This shoots that "good guy with a gun" theory.....

[Heartstrings]

[MythosMaster]

1. It has already happened

The guy in the car and at the store. They were POC. In both cases.

[Blue_Tires]

28. But it's not bringing the other victims back, is it?

[MythosMaster]

31. The mythos of the good guy

Does not bring anyone back.

[mopinko]

2. yup. uniformed security guard was shot and killed a year or so ago

here when the cops showed up, and he was sitting on the perp.

of course, he was black. of course.

[Hoyt]

3. Cowboy gun-humpers are part of our gun problem. One shot a clerk in the head trying to stop

a robbery.

And we all remember George Zimmerman.

[world wide wally]

4. Someone's tweet from yesterday:

"If a Walmart full of Texans won't stop a shooter, neither will you"

[FBaggins]

6. Except that it reportedly just happened

The guy trolling the Walmart with an assault rifle and body armor was arrested only because a “good guy with a gun” stopped him when he tried to escape.

[world wide wally]

7. Because it happened BEFORE he started shooting.

[FBaggins]

8. How does that explain it?

Something magical would have kept the off-duty firefighter from trying to help? Maybe he’s afraid to run toward danger to help people even though that’s what he does for a living?

[sarisataka]

9. Isn't that the best time

To stop a shooter?

[world wide wally]

11. Most definitely...

Now, if we could just stop them ALL before they start.

[X_Digger]

34. That's the catch-22. If they stop it before he starts..

.. well, then you didn't stop anything, did you?

If they're stopped after they start, then it's, well, you didn't keep it from happening, now did he?

[MythosMaster]

32. Only in America can the problem

Be offered up as the solution.

[PandoraAwakened]

36. Only because a clerk pulled the fire alarm, alerting the off-duty firefighter. n/t

[FBaggins]

5. Not really

In this argument... the first example gives the argument away. The author just admitted that some guy shooting a gun might be stopped by some other person with a gun.

Yeah... the police might end up confused and shoot you (assuming they get there in time in the first place)... but this misses the point. The “good guy with a gun” already knows that there’s a shooter trying to kill people intentionally ... yet he’s willing to engage. Why would he be dissuaded by the possibility that someone who isn't trying to kill everyone might accidentally hit him too?

I’d say the better argument is simple. You might shoot the wrong person. You have no training in telling the good guys from the bad guys and even the people who do... often get it wrong.

[Heartstrings]

10. I agree to some extent, every situation is unique.

So if a GGWAG shoots an innocent in the process, the liability for injury or death lies with which party? That issue baffles me....

Not arguing, just genuinely curious.

[FBaggins]

13. Not legally liable in all cases perhaps... but MORALLY so (IMO)

That's why I'm unlikely to ever carry unless society changes well beyond anything I can foresee. At one point (decades ago) I was well-trained and a good shot... but I worry that my (now slowed) reaction time is faster than my threat-evaluation time... and I know that my eyesight and/or hand-eye coordination no longer helps me hit a baseball reliably... I wouldn't want to count on hitting a moving target that was both better armed and armored - when I go years between visits to a range.

As for your actual question. I think the answer varies with the specific circumstances, state law, and the prosecutor involved.

If you act like you're in a WWI trench and just stick your firearm over the counter and spray bullets in the general direction of the shooter to "get him to keep his head down"... I can definitely see something like a negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter charge. For a scenario where you have a legal ability to carry and you return fire in defense of yourself or others... states with "stand your ground" provisions would protect you. In most other states it's unlikely that a prosecutor would think that you either had the intent necessary to prosecute... or that a jury would convict... and they would just decline to prosecute. Maybe some would get you to plea to a misdemeanor with little punishment other than loss of the ability to own a firearm.

[lame54]

18. A school shooting in Portland...

There were armed civilians in the school who wisely kept their guns stowed realizing tbe converging swat team would take them out

[FBaggins]

20. The Parkrose incident from May?

You appear to be attributing motivations to people that I don't see in any of the news stories from the time. I don't even see evidence that any civilians in the school were armed.

The teen didn't open fire (which makes it hard to refer to the event as a school shooting or use it as evidence for how armed individuals behave in a shooting), it was a shotgun rather than an assault-type weapon... and a "good guy without a gun" was the one to stop him.

I'm not sure how the incident bears on the OP at all.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Nobody

with a legal concealed carry would be stupid enough to go "hunting" for the shooter. The first priority is to get yourself and other vulnerable people away from the scene.

But, if it comes down to the shooter's life or theirs, I expect them to make the right decision.

[Caliman73]

22. I am not sure we can make that absolute statement.

There is a lot of talk on gun boards about "taking out the shooter" and it may all be talk, but that is in the mindset of a lot of people. You have incidents all the time where a person carrying a gun, brandishes at some perceived threat.

I know you used the qualifier of "legal concealed carry" but still there are people who legally carry because they can, because they are scared of everyone around them, because in their state it is super easy to get a permit.

Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility. We see police officers who are trained and sanctioned by the State to carry, making mistakes and deliberately discriminating threats based on race.

I see a firearm as the very last resort. I own them, and at one point, was interested in concealed carry, but the reality is that I don't feel my life is in constant danger to the point where I need to carry a gun around town. I was also told repeatedly, "Never act with a gun, in any way you would act WITHOUT the gun." My feeling is that the gun provides a boost the the ego of the carrier rather than imparting them with the proper fear that they have a weapon on their person that could end a life.

I imagine if I was ever in a shooting situation, I would like to have the means to protect myself and my loved ones, but I would run like hell with my family and try to escape or hide rather than confront the shooter, unless absolutely necessary.

[Kaleva]

29. I got a CPL mainly to make transportation easier.

And i can have in my possession other people's legally owned handguns. for example I have a brother's revolver here in my home locked away while he is overseas working. I couldn't have that in my home legally without the CPL.

[Caliman73]

33. I am not understanding what you mean.

CPL I think is what they call it in Michigan correct? Different laws apply in different states. In California it is called CCL (concealed carry license).

I think you may be the exception to the rule because people who get a concealed weapon permit are typically not doing so to store firearms in their home or for transportation.

I can easily transport firearms in California. I just have to have a locking device (box, trigger lock, etc...) and store it in the trunk or outside the immediate driver's area with no ammunition in it. I am not sure about the rules of storing other people's firearms in my house in California as it has never come up.

[Kaleva]

35. My wife has the vehicle during the day

If I wish to go to the shooting area outside of town to practice, I have the scooter for transportation but to legally transport the weapon while driving the scooter, I need a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) because if one doesn't have a CPL, by Michigan law, to transport a weapon by vehicle, the weapon must be unloaded, locked in a case and well out of reach, such as put in the trunk, which one can't do on a scooter or motorcycle.

I have no intention on with open carrying or conceal carrying my revolver out in public. With the exception going to and from the shooting range or to and from my other home.

[customerserviceguy]

38. Police

have far more situations where they have to make life-or-death choices about taking out a dangerous person. The average Wal-Mart shopper has extremely few in comparison, and no "duty" to attempt such a thing. Nobody has criticized the soldier who took kids to safety instead of using his military training to be some kind of "hero" for go after the shooter.

And blather from keyboard commandos who would just as soon piss themselves in an actual situation is meaningless.

[Caliman73]

39. And yet those "keyboard commandos" can and often have CCL

Either it is a "no true Scottsman fallacy" or you need to see that people who carry concealed are as prone to false confidence as other people.

You made the statement that "no person with a CCL would go hunting for a shooter". I disagree.

We aren't talking about police or anything else. I used police as an example of trained people who still make mistakes.

Getting a CCL in many states is as easy as filling out a piece of paper. It doesn't magically confer on the possessor, good judgment.

[customerserviceguy]

40. Ok

I should have said "very few" instead of "no". Unless a thing is physically impossible, it is good to avoid absolutes.

[Kaleva]

30. I agree with that.

[BamaRefugee]

14. The problem is that every GGWG thinks he's an absolute crack shot, when in reality they can't even

read the menu at Denny's, half the time, let alone identify someone 20 yards away.
And their missed shots are gonna keep right on going, past the actual gunman, and into a baby carriage, an old lady waiting at a crosswalk, a FedEx guy, a passing car, etc.

[MyOwnPeace]

16. The "possibilities" are so limitless

that it makes the NRA "solution" (GGWG) absolutely ludicrous!

[gordianot]

17. When I was in my 20's and 30's I was a pretty good shot and practiced.

In my 60’s not so good. Thing is I would not have shot anyone when I was fairly good shooting a target. Shooting for protection is also a very different skill set from target shooting or even hunting.

[BamaRefugee]

23. Me too. I was even IN THE NRA back then! Got all my Marksman medals. I'm 67 now and thanks to

artificial lenses in both eyes ( I actually became legally blind 10 years ago) I can see almost 20/20 now, at all distances, no glasses.
I'm still not gonna be packing heat and looking to be a hero.
My job is dangerous enough. I'm a process server for the California and US District courts, and do work for the US Marshal Service occasionally, no need for any extra adrenaline rushes.

[gordianot]

15. Fact is when you pull a gun some one is going to get hurt.

Your guns do not make you safe. A civilian with a gun is at tremendous disadvantage except in places with no law.

[calimary]

19. Totally!!! How are the police gonna be able to tell who the "good guy with a gun" is?

How can you tell, in the middle of an active shooter crisis, who’s the “good guy with a gun” and the “bad guy with a gun”? It’s not like the so-called “good guys” are out there wearing sandwich boards or monogrammed baseball caps that easily identify themselves as such. Especially from a distance, or while all hell is breaking loose? And split-second decisions are being made to TAKE DOWN or otherwise neutralize the shooter?

Explain that to me. Help me understand that one. Because it makes absolutely no sense to me, realistically.

[BamaRefugee]

24. Think about a college campus...the call goes out: ACTIVE SHOOTER,white,male 20, average height,

average weight, brown hair.....suddenly there's 20 good guys who all look like that shooting at 20 other good guys who all look like that....

[Hulk]

21. Such a myth

I can't believe how many idiots were posting on Yahoo about how great it was to have a good guy with a gun when that idiot shot and killed two people on the Houston Highway yesterday. Fact is they haven't even caught the guy responsible for the killings yet. I'm not exactly sure what the idiots are getting him credit for.

[FakeNoose]

25. Of course, this is a major problem for the police

They've told us exactly this many times. There have been tragedies where the police made a mistake, and assumed the good guy was a bad guy. How would they know, anyway?

I'll bet this meme was created by a law enforcement individual.

[forgotmylogin]

26. The worst thing you can possibly do

Is voluntarily join a gunfight.

[SunSeeker]

27. K & R & Bookmarked!

[backscatter712]

37. Look at what happened in Dayton.

The shooter was taken down in 30 seconds by the cops. The cops who brought him down were trained and well armed, and clearly had their shit together.

And he still managed to kill 10 people and wound a bunch more.

Does anyone here think a Good Guy With A Gun could have done anything better? Probably would have gotten himself and those around him shot.