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

[Jux]

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.

It feels like you're making them into Mary Sues. Regardless if they know what they're doing individually, that doesn't mean more people might not get shot as a result, or that they'd work together, or that the police would know not to shoot them. People get hurt, and hurt others, all the time even though 'they know what they're doing'.

In short, I would absolutely not approve of anyone carrying a firearm illegally with the intention of stopping a mass shooting, and regardless of the outcome, I'd vote to convict were I on that jury.

 

[Neonsilver]

If someone managed to stop a massacre without anyone getting killed, except maybe the attacker, I would be glad and happy to have survived. Once I have calmed down I would like to ask him why he could be stupid enough to hold a match to a powder keg.

Unless you shoot him before the attacker notices your gun, he will probably threaten others so that you will put your gun down. All you accomplished in that case would make him unnecessarily nervous. Alternatively he might start shooting immediately.

If you shoot him, he might still pull the trigger on accident, endangering again innocents.

Pulling a gun is like going into debt to buy lots of lottery tickets. Yes you have a higher chance to win, but it's still likely that you are going to make everything worse.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I would ride away in my winged unicorn and spread the good news.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I would have to see it to believed it (mind you from a news report as I'm from the UK) since as far as I know, this hasn't happened in real life.

Ok if I have to force out an answered, the person carrying the gun would still have to face the crime/ punishment in the first place. Two wrongs doesn't make a right even if that wrong did stop a bigger wrong (I mean why have one gun person to stop the massacre when you can have more?).

 

[K12]

This probably has already happened and I'd be fairly suprised if the person would still get charged and punished after saving many lives (even though they have unambiuously broken the law) which I'm basically ok with. It's probably also happened that a robbery or hostage situation has turned into a massacre because some wannabe hero pulls out a gun.

As with lots of things to do with the law, statistical analysis is more useful that random hypotheticals or flukes that make great anecdotes when judging what the best policy to reduce deaths by shootings would be. This scenario is basically just "problem caused by gun is solved by a different gun"

 

[omega 616]

Well firstly, I really didn't have to read that OP ... I could have wrote my opinion with or without reading that first post and it is the same.

Secondly, "I did a quick tactical assessment". No offence but can I ask, what gives your "tactical assessment" absolutely any merit? By all means you could be chief tactical officer to the president but you could also be just some guy "chatting bubbles" (as the people from my area say).

Now on to my opinion. I'd of course be thankful and all that but I'd still hold my opinion about gun laws. You had a gun to stop a guy with a gun, if neither of you had a gun I wouldn't need you to save me....

What's a joke to me is there are these gun free zones, which then get pointed to like "we have gun free zones and that's where the most crime happens" well, yeah 'cos the rest of the country isn't gun free and in a gun free zone, you will get less resistance. You also have the notion of you can't infringe on my freedom but you're ok with gun free zones?

I dunno, I just think America is a place I'd like to but scared out of my mind to actually go to.

 

[SecondPrize]

I'd feel shocked that the person with the illegal gun managed to avoid shooting the wrong people.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

No objections here, the person carrying illegally should be prepared to accept consequences but I'd still say that person is a hero regardless, for that moment. I'd also see there being a lighter sentence in regards to the situation, but with a heavy admonishment by the judge on the person who carried the firearm for breaking the law (still getting a sentence mind you and probably a suspended one at that). The law cannot encourage breaking the law, even if they see the situation as a special mitigating circumstance.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I'd feel shocked that the person with the illegal gun managed to avoid shooting the wrong people.

I believe the OP's sentiment is that the person was carrying illegally, may own the firearm in question legally but either does not have a concealed carry permit or the state in question does not allow for concealed carry, or the school itself is a gun-free zone. Not that the ownership of the firearm in question is illegal.

 

[Pyrian]

Discussing whether it is better or worse that something should be illegal is inherently political.

 

[FFHAuthor]

I can only chuckle at the responses in this thread, the lions share isn't actually answering the question, but instead has to tack in the 'Well, they're more likely to!' or 'Not that this would normally happen!' without actually addressing the original topic, except in snarky jabs. Fun.

I'd be grateful, I'd be glad that someone else realized the statistics, and I'd be damn glad that another gun owner understood the obligation associated with their 2nd Amendment Rights, rather than just owning a gun, knowing that if you have one it's your duty to use it in the defense of yourself and others.

I carry a concealed weapon, I do so legally, and I respect the requests made by some locations that say they don't want firearms in their establishments. But I understand the law, and I also understand that most locations that say they're 'gun free' are making a request, not stating a law. In PA, places such as Schools and Colleges are Gun Free. I'll be much happier when I move to Oregon and get a concealed carry licence there, you can carry anywhere without restriction.

 

[Callate]

Saving lives is, at least in the short term, a good thing.

Whether more lives would be lost in the long term if such an event caused people to feel even more justified than they already do in carrying guns everywhere is another question. There's some evidence that, at best, having a gun in such a situation wouldn't help; the "heroic gunman firing back and saving lives" scenario is a significant outlier.

Spoiler

Pardon the unnecessarily provocative title; this is the link that was shared with me.

 

[SecondPrize]

I'd feel shocked that the person with the illegal gun managed to avoid shooting the wrong people.

I believe the OP's sentiment is that the person was carrying illegally, may own the firearm in question legally but either does not have a concealed carry permit or the state in question does not allow for concealed carry, or the school itself is a gun-free zone. Not that the ownership of the firearm in question is illegal.

That's great and all but were you able to understand to whom I was referring when I said person with the illegal gun? Because it was merely an identifier, not a statement about whether they purchased the thing legally.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I'd feel shocked that the person with the illegal gun managed to avoid shooting the wrong people.

I believe the OP's sentiment is that the person was carrying illegally, may own the firearm in question legally but either does not have a concealed carry permit or the state in question does not allow for concealed carry, or the school itself is a gun-free zone. Not that the ownership of the firearm in question is illegal.

That's great and all but were you able to understand to whom I was referring when I said person with the illegal gun? Because it was merely an identifier, not a statement about whether they purchased the thing legally.

Well you didn't mention the person with the "illegal" firearm as far as which person whom you were referring to, and I'm not sure why you brought that up if there was some ambiguity about it, which I didn't see.
Onto the rest, I was pointing out that the firearm carried by the person who stopped the actual shooter may not have been illegal in and of itself but rather the act of having it was illegal in the sense of either where it was being carried or the act of concealed carry was illegal. The firearm in question still would not be illegal rather the act of carrying it in either of the ways I pointed out was illegal. The weapon could have been perfectly legal itself, just not legal to be carried in that school or concealed or both.

 

[Nailzzz]

You guys do all realize that you don't actually have to fire the gun to actually stop others with a gun right? Most people aren't suicidal and this includes most criminals. If you have a gun aimed at someone there is a pretty high chance that rather than risk being killed, they will often surrender without you having to fire a shot. Even if we accept this idea that all gun owners are completely incompetent with the gun and will just spray random strangers when attempting to fire at a criminal, firing the gun at someone is not always a necessary step to get them to stop. If this wasn't the case, police would have a much harder time taking shooters into custody. It is why you use to hear stories about cops that would go 10+ years without firing a single round at a person. Of course now they tend to instead brag about how many bullets they can fill a body with, but that's another issue.

 

[Flames66]

My response would be intense relief and a comment like "that was lucky". I don't really care what the law says about most situations. The law is only useful when it helps people and should be ignored at all other times.

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.

I don't see the issue.

 

[Tomeran]

Uh...I'd feel happy? Of course I'd feel happy. Someone stopped a massacre. Who the heck wouldnt be happy under those circumstances?

But this is a wild hypothetical. Keep in mind that anyone could use any hypothetical to make sense for any cause in any way they'd please. It doesnt have to mean that there's some sort of deeper valid argument to this kind of thing.

Personally, im not a US citizen so the whole US attitude to gun ownership is not just a little alien to me, its...truly bizarre from an outside perspective on how that debate takes form sometimes. There arent enough facepalms in the universe nor enough Vulcans(or Vulcan inpersinators) to describe the lack of logic commonly applied to this debate.

But yes, I'd be grateful to anyone that managed to stop a massacre even if they broke a law in the process. Doesnt mean I dont support a law forbidding those things in the first place. Not sure on the kind of argument you're trying to do here. Anyone and anything can save lives with the right tools under the right circumstances. Im pretty good with a bow and a crossbow: doesnt mean I should be allowed to carry them around in public locations because I -might- save someone one day. Same theoretical applies to guns, except they're a lot easier to use for mass carnage which makes them all the more dangerous.

 

[Flames66]

My response would be intense relief and a comment like "that was lucky". I don't really care what the law says about most situations. The law is only useful when it helps people and should be ignored at all other times.

Which of course would mean the law is useless. Something we only apply with post hoc reasoning, or "When we feel like it" is useless.

Any unjust law should be ignored. Any time a law does not provide justice it should be ignored. I am not saying the law itself is unjust, I do not know enough to comment. What I am saying is that the legal system is so frequently wrong and supports such injustice that I do not support it or recognise its moral authority.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Not happy. See, here you have a person (who for reasons) was denied a license, and made the conscious decision to carry a weapon illegally anyway. Fine, he stopped a massacre, but who's to say that someone like that wouldn't have started his own? He was legally denied for a reason.

Two Wrongs have never made a Right.

 

[Pyrian]

I can only chuckle at the responses in this thread, the lions share isn't actually answering the question, but instead has to tack in the 'Well, they're more likely to!' or 'Not that this would normally happen!' without actually addressing the original topic, except in snarky jabs. Fun.

It's fairly typical for gun control arguments to devolve into real-world statistics versus bizarre fantasy scenarios. This thread lodges very firmly into the latter category.