I think there is so much more to responding to the Gas Station clerk's medical condition versus responding to a crime in progress to include a significant number of nuanced realities of life that we all take for granted every day.
More to come...
JoMa
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
The first scenario (illness) is about alleviating a random (if albeit tragic) situation, but has no moral dimension to it. It's like if a neighbor said that a meteor had destroyed his car, and could you spare $50,000. People contract cancer or die from other random occurrences every day. EVERYONE will die eventually.
In the second scenario (hold-up), it's about correcting a MORAL WRONG. Serving justice. Making a small contribution (you are, after all, at best preventing only a SINGLE robbery from taking place) to maintaining societal order, and preventing an injustice.
Cute attempt to "frame the question" so as to mislead and downplay the MORAL aspects of the two situations.
Regards,
Excellent story. I would recommend ‘Violence of Mind’ by Varg Freeborn, his writings follow this same thought. Most court cases do not end in ‘jury’ trials unless you have lots of money for your defense. The saying “judged by twelve rather than carried by six” is the most poorly contrived thought process out there today in the real world. Know your mission and stick to it which should be getting home to your family everyday.
The best gun fight is the one you never have.
He ignores a major point. Shooting a robber DOES benefit me. It guarantees that robber will never be a threat to me or mine.
The perp does see you, you're confident of your training and ability at that distance.
I've got U.S. Law Shield coverage.
I take the shot, neutralize the threat, holster the weapon, ensure clerk is ok, call 911, then USLS.
Shoot the bastard.
Because dissuasion of that perp and MANY OTHER FUTURE PERPS is the point. Civilization has to start somewhere, with good people setting an example of behavior and consequences.
The robbery decision is easy: two birds with one stone.
Let's try a real event. (Granted,this happened in the early "70"s before society had become the rotting corpse it is today.)
Out in rural West Texas some deer hunters sat at a roadside park watching a DPS officer making a routine traffic stop. They witnessed the motorist shoot the DPS officer. One of the hunters grabbed his rifle and killed the motorist.
Would you have taken the shot?
And this is where the false analogy the author uses in his long-winded excuse for cowardice breaks down. If I was the only person in the world who could pay for the surgery, I would try to do so. In the same way, if I was the only one who could save the clerk in the robbery, I would try to do so. The only remaining argument the author has is that the defender is more likely to make things worse even in the hypothetically perfect defensive shooting scenario he described. If that is the case, the author shouldn't bother carrying at all. The only thing more nauseating than cowardice are the strained excuses cowards use to justify how pathetic they are.
Contrary to popular belief, there are no coincidences. Everything happens for a reason...God’s plan, not ours.
In the scenario, you are not in the store by accident. You are where God placed you. You have with you the means and ability to solve the issue by shooting the bad guy. If you can take the shot, take it. Aim small. Miss small. Know what is behind your target.
As the NRA says, the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
If you can’t take the shot that is presented to you, don’t carry.