How would you feel if someone was illegaly carrying a gun and ended up stopping a massacre?

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
First and foremost, this is not the place to say guns are or are not the problem, mental heath care is or is not the problem, or any of that political bullshit. Keep to the question, please.

Second, I am not in any way, shape, or form advocating for breaking the law.


Third, there is no TLDR because you need to read this if you're going to reply to it.

So, I got out of my college class early today because of an argument before class. It started out as a discussion, became heated, one person antagonized the other, and then it got serious. Several people were ready to call the cops because of the things the guy said, but the issue is they were all implied threats. IE, "I'm clinically insane, the only reason I'm not in the hospital is because I was self admitted and they couldn't keep me." "If I don't care about my life why would I care about yours?" "If it weren't illegal, stupid fucking fat fucks like you'd be dead." He was asked to leave and because of fear amongst the students class was dismissed, but the question was raised "What about the next time we have class?" The best the proff could say is that the Dean and department head would review the case to see if permanent removal was called for and that campus security would be on station if anything happened. I waited till after class and asked the proff what the active shooter plan was, like a fire plan but with an active shooter. I got the patented "hide under your desk" plan ripped straight out of a 1950's elementary nuclear bomb plan... I did a quick tactical assessment and, sparing you all the details, if there were an active shooter 60% of the class is dead before the first person makes it to the secondary exit. Another 20% during the rush for the rest of the class to get out. Another 5% if the shooter follows into the hall. (rough estimations)

So then I got thinking, places like colleges and movie theaters have standing "no firearms/weapons" policies. But how would I feel if someone broke that law and then was the one to save my life? How would I, the media, and society react if someone was able to stop a massacre at 3 dead instead of double digits but were only able to do so because they themselves broke the law? In the interest of full disclosure I do often legally carry canceled and never carry where the law says I can't, nor do I plan to. This doesn't just have to be colleges or movie theaters though. It could be handguns are illegal in your country or what have you. It's just the general scenario I'm curious about.

So escapists, how would you feel?
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
Honestly, I would be glad, especially if I was in the classroom. It's easy to call down harsh judgment when you are not the person there. Granted, I don't think people should be carrying weapons around on college campuses like that, but if this did happen, then good on the person.
There would still be consequences for sure, because that is how society works, but they would be relaxed I'm sure.

On a side note, you really should push to get that guy expelled or something. With everything happening nowadays, threats like that can no longer be taken as off-handed remarks. Frankly, someone should have called the cops right then, instead of telling the guy to leave.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
If you are doing something illegal, even if for a good cause, be prepared and accepting of judjement.

I am not saying that said person should not bring firearms if they truly think that this is needed, but said person should also realise that in doing so they ARE breaking the law.

And as soon as you let such person pass away without proper judjement because they've done the right thing, you'll create a precedent. In the next month, you'll see at least dozen of people carrying firearms that they have no right to carry, because "they may end up stopping massacre". I don't think I need to explain all the concequences of such actions of the court.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,477
4,102
118
Er...I don't think the question can be answered with the stipulations given in the first sentence of the OP. Carrying an illegal firearm in a classroom can't easily be divorced from politics.
 

Drathnoxis

I love the smell of card games in the morning
Legacy
Sep 23, 2010
5,974
2,206
118
Just off-screen
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Oh yeah, that's what we need during a shooting, more people firing into the crowd.

What if there were more than 1 person who had that idea? Now you've got 3+ shooters and it's getting pretty hard to tell who the person who initiated the massacre is. What if someone came in from a different room or outside and was also carrying a gun, now you have someone who doesn't even have any idea what's going on firing at 2+ shooters. What about when the police show up, how are they to know who to neutralize? It'd be utter chaos.

Really, it would probably get more people killed than if there was just the one shooter.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Er...I don't think the question can be answered with the stipulations given in the first sentence of the OP. Carrying an illegal firearm in a classroom can't easily be divorced from politics.
Really? You are unable to draw a conclusion about how you'd feel if someone illegally carrying a firearm/weapon stopped a massacre without politics? Because that was the question.

Sniper Team 4 said:
On a side note, you really should push to get that guy expelled or something. With everything happening nowadays, threats like that can no longer be taken as off-handed remarks. Frankly, someone should have called the cops right then, instead of telling the guy to leave.
Problem was they were all implied. He never said he'd harm anyone.

Mister K said:
If you are doing something illegal, even if for a good cause, be prepared and accepting of judjement.
I completely agree, that's the interesting part of the question. I agree they should be held accountable, but on the other hand had they been following the law many more people would have died.

Drathnoxis said:
Oh yeah, that's what we need during a shooting, more people firing into the crowd.
I guess that I have to add another stipulation. Those who are carrying know what the hell they're doing. So someone who has their CWP or otherwise is adequately trained simply takes their firearm into a restricted area.

But anyway, how would you feel if someone stopped a massacre while illegally carrying, else I might start to think you're trying to make a political statement.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,477
4,102
118
Sarge034 said:
thaluikhain said:
Er...I don't think the question can be answered with the stipulations given in the first sentence of the OP. Carrying an illegal firearm in a classroom can't easily be divorced from politics.
Really? You are unable to draw a conclusion about how you'd feel if someone illegally carrying a firearm/weapon stopped a massacre without politics? Because that was the question.
Yes, because the larger issues of firearms possession and the legality of such would be a big part of that.

Whether or not I feel the law is just is going to affect how I feel about someone breaking it.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
Well on the non-political side of things, the person would be regarded as a hero by many, but at the same time would be vilified for actively breaking the law. In this case the person who carried the firearm illegally would likely and should definitely be punished to the fullest extent of the law, because they did break the law. If it's allowed to slip then the law regarding such instances now has a precedent set against it's effective enforcement, rendering the law effectively moot. A law that is not enforced cannot be considered valid, that's the base line. So if the second shooter who saved dozens of lives broke the law, they should be punished, or the law should be changed, or eliminated.

On the political side. Well depending on how the situation plays out it will hurt both the pro-gun and anti-gun side of the debate. The public might fall more to the pro-gun side though because of a net good, i.e. stopping the spree shooter from killing more people than they managed to. It's a can of worms though, one with no simple answer, because politics is all about twisting the information to suit your stance and cause.

Personally I think people should be free to carry where ever they like, assuming that open carry is legal, or if the weapon is concealed then them having the legal license to do so. All gun free zones do is create soft targets that are easy for spree shooters to take advantage of. Places that allow people to carry generally aren't subject to spree shootings, while spree shooters actively avoid places where carrying handguns is encouraged. Since we can't put the firearm genie back in the bottle, we might as well just let people carry handguns when they're of legal age and are licensed to do so.
 

Bobular

New member
Oct 7, 2009
845
0
0
Rewarded as a hero for saving people, punished as a criminal for illegally carrying a weapon. As far as I'm concerned they are not mutually exclusive.

The person was illegally carrying the weapon before any shooting started, and you've got to ask questions about anyone who illegally brings weapons into a school.

Thats what I think SHOULD happen, but in reality politics will twist the event to further their goals, which ever side your on.
 

FirstNameLastName

Premium Fraud
Nov 6, 2014
1,080
0
0
I wouldn't hold any moral objections against the person, but I can't say I'd want them to be exempt from the law. As horrible as it sounds to punish someone who has just saved people's lives, I don't think the law should be "You can't carry a gun here, unless people really like you, then it's okay."
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,656
752
118
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Bobular said:
Rewarded as a hero for saving people, punished as a criminal for illegally carrying a weapon. As far as I'm concerned they are not mutually exclusive.

The person was illegally carrying the weapon before any shooting started, and you've got to ask questions about anyone who illegally brings weapons into a school.

Thats what I think SHOULD happen, but in reality politics will twist the event to further their goals, which ever side your on.
As far as I'm concerned that is exactly what should happen. I personally would thank the person for resolving the situation without the loss of innocent life, and then report the person's illegal carry or testify that a person was breaking the law... that's just how the law should work, making no exceptions. As for politics, politicians and pundits on both sides use whatever story for whatever reason to further their agenda. In a perfect world, the rest of us non-ideologue moderates would tell both sides and their increasingly extremist agendas to shut their damn traps and just ignore their bleating for attention.

It's time to tell the freaking gun lobby that people who suggest that maybe we should close loopholes that allow people to pay cash and show NO ID to buy ASSAULT RIFLES... those people shouldn't be written off as "CRAZY ANTI-AMERICAN GUN GRABBERS." And to the other side, just because I don't have a problem with someone owning a hunting rifle or a farmer with a shotgun... that doesn't make me a bible-thumping hick screaming "they tuk urr gunz."
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,477
4,102
118
Kyrian007 said:
It's time to tell the freaking gun lobby that people who suggest that maybe we should close loopholes that allow people to pay cash and show NO ID to buy ASSAULT RIFLES... those people shouldn't be written off as "CRAZY ANTI-AMERICAN GUN GRABBERS." And to the other side, just because I don't have a problem with someone owning a hunting rifle or a farmer with a shotgun... that doesn't make me a bible-thumping hick screaming "they tuk urr gunz."
Assault rifles (and every other automatic weapon) are very heavily restricted. At least by US standards. Assault weapons, OTOH, aren't.
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,656
752
118
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
thaluikhain said:
Kyrian007 said:
It's time to tell the freaking gun lobby that people who suggest that maybe we should close loopholes that allow people to pay cash and show NO ID to buy ASSAULT RIFLES... those people shouldn't be written off as "CRAZY ANTI-AMERICAN GUN GRABBERS." And to the other side, just because I don't have a problem with someone owning a hunting rifle or a farmer with a shotgun... that doesn't make me a bible-thumping hick screaming "they tuk urr gunz."
Assault rifles (and every other automatic weapon) are very heavily restricted. At least by US standards. Assault weapons, OTOH, aren't.
It's the "gun show" loophole. Several years ago I watched a video (can't find it at the moment) by I believe ABC News where a reporter put his wallet in the glovebox, walked into a gun show without any ID and $1000 and walked out with an AR15 (frankly whether that is "weapon" or "rifle" is a weak semantics argument that makes no practical difference.) He was not arrested for breaking any law and neither was the vendor. So even if that is technically against the law, it is one that is not enforced, at least not in Florida where the video was recorded.

Kind of like supposed "safety" features on guns. They are supposed to have them, and they used to. But handguns these days all have "trigger safeties" which are just little tabs on the trigger. Meaning that to disengage the "safety" you have to PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER. You know, the same thing you have to do to FIRE THE WEAPON, completely defeating the purpose of having a safety in the first place. The US may have "gun laws" but in all practical sense there are none. They either have loopholes or are just ignored. My state very nearly passed a law making it illegal for federal weapons officials (atf for example) to enforce U.S. "gun laws" in our state. They only stopped when their lawyers finally convinced them how unbelievably ILLEGAL passing such a law would be. And our legislature only listened because of how much MONEY they would be wasting by trying to defend themselves and that law in court.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,477
4,102
118
Kyrian007 said:
(frankly whether that is "weapon" or "rifle" is a weak semantics argument that makes no practical difference.)
An assault rifle has a select fire capability, an assault weapon does not, they aren't the same thing. Though, I agree with your point in general.

Kyrian007 said:
Kind of like supposed "safety" features on guns. They are supposed to have them, and they used to. But handguns these days all have "trigger safeties" which are just little tabs on the trigger. Meaning that to disengage the "safety" you have to PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER. You know, the same thing you have to do to FIRE THE WEAPON, completely defeating the purpose of having a safety in the first place. The US may have "gun laws" but in all practical sense there are none.
Er, no, certain handguns (such as Glocks) have done away with thumb safeties, but there's plenty that still have them. Making the thing more drop safe isn't a bad idea anyway.

Secondly, revolvers are very common and almost never have any kind of safety. Though, often a heavy trigger pull, and single action ones need to be cocked before firing.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
[small]DID SOMEONE SAY GUNS[/small]

I'll leave it simply at:
I would have great respect for this person.
I would congratulate this person.
Should I be on the jury to judge this person of illegally carrying a concealed weapon, I'd have two words in mind.

Drathnoxis said:
Oh yeah, that's what we need during a shooting, more people firing into the crowd.

What if there were more than 1 person who had that idea? Now you've got 3+ shooters and it's getting pretty hard to tell who the person who initiated the massacre is. What if someone came in from a different room or outside and was also carrying a gun, now you have someone who doesn't even have any idea what's going on firing at 2+ shooters. What about when the police show up, how are they to know who to neutralize? It'd be utter chaos.

Really, it would probably get more people killed than if there was just the one shooter.
You're assuming people with guns would fire willy nilly into a cluster of people when that actually violates one of the core rules of handling a firearm.

If cops show up and there were three people that filled the shooter with foreign objects, chances are the situation would have been dealt with and those armed would not have their carry weapons unholstered. Otherwise, you're arguing against the police who typically do fire into crowds and don't care for bystanders.

Kyrian007 said:
It's the "gun show" loophole.
Oh god no.
There is no gun show loophole. Anyone calling it that does not know what a loophole is.
Several years ago I watched a video (can't find it at the moment) by I believe ABC News where a reporter put his wallet in the glovebox, walked into a gun show without any ID and $1000 and walked out with an AR15
Yes. He performed a private sale which varies by state whether or not gun show firearm sales require background checks.
(frankly whether that is "weapon" or "rifle" is a weak semantics argument that makes no practical difference.)
Uh, yes it does. Especially using the term "assault rifle" as that actually has a solid definition, as well as there being a large meaning in the definition of a "weapon" and a "rifle".
He was not arrested for breaking any law and neither was the vendor.
Because that is legal to do. See above.
So even if that is technically against the law, it is one that is not enforced, at least not in Florida where the video was recorded.
No law was broken as that is not illegal in Florida.
Kind of like supposed "safety" features on guns. They are supposed to have them, and they used to.I don't like where this is going. But handguns these days all have "trigger safeties" which are just little tabs on the trigger. Meaning that to disengage the "safety" you have to PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER. You know, the same thing you have to do to FIRE THE WEAPON, completely defeating the purpose of having a safety in the first place.
I don't even.
Simply put, you do not put your finger on the trigger of a firearm unless it is time to pew pew. Anyone violating this rule(especially in combination to pointing their gun like an idiot at others) deserves to be beatby every able bodied patron in the bar. You do not entirely understand the concept of a safety, or rather the purpose.
The US may have "gun laws" but in all practical sense there are none.
We have quite a few gun laws on the books.
They either have loopholes or are just ignored.
There aren't really loopholes, though I'll agree several are just very badly enforced, or abused in several cases.
My state very nearly passed a law making it illegal for federal weapons officials (atf for example) to enforce U.S. "gun laws" in our state.
Lucky. My state has gun control out the wazoo and yet we still have LA being a war zone.
They only stopped when their lawyers finally convinced them how unbelievably ILLEGAL passing such a law would be.
Possibly illegal federally, but who actually has the power to have laws made, passed, or ripped out? The People.
And our legislature only listened because of how much MONEY they would be wasting by trying to defend themselves and that law in court.
Bit sad the feds would bankrupt a state over freedom.
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,656
752
118
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
thaluikhain said:
Kyrian007 said:
(frankly whether that is "weapon" or "rifle" is a weak semantics argument that makes no practical difference.)
An assault rifle has a select fire capability, an assault weapon does not, they aren't the same thing. Though, I agree with your point in general.

Kyrian007 said:
Kind of like supposed "safety" features on guns. They are supposed to have them, and they used to. But handguns these days all have "trigger safeties" which are just little tabs on the trigger. Meaning that to disengage the "safety" you have to PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER. You know, the same thing you have to do to FIRE THE WEAPON, completely defeating the purpose of having a safety in the first place. The US may have "gun laws" but in all practical sense there are none.
Er, no, certain handguns (such as Glocks) have done away with thumb safeties, but there's plenty that still have them. Making the thing more drop safe isn't a bad idea anyway.

Secondly, revolvers are very common and almost never have any kind of safety. Though, often a heavy trigger pull, and single action ones need to be cocked before firing.
I agree about drop safety, but the "trigger safety" is specifically designed to fit the letter of the law without actually adding any secondary motion necessary to fire a handgun. It's specifically designed to be "no safety at all." And gun store owners are saying it's the most popular design. I also agree don't have any problem with revolvers. Single-action requires that secondary motion, and double-action does require a very heavy trigger pull. Again, I'm all about common sense and middle ground. I don't mind an armed neighbor, or a trained and responsible cc owner. What I fear is a drunk neighbor who has a "slide fire" fully automatic "legal machine gun" for all practical purposes.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,477
4,102
118
Kyrian007 said:
I agree about drop safety, but the "trigger safety" is specifically designed to fit the letter of the law without actually adding any secondary motion necessary to fire a handgun. It's specifically designed to be "no safety at all."
Really? I thought Glock popularised trigger safeties, and they designed their handguns for the Austrian military first, sold them to civilians later.

Kyrian007 said:
And gun store owners are saying it's the most popular design.
Hmmm...I didn't know they were the most popular, but I knew Glocks were very popular. Though, Australian police got Glocks with thumb safeties added.

Kyrian007 said:
What I fear is a drunk neighbor who has a "slide fire" fully automatic "legal machine gun" for all practical purposes.
Seems a bit odd that they didn't restrict those, the ATF has stopped people getting round the letter of the law before, like with the Sputter Gun that didn't have a trigger so wasn't a machine gun. Though, you'd have to ban bumpfire stuff and anyone can make one of those.
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
So far I'm not aware of anyone legally carrying a gun and ending up stopping a massacre, so the point would be moot anyway.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Kyrian007 said:
I agree about drop safety, but the "trigger safety" is specifically designed to fit the letter of the law without actually adding any secondary motion necessary to fire a handgun. It's specifically designed to be "no safety at all." And gun store owners are saying it's the most popular design.
It'd be popular because it is the least amount of stuff to deal with before the weapon is ready to fire, while functioning as a safety.
I don't mind an armed neighbor, or a trained and responsible cc owner. What I fear is a drunk neighbor who has a "slide fire" fully automatic "legal machine gun" for all practical purposes.
Doesn't that apply to anything that can be used while drunk?