Question of the Day: Would you Clear Leather to Save a MDA member?

Much like members of the police, law abiding gun owners are under no duty to protect their fellow citizens. Given the opportunity, no court in the world can convict you if you run from an armed confrontation. Only you can decide if the use of force, deadly or not, is appropriate. By and large, the people of the gun that I’ve met wouldn’t be able to live with themselves if they didn’t protect those around them, family or not. But there’s also a faction among the PotG who enjoy a bit of schadenfreude . . .

So let me set the stage. You attend a MDA protest whilst carrying, perhaps to get a photo op with Mrs. Watts, or just to see what the other side is up to. Suddenly, a crazed gunman enters stage left and makes a beeline for the group of protesting Moms. He screams, “This gun is loaded and I’m going to kill a member of Moms Demand Action!” He’s locked in on the nearest mom with laser-like focus. Because this is theoretical, there’s an open field for miles in the direction of your shot, he’s not looking at you, there’s a low brick wall in front of you, and the sun is at your back.

Do you clear leather (or kydex), and put rounds downrange or do you run whilst calling 911. Me personally? I have no qualms about using force to put down the threat. I know full well that even after that event, Shannon Watts herself still wouldn’t be a fan of lawful carry, but I’d fire at the attacker without a moment’s hesitation. As a bonus, I wouldn’t even gloat afterwards. You?

comments

  1. avatar Jim R says:

    Yes.

    Just because I dislike their political opinion does not mean that I wouldn’t help them if I were able.

    1. avatar SD3 says:

      “Would you Clear Leather to Save a MDA member?”

      Sounds like jail-bait.

    2. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      Yup sure would. Not even a question really.
      Although I would be worried I might get shot by one of their armed body guards.

      1. avatar bontai Joe says:

        Depends, if Shannon and her posse are accompanied by Huey and Dewey, then no, that’s what they get paid the big bucks for. Besides, Huey would probably misidentify me, and shoot me and any nearby dogs in the back. If it’s 6 or 8 cookie-baking grandmotherly types carrying signs by themselves, then yes without hesitation. I am assuming that I am accompanied by my lovely wife as I usually am when strolling out and about, so I’m primarily going to protect her and other family first.

        1. avatar peirsonb says:

          If it’s 6 or 8 cookie-baking grandmotherly types carrying signs by themselves

          The scenario in the post said it was an MDA rally. Since you will never find 6 or 8 people at an MDA rally that would be a “no,” right?

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Only at a Bloomberg-paid national level rally would you find more than four.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Depends, if Shannon and her posse are accompanied by Huey and Dewey, then no, that’s what they get paid the big bucks for.”

          Bingo! I vote you win the internets today. 🙂

        4. avatar DiR1776 says:

          “If it’s 6 or 8 cookie-baking grandmotherly types carrying signs by themselves,”

          You are kidding, right? I clearly remember a picture of these supposed cookie bakers that featured Oreos, Vanilla Wafers and some cardboard pinwheels and donuts (if they weren’t cardboard they were the nastiest looking wannabe pastries ever).

          As for the question at hand: If all was clear and they didn’t have their paid armed thugs then I would do my best to help BUT since they now pay professionals I will probably just take cover behind the brick wall and wait ’till is over. I don’t ever want to use my gun but I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t act when appropriate.

          DiR, An Armed Mom
          Come And Take It

    3. avatar traye says:

      I have two kids and a wife. MDA has a billionaire to hire their security. Good luck to them, I’m walking away.

      1. avatar Steve Case says:

        Same. My carry piece is meant to defend me and my family. If the madman isn’t coming at me I’m pulling my phone, not my gun.

    4. avatar JasonM says:

      I think the irony of the headlines would make the internet explode:
      Anti-Gun Protestors Saved by Gun-Wielding Hero

      1. avatar Jon says:

        Unfortunately, with today’s media, the headline would probably read more like MDA member caught in crossfire between two gun owners.

      2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        No. The headline would look like “Gun Fight breaks out at MDA/MAIG/ETFG Rally!”

  2. avatar Justin_GA says:

    Without a second thought. We must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

    1. avatar gloomhound says:

      Oh that’s good.

      +1

    2. avatar gloomhound says:

      Of course I would, how could I not?

    3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Well said Justin.

    4. avatar TheBear says:

      My answer: depends.

      It isn’t indifference that would stop me, but fear of our complicated and sometimes unjust legal system. If I go to court, I’d prefer it is over saving myself.

      I’ve almost had to use a firearm defensively several times and in my experience, short of a home break in, these types of scenarios are rarely simple.

      I refuse to fall into the trap of assumption that a lot of people make when they see something criminal – such as painting the man involved or scruffy looking person involved as the aggressor.

      Now that I am older, wiser, and more cynical, I would prefer not to engage anyone with the potential of deadly force unless I know all the facts, and the only way that is possible is if the situation personally involves me.

      1. avatar JR says:

        “these types of scenarios are rarely simple.”

        One small nitpick. These situations are NEVER simple.

        That’s one thing that bugs me about a lot of online discussion on DGU and SD; the complexity and dynamic nature is too often completely ignored.

        1. avatar TheBear says:

          Agreed…

          And any cop can tell you that more often than not, saving a woman from an abusive man is more likely than not to earn you her ire.

          One of my cop buddies told me once about a woman who called the cops on her abusive husband, and when the police got there and tried to address the situation, as soon as they moved to arrest the man, she tried to defend him from them and she got arrested too.

          Real life is not a novel, and real situations and people’s emotions tend to be messy and not always make sense.

        2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “… the complexity and dynamic nature is too often completely ignored.”

          Which is the real reason for Stand Your Ground laws.Those laws make it so some lawyer in a court room, several months/years removed from the incident can’t (or is at least limited from) make judgements about what happened like pointing out the guy shot was really a father with six kids and a mother-in-law who needed a new kidney and whatever else to paint you in the most negative way possible.

      2. avatar Fler says:

        this++

    5. avatar James says:

      Nailed it!

    6. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Good reply.

      I would act consistent with the laws in my jurisdiction and my perception of the threat.

      Of course, you’re going to answer in court. You can imagine all kinds of unfortunate scenarios outside of the usual second guessing of whether your perception of immediate threat was justified. Yeah, yeah I know its presented here as clear cut but you will be second guessed over your reactions in short time by folks with the luxury of considering them over days.

      Like- what if it’s stupid setup by the Mom’s themselves to highlight vulnerability?
      What if its just some idiot trying to point out that their vulnerability isn’t reduced one bit by the laws they propose to make folks feel safe vice actually being safe?

      As I said, I’d act in accordance with the laws in my state …

    7. avatar Roll says:

      Ah, I remember that movie…:)

      Also article relevant: Yes I would. Helping them without a doubt disproves the Antigunner’s beliefs and helps our case.

    8. avatar ChuckN says:

      On a more philosophical approach, does it really fall under
      indifference if we make a conscious decision to help (or not)?
      Also, who would be the evildoer; those who choose not to
      help or those actively conspiring to remove our liberty and
      freedom? Are the antis merely ignorant and thus undeserving
      of the phrase evil or do they know full well what they are
      ultimately advocating?

      Just some food for thought.

    9. avatar Justin_GA says:

      Actually it is rather simple. I don’t live my life in the grey. I live my life in black and white…Good and Bad. People who are so worried about repercussions and would rather “say out of the situation” are cowards. I will not live my life in fear. I will do good things and if the government wants to lock me for life so be it. All souls are immortal but the souls of the righteous are immortal and divine.

      1. avatar Fler says:

        Someone’s a “coward” if they do not want to risk throwing away their life, freedom, family, livelihood/means of supporting their family, etc., in a situation?

        Thanks to our politics/laws, the hero would have to worry about the aforementioned undeserved consequences or the very real possibility of being shot by the police.

        On top of it, in this scenario, everyone’s being asked if they would do this to protect some shill who is intent on taking away our rights to protect ourselves and our families.

        Therefore, “it depends” is a more than generous answer in this case.

      2. avatar TheBear says:

        Meh… whatever bro.

        As I said above, I probably would not help due to legal issues.

        As for being cowardly… I am an infantry combat veteran. Are you?

        If not, kindly piss off.

        1. avatar Justin_GA says:

          As for being cowardly… I am an infantry combat veteran. Are you?….No I wasn’t in a air conditioned trailer playing video games and waiting for my next meal. Maybe you did a couple of patrols and heard gun shots in the distance and got permission to fire back. IMHO you were a girl scout. The fact that you bring up you are a “infantry combat veteran” tells me you probably either never saw action or more likely are a veteran of Halo or some other video game. You sir are a coward!

          If not, kindly piss off. I could care less if I piss you off since I have no respect for you.

  3. avatar Peter says:

    About the same, would fire and quietly go about my business. 🙂

  4. avatar Don says:

    Of course. As misguided as they are, they are mothers, wives, daughters of somebody somewhere. I would certainly hope that someone would forego the political litmus test and would intervene to save my loved one, so I would have to do the same.

  5. avatar Dean says:

    This is just fodder that will end up posted on an anti page.

    1. avatar TheBear says:

      Probably. But it generates great traffic to the site.

    2. avatar Dondgeon says:

      They probably won’t even farm the comments here, they’ll just stop at the headline and then make their own. On MDA Facebook I can see it now: RADICAL FRINGE GUN WEBSITE CONTEMPLATES ATTACK ON MDA MEMBERS OMG!

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        You understand their TTPs perfectly => Create inflammatory, divisive controversy [preferably totally fabricated to avoid fact-checking]; troll same; rinse and repeat. Congratulations.

  6. avatar Guy says:

    Yeah, absolutely. Their opinions don’t make them undeserving of protection and wouldn’t even occur to me.

    The added bonus of proving them wrong might occur to me later.

  7. avatar Thomas says:

    No, but only because I’m carrying FMJ until I can buy some JHP. I’ll use FMJ to defend my life in a heartbeat, but I’m not dealing with that liability for someone I don’t even know.

    1. avatar TTACer says:

      What?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        I assume he thinks that FMJs will go through and hit someone behind… as if you can blast away with hollowpoints without worrying about the backstop. Not the brightest bulb, here.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      I take it you live in New Jersey?

      1. avatar Jeff says:

        In that case, get the Federal EFMJ’s . . .

  8. avatar Doug says:

    In the first place you would not catch at one these events and on the other hand to answer the question. No. Wouldn’t be worth the legal fight afterwards and it wouldn’t make a hill of beans difference to these no-mind zombies. I would only clear leather if I was directly threatened before I could safely escape the situation. Heartless – ya whatever, in the end it would prove nothing to them no matter how many it would have saved.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I am coming to the same position. These gun grabbers have rejected personal responsibility … they get to fully enjoy the benefits as well as fully regret the drawbacks of their decision.

      While I would not hesitate to assist people who are literally not able to defend themselves (children, physically disabled, or elderly), I would be incredibly reluctant to assist any adult. First, because they chose to forego personal responsibility, and second because I can never be entirely sure which stranger is the “attacker” and which stranger is the “victim”.

  9. avatar Rick Testa says:

    Well, I’d like to think I also wouldn’t gloat, but…

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      I’d totally gloat.

      1. avatar PeterK says:

        Ditto that. Much gloating, haha.

        But yeah if I’m ever carrying I would save those who I could.

  10. avatar Fred says:

    Of course, simply out of principle. Then as a side benefit they would have to face the fact that guns are good, or at least it would keep them up tossing and turning for a few nights and they wrestle with their own insanity.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      This.

      As convenient as it would be to have one less pawn on the chess board, I’d do whatever’s in my power to protect an innocent person. And I’d hope they’d have a Road to Damascus experience right then & there.

    2. avatar danthemann5 says:

      Exactly this. MDA lives are human lives, and as such, I have a moral obligation to protect them. That has nothing to do with their political agenda.

      The bonus would be watching them attempt to continue to defend and promote their fascist agenda in the wake of what would likely be a highly public and ironic event. They would end up looking like laughable hypocrites or would be rendered silent and (more) marginalized.

      1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        Highly publicized? Yeah, right. The vast majority of the media is EXTREMELY liberal. I promise you something like that would only receive coverage on websites like TTaG or from groups like the NRA, both of which can be dismissed by the antis. Your average low-information voter wouldn’t even know.

        Or, the fact that antis were saved by a CHL holder would be vastly overshadowed by, “See! MDA are martyrs! Gun owners are crazy and want to silence us! Rabble rabble rabble!”

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        danthemann5,

        Your sentiments are admirable. Please keep in mind that gun grabbers actively seek to harm your liberties and life even though you have done nothing to harm them. In my book that makes them evil. Are they humans? Yes. Are they lobbying government to send government agents to disarm, imprison, and even kill you? Yes. Given that reality please reconsider whether it is in your best interests to assist such people.

    3. avatar Yossarian says:

      That’s similar to what I was thinking: I’d take this risk not because I want MDA members to live, per se, but rather because I want them to live in shame.

  11. avatar Dryw says:

    Without question or hesitation.

    That, is the exact purpose behind ‘why we do this’.

    It’s about saving lives.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That’s not the reason for some of us. I never really think, “I do this to save lives.” The two reasons I carry and advocate for the RKBA is as a bulwark against tyranny and for ordinary self defense. I could save more lives more frequently by going back into a medical career than I probably will carrying a sidearm.

  12. avatar Leslie Green says:

    Yes, I would. First, they are still people, misguided though they are.

  13. avatar JoshtheViking says:

    I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t clear leather in that situation (even if MDA makes me want to puke).

  14. avatar James R says:

    Same, but I would probably gloat

  15. In this theoretical situation if I was by myself, yes I would stop the attacker. If my family was with me, then my first duty is to get them to safety. That may mean taking the nearest exit without engaging.

  16. avatar tdiinva says:

    I remember a military-press relations seminar that took place during the 1980s. Dan Rather was asked whether he would try to warn US personnel of an impending ambush if he was with the guerillas. He said as a member of the press he was a neutral and would not. The panel leader then asked a US Army Colonel whether knowing this would he come to Mr. Rather’s rescue. The Colonel with obvious disdain for Mr. Rather said of course he would. He had a duty to protect US citizens.

    That is my attitude about Shannon Watts and company.

    1. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

      I recall watching that in ROTC. Pretty cool video. My recollection is that Sam Donelson breaks in with “Dan, you’re an American!” or something to that effect.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Sam Donaldson was only technically correct in that assertion.

  17. avatar JR says:

    Well, insofar as I can answer a hypothetical (and unrealistically skewed to my favor tactically) life and death question from the safety of my computer, I’ll give an equally hypothetical answer.

    Absolutely. Duty lies to a higher morality than just the person being protected.

    What’s that old saying about evil if good men do nothing?

  18. avatar LongBeach says:

    Yes. Unlike their supporters, I don’t wish any harm on anyone. I wish they’d think about and reconsider their position, but do they deserve to be hurt or killed? No. I’d have a lengthy conversation with them afterwards about the folly of their ways, but in the end their decisions are theirs alone. I just wish they’d enjoy their decision to be unarmed and not try to force it upon me.

  19. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    Yup. Even though MDA would use the event as “proof” that regular people gunbullies shouldn’t own guns and the media would probably report me as a “plain clothes” or “off duty” LEO instead of a CCW… if they reported that part at all.

  20. avatar A-Rod says:

    Question tomorrow “Would a MDA member want you to clear leather to save them?”

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Of course they would. Would they ever admit it? I’m thinking no. Would they reward your good deed by testifying against you, even to the point of fabricating details to make you look bad? Probably.

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        I would not be surprised if they did such a thing; But just because they might would not keep me from doing my duty. I would risk my life to protect a fellow human being from the depredations of a human predator.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          I’m not sure I agree. I don’t feel the need to impose my moral viewpoint- which is not pacifist- on someone who has no desire for it.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. We were taught in medical ethics class to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves.

  21. avatar CoolBreeze72 says:

    The good guy would absolutely be sued by MDA. You would be in long protracted lawsuit. It has nothing to do with MDA but I have already decided to only risk my life and property for my immediate family. I do support a stranger’s 2A right,though.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Reasonable position, unfortunately. No good deed ever goes unpunished.

    2. avatar Burnout says:

      You may be absolutely right. In fact, you probably are. For me though, it would be hard to live the rest of my life knowing I could have saved another. Not arguing with you, just thinking about the situation.

      1. avatar General Zod says:

        I’m sure funds could be raised for legal defense in this situation. After all, there’s a LOT of us and we tend to stick together.

  22. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

    Yes.
    ”If it saves just one life”

  23. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

    As a thread within a thread, we should all take a stab at predicting how this comment thread will be psychoanalyzed (twisted) by the antis. The distortion could potentially be as intricate and over-developed as that following anything made by the Diggler.

    My take is that this will be forwarded as evidence that all pro 2A folks have secret lone ranger fantasies . . . probably some sexual or sexist aspect will be developed as well.

    Or . . . the moderator could cut out my comment and save it for when my implied prediction comes true.

    1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

      Well, how about this, then: I don’t ever want to need a gun. I own firearms because I enjoy recreational shooting. I don’t fantasize about being a “hero gunslinger.”

      However, since I chose to own firearms I feel an obligation to know how to use them to defend myself and anyone else around me who needs defending. The Second Amendment is not about my target shooting any more than it is about hunting.

      Fortunately, the odds that I’ll ever need to use a firearm defensively are infinitesimally small, which is precisely why fantasizing about some heroic DGU action makes no sense. Nevertheless, those odds are not zero. In a hypothetcal case like the one posed here, I need to live with whatever actions I take or do not take regardless of the outcome. If my choices are to watch another human being get murdered or intervene, as they apparently are here, I’m going to intervene.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        God yes… I own my guns because I enjoy target shooting, it’s what I grew up with & one of the activities I shared with my grandfather. I do not fantasize about being some hero gunslinger nor do I ever want to be one. I carry concealed because I don’t want to be a victim. I never want to be in the position where I have to use my gun, but if I ever am, I know I’ll have some means to defend myself. Due to where I used to work there were several times I was approached in less than friendly circumstances. I’m thankful that the phrase “Back off. I have a gun & I will use it.” was enough. I do not relish ever having to take someone’s life, but I’d rather live with the consequences of my actions than lose my own life.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1

      I was thinking along the same lines.

  24. avatar Nine says:

    No. Absolutely not.

    They want to live disarmed, unprotected. Fine, let them have it.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      I was thinking that, but then I remembered what happened to Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben.

      1. avatar Carry.45 says:

        NYC. Uncle Ben wasn’t rich. He probably wouldn’t have been able to afford a permit there anyway. And it’s a comic.

  25. avatar disthunder says:

    Yep. Without a second thought. If I had a clean shot that could save some one, douchebag be they may, I’m going to take it.
    Just don’t expect me to hang around and be told how they don’t need my kind of help afterwards.

  26. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    Depends. Assuming: 1) I knew what was going on, 2) it was clearly needed to save someone’s life, and 3) I could shoot without undue risk of harming innocent bystanders, then I’d like to think I would act. The beliefs of the victim would play no role in my thinking.

  27. avatar Cknarf says:

    Of course.

  28. avatar ST says:

    No.

    The CCW permit and the gun in my waist are for protecting me and mine.

    Selfish? You betcha. But I’m not going to jail or a bankruptcy court for strangers, especially strangers dedicated to my personal disarmament.Real life ain’t like Lethal Weapon where the cops pat the good guy on the back for wasting the scumbag.

    1. avatar C Wesley Bryant says:

      +1, to which I would add Hell No! The Social Darwinism issues notwithstanding, a risk/reward analysis of this situation suggests the potential criminal and civil repercussions are simply not worth it. Me, my own and very, very close personal friends only. Otherwise, its walk/run away.

      Now, that said, I would, of course, call 911 for the poor dears, and I would be prepared to offer any first-aid assistance I could if they are on the ground bleeding out waiting for the Po Po and ambulance to arrive; but otherwise, it ain’t happening.

  29. avatar soccerdad1150 says:

    Sorry, I find the premise of this thread revolting, counter-intuitive and just asking for a self-inflicted wound given the great lengths this site went to in an earlier posting about not giving the antis ammo. What are we thinking here?

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      That is pretty strong language; “Revolting, counter intuitive”; maybe you could expand on that because I’m not getting it.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        I’m sure the antis would use that language. They’ll say gun nuts are just dreaming of a chance to shoot someone and prove something to MDA. Then something about penis sizes.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      You do realize that anti-folks frequently make stuff up to futher their agenda, don’t you?

      Our mere existence provides ammunition.

  30. avatar Rokurota says:

    Yes.

    I hesitated to answer because the very posing of this question plays into their hands. Google “Myth of the Hero Gunslinger” and see what I mean.

    1. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

      Interesting….. pull your gun and you could be confused as the gunman and get shot yourself by another would-be hero.

      Thats why I hate hypothetical questions. No right answer. You just have to use the best judgement you can with the information you have available (at that time), and pray you don’t get it wrong or miss.

  31. avatar Burnout says:

    Of course. I don’t like when people prey on others. In this hypothetical case, one preys on the innocent via laws and media outreach, which I can help stop. The other preys on the innocent with weaponry which I can hep stop in the moment. Either way, I am consistent in my beliefs. Plus, for those who do not believe in this, the next shot may be at me. But that is beside the point.

  32. avatar Another Robert says:

    Using the same consideration as I would in a mall or a restaurant or wherever, I certainly hope I would–never can tell until it actually happens. But as someone else noted, that’s pretty much in line as to why many of us carry in the first place. And I’m fairly certain there would be no thought of gloating–more like checking to see if my pants were still clean and dry.

  33. avatar Mina says:

    I made a decision in the CCW training that I would never defend someone else with my firearm unless I myself was threatened as well.

    Unfortunately given the climate of anyone discharging having to defend themselves in court at great co$$to to themselves, even in a clear-cut case of self-defense (see: G. Zimmerman) & potentially for years, defending someone I don’t know and ruining my life and my family’s life would just not be worth it.

    I am not in this to save the world just my own family.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      If something like 25% of all adults in public (across all races, genders, and income levels) were armed — and ready, willing, and able to use their firearm to stop violent attackers — violent crime would be almost non-existent and we wouldn’t have to even consider whether or not to assist someone else. However, only 2% or so of adults are armed in public and, even worse, most of them are white men between the ages of 35 and 65. Factor in the uncanny ability of violent criminal predators to size up people and determine who is weak and you have the violent crime level that we see today. That means unarmed adults are largely responsibility for all the violent crime that happens. I am not motivated to go out of my way to save unarmed adults from the consequences of their actions … or failure to act.

      Look at it this way. Imagine a lake with dangerously thin ice and everyone knows the ice is dangerously thin. If an adult walks out, falls through the ice, and is probably going to drown, why should you risk drowning yourself because that other adult made a foolish choice?

      1. avatar Mina says:

        Great way of looking at it, I concur.

  34. avatar Rick3277 says:

    It is my duty.

  35. avatar Steve in MD says:

    Nope.

    Going to take the advice of Lord Humungus and just walk away.

  36. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Begrudgingly, yes.

    But, I would also reserve the right to slap the taste out of their mouth afterwards and say, “Now do you f*cking see?!?!”

  37. avatar Hal says:

    I didn’t read the post, but what kind of question is that? Of course I would. If you’re the type of person who wouldn’t act to help a person, any person, provided they aren’t the bad guy causing the situation, then you need to check your moral compass.

    Moms Demand Action wants all gun owners dead. Like most liberals, the ends justify the means everytime, so 100,000,000 dead gun owners to achieve their utopia is a worthy goal. They’d like nothing less than ATF hot squads rounding up guns. How many times have we heard them say “we hope YOU die from a gun” or words to that effect?

    What makes us better than them is our willingness to put our asses on the line for others, regardless of whether we agree with them. We are the humanists in this debate.

  38. avatar P. Nissman says:

    In this scenario – are we in a “Gun Free Zone”?

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      That is a very good question. I wonder how many DGUs never happened because an armed Samaritan said, “I am not supposed to be carrying, it is not worth it to intervene.” I bet it happens all the time in the deep blue, slave cities.

  39. avatar CoolBreeze72 says:

    How would I know that the apparent bad guy was not some stunt performance by MDA or them getting pranked? Also, should I wait for alternative methods of self defense to be deployed before I shoot? Show him the GFZ sign, shelter in place, wait for LEO response? How do I know MDA security wouldn’t mistake me for a BG?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      These “what ifs” are good to ask though it seems a lot of people here think they can take in a situation in seconds and save the day without bothering to consider them.

    2. avatar Dan A says:

      This was my first thought, actually. It’d be perfect marketing for them to hire some schmuck to wave a fake gun around so one of the “gun nuts” they’re protesting against shoots him.

  40. avatar Bruce L. says:

    You didn’t mention if the crazed gunman was a reader of TTAG’s, that could make a difference. I mean, it could be Dirk. *grins* But I digress. Yes, I would but would probably expect a kick between the legs for doing it.

    Would you give first aid to anyone who had been shot? After all, you would be the first responder.

    Damn, there are a lot of people reading TTAG’s this time of day.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      That wasn’t a firearm in Dirk’s hand, it was just his gun.

  41. avatar S.dogood says:

    my heart and moral code requires me too but my common sense would say maybe …..

  42. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

    As for my substantive answer. No.

    Nothing to do with the political leanings of the perceived target; I simply can’t ever assume that I have complete information. If me, or those entrusted to me, are not directly threatened, I’m looking for cover and then escape. (There are times when I’m commissioned, ordered, and paid to behave otherwise and would do so at that time, but if I’m joe civilian, I’m outta here.)

    At least until the first shot is fired. I would re-evaluate at that point.

  43. avatar former water walker says:

    Probably. I know if someone had stopped the Gabby Giffords shooting we’d all be better off. As mentioned MY priority would be me & mine

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      Probably not much. People like Joel Myrick and Jeanne Assam are studiously ignored or discounted by the other side. And Joe Zamudio, who actually did run to the Tucson shooting, has been demonized by the New York Times.

  44. avatar user3369 says:

    Yes

  45. avatar Robert Farago says:

    If my daughter was with me, probably not. My first duty is to her. If I was alone (or with one of the guys), probably yes. But maybe not. My first duty is to my daughter. Life insurance is only money.

    1. avatar Burnout says:

      That is a really good point. In the hypothetical situation, I imagined being alone. When one is with loved ones, the loved ones get the priority. Thanks for the alternate variable. Thing is, we are not killers. We are lovers of humanity, hence our passion. Our beliefs are consistent.

  46. avatar Tim U says:

    No way.

    I only shoot to defend me and my family. If we can get out, we will. If not, I’ll get us out by force.

    Not worth the lawsuit. Others had the option to carry to protect themselves and didn’t. That’s not my problem.

  47. avatar rlc2 says:

    Hypothetically shoot to defend victim loss of life with attacker clear intent, means and immediate jeopardy? Yes of course.

    And of course The MDA mm’s politics are irrelevant to the sheepdog.

    Real world no, because I would not be legally armed and thus not carrying in CA. Thanks to The Presidents Prettiest State AG almost no one but insiders and donors to San Diego Sheriff Gore’s election funds can get CCW it appears and thus I’d have to use some other tactic.

    Here is a story of an unarmed good Samaritan who paid the price for poor judgement.

    http://blog.pe.com/breaking-news/2014/04/28/yucaipa-good-samaritan-slain-chasing-robbery-suspect/

  48. avatar Sean N says:

    Without hesitation, provided the situation were the same as I would to defend my own life, or that of my family or friends. Nobody deserves to be a victim, regardless of their personal choices.

    I may have snide comments about the shirt they wear, or bumper sticker on their Prius.. and I would do my best to keep it to myself. But let’s be honest… it would come out.

  49. avatar Kyle from SC says:

    I absolutely would draw and fire at the attacker. after the immediate threat is taken care of I would make sure that all the protesters were okay. I strongly disagree with their views, but they are still human, people deserve chance at life.

  50. avatar Derek Fitch says:

    Of course I would. I cannot sit idly by while someone’s life is in danger. It goes against who I am and what I stand for.

  51. avatar Mecha75 says:

    It depends on the situation. If he is beyond 50 ft I probably would get out of the area ASAP. Mostly cuz my shot isn’t that good and my priority is for myself and family. Last thing I need is to get into a shoot out. Within that 50ft he will be as good as dead or crying in the ground cuz I shot his pinky toe.

  52. avatar Skyler says:

    I wouldn’t think of it as saving a political opponent, I would be saving the next victim, who might be me.

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      yep… all these people getting indignant and self righteous about “I would never risk my rights to save someone who wants to take mine away from me” (thats shameful if they are being serious, but probably just internet bravado), are completely missing the point of who says the theoretical shooter stops with the one victim? When has that ever happened?

  53. avatar Wendy says:

    Yes, I would certainly hope that I would.

  54. If I had a reasonable chance of stopping somebody from being killed, it would be my moral obligation to do so.

    For those who have declared MDA people to be sub-human of course they would not.

  55. avatar Chuck (hates nj) says:

    Nope, because I’m in NJ and I’m not a cop, judge, politician, celebrity or politically connected so I wouldn’t have a CCW. I wouldn’t be risking serious jail time and the loss of my rights to protect people that want to take them from me.

  56. avatar CoolBreeze72 says:

    Our responses might have more context if we ID’d ourselves as LEO/Military or AC (armed citizen). I am an AC.

  57. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    Yes, in a heartbeat.. it shouldn’t matter who the innocent is or what they believe in.

  58. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    Yes. I would. They are people, too. Wives, daughters, lovers. I would wish that a responsible civilian would do the same for my significant other in this situation.
    I’d blow up the shooting all over the news and make Mrs.Watts have to say that she was saved by a CCWer. It would be worth it to see the look on her face when she says it.

  59. avatar John Schwabe says:

    Absolutely.

    The value of a human life is independent of being an idiot. (Thankfully)

  60. avatar Excedrine says:

    Even though they won’t do the same for me, and I rightfully doubt that they’ll even call 9-1-1 just to make it a point to be the jingoistic assholes that they really well and truly are, I would do so for them. I will stand in the breech if I am in a position to do so. This isn’t, in spite of what the obstructionist gun control lobby consistently claims to the contrary, about machismo or ego or so-called “hero fantasies”.

    It is precisely because of scenarios like this — which do actually unfold on occasion in case they conveniently forget the headlines — that have inspired me to carry daily.

    It doesn’t matter if they seek to destroy my rights. It doesn’t matter if they see eye-to-eye with me. All that matters is that they, too, are presumably law-abiding citizens who haven’t (yet) broken any laws and don’t deserve to be attacked for believing differently than I do. It is exactly that kind of thinking, to think it permissible to inflict harm or kill those that don’t tow the line, that lead to massacres. Whether it be a school shooting or a democide, it’s just not right.

    I know it’s not my job, but someone has to fill that space before the so-called “proper authorities” get there lest there be more lives lost.

    That’s really the crux of the issue, too, I think. They truly believe that the police are their saviors. Truth be told, they’re not. They’re not any better as people, and they’re just as fallible as marksmen (and markswomen!) as well. Statistically speaking, they’re generally worse. At both.

  61. avatar Alphapod says:

    Damn straight I’m clearing leather. If I have a shot at stopping a threat to an innocent person’s life, I feel morally obligated to try.

  62. avatar Al says:

    That’s an interesting painting, but it needs a nice frame. Try this:

    Standing there, I know that Shannon has armed protection. Thinking critically, are these likely to be People of the Gun, who could hit a target reliably and know/maintain their arms?

    Almost certainly not. The guards are probably heavies who bought their guns in Anti states, and have only fired then once. So by the time they figure out how the holster retention works, draw, try to shoot, turn off the safety, and begin to shove the 20lb trigger towards infamy, Shannon is already down and they’re more likely to hit me than the shooter.

    I’d call it time to duck/cover/flee. Stupid people doing stupid things, and all that.

  63. avatar JPD says:

    Nope! Spectator only. No attempt to defend. Not wasting my time calling 911. As the saying goes “live by the gun”, err, I mean live without a brain, die however.

  64. avatar Rob says:

    Yes, first because it’s the right thing to do, second, it would prove them wrong on pretty much everything they vomit onto the airwaves.

  65. avatar Nick S says:

    Life > Ideology. An innocent person with stupid ideas is still an innocent person.

    1. avatar GunRacer says:

      Couldn’t have put it better myself.

  66. avatar BDub says:

    Is the cowboy fantasizing that the antis are always talking about? I’d like to think that I would, but I have no idea what I would or wouldn’t do in such a circumstance.

  67. avatar Dev says:

    In the situation described? Yes, absolutely.

    In a real-world situation? Yes, absolutely.

    1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

      Well, except in a real world situation in a jurisdiction which already has the laws that MDA advocates.

      Then the whole issue is moot. All the innocents/potential victims are disarmed so its call 911 so they can clean up afterwards…. unless you are one of those who is willing to charge a person with a gun.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        In that situation, I will be sneaking away quietly and hoping to not be seen, if possible, because I will still be carrying, as I was for 25 years before I could get a CHL. I would be carrying illegally to protect me and mine, as I always have. I have lived the saying that “it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.” But I’m not going to jail to save a stranger.

  68. avatar Don says:

    No, but only out of self-preservation. I’d be afraid of being sued for some manufactured reason, like “emotional trauma”, and their pockets are deeper than mine, so they would win.

    -D

  69. avatar Martin says:

    Hard to clear leather when your holster is kydex

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Yeah he should have said “…or klear kydex.”

      1. avatar Ross says:

        He did, and it would be kydex in my case also.

  70. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    First, an armed man should never run away from an active shooter because sociopaths rarely have any qualms about shooting people in the back. And that just wouldn’t look good.

    Second, yes. If only to see how far the liberal press would go to obscure the fact that the gun control advocates were saved by a legally permitted private weapon. It would make for an interesting headline on the few honest newspapers out there. And you never know, near death experiences have been known to change people’s attitudes.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Like that church shooting in CO, where the woman who engaged the murderous fruitcake was continuously described as a deputy sheriff because she had such a job for a short time years earlier. In truth, she was simply a woman with a CHL, but you really had to search to find that out, the media does not like that.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        Or the guy in Detroit who hit the kid and when he stopped to help a gang of people of another race thought it would be a good idea to put him in a coma. Hardly anyone reported that it was a woman and her legally carried concealed weapon that stopped a whole mob (without having to fire a single shot).

  71. avatar Michi says:

    For all of those saying “no”, here’s a reminder that if the crazed criminal did succeed, MDA would just use this as their own example to show that we need disarmament.

    If an armed citizen did stop the offender, the issue would at least be obfuscated from ‘he who has gun’ somewhat, at least in the eye of the public.

    Perhaps the question should have been phrased as “guy with knife” or something.

  72. avatar CoolBreeze72 says:

    My preffered resolution to this premise would be for a good guy to draw and end the threat with one shot…but the good guy would actually be a woman who was dead ringer for Shannon. Wouldn’t that press conference be a hoot?

  73. avatar Roscoe says:

    To answer the headline question; no, they made their bed, thay can lie in it.

    Why take risk for someone who would have all others disarmed from defending them selves, yet defend them (the anti) when they find themselves attacked. I don’t feel at all charitable toward judgemental holier than thou grabbers who would disable their fellow man to fulfil their own ‘feelings’ of what should be.

    Course, on second thought, I’m just not really that way.

  74. avatar J says:

    Absolutely not. Two reasons:

    1. They think calling 911 is good enough for everybody but those who can afford their own personal armed bodyguard detail. Let them rely on that.

    2. I’m not out to be a hero to the cause or to random strangers. I’m looking out for my family and myself.

  75. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    If anyone is attacking any woman or any child with deadly force/weapon, it would not be something I would have to consider. I would act. I have done it in the past, I will do it in the present, and will do it in the future.

  76. avatar lolinski says:

    I wanted to say yes but I can’t. All the legal complications that would stem from that. Better to let them call 911 and see what happens.

  77. avatar Joe says:

    politics isn’t personal. I’d have a beer with a MDA member without a second thought. Just because I disagree with someones viewpoint, doesn’t make their life and more or less valuable than the next guy or girl. As to the scenario… I don’t know. Something doesn’t sit right with me with the announcement. I wouldn’t put it past MDA to stage a mock shooting for publicity and would definitely not want the attention as the guy who took down some idiot actor at a MDA rally.

    that said, if he engages and it’s realistic enough to make me truly believe that it’s an actual shooting, at that point it wouldn’t be a thought process on my part. draw, fire and 911.

  78. avatar Akira says:

    Absolutely. Innocent life (even if it’s someone who rues my very existence as a gun owner) is worth protecting.

    As an added bonus, that person would have to live with the fact that they are only alive because a citizen (me) was allowed to carry a gun in public. Now it’s entirely possible that they would simply blow this off and go back to their anti-gun wailing, but anyone who observed and anyone who heard about it may change their minds on the issue after hearing how one of those “evil gun owners” saved the life of an anti-gun activist who was protesting the right that ended up saving her life.

  79. avatar CLarson says:

    It this idealized scenario, of course, I would stop the maniac. It is the right thing to do. In a real world scenario, I would not take unnecessary risks unless my loved ones or I were specifically threatened. It is unfortunate, but sometimes the willfully ignorant have to face the consequences of their unpreparedness.

  80. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    I would not. The antis don’t care about actual safety or how many live have been or will be lost due to to their agenda. As far as they’re concerned, no blood cost is too high. So, yes, I would turn around and walk away. Let them die. Lord knows they’d like to see us dead….

    1. avatar Rex says:

      This…

      After having an anti viciously insult and then threaten my wife (and child) in the middle of a Walmart parking lot for having a pro-gun bumper sticker, I’m not inclined to risk my life for them. I would call the police since according to them that is enough.

  81. avatar Anonymous says:

    Yes.

  82. avatar Jon in NC says:

    My gun is for saving myself or family only.

  83. avatar Tom.S in Sacramento says:

    All things held equal – yes.

  84. avatar Patrick Hayes says:

    Sure…But then it’s my job…

  85. avatar Shawn says:

    I would not. Politics has nothing to do with it. The use of deadly force is the last resort in saving the lives of myself and my loved ones. For the sake of my family, I will not expose myself to the potential criminal and civil liabilities associated with the application of deadly force unless in the course of saving said family.

  86. avatar Ralph says:

    No, uh-uh, nix, nay, no way, not a chance. Why would I protect someone who not only thinks that being defenseless is morally superior but who also tries to render me unable to protect myself?

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Exactly this.

      Applying Goodwin’s law:

      You are an armed Jew in Germany when you decide to attend a SS rally to see if what they are really saying about racial purity is true and if the reports of putting Jews into box cars is actually happening. Himmler himself is giving the speech.

      You suddenly see someone burst from the crowd locked on to Himmler with a gun saying “I’m a Jew and I’m going to shoot one of you Jew hating Nazi’s!”

      Do you shoot?

      I don’t think anyone here would say they would shoot. Since the scenarios are exactly the same. How can anyone possibly say they would defend anyone from an organization that only wants your inevitable destruction?

      MDA at its heart want to rid the world of a certain class of people….Firearm owners.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        You are not applying Goodwin’s law, you are breaking it.

      2. avatar joe says:

        comparing MDA to nazi’s is a bit much. It kind of brings up Benjamin Constant’s critique of Kant’s categorical imperative. an innocent man comes to your door and tells you a murderer is after him. he runs to the left of the house to safety. moments later a murderer arrives asking where the man who came here previously went. do you tell him? If you say he went left is that morally ok? what about if you say right? what if the innocent man doubled back to the right without you knowing? either way would your actions have any responsibility as to the outcome?

        1. avatar Doug says:

          The answer an old pastor of mine once gave in essentially the same question, “You have no obligation to tell someone everything you know.” Corollary: To supply knowingly crucial knowledge to a villain is morally all wrong.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          My own saying has long been:

          Knowledge is power. Don’t give anyone more power over you than is prudent.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        @Mack Bolan:

        +1000

        I thought through a similar process when contemplating the question.

    2. avatar Michael B. says:

      +1

  87. avatar Del in NC says:

    No. Not a legal self-defense situation in NC.

    1. avatar JR says:

      You sure about that?

      In a scenario is that someone is pointing a gun at an potential victim. Ability, opportunity and jeopardy are satisfied. The threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury is present.

      Check 14-53.1, where we find:

      However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

      (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.

  88. avatar Howdy says:

    It’s selfish, but I would make sure me and mine are safe first. Short of a t-shirt or hat declaring a faction, how can you tell who is a supporter of X group? I’m thinking the shooter believes that everyone in attendance is a supporter of the event and therefore everyone is a target.

    After me and mine are safe, I might lend aid if the situation permits. I believe this is how I would react regardless of politics or event.

  89. avatar Dex says:

    Assuming no goons of her own, I’d draw.

    However, I WOULD gloat afterward. Loudly. In her face.

  90. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I can’t think of a better way to render their entire argument pointless than to defend one of them. It would show that we believe in the entire Constitution and not just what we like. It would also show that we are not of the hive mind like many on the left would like to depict us.

    1. avatar Jasonk says:

      I honestly doubt it would convince them. They’d just use the argument that if their assailant wasn’t armed, the whole situation would have been avoided.

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        Convincing them is not necessary. Convincing the uncommitted of MDA’s folly would be much more worthwhile.

    2. avatar Doug says:

      Let’s say the situation arose and you did what’s right. While you’re in jail, Mayor B. and Ms. W. might come to see you and thank you on a personal level. Then they’d say, “but it is necessary to our cause that we use this opportunity and all our resources to destroy you.”

      Can’t you just visualize it?

  91. avatar Daniel says:

    It is shameful that you even have to ask this question.
    If violence is about to be visited upon an innocent person, and you can defend them without reasonable danger of collateral damage, you do so. End of story.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      The MDA dolts are far from “innocent.”

  92. avatar Pashtun6 says:

    Absolutely, just because they have a different opinion than us doesn’t mean that their life isn’t worth as much.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Oh yes it does.

      1. avatar Doug says:

        “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

        “Who is my neighbor?”

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      While they walk around with armed bodyguards but try to disarm you, how much do you think they believe your life is worth?

      1. avatar JR says:

        I contend that it is not about them and what they do or don’t believe. The question is one of morality….doing what is right.

        Is it right to defend the life of another human being?

        Someone’s belief’s can change at any time, but only if they remain alive to do so.

        Do we condemn people to death because of falling for the lies of those that are manipulating them? What if the MDA protester that he’s about to kill is at her first rally ever cuz she read about it, thought it sounded like a good idea and wanted to support a cause but had not researched it YET?

        There are a LOT of what-ifs here. Hypotheticals are fun to bat around, but they lack the context of immediate reality. The most honest answer any of us should perhaps give is “I don’t know.” There’s just no way to define the full set of circumstances and what is perceived or thought at the time.

        But, to say a unilateral “no” on the basis of a political belief should perhaps give some pause. After all…I have to admit; the MDA average member may well not be our enemy. The politico leadership may be an enemy in the terms you describe; that average MDA Mom and twitter tweeter maybe, maybe not.

  93. avatar Jeff says:

    My simple answer: No. And It has nothing to do with difference in beliefs. I made a choice when I started to carry that my firearm was there as a tool to help me protect myself and my family. Something that is said constantly, “Only You are responsible for your own safety and security. No one else can do that for you.” Sorry, but if that applies to us, it applies to everyone. All I want to do is come home every night to my family. I’m sorry if that sounds selfish, but everyone has the same rights. Whether you choose to exercise them or not is up to each person. But I can’t save everyone so I had to make a choice of who was more important to me.

  94. In a heartbeat.

    Watts and company are idiots, but they are human beings. While their level of stupidity almost rises to criminal levels, they are not criminals.

    Anyone choosing to harm to innocents in my vicinity will be meaningfully opposed.

  95. avatar O-Hebi says:

    Schadenfreude for $500, Alex…

  96. avatar Sammy says:

    F no.

  97. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    So in one of the final confrontation scenes in the movie Low Down Dirty Shame (http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0110399/mediaindex/rm1732152832?photoId=MV5BMTg2MDA0ODE2M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMzg2NzgwMw@@&ref_=m_tt_ph_3), Keenan Ivory Wayans character had asked the bad guy’s lady friend for a date while they are all huddled around a small table at a nightclub. She laughed and said no. Then the bad guy pulls a gun and puts it to her head to get Keenan’s character (a disgraced former federal agent now working as a PI) to drop his gun. Shame says “f**k her. She didn’t want to give me her phone #.”.

    That’s how I feel @ shannon and mda.

  98. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    And a better question is, would Shannon’s husband John want us to clear leather to save her or would he be glad he took out that large life insurance policy on her when she got involved with Bloomy?

    1. avatar rlc2 says:

      SNAP. That’s going to leave a mark…

  99. avatar JT says:

    Yes. Of course, no if I knew that they were at fault for starting the incident or escalating it to the point where gun(s) are drawn.

    I would not begrudge or second guess anyone who wouldn’t clear leather in defense of these people.

  100. avatar Michael B. says:

    Hell no.

  101. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Not as you have described the scene. Has nothing to do with MDA or whatever, the only time I would fire a first shot would be defending myself or my family, not a bunch of strangers. So I’d let the guy have one and THEN engage him. Hell, as suggested elsewhere, this could be a stunt with a paid actor to get the group more attention, you might have walked onto a movie set, whatever. When somebody screams and bleeds, I’ll believe it’s real.

  102. avatar JM says:

    I do not know and I hope I never have to find out.

    1. avatar JR says:

      By far the best answer on this entire page.

  103. I would.

    I would always act to stop an active shooter if the situation warranted (in other words, I’m not going to jump in and start shooting if Police are already actively dealing with the shooter). I would close distance if I did not have a good shot. I would also do so even if I was in a location where it was not considered legitimate self-defense. I would act even if I did not have a firearm. It is how I am wired, I guess. I could not live with a decision to stand by and allow others to be killed.

    On the other hand, I will never fault someone who reserves their weapon only for the defense of their immediate family. Shooting someone is always messy, and can effect a family for many years.

    There are some decisions that need to be made before you have to make them. Do I come to the aid of a stranger, or do I only protect myself and my family? This is one of those decisions that should be made now, not when you have to make it in a split second.

    Also, if I am going to step in and intervene, it must be absolutely clear what the situation is, as it is in the scenario above.

    My wife was outside a grocery store one night, and two big men grabbed a lady, pushed her against the wall, and began to pull her clothes off as she screamed for help. My wife was carrying a pistol and did as I had instructed her – she observed from a distance and did not get involved.

    The woman’s clothes were full of merchandise she had shoplifted, and the men were undercover cops.

  104. avatar Shire-man says:

    With the way these people operate you’d probably be saving them from a plant they set up with an airsoft gun that was just going to shout off something racist then be tackled by their security.

    In which case they’d all be mad at you and your evil gun for killing their man with nonsense like “it wasnt even loaded” or “there were bystanders who could have been hit by your reckless actions.”

  105. avatar beerwhisperer says:

    Yes, without hesitation.

  106. avatar Jim D says:

    I probably would defend her! But that decision one would make in a split second whether to use deadly force or not but the public and lawyers have all the time in the world to to determine if I made the right decision.

  107. avatar Fuque says:

    I’ll clear leather for only myself, and people in my close personal space. That said, If we have to time discuss politics, then we will have time to get out of harms way and avoid the situation completely.

  108. avatar NJGUNGUY says:

    No because the sentence in the first paragraph states my opinion perfectly:
    “law abiding gun owners are under no duty to protect their fellow citizens”.

    My responsibility is to myself and my family. Also, since I live in NJ and say I was allowed to carry, I would still be charged with murder for taking taking the shooter down and his family would sue me for damages. So, unless I or my family were in direct danger my answer is no.

    Funny thing is I have two neighbors that are anti-gun but they stated that they are glad I live next door because if something happens they are protected . I flat out told them that they are on their own because 1. my responsibility is only to myself and my family and 2. NJ law prevents from defending them.

  109. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Would you Clear Leather to Save a MDA member?”

    As much as I’d like to say “no”, that just wouldn’t be right…I carry not only to protect myself, but to protect others as well, and to know that I could’ve saved a life and didn’t, is just more that I could live with…So in a word, “yes”…

  110. avatar Smackdab says:

    I consider myself to be a sheep dog through and through. That’s why I won’t intervene when two wolves go at one another’s throats. That P-I-G Watts is beyond doubt on Bloomburg’s payroll, she is selling out her own country and it’s people for what, another pig’s money. If a gunman was willing to stop at Watts or just one target, I would stay my weapon and provide description to police and leave. If he was on an all out rampage I would intervene, because the majority of MDA cult followers are the definition of misguided sheep. How many people have been killed thanks to people like Watts’ insistence we have “gun free zones”? She is well aware she would be a target, she continues to be one undoubtedly because the pay is very good. Besides I’m willing to bet any money, if I took the bad guy out after he managed to get a few shots off I would be looking at the rap. It’s a simple question the leftist media will pose before the attackers body is cold, “why would a CCW be attending a MDA rally?”. I would be billed as an accomplice to the attacker, only that my shots missed and hit him. I’m sorry if you don’t agree with my reasoning, but you likely agree that Watts is simply a wolf in sheeps clothing. Since when do sheep dogs care if wolves tear each other apart. Soapbox I know, but I’ve given this one some thought before.

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      “I consider myself to be a sheep dog through and through. That’s why I won’t intervene when two wolves go at one another’s throats.”

      I don’t consider myself a sheep dog, but yes, that’s my reasoning as well.

      When my enemies are fighting, why intervene?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Indeed. The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he’s still the enemy of my enemy.

        However, to show MDA my support for their citizen disarmament program, I would call 911 and pop some corn while waiting for the police.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Mmm… popcorn…. buttery popcorn. 😀

  111. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Of course I would. And here in GA- you are justified in using deadly force to protect others, even if you don’t know them. You’re justified in using deadly force whenever you or another person is under the threat of being the victim of a forcible felony. (Murder, robbery, rape, ect) as the law should be. So in free states, with good strong SD laws, this debate is a non issue.

  112. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    “Personally, I don’t fancy taking a bullet for a person who doesn’t appear on my tax return.” Robert Farago, the Truth About Guns 7/12/13

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Well done, sir! 😀

  113. avatar Publius says:

    Nope. I have a strict policy that anyone who is against “peasants” owning guns will not be protected by my gun. It’s to honor their wishes, really – the last thing I’d want to do is use my evil gun in a while way that they disapprove of. Since they are foolish enough to think that it’s better to be murdered than to use violence to protect yourself, I’d simply walk away and let them have their wish.

  114. avatar Deadeye says:

    Nope. Let them pee and vomit all over the attacker.

    1. avatar Fler says:

      Sounds legit.

  115. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Aren’t these the same people who remind us constantly that we are not professionals and as capable as the police? Who am I to argue?

  116. avatar MadLarkin says:

    Short answer? Nope.

    Long answer? They attempt to remove my ability to protect myself and my family, demonize gun owners, twist and lie to suit AND paint an evil picture of legitimate defensive situations. Double nope.

  117. avatar AnotherOne says:

    I could not – most of these people go around making statements that they wish all gun owners would shoot themselves.

    However – that would only be if I knew they were one of those people. More likely, I’d have no idea of the person’s beliefs or prejudices, so my first instinct would be to ‘do the right thing’ if it meant saving a life.

  118. avatar Renegade Dave says:

    How could you not? Lots of folks I know carry because they desire to see fewer victims. This sounds like it fits the criteria.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      And some of us carry because we know it’s a deterrent to tyranny. They are responsible for their own safety and that would be one of the last groups for which I would choose to risk my life. Your life, your choice and I don’t fault you for it.

      It’s kind of annoying that so many officers point out to me that they are glad I’m carrying because it can reduce crime. Sometimes I remind them that I’m not necessarily armed to do their job. I’m mostly armed to make sure that they don’t do more than their job allows. 😉

  119. avatar John Thomas says:

    of course i would.

  120. avatar Hannibal says:

    MDA vs random people would not matter to me…

    But engaging in a shooting would not be something I would do easily. Limited ammunition, limited information… and even if I KNEW that the bad guy was actually bad do I trust that the responding police or other legal permit holders will have the discipline to not shoot me? They would probably be perfectly able to do so legally, as from their vantage point I might be the active shooter.

  121. avatar BR549 says:

    This MDA nonsense reminds me of when I was in engineering school many years ago. We had to do everything on sliderules because calculators were still considered cheating. We might have a test with two problems on it and each problem required about four pages of math to support the answer.

    Well, every once in a while, some egotistical self-appointed brain-trust would be aghast that he got the wrong answer on a test. He’d figure he HAD to have given the right answer because of all the work he did, but the truth of the matter was that his logic went astray somewhere early in his version of a solution and his answer was totally wrong. But it wasn’t the answer so much as his attitude that it had to be right, ergo, the teacher made a mistake, the book was wrong, everyone else was wrong except him.

    The rest of the students, myself included, had to knuckle under and accept defeat, but this one kid was like a Pit Bull; he just would not accept the fact that he might have been wrong. And this is what we have with Shannon Watts and the rest of her IQ challenged MDA entourage. They just can’t possibly imagine that they could ever be on the wrong track.

    1. avatar Smackdab says:

      I see you aren’t familiar with common core, there is no such thing as wrong if an answer feels nice then it is correct. At the moment I’ve only completed my aas in electronics engineering with work and all I took a break before going back. The same thing would happen all the time, someone that was good with theory would dick up his circuit. They would spend an hour arguing with the instructor, as to why their circuit was perfect because multisim said so.

  122. Sounds like we are gloating beforehand..

  123. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    Yes. Without hesitation.

  124. avatar janitor says:

    national geographic photographers never stop lions from taking antelope. i also would probably be drunk and lost if i was at a MDA rally….if i was drunk i wouldnt be carrying. if i hear shots im beating feet….sorry soccer moms….

  125. avatar FoRealz? says:

    Of course.

    Unlike leftists and commies, I value human life, even if they have different ‘pinions than me. I’m not a savage after all.

    Besides, there might be a cute single MILF mixed in with the bearded ladies. (One can hope.)

    Would it be poor form to get a phone number from a cutie immediately following a DGU?

    I kid.

    Of course it’s not.

    🙂

    But, but, but, I thought they employed their own armed guards for such things.

  126. avatar Great Scot says:

    Of course I would. If you wouldn’t you’re one messed up individual. I would protect them, and then gloat my arse off at Ms.Watts.
    Just to play the devil’s advocate though, and I stress this is NOT MY VIEW, if we were not carrying and we were attacked, Watts and her cronies wouldn’t, and couldn’t, help us. If I stood by and let an innocent, albeit misguided, person be murdered and I could have stopped it, it would star in my three o’ clock nightmares for the rest of my life, that is if I ever got to sleep. If you did not feel guilty, you are as f**king crazy as the most barking asylum dweller.

    1. avatar Fler says:

      It’s not about “letting” anything happen; as the antis will be more than happy to tell you, you’re not a cop.

    2. avatar Publius says:

      To quote Batman – “I’m not going to kill you, but I don’t have to save you”. Let them suffer the consequences of their actions.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      If you wouldn’t you’re one messed up individual.

      If you did not feel guilty, you are as f**king crazy as the most barking asylum dweller.

      Those are some mighty strong statements there, Skippy.

      I have put myself in harms way for others more than once before and I’m likely to do it again. However, I choose when I risk my own life and I probably wouldn’t risk it for those advocating tyranny. I wouldn’t feel guilty about my choice either.

  127. avatar scoolbubba says:

    So they can continue to demand I give up my right to defend myself?

    No.

  128. avatar HiddenHills says:

    I would probably not even recognize who she is, but would act the same for anyone. So, if she happens to be in a place that legally allows me to carry, and circumstances dictate, of course.

  129. avatar Andy says:

    Yes and I would even do it for , their boss Daddy Bloomberg . Be prepared and ready . Keep your powder dry .

  130. avatar Kevin A. says:

    My gun’s primary job is to save my life, not somebody else’s. If it didn’t endanger my life, then I probably would. If it would pose a threat to my safety, I probably wouldn’t.

    Question is: do you think an MDA member would help pay your legal fees?

  131. avatar Carry.45 says:

    How could I claim to be a good person if I would let evil happen to someone innocent near me just because I think it would be ironic? If prefer to get my schadenfreude rocks off by saving an MDA member by using a concealed firearm.

    1. avatar Publius says:

      So now people campaigning to take away civil rights are “innocent”?

  132. avatar John Boch says:

    I wouldn’t piss on Michael Bloomberg if he was on fire. And I surely wouldn’t save him from a crazed killer.

    Shannon Watts, on the other hand, I’d have to give some time to ponder if I wanted to risk so much using deadly force to save her innocent life.

    John

  133. avatar scurvy dog says:

    No. I’m not risking prosecution to stick my neck out for someone else, especially when that someone else will not appreciate the effort and will likely lead the mob that strings me up afterward. No good deed goes unpunished. My obligation is to myself and those closest to me. Good luck to everyone else.

  134. avatar NJGUNGUY says:

    No because I am only responsible (in my opinion) for the safety and well being of myself and my family.

  135. avatar Paelorian says:

    The first time it happened, I undoubtedly would risk my own safety (physical and legal) to save the life of an anti-human rights activist or hateful person, even devoted enemy of the American people Shannon Watts. I believe I have a moral obligation to do so. But considering who she is, having one’s life saved by the right of civilians to keep and bear arms is probably the single action most likely to shock someone into questioning their values and becoming a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment. Even if she doesn’t respect my actions, observers likely will. I’d save almost anyone once. But if she then spits in my face for saving her life with a firearm, the next time it happens I’ll act as she wishes and watch the ungrateful reprobate get murdered without intervening, assuming I can do so without legal punishment.

  136. avatar Egon Spengler says:

    I am reminded of certain words uttered by Edmund Blackadder:

    “Fru-Fru? I wouldn’t pick my nose to save him!”

  137. avatar VSN says:

    For those that are unsure, you could always ask the Ms in attendance if they wish to be helped before clearing leather. I was taught to do something like that in order to avoid legal repercussions during a cpr/first aid class in high school. D:

  138. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    sure. why not…

  139. avatar pwrserge says:

    You’re asking me that if I was a member of MDA getting murdered, would I draw my weapon to save their life? A better question would what kind of sandwich would I make after I walked away laughing my ass off.

  140. avatar BluesMike says:

    I couldn’t get very far in the comments so I may repeat things others say after I stopped. Think this through. This group of people don’t value human life. The chance that such a scenario is not a setup is zero. This scenario would be a setup for sure. Let’s play it through. As I said, it’s a setup. The Mom’s have set this up. The guy running has an empty gun but he appears very threatening and the Mom’s are cowering on cue. Your adrenalin dump occurs as soon as you see the guy and hear him. This makes it unlikely to impossible to notice his gun is empty, especially at distance, with your tunnel vision kicking in. You clear leather and shoot the guy (assuming he has slowed down enough that you could hit him from whatever distance you are). Now, Shannon calls her boss so he can call the DA and make sure you are charged with 1st degree murder. The Mom’s (every one of them, even if it is only four or all thirty-five) all line up to testify against you. Since this was a setup, they all claim and testify it was obvious to see the shooter didn’t have a “clip” in his gun so of course he was only playing around. You just shot an unarmed guy. Only later do you remember back and wonder why Shannon’s bodyguards just stood there doing nothing but looking at you out of the corner of their eyes.

    This scenario (the setup) is so certain that I can’t see myself falling for it. I can see several other scenarios that all start with it being a setup. They all end badly for the good guy who saves lives.

  141. avatar Mitchell! says:

    If they are too good to be flamed on TTAG, they are too good to risk my life for.

    Real life is cruel.

  142. avatar Noishkel says:

    If I can make the shot safely then without hesitation.

  143. avatar Evan says:

    Yes. I have a firearm more to protect others than myself. I could never stand to watch someone die if I could do something about it. I keep a full medical kit in my car and a small one on person to help those in need, it’s come in handy several times for people with broken bones and a woman who passed out from being diabetic. I HATE the MDA no doubt in my mind there, but I will intervene if I can to save a life. ANY LIFE. It’s not out of some Rambo desire or Heroic delusions, it’s because I refuse to see someone suffer if I can help. Just my philosophy.

  144. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    “Given the opportunity, no court in the world can convict you if you run from an armed confrontation.”
    Lies! Have you forgotten about the “good samaritan law” ;-P

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      There are so many laws these days that you’re likely to be breaking at least one of them no matter what you do.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBiJB8YuDBQ

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Lies, you say? Good Samaritan Laws were enacted to give responders a bit of protection from lawsuit when they do act and a little encouragement for them to act. AFAIK, such laws are not about punishing someone if they fail to act when there is a substantial risk of bodily harm to themselves by doing so. Even paid professionals aren’t compelled to act when it is likely that they risk serious bodily injury or death. When it comes to not confronting a shooter, the casual bystander is at minuscule risk of being prosecuted or successfully sued for not confronting the armed aggressor.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

      1. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

        I was referring to the Seinfeld episode and wasn’t being serious.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          lol. I used to be up on my Seinfeld references. I completely missed it. At first I thought you were joking because of the 😉 but then I saw the 😛 part… 😀

  145. avatar pcman312 says:

    If I’m close enough to a situation to have to worry about that question, then there’s a high probability that I would be potentially in danger, so yes. Just because I disagree with them politically doesn’t mean they aren’t human and deserving of protection of those that are capable and willing to provide that protect. Or we could just let their bodyguards handle the problem.

  146. No, not unless the shooter targets me. Not because I find Watts or her group odious in the extreme (I do), but because I carry to protect me and those who have placed themselves under my protection. They have made it completely clear that they do not want to be under my protection, indeed, they do not even want me to be able to protect myself. So I am going to go down behind that short brick wall and working my way away from the kill zone as quickly and surreptitiously as it’s possible for a fat old man to do so. Once I am safely away, if possible, I will call 9-1-1 for them. Someone needs to clean up the mess.

  147. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Probably not. I choose when to risk my life and I would not be inclined to risk it for those advocating tyranny. They’re adults so they are responsible for their own safety.

    Well, he should have armed himself if he’s going to decorate his saloon with my friend. – Will Munny

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I am reminded of something taught to us in an ethics class at medical school years ago.

      Instead of “do to others as you would have done to you,” it’s more ethical to consider “do to others as they would have done to themselves.”

  148. avatar Caribou says:

    First, MDA is just a red herring. It doesn’t matter. My gun is to protect me and my loved ones.

    We know that the anti gun people have carry permits, hire armed guards, get caught trying to carry on planes, get caught trying to smuggle and try to sell guns to terrorists. I expect that they have more than enough guns to deal with this on their own. My question is, will they clear leather to protect their sheeple? Will the armed guards protect the crowd or only their primary?

    There are cases where I would protect someone I did not know. For the most part you are on your own if you choose to not defend yourself. This would be a high profile case so a defense would probably start around a quarter of a million. In the Zimmerman case Martin was trying to bash his head into the concrete. The original prosecutor and the sheriff thought it a clean shoot and a new prosecutor was brought in. I’ll not likely go through that for a bunch of strangers.

  149. avatar dave says:

    Short answer, no. I conceal carry to protect me and the antis don’t seem to realize this. We are not Rambo, we are not wannabe vigilantes, we are not carrying concealed to protect everybody in the world, we are not all praying we get to be in an active shooter situation. Sorry folks, if possible I will sit it out.

  150. avatar Doug says:

    So just don’t go to stupid places. Dilemma avoided.

  151. avatar John in Ohio says:

    I’ve gone back and read so many comments that refer to licensed concealed carry at these things. Every time that I’ve been at an MDA-type protest, I’ve been openly carrying. In Ohio we don’t tend to go to anti-gun rallies concealed. Perhaps that’s why this scenario is very unlikely here in Ohio… we attend while visibly armed. Some of us are OCing long guns too.

  152. avatar Andy Roberts says:

    No way. If I clear leather it would only be to defend myself while I retreat to cover and concealment. Then, from that safe position I would call 911 on their behalf. I am not going to risk everything to defend those that would take away my means of self-defense if they could. Who am I to impose my beliefs on others? Especially those that have made their beliefs abundantly clear.

    Gordy’s gone man. I’ll be outside. Good luck!

  153. avatar SteveO says:

    I say pose the question to MDA types with slight rewording to ask if they would want to be “saved” by a someone who has hidden heat ready to go.

  154. avatar N8thecowboy says:

    I’ve never been in a situation like this, so I can’t say for sure, but I hope I wouldn’t just stand there. I don’t have a family, but if I did I would probably agree they would be priority number one.
    I also imagine a gunman showing up at a MDA protest would probably be a Bloomberg hired goon paid to create madness and panic in the media. And push their agenda more.

  155. avatar Delbert Grady says:

    Slap leather to shut one up.

  156. avatar Viro says:

    ‘Never Go Full Yeager’, thank you for posting a link to that video. That guy has some good insights.

    1. Yeah, he is one of my favorite YouTube channels. He has a lot of great videos with great insight. I found his channel from Tnoutdoors9; his channel is also featured by Mr Colion Noir. He is the most underrated channel on YouTube in the firearms community. This is another great video and one of my favorites – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-RpfozVVgQ – Here is the mans credentials – http://www.tactical-life.com/combat-handguns/personal-tactics/

  157. avatar geeknik says:

    What does everyone have against the Muscular Dystrophy Association?!

  158. avatar Arod529 says:

    This is a disgusting question. It shouldn’t matter who they are. Your proposing that political standing may a viable platform for discrimination, by even asking your question. We have protections racism and religious persecution. Political standing is just another form of belief. You should be ashamed to have considered it.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Sorry, I guess I’m just not as holy as thou. If someone wants to disarm me and everyone else, I won’t take up arms to protect them from the consequences their own folly.

  159. avatar TheYetti says:

    Yes, I would. I’ll save their butt.

  160. avatar Angry as says:

    Absolutely not! they deserve the right to give it all for their
    Beliefs. Just as we do believing in our rights to defend life and liberty from tyranny.

  161. avatar g boyd says:

    Remember the joke about Nancy Polossi drowning at sea ? Would you use the exciting and all telling color film or the classic and function of black and white film to capture this event ?
    Same here. No gun, no response and no regrets.

  162. avatar Don says:

    I’d wait until the Bad Guy fired, then put him down if I was able and confident of not hitting bystanders.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email