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

spoken like a true scholar.............no curiousity, unwilling to learn something new, and you have nothing at stake in this dog and pony show
I do have an ax to grind with anyone from another country, who has nothing at stake over here, just has to tell us what to do, like lay down and let your government rape you, we so enjoyed that over here crap...........
BB, where are all of those guns your countrymen have hidden away? Why do they have them, still, if your such a perfect little Utopian World? Do they not trust your own self-sacrificing government?

 

As a non CCW holder are you obligated to hide or should you stop the shooter if you had a chance.

This is a silly thread.

 

No, they are not obligated but I think most would do what needed to be done.
If they had to, they would take the shooter out. I think any decent person would do what they could to stop the killing of innocent people.

After considering:

Safety of the public
Being mistaken for the shooter by police and other CCW carriers.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

 

Because obligation and personal Stance is different.

I live in Tx, Own a 4x4 Supercrew Pickup, I carry a tow chain/rope.
If I see someone stuck I have the equipment, BUT I am not obligated to stop and pull people to safety, I can drive off. I dont have a legal reason to want to stop to help anyone I can choose to or not. Just me personally I will stop to try and help.

 

Heck, legally even the Police are not required to protect you.

 

Well then why are there not more calls for unarmed civilians to stop mass shootings? After all it has happened that an unarmed civilian stopped a shooting - without being hurt themselves......

- - - Updated - - -

I think people are confusing legal obligation with social obligation

Now if you were a CCW carrier and were at the scene of a mass shooting but did nothing what would the SOCIAL ramifications be?

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) social obligation! That is the last damn thing I need to hear out of a liberals mouth! The only social obligation liberals have is to themselves and to helping themselves to the money of others. That is total bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Gay should be socially obligated to be straight!
Welfare queens should be socially obligated to get a job!
Illegals should be socially obligated to get the hell out!

 

The way you asked the question seemed like legal obligation.

Now social obligation. From my standpoint personally.

If I was a CCW carrier and I did nothing. I would be ridiculed by my buddies with.

"Ay Mr. Chingon not doing nothing" or "There goes Mr. Terminator with no bullets" but it would also be in good fun/ribbing.

My friends also know under no circumstance am I obligated by society to do jack sht.

Scenario:
My buddys (2 of them) and I are in a pool hall, My misses is there, My buddys misses and 2 other girls we know,
Someone acts disrespectful to one of the girls (Regardless of who) I am under no social obligation or legal obligation or imaginary obligation to defend her honor. Now if the guy puts his hands on her, Same applies, I am under no legal, sociel, imaginary obligation to do squat. However My peers or people around me will probably look down on me and say "well your a guy you should of done something" or "well I would of done something"

I live with this in mind.
Every day I am going to (*)(*)(*)(*) someone off and every day I am going to make someone smile/happy, So I worry about those I make happy then those I dont.

 

I think you are confusing the idea underpinning societal obligation see peer group pressure, which is what you are describing IS a form of societal obligation. Peer group pressure is almost the definition of societal obligation because it is the expectations of the people you are currently with. Given the scenario you gave if instead of being with your mates, you were hanging out in a commune there might have been different rules, let us say only one person within the commune to intervene or it might be that the "disrespect" is a test that the woman herself has to address - in which case she would have a societal obligation not you

But my real point is to get to the heart of the belief, or myth, that MORE CCW holders will mean fewer mass shootings because the CCW holders will somehow stop the mass shootings

Truth is when you really analyse all the interventions to prevent mass shootings the only ones that have really worked is restrictions on guns

 

I understand what you mean however, I have seen it like this.

Guy 1, wants to beat up Guy 2, Because he dosnt like him for X reason.

So guy 1, Waits for an oppertune time to attack him with a bat while he's alone.

Now if guy 2 has friends with him less likely to happen.

Why?
My Answer Below.

Now a mass murderer is going to want the most casualties, Less obstructions, Where have shootins taken place? Malls (No where to run, usually large open places), School (Run to a classroom...really...where you going? Long halls.)

No guns, No worries of being shot. More Force Less for you use (Guns magnify the force you use. 10x1)

Now lets say guy 1 with a gun goes after guy 2 and he has 4 friends and they have guns (lets say 1 out of the 4)
Guy one knows one of them has it, has no idea who, He can shoot who he thinks it is but has to worry if not that person will he shoot back. 25% chance of hitting his opposing shooter.

so larger scale 1 shooter, 20 people same 25 percent chance, 5 people have guns..Who? Where are they?

Its harder to "Act a fool" when you know theres more danger out there for you.

 

You know Bower youve had me wondering, If YOU were allowed to own a gun, and a shooting happened what would you do?

Would you feel legally obligated if the police were not there?

would you feel socially obligated?

I dont see how this

goes with being "Obligated". I might be missing something.

 

Let's face it, most of the active shooter/mass killers to date have intentionally pick soft target (places where guns aren't allowed) so any belief BB has about whether someone would use their guns is based on the hypothetical, however it is a proven fact that CCW and BTW non CCW people have used their weapons to protect themselves, their families, or others so having a weapon is big positive. Specifically speaking, way more individuals and small groups are accosted by criminals in the real world than there are active shooter/mass killers events in the world. Thus rendering BBs suppositions Moot!

 

Mate last time I tried to fire a gun I not only missed the tree but the paddock it was standing in

I would in NO WAY attempt to interrupt what was happening UNLESS I had a clear path to do so i.e. standing behind the shooter with a cast iron frypan in hand. I would do my best to get people to safety and attend the wounded but as for attempting to stop the shooter - no and I think that is the real answer most have. What I have been trying to do here is point out the dichotomy in belief - that somehow magically just having more CCW holders around will ensure the shooter is stopped

 

Okay then let us examine THIS hypothesis - because that is what this is an unfounded hypothesis

For your supposition to hold true then there would have to be more guns = less crime is that correct?

 

You are obligated to protect yourself. All citizens are afforded said right, they can take care of themselves. Communistic attempts to hold someone in contempt for dealing with the blacks and hispanics (i.e. liberal creations from LBJ in the USA) are societies problem.

 

depends where you live eh? Figure on that one for a bit and get back to me.

 

Nice dodge - is that your hypothesis because if it is you are in for a drubbing...............

 

give it your best shot....just limit it to the US, after all that is where you hypothesis starts eh? Drubbing begin

 

With all due respect thats nonesense, there was always men with no balls and there always will be, they have a name for it cowards and no if you have a carry permit you are not obligated to intervene in an active altercation. Thats why theres police. If you do intervene you had better be letter perfect in your actions.
Civilians with concealed carry permits are not Law Enforcement, they dont issue civilians carry permits for them to assume police duties that is not the purpose or intent.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

Who cares? Second amendment in the USA. Anyone who tries to destroy it deserves to die. George Washington's words, not mine, but I support his intentions.

 

Further research
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node12.html#cause

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406

 

O M G could you find any older data?
http://www.infowars.com/statistics-prove-more-guns-less-crime/

Fail
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...a-that-more-gun-control-equals-less-violence/

Fail

http://www.phillyburbs.com/blogs/re...cle_6ecc4266-f517-563d-85d6-331ff4901b6d.html

Epic Fail and could you please start the drubbing with more current and factual data eh?

 

something a little newer please...one that shows the increase in the amount of firearms in the us eh?

 

So, you are claiming that conspiracy theory sites (info wars) and blogs are MORE valid sources than Harvard university??

- - - Updated - - -

Would the data be any different today? Would the research outcome be challenged by time?