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

That's nice; but it doesn't help with the security of our free States.

 

neither do you. You contribute nothing except whine, kind of an scratch across the chalkboard...annoying, but it can be ignored.............like you lmmfao

 

UMMM No its not, The BORs is about personal freedom, is freedom of speech for the security of the states, is freedom from illegal search and seizure for the security of the states well by golly NO so why would the 2nd be about states right at the begining of the BOR...how weird.

 

Now you may be an anomoly amongst liberals and I'll give you that.
The liberal standard is to disarm the lawful American citizens.
I fail to see how that constitutes mutual support? According to polls trotted out on this forum roughly half of the population seeks stricter gun control. Extrapolating from that its reasonable to believe if a CCW finds themselves in a situation where a group of people are being slaughtered 50% of them do not want the CCW to intervene. Yes they probably would at that instant but like most things in life and death there comes a point when you must live or die based on your choices in life. Your mutual support is meaningless if your asking half of society to feed the beast that wants to devour them.
Obviously most CCW holders would not think of such things like this in a moment of desperation. But its only logical to believe some are thinking these thoughts now, more will think this in the future as are rights are further eroded. This is the division of America that is growing at record rates IMO.
The proponderence of the replies by CCW holders in this thread have been that they would act if possible but it is NOT an obligation. If you and Bowerbird cannot grasp the difference that should not be anyones problem but your own.

How would Bowerbird feel if someone saved her life through the use of a gun? Would she change her mind about guns and the people who own them?
Personally I don't think so. Would she spit in their face? Quarenteed she won't answer so we might as well come to our own conclusions.

 

Know I have won when the opposition resorts to Ad Homs

Byeeeee!!

 

I have a question (sorry doing this from phone) if you goto a convention of medical professionals and you are all wearing blue and someone walks up to you and says "doctors SUCKS" you might not agree but there is less likely for that person to do it when he is out numbered. Same with guns. One guy walking into a crowded area and possibly being shot back he will think twice. Common sense wouldn't you agree?

 

Police are not obligated to help, so why should civilians?

 

Here is what's effed up about law. You could shoot down a mass shooter with your legally carried CCW and save 100s of lives and be all fine from a criminal aspect of law. However, you could potentially set yourself up for a civil lawsuit and could be forced to pay the family of the attempted mass shooter money if he/she was the sole financial provider. The odds of this happening are not high, but it is possible you could be struck with a civil lawsuit. The instructors teach you to never be a hero, only use your weapon if you or loved one are in immediate danger.

 

Except that the evidence to date shows that 50% of your mass shooters are mentally ill and then there are those who become so focussed they blot everything else out

Common sense would say "do not start shooting in the first place"

 

Why would one risk shooting an innocent bystander? If everyone is armed, another will have a clear shot.

Again, the more people armed the better. Another armed citizen may have a clear shot and one wouldn't have to make such a life/death decision. If one HAD to 'step into his field of vision' being the only gun-holder (besides the perp) one would have to consider the shot, maybe try to divert the attention of the perp first, decide if your hardware and your expertise will be able to make the shot, etc.

Wait a minute....So Shooter is blasting away and sees you? If the Shooter is savagely mowing down people and I am in his line of sight, that means he has not shot me yet and I have a split second to render him/her room temperature otherwise I'm dead anyway and no good to whoever may still be alive.

Not a bad scenario, you are under cover, you can see the perp, you shoot perp stone dead.

 

I wonder why it is that you never explain your assertions and resort a your mantra over and over again?

- - - Updated - - -

There you go. The saying is that every bullet comes with a lawyer.

 

Isn't it a self-evident Truth, specifically enumerated in our very own, Second Amendment?

 

Ok but they do think well enough to goto these "gun free zones" right? The last few people who attempted to shoot up a gun shop were met with bullets back and it IS a rare incident. So wouldn't common sense say more guns helped? Obviously not shooting first makes sense when you don't have a gun but if he can still get one how does that help you defend yourself.

 

same thing about cop bars.....I have never heard of anyone walking into a bar full of cops announcing that "this here is a robbery."

 

Who ever heard of an armed robbery anywhere a well regulated militia of the United States hangs out?

 

Just because its unheard of does'nt mean it has'nt happened. Theres way to much paper work involved to report it.

 

From a perspective of legality and so forth I suppose no. You aren't obligated, and shouldn't be. From every other moral perspective on the other hand you are entirely obligated to. Perhaps that is where everyone I failing though, we don't believe in moral obligation anymore.

 

Personally I would go a little further and say we are being taught not to believe in moral obligation.

 

I would say that is a reasonable view. Its not like we are being taught it.

 

a piont by piont refutation of the mother jones article.

at best. all in all, this proves no negative effect of CCL or armed citizens, as no innocent person was killed by a CCL holder. and i may also note, i believe a British style gun ban, disarmes off duty policed officers, as well as retired police officers, and in some cases, on duty police officers are disarmed. so i wonder what his point is here?. also, was it not a benifit that the shooter was detained peacefully, by the time the on duty police showed up?

however, in some incidents of mass shootings, the perpetrator has gone to multiple locations, especially when that individuel has a list of specific targets, therfor, this police officer has no evidence that he wasn't going somewhere else, i call that a null argument.

however, is it not a benefit to society, that the shooter was peacefully subdued by the time the police showed up? all in all, no negative effect.

[/quote]
High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
[/quote]
again, no evidence that this shooter was no longer a danger. also, is it not a benefit to society, that the suspect was peacefully detained.before the policed arrived? also, and admission that some citizens who carry guns, are trained in there use. consequently, i dont see how the presence of an armed citizen was a negative here.

and if a gun ban had been in place, after getting the warning, the church would have sent there security negotiator, armed with the best argument she could muster, who would have very likely been shot, because the purpatrator had already shot three individuals at another church. proving a negative effect a gun ban would have had.

a vigilante attempts to enforce the law, either because there is no law present. or in spite of the lagitimat athoraty. therefore, this gentleman is not a vigilante. and, this is merely an effective use of arms, to stop a gunman. by a us citizen, who happens to have been a member of the armed service at the time. SO?

AND WHAT ABOUT CASES in which citizens try to use their guns and things go terribly wrong? There are at least two examples of ill-fated attempts that you won't see mentioned by those arguing for your kid's teacher to start stashing a loaded Glock in her classroom:
[quote}
Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.
[/quote]
so, a case where an armed citizen did not stop the further shooting, the author glosses over both Brendan McKowen's bravery, and sacrifice, in at least making an unsuccessful attempt to stop the shooter, all in all, proves nouthing, and is rather insulting to a brave man don't you think?.

a case where a hero, was undergunned, not undertrained. note, the man he confronted was wearing body armor, and armed with a rifle. Mr Wilson had a pistol. this situation can be compared to sandy hook, where the civilians were undergunned, by a man who only had a handgun. and they had only ther bare hands.

so say the police, who are not normally present when these shootings have started, and therefore, are not in any way, an effective deterence, and have about the same record of armed citizens, at stopping shootings. once they do show up (usually after many victims have been shot). also, the police are known to have had incidents of coming really close, or actually shooting innocent bystanders as well, Including the FBI. so his piont is?

 

High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived.
[/quote]
again, no evidence that this shooter was no longer a danger. also, is it not a benefit to society, that the suspect was peacefully detained.before the policed arrived? also, and admission that some citizens who carry guns, are trained in there use. consequently, i dont see how the presence of an armed citizen was a negative here.


and if a gun ban had been in place, after getting the warning, the church would have sent there security negotiator, armed with the best argument she could muster, who would have very likely been shot, because the purpatrator had already shot three individuals at another church. proving a negative effect a gun ban would have had.



a vigilante attempts to enforce the law, either because there is no law present. or in spite of the lagitimat athoraty. therefore, this gentleman is not a vigilante. and, this is merely an effective use of arms, to stop a gunman. by a us citizen, who happens to have been a member of the armed service at the time. SO?

AND WHAT ABOUT CASES in which citizens try to use their guns and things go terribly wrong? There are at least two examples of ill-fated attempts that you won't see mentioned by those arguing for your kid's teacher to start stashing a loaded Glock in her classroom:
[quote}
Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington
As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.
[/quote]
so, a case where an armed citizen did not stop the further shooting, the author glosses over both Brendan McKowen's bravery, and sacrifice, in at least making an unsuccessful attempt to stop the shooter, all in all, proves nouthing, and is rather insulting to a brave man don't you think?.

a case where a hero, was undergunned, not undertrained. note, the man he confronted was wearing body armor, and armed with a rifle. Mr Wilson had a pistol. this situation can be compared to sandy hook, where the civilians were undergunned, by a man who only had a handgun. and they had only ther bare hands.


so say the police, who are not normally present when these shootings have started, and therefore, are not in any way, an effective deterence, and have about the same record of armed citizens, at stopping shootings. once they do show up (usually after many victims have been shot). also, the police are known to have had incidents of coming really close, or actually shooting innocent bystanders as well, Including the FBI. so his piont is?[/QUOTE]

Funny how the ANTIs always seem to miss these points eh? Good post