doesn't seem to be keeping pace! :)