Man who opened fire on Texas church shooter hailed as 'good Samaritan'

[moriah]

48. I understand you don't like the narrative you feel they're pushing...

... by the way they're presenting the story. That it feeds into the "we need guns to stop guns" thing the same way that suggestions men are inherently more dangerous than women and women are vulnerable to them feeds the "women need strong men capable of violence to protect them from strong men capable of violence" idiocy.

But if I was confident in my capabilities with a firearm (I'm not at the moment as I no longer own and routinely shoot one anymore) and realized there was a mass shooting, I hope I would have had the courage to grab my weapon and try to do something.

I would follow all of the four rules -- I would assume it was loaded from the moment I picked it up, but would in that instance be checking to verify it WAS loaded. I normally stored my pistol where I could just slam my mag in and rack the slide vs storing it loaded at all, but I always checked to make sure there wasn't a round in the chamber.

I wouldn't have it visible or drawn unless I actually felt a shot would be effective unless the only thing I had *was* a rifle, and I haven't shot one since deer camp as a teen. That might slow reaction time, but you should never draw or aim unless you are sure shooting is what needs to happen. I might walk out and realize all I could do was help the wounded.

I wouldn't put my finger on the trigger, even drawn, until I had my target in sight, was certain of my target and what was beyond it, and had made the decision to take a life and hope it stopped more killing.

-----

And if I didn't have a weapon, I hope I would still have had the courage to go out and do something. Whatever it took, whatever could do the most good. Even if it meant taking his life however I could.

Why?

Because if a person has just shot up a ton of people, it's simply logical to assume they are capable of shooting more. They have just demonstrated enough callous disregard for human life that the risk to other innocent people by not doing what it took to get the weapon out of their hands and get them into custody -- up to and including lethal force -- is too great to rule out lethal force. If another life is likely to be lost unless the shooter is stopped, and the situation is that the shooter's life or another's will be, it should be the shooter who dies.

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but it hasn't ruptured.