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

"so say the police, who are not normally present when these shootings have started, and therefore, are not in any way, an effective deterrence, 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?"

another thing, why did mother Jones only cite one article, where a slightly trained civilian DID NOT shoot an armed bystander by accident. and, the slate article cited makes the "interesting" claim that. when an armed citizen does the right thing, he can be held as an example of having done the wrong thing, that points to some great danger to society.

only thing mother Jones, and slate proves with these two articles, is that anti gunners have lost all ability to reason.

 

well, there was the AL Qaeda instigated for hood shooting.

oh wait, ironically, that area of the military base was effectively, a gun free zone.

 

there was no private profit motive involved.

 

I have a shirt that says:
If it goes without saying, then,
shut the f*** up
so where did your post come from, danny?
To overstate the obvious is a waste of time

 

robbery involves different tactics, usually.

 

another non-statement.............if it goes without saying, why bother to say it at all?

 

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

 

Congratulations you've just listened to the entire broken record.
Wanna borrow a quarter to do it again?

 

It only becomes repetitious when anyone new tries it.

 

Trust me, when someone has 11,518 single sentence posts with only 10 variations its repetitious for everyone.

 

Do I merely need to resort to any fallacy for my Cause, as long as I don't repeat myself?

 

I've been listening (reading) this same old dance for a while. I can predict his answers. "......but but but....."

 

Persons who keep and bear Arms should be more well regulated than those who do not.

 

Finally. something different than the same ol' BS. An honest opinion. Well, I disagree and I'll leave it at that.

 

Update on poll

The ratio of those saying you are obligated to shoot back in a mass shooting is 3:29!!

I have NEVER seen an internet poll so positive and yet there are still those on this thread asserting that if there are more CCW carriers then mass shootings would be stopped sooner

 

Could that have anything to do with the fact the poll was flawed from the beginning? Your asking one question while looking for the answer to another.
I'll let you judge your original intentions.

 

Only a well regulated militia of Individuals of the People who keep and bear Arms is what is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State, and any of its organs, for posse comitatus purposes.

Why are we wasting our tax payer monies on a War on Crime that the wealthiest are not being burdened with wartime tax rates for?

 

So do you believe that cops are obligated to put their lives in danger to protect people from a mass shooting?

Do you believe that the teachers at Sandy Hook were obligated to barricade their students in their classrooms and sacrifice their own lives protecting their students?

No one is obligated to put their own lives at risk for anyone else, regardless of circumstances. It would be noble for them to do so, but it isn't a legal obligation.

 

Question, You are a nurse trained in the Medical field.

If someone were to get injured "Are you obligated to help them"?

Heres a case of someone being sue'd for helping (A friend no less)
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6498405&page=1

http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/2009/12/sued-for-saving-two-lives/

Now morally saveing lives is important and helping each other, BUT Just because you can/Should dosnt mean you hold the responsibility too.

This one is a link to another site that talks about "Good Samaritans" helping a police officer and being sued.
http://forums.officer.com/t160585/

 

A well regulated posse of the People is much more effective than one specifically unconnected and unconcerned with wellness of regulation.

 

One of the options was to stop the shooting only if your life was not in danger - it got ONE response

 

Yes, but then our "Good Samaritan" act is much tougher than yours and you have to prove GROSS negligence to sue - and walking by without assisting is gross negligence

But I also have a SOCIAL obligation to assist

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but then our "Good Samaritan" act is much tougher than yours and you have to prove GROSS negligence to sue - and walking by without assisting is gross negligence

But I also have a SOCIAL obligation to assist

 

Because you have freaks responding that have no concept of reality. Are YOU going to pay a private citizen to protect YOU? If so, your expectation should be high. Bloomberg in New York City loves to have armed guards and (unfortunately) the government pays for his retarded ass to be protected. When YOU start paying private citizens to protect random individuals, you can start expecting "heroism". Of course, you have obviously never lived in a poor area of the USA. EVEN AMONG THE PAID POLICE, the ratio of people who actually show up and try to protect a citizen in a stressed situation is low. Most wait for the violence to subside and then respond for clean-up duty. The police ARE ALMOST NEVER THERE at the crisis time.

 

And yet when you look and I mean objectively look at all the mass shootings that have occurred the majority, which did not end in suicide, have been stopped by police