Should we help those who do not want to help themselves?

I hope this is not a duplicate thread.

Should we as gun owners, risk our lives to defend those who do not want to defend themselves?

I personally would help another carrier if the SHTF that is for sure. I know that if I heard shooting going on in a disarmed victim zone I would not go rushing into help.

Same line of thinking, maybe the guy down the street is in a wheel chair and wants to mow his law. He goes out and starts pulling weeds or something I if I saw this would be inclined to bring over a mower and offer to help him mow his lawn. However if he showed no interested in mowing his law I would not stop to help.

Same logic.

Let the discussion begin.

I'll only help my wife, my family and close friends. Everyone else needs to help themselves.

It depends on the situation. For example, in the situation with the guy in the wheelchair I wouldn't help him "just cuz" in a regular situation (he can pay someone to cut his yard and I'm assuming this isn't someone that I know well), but in a SHTF situation I might be more inclined to help him because he is disabled. Of course if he was a dick then I would say "**** em" and not bother wasting my precious time on him.

Same goes for other people of my community. Once my family is taken care of (they come first) I'll potentially help others because we're working together or they're disabled. But if they don't try to help in some way then I'm not going to bother.

It makes a difference...

Will not vs. Can not.

I have worked out my own list. I will help my family, my friends, children, obviously pregnant women, and on a case-by-case basis, elderly and handicapped. As previously noted above, if the elderly or handicapped individual is a known anti-gun menace (Lautenberg comes to mind), or a complete jerk, they can go spit. Also, if you are a 16 year old girl who's tarted up to look 21, or a 15 year old boy who is 6'4" and 250 lb., you don't get the benefit of the doubt.

Other than that, if you are a grown man or woman who chooses to go out into the shark pool of life without a bang stick, then don't expect me to risk life, limb, property, freedom, and my family's future to save your butt. I'll gladly dial 911 and report the facts of your assault and/or demise to the proper authorities. As to the argument that you live in a state/locality that doesn't allow you to defend yourself, GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!

I would be reluctant to help someone who was intensely opposed to private gun ownership. They took their decision so why should I risk my well being to aid them when they are so ardently against the very tool I would use in their defense?

The same could be said for those who refuse to use force to defend themselves,
regardless of the gravity of the situation, based on the pretense that any violence is bad and which they would refuse to employ even if it meant they may lose their life.

SouthernBoy said:

I would be reluctant to help someone who was intensely opposed to private gun ownership. They took their decision so why should I risk my well being to aid them when they are so ardently against the very tool I would use in their defense?

The same could be said for those who refuse to use force to defend themselves,
regardless of the gravity of the situation, based on the pretense that any violence is bad and which they would refuse to employ even if it meant they may lose their life.

Click to expand...

I agree with your stance.

Are we obligated at all to help those who do not help themselves?

Please don't flame me for the reference I am about to you, but it's said that god only helps those who help themselves.

I figure that "god" is in everyone and that it is referring to all of us.

Screw them all ... is what I want to say. But every situation is different and requires one to evaluate them on a case by case basis. Remember some people don't carry for very valid reasons: health, faith, poor judgement ability, etc..

here's a scenario:
here in CT it is legal to use deadly force to prevent a sexual assault, aka rape.

a woman may be semi-anti-gun. then she gets violently raped at gunpoint or knifepoint. during this rape, you bet your butt she wished she had a gun, or in the least would be saved by someone with a gun. but she now has to live the rest of her life with mental issues because she was raped, and would not be able to own a gun due to being "mentally ill". and she may have gotten pregnant with the rapists baby. then she raises a child who could be genetically effed in the head, further enhanced by poor parenting due to the altered mental state of the mother from being raped. it's a lose lose situation no matter how you look at it, adding more mentally deficient people to society simply by the woman being raped and not being able to fend off the attack.
was it her choice to not carry a gun? yes. but she's not only allowing harm to herself, she's also causing it to expand to other people. and then add the fact that the rapist survived, and probably got away and will do it again to some other helpless woman.

what I'm getting at is: if I ever see/hear a woman getting raped or about to be raped, I'm 'goin in' to defend her, and calling 911 as I do so, and hopefully will fend off the attack before it's too late.

but of course this scenario is not a SHTF type thing, just an everyday life thing, where I'll walk away from my daily duties to save a potential rape victim if I can

In A Word...

NO. In four words "depending upon the circumstances" (many of which have been previously - and subsequently - mentioned)

Freedom1Man said:

I agree with your stance.

Are we obligated at all to help those who do not help themselves?

Please don't flame me for the reference I am about to you, but it's said that god only helps those who help themselves.

I figure that "god" is in everyone and that it is referring to all of us.

Click to expand...

Can't imagine why anyone would flame you for saying this.

We are actually not obligated to help anyone at risk. That is entirely a personal choice to be taken at the at the time by the individual. You cannot be forced to put your life or well being in jeopardy in defense of someone else.

Along these lines, I would offer that it is wise to steer clear of going out with other couples for dinner or a movie or something else where one or more of them are vehemently opposed to firearms and their use for SD. If you do, do not walk close to them. If your group happens to be attacked by some BG's and you are forced to pull your sidearm, such a person could have a knee jerk reaction and grab for or try to push your gun away from your attacker. This could be disastrous. I know, it sounds far fetched, but since God only gave me one life, I'd rather err on the side of caution and common sense.

Freedom1Man said:

SNIP Should we as gun owners, risk our lives to defend those who do not want to defend themselves?

Click to expand...

Given the personal and legal risks, I'm all for letting each carrier decide for himself in each situation.

For example, I think it was PistolPackingMomma who pointed out that if she is disabled or killed trying to defend a stranger in a lethal force situation, her kids become suddenly motherless. The same applies to dads.

It took me the longest time to come up with an answer for the titular question. I kept trying to put myself in situations and come up with how I would respond. I just couldn't come up with any kind of rule-of-thumb that I would follow.

Then it hit me.

The question is flawed.

I can't really answer it, because, in general, while the stuff is contacting the impellers, I won't make a single decision on whether or not those around me do or do not "want to help themselves," which I assume means "agree with me on the 2A and being armed for self-defense." There will probably be at least a dozen considerations impacting my decision to become involved in a defense situation. I won't add to that by looking around to see if everyone deserves to be helped because they are doing enough of what I think they should do for themselves.

So, to answer the question, maybe or maybe not. I don't know. That question will never be a consideration. It is too distracting. If you and I are in it together when the SHTF, and you ask me that question, I am going to move away from you as rapidly as the situation allows because I worry about your priorities in those circumstances.

Simply put I carry to protect my family and myself.

I cringe when I read posts about on the street confrontation with non carriers where the carrier explains their reason for carrying and includes statements like "to protect you".

Like Eye brought out it depends on how we frame the question more specifically.

Knowing myself, I am going to help because I view human life sacred, even those who are polar opposite of my beliefs. I think this may be something hard wired into many and many who say they won't help will suddenly forget their well reasoned and thought out logic, and help. That's my personal viewpoint.

Now if we frame the question in a different perspective and are talking about why we have the 2A enumerated into the constitution, it gets even broader to me. Liberty means the right to exercise your natural rights, such as free speech, etc, I absolutely believe in protecting those rights from tyranny even when they are used to protect those who don't believe in liberty and natural rights.

I think the question is pretty straight forward.

Can you idly stand by while a BG has a victim lying on the ground and has a .45 pointed at their head and do nothing?

"Excuse me, Mr.BG but can I ask your victim how they feel about wanting other people to protect them"?

We are not peace officers, true. But I, could not set there and watch an innocent get killed, maimed, or raped. My conscience just won't allow that.

Citizen said:

Given the personal and legal risks, I'm all for letting each carrier decide for himself in each situation.

For example, I think it was PistolPackingMomma who pointed out that if she is disabled or killed trying to defend a stranger in a lethal force situation, her kids become suddenly motherless. The same applies to dads.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

It took me the longest time to come up with an answer for the titular question. I kept trying to put myself in situations and come up with how I would respond. I just couldn't come up with any kind of rule-of-thumb that I would follow.

Then it hit me.

The question is flawed.

I can't really answer it, because, in general, while the stuff is contacting the impellers, I won't make a single decision on whether or not those around me do or do not "want to help themselves," which I assume means "agree with me on the 2A and being armed for self-defense." There will probably be at least a dozen considerations impacting my decision to become involved in a defense situation. I won't add to that by looking around to see if everyone deserves to be helped because they are doing enough of what I think they should do for themselves.

So, to answer the question, maybe or maybe not. I don't know. That question will never be a consideration. It is too distracting. If you and I are in it together when the SHTF, and you ask me that question, I am going to move away from you as rapidly as the situation allows because I worry about your priorities in those circumstances.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Like Eye brought out it depends on how we frame the question more specifically.

Knowing myself, I am going to help because I view human life sacred, even those who are polar opposite of my beliefs. I think this may be something hard wired into many and many who say they won't help will suddenly forget their well reasoned and thought out logic, and help. That's my personal viewpoint.

Now if we frame the question in a different perspective and are talking about why we have the 2A enumerated into the constitution, it gets even broader to me. Liberty means the right to exercise your natural rights, such as free speech, etc, I absolutely believe in protecting those rights from tyranny even when they are used to protect those who don't believe in liberty and natural rights.

Click to expand...

Bmeierholtz said:

I think the question is pretty straight forward.

Can you idly stand by while a BG has a victim lying on the ground and has a .45 pointed at their head and do nothing?

"Excuse me, Mr.BG but can I ask your victim how they feel about wanting other people to protect them"?

We are not peace officers, true. But I, could not set there and watch an innocent get killed, maimed, or raped. My conscience just won't allow that.

Click to expand...

All of these posts bring out some good and valid points and I certainly wouldn't argue with any of them. It does come down to what one may or may not do in a specific and instant case and as one poster mentioned, time is not going to be on your side when trying to arrive at some esoteric decision for what is happening light right now.

We don't carry arms to defend the general population, however that has happened a number of times in recent years. Hard to say what one might actually do in such cases. I suspect you are just not going to know what you'll do or how you'll react until it happens.

Keylock said:

I'll only help my wife, my family and close friends. Everyone else needs to help themselves.

Click to expand...

+1 There is just too much liability to think even closely like a hero. Just by OCing you are already helping those who would not help themselves. If CCing your chances of surviving are better by seeking cover and getting out of harms way, let alone risking it to save a unarmed citizen.

eye95 said:

It took me the longest time to come up with an answer for the titular question. I kept trying to put myself in situations and come up with how I would respond. I just couldn't come up with any kind of rule-of-thumb that I would follow.

Then it hit me.

The question is flawed.

I can't really answer it, because, in general, while the stuff is contacting the impellers, I won't make a single decision on whether or not those around me do or do not "want to help themselves," which I assume means "agree with me on the 2A and being armed for self-defense." There will probably be at least a dozen considerations impacting my decision to become involved in a defense situation. I won't add to that by looking around to see if everyone deserves to be helped because they are doing enough of what I think they should do for themselves.

So, to answer the question, maybe or maybe not. I don't know. That question will never be a consideration. It is too distracting. If you and I are in it together when the SHTF, and you ask me that question, I am going to move away from you as rapidly as the situation allows because I worry about your priorities in those circumstances.

Click to expand...

I agree with you somewhat, but if we are going to carry(it is our right) we have to accept the responsibility for ourselves of what we do. Unless there were extreme circumstances I have decided I am too old to be spending time in jail for a stranger. As cold as that seems it is what it is. I already do my part in protecting my own and myself. The non carrying public gets benefits from that already. By OCing instead of CCing I have less to worry about ever getting in that situation.

I carry to protect myself and my family/friends. I'm not going to go out of my way to involve myself in a life or death situation if it doesn't involve one of the three groups I mentioned. However, if I am close enough to see someone being assaulted with a weapon, that probably means that they are within the area I consider needing to be safe. If they are that close then they pose a threat to me, my family, or my friends

Thanks for the discussion.

While I don't agree with everything I do find it worth reading and rethinking.

Remember this is not just about guns though.