acmariner99
Regular Member
In recent weeks, I have thought somewhat about the concept of a "sheepdog" that we who carry are sometimes called ... the entity with the capacity to scare predators away from the mass of sheep. Some think that if we have the training, we have a "responsibility" to intervene on behalf of others if they come under fire from a violent individual in order to save lives.
In the recent past, I would have given more thought to possibly intervening in such a situation provided I could do so without making things worse; proximity to other innocents, field of fire, and I'm certain that such intervention will stop the threat (no additional shooters or other variables I discern in the heat of the moment). I had this frame of mind because of simple empathy. People are in danger and in fear for their lives, shouldn't I stop the threat if I have the capacity to? Could I live with not responding and seeing other innocents killed by my inaction?
I realized I was running on sentiment and not logic. Empathy is all well and good until you run into a situation you don't understand or have the skills to resolve and wind up dead - didn't see another shooter, running into responding LEOs, hurting an innocent, etc. I also realized my priority is simply getting home safe and sound - not to mention those at home that depend on me and need me home at the end of the day. I am confident in my ability to respond to a threat that is directed AT me or my immediate vicinity since those are the scenarios I typically think of or train for. Such situations involve simple variables that are easy (relatively) to evaluate and respond to: (Threat pulling or using a weapon + moving in my direction + nothing in my line of fire = stop the threat.) If I am in a convenience or grocery store and I hear shots nearby, my first action is to get to cover and wait for more info. If I am in a larger public area (park, mall, or lots of people around) my instinct is to withdraw assuming I don't come under fire. Unless the threat is directed directly at me (or a loved one) or in my immediate vicinity, I simply see no reason or responsibility to respond. In summary:
1) I control what I know I have the capacity to control by responding to a direct threat only
2) I limit my liability in intervening on others behalf (legally)
3) I am more likely to accomplish what I intend to accomplish - get home to my family safely
4) It is not my problem that the sheep won't take responsibility for themselves
I carry a firearm to protect me and mine, not to be a hero, and not out of some duty to the rest of mankind - if I happen to be a target then you may reap the benefit from my actions. Otherwise, while the potential loss of life from my inaction is tragic, it is simply not my responsibility. The police aren't there to protect you ... neither am I.
In the recent past, I would have given more thought to possibly intervening in such a situation provided I could do so without making things worse; proximity to other innocents, field of fire, and I'm certain that such intervention will stop the threat (no additional shooters or other variables I discern in the heat of the moment). I had this frame of mind because of simple empathy. People are in danger and in fear for their lives, shouldn't I stop the threat if I have the capacity to? Could I live with not responding and seeing other innocents killed by my inaction?
I realized I was running on sentiment and not logic. Empathy is all well and good until you run into a situation you don't understand or have the skills to resolve and wind up dead - didn't see another shooter, running into responding LEOs, hurting an innocent, etc. I also realized my priority is simply getting home safe and sound - not to mention those at home that depend on me and need me home at the end of the day. I am confident in my ability to respond to a threat that is directed AT me or my immediate vicinity since those are the scenarios I typically think of or train for. Such situations involve simple variables that are easy (relatively) to evaluate and respond to: (Threat pulling or using a weapon + moving in my direction + nothing in my line of fire = stop the threat.) If I am in a convenience or grocery store and I hear shots nearby, my first action is to get to cover and wait for more info. If I am in a larger public area (park, mall, or lots of people around) my instinct is to withdraw assuming I don't come under fire. Unless the threat is directed directly at me (or a loved one) or in my immediate vicinity, I simply see no reason or responsibility to respond. In summary:
1) I control what I know I have the capacity to control by responding to a direct threat only
2) I limit my liability in intervening on others behalf (legally)
3) I am more likely to accomplish what I intend to accomplish - get home to my family safely
4) It is not my problem that the sheep won't take responsibility for themselves
I carry a firearm to protect me and mine, not to be a hero, and not out of some duty to the rest of mankind - if I happen to be a target then you may reap the benefit from my actions. Otherwise, while the potential loss of life from my inaction is tragic, it is simply not my responsibility. The police aren't there to protect you ... neither am I.
Last edited: