If you carry a gun are you obligated to put your life in danger to stop a shooting?

The answer to both your questions is YES the links had links to current FBI/Dept of Justice statistics. You didn't read them did you? Could you start the drubbing sometime this year?

 

Have you ever heard of "cherry picking" and that is what sites like blogs and in particular CT sites like infowars do all the time - if you like i have a lot more research but some of it is from around the mid 1990's roughly when the CDC funding into firearm injury was cut by congress on the insistence of the NRA

 

I see now, don't like the facts of the rebuttal attact the site. Gotcha I think the FBI presents facts just fine, one just needs an open mind to see that, or you can go with a liberal colleges assesment of cherry picked data.

 

The concept upon which our right to posess firearms is predicated is that it enables citizens to perform the duties of a militia member, which is to say, to preserve the public safety and order by armed force if need be.

It is the duty of any citizen to do what he can to prevent violent acts or to put a stop to them if possible.

That being said, yes, you do need to take some precautions once you do engage. Take cover if you can.

When the cops get there, they will have to sort out who out of any belligerants still exchanging fire is the goblin and who the citizen. If one man is hiding behind an over-turned table firing at one man who is standing up and spraying bullets, I think it would be pretty obvious.

Yes, I do hold a Washington State Concealed Pistol License and I do normally pack.

 

Addit to above


But a closer look at infowars and we stumble across the first cherry pick in the first graph - they have used only four years of data and they have then expanded the scale so it looks more impressive - right there is a clue and yes it was the graph from the FBI but used out of context. Now second logical error - that this fall in violent crime had anything to do with more guns

What infowars fails to do is show causation and as I have previously said correlation does not equal causation

In fact it goes on with a real NRA style misinformation campaign by then showing that firearm deaths are less than tobacco use, medical errors (don't know where they got the 195,000 figure) and if they thought they could have gotten away with it - old age

And I sheerly LOVE the little bit of misinformation about "The number of murders committed with hammers and clubs outweighs the number of murders committed with rifles" Duh! Maybe - and maybe that is because way way way more people have killed with handguns Classic cherry pick

Now after seeing the manipulation and falsehoods - why would you trust that site over Harvard University?

Your next site "Blaze" and we do not even get past the title before we hit a cherry pick - one city. No analysis of what the "gun restrictions" are no analysis of data makes it an opinion piece really - the fact that it was a panel discussion nails the fact it was opinion and not research

Your final link has "OPINION" plastered over the top i.e. not research and yes it has lots of numbers, unreferenced numbers but there are a lot of them...........

Now academic research papers please

- - - Updated - - -

A closer analysis took time and I timed out see new post

 

Thank-you someone who understands social obligation

 

Yes that occurred to me a few days ago. She's looking for that one case where a crazed lunatic guns down 8 people to death and is subsequently shot by an armed citizen. Miraculously the 8 dead people get up and thank the citizen for his brave intervention and all go home unscathed.

We have those drunk driving/ buzzed driving commercials that function on the same fairytale premise. How much you wanna bet those commercials have made it to Oz?

 

LOL No amout of factual data would make you see the truth, your side always uses the cherry picked argument, that being said I wonder why your data is as old as it is.....I have a theory but you won't like it.
Now I want you to know I feel real bad I didn't recieve the drubbing promised eh?

 

There is a difference between enabling and mandating.

 

If you watch a crime in progress, or know of criminal activity and do nothing, what keeps you from being the next victim.

We're all in this together.

 

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State; why does the Right have any problem with that?

 

They seem to have mistaken a bunch of fearful strangers hunkering in their bunkers guarding their private stash of food and ammo for an effective militia.

 

Admittedly - where I have a problem with this is the assumption that automatically arming everyone leads to people acting appropriately at the correct time. I think it is telling that the ratio of answers here is overwhelmingly in favour of "no obligation" and yet these same people are claiming that if we armed more people then mass shootings would be stopped after the first couple of shots

 

Just the right??? Better study up on that one youngster. OH and read Heller V DC please you'll get your answer to your question.

 

Are you implying that gun lovers don't love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?

- - - Updated - - -

What does DC V. Heller have to do with what is Necessary to the security of a free State?

 

In states with CCL it is exactly what happens the overwhelming amount of the time. CCL citizens have lower crime rates than NON CCL citizens, eck where I live they actually publish those FACTS in the paper.
Secondly you twist facts once again, proving you will deny in spite of overwhelming evidence.
1. it was brought to your attention that by and large no one has had the chance to prove they would stop a mass shooting because the overwhelming majority of them happened in a NO GUN ZONE where average law abiding citizens don't carry,
2. If a mass murder was stopped by a CCL citizen before it began or after a very limited exchange it, it wouldn't be classified as a mass murder.
My old grandpappy used to say, "when you are in a hole, you better stop digging" My advice, drop the shovel.

 

You haven't read it have you?

 

Actually, I have read the summary; you seem to be ignoring the issue. What does DC V. Heller have to do with what is Necessary to the security of a free State?

 

OK so you have read the summary eh, what does the summary say about the correlation between "The Amendment’s prefatory clause" and "The operative clause". When you can discuss this important distinction as it relates to why the 2A is an individual right and has nothing to do with something being neccessary to the security of anything we'll talk.

- - - Updated - - -

Point taken LOL Oh I also think that applies to a few others eh?

 

Says the person who has already resorted to fallacy for his Cause.

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point of the Second Amendment is the security of our free States.

 

And the evidence that CCL stops mass shootings is less than 2%
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

And, personally I cannot believe that you are posting the old hairy assertion that "CCL stops mass shootings" right under a poll result showing that the majority of Americans feel that CCL carriers have no obligation to do so

So far you have "proven" nothing - you have posted a couple of opinion pieces but they are not "proof"

 

If you fail to help a citizen being attacked by some orc, the chances are that he will also come for you someday.

The fossil record pretty clearly shows that humans got to be the top predator only by taking care of each other.

 

That requires that we act to mutually support each other and that social order which protects us from predation by the thug wioth the iggest weapon.

Armed, mutually distru(*)(*)(*)(*)l people looking out for their own asses and nobody else does not preserve a free state.

 

It does sometimes seem that gun lovers are not willing to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

 

Boy twisting is a specialty of the antigun crowd eh? I just pointed out 2 fallacies of your argument of CCL and mass shootings (gun free zones and if a mass shooting is stopped before it starts how is it classified as a mass shooting) and you provide statistics that at least some of the time it is effective and neglect to mention the other 2 points. You do know the purpose of debate eh?

Way to twist my words and way to discuss my and others assertion that active shooters by and large pick gun free zones irregardless of your meanin gless poll, you're not a MSM reporter are you?

I and others have provided you everything you need to know...you choose not to see. Typical of the antigunners and the main reason why none of your arguments resonate with the general public eh?

- - - Updated - - -

I hug my flag and my 9mm everynight