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

[sumanoskae]

If it saves the lives of innocents, I'd chalk it up as good luck. I take no philosophical issue with the use of firearms, my concerns are entirely pragmatic. And my respect for the law is non-existent. I tolerate my government; don't bother me, I won't bother you.

 

[Ryotknife]

For one, it is basically impossible to prove that someone stopped a massacre (unless they were building a bomb). The only way to prove if they are going to commit a massacre is generally for them to actually massacre people, at which point it is too late.

Two, guns are used defensively hundreds of thousands of times a year. Is each case a person would have died if they didnt? Once again, we dont know because they were stopped beforehand.

Three, virtually all of these massacres occur in gun free places. Before 1990, the only shootings that took place on military bases was during WW2 and usually involved race riots on bases (there were 3 shootings during WW2). Between 1943 and 1994, there were no shootings. in 1992, regulation was passed so that only MPs may carry on military bases. Since then, we have averaged one shooting on a military base a year with recent years recording 3-4 a year (we are up to about 23 shootings since bases became a gun free zone). Gun free zones are problamatic.

Onto the issue at hand, if someone carrying illegally "stopped a massacre (once again, nearly impossible to prove)" it is doubtful as public opinion will be on their side. Much like someone with a suspended/no license driving a critically injured person to the hospital, at best the police will go "hey, thanks for saving lives, but if we catch you doing this again we will go after you next time." The police do turn a blind eye where context matters. For example, a group of men broke into a woman's home and were repelled when she fired a warning shot at the ground near them when they rushed her (they had a fake gun, but it looked real). That warning shot was illegal, but im fairly positive nothing came from it. Different case, a woman and her kid got off the bus and crossed the street illegally (ie jaywalking) to get to their apartment as the nearest crosswalk was 1/4 a mile away and it was a hot summer day. They were hit while crossing (by a drunk driver), the kid died, and the police tried to charge her for vehicular manslaughter. Public was outraged, case was dropped.

 

[Politrukk]

I feel like you believe in fairy tales, it's not even worth discussing this.

Heck that soldier on the Thalys (and his mates) proved you don't need a gun to stop someone from harming others.


America should stop looking for excuses to keep their gunlaws as they are and people should stop believing in fairy tales.


And disregarding the mental state of the people involved also makes your discussion irrelevant to my opinion.

edit:

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.

^ damn ninjas taking my opinion and stuff.

 

[Lightspeaker]

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.

That's because the original question is inherently absurd and leading.

The OP's question is roughly the equivalent of someone getting drunk, then driving their car and crashing into someone and breaking their leg. But that someone was a rapist who was in the midst of attacking someone and being crashed into stopped them. Then asking how you feel about the drunk driver and drunk driving in general.

The fact that the outcome was actually positive and helped someone absolutely does not excuse the illegality or negligence involved in drink driving. Similarly in this magical mystical world where some random having a gun actually helped matters it absolutely does not excuse the fact they were illegally carrying.

You're chuckling because most of us aren't pretending that this magical scenario is normal, even though it's the basis for so much concealed carry silliness? If I asked you what you'd think if someone disarmed a man with prayer, your first response wouldn't just be a dumb answer like, "Well I'd drop to muh knees and pray all over dee place!"

Rather more succinct analogy than I gave. Kudos.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Fact of the matter is, even if there is this one gun kata god with an illegal gun who saves a bunch of people by predicting someone's about to open fire before they do and outpistols them, him doing this would inspire a bunch of ignorant rednecks with no suck magic powers and skill to also get guns and try and be him, fail, and end up harming others in the process, so he may actually indirectly cause more death than he prevents.


All these arguments I feel are disingenuous. The ultimate conclusion is that some people are fine with collateral damage as cost for their right to get to have unearned bravado and artificial confidence in the form of a gun, even if it means they put everyone around them at risk, cause them feeling like they're this big bad gun using badass is just that important.

It's just people being selfish. Nothing too out of the ordinary.

 

[BoogieManFL]

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.

That's because the original question is inherently absurd and leading.

The OP's question is roughly the equivalent of someone getting drunk, then driving their car and crashing into someone and breaking their leg. But that someone was a rapist who was in the midst of attacking someone and being crashed into stopped them. Then asking how you feel about the drunk driver and drunk driving in general.

The fact that the outcome was actually positive and helped someone absolutely does not excuse the illegality or negligence involved in drink driving. Similarly in this magical mystical world where some random having a gun actually helped matters it absolutely does not excuse the fact they were illegally carrying.

You're chuckling because most of us aren't pretending that this magical scenario is normal, even though it's the basis for so much concealed carry silliness? If I asked you what you'd think if someone disarmed a man with prayer, your first response wouldn't just be a dumb answer like, "Well I'd drop to muh knees and pray all over dee place!"

Rather more succinct analogy than I gave. Kudos.

Both illegal, in that they are the same. However, assuming best care scenario, someone who has taken the classes, practiced, and gotten a concealed weapons permit - then carrying where they aren't legally allowed to is different than some fuckwit getting drunk and running someone over, no matter who they are.

Drunk driving is illegal and immoral, and puts yourself and everyone around you in danger.

Carrying a conceal weapon where you're not allowed to is just illegal.

Back on topic, I'd be happy. I'd rather have 1 dead/incapacitated badguy and someone imprisoned than a class full of dead people.

 

[Buffoon1980]

I'd feel damn grateful. I'd also accept that such an incident would pretty much invalidate me from having a reasonable, unbiased opinion about the issue.

 

[cdemares]

I'd feel lucky. More likely this will happen, and it won't end a massacre, but expand it. Untrained people in confusion and panic with weapons = loads more dead. Any soldier or cop can tell you that.

Pretty much this. Having a gun is not synonymous with being prepared for sudden mortal danger. People can faint, piss themselves or have a heart attack even with a gun. People saving the day with their good-guy gun is insanely rare and there's a reason for that. Training is what will make the difference, IMO.

 

[spartan231490]

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?

Okay, I feel the need to point out some things first. 1) Just because a place has a "no guns allowed" sign, does not mean that it is illegal to carry in those premises. In most states, such signs do not have rule of law, and the worst that can happen if you get caught carrying is that the owner can ask you to leave. In such states, only in schools and courthouses and similar places are you legally prevented from carrying.

2, this happens, it has happened. Society would not react because the heavily anti-gun news would never report it. Such as the VP of a Vermont HS who retrieved a handgun from his car and stopped an active shooter before anyone could die, a couple students were shot, but due to prompt medical care, they lived. That VP was charged with felony possession of a weapon for bringing the gun onto the school grounds.

If, for some reason, it was reported, I imagine it would depend. Was the individual just an every day person who kept his weapon on his person to prevent a tragedy such as Luby's massacre, or was he a delusional psychopath or even a criminal? society's reaction would only be positive in the first place, because in either of the second two it would simply be portrayed as a criminal shoot out, with both parties at fault.

 

[Drathnoxis]

If that happened I think I'd feel like singing!
I'd sing this song:

 

[Ryotknife]

I'd feel lucky. More likely this will happen, and it won't end a massacre, but expand it. Untrained people in confusion and panic with weapons = loads more dead. Any soldier or cop can tell you that.

Pretty much this. Having a gun is not synonymous with being prepared for sudden mortal danger. People can faint, piss themselves or have a heart attack even with a gun. People saving the day with their good-guy gun is insanely rare and there's a reason for that. Training is what will make the difference, IMO.

except in the worst case scenario, 1 or 2 bystanders are hit. Keep in mind people are trying to run away from the shooter, meaning he is not going to have a whole lot of people around him. Those that are around him are either dead, dying, or about to be shot. In the worst case scenario if you just let someone kill as many people as they want, they kill literally everyone they can until they run out of people to shoot or bullets, usually the first one. If they make it to the 8 minutes, maybe the police will be on hand.

At least in the first scenario, you actually give the victims a chance. Refusing to allow them to help is about as logical as standing around and refusing to help someone bleeding out because you are not a doctor.

Also, no, it is not that rare. Perhaps in regard to a mass shooting, although those are rare to begin with.

 

[shintakie10]

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.

Like the whole "protecting yourself from a home invader" bull that gets shat out with gun control arguments which totally ignores the statistics that show the vast majority of in home injuries involving guns aren't home invaders, they're people shooting themselves/others by accident.

 

[Lightknight]

I'd feel lucky. More likely this will happen, and it won't end a massacre, but expand it. Untrained people in confusion and panic with weapons = loads more dead. Any soldier or cop can tell you that.

So glad we have sooo many examples of this happening in a shooting (hint, we don't have examples of this claim being true).

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.

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.

People do stupid shit like that without guns too and you're listing examples where that use of force wasn't appropriate.

We're talking about the use of force against actual gun men here and I've listed examples where these people were stopped during their spree.

The biggest problem is that when they're stopped, you don't know how much further they would have gone if any. So we don't actually know how many lives were saved.

 

[Lightknight]

I'd feel lucky. More likely this will happen, and it won't end a massacre, but expand it. Untrained people in confusion and panic with weapons = loads more dead. Any soldier or cop can tell you that.

So glad we have sooo many examples of this happening in a shooting (hint, we don't have examples of this claim being true).

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.

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.

It wouldn't matter. Guns aren't magical, and the element of surprise is so huge. Unless your "good guy with a gun" is a SWAT officer with full comms, that shit is ending in a bloodbath. Police make enough mistakes, and they're trained and monitored. People in general, should not go around thinking their little gun matters.

Once again, we already have real world examples of people on shooting sprees being stopped by civilians with guns.

This " you have to be a magical swat officer to shoot a bad guy" just isn't true. Guns are the great equalizer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

We also don't know how many people were shot early before they could even create the pattern of a shooting spree. What people forget is that when such a killer is stopped early, then it prevents it from being national news. It's only when there's no one there to stop them and they get really far that suddenly everyone hears about it. But we do have examples of this happening and it should not be dismissed so handily.

 

[happyninja42]

I don't have an issue on principle, but I still have an issue with them being illegally armed.

The answer to gun problems isn't always "more guns". In fact I would say that it's got the opposite effect in most cases.

Sure we can cherry pick singular examples of where someone armed was able to stop some shooter, but that doesn't mean it's the answer to all of our gun woes.

 

[Lightknight]

I don't have an issue on principle, but I still have an issue with them being illegally armed.

The answer to gun problems isn't always "more guns". In fact I would say that it's got the opposite effect in most cases.

Sure we can cherry pick singular examples of where someone armed was able to stop some shooter, but that doesn't mean it's the answer to all of our gun woes.

93% of guns involving crime are guns that are owned illegally. The way to help with the problem is to attack illegal ownership.

The problem with most presented bills and ideas is that they only really address legal purchases which just isn't doing anything to the problem.

Take college campuses for example. They prevent people with legally obtained guns and licensed carry permits from having them on campus. But criminals who have them illegally aren't going to suddenly start obeying the laws on campuses. So we basically end up having these large corridors of vulnerability that is more exposed than the general population outside. Hypothetically, getting out of the way of legal gun owners should help provide less vulnerable targets for gunmen. Why? Because again, only around 7% or fewer of gun related crimes are committed by the people who obtain them legally.

 

[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.

OK, but if every individual is judging the law on a personal and situational basis, then there is no law.

True. I never claimed to have a solution.

You can't claim to respect something, while preaching the total opposite.

I didn't.

As for your recognition of things, please spare me the Sovereign Citizen routine, it's bland and predictable.

I'm here to state my opinion and discuss the issue, not entertain you.

 

[Funyahns]

All depends on how it goes down, but just so you know odds are that it wouldn't happen. It takes training to use a weapon effectively, and not just the practice of aiming and shooting which is the easy part. Shooting and killing someone is not that easy for most people cause it is wrong to kill. Fire discipline is really important since you need to get a clear shot that is not going to risk other people, cause if you miss and shoot someone else you a situation worse.

It is like when I heard people talk about what if people at a theater had a gun when one of the massacres happened? Who knows who is helping and who is killing. Do you see a flash of a gun and just shoot? What if you see a second guy shoot and mistake him for someone else and shoot at him? Hit the dudes girlfriend or the kid in the row behind him?

But in your situation if he did stop a massacre he should be a hero. He should also be arrested for breaking the law though. Not saying lock him away for ever or something crazy but laws need to be followed. If he has knowledge of someone on the edge or who has made threats he should inform the school/police instead of playing Clint Eastwood.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

This " you have to be a magical swat officer to shoot a bad guy" just isn't true. Guns are the great equalizer.

Its ridiculous. There are plenty of trained shooters, both civilian, military/ex-military, and cops/former cops. A good portion of the people who own firearms and are responsible with them are at the least decent shots, and quite a few of them are expert marksmen/women.

I'm quite certain this viewpoint is born from people who've never handled a firearm and have no experience around responsible owners.

Other points you've made in previous posts too are things I totally agree with, and as a responsible owner myself, and former military with expert qualifications, thank you for putting those points out there. I'm not sure how many folks will get them and understand it, but thank you anyway.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Lucky.

Good things happen, bad things happen. Lots of expressions exist for that: c'est la vie, 't kan verkeren, así es la vida,...