I Am Not A "Sheepdog"

[Ronin13]

I posted yesterday about this guy, Vuurwapen Blog, in the GD, and as I was looking around at some of his videos I hadn't yet seen (there aren't many), one caught my eye. We've discussed this in great detail but I thought I'd share this and spark a discussion about how the points made in his video are quite good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AldptFMs2AM

One other thing to add, and my dad and I have talked about this since I got my CCW permit. He claims that if I had been present for something like the Giffords shooting or even the Aurora theater shooting, that if I did in fact withdraw my gun and engage the shooter, there is a definite possibility, during all the confusion, that I would be identified as an "active shooter" as well, especially in the immediate aftermath. Of course this would be much better to have happen and then be forced to explain my actions to the police (with a lawyer present of course), than to be counted among the dead or wounded victims, but it is interesting to think about. Of course, as the video above touches upon, we don't have a duty to act, and I now am forced to agree with Andrew (Vuurwapen) that "Sheepdog" is not a proper title I would be comfortable with. I'd prefer to think that I carry to protect myself, and depending on the circumstances and situation, others if afforded the opportunity and advantage to. YMMV. [Beer]

[275RLTW]

He misinterprets what Grossman is defining as a sheepdog, as do many people these days. Perhaps he should actually read On Combat before publishing a video about the material in it. Typical popularity contest wanna-be: talks without knowing. Grossman never mentions that sheepdogs have any responsibility to protect all the sheep, only that they look similar to wolves because they have tools to defend themselves. If you don't know the origins of the "sheepdog" analogy, then do a quick search as I've posted it here several times over the years.

[275RLTW]

Here is the speech...again. Notice only the old Veteran says that he chooses to devote his life to protecting the flock, as does every volunteer who raises his hand and swears their oath upon enlistment/commission.
On Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves
By Dave Grossman
One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another.
Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there that will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."...

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.
Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
Until the wolf shows up! Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- From sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
"Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men." - Edmund Burke
Here is the point I like to emphasize; especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust, or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear, helplessness, and horror at your moment of truth.
Gavin de Becker puts it like this in "Fear Less," his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.
If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa."
This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically, at your moment of truth.

[Tinelement]

I personally think he's a pus.

Just my opinion.

[Ronin13]

He misinterprets what Grossman is defining as a sheepdog, as do many people these days. Perhaps he should actually read On Combat before publishing a video about the material in it. Typical popularity contest wanna-be: talks without knowing. Grossman never mentions that sheepdogs have any responsibility to protect all the sheep, only that they look similar to wolves because they have tools to defend themselves. If you don't know the origins of the "sheepdog" analogy, then do a quick search as I've posted it here several times over the years.
I understand your point, but as with most terminology, the exact definition is lost in translation (not meaning translation from one language to another, but translation from one source to another). He is talking about how most would understand sheepdog who haven't heard the original description- that is to say "The sheepdogs protect the flock from the wolves"- when in reality it actually means "The sheepdogs are capable of protecting the flock from the wolves... but do not have any obligation to." But it is good discussion, seeing as how we take on a responsibility when carrying (and even owning) firearms, be it open or concealed. The fact of the matter is, carrying concealed makes you no more obligated to protect those around than the police have- yep, I do believe that, cops don't carry guns for YOUR protection, they carry for THEIR OWN protection.

[275RLTW]

He sounds like the Ellen Degeneres of the shooting world. I can just picture him, Masaad Ayoob, and John Farnam all sitting around complaining that their favorite 1960s leather holster broke, showing off their camouflaged carry guns, and getting each other off to videos of themselves "doing it for real" at the range.

[Great-Kazoo]

He sounds like the Ellen Degeneres of the shooting world. I can just picture him, Masaad Ayoob, and John Farnam all sitting around complaining that their favorite 1960s leather holster broke, showing off their camouflaged carry guns, and getting each other off to videos of themselves "doing it for real" at the range.

[ROFL2]

[mb504]

I'll just be a Porcupine... don't come near me and don't annoy me, then we can all go home without any problems.

[Trisha]

Ditto.

(sigh)

And then I find the worst case example and I know I won't turn away and leave someone screaming while 3-4 others attack. I've been on the receiving end.

(sigh)

[losttrail]

I'll just stay the Kodiak bear. You can walk near me and it will be ok. But if you poke me, the dynamics change and not in your favor.

[MarkCO]

Regardless of the terminology, it comes down to your own personal code of ethics. If you are from the "me" generation or the "entitlement" generation and ascribe to those values, then the OP video may appeal to your own self interest. FWIW, that is one of the base problems facing our country. There are lots of scenarios/tactics/methodoligies and those who have endeavored to be skilled are a general asset to society. Those who are self-focused, to me offer society no benefit and are no better than a vicitim and maybe even are a coward. Now, not everyone (few in fact) have the drive, determination and skill to stop a general attack and in those cases, the person who may possess some tool(s) to change the possible outcome should act reasonably so as to not uselessly become a victim. Any interjection beyond "victim" is assocaited with many risks. The skilled person has to tools to evaluate the risk and potentially sieze upon a presented opportunity to change the outcome.

[Bailey Guns]

He sounds like the Ellen Degeneres of the shooting world. I can just picture him, Masaad Ayoob, and John Farnam all sitting around complaining that their favorite 1960s leather holster broke, showing off their camouflaged carry guns, and getting each other off to videos of themselves "doing it for real" at the range.

That is fucking hilarious! And I can actually visualize it!

[Trisha]

Perhaps "Each to their abilities" Mark. Physical limitations are relevant, and applicable to the OP.

A few too many hospitalizations downstream.

Internet advice is worth what you'd pay for it. Often I see it as a gadfly/agitprop.

[Ronin13]

Regardless of the terminology, it comes down to your own personal code of ethics. If you are from the "me" generation or the "entitlement" generation and ascribe to those values, then the OP video may appeal to your own self interest. FWIW, that is one of the base problems facing our country. There are lots of scenarios/tactics/methodoligies and those who have endeavored to be skilled are a general asset to society. Those who are self-focused, to me offer society no benefit and are no better than a vicitim and maybe even are a coward. Now, not everyone (few in fact) have the drive, determination and skill to stop a general attack and in those cases, the person who may possess some tool(s) to change the possible outcome should act reasonably so as to not uselessly become a victim. Any interjection beyond "victim" is assocaited with many risks. The skilled person has to tools to evaluate the risk and potentially sieze upon a presented opportunity to change the outcome.
I really can't agree with that. I don't think that's what Vuurwapen is talking about... To boil down my interpretation of what you're saying (because that's all I can comment on, how I read what you posted): You either will stop an attack, or you're a coward. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

I think you can't blanket label things like this... Any action decided by the individual is dependent on the situation and several factors. Simply saying "If the situation and factors were right, yes I would act if I could," is sufficient, but no one person, regardless of the situation and if they had an opportunity to act, can be expected to act or be chastised for not acting. I carry, but unless I feel if I can 100% defend my actions and they are right, then I will act, but no one can say that I carry therefore I MUST act. It would be like if I were present at the Aurora theater and was armed, and had a tactical advantage on Mr. Holmes' position and could have stopped him at any time, but refused to act. What if I was not comfortable with defending my actions to the PD? Or in court? Or a host of other reasons.

[MarkCO]

Ronin, Trisha figured out what I was saying. You said you don't agree then wrote a paragrpaph that agrees with what I said. :)

Granted wordplay, but nothing is 100%, and I did NOT blanket anyone. I would never tell anyone that they have a duty to defend another unknown person. That violates my core beleifs that no person should be controlled by another, and you are free to do as you please provided it harms no-one else. When I don my personal code of ethics, there are situations where I must act, whereas someone else must not (or vice versa). Case in point...I had no choice but to go and fight at the Capitol over the past month or so. It cost me a lot, but I had no choice based on my personal convictions. I will not however put that burden on anyone else, but would gladly share it with anyone willing. Exact same situation here.

[Zundfolge]

He claims that if I had been present for something like the Giffords shooting or even the Aurora theater shooting, that if I did in fact withdraw my gun and engage the shooter, there is a definite possibility, during all the confusion, that I would be identified as an "active shooter" as well, especially in the immediate aftermath.

Right ... because a CCWer is almost guaranteed to be identified as an "active shooter" and shot by police when Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Hasan, Eric Harris and Dennis Klebold were not.

[Ronin13]

Ronin, Trisha figured out what I was saying. You said you don't agree then wrote a paragrpaph that agrees with what I said. :)

Granted wordplay, but nothing is 100%, and I did NOT blanket anyone. I would never tell anyone that they have a duty to defend another unknown person. That violates my core beleifs that no person should be controlled by another, and you are free to do as you please provided it harms no-one else. When I don my personal code of ethics, there are situations where I must act, whereas someone else must not (or vice versa). Case in point...I had no choice but to go and fight at the Capitol over the past month or so. It cost me a lot, but I had no choice based on my personal convictions. I will not however put that burden on anyone else, but would gladly share it with anyone willing. Exact same situation here.
I must not have read that correct then.

Right ... because a CCWer is almost guaranteed to be identified as an "active shooter" and shot by police when Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho, Nidal Hasan, Eric Harris and Dennis Klebold were not.
That is quite a stretch there... re-read what I wrote, then think about it, and then read what you wrote... I said, in discussing the issue with my father, he remarked that there is a chance that if you engage a shooter, you could be identified as a bad guy by witnesses, simply because you were "one of the people shooting." I didn't say you'd be shot by police, or there was a "guarantee" you'd be ID'd as an active shooter, just that the possibility exists that someone, in the midst of all the confusion, might point a finger at you and say "Well he was shooting."

[Rucker61]

I must not have read that correct then.

That is quite a stretch there... re-read what I wrote, then think about it, and then read what you wrote... I said, in discussing the issue with my father, he remarked that there is a chance that if you engage a shooter, you could be identified as a bad guy by witnesses, simply because you were "one of the people shooting." I didn't say you'd be shot by police, or there was a "guarantee" you'd be ID'd as an active shooter, just that the possibility exists that someone, in the midst of all the confusion, might point a finger at you and say "Well he was shooting."

They're just gonna tackle you, right?

[Ronin13]

They're just gonna tackle you, right?
No, not everyone is a high speed chairborne ranger like you that just willy nilly tackles gunmen... [facepalm]

[strm_trpr]

This is a big issue even for off duty police. It comes down to the situation dictating the tactics used. Sometimes it is better in a situation such as a bank robbery to be a good witness. In other situations such as an active shooter it becomes a bit more difficult. It is a personal decision and nobody should be faulted for acting or not acting in that situation. Most police will not go into an active shooter environment until they have a minimum of 2 other officers to form up on. But, if there is an active shooter in the room, you see him, you have a shot, then why not shoot, I would feel horrible if I could save some people but decided to run instead of ingage.

[jhood001]

The 'sheepdog' nomenclature wasn't originally penned in order to dictate rules of conduct while carrying. It was used to describe a mentality that exists between the extremes of predator and prey within society.

Watch some Animal Planet. When a predator shows up, the sheep all run. They do so because they're afraid and because they know, on some level, that if they're faster, someone else is going to get eaten while they escape.

The 'sheepdog' say's: 'I'm not running, bitch. I'm just as deadly as you are'.

That is all it means. No more and no less.

[Cthulhu]

I'm no sheepdog. I'm a mother-fucking platypus!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y8DL88Yv9wU/TeTxHToVgKI/AAAAAAAAAhE/_EW09sLMPpI/s1600/FUCK+YOU+IM+A+PLATYPUS.jpg

[NightCat]

To a degree I have to agree with him.

I do not carry a firearm to protect the general public, it is to protect the immediate people which I am with unless a situation arises where I am feasibly able to deploy my firearm.

It's sorta gray in some area's, and especially in Occupied Colorado you have to consider more than ever the repercussions that may follow.

I'm sure as you all know, as concealed carry permit holders we must hold ourselves to a higher level than your average Joe, for we are entrusted to have a firearm by our sheriff for PROTECTION.

Where is the line drawn between Vigilantism and doing "the right thing." Which is a point he doesn't bring up, the legal ramifications of our actions. Understanding that every round I fire down anyone of my weapons I own, I am accountable for its final location. While I am confident in my Hornady Critical Duty to perform its job, If I engage a "bad guy" and that round(s) over penetrates into my background and injures somebody, I may be facing manslaughter and jail or prison time.

I think the greatest responsibility of carrying a firearm on a daily basis is knowing when NOT to deploy your weapon, are you an asset or are you hindering the situation, and as this guy says in his vid, you don't have all the information. You could be seeing a gun battle erupt and you don't know who the good guy or bad guy is...It could be an undercover sting opp gone south and the guys you may end up shooting at could be Undercover police officers, DEA, FBI, whatever it may be.

Or if life is not a question...some guy comes to rob a gas station you're in and all he wants is money and hard assets....fuck it, let the guy take it...It's all insured and will get written off, you may find that you deploy a firearm and the initial robber has an accomplice and incapacitates you, you have now given a firearm to the "bad guys" and it's really hit the fan because you have now become a hindrance to the situation and they robbers may get agitated and start shooting.

I think it's ridiculous that anyone call this man a Pussy, he opens up a very good topic that perhaps isn't talked about enough.

Aurora shooting, we can all say what we WOULD have done, but none of us were there, and no one did anything....everything is 20/20 in the past...a point I think he brings up very well. Foresight is always 20/20, in the heat of shit, who would be able to positively Identify the shooter in that theater and take appropriate action to protect life, self included. The occupants thought it was all apart of the premier until the blood started feeling/smelling/tasting real....no one wants to shoot an actor paid to do a job and find themselves in prison for the next 10-20 years or whatever the sentence be.

Now given, had I been on my way to enter or exit the theater and seen a guy at his trunk loading up with LBE and a AR with a Beta mag looking the part outside of LE/Mil I may have drawn on the guy and told him to put his face on the ground....LE are usually Pretty damn quick to Identify who they are in this sort situation or have obvious "POLICE", "SWAT", "SHERIFF" tags on there LBE...but....fuck, who knows.

I agree to disagree with him and several other members opinions on this forum.

When it comes down to, each situation has to be judged and handled as it happens....no one wants to be George Zimmerman under a microscope for what im sure he thought was the right thing and was protecting himself, not even protecting others....and now look at the poor fucker, regardless of your thoughts on the case of which I could give a fuck less, the media spun it into some racial bullshit when it should be about an unfortunate loss of life...but whatever.

No one wants to be that guy on trial for making the wrong decision when the situation was beyond your understanding or control and you end up deploying a firearm and using lethal force when it was not authorized...

[Ronin13]

^Well put NightCat! The gas station scenario is one I use a lot...

[timmyp30]

Ditto on the Kodiak

[Shiro]

Nightcat has a good point here, I would like to recall the Event in Portland, http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Sadly overshadowed by Newtown, but I think this is a good example of a guy who made all the right decisions. He brought a gun, he drew a gun, he evaluated his target, and what was beyond it, and he did not fire. None the less, I think he pretty clearly saved lives.