• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Which type of carrier are you and why?

Which type of carrier are you?


  • Total voters
    37

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I have noticed a dichotomy which exists among us. There are many of us who, in a self-defense situation, protect ourselves and no others. This is understandable. There are others, however, who either feel responsibility to protect others or feel the need to eliminate deadly threats.

Which one are you and why?

I am one of those who feels the responsibility to protect others, not just myself. I feel as if carriers, especially OCers, are entrusted by our society with this responsibility, and that carriers are almost (but not literally) deputized in a way - to protect society from evil. In Virginia, if I witness a violent felony, I have the authority to perform a citizen's arrest and I also have the authority to use deadly force if necessary to stop the threat. Now I'm not talking about being a rogue or a vigilante. I'm talking about operating under the constraints of the law.

It almost seems to be this way on purpose. Maybe not all states are this way. Then again not all states are like Virginia, and Virginians are a special type of people. :)

Just wanted to get these thoughts out there and thought it could make for some decent discussion.
 

jfrey123

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
468
Location
Sparks, NV, Nevada, USA
Family first, everybody else second (including me). Rule #1 is my wife and kid survive. Rule #2 is I survive. Rule #3 is if I can engage without violating the first two rules, then I may do so.

Something happens, I'm moving my family to an exit (or path of least resistance out of the area), and if any threat prohibits me from moving them out then they're getting dealt with. Not really interested in going back to face danger if I can avoid it, best way to survive a gun fight is to never get into one. I feel little to no duty to protect those who won't take that duty upon themselves.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Family first, everybody else second (including me). Rule #1 is my wife and kid survive. Rule #2 is I survive. Rule #3 is if I can engage without violating the first two rules, then I may do so.

Something happens, I'm moving my family to an exit (or path of least resistance out of the area), and if any threat prohibits me from moving them out then they're getting dealt with. Not really interested in going back to face danger if I can avoid it, best way to survive a gun fight is to never get into one. I feel little to no duty to protect those who won't take that duty upon themselves.

+1

And I certainly don't feel any need to expose myself to potential prison or bankruptcy if in the course of trying to protect someone else I make a mistake.

To save the life of my family or myself, I may have to risk the injustices of an imperfect court system. I am loathe to take on that risk on behalf of others who enjoy the same opportunity to prepare as I have had and chosen not to do so.

If I shelter in place and 10 innocent strangers want to huddle behind me, fine. If they want to follow me out the door as I escape with my family, great. But I'm defending my family and self. Any benefit the strangers derive is incidental and unintentional. I'd like to help others, and I do in many cases. But the use of deadly force is most extreme and requires a special set of rules. I don't get qualified immunity for having good intentions.


Charles
 

Grizz272

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Frozen Tundra, , USA
Family first, everybody else second (including me). Rule #1 is my wife and kid survive. Rule #2 is I survive. Rule #3 is if I can engage without violating the first two rules, then I may do so.

Something happens, I'm moving my family to an exit (or path of least resistance out of the area), and if any threat prohibits me from moving them out then they're getting dealt with. Not really interested in going back to face danger if I can avoid it, best way to survive a gun fight is to never get into one. I feel little to no duty to protect those who won't take that duty upon themselves.

+2
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I put 3 subjective. Only because 2 had the word "duty" in it. I don't feel its my duty, but feel its my natural inclination to protect others and not sit by and let someone come to harm when I could have prevented it.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
It is my RESPONSIBILITY to protect myself and mine. It is my OPTION, that I would like to hope I can exercise safely, to help those who are also hopefully well equipped to help themselves and not just counting on others to save them.
 

JamesCanby

Activist Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,480
Location
Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
I will defend myself and family.

I will assuredly NOT engage in a deadly force confrontation unless I have clear and undebatable knowledge of the situation, i.e., who the "bad guy" is -- a situation which is almost impossible to achieve.

I remember a situation in (IIRC) Virginia Beach where an armed citizen at a traffic stop sees someone being pursued by a person dressed in civilian clothes, carrying a firearm. Being a Good Samaritan, he exits his car and accosts the firearms carrier. Moments later, a LEO pulls up and tries to assess what she sees, cannot immediately determine who is who. Seeing the LEO arrive, the GS quickly gets back in his car and leaves. Turns out that the pursuer was either security or LEO in plain clothes chasing a shoplifter. (Some of these details may not be accurate, old memory here.)

The point is, that incident could have ended tragically for one or more of the participants simply based on the confusion of who was the "bad guy." There is so much ambiguity and misperception on the part of the observer that it would be foolish, IMO, to employ deadly force unless MY life or the life of my family members was in direct risk of death or grievous bodily injury.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
About having a responsibility to protect other people just because I carry a gun..... often referred to by some folks as being some kind of "sheepdog" responsible for protecting the flock........

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 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".

I am of the opinion that if folks want to be protected they should not rely on someone else to put their lives, their livelihood, and their family's future on the line but should go and get their own gun.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I believe that some may have that duty, but perhaps not all. I don't believe that merely carrying a gun obligates you with that duty.

I don't believe that someone should necessarily have a claim against you for not protecting them. On the other hand, I believe God might judge you for choosing not to intervene if it's within your power to do so.

Hopefully this makes sense. The duty could exist on different levels. On a legal level, I don't believe a duty exists, and I don't believe any positive right exists that someone can demand of you that you protect them. On a moral level, though, there may very well be a duty, in certain circumstances. You may find that there's no direct consequence here on this earth for choosing to ignore that duty. I guess we each have to look to our consciences.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I believe that some may have that duty, but perhaps not all. I don't believe that merely carrying a gun obligates you with that duty.

I don't believe that someone should necessarily have a claim against you for not protecting them. On the other hand, I believe God might judge you for choosing not to intervene if it's within your power to do so.

Hopefully this makes sense. The duty could exist on different levels. On a legal level, I don't believe a duty exists, and I don't believe any positive right exists that someone can demand of you that you protect them. On a moral level, though, there may very well be a duty, in certain circumstances. You may find that there's no direct consequence here on this earth for choosing to ignore that duty. I guess we each have to look to our consciences.

Well said. I suppose I should have clarified "moral duty" instead of "legal duty."

Thanks for the honest answers guys!
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Didn't vote, the "I carry and act in accordance with the law" was not one of the choices. Nothing against the poll choices.

MO statutes (RSMo 563) have a "defense of others", a "defense of property", and a "accident" statute. We also have a "private person use of force to make arrest" (directed to do so by a cop) statute.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
The sad fact is at least half of the people out there don't want me to be able to carry (arguable, numbers vary, no cite).
If I'm in a situation in public where there is a crime taking place I would probably not get involved if I could hide or something. At least that is the plan. If I saw someone actually start executing people I'm not sure I could standby and let it happen. One thing I do know. When I'm out in public I'm surrounded on all sides by people that want to take my rights away and would probably condemn me as a "gun nut". I feel no obligation to protect them.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I feel like a lot of that is fear driven on the part of the non-gun owner, twoskinsonemanns. Different people have different natures. For some, the nature is to protect. For some the nature is to flee. For some the nature is to disconnect oneself from reality for the sake of imaginary comfort. There's not a doubt in my mind that most people's nature is to survive. I'll bet a significant portion of the people against OC would gladly show gratitude in the event that their life was spared because of another person with a gun.

The anti crowd over-simplifies their logic to create an illusory reality by which they judge every day events. I don't think they should die because of that choice, I just think it's stupid. Then again, I do believe in social Darwinism to an extent. I also don't believe it takes someone being a commissioned or other type of officer to live like one and fulfill a civic duty to protect his fellow man from evil and assume a role of leadership.

It's not the individuals that I wish to protect, it's humanity in general and the idea of peace and liberty.

Yes it is the job of the police to perform certain civic responsibilities. That is their purpose as contracted by the state. Powers are granted to citizens in certain instances though, and I honestly can't justify my criticisms for police tactics without taking some sort of action myself and assuming some semblance of responsibility for my community, even if that means advocating more effective police accountability.

I never really considered myself a collectivist but I've never considered myself an individualist per se either.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
There should be a polling option along the lines of; "I don't need an excuse/reason to carry." In which case, that would be my vote.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
I didn't like the choices so I did not vote. If there was a choice to protect my family first then if possible take out a threat. I would chose that option. If folks chose to not be prepared, I do not feel any "duty" to "save" them.

I like what George Washington & Thomas Jefferson said on the subject:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I didn't like the choices so I did not vote. If there was a choice to protect my family first then if possible take out a threat.

Perhaps you missed the option for "I'd save my family and no one else."

The poll answers are in regards to who you would protect. I see no mention of "stopping a threat" in the poll question at all, only in my personal thoughts.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
There should be a polling option along the lines of; "I don't need an excuse/reason to carry." In which case, that would be my vote.

I get what you are saying, but you either carry to protect yourself and family or to protect the aforementioned including others as well. Unless you carry for a third suicidal reason of "you think guns are pretty" and have no intention of using them defensively even when attacked, in which case you did the right thing by not voting.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
I feel like a lot of that is fear driven on the part of the non-gun owner, twoskinsonemanns. Different people have different natures. For some, the nature is to protect. For some the nature is to flee. For some the nature is to disconnect oneself from reality for the sake of imaginary comfort. There's not a doubt in my mind that most people's nature is to survive. I'll bet a significant portion of the people against OC would gladly show gratitude in the event that their life was spared because of another person with a gun.

The anti crowd over-simplifies their logic to create an illusory reality by which they judge every day events. I don't think they should die because of that choice, I just think it's stupid. Then again, I do believe in social Darwinism to an extent. I also don't believe it takes someone being a commissioned or other type of officer to live like one and fulfill a civic duty to protect his fellow man from evil and assume a role of leadership.

It's not the individuals that I wish to protect, it's humanity in general and the idea of peace and liberty.

Yes it is the job of the police to perform certain civic responsibilities. That is their purpose as contracted by the state. Powers are granted to citizens in certain instances though, and I honestly can't justify my criticisms for police tactics without taking some sort of action myself and assuming some semblance of responsibility for my community, even if that means advocating more effective police accountability.

I never really considered myself a collectivist but I've never considered myself an individualist per se either.

I admire you Truth. As seen in countless vids a shot or two even long distance behind cover can send a crook reeling for an escape...
I personally won't be the one doing it unless I or my family is in danger... not until society earns it by ceasing their persecution of their would be saviors.
 

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
Perhaps you missed the option for "I'd save my family and no one else."

The poll answers are in regards to who you would protect. I see no mention of "stopping a threat" in the poll question at all, only in my personal thoughts.

I didn't like that option as I said originally. I assumed that if someone needed protecting, there would be a threat.

Anyone who has not been in a gun fight is a liar, if they claim they will shoot at another human being imo. Until one is in that situation, one does not know for sure what they would do. Keyboard commandos included.

Strange interpretation of my original post, but I guess that's how the cookie crumbles around here.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I didn't like the choices so I did not vote. If there was a choice to protect my family first then if possible take out a threat. I would chose that option. If folks chose to not be prepared, I do not feel any "duty" to "save" them.

You said that you would choose the option to "protect my family first then if possible take out a threat."

Option number one states that "I would protect my family, no one else."

The premise of the poll is to ascertain whether or not you were interested in protecting strangers. There's really nothing much more to it. The poll question also assumes that there is a self-defense situation, which would obviously mean there is a threat. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that "you didn't like the choices," when one of the choices seems to be exactly what you would do, it just doesn't explicitly state "take out the threat" after you "protect your family."

1) What would one do to a threat if it threatened one's family, and furthermore, 2) what would it be called in regards to your family once you "did whatever you did?"

Answers:

1) "Stop" 2) "Protect"

I didn't like that option as I said originally. I assumed that if someone needed protecting, there would be a threat.

See: above.

Anyone who has not been in a gun fight is a liar, if they claim they will shoot at another human being imo. Until one is in that situation, one does not know for sure what they would do. Keyboard commandos included.

It's a bit of a slippery slope for me to genuinely respond to this online. I don't want this thread to turn into chest thumping and whatnot.

Strange interpretation of my original post, but I guess that's how the cookie crumbles around here.

I think I interpreted your post exactly how you intended. I am trying to figure out the disconnect between how you feel and the poll answers. I feel as if I made Option 1 specifically for people such as yourself.
 
Top