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

[TechNoFear]

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.

Nirvana logical fallacy...

Only 1 mass shooting in the UK and 0 in Australia since 1997 would appear to be evidence that restricting access to semi-autos and hand guns is effective in saving lives.

BTW Firearms are not banned in the UK or Australia.

Handguns and most semi-auto long guns are restricted to those who require them for professional reasons.

[I am an Australian and own many firearms,]

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

Your 'freedom' was increased with the roll out of Stand Your Ground laws.

It has resulted in an 8% increase in firearm homicides....

Thanks for making Gambit's point; you are more concerned about your rights (to own a firearm) than the rights of the 100,000 Americans that are shot each year.

 

[Leg End]

Nirvana logical fallacy...

Only 1 mass shooting in the UK and 0 in Australia since 1997 would appear to be evidence that restricting access to semi-autos and hand guns is effective in saving lives.

Or that you guys have never really had an abundance of mass shootings. You tried "fixing" something that was not a problem and congrats, you fixed a non-issue, unless you count a statistical anomaly as a major issue, in which case where in the hell are the car bans and mass usage of public transportation because people are too stupid to operate cars?

Also, here is an Australian mass shooting.

BTW Firearms are not banned in the UK or Australia.

I'm very aware. The other guy was essentially saying they were which is also what irked me.

Handguns and most semi-auto long guns are restricted to those who require them for professional reasons.

ect. ect.

[I am an Australian and own many firearms,]

Surprising. Sad that you have such a restricted selection and your government declares firearms as illegal when your laws allow them.

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

Your 'freedom' was increased with the roll out of Stand Your Ground laws.

Psshh. Not in my state.

It has resulted in an 8% increase in firearm homicides....

This ties into the next bit.

Thanks for making Gambit's point; you are more concerned about your rights (to own a firearm) than the rights of the 100,000 Americans that are shot each year.

Does that include officer involved shootings, people being actual idiots with their firearms, uses in self defense and gang warfare? Your stat is how many causes of death are with firearms, when you should specifically look at the use of the arm in those cases. There is a clear difference between an officer using his sidearm on a perp because lethal force was necessary or a wife defending her life from an abusive husband, to an actual use of firearms for mass slaughter of people. Sounds a bit similar to CAGV using suicides on school grounds as examples of "school shootings".

I cannot, will not accept people in general losing their life to people that chose a gun to commit their vile acts, or as a means to protect themselves against those who would do them or others harm, as a reason why we should disarm the public. That is an absolute joke. Context, is absolutely everything in this matter.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It's pretty funny to me how many people are unwilling to give this hypothetical an actual answer.

How would you feel? I would feel very happy to be alive. It would be very difficult to feel negative feelings towards someone who just saved my ass based on their own breaking the law in doing so.

I suspect the vehemently partisan people of the media and of wider society would use the incident for their own purposes, and to further their own agenda anyway they can. Why expect anything else?

 

[cikame]

There's a story i always fall back to in this discussion which was on Penn & Teller's BS, that woman who could only carry her gun in her car and not on her person due to state law, a gunman comes into the restaurant where she's eating with her mother and father, kills a bunch of people including her parents, she wishes she'd carried her gun illegally that day.
I used to watch nutnfancy on youtube, he is a very strong advocate for concealed carry, stating that if everyone carried a gun the bad guys would be outnumbered and too scared to use theirs, he's very serious about his views which put me off watching his videos but i understand where he's coming from.
This is what i think, where i work i see thousands of ridiculously stupid people every day and i wouldn't want them to have guns, and because of that i really don't have an answer myself, that woman whose parents were killed had practice with her gun and was very sure she could have stopped the killer, those are the people i want carrying their guns, if my country allowed it i think i'd carry a gun, i'd keep practiced and familiar with it and hope to never use it, i'd show it to no one and treat it with the respect it requires, but like i said after seeing what thousands of people are like on a daily basis, i just can't trust the general population to not do something stupid if they had guns.

 

[Thaluikhain]

if my country allowed it i think i'd carry a gun, i'd keep practiced and familiar with it and hope to never use it, i'd show it to no one and treat it with the respect it requires

Not saying you personally wouldn't, but with respect, most people would say that. It's always the other person that shoots themselves in the foot. People tend to consider themselves not to be one of the stupid people everyone knows about.

And then again, even highly trained and intelligent people slip up every now and then.

 

[Sarge034]

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.

There's a good point. There aren't as many guns here as folks who don't live here think there are, at least not in public. We don't all go around with our guns strapped to us and our cowboy hats, get drunk at the salon, and shoot up the OK Corral. Case in point. I do open carry and canceled carry, my state allows for both. It isn't a small gun (Glock 21SF .45 ACP and two spare 13 round mags), I keep it in a hip holster and I regularly get sideways looks from people because of it if I'm open carrying. I often times have to pull up the laws on my phone because people try to tell me what I'm doing is illegal and once I had someone call the cops and make out like I was about to shoot up the place. The operator had to tell the guy I wasn't doing anything wrong and even had to send a cop to explain it to him. And you know what? I don't carry in places that are deemed to be "gun free". I don't carry in the places I'm statistically most likely to be involved in a mass shooting at because the law says I can't. Wish the person(s) perpetrating the massacre had such a respect for the law.

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.

If you believe there is no gun violence in the UK and Australia as well as any other place that has banned guns then your lack of knowledge pertaining to current events is appalling.

There were murders in the UK with guns during the riots, there was the shooting spree/hostage standoff in Australia, there was the 2011 Norway massacre, the gunman in France that three unarmed US servicemen took down... Yep, no more shooting since. You know the fun thing about absolutes? You only have to prove it wrong once to completely destroy it. I suggest you amend your statement because I just have to link list after list after list of gun violence in those countries to completely nullify your claim. That, is evidence.

 

[Sarge034]

Almost everyone has answered it, and then added that it was also a really obvious and lame attempt to frame a pro-gun fantasy. I think you're objecting more to the fact that nobody fell for it, than the fact of how they responded.

The question is no more pro-gun fantasy than all the anti-gun fantasy surrounding it. I, as a law abiding citizen who carries a gun sometimes but always abides "gun free" zones, was trying to decide how I would feel if someone broke that law but ended up saving my life. Is it one possible scenario? Yes. Is it the only scenario? No, of course not. I respect the law, but I also like living, so I was trying to come to terms with how I would react in that particular outcome. Trying to come to terms with the possible hypocrisy on my behalf in dealing with this individual and what that would mean in the greater scheme of things to me. I was interested to see how other worked through that.

But more to the point, very few have actually answered those questions. Most just take issue with the question or go right into the pro/anti-gun propaganda.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

It's pretty funny to me how many people are unwilling to give this hypothetical an actual answer.

How would you feel? I would feel very happy to be alive. It would be very difficult to feel negative feelings towards someone who just saved my ass based on their own breaking the law in doing so.

I suspect the vehemently partisan people of the media and of wider society would use the incident for their own purposes, and to further their own agenda anyway they can. Why expect anything else?

Almost everyone has answered it, and then added that it was also a really obvious and lame attempt to frame a pro-gun fantasy. I think you're objecting more to the fact that nobody fell for it, than the fact of how they responded.

I'm not objecting to anything. It's just funny to me that many (meaning multiple, not a majority or whatever you're imagining I meant) can't look past their own politics to entertain a question on a forum. I mean, honestly... Seems pretty closed minded. Not really anything at risk other than having your position challenged by your own imagination.

 

[Timeless Lavender]

Hmm. I would be glad but the dude still broke the law and should be punished. This seems to be a leading question because everyone would be happy to be saved but creating a white elephant in the room since the dude broke the law regardless of him being a hero. This type of logic is dangerous because it is creating a double standard or "no bad tactics, just bad targets" scenario. I would suggest to the dude to follow the law next time but still be heroic.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Kind of like supposed "safety" features on guns. They are supposed to have them, and they used to. But handguns these days all have "trigger safeties" which are just little tabs on the trigger. Meaning that to disengage the "safety" you have to PUT YOUR FINGER ON THE TRIGGER. You know, the same thing you have to do to FIRE THE WEAPON, completely defeating the purpose of having a safety in the first place. The US may have "gun laws" but in all practical sense there are none. They either have loopholes or are just ignored. My state very nearly passed a law making it illegal for federal weapons officials (atf for example) to enforce U.S. "gun laws" in our state. They only stopped when their lawyers finally convinced them how unbelievably ILLEGAL passing such a law would be. And our legislature only listened because of how much MONEY they would be wasting by trying to defend themselves and that law in court.

This is actually something that completly baffles me. Here in Switzerland we have such pistols too - in the friggin army. One of the older pistol models has the safety in the trigger too and it's a huge unnecessary risk.

In the company i served a fellow recruit shot himself through both legs because his weapon got stuck while holstering. Just because there's no friggin real safety on the pistol. How anyone thought selling these things is fine and dandy is beyond my understanding.

 

[Sarge034]

Either you haven't actually read this thread, or you're being dishonest.

On the contrary, I've read the entire thread and on the whole most people took to politics first. The fact any answered the questions and thought about it a little actually makes this thread a complete success as opposed to what it could have been.

Now, do you mind to say something about the op or are you just here to poke at people to try and get a response? Seen you in several threads lately and in every one you seem to just poke people or are outright hostile. That does nothing for discussion value.

 

[Dinadan]

It's pretty funny to me how many people are unwilling to give this hypothetical an actual answer.

How would you feel? I would feel very happy to be alive. It would be very difficult to feel negative feelings towards someone who just saved my ass based on their own breaking the law in doing so.

I suspect the vehemently partisan people of the media and of wider society would use the incident for their own purposes, and to further their own agenda anyway they can. Why expect anything else?

Almost everyone has answered it, and then added that it was also a really obvious and lame attempt to frame a pro-gun fantasy. I think you're objecting more to the fact that nobody fell for it, than the fact of how they responded.

I'm not objecting to anything. It's just funny to me that many (meaning multiple, not a majority or whatever you're imagining I meant) can't look past their own politics to entertain a question on a forum. I mean, honestly... Seems pretty closed minded. Not really anything at risk other than having your position challenged by your own imagination.

Doesn't seem close minded to me to call a leading question what it is. Everyone can make up fantasy scenarios favoring their particular opinion, it's not terribly difficult. I think it is close-minded to dismiss all the evidence pointing towards the love affair the USA has with guns is causing lots of trouble. Among the G7 the USA have the highest intentional homicide rate by quite a margin. The last year without a school shooting in the US has been 1981. Yes, there is gun violence in countries with more severe gun-control, but it is far rarer than in the USA.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Surprised at my foresight in predicting the massacre, happy that it was averted in this instance and saddened that it would likely encourage other people to carry weapons around in the hopes of being a hero.

In that order.

 

[EvilRoy]

Almost everyone has answered it, and then added that it was also a really obvious and lame attempt to frame a pro-gun fantasy. I think you're objecting more to the fact that nobody fell for it, than the fact of how they responded.

The question is no more pro-gun fantasy than all the anti-gun fantasy surrounding it. I, as a law abiding citizen who carries a gun sometimes but always abides "gun free" zones, was trying to decide how I would feel if someone broke that law but ended up saving my life. Is it one possible scenario? Yes. Is it the only scenario? No, of course not. I respect the law, but I also like living, so I was trying to come to terms with how I would react in that particular outcome. Trying to come to terms with the possible hypocrisy on my behalf in dealing with this individual and what that would mean in the greater scheme of things to me. I was interested to see how other worked through that.

But more to the point, very few have actually answered those questions. Most just take issue with the question or go right into the pro/anti-gun propaganda.

I think the main problem people are having is that the question is a little.... unformed? I guess? Like, the answer for a mentally healthy person who values their own life should always be 'I would be happy to be alive and/but []', the brackets being a reaction to the question of legality. But there can only be two possible reactions. Either you are unhappy that both people broke the law, or you are happy that one person broke the law and unhappy that the other broke the law. But the way that you framed the question doesn't make it super clear that what you were really interested in was the interaction of the ideals in the second half of the question - ie the question of survival instinct vs law and order.

I guess to try to help out, I'll put in my answer.

The problem is thus. In order for me to test the idea of whether I am OK with a 'good guy' and a 'bad guy' both breaking the law and the good guy winning I have to extend this question to its logical conclusion. That is, I have to consider the reality that if this kind of illegality is acceptable, given the understanding as I stated above that survival instinct is very compelling for most people, then there is only one way for every individual in attendance to insure that a good guy will be present to stop a shooter. What if instead of two people having a gun, everybody had a gun.

That is, what if everyone is breaking the law - it would be ridiculous to assume that only two people (a good guy and a bad guy) are in attendance and armed, and since most able bodied people are capable of carrying and using a weapon the worst case scenario would be for all of them to be armed and ready.

From this point I can readily state that I am not okay with both people having broken the law, since to say otherwise would be to accept the unpleasant possibility of rapid confused gunfire from multiple sources all attempting to do the right thing, but not necessarily having the most positive effect. It is tempting to state that maybe then some people should be trained and armed and exempted from this law, and everyone else has to obey that law, but I think I just described the police, and we have those.

NB
I know the good guy and bad guy labels are not necessarily the best way to express this on a connotative basis if nothing else, but I wanted a fast shorthand that would be less cumbersome than defining each person each time I referenced them, hence the 'quotes' in the first use.

 

[josemlopes]

My take on it would be to give the punishment (whatever fine there is for carrying a gun, it doenst mean prison, just probably having to pay a sum of money) and give the rewards (recognition..., I dont know, a medal?).

Either way, all it had to happen was start a fundraise for the person to pay off the fine. It cant be forgotten that the person was doing something illegal to begin with and opening exceptions to the law (whatever law it is, if its wrong there are ways to change it) is a bad standard to set.