Self Defense and Mag Dumps plus using an AR as a bystander in an active shooter situation

No they ended their advice with not having it on your person.

Range bag okay it’s for the range. In your car it’s okay, in your house it’s okay.

In a backpack on your person? Nope.

1 Like

Maybe that’s why I stopped watching their channel entirely, then?

Do you feel it is good advice to not carry first aid gear/supplies? Are you taking their advice?

What about to stop training?


Here is a thread about their advice (one of the threads)

1 Like

No I’m not taking there advice. I don’t care what stupid arguments should be made or what you want to or don’t want to deal with.

Them saying a Self Defense incident isn’t apart of emergency preparedness is just stupid.

If I have to use my gun, it is an emergency, and I’m going to have to prepare for that. I myself or a loved one may get shot or stabbed, and I may have to use my kit to save their/my life. It’s my job to know, legally what are my duties, and what is and isn’t generally allowed.

It’s my lawyers job, to take the cards on the table, and explain as to how I’m a reasonable person and why I felt the need to use force. They’re supposed to represent me and be my advocate, not tell me stupid ■■■■.

Typical internet BS. No individual with a functioning brain would EVER recommend this crap. You, and You alone are responsible for every single round you fire. Try explaining to a jury why you felt the need to “dump a magazine”. What nonsense. Ditto for “100 yard SD shots”. Unless you are under direct fire most likely from a rifle, you will never be able to justify such actions. People need to get over their Rambo complex and move back into the real world…


Honestly if my defense attorney can’t tell the prosecution, jury and judge, “He didn’t use the Med kit on the bad guy because he has no duty to, the guy just tried to kill him, he did what any reasonable person is supposed to do which was call the police to secure the scene and send EMS on their way.”

Then I need a new defense attorney.


Hence, a constant reminder to myself:

“I am NOT a cop.”


rendering aid. She did, but not strongly, say not having it on one’s person, but in car, maybe in backback.

In a car, or in a range back, but on a day to day basis having a trauma kit on you or around you she said no, so if it’s in a backpack, she said no to backpack. I have my trauma kit in my backpack, I carry it to work, friends house, it has deoderant, phone charger, and everything else I need.


But we carry, not to render aid to “bg”, but for us and other innocent victims. The discussion on rendering aid to “bg” has been covered on at least one other thread. Personally, I wouldn’t due to if the “bg” was enough of a threat to warrant lethal force, I wouldn’t trust “bg” not to still be a danger, unless said “bg” was no longer breathing, and I wouldn’t get close enough to determine that.


This is why I don’t watch that channel any more.

1 Like

Yes that is why we carry the trauma kit, and the big argument for her is the prosecution would say “You didn’t render aid cause you wanted them to die.” So if you get rid of the medkit, they can’t make that statement, in which as to I think, is ridiculous. You can easily blow that argument out of the water.

And I would say, I didn’t render aid because I am not an EMT and not able to determine if said bg was still a danger to me at hands-on distance. Besides, the defense atty should be able to table that argument.


Precisely. So many ways to counter that inane argument. Not that I’m a lawyer and I suppose I shouldn’t say a lawyer is wrong about a legal thing, but…yeah I’m not going to avoid carrying first aid/trauma gear nor suggest anyone else avoid it because of this.

And in theory the same should apply to a person conceal carrying an AR type firearm in a mall if alllll of the other facts and circumstances of the incident are good. Though…those facts and circumstances are maybe going to be looked at harder in that case…


When it comes to that type of situation, just look at what’s happening with the case where the guy shot Tanner Cook- the prankster. He was acquitted of all self defense charges, but still found guilty of shooting inside a building, but lets say hypothetically, wife or loved one goes into a mall and 10 minutes later you hear shots fired outside, and see a rifleman run inside. Your family is in there and you need to save them, so you get your rifle, head into the mall, find your family and help get them out, and lets say for instance you run into the shooter or you find the shooter.

Your lawyer is probably going to try to bring up the amount of lives saved due to your efforts, there was 15 people injured, 3 people died, and due to your actions, you stopped the threat, got police to secure the scene, and got 15 people to a medic, and saved at least 15 lives, and possibly up to 100’s of lives due to your efforts.

That’s what your lawyer should drive home.

Prosecution will try to say you’re a nut job, or a vigilante, or label you all kinds of crazy, but when you speak to the jury, explain to them what was your mission, and what was your goal, and what was the best way to achieve that goal.

Now on the flip side of things, what happens when you go in with a rifle, and see said active shooter, but it turns out to be a plain clothes cop. That’s where you’re talking legal trouble, and in that case you’re really in deep water.

I’m not a lawyer, but I believe at the end of the day it is the message you’re sending to the jury, and you need the Jury to understand the place you’re coming from.


The only reason I avoid malls is because we don’t have any where I live. I have been in malls but they don’t seem any more dangerous than anywhere else.

1 Like

What makes malls dangerous vs many other places are the people. Generally, a lot of people. People who can, will, and do generally get close, possibly very close, to you. And you to them.

It’s even a place where it’s fairly normal and typical for people to be standing around, idle, or maybe not idle hard to tell, you can’t tell if they have business there or belong there, most do, some may not, people watching you happens as there are people watchers or they just look around while they wait for their kid to come out of the store…etc.

That’s different than a lot of other places. They also often have silly rules against firearms, and some people follow those rules. Sometimes it’s even weight of law. So it looks like a relatively target rich environment to some bad actors.

Plus, generally, going to a mall means being in a large, busy parking lot. Parking lots and gas stations are the ultimate transitional spaces, extremely high risk areas.


There shouldn’t be such a worry about which tool you used to stop a mass shooter. Rifle, handgun, knife, baseball bat, crow bar, bow & arrow doesn’t make a difference. They are all lethal force, there is no “more lethal” than another under the law.

If you are legally OK using a handgun to defend yourself you would be fine using a rifle. The important thing is “why” are you using that firearm.

Any concerns someone might bring up about shooting at 100 yards also apply at 10 yards or even 1 yard. Is that bad guy an immediate threat (to you, or others in the case of a mass shooting)? Are you sure you are shooting at the right person (positive ID)? Is there anything in the line of fire between you and the bad guy or beyond the bad guy you have to avoid? Are those things more challenging to be certain of at 100yards instead of 10 yards? Yes. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t discernable, you just must be extra careful before you engage at that type of distance.

Remember, under this hypothetical scenario, you’ve just stopped a mass shooter with a 100yard shot across a mall with a rifle. Which part of that, exactly, is a malicious prosecutor going to try to charge you with? It wouldn’t matter if the DA thinks you’re a Rambo wanna-be, carrying around a rifle in a backpack… what are they going to charge the person who just stopped a mass shooting with?

A malicious prosecutor is going to try to make anything you do look bad. If you are using hollow points (as you should) a prosecutor will say those are banned by the Geneva Convention, cop killers, designed to torture (expand). If you use FMJ they’ll say those are for military use, reckless because of over-penetration.

So there isn’t much point in worrying about what a malicious prosecutor is going to dream up. You can only be responsible for your actions and making sure your actions are as objectively reasonable and logical as possible. Have a clear answer of why you do what you do. Know your boundaries ahead of time as to when you will engage and whose life(s) you are willing to risk your life and livelihood to save.


Finally someone who gets it, thank you.