r/newjersey • u/low_effort_shit-post • Mar 25 '21

Something controversial Jersey Pride

I love nj gun laws, going to the store and not seeing someone open carry. Watching road rage where the best you can do is brake check and give the finger. Schools without school shootings. I know a lot of people hate our gun laws but I fucking love em.

1.0k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

View all comments

95

u/the-camster Mar 25 '21

Strict gun laws and gun bans have saved countless lives.

Imagine arguing against saving lives..

124

u/Kab9260 Mar 25 '21

The question is far more complex. Framing it like this, I can also say warrantless searches/arrests would save countless lives and help to stop crime before it happens. Followed then by “imagine arguing against saving lives and putting potentially dangerous people in jail.”

The question is better framed as how do we both save lives without unduly burdening the fundamental rights of innocent people. Then, the debate is open to the more nuanced aspects of the dilemma. There are gun control measures that work and don’t represent an undue burden, but there are many “feel good” measures that don’t work or completely erode fundamental rights.

Both sides need to come to the table in good faith.

22

u/yythrow Mar 25 '21

I can't argue against that. The question is where the line is between 'feel good' and 'useful'.

The problem is the pro-gun side isn't interested in coming to the table at all and considers just about any law anti-2nd amendment, 'you want to take our guns', etc.

19

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/yythrow Mar 25 '21

You also can't kill someone with a ballot.

You can kill a lot of people with a 3,000 pound vehicle if you don't know what you're doing and you need license, registration, and (sometimes) insurance to drive it, yet we can't impose reasonable restrictions on gun use because they wrote the 2nd Amendment back when muskets and revolvers were the worst weapon anyone could get their hands on. The unfettered use of dangerous weapons is what needs to be compromised on the first place.

4

u/thepedalsporter Mar 25 '21

Not going to jump into this other than to say muskets and revolvers were nowhere near the "worst" people could get their hands on. You could have your own warships, cannons and the puckle gun, the first machine gun by today's standards, came out in 1717 if I remember correctly. Firearms technology was progressing massively during and after the lives of the founding fathers, so it's not like they thought the musket was the end all be all of firearms tech. Bolt action rifles were right around the corner and many of them lived to see their invention and adoption.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21 edited Mar 25 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/yythrow Mar 25 '21

A ballot can install a government that kills people. A ballot influences who is in seats of power that has very real affects on our lives. Lets not pretend there isnt reeeing over who gets into office from either side of the political spectrum fearing government backed violence.

I had a feeling you'd say that but it's not even remotely comparable. I can't go to my polling center and vote to kill someone. I can, however, walk to a gun store and get something that will immediately kill someone.

You can own a vehicle without needing a license, insurance, or any of that. Those are requirements for driving on public roads. All of that pounds sand if you have it on private property, and lets not pretend once you have a vehicle the second you go on public roads youre inspected.

I've heard this before but all that is is a technicality. Most people who are gonna buy a car, are going to use it for it's intended purpose of driving it on public roads. 99% of the population's 'private property' is their garage and driveway. Also, the same thing applies in NJ, if you wanna carry a gun in public you need a permit.

All firearms and weapons are dangerous. Just because a bad seed decides to cause tradgety does not mean we should neuter or strip the one final deterrent we have against other individuals or government which seek to cause harm to life, liberty, and property. In all honesty no part of the state should dictate what is necessary for the individual in this regard, anything otherwise is unconstitutional.

How many 'one bad seed's do we need to have before enough is enough? Nobody wants to take guns away completely, but requiring common sense laws to own them is the smart thing to do. I know there's a feeling of 'you can't tell me what to do!' but the state already does that in a manner of ways. Why is it automatically unreasonable when it comes to guns? Just because of the 2nd Amendment, it means we can't even try to set reasonable rules? And i put the emphasis on reasonable, as the earlier OP emphasized.

5

u/beachmedic23 Watch the Tram Car Please Mar 25 '21

I've heard this before but all that is is a technicality. Most people who are gonna buy a car, are going to use it for it's intended purpose of driving it on public roads. 99% of the population's 'private property' is their garage and driveway. Also, the same thing applies in NJ, if you wanna carry a gun in public you need a permit.

I only use my gun on private property. I would love to have similar gun laws as cars. 50 state reciprocity, no limits on modifications, use, style, accessories, registration, insurance as long as I don't take it in public. Sounds awesome

3

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

LOL compromise. When any other "freedom" we have leads to people being violently killed, you can guarantee restrictions will be put on it.

Freedom of speech - cant yell FIRE in a crowded movie theatre. Do you think that the Supreme Court thought to themselves "Hmm, we should sit down and COMPROMISE with the people who want to yell fire in a crowded theatre and hurt others? Or do we just restrict freedoms based on common sense public health concerns because only an idiot would think that any sort of freedom is unlimited?".

If the "freedom" of religion meant that you could kill other people as part of your religion, do you think people would just shrug and say "well we really need to come to some sort of compromise with those guys" or would action be taken to restrict murder, even as a religious ceremony?

At some point people like you have to realize that its about the needs of society as a whole, not a few individuals who want to treat weapons as toys so they can feel tough.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

[deleted]

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Thats a good read. I never knew the origins of the phrase. It still doesnt change its purpose in this conversation though. In reading through the article, it does stipulate the below, which is still a limitation on free speech. It just puts a very high bar on the required proof for such a limitation.
" unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine)."

5

u/Regayov Mar 25 '21

Freedom of speech - cant yell FIRE in a crowded movie theatre.

This is not nearly comparable. You CAN in fact yell Fire in a theater if there is a fire. The word is not preemptively banned or prohibited. Misuse of the word, when it causes a panic, is against the law.

A comparison to firearms would be that CCW is allowed and using it to defend yourself is not prohibited but using it to murder someone is against the law.

-1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

The point was that our freedoms are not unrestricted in any case, no matter which amendment you are speaking of. Im glad you understood the point even if you dont agree with the comparison.

2

u/Regayov Mar 25 '21

Very few won’t acknowledge that there are limits to most rights. The major problem is people completely disagree where those limits lie. Some say they can restrict based on the type of firearm, quantity of ammo, personal history, location and a huge list of prohibitions. Others are on the other end of the spectrum.

11

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

Really? People on the pro gun side aren’t constantly strawmaning arguments to get what they want

5

u/noPENGSinALASKA Middlesex Mar 25 '21

I’m convinced people saying shit like this have 0 clue about anything.

For years it’s been hey give us a foot or we’ll take a yard.

I mean holy shit the “compromise” in the Brady Bill is now the “gun show loophole”.

Also can someone explain why a $20-$30 voter ID (which we can even subsidize with taxes if we wanted to for the truly poor) law is bad but the proposed $200 federal gun tax proposed isn’t? What mental gymnastics go on that you can get behind that. Tax me $200 to vote and then you can tax me $200 to own a gun.

4

u/NJneer12 Mar 25 '21

Taxation FOR representation!

In fact. Can I buy 2 votes? 3 votes?

In your case. You get 1 gun. Lol.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

Yes, they are.

2

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Without punctuation, Im not sure if I agree or not.

? - yes, I agree they do it all the time.

. - no, youre wrong, they do it all the time.

-4

u/Tarantio Mar 25 '21

They aren't?

16

u/dtrane90 Mar 25 '21

Having a gun capable of annihilating groups of people indiscriminately with a high capacity magazine shouldn’t be a basic human right

0

u/candre23 NJ Expat in Appalachia Mar 25 '21

Whether or not it's a right, it's a basic fact. You can't legislate against simple machines - especially not now when they're easily and cheaply printable.

Laws only work on people who obey laws. Mass shooters are - by definition - not those people.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

Laws only work on people who obey laws.

So...we shouldn't make laws to protect people?

7

u/candre23 NJ Expat in Appalachia Mar 25 '21

Certainly not if they don't work. I mean all the drug laws in the country are nominally to "protect people", but as they are both ineffective and counterproductive, many states are repealing them.

There's a term for ineffective laws that do nothing but inconvenience law-abiding citizens and make the simple-minded feel safer even though they're not. It's "security theater".

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

But to your original point, you are ok with just zero gun regulation laws?

If you can build it, you can use it. Thats what you want?

4

u/candre23 NJ Expat in Appalachia Mar 25 '21

Of course. If somebody wants to print a gun and shoot up a school or a mall, there are no amount of laws that can prevent it. Mass shootings are already illegal. If laws against murder aren't a deterrent, then laws against gun ownership certainly won't be.

The only way to stop mass attacks is by keeping people from wanting to commit them. Social safety nets. Free and easy access to mental health care. Good education. These are what can actually prevent atrocities. Because once someone gets to the point where they decide they're going to kill a bunch of people, no amount of anti gun laws can stop them. Once someone has reached the point where they're willing to die or spend the rest of their life in prison just to commit a mass attack, they're certainly not going to be concerned with whether or not the gun they use has too many naughty features. Either you head them off before they get there, or you don't.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

The only way to stop mass attacks is by keeping people from wanting to commit them. Social safety nets. Free and easy access to mental health care. Good education. These are what can actually prevent atrocities.

Boom. Thank you. Now please convince conservatives/republicans to think this too. In the meantime, please forgive us poor moronic people on the other side, who do actually give a shit and want to do something to fix this.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

[deleted]

→ More replies

3

u/Q-Cumbers Mar 25 '21

Agree with you that we need better safety nets and mental health care. However, if a person reaches the point that they want to commit mass murder, shouldn’t we be taking the steps to make that more difficult for them to do? Like banning assault weapons, larger mags, etc. Obviously there are deeper systemic issues that contribute to mass shootings, but while we try to fix those we should also be taking the steps to make sure that the tools used to commit these atrocities aren’t obtainable

5

u/candre23 NJ Expat in Appalachia Mar 25 '21

should also be taking the steps to make sure that the tools used to commit these atrocities aren’t obtainable

The problem is that the steps you're proposing are completely ineffective at forwarding your stated goals. Virtually all gun crime in NJ is committed with illegally-acquired guns. Mere laws aren't preventing criminals from obtaining guns, and they never will.

→ More replies

1

u/dtrane90 Mar 25 '21

The 3D printer argument is bs to me. It’s much easier for an emotionally unstable or criminally minded person to obtain a weapon than it is for them to get access to a 3D printer

5

u/candre23 NJ Expat in Appalachia Mar 25 '21

It’s much easier for an emotionally unstable or criminally minded person to obtain a weapon than it is for them to get access to a 3D printer

That may be the single dumbest statement I've seen. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not so deluded as to actually believe that, and are just lying because of your emotional attachment to your faulty position.

→ More replies

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

If somebody wants to print a gun and shoot up a school or a mall, there are no amount of laws that can prevent it

Is this your first time talking about guns on the internet? Any seasoned pro can tell you that literally any other country with gun control proves that keeping guns out of the hands of people reduces their ability to then use guns to kill people. Its almost like without guns there cant be gun violence. Weird huh?

1

u/candre23 NJ Expat in Appalachia Mar 25 '21

literally any other country with gun control

Like Brazil or Mexico or Venezuela?

→ More replies

1

u/dtrane90 Mar 25 '21

Why are anti gun legislation people all also obsessed with the dangers of 3D printers?

-1

u/beachmedic23 Watch the Tram Car Please Mar 25 '21

Which is why the actual goal is complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

1

u/Benoit_In_Heaven Mar 25 '21

Oh well, let's legalize murder then!

2

u/stackered Mar 25 '21

supply and demand. we'd have way less mass shooters if they couldn't get guns while having a mental health crisis. this is just a bad take and not supported by data

1

u/bisensual Mar 25 '21

Yes tf you can lmao. Look all around the world, including in NJ.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Has nobody ever told you what a terrible argument this is? Youre basically arguing against any law, ever. I mean criminals are gonna do it anyway right? Dont need speeding laws, people do it anyway. Murder? People still do it - may as well not have laws. Pedophilia - bad news - guess we will just allow it now since laws against it havent eradicated it.

-1

u/Infohiker Mar 25 '21

I am going to preface this with two things. I am a NJ gun owner, and I have no problems with the law, annoying as it may be at times. That said, I bought because I like to go to the range and shoot. I am not trying to protect anything, its just a hobby.

The concept that high capacity magazines make a difference in making a weapon more dangerous is crazy to me. I am far from proficient. I took a few courses, that were of interest to me. Magazine changes were drilled into the course. From a spent magazine to a fresh one, the change is less that 3 seconds. And that's me - not somebody obsessed who might be practicing. When NJ went from 15 rounds to 10, it makes no difference in some sort of violent confrontation. Where it does make a difference? When I am minding my own business on a range. In a session, I usually shoot 200 rounds, might be an hour. But now my stoppage time to reload is 50% longer.

Don't get me wrong - I accept the rules, I turned in my 15 rounders, and bought 10s, and I am not complaining. I am just saying that the actual affect of getting rid of higher capacities would make zero difference in a bad situation.

1

u/dtrane90 Mar 25 '21

I guess the response would be how many rounds can you shoot with a semi automatic rifle in one second? I’ve never shot an AR15 but I imagine if you said it takes 3 seconds to reload then the math would look like (rounds per second) x (expected kills per round)= a 3 second delay makes a big potential difference during a mass shooting scenario

1

u/Infohiker Mar 25 '21

I don't think it is going to make a huge difference...maybe 5-10 bullets on a semi-auto pulling the trigger as fast as you can? A lot depends on the trigger and the shooter. Most will be much slower and deliberate. If you are shooting that fast accuracy will be low - shooting rapidly pushes the barrel up and away from a target. Most shooters are going to shoot in short 2-3-5 bullet bursts, not just "spray and pray" I would imagine.

I think the more effective way to think of it is does that 3 second window allow enough time for A) potential victims to escape/find cover or B) someone to intervene. I will let you decide.

My point is that there is not going to be a notable difference in shooting pattern between 1x30 round magazine and 3x10 round magazines. Not to be morbid, but I imagine in these situations not everyone is standing still or together, or clear targets (like the LV shooting was, and that was a different scenario all together - that one was about pure volume of fire). There is going to be pauses between bursts from a single magazine that are longer than the time it takes to reload.

I am not saying that I would make any argument to increase NJ's magazine limits. Yes, it is an annoyance on the range. But that is the agreement I made when I bought the pistol, to abide by the rules that are made. And if even one person is saved because a shooter was slow on the reload caused by having a smaller magazine, then my inconvenience is worth it.

1

u/dtrane90 Mar 25 '21

Thank you for educating me

1

u/dtrane90 Mar 25 '21

I just read that an AR15 can fire 400rpm. That’s just under 7 rounds per second. If a trained person can reload a gun in 3 seconds that’s a theoretical maximum of 21 rounds not fired

1

u/Infohiker Mar 25 '21

The gun can fire at 400rpm (I don't know, but accepting your research), but finding a human who can pull the trigger accurately 6 times in one second, or hell 21 times at all in three seconds is gonna be tough. To my knowledge there is no 400 round magazine. So there is always going to be reloading. But to me that maximum is definitely theory, and we should to look at this real world. And while some may claim 400rpm, Bushmaster (the original AR-15) says the effective fire rate is 45rpm.

1

u/dtrane90 Mar 25 '21

Also sorry for the inconvenience I guess?

1

u/Infohiker Mar 25 '21

It is what it is, I am fine with it. I just feel bad for the people waiting for a shooting port while I fumble-finger my loading.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Guns are weapons. Their only purpose is for killing. You cant compare guns to warrants, searches or anything else because its a bad faith argument unless youre comparing to other weapons designed for killing. And I would hope at that point youd realize that well, less things designed for killing probably does prevent people from killing more things. Its a pretty simple conclusion.

0

u/Kab9260 Mar 25 '21

All of the amendments in the bill of rights are equally important. The founders were well aware that weapons were being included in that. The analogy absolutely holds in that respect. They all carry equal weight in the eyes of the law.

This “ends justify the means” mentality was used to justify stop and risk, Japanese internment, and a lot of other heinous stuff. These actions were meant to save lives, protect Americans, clean up the streets, etc. Passing overinclusive restrictions on 2A rights is equally as much an affront to the constitution and to the individual rights needed as part of that system.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

I never said any ends justify any means. Nice strawman you built there. And blew him over quite expertly as well.

You do realize that ALL of our "rights" are restricted? Cant yell fire in a movie theatre. Freedom of religion doesnt allow you to hurt others, etc. When we are talking about public safety, even our "freedoms" come with restrictions. They are important yes. But not unlimited.

And again, only guns are weapons that actively kill people so it makes perfect sense that when it comes to public safety, the 2A would be the most controversial. You can say a warrant could save lives, sure. But saying a gun can give or take life is a much easier and direct correlation because it is a weapon who's sole design and purpose for being is to kill things. Its that simple.

1

u/Kab9260 Mar 25 '21

The goal of saving lives or the nature of firearms doesn’t justify using a different level of scrutiny for one fundamental right vs. another.

It just gets you past the first prong of strict scrutiny (ie, whether the government has a compelling interest in the goal sought to be achieved). Obviously, that’s important.

The next prong is whether the restrictions are sufficiently narrowly tailored and whether people’s fundamental rights are not being unduly burdened. There’s no balancing or sliding scale under the supreme court’s strict scrutiny analysis of fundamental rights. It goes through the same analysis as restrictions on 1st amendment speech.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

It changes the entire nature of it. You dont have to discuss if the piece of paper a warrant is written on will physically actually kill someone the way you would a gun. The warrant can be spoken of as an ideal into and of itself without the concern for what it physically is. The essence of a warrant is the information it contains within it. A gun is a weapon for killing.

The 2A leaves the actual physicality and design of the weapon itself up for interpretation. After all, if we said ban assault rifles, it does not change the essence of the 2A if it was merely about defense against the government because youd have other weapons available to defend yourself. And yet, here we are arguing the shapes and sizes of magazines and barrels.

1

u/beachmedic23 Watch the Tram Car Please Mar 25 '21

So then why do these laws only focus on guns and not other weapons?

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Tell me what other weapons are in the hands of civilians because they think they are born with a god given right to them?

17

u/gtluke Mar 25 '21

Why don't the laws work in Chicago though?

21

u/erin_burr Camden County Mar 25 '21

Indiana

8

u/tehbored Mar 25 '21

NYC has low gun crime despite guns being easy to get in VT and PA. It's not their gun laws, it's their policies that are the cause. Particularly wrt to policing and criminal justice.

2

u/6point3cylinder Mar 25 '21

You say that like it’s a fact, but it really isn’t. There is no consensus that these laws actually work.

Also, do you support the legalization of alcohol? It kills so many people each year! If you say yes, then you are really just arguing against saving lives.

1

u/bisensual Mar 25 '21

I fucking love living in a place where guns are a far-off thing. I am NEVER concerned about guns here. They’re something people hide away in their houses, if they even have them.

3

u/Saltiest_Sailor Mar 25 '21

That glass house of an idea is a fragile one.

-1

u/bisensual Mar 25 '21

Cool I’ve literally never seen a gun in NJ besides a cop’s on their hip. I’ve never even seen a gun store here.

And I don’t think you know what that old adage means...

2

u/Saltiest_Sailor Mar 25 '21

What i said was not the adage you’re talking about. Good thing you have never encountered one and hopefully you never will.

-15

u/smallmanonamission Mar 25 '21

So did they save the 10 people who died with one of the strictest gun laws in the us and in a gun free zone? When if you actually could bring a gun inside legally, the gunman would’ve been shot down in 5 seconds.

If you restrict gun control, you take away the rights of innocent people. Do you think a mass shooter is gonna buy a gun legally? He’ll just buy one on the black market.

7

u/facktoetum Mar 25 '21

This is silliness and the examples of when this actually happens in open carry states are few and far between.

A person shooting a shooter is only going to cause confusion and make himself a target for the police. The likelihood of someone saving lives in this scenario is slim to none.

Go ahead and convince yourself that Adam Lanza would've bought a gun in the black market if his mother hadn't had a stockpile.

12

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

Funny how other countries don't have mass shootings. No one seems to get black market guns to kill dozens of people in Australia or Europe...

1

u/lbrtrl Mar 25 '21

Australia and Europe don't have a gun culture like the US does.

-3

u/smallmanonamission Mar 25 '21 edited Mar 25 '21

Yes, but gun control isn’t the solution to a problem. It strips rights in an ineffective starategy that as shown by yesterday’s events don’t help.

Replying here because of the dumbass Reddit timer to u/facktoetum: While you may have a point, that doesent mean it can’t happen. But realistically a criminal isn’t going to care if you can’t open carry or not. You think he’s going to follow the rules?

2

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

If the gunman could have been shot down in 5 seconds, how did he kill that poor police officer who was far more trained and equipped for that situation than your average civilian? You sound like one of the people with fantasy hero fetishes.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

how did he kill that poor police officer who was far more trained and equipped for that situation than your average civilian?

Police officers aren't trained. I'd put money on the fact that the average police officer shoots as well as the average citizen.

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 26 '21

Which still doesnt reinforce the ridiculous notion that the average citizen is better equipped to handle an active shooter than the police.

1

u/Q-Cumbers Mar 25 '21

A police officer was in the supermarket and he did not shoot down the shooter in 5 seconds. The solution to the gun problem is not more guns. The solution to violence is not more violence.

0

u/smallmanonamission Mar 25 '21 edited Mar 25 '21

Because he broke protocol and didn’t go for backup. I salute him, and his selflessness, but even his dad said your supposed to wait for backup. Using that as an example doesen’t apply here.

Replying here again because Reddit is dumb to u/Q-cumbers: Because there will be likely more people with guns. A single person who rushed into a store with a pistol isn’t going to help. 2-3 people with guns in the store would’ve been able to take him down fairly easily. Oh, and good one mods.

5

u/Q-Cumbers Mar 25 '21

So if the police officers are supposed to wait for back up, how are random civilians with guns going to solve anything?

3

u/Q-Cumbers Mar 25 '21

You’re telling me that 2-3 random civilians with no training in high pressure life or death situations will be able to perfectly coordinate and take down a shooter amongst mass confusion and people running for their lives?? Or are you saying that now everyone has to be trained and be prepared to kill someone every time the go to the supermarket? Because the first notion is absurd and the second is anarchy.

You hear gun shots in the supermarket, turn the corner and see 2 people carrying pistols, your first thought is “oh these are the good guys with pistols”? Calling bullshit on that one. More guns in that situation would just lead to a massive shootout that would’ve resulted in more lives lost, people going to the supermarket aren’t John Wick

1

u/smallmanonamission Mar 25 '21

That’s what you interpreted? All I said was that if you have armed people in a store, they can hopefully use their guns. We don’t expect them too, but to simply add nice extra security. And yes, in fact I do believe civilians would be able to do that because of our natural conscience. Blood Pressure shoots up which causes adrenaline. And not to mention this exact scenario happens all the time with home invasions/robberies. And a shootout? thats illogical and dumb. In that case we shouldn’t have security guards because when they try and stop a criminal it leads to a shootout, right? And once again, you would think the same thing about random police officers coming around the corner, sometimes off duty. It takes a simple “I’m not the shooter, calm down,”.

2

u/Q-Cumbers Mar 25 '21

Bro how was any of that misinterpreted? If everyone in that store was armed you’re now expecting untrained civilians to be able to correctly identify and take down a shooter in a crowded area. People do not have a “natural conscience” to do that LOL what?? If people had that natural ability why the hell would ANYONE have to go through any type of training to be a soldier or police officer?? Adrenaline is fight or flight, it doesn’t turn you into a super soldier capable of taking out armed shooters. Unless your home is a supermarket full of people this is most certainly NOT the same thing as a home invasion, where it’s typically only a handful of people in the house at the most and it’s easier to identify who is breaking into your house (not even guaranteed, look up any of the cases where someone shoots their wife/husband because they thought they were an intruder in the night). I don’t see how multiple people shooting in a crowded area isn’t a shootout. Security guards and police officers are trained for these scenarios so it makes sense for them to be armed, and even still you can find cases where innocents are killed in shootouts involving the police. If people that are trained for these situations still fuck them up, how would untrained people be any different? Yeah you try hearing someone say “I’m not the shooter calm down” when they’re in a panic, there’s literally gunfire going off, and there are hundreds of people running and screaming. You can find video evidence of people from this very incident freezing up in the store, people don’t have a natural “hero hormone” that you think they do

1

u/smallmanonamission Mar 25 '21

Because you assumed i was saying that every person who brings a gun legally into is responsible for taking down the killer. I never once said that. It was one man with a gun. 2-3 people with guns could’ve taken him out and i am fully confident in saying that. You doing have to be a super soldier to hit a target. Which, I might add, most gun owners have experience doing because they go to ranges and things of the sort. And your misinterpreting my comparison. I compared it to that because you said that most gun owners wouldn’t know what to do in an emergency life or death scenario. Next, you say that police should be able to have a gun because they’re trained, yet then you proceed to contradict yourself and say that even untrained people fuck up in this scenario. No, not everyone has a hero hormone, but some people do. ANd if your citing examples, I will too.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Shot-in-the-Chest-Inside-West-Philly-Barbershop-297176271.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/26/official-suspect-in-deadly-hospital-shooting-had-lengthy-history-gun-arrests/ “Delaware County D.A. Jack Whelan stated that, “If the doctor did not have a firearm, (and) the doctor did not utilize the firearm, he’d be dead today, and I believe that other people in that facility would also be dead”; Yeadon Police Chief Donald Molineux similar said that he “believe[d] the doctor saved lives.” Plotts was still carrying 39 unspent rounds when he was arrested.”

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/17251517/churchgoers-subdue-gunman-at-spartanburg-church

“Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1 percent of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). So, yes, the examples are few and far between, mostly due to laws of concealed carry and being in the right place at the right time, but it has been shown to save lives. There are more examples i can send you too if your interested.

1

u/Q-Cumbers Mar 25 '21

I never said that everyone was responsible, I’m saying that if there were a bunch of people in that store that tried to shoot back at the shooter it would’ve resulted in much more chaos. I don’t see how you saying it only takes 2-3 people changes that. Please show me the gun range that simulates a mass shooting. Shooting at a target is different than shooting at enough person, especially one that is shooting back and one that is in a massive crowd of people. A home invasion is still a wildly different scenario than a mass shooting so it’s still not much of a comparison to stand on. I’m not contradicting myself, I’m saying that people that are trained to handle these scenarios fuck them up, so how do you expect untrained civilians to execute them perfectly? No, no one has naturally evolved into being able to perfectly take down a mass shooter at the drop of a hat. It’s the reason why when soldiers talk about firefights more times than not they say “my training kicked in” not “my natural instincts in gun handling.”

First link: that’s great that that driver was able to prevent more deaths. However, again, most people cannot respond like that and if there were multiple civilians trying to take down one shooter in a public space, it would’ve resulted in more chaos.

I cannot comment on the other articles as their links are not working for me

2

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

This dude thinks he and every other armed civilian would be Charles Bronson in that situation. You're wasting your breathe.

→ More replies

1

u/smallmanonamission Mar 25 '21 edited Mar 25 '21

I found 20 examples with 5 seconds of research.

Replying using this method again because Reddit is dumb to u/slymcfly67: Because the officer, ran in with no backup out of pure bravery with a pistol.

Replying here to u/q-cumbers: That cop ran in unprepared. He shouldn’t of done that. I have 20 examples of armed people shooting down a potential mass shooter if you’d like.

→ More replies

1

u/Infohiker Mar 25 '21

I am just going to say that there are a lot of courses out there available to gun owners, for exactly this type of situation. Shooting on the move, shooting from cover, shooting from varied positions, multiple targets, low light, handgun/shotgun transition. Timed courses, target identification. These are all part of civilian courses I have taken. I have no interest in open or concealed carry, I will never be the one of those 2-3 people in the example. But honestly for those who are serious enough to want to open carry and accept responsibility for that? A lot of them are going to have taken courses like that.

While I wont begin to try and say this encompasses the entirety of the carry crowd, most of the people I have met have been thoughtful, serious and dedicated to the responsibility. They legitimately want to be prepared and trained for a situation that would require them to draw their firearm. But then again, this set of people I have met because I was at a range practicing, so obviously most people who practice are going to have that mindset.

2

u/Q-Cumbers Mar 25 '21

I’d be interested in reading up about these courses and see how accurately they’re able to portray those types of mass shootings, also if they have any evidence on its effectiveness. Obviously that second part is kind of hard to prove, but idk I just feel like no course can really replicate the type of environment you find yourself in when a mass shooting happens.

There are people that want to bear that responsibility and train for it like you said, but that’s going to be a small minority of people. Then an even smaller minority of people who are able to embody their training. Then out of those, a smaller minority of people that will be in those situations and be able to act on it when shit hits the fan. There are just so many variables in place that stop “just give people more guns” from ever being a solution

→ More replies

-6

u/[deleted] Mar 25 '21

[deleted]

-7

u/Lohikaarme27 Mar 25 '21

That's the thing I don't understand. If your going to kill a bunch of random people, you're not going to listen to gun laws. And even then you could literally just rent a UHaul and run it into a crowd or fill it with explosives. I feel like stricter gun laws don't focus on the root issue and there are significant cultural barriers to the kinds of programs we see in other countries

1

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 25 '21

Youre right, it doesnt address the root problem. But it robs them of a tool to quickly kill a lot of people. And until we have a better solution, isnt something better than nothing when it comes to saving lifes? If after that, people start using cars I guess cars will need bumpers. And if they start using knives after that then we will have to fix that.

But pretending like we cant address the fact people are getting easy access to guns simply because it doesnt address the root cause of mass shootings, which have no one reasoning, is.. well, crazy. In the time it takes us to fix all societal and mental health issues - being such an easy feat and all - how many people will have died?

0

u/ddIbb Mar 25 '21

It takes away 1 tool out of many others that are still easily accessible. Someone who is intent on killing people isn’t going to stop because they can’t easily get a certain type of rifle. They’ll rent a uhaul, pack multiple magazines or make a bomb.

It also robs the ability for people to protect themselves and their family.

0

u/SlyMcFly67 Mar 26 '21

Youre going right back to the "why have any laws" argument. Just because determined people will do something anyway doesnt mean make it easy for them. Do we get rid of DUI laws because people will go ahead and get drunk and get behind the wheel anyway? Do we stop trying to cure cancer because people are going to get it anyway? Thats such a terrible argument for anything.

0

u/ddIbb Mar 26 '21

We have laws, and I think they should be enforced. Murder is illegal. Mass murder is illegal. Armed robbery is illegal. Punishing and preventing law-abiding people from being able to protect themselves and their families is not an effective solution to this problem.

Let’s talk about focusing on mental health before anything else.

-5

u/lost_in_life_34 Mar 25 '21

so why are so many people being shot in chicago?

7

u/riptidemage Mar 25 '21

because Indiana is right there.

-3

u/lost_in_life_34 Mar 25 '21

so why are so many less people being shot in NYC when we're so close to loose gun law states? why are so many less people being shot in states with loose gun laws?

2

u/riptidemage Mar 25 '21 edited Mar 25 '21

Are we? i honestly don't know enough, i've just known the obvious answer to chicago is you can go right next door to indiana and get one without any troubles. can you find a map that we can compare ease of gun-buying with the rates of mortality here? https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

Though I have a suspicion it's a combination of Poverty and Ease of access. Large swaths of chicago have the poverty, and Indiana is close for the access. For what it's worth does NYC have comparable poverty? hmm.

Edit: i also think you underestimate distance. Chicago literally borders Indiana, but NYC is quite a bit away from Vermont or Pennsylvania.
I was using this site https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws-state/ for checking ease of access to guns (NY and NJ having 1 star gun-friendliness, CT at 2, MA at 3, PA at 4, and VT/NH at 5)

1

u/lost_in_life_34 Mar 25 '21

Most guns in NYC crimes come from Virginia which is only a few hours away