I listen to Stefan Molyneux's show pretty often and he put forth an interesting argument to a caller who lives near the site of the recent slaughter in California. His argument was essentially this: - You should not run into an active shooter situation, even if you're the only one who has a chance to end it because of two things, the people you might save, and the safety risk. - The safety risk is obvious, you would likely be out-gunned and putting yourself in unnecessary danger (only engage if the threat is between you and your escape). - The people you might save aren't necessarily worth saving on a societal level; these are going to be predominantly people who have been voting to restrict your own ability to defend yourself, as well as voting for other leftist laws that drive the country deeper into the ground. - So, when you as a conservative/constitutionalist/libertarian/whatever are in the serious minority and of more philosophical and political value, why risk your life unnecessarily for these people who are essentially your enemies? Anyone who has listened/seen his show will know that he likes to put forth controversial, but logically-defensible arguments to make others THINK. Does such a perspective have any validity?