Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One can be directly threatened in public as well and in that case a firearm would be necessary. The same could also be true in an active shooter situation. If I hear gunshots, I'm looking for an exit. If by my unfortunate circumstance, I am cornered and someone is shooting at me.. I would respond.
The presence or potential of an armed individual can and often is a deterrent in other crimes. Just not so in an mass shooting when the individual has a death wish.
A poster from the El Paso thread had some good relevant points:
Seems unlikely to me.
If youre in an active shooter situation, you'll either be ducking or running. Maybe if youre cornered and hes got a firing gun trained on you, you'll have enough time to pull your gun out and shoot back. Probably not, youre dead.
If someone approaches you on the street they will likely pull the gun on you first. Now you have to decide to pull your gun or talk him down. So you risk taking a bullet while youre drawing. Either way, you likely wont use the gun.
This isnt the line you guys have been selling for the last few years about good guys with guns. You painted it as if citizens that have the guns will take care of these situations, but thats not the case. Its every man for himself, not gun owners jumping in to protect the public. The gun toters saying more people have should have guns lied. Thats my point, its just now coming out. They wouldnt try to take the guy out, they would duck and cover like everyone else.
At least now I understand why the security guard at the school shooting in Florida ran the other way.
What we need is a way to predict this kind of violence before it happens. Mopping up the mess helps no one. How do we get inside their heads to figure out what they're planning before they kill dozens of people? Freedom of speech is all well and good, but we need to know when someone is stockpiling weapons, etc. I'm sure that some people will complain about their rights, but you know what? In this day and age, my grandson's right to go to school without his parents being in fear for his life is more important than a gun owner's rights - and if that gun owner isn't trying to hide anything, it shouldn't be an issue.
This is America...safety/security should NEVER, EVER come before freedom/liberty!!
If youre in an active shooter situation, you'll either be ducking or running. Maybe if youre cornered and hes got a firing gun trained on you, you'll have enough time to pull your gun out and shoot back. Probably not, youre dead.
Ducking and running is what you are suppose to do. If you are cornered, don't have an obvious exit, or take cover, you will most likely already have the weapon drawn discreetly and readied. Either case, unarmed and confronted you are 100% likely to be dead.... armed and confronted, you have a chance.
Shooter did not expect to survive. He predicted LE or an illegal would take him out.
3000 people inside the El Paso shooting. There is no questioned some were armed.
Yes.. I know... which is why I stated earlier that in an active shooter situation the possibility of armed individuals might not be a deterrent. However, at an individual level one still has the means to protect themselves if directly confronted/threatened.
That is a far cry from "not making a difference".
....
There is a statement that it would not stop the shooter.
There is a statement that it would stop the shooter.
Those are both ends of the spectrum... the grey is that it wouldn't do either to any predictable degree but it would improve an individual's chances at survival. That isn't insignificant.
In El Paso, there is a report of a military person brandishing his weapon and escorting children in the walmart to safety. I'd say that's making a difference.... For all we know, the shooter saw him and his weapon then chose to move on to other less hot targets. While this would have not stopped the shooter by definition, it still is a "difference".
When these mass shootings happen, America shows it is unique, in that is will not address the situation. "Thoughts and prayers" do as much good as trying to give orders to a cat.
The rest of the world takes a look at the morning news, and in the minds of millions, maybe billions of people around the world, the question is asked, "What kind of a country won't even try to protect its citizens, knowing there are examples to follow around the globe which have already been proven to work? Why would anyone want to live there?"
If you are not part of the solution, as the old saw goes, you are part of the problem. Call your legislators this week and demand action.
Yeah. “ Do something” and take a bow.
I am not opposed to Universal Background checks. I also acknowledge it would not have prevented a single sensational mass shooting.
Arming everyone is as irrational as disarming everyone. Not going to happen.
Media just reported the Dayton shooter’s sister and her boyfriend were found shot and dead in a nearby car.
This shooting may have a domestic basis or maybe they tried to stop the shooter.
Dayton LE also advising that some pictures of the suspect being posed online and by media are not the suspect.
Media now reporting Dayton LE is clarifying the shooter’s sister is among the victims. She may or may not have been in a car.
Nonetheless, shooter was wearing body amor and carried extra ammo meaning this was not an impulsive action.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.