RobertNashville

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! :)

I lived in the Seattle are (Port Orchard, WA) for four years while in the Navy...I thuroughly enjoyed living in that part of the country and am beyond glad that I got a chance to experience the truly beautiful areas (seeing Mt. Ranier on a clear day is a sight that is hard to describe as was seeing Mt. St. Hellens (before it blew its top!...I was living there when it erupted).   Anyway, I moved to Tennessee in late 1996 and never regretted it...I think you'll find Tennessee to be a great place to live.  The firearm laws are far from perfect but they are good and better than most states.

I have a couple of expensive OWB holsters but 99% of the tiem I carry IWB and the only one I've ever been truly comfortable with is the Crossbreed...I'm sure others are find but unless Crossbreed goes out of business I doubt I'll ever buy another brand. ;)

I've had all the red cross classes and I was a 50 state certified EMT for quite a few years so I've had lots of those clsses.  That said, while it's true that first aid is first aid and knowing the basics is important I would suggest that there is a difference between most first aid class and medical classes taught from the standpoint of treating a gunshot woulnd (especially if the injured person is yourself!).

My "final report" on the Carrington Effect...   I'd say it was an okay read...by that I mean that I don't feel like I wasted my time, learned a few things (or at least got a couple of ideas) and I'd rate it maybe 2.5 out of 4 if I were giving "stars". It obviously took me a while to read it but with work, other intersts and working on another degree I've only so much time to devote to entertainment reading!   It had a lot of various characters and it was difficult to keep them all straight plus as I mentioned above, it took a lot of the book's time to introduce them all.  The scenarios, while I'm not sure are very likely, especially as a combined 1-2 punch, are at least plausible.  I did notice a lot of minor errors in the text (missing words, misspelled words, etc.) that should have been caught by a proof reader.  Now in fairness, I've seen that in even some of the more prestigious books by top-tier authors so they do happen but I'm not a great proof reader and I noticed a lot of errors which tells me that this was much more than would be considered normal.  Of course, I don't know how this book was published so maybe it didn't get the red-carpet sort of treatment a Tom Clancy would get. :) All in all, not a bad read but not one of the best either.  Now I'm off to read the Restoration (book 9) in the 299 Days series.

I guess I can agree that Panera is not being entirely neutral. At the same time, this is such a meaningless response that I don't see why some (especially on FB) are making such a fuss about it.  I occasionally eat at a Panera and I've no plans to stop doing so. Also, there are plenty of places who are truly hostile to civilian carry; those are the businesses that need to be avoided (in my opinion). :)

Not that it will make any difference but it seems to me that there is something innately wrong with a person losing his/her rights only because he has been accused of a crime.  Obviously, bail is both constitutional and necessary to assure the person shows up for trial but loosing all sorts of rights before there has even been a trial is going too far IMHO.   Even worse, it seems that the reverse happens once one is convicted; our legal system seems far too eager to release from prison those found guilty of even heinous, violent crimes rather then keeping them in jail for as long as they should be...it all seems very backward to me and as I've said before, if someone has committed a crime serious enough that he loses his rights then the crime is serious enough that he should never be released back into society; at least not until he is so old that he can no longer be a threat to society.

I think they'll keep pushing their point of view until someone get's hurt then all hell will break loose.

It often is true that the most talented and artistic among us are also the most vulnerable to depression and anxiety. I can only guess that whatever "wiring" gives them their talent also makes them susceptible to problems they believe that they can't overcome. I know absolutely nothing about his personal life but I have loved his movies - he was an incredible talent (and not just for comedy)...the world was a brighter place with him in it and a darker place without him.   May he rest in peace; prayers for his family.

I assume then that if the FBI or DEA or some other alphabet government agency want's to come into your home and "look around" you're okay with that too?  I mean...what's the difference if you aren't doing anything "illegal" then the police ought to be able to force you to into a deep cavity search if they decide they want to do so...as long as you aren't hiding anything up there what difference does it make? :tinfoil:

If you don't care about innocent people than you don't care; that's your choice and your right.   For me, I'm thankful that there are people who do care about others...those are the kinds that become police officers, fire fighters, soldiers and doctors and nurses. Personally, I have had periods in my life when I didn't care much for other human beings but I found it to be a pretty empty existence.   The U.S. can't change the world but if we aren't willing to help innocent populations when it's within our power to do so then what the hell good are we?

Stretch indeed.  The MA's finding aside, while he certainly had a tragic change in his life I can't imaging how anyone could claim with a straight face that a bullet wound from 33 years in the past caused his death and bringing charges now would probably be more than pointless anyway. 

We who joined and served did so for our own reasons; some reasons are more noble than others but so long as we served well and did our duty I don't the "nobility" of the reason really matters; we all wore the uniform and put ourselves (or at least were willing to put ourselves) in harms way. Politicians have always been the ones to decided where we went and when we went; that's the trip we what we signed up for and if volunteers didn't understand that; well...that's their own fault I think (I know I certainly went to some places I didn't exactly want to go to!).

Jim Brady was an innocent victim of a lunatic and what happened to him was tragic; no one should have to go through what he did. I'll not rejoice at his death.   His wife, on the other hand, has made a career and a fortune pushing her husband around in his wheelchair in an effort to dismantle the Second Amendment; she deserves no and will get no consideration from me and I'll shed no tears when she joins her husband in whatever lies after this life.

They are terrorists. Islam is not just a religion but is also a political ideology/system of government which makes it a highly dangerous organization because Islam's manifest destiny is to bring the entire world into submission to God...THEIR God and under THEIR system of government and only ONE government. This makes it incumbent upon the true follower of Islam to make this destiny a reality. The fact that not all Muslims will take up violence to bring about the submission of the world to Islam doesn't change what Islam is.

The key phrase there is "never be solved" - it doesn't matter what the U.S. does or doesn't do. The hate will never die.   There will be no peace in the Middle East until there is no Middle East; by that I mean that the human population will have gone the way of the dinosaur OR the earth has been destroyed to make way for an intergalactic bypass.

Facebook is a wonderful tool but a terribly dangerous master...much like any technology...much like fire for that matter.  Used wisely it's great; used unwisely and you'll pay for it eventually.   I'm using my iPhone less and less (except to make calls...imagine that!).  What I find ridiculous is that until the mid to late '80s virtually no one had a cell phone (we don't even call them that any more) and the "smartphone" has only been with us since the very late '90s yet many people let their smartphone all but control their lives. I'm not suggesting that we all sell our cars and buy a horse or that we trade our phones for the telegraph but there are a lot of people who need to put some perspective on things! LOL