Current Threats You Should Be Avoiding-Gorillafritz

[blues]

blues - you've been entertaining us for years here on p-f and are beyond compare, IMHO. As the adage says: "there's no substitute for experience," you have it in abundance. What really sets you apart - again, IMHO, is your gift of transmitting/translating that into language we all understand.

Thanks, blues!

You are way too kind, my friend. I stand on the shoulders of others...and what little I have to give, I give freely. Thank you for making my day.

[NH Shooter]

The article has certainly generated a robust and passionate discussion here. For that reason alone, my thanks to the author for writing it.

I've come to the conclusion that any preconceived notion I might have on how I would react in such circumstances will likely be buried under the gravity of the moment. There are simply way too many variables that will feed into my fight-or-flight decision, and it will all unfold in a way I never could have imagined.

The best I can do is be as prepared as possible, in every possible way.

[feudist]

I don't quite get his point or the especially virulent replies ITT.
On the one hand he makes his(continually published) talking point about being adventurous and living life, which he has rather debatably asserted as unrestricted travel in the third world(or even known bad areas stateside) being a behavior to emulate.
Then in this post he conflates Active Murderers with idjits spraying cyclic fire at each other in crowds, then further conflates the taking of his date to those areas during dinner or shopping hours.
Huh?
From this he emphatically derives a doctrine of "Not my people, not my problem"-which wording in itself triggered several people who sustained moral injury from their interpretation of who "my people" might be, and broke their fingernails clutching their pearls.
Huh?
To the point: Comparing Lewiston or the Indiana Mall and a late night/early morning venue where drunken, rowdy behavior is the entire point of going and a shooting erupts is comparing chalk and cheese.
The pudding proof is the media attention alone: actual deliberate mass murders of innocents/strangers get days, weeks or months of excruciating coverage...and while sickening, are rare.
Morally, those who can intervene, should.
No one gives a tinker's damn about the weekend tally of incidents where 3+ people are shot in Chicago, or Birmingham or Tampa...except as a talking point for gun control hand wringing, making blanket statements about race or poverty...or getting blog clicks(which worked, clearly. I clicked on it twice, rereading it...).
Intervention in those situations depends on a host of facts unique to each situation, and with much less moral imperative...or zero imperative.

The second hook in the post was the Sherlockian deduction that violence may occur over protests related to the current brew up in Israel. I'll reserve my superlatives of appreciation at this Theory of Mind insight to merely say: "Well...yeah." LIkewise the next OIS that gains traction or the runup to the next presidential election and, likely, the results, no matter which side wins.

Welcome to The United States of Bleeding Kansas, where absolutely everything is a matter of nonnegotiable high moral Principles and never, ever an issue to be debated and compromised on.

[Joe in PNG]

I posted it because I thought it was an interesting topic to think about and discuss, especially since the environment has changed considerably since a mere decade ago.

Stopping an obvious mass shooter is an easy button option, as is assisting a LEO in obvious trouble, or drawing on someone making an obvious armed threat on you or yours.

However, there's occasions where discretion is the obvious better part of valor. A couple of doods escalating their mutual monkey dance by drawing gats for instance is a good opportunity to depart the scene, because my presence is not required if things get ballistic. Likewise, if I'm out with grandma and a flock of small relatives, I probably should not be running to the sound of unseen gunfire, but should instead work towards getting them as safe as possible considering the location & circumstances.

Of course, that's written from my perspective as a normie with a permit. An off-shift LEO may be duty bound to intervene in such circumstances, and should if required.

The hard part is when things are a bit more vague, because you don't have all the available information other than a handful of what sounds like shots out of eyesight. Should a normie with a permit go charging towards the sound of gunfire as a general principle? Fight or flight? I suspect the answer here is "it depends" on location, party, and other available clues.

[fixer]

Side bar:

If the general advice is self-preservation above all, how do you in good faith expect people to be soldiers, cops, firemen, etc? There's a non-zero chance you'll get killed/maimed/radically fucked up for no personal gain so that some stranger may do better. That stranger may be a turd.

Keep pounding 'me first no matter what' and keep bitching about why society is the way it is. Keep wondering why you've raised a generation of pussies while pounding how dangerous everything is if you try to do the right thing. For God and Country? Fuck that, it's old and busted. God is dead, obviously. Your mortal life and wellbeing is the most important thing because you're just that fucking special. Why is everyone such a self centered twat? I'm not the only one seeing the disconnect here right?

I'm a little late to this discussion but your post is like a 2023 version of Immanuel Kant. Good stuff.

Bascially if you "universalize" Greg's thinking it pans out exactly how you have stated.

[Trooper224]

What would I do? Honestly, I don't know anymore.

When it comes to flight or fight, I know from past experience there isn't much flight in my psyche, for better of worse. There was a time when I new exactly what I'd do. Now, I stand at the latter part of a lifetime of service in one uniform or another, in which I defended and protected a society that rabidly hates me for my efforts and seems so blatantly undeserving of the same.

I've seen the worst. I've held a four year old boy to my chest and felt him die, and felt the helplessness of knowing there was nothing I could do. I've known the best, in saving young women from a human trafficking ring, knowing what would have been waiting for them otherwise. I've permanently removed individual evils from our society and felt pretty damned good about it. Now, I just feel tired and worn out. Tired in my soul, like it was all for nothing.

Part of me would like to say, " you're all on your own". But, knowing myself as I do, I'd probably run to the guns like always. Cussing like the old sailor I am, about all the trouble I'm about to endure for a bunch of worthless fuckers who aren't deserving of my efforts, but I'd still go. I've dumped.out more of my manpurse than I prefer, so that's all.

BTW, I think Gerg's an ass.

[Cory]

These threads about who would do what in unspecified shooting scenerios always devolve.

They're kind of useless. Get as proficient as you can at relevent skills, and when the time comes you'll do what needs to be done. Whatever that is will be guided by your deep seated morals, skills, and the scenerio at hand.

Talking through scenerios is best done in small groups in person verses on the web. It's to dense a topic for this medium. It always comes off as bravado or cowardice without the full range of non-verbals.

[Joe S]

feudist and Joe in PNG kinda touched on this, but I think some folks are thinking that they may be able to tell in the moment whether it is a monkey dance related to political protestors or gangs, or whether is is a lone-wolf nutty mass shooter or Mumbai style small team terrorist attack. That seems a very difficult thing to do in just a few seconds if you are there, for reasons too numerous to even list.

So I would recommend thinking hard about that if it's part of your preset decision tree under those circumstances.

[Joe in PNG]

Now, setting aside the whole potential mass shooting thing, what general course of action should the wise armed citizen be considering during an incident that doesn't actually concern them?

Personally, I'm more inclined to follow the myriads of ancient advice about not getting involved if I don't have to. "Like one who grabs a stray dog by the ears is someone who rushes into a quarrel not their own." Proverbs 26:17
However, I do disagree about not being a good witness- that is a civic responsibility.

[BillSWPA]

Now, setting aside the whole potential mass shooting thing, what general course of action should the wise armed citizen be considering during an incident that doesn't actually concern them?

Personally, I'm more inclined to follow the myriads of ancient advice about not getting involved if I don't have to. "Like one who grabs a stray dog by the ears is someone who rushes into a quarrel not their own." Proverbs 26:17
However, I do disagree about not being a good witness- that is a civic responsibility.

Your approach is correct in many cases. Getting involved in third party conflicts is rarely wise. Things may not be as they appear. The scruffy looking dude pushing a woman into a car could be an undercover police officer arresting a prostitute. Some former police officers have told me that the prostitute will know exactly what to say to get you involved.

Having said that, if I am reasonably certain that there is a clear innocent party who will be harmed if I do not get involved, then I would get involved. I have done so in the past. We are given certain skills and resources so that we will use them to benefit others. I would not feel right about walking away from someone I should have helped. I have discussed this with my wife, and she is in agreement.