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

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It's pretty funny to me how many people are unwilling to give this hypothetical an actual answer.

How would you feel? I would feel very happy to be alive. It would be very difficult to feel negative feelings towards someone who just saved my ass based on their own breaking the law in doing so.

I suspect the vehemently partisan people of the media and of wider society would use the incident for their own purposes, and to further their own agenda anyway they can. Why expect anything else?

Almost everyone has answered it, and then added that it was also a really obvious and lame attempt to frame a pro-gun fantasy. I think you're objecting more to the fact that nobody fell for it, than the fact of how they responded.

I'm not objecting to anything. It's just funny to me that many (meaning multiple, not a majority or whatever you're imagining I meant) can't look past their own politics to entertain a question on a forum. I mean, honestly... Seems pretty closed minded. Not really anything at risk other than having your position challenged by your own imagination.

I love this idea that people who don't share your views are only one quasi-religious "open mind" experience away from conversion. It's so very far from reality.

There's no point to this is there? You're just being flippant. I feel badly for those reading this wank.

The point, as demonstrated by your angry and rude response, is that you don't play well with others. You seem to see people either as enemies to be disrespected, or as people, "one quasi-religious "open mind" experience away from conversion."

Don't confuse missing my point, with me not having a point.

Are you for real? I'm not angry and I'm not being any more rude than you. I can't help it if I am more hostile in your imagination than I am in reality. I'm not thrilled by your demeanour either, and you genuinely are being flippant and putting words in my mouth. Maybe move out of your glass house before you start throwing stones.

I'm happy for you to have "a point". Let's drop hostility, both real and imagined. What I am saying is that it should be possible to entertain the thought experiment being given and then reconcile it with your political beliefs, be they pro or anti-gun(I actually don't have a very strong opinion one way or another here. Bit of a fence sitter on a lot of contentious issues, to be honest).

What I find amusing is the people that only leave a dismissive comment.

 

[Sean Renaud]

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?

Colleges do but I've never seen a no weapons sign at my local theater or restaurant or any of the other mythical "gun free zones" just schools. It's just common sense. Just like I don't ask my friends not to come armed to watch WWE Hell in a Cell for 9.99 on WWE Network! It's just kind of assumed.

Then lets break down the rest. Unless your class is REALLY small your numbers are outright insane. 60% dead before they reach the door? Bullets do not have a 100% kill rate let alone 100% instantly. One of the guys at a recent shooting got shot seven times and last I checked is still alive. So under no realistic scenario is 60% of your class dead prior to them escaping. Seriously mass shootings that get into the double digits of deaths are exceedingly rare.

Despite what the news would have you believe school shootings and the like aren't THAT common when you factor in everything. So you're probably perfectly safe.

Your core question without your attempts to justify it though is simple. How would I feel about a gunman with an illegal weapon stopping a massacre. And the reality is my feelings would be irrelevant. Laws are there for a reason. If your argument is that the LAW itself is detrimental make that case. But the fact that in this situation it might have been a good thing is at best something to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

[Do4600]

That is one case. Doesn't prove anything. It could be a statistical anomaly, a fluke.

How many are you wanting exactly?

Enough to be statistically relevant. What you have now is anecdotal evidence of one occurrence.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/man-attacked-by-mountain-lion-saved-by-bear/

This is anecdotal evidence that you should always attract a bear when you go into mountain lion territory.

What I would love to see is a study that figures out what happens when there are like 10 people in a crowd of 100 that are carrying concealed weapons and one of them starts shooting. They would of course need to figure in that some people have the bare minimum amount of training to carry a handgun and some of them are better trained.

 

[Leg End]

Enough to be statistically relevant. What you have now is anecdotal evidence of one occurrence.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/03/man-attacked-by-mountain-lion-saved-by-bear/

This is anecdotal evidence that you should always attract a bear when you go into mountain lion territory.

How many until it becomes "statistically relevant"? Because we're already having a discussion where the initial premise, which is a mass shooting, is statistically irrelevant.

What I would love to see is a study that figures out what happens when there are like 10 people in a crowd of 100 that are carrying concealed weapons and one of them starts shooting. They would of course need to figure in that some people have the bare minimum amount of training to carry a handgun and some of them are better trained.

A study can't determine that.

 

[FalloutJack]

Obviously, a damn bloody hero should be made some exception in reference to his transgression. People who do great things should not be punished.

 

[Sarge034]

Sorry for the delayed responses all, got busy.

I think the main problem people are having is that the question is a little.... unformed? I guess? Like, the answer for a mentally healthy person who values their own life should always be 'I would be happy to be alive and/but []', the brackets being a reaction to the question of legality. But there can only be two possible reactions. Either you are unhappy that both people broke the law, or you are happy that one person broke the law and unhappy that the other broke the law. But the way that you framed the question doesn't make it super clear that what you were really interested in was the interaction of the ideals in the second half of the question - ie the question of survival instinct vs law and order.

I asked how people would feel, that includes both. But If someone really believed that the law is the end all be all, or that the current law is the best way to prevent shootings, I would expect them to both be angry at the "good guy" and continue to support the law. Maybe go so far as wish the "good guy" hadn't been carrying and therefor be prepared to die for what they believe.

I guess to try to help out, I'll put in my answer.
...

That's the rub, isn't it?

...but I think I just described the police, and we have those.

The problem I have with this line of thought in general, as I hear it a bunch when people tell me I'm a bad person for carrying a gun, is that the police are a reactionary deterrent. Yes, we have cops... that have a response time. So anything that's gonna happen in the 5-15 min (or god forbid longer) response time is gonna happen. Whereas I can respond to threats in about 1.5 seconds.

So you read the entire thread, but you missed what most people said, and it seems you missed my original response to the op.

Someone just tripped on a lie.

I surly didn't miss the 1.5 - 2 pages of pure political banter between two users. That's kindda a lot in a 6 page thread bud, and that's just one instance. Look at how many said things like they'd ride off on a unicorn to tell everyone the good news. As for your first response...

"If the pro-guns everywhere argument were sound, it wouldn't be based on these stupid fantasies." P.4 Post 112

Yep, question thoroughly answered. Absolutely no poking for responses here.

Colleges do but I've never seen a no weapons sign at my local theater or restaurant or any of the other mythical "gun free zones" just schools. It's just common sense. Just like I don't ask my friends not to come armed to watch WWE Hell in a Cell for 9.99 on WWE Network! It's just kind of assumed.

Look on the sign where it explains the ratings and where it explicitly sates no recording devices in movie theaters. It's usually like the second from the bottom. Restaurants and the like usually don't even have a sign displayed, they'll just ask you to leave if there is a no gun policy. They can't call the cops on you because it's not posted, but they can ask you to leave because of it, but if you don't leave they can call the cops. You almost never see a no gun sign prominently displayed on anything but colleges and schools.

And um, what does that have to do with anything? That's your house, a theater is not.

Then lets break down the rest. Unless your class is REALLY small your numbers are outright insane. 60% dead before they reach the door? Bullets do not have a 100% kill rate let alone 100% instantly. One of the guys at a recent shooting got shot seven times and last I checked is still alive. So under no realistic scenario is 60% of your class dead prior to them escaping. Seriously mass shootings that get into the double digits of deaths are exceedingly rare.

Despite what the news would have you believe school shootings and the like aren't THAT common when you factor in everything. So you're probably perfectly safe.

Don't make assumptions. Class size is approx 27, so 60% is 16.2 (rounded to 16). We are in a planetarium so the tactical assessment is this. We have no windows so there would be no forewarning. The classroom has two exits, one on the high ground that has a 5 foot narrow atrium leading to the class and one that is in full view of the potential shooting position. The floor is gently sloping toward the front like a movie theater so it provides a perfect field of fire. Lastly, the potential shooter had both military training and actual combat experience. I don't think 16 people dead (from fatal wounds or exsanguination) is too much of a stretch when all factors are calculated.

Your core question without your attempts to justify it though is simple. How would I feel about a gunman with an illegal weapon stopping a massacre. And the reality is my feelings would be irrelevant. Laws are there for a reason. If your argument is that the LAW itself is detrimental make that case. But the fact that in this situation it might have been a good thing is at best something to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

I was asking about this case, so might we deal with it case by case? That's the whole reason I wasn't making it general and specifically asking about this one scenario. Is that law a problem? I think it may be, but that wasn't my aim. My aim is to see what people would think. Would you, thinking the law is there for a reason feel something differently? Would you act in a hypocritical way? If you did, how would you deal with that? Would it possibly change your stance?

I don't like the law, but I respect it is law. But were this to actually occur I can't say I wouldn't act hypocritically and support the guy who broke the law. Then I'd have to readdress my own thoughts on if I should respect the law. I honestly don't know what I'd decide.