Alright.LegendaryGamer0 said:
That is one case. Doesn't prove anything. It could be a statistical anomaly, a fluke.
As it stands the mass shootings in gun-liberal America still outweigh the massacres stopped by people having guns.
How would you feel if someone was illegaly carrying a gun and ended up stopping a massacre?
- Thread starter Sarge034
- Start date
That is one case. Doesn't prove anything. It could be a statistical anomaly, a fluke.
As it stands the mass shootings in gun-liberal America still outweigh the massacres stopped by people having guns.
Alrighty.MrFalconfly said:
How many are you wanting exactly?
Well, that we generally know of. Also how you define "massacre" and "mass shooting". If you stop a mass shooting from happening at all, you didn't stop a mass shooting because it never took place. If taking into account general uses of firearms in self defense instances or even drawing just to calm a situation, you're outweighing the instances of mass shootings several fold.
Also, in that particular context given, it wasn't a case of one guy being caught right in the middle of a rampage and thinking fast, it was a guy at a church which had already been forewarned, the police already alerted, and the attendent perfectly aware that the guy was coming to the church to carry out a massacre. In other words, the conceal carrier was fortunate enough to already know what was going to go down, and had prepared accordingly. Normally that isn't the case, and although killers usually leave threatening manifestos or indications of their intentions online, they don't normally turn up at the venue before hand to tell everyone what they are going to do later. It was a very lucky state of affairs.MrFalconfly said:
In regards to OT: keeping in mind the restrictions set in the first couple of sentences, I would on one hand be relieved that fewer people died, but I would also accept that the heroic carrier need be punished for breaking the law, all the same. Two wrongs do not make a right, even if the second wrong saves a lot of lives.
Gee, I suggest that perhaps we shouldn't be selling guns without checking ID's (in case someone is a known felon for example) and the idea is attacked with semantics about the exact definition of "loophole" and looking at the letter of the law rather than its intent and it's eventually implied I hate freedom. Wow, just a few minutes ago I was talking about extremists always immediately trying to marginalize middle ground suggestions. Even if I'm wrong about guns, it appears I'm right about something.LegendaryGamer0 said:
I guess I could go on about arguing the strict definition of "loophole" or the difference between a "private seller" and a "dealer" (I don't see any practical difference if both can set up a booth and sell guns at a gun show) but the OP did ask us not to derail to thread and even though it was bound to happen I guess I owe the OP an apology. Sorry.
It's more likely to add to the problem when the gunman kills the gun carrier, he then has another gun and bullets to add to the mayhem. That said if he actually kills the shithead, I'd be at the very least grateful, whether it's hypocritical or not. I am Alive!
How many "stopped massacres" do I want?LegendaryGamer0 said:
Preferably anything above 80%, but I'll be charitable and accept 50% of lunatics being stopped in their tracks by concealed carriers before they unload into the public.
As for "If you stop a mass shooting from happening at all, you didn't stop a mass shooting because it never took place."
Well, attempted mass shooting then. These types of loons usually leave some kind of manifesto detailing their actions and motivations.
But then again I live in gun-restricted Denmark, and not gun-liberal USA, so my views are generally a bit skewed. I just hold the opinion that everyday random Johnny doesn't have the training, nor the ability to make calculated decisions in a stressed environment (like a gunman shooting random citizens). Police have that training, and army personnel, or at least they do here, I don't know the conditions of living in the states I freely admit (I mean for all I know it could be like living in Somalia in some areas, where you absolutely need a Kalashnikov to be safe in your own home).
This is where the reason for the thread comes in here. In most of these places, you're having shootings taking place in areas where you cannot legally carry a concealed firearm, so you'll be popping the perp and then be totally screwed legally for protecting yourself and others. So, you actively have to be breaking the law to stop the shooting and if you stop it, you're being punished. How many people are going to carry despite the illegality is the question you have to ask. This entire thread is basically agreeing that "He's a hero! But should still be punished because he broke the law.". It's a choice between two risks, the risks being getting caught carrying illegally which will pretty much guarantee never owning a gun again or being killed because your state legislature has decided you don't have the right to have an effective means to defend yourself. It's Morton's Fork at its finest.MrFalconfly said:
You'll not often get major coverage for stopping a shooting entirely, is the thing. People dying en masse gets people watching.
This is my argument as to why police are in fact, not as trained as is commonly touted, in marksmanship, caring about bystanders, or the ability to make any form of calculated decision in a stressful situation.
I now plug my mouth as Kyrian has pointed out, we have kind of shit up OP's thread.
Well, we're not necessarily talking about a 'super-responsible card-carrying god-fearing fully-versed-in-shooting into-a-crowd everyday-hero'- he/she could have easily added to the problem with a spray of wild bullets and additional wounded/killed victims caught in the crossfire. Someone illegally carrying is not necessarily a gun-saint, or even proficient. All we know in the scenario is that they were illegally carrying, and stopped a shooting from becoming a mass shooting.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that it could have been worse if the original gunman/woman had been allowed to continue the rampage, that makes sense. And having my life saved, well, I'd be eternally grateful to that person, and do my best to repay them, somehow.
I'd have to side with the 'commend him/her for their action in stopping a mass shooting, then be comfortable with him /her being punished for illegally carrying'- but perhaps some leniency on the part of the judge would be in order.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that it could have been worse if the original gunman/woman had been allowed to continue the rampage, that makes sense. And having my life saved, well, I'd be eternally grateful to that person, and do my best to repay them, somehow.
I'd have to side with the 'commend him/her for their action in stopping a mass shooting, then be comfortable with him /her being punished for illegally carrying'- but perhaps some leniency on the part of the judge would be in order.
I'll make this brief so we wont derail this any further.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Thanks for your take on it. However on your last point, that seems like a deficiency in the US police training, and not so much the need to arm the populace. But that's just my take on it. Have a nice day.
EDIT:
Also, sorry to the OP.
For the actual question I'd be grateful to the guy if he saved my life, but my opinion regarding civilians carrying would still be the same. Flukes shouldn't dictate everyday rules.
If someone saved my life by stopping a massacre, I'd feel happy and thankful whatever the circumstances.
Including, but not limited to, being saved by:
- A drunk driver running over the shooter.
- A clerical error causing the shooter to overdose on medication and collapsing mid-massacre.
- A hobbyist illegally testing out a medieval catapult and accidentally crushing the shooter with a boulder.
- A convicted child rapist creatively utilizing his raping experience to subdue the shooter.
- A rival mass-shooter at the same place at the same time who puts a hold on his own massacre to take out the competition.
Just as with a person illegally carrying a weapon and stopping a shooter, I don't see how any of the above examples would change my opinion of the events leading up to the ultimately positive outcome. Freak occurrences bear very little weight on or relevancy to the issues that happened to affect a situation.
Captcha: one hit wonder
Stay relevant, captcha.
Including, but not limited to, being saved by:
- A drunk driver running over the shooter.
- A clerical error causing the shooter to overdose on medication and collapsing mid-massacre.
- A hobbyist illegally testing out a medieval catapult and accidentally crushing the shooter with a boulder.
- A convicted child rapist creatively utilizing his raping experience to subdue the shooter.
- A rival mass-shooter at the same place at the same time who puts a hold on his own massacre to take out the competition.
Just as with a person illegally carrying a weapon and stopping a shooter, I don't see how any of the above examples would change my opinion of the events leading up to the ultimately positive outcome. Freak occurrences bear very little weight on or relevancy to the issues that happened to affect a situation.
Captcha: one hit wonder
Stay relevant, captcha.
I'd just like to address that your scenario seems pretty paranoid, and I get that due to recent school shootings, you're within the realms of reason to think it over, but otherwise...I've never lived in the US, but it's not a war zone where such things would happen that frequently.
Anyway, of course, in a reductionist sense, yes I would be glad. I'd be alive. However, it still wouldn't address the fact that a) a shooter was present meaning that a person had access to firearms and would have been able to kill loads of people with not much stopping them and that b) it is easy enough to acquire firearms that two people within about 100 could have access to deadly weaponry.
If anything, it'd make me more concerned. Yes, people were saved but at the same time, it can give people the wrong idea and may telegraph that they should always be on the lookout for shooters(which is paranoid at best) and that it is okay to break a law of this sort under "certain conditions". This could lead people to allow for more lax gun control because they feel the need to protect themselves.
At the same time though, it could swing the other way and prevent people from protecting themselves with unnecessarily strict self-defense weaponry laws(that sort of shit happens in the UK all the time). Ideally there shouldn't even be such a situation and the bottleneck is the University security.
Anyway, of course, in a reductionist sense, yes I would be glad. I'd be alive. However, it still wouldn't address the fact that a) a shooter was present meaning that a person had access to firearms and would have been able to kill loads of people with not much stopping them and that b) it is easy enough to acquire firearms that two people within about 100 could have access to deadly weaponry.
If anything, it'd make me more concerned. Yes, people were saved but at the same time, it can give people the wrong idea and may telegraph that they should always be on the lookout for shooters(which is paranoid at best) and that it is okay to break a law of this sort under "certain conditions". This could lead people to allow for more lax gun control because they feel the need to protect themselves.
At the same time though, it could swing the other way and prevent people from protecting themselves with unnecessarily strict self-defense weaponry laws(that sort of shit happens in the UK all the time). Ideally there shouldn't even be such a situation and the bottleneck is the University security.
People with actual guns have been credited with stopping shootings too. It fails to impress upon people that if you stop a massacre then it doesn't get reported as much.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
In fact, whenever this happens what we do is call the good guys with guns to come stop them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
In fact, whenever this happens what we do is call the good guys with guns to come stop them.
You didn't really define whether the person carrying the weapon did so because they're not supposed to be carrying in that location or if it's because they're carrying an illegal (unregistered) weapon. I assume the first based on the question.
I imagine in the scenario where they stop a mass shooter because they brought a gun to a place that says "no firearms", there isn't going to be much backlash against this person. Perhaps a fine or even some jail time if someone went through with a punishment actually got carried out. I would like to imagine the system would pardon the action; but that's probably not the case.
In fact, this scenario recently happened with the military recruiter that had been bringing his personal weapon to the office and ended up using it against a shooter; a violation of military and civilian law - and as harsh as the military law can be from what I've heard the charges against him were dropped.
The other option is that the person is carrying the weapon illegally (unregistered) - which opens up several other scenarios:
1) Assuming that the person IS going to react and use the weapon and
2) Assuming the person carrying that weapon illegally is proficient with it and can stop the threat (and not cause further casualties). This is unlikely as a person carrying a weapon illegally isn't likely to be properly trained or going to a firing range with it because they don't want to get caught.
If both of those are true, I would once again hope that the charges against this problem would dropped in the interest of keeping people doing the right thing. Perhaps it could be a chance for that person to live straight. However, you know they're not going to drop those charges - and except for the people that were saved the general public won't care and this person will fade away in a prison somewhere.
I imagine in the scenario where they stop a mass shooter because they brought a gun to a place that says "no firearms", there isn't going to be much backlash against this person. Perhaps a fine or even some jail time if someone went through with a punishment actually got carried out. I would like to imagine the system would pardon the action; but that's probably not the case.
In fact, this scenario recently happened with the military recruiter that had been bringing his personal weapon to the office and ended up using it against a shooter; a violation of military and civilian law - and as harsh as the military law can be from what I've heard the charges against him were dropped.
The other option is that the person is carrying the weapon illegally (unregistered) - which opens up several other scenarios:
1) Assuming that the person IS going to react and use the weapon and
2) Assuming the person carrying that weapon illegally is proficient with it and can stop the threat (and not cause further casualties). This is unlikely as a person carrying a weapon illegally isn't likely to be properly trained or going to a firing range with it because they don't want to get caught.
If both of those are true, I would once again hope that the charges against this problem would dropped in the interest of keeping people doing the right thing. Perhaps it could be a chance for that person to live straight. However, you know they're not going to drop those charges - and except for the people that were saved the general public won't care and this person will fade away in a prison somewhere.
I would love to see a gun that has had its safety completely removed in favor of a trigger safety.Kyrian007 said:
So glad we have sooo many examples of this happening in a shooting (hint, we don't have examples of this claim being true).Dagra Dai MC. VSO. said:
Er, just a few weeks ago, an armed civilian intervened in a carjacking by accidentally shooting the victim in the head, collecting their spent casings and running off.Lightknight said:
Slightly more recently, an armed civilian opened fire at a shoplifter (IIRC) in a car park who'd gotten into a car and was driving away.
Admittedly, these weren't in response to shootings.
I have lived in places that I have had to make a judgment call between carrying a weapon illegally to safeguard my life and risk prison, or risk not seeing tomorrow. I chose to do everything I could to improve my odds of seeing tomorrow even if it was behind bars. I am grateful that I no longer live in a place that necessitates those kinds of decisions.
In response to the OP: I would be relieved to know that more people are armed and willing to defend others. I would be grateful. Frankly I would feel more comfortable with more people being discreetly armed. The bad guys already have guns. I would find it encouraging if more good people did as well to keep the bad guys in check and limit their ability to cause harm. "Gun free" zones may as well read "spree killers welcome". Personally I don't even like guns. I'm the farthest thing from a "gun nut". But I do recognize that the last thing criminals want is an armed populace that is more risky to victimize.
In response to the OP: I would be relieved to know that more people are armed and willing to defend others. I would be grateful. Frankly I would feel more comfortable with more people being discreetly armed. The bad guys already have guns. I would find it encouraging if more good people did as well to keep the bad guys in check and limit their ability to cause harm. "Gun free" zones may as well read "spree killers welcome". Personally I don't even like guns. I'm the farthest thing from a "gun nut". But I do recognize that the last thing criminals want is an armed populace that is more risky to victimize.
I honestly don't see what we're supposed to discuss. Of course I'd be happy if an illegal gun stopped a massacre. Who wouldn't? Leading question.
I'd thank them for saving lives and praising them for their unusual clear-headedness in the face of danger, but I don't think they would be able to hear me through the sound of pro-gun advocates furiously masturbating whilst chanting "a good guy with a gun" etc.
Doesn't change the fact that you're an order of magnitude more likely to accidentally injure or kill someone with your firearm than save a life, of course, but that doesn't matter. What if!!! You could be the one!!! Who stopped a mass shooting?!?!?!
You'd be a big damned hero. The fact that you'll almost certainly end up making the situation worse or shooting an innocent bystander is a small price to pay for the real American Dream.
Doesn't change the fact that you're an order of magnitude more likely to accidentally injure or kill someone with your firearm than save a life, of course, but that doesn't matter. What if!!! You could be the one!!! Who stopped a mass shooting?!?!?!
You'd be a big damned hero. The fact that you'll almost certainly end up making the situation worse or shooting an innocent bystander is a small price to pay for the real American Dream.