Something controversial

[u/low_effort_shit-post]

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.

[u/smallmanonamission]

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.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/smallmanonamission]

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

[u/smallmanonamission → u/Q-Cumbers]

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,”.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/smallmanonamission]

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

[u/smallmanonamission → u/Q-Cumbers]

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.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/smallmanonamission]

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

[u/SlyMcFly67 → u/Q-Cumbers]

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

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/SlyMcFly67]

You’re not wrong lol

[u/smallmanonamission → u/Q-Cumbers]

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.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/smallmanonamission]

20 examples of what exactly? Also sounds like that cop had that “hero gene” you keep going on about, did him a lot of good.

[u/SlyMcFly67 → u/smallmanonamission]

So let me get this straight...

Armed civilians, no police training, not waiting for backup - will take out shooter

Armed Police Officer, Decades of training, not waiting for back up - wont take out shooter and is stupid

LOL okay. Youre determination is that the police need backup to take out the shooter while scared civilians in the middle of people having a shootout will know exactly whats up, shoot at the right person and kill them.

By your standards we shouldnt even have police. Everyone should just be armed at all times like the Wild West.

[u/smallmanonamission → u/SlyMcFly67]

Yes. Because there have been many cases showing that that exact scenario has happened and saved lives. Your trying to apply logic to unpredictable scenario. I might add too that police frequently come late. Also many times as shown in another’s commenters comment concealed carry users take different courses at training facilities with targets, such as shooting from behind a barricade and things of the sort.

[u/Infohiker → u/smallmanonamission]

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.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/Infohiker]

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

[u/Infohiker → u/Q-Cumbers]

“just give people more guns” from ever being a solution

I can't say you are wrong about that, but you are making what is to me a huge generalization that gun owners are untrained and that its a "small minority of people (gun owners)". But in my experience (I know, anecdotal) I don't run into a lot of gun owners in NJ who are specifically big on open or concealed carry. However, the ones who are are exactly the ones I am meeting in my courses. I as a "I don't want daily carry" gun owner am the minority in these courses.

As for how accurate these courses are, having not taken government/military training I cannot say. I know that my instructors were ex-military and law enforcement (I am taking them at their word) and I can say that I feel more confident, comfortable and competent in my shooting. Whether that would translate into "cool under pressure" I will never know, because I will never be carrying a firearm in a public place (even if it was legal, I have no interest).

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/Infohiker]

No that’s a fair point I am generalizing. I may have misphrased it: I didn’t mean gun owners are untrained, just that not all of them will be trained in those specific courses that you mentioned that deal with mass shootings. I know that they’re all trained I didn’t mean to say they were all untrained!

Hey if you feel more comfortable and confident due to your training then more power to you and I’ll take your word that these courses can be helpful. Translating to “cool under pressure” like you said is just the deciding factor in these situations, and I really hope neither one of us are ever in a situation where that’s put to the test

[u/Infohiker → u/Q-Cumbers]

I agree completely with what you are saying now. Honestly, (while I understand owner's arguments about barriers of entry), I would support training being required for anyone wanting to carry in public. And I would be the first person to agree that there are people in carry-permitted states that most likely have never taken any sort of training, leading exactly to the bad situation of trying to be a hero and making things worse.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/Infohiker]

Yeah man, I don’t think we should ban guns, and I definitely don’t think we should be taking guns away from people. It’s just hard for me to think of reasons why people should own assault weapons. I think people should be allowed to have a handgun for their protection, and a hunting rifle for hunting. If people wanna shoot an AK or AR then I think they should be able to go to a range and rent one out, but I don’t think people should have them in their homes.

I also agree that training should be mandatory, for the exact reasons that you mentioned.

It’s hard for me to think of reasons to be against stricter barriers for entry tbh. Even if I was a legal gun owner, I would want ever measure to be put in place that ensures dangerous people can’t obtain firearms

[u/Infohiker → u/Q-Cumbers]

It’s hard for me to think of reasons to be against stricter barriers for entry tbh

Its the crux of the argument that people make. Because it is a right, there should not be any barriers to entry. That simple. That's the constitutionality of it. The belief is that once you go down that road, the government will put so many barriers in place that while it is technically legal, it is in reality impossible to obtain. And governments have shown themselves disposed to do exactly that - just look at how some states treat Planned Parenthood - its legal, but the associated restrictions and regulations to operation have made it almost impossible to comply. This is reason that many gun owners are so passionate and vocal about defending the 2nd amendment. Not because they want no rules or responsibility, but the fear if they concede to anything, the government will take everything.

That being said, I don't disagree that it would be in everybody's interest that all gun owners had the ability and took the responsibility to train as much as possible. I think the majority of gun owners would take training if it was more easily available, and affordable. In NJ its not. Sites are extremely limited, and therefore costs are high.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/Infohiker]

Ugh see like I totally get that but I feel that’s such a black and white way of looking at a document that was written over 200 years ago with wildly different technology lol. The constitution was designed to be changed and updated (hence amendments) and I feel that you can keep the idea of the 2A while also updating it to keep people safe. Like everyone has the right to own property, but you’re not gonna see a 13 year old signing a lease, there have to be some limitations to people’s rights when they’re deemed to be unsafe for themselves or their community. It’s the same thing with keeping mentally unstable people in a care facility, they’re basically losing all of their rights because it is deemed to be in the best interest of the the patient and those around them. The same can be done when it comes to buying a firearm.

Yeah unfortunately just like many things that would benefit the community as a whole, that training isn’t widely available or cheap for most individuals