"I am not a 'sheepdog'"

[video=youtube;AldptFMs2AM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AldptFMs2AM[/video]

I Am Not a "Sheepdog"

I think this man articulates well what Bikenut has been saying for a while (not that Bikenute has been inarticulate).

What up dog?

Honestly, I see where he, and bikenut are coming from, I'm not a hero either, but if I see someone in danger, real danger, I can't just walk away. Like anything else, if you're not sure, don't.

And no, I do not live in Oregon.

I have been saying this for a while ... some agree & some don't ... hey, those folks who choose not to arm themselves to protect themselves and their kids? That's their choice ... not all people vaccinate their kids too.

So, people make choices and have to live with their choices....they should not expect other people who made different choices to put themselves at risk because they choose another path.

And to note, most folks just carry handguns, not the most effective weapon of choice. But they are convenient to carry, even with their limitations. You going to shoot at someone with your .45 who has an AK and is 75 yards away and get that person to focus on you...go right ahead, its your choice. Its a bad choice IMO.

I find it interesting that most people who want to disassociate themselves from the original simple analogy generally add to it and place the primary defining emphasis on heroism or acting or desiring to act primarily on the behalf of others (and any tactical blunders that may ensue from being overly eager to engage unknown scenarios) in order to do so.
The original distinction, in its limited scope, had so little to do with any of those other factors, they seem contrived for the sole purpose of refutation.
There really is nothing wrong with simply being capable of violence and aware of dangers but not wanting to harm or victimize others who are less capable or in denial.
To loathe those who prey on others and maintain a preventative capability to meet them with force does not necessitate heroism or even action when one thinks it unwise.

IMO, he doesn't make any bad points, he simply doesn't refute anything that would earn him the classic categorization of "sheepdog" via an anology that defined only 3 choices.
To explain why one doesn't fit any of those 3 groups would require establishing some new and completely different analogy which must obviously include more than the original 3 distinct groupings.

He has good points and it makes sense to me. But its always going to be the situation that dictates my response. If I were at my kids school and I heard gunfire and my daughter were not standing next to me I would do something diffrent than what I would do if she were. Same if I were out in public and if I had someone with me or not, but I would most likely not seek out trouble if it could be advoided. But there are some that I would.

TheQ said:

[video=youtube;AldptFMs2AM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AldptFMs2AM[/video]

I Am Not a "Sheepdog"

I think this man articulates well what Bikenut has been saying for a while (not that Bikenute has been inarticulate).

Click to expand...

Interesting video Q. Thanks for posting it. Perhaps I should post what I've said many times about my not being a "sheepdog"..........
--------------

I am not a sheep for I do not mill around with the flock with my attention on fitting in with the flock.

I am not a wolf for I do not prey on the sheep.

I am not a sheepdog for I do not have the responsibility to protect the sheep... nor do I have any desire to fight the wolf.

I am a stray dog... I am warily friendly to the sheep and I avoid the wolf as I fend for myself yet I will fiercely fight to protect those I love... from both wolf and sheep.

That said... I don't like using the word "sheep" because it is derogatory to people who need to be educated that they too can defend from the "wolf".

The word "wolf" is an accurate term for predatory criminals so I have no problem with that one.

And the word "sheepdog" sounds so nice... to be someone who protects the weak and innocent... but the truth is... it is the "sheepdogs" job and responsibility to protect the flock but it is not my job or responsibility to protect other citizens just because I carry a gun. I can choose to protect other citizens because of my individual morals and ethics... but I am not obligated to... it still isn't my job or responsibility... hence I am not a "sheepdog".
--------

Now.. for those who would come to the aid of an innocent please note where I said...

" I can choose to protect other citizens because of my individual morals and ethics... but I am not obligated to... it still isn't my job or responsibility..."

I never said I wouldn't respond... I said I can choose to respond or not because it's not my job or responsibility to put myself in harm's way to protect someone else. There are situations where I will respond (been there)... and there are others where I won't respond but will be a good witness (been there too).

A general comment....

When it comes down to the nitty gritty... I don't carry a gun to protect YOU and your loved ones. I carry a gun to protect ME and my loved ones. If YOU want you and your loved ones to be protected.......... get your own gun.

If the probability of you yourself getting killed is higher than the probability of rescuing someone, then the rescue is not worth it.

If the probability of my receiving serious injury to myself is small, and the probably of rescuing someone is high, I will then attempt to pull it off.

You might as well, because if someone else is getting mugged, you might be next. Better to use the element of surprise while it is in your favor.

However in that case I would take no prisoners.

I also would not stick around either, when it was finished, to deal with the LEOs or the local D/A.

Good deeds should be done in secret, that's what Jesus said.

I like a lot of what you said, Bikenut.

Ever since I decided to go armed, I've stated that I am not a sheep, sheep dog or a wolf. I am a human being who made the deliberate choice to defend myself and my family. I don't feel the need to classify myself with any special labels or groups; I'm an armed person, and that's the most fitting description I can think of.

I also think it's very prudent advice to not get involved unless you KNOW what is going on, and can live with the consequences of your decision.

PistolPackingMomma said:

I like a lot of what you said, Bikenut.

Ever since I decided to go armed, I've stated that I am not a sheep, sheep dog or a wolf. I am a human being who made the deliberate choice to defend myself and my family. I don't feel the need to classify myself with any special labels or groups; I'm an armed person, and that's the most fitting description I can think of.

I also think it's very prudent advice to not get involved unless you KNOW what is going on, and can live with the consequences of your decision.

Click to expand...

And I like how you view yourself as an "armed person". No delusions of grandeur... just a realistic perspective.

I cannot once ever remember using that methodology to describe anyone, but in a limited context the sheepdog concept makes sense to me as a way to describe why you carry to someone who doesn't for whatever reason.

As a means to describe ones daily outlook on carrying, I rather agree with the video, and in fact that's why I never bring it up.

ATM said:

I find it interesting that most people who want to disassociate themselves from the original simple analogy generally add to it and place the primary defining emphasis on heroism or acting or desiring to act primarily on the behalf of others (and any tactical blunders that may ensue from being overly eager to engage unknown scenarios) in order to do so.
The original distinction, in its limited scope, had so little to do with any of those other factors, they seem contrived for the sole purpose of refutation.

Click to expand...

Um, actually, no. Read the original definition:

http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Some selected quotes:

• I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.
• A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
• They would prefer that [the sheepdog] didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16.
• [A sheepdog] is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle.
• The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day.
• When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there.
• [A sheepdog] is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
• If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love.

Besides, dogs run in packs, put all their sense of canine duty behind them when in pursuit of a female in season, and most yap all out of proportion to their bite. All too often, a rogue sheepdog develops a taste for sheep meat, and it's all too easy for him to blend in with the other sheepdogs.

Not to mention the fact that by creeping around with a gun you could be shot by other CPL holders... or the cops...

Or you could not know what's going on and shoot another CPL holder... or a undercover cop or something....


Not good to inject yourself into a situation you may not fully understand.

griffin said:

Um, actually, no. Read the original definition...

Click to expand...

I've read it. The question remains this: Which of the other two categories are a better fit for you?

In that analogy, there are only three choices. If one chooses not to categorize themselves into the best fit of those three, why even make reference to the limited scope of that analogy when discussing your scope of protection, decisions, plans, preferred tactics, etc.?

Come up with a different or more complex one of your own if you want more choices, subtle degrees of preference or a different set of animals.

That set is already taken. lol

Personal choices that have to be made if you carry.

One thing he doesn't say but by saving yourself and love ones you could be saving a lot of others lifes also.

There are many things to take into consideration when deciding if when and how you become involved.

Some defensive use are very clear cut. My life is in danger if I don't react now Iam going to die. To I am not doing anything and the danger goes away.

Personal experience, training, equipment, location, cover,type of threat, knowledge of the situation, who you are with all comes into play.

If when and how you react.

You might decide to hide behind the cement wall out of danger, run away or you could charge up San Juan hill and take on the world.

They all might have good or bad results.

Train know your self and limitations act legally and responsible.

ATM said:

I've read it. The question remains this: Which of the other two categories are a better fit for you?

In that analogy, there are only three choices. If one chooses not to categorize themselves into the best fit of those three, why even make reference to the limited scope of that analogy when discussing your scope of protection, decisions, plans, preferred tactics, etc.?

Click to expand...

I think that's the whole point. He's not categorizing himself in one of those three. The problem is other people make those distinctions, especially anti-gunners and Fudds. If you carry a gun you are a wanna-be cop. A pretender. You think you're Rambo, gonna save everyone. You're out looking for a fight, proving your manhood.

This is said about OCers. This is said about CCers. Why do you need to carry a gun? That's what cops are for.

This guy is putting it into perspective. He's not a sheepdog. He's providing for HIS personal safety first and foremost. He's not charged with saving YOUR life. YOU want personal protection? YOU carry a gun yourself. Or take the risk of getting slaughtered while waiting for a sheepdog to save YOUR life.

Not everyone worships at the alter of LTC Grossman. (Or Rob Pincus or James Yeager or...)

Bikenut said:

A general comment....

When it comes down to the nitty gritty... I don't carry a gun to protect YOU and your loved ones. I carry a gun to protect ME and my loved ones. If YOU want you and your loved ones to be protected.......... get your own gun.

Click to expand...

Succinct and correct viewpoint. Would make a good bumper sticker ... "Get Your Own Gun, Mine is For Me"

Bikenut said:

And I like how you view yourself as an "armed person". No delusions of grandeur... just a realistic perspective.

Click to expand...

I view myself as a armed person who used to have a lot less scars, aches, pains etc.. and a whole lot more speed and strength. That said, l'll take full advantage of every tool at my disposal to stay alive, and protect my loved ones. Given the chance to help someone else would I? I think we all would do our best in whatever small way we could. In the end it comes down to your life and your loved ones before all others. Let's hope we never have to find out and pray for those who have. A gun is a tool, or if you will a little extra insurance against a very bad situation. Some people take out extra insurance on valuable things they own - home, car, boat, RV etc... my life is the most valuable thing I have, so why not protect it as much as possible?

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

griffin said:

I think that's the whole point. He's not categorizing himself in one of those three. The problem is other people make those distinctions, especially anti-gunners and Fudds. If you carry a gun you are a wanna-be cop. A pretender. You think you're Rambo, gonna save everyone. You're out looking for a fight, proving your manhood.

This is said about OCers. This is said about CCers. Why do you need to carry a gun? That's what cops are for.

This guy is putting it into perspective. He's not a sheepdog. He's providing for HIS personal safety first and foremost. He's not charged with saving YOUR life. YOU want personal protection? YOU carry a gun yourself. Or take the risk of getting slaughtered while waiting for a sheepdog to save YOUR life.

Not everyone worships at the alter of LTC Grossman. (Or Rob Pincus or James Yeager or...)

Click to expand...

So he's still obviously a sheepdog by that original analogy but trying to explain the whole analogy away for those who either don't understand it or attempt to misapply it?

Perhaps he doesn't even grasp the anaology and thinks it pertains mostly to actions rather than the makeup and overall outlook of a person.

He's still not saying anything that would even remotely reclassify himself as a sheep or a wolf so I'm not clear what it is that he's trying to accomplish by attempting to redefine someone else's analogy or add to it extra levels of defining actions rather than just make up his own or not use any.

It's just a rather odd approach to discuss a separate but fairly parallel line of subject matter if you ask me.

ATM, you would not happen to be related to Pat D. Would you?

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!