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

There is a lot of talk on this board about "how Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) would stop a mass shooting" and this got me thinking. If you do have a CCW licence and there is a mass shooting are you obligated to try and shoot back even if that puts you or another person in danger?

So scenario 1 for post response 1 - someone is shooting in a shopping mall you can shoot him but may also injure another bystander - are you obligated to shoot?

Post response 2 scenario 2 - Again shooter in shopping mall but to get a clear line of sight you have to step into his field of vision and make yourself a target

Post response 3 scenario 3 - Shooter is rapidly firing but you wait until he cannot see you before you shoot even if that means others will be shot

Scenario 4 You hide until either there is a clear shot with no danger to yourself or until police arrive

 

No, nor should you be.

 

What would you do? Please think about your answer without emotion.

 

Live in Australia the problem is moot

 

This is a pointless question from a person that is obviously anti-gun that has almost no basis in reality.

No, a person is not obligated to do anything. They can sit there humming happy birthday if an active shooter is nearby if they want to. They aren't obligated to save themselves, their family, or anyone else for that matter.

What would I do? Take cover, draw my weapon, close with the enemy and destroy them. There is nothing else about it. I know who I am. I know my knowledge, skills, and abilities, and I would not live with myself if I knew I could have done something during an active shooter situation that would have netted a positive outcome, even if it means dying in the process.

No one is obligated to do anything, but many people go beyond what they are obligated to do in life and choose to do self sacrificing deeds for others. That includes putting yourself in the line of fire so someone else that doesn't have the knowledge skills or abilities doesn't die by a lack of action.

What would you do in the same situation? Do what makes you feel best, but I am the type of person that runs towards active shooters when others are running away.

 

There was a time when men were noble and brave, and they would lay down their lives to protect ...yes, even total strangers if that's what was needed. But in todays selfish and narcissistic society, nobody is obliged to look out for anyone but themselves.

 

I like you Bowers so im deffinetly going to answer

Now me personally I have a "Dog" Mentality, I like to protect people weither I like them or not. Ill take a beating to make sure you get away unhurt. So for me I would not be obligated, But I would just to give you time to run and survive.

 

You are not obligated to pull at anytime. It is always choice.

 

So, if someone with a gun is NOT obligated to prevent/stop a mass shooting why is everyone so sure they would?

 

A concealed carrier has just as much obligation as anyone else. I would like to think that I would help out if there are no police around. Though in todays society, helping officials take out a murderer would also make you a bad guy. I have a permit, I always have my gun on me unless I am at a family members house. If anything happened while I had it, I would think it was my duty to neutralize anyone who is putting a group of people in danger or killing people. This has nothing to do with gun control and has everything to do with the protection of innocent life.

 

In OZ women can stop a mass shooting by using a judo throw to toss a small Asian woman at the shooter.

Or so I've been told.

 

This straw man is your argument? Having the will, but not the way, is not the same as having the way, but not the will. There is just a possibility of a CCW holder intervening instead of no possibility of a CCW holder intervening if there was no CCW holders.

 

Because there are plenty of "Dogs" who will jump in to protect those who do not.

think of it like this, Just cause a Pitbull isnt for everyone (as guns) Dosnt mean they arent great (just like guns and their owners) But they will always want to protect those who cant/choose not to (just like gun owners)
Not obligated.

 

I was hoping for a straight answer, please answer your own question. I will not judge you and no harm is done.

 

Question..

We are all in australia, No guns, right?
Now we all happen to be in the mall and talking politics (I would hate this in public but why not)
Now someone walks in with a mac 10, 10 round clips
and starts shooting.

What would you do?

Now to answer my question first. Would be Send the women and children (Some of you I am suspect of -.- lol) But make sure they get out and grab a (knives legal there?) Pen, screwdriver sharp pointy stick and have a stabbing weapon. Will this possibly mean I will die if I act alone at takeing the attaker? Yes, But if at least 2 of us have weapons and start shooting better possibility of more people surviving? yes.

 

What do you mean by 'obligated'? Legally? Ethically? Culturally? I don't think there's any legal obligation.

 

No you are not obligated to act. Well maybe morally but not legally nor by societys morals.
It will be your own self and the morals you uphold to act. It is the individuals choice. Society cannot make that choice for the individual.
That does'nt mean most permit holders would not act. It just means society has no right to demand they act.
All in all a fairly strange question. Did you really need to ask it? Is the idea of an individual coming to the aid of other citizens due to thier personal moral code as opposed to state mandate really that foreign to you? If so I find that truley sad.

 

Individual choice. It's not an obligation, but many will put their lives on the line for others. Having a CCW gives them that option, and the capability to carry it through.

 

You asked if it was an obligation, as if you were carrying, you would have to use it, of course you don't have to use it. I myself would risk my life and take a shot if it were clear, though I am not obligated to do so, and most carriers do in fact feel the same way. Most gun owners are very patriotic, and don't care to see other innocent americans harmed.

 

I believe it should "volunteer" persons who prefer to keep and bear Arms, for any "posse" duties that may arise.

 

Why? Americans always insist that they are big, brave, strapping people who would stop a mass shooting if only they had a gun. You mean to say they might actually decide not to intervene at all because they feel scared?

 

As a moderator your reading comprehension is deplorable.

 

Some might not want to intervine to those trying to take their guns however a lot of people will still protect you regardless of how much you hate the fact they own a gun.

 

So in the two incidents where a concealed carry weapon holder who was not an off-duty policeperson, actually did try and in both cases they became victims themselves - that was the wrong thing to do?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

- - - Updated - - -

So in the two incidents where a concealed carry weapon holder who was not an off-duty policeperson, actually did try and in both cases they became victims themselves - that was the wrong thing to do?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

 

You are trying to change the subject. Not being obligated is not the same thing as not being the right thing to do.

To clarify your topic, let's consider the same question without the CCW.

If you are in a situation where a gunman comes in shooting, should you be obligated to put your life at risk to try to save other people? An unarmed person could charge a gunman, which would distract him and give other people a chance to flee. It would be a heroic and selfless thing to do, a good thing to do, but should this be an obligation?

It makes no difference whether or not the bystander has a gun, he is not obligated to put his life at risk, but doing so may be a noble thing to do.