Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by cysoto, Mar 18, 2013.
ahhh... no. Your comment below applies to your comment above.
The arrogance of ignorance is amazing to behold, isn't it?
Being a coward isn't really "correct" or "incorrect," it's just the nature of some people. The attempt to justify it with explanation is the evidence of their nature. To them, it is perfectly logical and anybody who takes a risk to help others is foolish or "childish" or whatever. I assume it makes the cowards feel better to convince themselves that they are superior. The rest of us, on the other hand, don't view them that way.
I'm glad your world is so black and white. There are just too many variables in the world to generalize. As much as I hate the "What if" scenarios, in any CPL/CHL training they come out of the woodwork. The number of possible different scenarios in itself shows how dynamic the world really is. When shooting in the defense of another you are even more removed from the details then when shooting for self defense.
You walk into a bank. Everyone's face down on the floor except a man who is standing pointing a gun at another man on the floor. What do you do? Pull your weapon and fire? Save the poor mans life who will get shot execution style? What if the man standing up was an off duty cop or another "sheepdog" holding a robber at gunpoint until police arrived?
There are to many variables and legal consequences to get involved in other peoples safety, all the time. While I'm all for protecting the lives of my fellow man, I need to be damn sure of who is the aggressor in the given scenario.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
It isn't cowardice to put your family's safety and welfare first. To the contrary, failing to place your family's safety and welfare first by intervening in a situation in such a way as to place your own children, spouse or loved ones in harm's way is a moral and ethical betrayal of your responsibilities as a spouse and parent.
Playing hero with your own life is one thing. Playing hero with your children's lives is quite another.
If your wife & children aren't with you?
Would I intervene in a situation that unfolded right infront of me? Most likely. Would I head towards the sound of gunfire and "close to engage" in a mall of crowded people without even some of the facts? Probably not.
Here's something I don't believe I've seen mentioned....
I run out to the store, whatever, leave my wife and son at home. In the store, I've checked out and close to the door as a guy at the other end of the store opens fire, screaming and just blasting away. I SEE it happen, there's no question at all of who the bad guy is.
I can draw a fire arm and try to get close enough to drop the bad guy, or I can get out the door and find cover to call the police, whatever. If I move on the guy, I could very well be killed.
Personally, I would hit the door because I don't want to widow my wife and leave my son without his father. I frankly don't give a damn what anyone thinks of me making that choice. A CCW permit is not a cape and tights. It's not a badge that makes me law enforcement, and it's not a contract with society that I'll jump in front of a bullet for anyone outside of my family.
Selfish? Maybe, but I'm not answerable to anyone other than to take care of my family. That mean putting them ahead of me, and me ahead of anyone else.
Your position suggests you believe that one is mutually exclusive to the other.
Not to mention, it seems your position is that every soldier who's given his life betrayed his family.
If a man, married with children, decided to enlist when his wife asked him not to? Yeah, I could say that could be argued to be the case.
There's a reason a lot of military members end up being divorced. A lot of families just can't handle that strain. And a lot of THOSE are even with the families that understand and 'sign on' when the member enlists.
The same argument could be made about police officers.
But you're changing the metric here. When you talk about military members, police officers, even firefighters, etc, these are all jobs that those people ELECT to do. They step up and volunteer with the full knowledge - and, presumably, the tacit agreement if not full-throated support - of their families. That's a far cry from just some guy that walks into a bank or a mall or a Walmart at just the wrong time. To try and equate them is just fallacious.
And, for the record, I was out of the Army for 5 years when the 9/11 attack happened. When the war in Afghanistan started to ramp up, I started weighing the options to re-enlist, but it was in the middle of October that my wife found out she was pregnant.
Are you planning to call me a coward now for opting to take care of my wife and child rather than re-enlisting?
Not at all.
You are simply reading what you want into my comments.
As I stated in my initial post on the subject, I would intervene for a third party if the situation permits. It is not an either/or proposition in all cases, but when it IS, my belief is that the safety of my family and loved ones comes first, and I will not intentionally place either of them into harm's way or abandon them in the face of danger to run off chasing dragons.
As for the later part of your comment, I never spoke of soldiers as servicemen are a different topic alltogether from civilians who are simply carrying concealed weapons. Why? Because soldiers take an oath to protect the Consitution that does, in fact, trump family. Having a family does not exempt a soldier from the oath of enlistment and every military family member knows full-well that their husband/father/mom/wife who is a service member can be called away when needed and that when they are called to action they may well not come back.
Every military spouse knows this rule and makes an educated decision that they are OK with it, either by virtue of marrying the soldier knowing that he/she is a serviceman who has taken said oath, or by deciding along with their spouse at the time of enlistment that a military career is acceptible and that embarking on that path will mean their spouse vowing to defend the consitution at risk of his/her own life.
I would think that as a soldier you would already know this...
Coward? No. I never said such a thing.
But neither would I say that the friends I lost who were married, "Betrayed" their familes. Because they served, and gave their lives, instead of choosing a safer job that would have kept them alive and with their families.
I would also say, your argument is a poor one, because the strain of possible death on a relationship, is probably far less a reason for all the .mil divorces, when compared to the rest of the issues. Like being gone so much of the time. Or the cheating/money/everything else that comes with it.
Doing the right thing, isn't limited to those who have sworn to do a certain job.
Its the right thing to do.
If you can turn your back and ignore or flee and still be ok with yourself, then by all means, live your life.
I have to look at myself in the mirror and still like what I see. I do not do what I do, because I swore and oath to do it. I do what I do because its the right thing to do.
I don't carry my gun when I go out because I have some notion of a calling, or because I feel I'm a "protector" of the sheeple. I carry it because its a tool that allows me to be prepared.
I don't look for fights, or incidents so I can use my gun. I'm simply prepared to find them, incase I do.
And if you can intentionally throw your child or spouse into harm's way just to satisfy your ego, then by all means, enjoy your life as well.
One more time...when the situation permits, I will assist others. If, however, assistance requires me to not only put my own life at risk, but to also put my children or spouse into harm's way, I will protect them FIRST.
Disgusting really disgusting.
Setting up a "what if?" scenario to justify a policy of "non-intervention" is just the flip side of a mall ninja with "what if? " scenarios to justify buying neat toys.
I grew up with a different set of values. My Dad served in WWII and took part in many well known battles. He came home and worked in bridge construction doing the "high work" above rivers, canyons and highways. When I was about three he "settled" into more sedate career. One day when I was nine, he became a local "celeb" because he risked his life to save a complete stranger (not in anything as glamorous as gunfight, but dangerous none the less) and his response was simply,
"I saw what had to be done and I did it.What else is a man supposed to do?"
My Grandfather had to kill a man in self defense after the man attacked him when Grandpa caught him stealing from Grandpa's co-workers.
I grew up with different role models than some I guess.
Mine didn't need to justify not doing anything, nor did they had to psych themselves up to prepare for theoretical scenarios. They just did what needed to be done when something really happened and then went on with life.
That is what I was taught a man should do.
Actually, I agree whole-heartedly with you. That's why I added (or tried) a bunch of qualifiers in there. I think it COULD be considered a betrayal, but it would be under very limited circumstances that I would say that. For the vast majority, the spouses and children know what is involved when Husband/Wife, Mom/Dad wear that uniform and, it would be my fervent hope (and my strong belief) that the same majority are very proud of the service.
I know what you're saying here, too, but you have to acknowledge that the "right thing" may very well be making sure you can still provide for your family. And in order to do that, you have to (typically) be alive.
As far as the military and families go, I believe in the old adage that if Uncle Sam were to want you to have a family, he would have issued it to you.
You keep tossing that line in hopes of hooking onto some sort of argument. But no one has said, advocated, or suggesting placing thier family in harms way at all. Well, except you.
Also, ego has nothing to do with right.
And nobody has said anything about servicemen betraying their families except...well...YOU.
Sorry, but not all tactical situations are black and white - you should know this. All I have said from the beginning is that if the situation permits me to intervene without placing my children or spouse in harm's way, I will do so. If the situation is such that intervention would place my children or spouse into harm's way, then my priority is to act to save and protect my loved ones first and foremost.
To do otherwise is a moral atrocity.
I think it's pointless to "make up one's mind" about what one will or will not do for others in a crisis scenario. You will only know the truth of it when confronted by such an instance.
Self-defense is clearly the primary purpose for being armed. In acknowledgement of that, I agree with the speaker that going armed for the sake of saving the world will likely work against the cause of self-preservation.
The speaker in the video seems, albeit subtly, to leave the possibility of helping others open, without abandon of the idea that self-preservation is his main objective.
His life, his thoughts, his rules. Not really seeing the big deal.