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

[Leg End]

No, it's actually quite the opposite. You should learn about the numbers there too. Guns make for very successful suicides compared to most other common methods. Suicide is generally an impulse, and nothing empowers impulsivity like a firearm.

They make for less painful methods, certainly.

I'd argue the opposite. With a firearm, you have a lingering presence in your mind that it is indeed a last resort, and any situation you use it in, the result is a very final one, so impulsiveness is a very bad thing when handling a firearm which is why most people who use them are very careful in their use, both when and how. This is hard coded into the basic rules of handling any firearm.

 

[Conner42]

If it actually prevented any harm or any further devastation, then, yeah, holy crap, talk about an unlikely chain of events. But, yeah, I would be grateful if I were in a situation like that occurred and at least someone stopped it.

But I'd really prefer if neither of the people were able to obtain guns in the first place.

 

[Leg End]

snip

So is this still remotely connected to the OP or are we now discussing firearms used in suicides and the right to end your life?

It's amazing how many that are injured or killed in accidents weren't an accident when the person operating the firearm was being a dumbass, just as you can be a dumbass with anything else and end up killing someone due to negligence. That's a big reason why people like to make a clear difference between an "Accidental Discharge" and a "Negligent Discharge". One is a mechanical fault that even then can be often attributed to poor firearm maintenance, while the other is someone purely being an idiot and somebody paying for it, with that sadly tending to be someone that was not even involved.

All of the above, being a very different topic from the OP.

 

[Totenkreuz]

I have a question. Does the USA have a law or 'tradition' where you get a lighter sentence or even get out of it as if you never did something illegal if you did so because you had to?

For example, you steal a car so a bear can't maim you?

If someone has a gun where he can't have one shouldn't the law enforcement look into why he had one there in the first place? maybe it was just a mistake, a one time failure and nothing bad would happen from it? If he carried a gun everyday then maybe they should do something about it as it can be rather dangerous if someone disregard the same law time and time again?

Cheers.

 

[CeeBod]

How would I feel? I'd be so happy, I'd ride my Unicorn out to the Rainbow fields to watch the pigs fly past.

Meanwhile on the real world, this is as likely as the similarly stupid question - "Would torture be OK if it was the only way to prevent a bomb a la 24?" Both are trying to take fiction and apply it to the real world and the real world flat out doesn't work like that.

All people are stupid sometimes, all people do stupid shit sometimes, all people over-react sometimes. As was alluded to in another post, firearms + impulsive action = bad shit. Doesn't matter who has the firearm, which is why even well trained groups in uniform are often in the news - police killings and military blue on blue are not exactly rare occurences. In general I think waaaay too many people are carrying as it is. Put the damned guns away people!

Capcha: rum do - yes it is capcha, and coincidentally I do have rum too, thanks for the suggestion.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snipped for brevity

I freely admit that my opinions are coloured by my background (which is Danish).

However I also thought that the entire USA would be such an area where an armed populace would have the ability to incapacitate such a lunatic.

 

[Leg End]

I have a question. Does the USA have a law or 'tradition' where you get a lighter sentence or even get out of it as if you never did something illegal if you did so because you had to?

For example, you steal a car so a bear can't maim you?

If someone has a gun where he can't have one shouldn't the law enforcement look into why he had one there in the first place? maybe it was just a mistake, a one time failure and nothing bad would happen from it? If he carried a gun everyday then maybe they should do something about it as it can be rather dangerous if someone disregard the same law time and time again?

Cheers.

That entire situation would vary wildly on so many conditions I might as well say no in most cases unless it's a very clear case, possibly similar to the one you described.

Meanwhile on the real world, this is as likely as the similarly stupid question - "Would torture be OK if it was the only way to prevent a bomb a la 24?" Both are trying to take fiction and apply it to the real world and the real world flat out doesn't work like that.

Doesn't stop the US government from doing it anyway and the actual OP question does happen(well, sans legality issues), and is a hell of a lot more justifiable.

All people are stupid sometimes, all people do stupid shit sometimes, all people over-react sometimes. As was alluded to in another post, firearms + impulsive action = bad shit.

That's the case for a lot of things. Humans in general can be impulsive creatures.

Doesn't matter who has the firearm, which is why even well trained groups in uniform are often in the news - police killings and military blue on blue are not exactly rare occurences. In general I think waaaay too many people are carrying as it is. Put the damned guns away people!

Pretty easy to say put away the guns when you don't actually have one pointed at you, a situation many people are not privy to.

I freely admit that my opinions are coloured by my background (which is Danish).

Totally understandable.

However I also thought that the entire USA would be such an area where an armed populace would have the ability to incapacitate such a lunatic.

Welcome to our laws restricting our ability to protect ourselves with firearms and making targets out of people who otherwise could easily be armed and make people think twice about doing something stupid. Kinda similar to the OP of someone having to carry illegally to protect themself and others. In reality, the US is not a country where absolutely everyone is armed, either due to choice or due to law, and in the latter case we're most definitely paying for it.

 

[Totenkreuz]

That entire situation would vary wildly on so many conditions I might as well say no in most cases unless it's a very clear case, possibly similar to the one you described.

Ah, yes, I believe it would be a nightmare as one situation is not like another. I have that extremely stupid view that the justice system in the USA is blind ( like that statue ). Ie, you do something wrong but, even if you were forced to do something illegal you still get sentenced as if you wasn't forced at all. As if you were just as "bad" as those who do it freely.

I think that's what I'm trying to understand. Is the justice system in the USA hard on the individual, does the end justify the means etc? Sorry for the rather bad wording on this and derailment of the topic at hand.

Thank you and Cheers.

 

[Leg End]

That entire situation would vary wildly on so many conditions I might as well say no in most cases unless it's a very clear case, possibly similar to the one you described.

Ah, yes, I believe it would be a nightmare as one situation is not like another. I have that extremely stupid view that the justice system in the USA is blind ( like that statue ). Ie, you do something wrong but, even if you were forced to do something illegal you still get sentenced as if you wasn't forced at all. As if you were just as "bad" as those who do it freely.

I think that's what I'm trying to understand. Is the justice system in the USA hard on the individual, does the end justify the means etc? Sorry for the rather bad wording on this and derailment of the topic at hand.

Thank you and Cheers.

I think I misunderstood what you initially meant. It heavily depends on the definition of "forced".

You'll often see judges make heavy examples of people but you'll also often see judges show leniency, but this heavily depends on the crime, the area(ties into the last) and, sadly, heavily on the personal opinion of the judge in many cases, so pray that the judge doesn't have a particular hard-on for making people squirm for things he doesn't agree with in particular even if anyone else would basically say "that is absolutely retarded".

I don't think I explained it well but I hope it gives you some idea on it. Lady justice is blind, but not deaf. Her servants however, are often the other way around. Cheers bud.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

gun owners value these rights more than the lives that are lost because of them.

Or perhaps it's because we know you can't get rid of every gun so perhaps we should just try to protect ourselves instead? If banning guns would save lives I'd do it in a heart beat, unfortunately it won't. We can stop meth sales by not carrying it in stores guys!!!

Evidence to contrary is readily apparent in the UK and Australia for starters. Both nations had a mass shooting, both banned guns, both have seen no more shootings since. That is called evidence.

The USA will see more of them, it's certain as the Sun rising. Next time one happens, just be sure to say "That happened thanks to the Second Amendment. I'm so glad we have guns." You have to say that to yourself every time there's a mass shooting. Who wouldn't want to live in a country where anyone can mass murder innocents and join the rest of the 1-2% countries whole population behind bars? Free society!

 

[Leg End]

Evidence to contrary is readily apparent in the UK and Australia for starters. Both nations had a mass shooting, both banned guns, both have seen no more shootings since. That is called evidence.

That is so wrong it is disturbing.

The USA will see more of them, it's certain as the Sun rising. Next time one happens, just be sure to say "That happened thanks to the Second Amendment. I'm so glad we have guns." You have to say that to yourself every time there's a mass shooting. Who wouldn't want to live in a country where anyone can mass murder innocents and join the rest of the 1-2% countries whole population behind bars? Free society!

You can mass murder innocents in any country, just like the above example in Cumbria, with guns being effectively banned. Or, you can go another route and use explosives like many others have and get even more destructive results.

If we're talking about a full scale ban of guns in the US, you would have a better chance at the Middle East finding everlasting peace and Jesus coming down from the sky to become eternal president of the United States, back to back.

We'd rather have our freedom than give it all up in the mere hope that we might feel the slightest bit safer.

 

[sleekie]

So basically the point of this thread was to eventually bring into question the law preventing people from legally carrying a firearm, but you covered that up by prefacing with a 'no politics' request.

Because that was totally going to be possible.

 

[Frankster]

I'd just be thanking my own lucky stars considering the situation I made it out alive but I'd feel very unsafe overall that apparently everyone is packing heat these days, which might in turn lead me to feel maybe I should get a weapon myself. After all no one else seems to be fucking respecting the law so why should I? xD

I live in uk so seeing 1 dude with a gun would be an exceptional moment. TWO people with guns, one to conveniently fight the other and turn the place I'm in into a shootout? Well that's just fucking nuts and the odds of this particular scenario happening would be like winning the lottery I feel.

 

[Leg End]

So you're going to run now, because the actual numbers make it impossible for you to lie?

No because now we're basically on a totally different subject. What exactly is your argument?

After all no one else seems to be fucking respecting the law so why should I? xD

Heck, that's practically the logic the situation is calling on.

I live in uk so seeing 1 dude with a gun would be an exceptional moment. TWO people with guns, one to conveniently fight the other and turn the place I'm in into a shootout? Well that's just fucking nuts and the odds of this particular scenario happening would be like winning the lottery I feel.

Always carry enough around for a lottery ticket because those kinds of odds are in fact, lottery chances.

Even in the US, a winning lottery draw is much more common.

The odds are much higher in LA.

 

[sky pies]

I'm just depressed that these kinds of things need to be thought about. Look no offense to wider humanity but I interact with you people every day and none of you strike me as serious and thoughtful enough to be entrusted with devices of instant murder to be used whenever you deem it necessary. That poor schmuck should not be allowed to consider snuffing out a stranger's life with a gun, he should be limited to goofy fantasies about Katanas at the very worst.

I live in Australia currently. If each of the broken down wackjobs I encounter on an almost daily basis here was legally permitted to carry a gun I would be seriously afraid to leave the house. I wouldn't think it was justification for me to buy a gun to defend myself, I would just move heaven and earth to emigrate.

Emigrate, people.

 

[AgedGrunt]

First of all, I salute you on a great topic and scenario; this is a serious, real-world issue and a question everybody in the US should ask themselves.

How would I feel?
Grateful. Indebted. Proud. Guilty. Probably a bit sympathetic, since I'd figure the good, decent human being is going to be punished, and that could ruin their life.

Media?
Hard to say. If the story was picked up I'd expect it to fizzle out with the person being a tragic hero. Vast majority of media would never put out an angle that what the person did was right. They would be sure to remind brain slugs, I mean viewers, of the law, because good citizens always obey.

Society?
Right-wing would love, left-wing would probably give the individual enough points to not hate him, except the truly hateful leftists. Slugs would "wow" or something, having no insight, then go back to click bait and Netflix. Non-American societies would continue to be confused why we haven't burned all of our guns like normal people did thousands of years ago.

In other words, I don't think it would change many minds. This is the sort of issue where peoples' minds are made up, and for a lot of people it's made for them.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Laugh my ass off until I realize the media will not report on it.