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

[Robert B. Marks]

See...here's the problem with this question - unless the person carrying the gun has been through military or police training, it's incredibly unlikely that anybody carrying a gun in the class would be able to make a difference.

It all has to do with brain chemistry. Your brain has three basic parts: the reptile brain, which deals with automatic functions (breathing, heartbeat, etc.), your mammalian brain, which handles instinct and the "fight or flight" response, and the higher brain, which handles thinking and logical thought. Because the higher brain is slower to react, when adrenaline starts pumping in an survival situation, your higher brain shuts down and the mammalian brain wakes up and takes over.

If you've been through military or police training, all their firearms training is exactly about training the mammalian brain in what to do. So, once the higher brain shuts down, the mammalian brain knows how to aim and use a gun, etc. If you haven't been through this training, all the information on how to aim and use a gun is stored in your higher, logical brain...the part that just shut down.

So, as I said, somebody carrying a gun in this situation without the training may as well be a holding a paperweight for all the good it will do. It is very unlikely they will be stopping any massacres, not unless they've had actual combat training.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

Thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it.

See...here's the problem with this question - unless the person carrying the gun has been through military or police training, it's incredibly unlikely that anybody carrying a gun in the class would be able to make a difference.

It all has to do with brain chemistry. Your brain has three basic parts: the reptile brain, which deals with automatic functions (breathing, heartbeat, etc.), your mammalian brain, which handles instinct and the "fight or flight" response, and the higher brain, which handles thinking and logical thought. Because the higher brain is slower to react, when adrenaline starts pumping in an survival situation, your higher brain shuts down and the mammalian brain wakes up and takes over.

If you've been through military or police training, all their firearms training is exactly about training the mammalian brain in what to do. So, once the higher brain shuts down, the mammalian brain knows how to aim and use a gun, etc. If you haven't been through this training, all the information on how to aim and use a gun is stored in your higher, logical brain...the part that just shut down.

So, as I said, somebody carrying a gun in this situation without the training may as well be a holding a paperweight for all the good it will do. It is very unlikely they will be stopping any massacres, not unless they've had actual combat training.

This is mostly just conjecture. Not only is it unlikely anyone will see a massacre unfold at all (ergo it's unlikely for anyone to stop them), the primary problem is that these people choose gun-free zones (I mean, come on, a lot of people and restrictions on people legally carrying guns? It's like an unmonitored playground to a pedophile with a ice cream truck in July) and that they have the element of surprise. So even if you were in the vicinity and had a gun like what happened with Gabriel Giffords, a large number of lives could already be lost but you could prevent the loss of more. In that scenario, there were two people with guns approaching the gunman and it just so happened that another brave soul tackled him while he was reloading a clip.

Either way, civilians can and do break up these things:

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

We have no idea of knowing how many potential sprees were stopped early either because once stopped, they can't continue doing harm. Maybe if the places these mass shootings were taking place had people with guns then there would at least be a chance of stopping these things sooner. Some of the people in that list actually had to leave the facility to get their gun and come back to save the day.

93% of crimes committed with guns are perpetrated by people who obtained them legally. They will continue to get the guns and they will continue to break the law and take them in places where they're not supposed to be for the same reason they were willing to illegally purchase a gun. All this nonsense about legislating the actual legal owners of guns is only going to hurt us while our criminal population is flush with them. Even in places (like the UK) where guns are outright banned we're still seeing increases in gun-related crimes and murders. Something HAS to be done about illegal ownership first. Then we can worry about the other 7%.

Training is great, it does help. But people who get a conceal and carry permit have had training. So...? Very few people pay out hundreds of dollars for a weapon, go through all the permit processing and training, and go through the trouble of strapping it on EVERY day without practicing. Are you imagining Ms. Daisey pulling a snub nose out of her pocket book and blasting away with her eyes closed? That's not the normal case.

 

[bluegate]

Haha, you Amurcans and your guns, pew pew pew.

Less people killed is a good thing, sure, now what's your point?

 

[Abomination]

Glad it was prevented but still indignant that the gun culture of the country makes it so easy for the event to occur by comparison to every other Western nation.

 

[Silvanus]

I'd feel happy it was averted, and tense at how close it was.

I'd feel the same as I do now about American gun laws, because that's an issue of likelihoods and statistics, not single incidents.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

This is mostly just conjecture. Not only is it unlikely anyone will see a massacre unfold at all (ergo it's unlikely for anyone to stop them), the primary problem is that these people choose gun-free zones (I mean, come on, a lot of people and restrictions on people legally carrying guns? It's like an unmonitored playground to a pedophile with a ice cream truck in July) and that they have the element of surprise. So even if you were in the vicinity and had a gun like what happened with Gabriel Giffords, a large number of lives could already be lost but you could prevent the loss of more. In that scenario, there were two people with guns approaching the gunman and it just so happened that another brave soul tackled him while he was reloading a clip.

Either way, civilians can and do break up these things:

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

We have no idea of knowing how many potential sprees were stopped early either because once stopped, they can't continue doing harm. Maybe if the places these mass shootings were taking place had people with guns then there would at least be a chance of stopping these things sooner. Some of the people in that list actually had to leave the facility to get their gun and come back to save the day.

93% of crimes committed with guns are perpetrated by people who obtained them legally. They will continue to get the guns and they will continue to break the law and take them in places where they're not supposed to be for the same reason they were willing to illegally purchase a gun. All this nonsense about legislating the actual legal owners of guns is only going to hurt us while our criminal population is flush with them. Even in places (like the UK) where guns are outright banned we're still seeing increases in gun-related crimes and murders. Something HAS to be done about illegal ownership first. Then we can worry about the other 7%.

Training is great, it does help. But people who get a conceal and carry permit have had training. So...? Very few people pay out hundreds of dollars for a weapon, go through all the permit processing and training, and go through the trouble of strapping it on EVERY day without practicing. Are you imagining Ms. Daisey pulling a snub nose out of her pocket book and blasting away with her eyes closed? That's not the normal case.

First, what I posted is not conjecture - it's from a book titled On Combat, by Dave Grossman, which is part about how the brain reacts to combat situations.

Second, in reply to the rest of your comments, I present John Oliver on gun control in Australia - a country that had a gun-happy culture, an endemic level of mass shootings, and just happened to solve their problems using weapons bans: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

 

[Lightknight]

First, what I posted is not conjecture - it's from a book titled On Combat, by Dave Grossman, which is part about how the brain reacts to combat situations.

I'm not sure why someone writing a book on it makes it any less conjecture. I mean, this is also him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)#Work

"In Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence, Grossman argues that the techniques used by armies to train soldiers to kill are mirrored in certain types of video games. The conclusion he draws is that playing violent video games, particularly light gun shooters of the first-person shooter-variety (where the player holds a weapon-like game controller), train children in the use of weapons and, more importantly, harden them emotionally to the task of murder by simulating the killing of hundreds or thousands of opponents in a single typical video game."

So apparently even just FPS video games can provide citizens with the training he deems is necessary to be able to take a life in a threatening situation. Boy oh boy, if I'd only known that me owning duck hunt and time crises was training me to become a hardened criminal I'd have applied to the police academy by now...

Second, in reply to the rest of your comments, I present John Oliver on gun control in Australia - a country that had a gun-happy culture, an endemic level of mass shootings, and just happened to solve their problems using weapons bans: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl2kfnCwyyZWk5MW28lgaNa7L

The UK also banned guns and has only seen an increase in gun related homicides over the past several decades, what's your point?

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Guns grant a lot of power to whoever wields them. Many humans are very much attached to feeling that they have power over each other.
They will claw desperately with any and all reasoning to justify why they must still be granted power.
America, being founded on the "your-treehouse-rules-suck-so-we're-gonna-find-a-less-defended-treehouse-to-violently-exert-our-will-upon-and-make-our-own" gives them a unique culture identity crisis, as in they have none. The only general themes that outside countries observe are guns. Guns and movies. Oh and freedom. Hang on a minute, is that what all those decades of "freedom!" were really about? The glee of realising their government lets them play with the big toys?
Oops, must digress. Allow me please to word this question differently, using the same bias employed by the OP to get their desired answers;
How would you feel if a serial killer murdered a rapist during a killing spree? No politics allowed.

We will always be children, labelling ourselves adults until we die.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I don't want any random person to have a gun everywhere. Just because he did well I don't think it's likely the next person will. Making exceptions will only encourage it. While I'd be glad I'd expect the person to be punished. I do not think being able to buy and carry a gun at all implies competence and it's not as if there's any kind of decent level of competence in the situation you can demand. Even if officers can suck that just means they should be better trained. The difference is their quality can be better controlled.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Ultimately, when it comes to the gun control argument vs. crime thing, it seems to me that it comes down to this:

It is true that there is no lock on this earth that would keep a determined burglar out of your home. However, the locked door WILL make it difficult enough to deter most of the non-determined burglars, as well as flat out prevent opportunists from just walking right in.

Likewise, gun control laws more in line with the strict laws used by the State of New York won't prevent hardened and determined criminals from getting their hands on guns (they won't care...they're CRIMINALS), but it WILL deter those who are not determined or hardened criminals, as well as make it harder for stolen guns to enter the black market. Since most spree shootings are not conducted by people who are hardened criminals, there's a reasonable probability that making guns harder to acquire will cut down on mass shootings, suicides, and a large number of homicides.

 

[Lightknight]

Ultimately, when it comes to the gun control argument vs. crime thing, it seems to me that it comes down to this:

It is true that there is no lock on this earth that would keep a determined burglar out of your home. However, the locked door WILL make it difficult enough to deter most of the non-determined burglars, as well as flat out prevent opportunists from just walking right in.

Likewise, gun control laws more in line with the strict laws used by the State of New York won't prevent hardened and determined criminals from getting their hands on guns (they won't care...they're CRIMINALS), but it WILL deter those who are not determined or hardened criminals, as well as make it harder for stolen guns to enter the black market. Since most spree shootings are not conducted by people who are hardened criminals, there's a reasonable probability that making guns harder to acquire will cut down on mass shootings, suicides, and a large number of homicides.

Stolen guns are not a significant portion of guns used in crime. Straw sales (which are already illegal) and illegal sales from corrupt federally licensed vendors who just don't care account for the vast majority of them.

You're perpetuating myths here. Stolen guns take too long to get from a home to the hands of a criminal. So we're talking friends, acquaintances, etc who are willing to commit a straw sale crime or a corrupt dealer. These are often pretty blatant too and gun sellers don't seem to care. They let people change answers on the legally required questionnaire that would otherwise stop the sale (like, "Are you buying this gun for yourself...").

The laws people are currently pushing for aren't going to deter criminals. They're going to deter the law abiding citizens who don't even account for 10% of gun related crimes and sometimes even help stop the other 93% that are criminals with guns. If you actually want to do any good, push for better enforcement of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals rather than legal citizens who aren't the problem.

We are all just being swept along with scare tactics that politicians are using to try to score easy votes but it isn't going to help unless someone is honest and points out that the problem is that criminals are still getting guns using means that have already been outlawed.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

While that is true, someone with police or military training has official qualifications to prove they are (or should be) able to handle a gun, which isn't true of any given random who happens to own one. They may very well, or they may not.

 

[Lightknight]

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.

While that is true, someone with police or military training has official qualifications to prove they are (or should be) able to handle a gun, which isn't true of any given random who happens to own one. They may very well, or they may not.

If they're wielding a concealed weapon then they sure as hell better have a permit.

Are we somehow under the impression that humans find it hard to point and click things? Gun safety is what most lessons are about, not how to point and click. As presented in the link I've cited here three or four times, we do have several examples of civilians stopping gunmen mid-rampage. We even have examples of people tackling gunmen and performing all kinds of other precise and heroic acts.

I'm sorry, but you just can't claim that civilians are incapable of doing anything but cowering. Certainly not without actual statistical data from a legitimate source establishing that when scared civilians with guns will just ram the barrel of the gun up their own keester and fire away out of terror. That has not been my own personal experience and I have certainly not been trained in any combat situation. But I know that the bystander effect demands I act because no one else will and I know that it is better to be safe than it is to be sorry. Thankfully the situations I've been in have only required physical intervention rather than needing lethal force or even the presence of a gun at all. If people are willing to endanger themselves to protect others in fist fights and other attacks, they will be willing to do so with guns too.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If they're wielding a concealed weapon then they sure as hell better have a permit.

The OP specified illegally, though.

Are we somehow under the impression that humans find it hard to point and click things? Gun safety is what most lessons are about, not how to point and click.

So, being able to hit a given target isn't a skill the police or military spend lots of time and resources to teach people?

I'm sorry, but you just can't claim that civilians are incapable of doing anything but cowering.

Possibly why I didn't claim that then.

 

[Lightknight]

If they're wielding a concealed weapon then they sure as hell better have a permit.

The OP specified illegally, though.

Are we somehow under the impression that humans find it hard to point and click things? Gun safety is what most lessons are about, not how to point and click.

So, being able to hit a given target isn't a skill the police or military spend lots of time and resources to teach people?

I'm sorry, but you just can't claim that civilians are incapable of doing anything but cowering.

Possibly why I didn't claim that then.

You made a generic comment about every "random" who owns a gun. The poster you were responding to was also making a comment about the general benefit of civilians with legally owned guns.

So why would I take your post to be dealing with the original OP giving that line of commenting?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Probably the same as I would feel if I was shot and a drug dealer had a bag of stolen oxycodone that I could buy?

 

[FFHAuthor]

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?

Why, yes, I am. Because the question asked is far different from the one that's being answered. What more can one expect on the internet? Open and rational discussion of something? Of a hypothetical situation which may challenge your opinions and positions? Perish the thought that someone might grow, rather than simply dismiss the other side's point as 'silliness'.

Oh, and yes, if I had seen a man stop a rampage shooter with prayer, I would drop to my knees and start praying because there are probably a lot bigger issues that we could put that to use in resolving.

 

[FFHAuthor]

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.

Actually the OP's question is more akin to the real world issues facing concealed carry gun owners rather regularly, the choice between utilizing what is their legally protected right and in their view a personal responsibility, and balancing that with the desires and concerns of others.

Drunk driving is not a legal activity in some places and an illegal one in others, losing control of your vehicle while under the influence is not the same as carrying a handgun with a government issued licence after going through gun safety training and making a moral and intellectual decision to do so.

Accidentally striking someone who you later find out is a rapist isn't the same as using lethal force against someone who is unequivocally endangering the lives of others in a situation where there is no possibility of other resolution.

It's interesting what an 'absurd' hypothetical situation is depending on what side of the issue that you're on.

 

[FFHAuthor]

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.

Very true, but that tends to be a rather glaring issue from both sides of any discussion on the internet!

 

[BytByte]

In all honesty if politics were magically vanished from the scenario, I would think the guy to be good, if not a hero. Doing something illegal would not look good on him/her, but that would not be as important if they stopped something even more illegal.

It is really a shame we don't live in a Dyson world though.