6 ms·
Is it not true? What did they do in response to an active shooter? They called the police and SWAT -- people with guns.
by rmdashrfroot 9y ago
Is it not true? What did they do in response to an active shooter? They called the police and SWAT -- people with guns.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago> Is it not true? What did they do in response to an active shooter? They called the police and SWAT -- people with guns Qualified people with guns (ideally).
- rmdashrfroot 9y agoAmerica's obsession with credentials at its finest... these people are allowed to have guns because we say so, but no one else! (except those pesky criminals and shooters who don't abide by laws)
- toomuchtodo 9y agoI own an AR15 and a shotgun. Law enforcement is the right call for rapid response versus someone like myself with limited range time. I don't care about your credentials; if you have actual training, that's what matters. Your average civilian has almost no training, therefore law enforcement is the preferred response. Can you prove training without credentials? Certainly, but we're not all going to the range together to see who we are and aren't going to trust to respond to active shooters.
- aianus 9y ago> Law enforcement is the right call for rapid response versus someone like myself with limited range time. This may not be true if you're right there and SWAT is 5 minutes away.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoAgree, but edge case. Maybe you're armed, maybe you have the training, and maybe you're not going to panic. Can't base sound policy at scale on the stars aligning.
- aianus 9y agoI tend to think that mass shootings would turn out better if everyone was armed. It is so much harder to kill a lot of people if someone is shooting back at you. However, overall, it would be terrible policy because such a proliferation of arms in public would result in all kinds of extra mass shootings, suicides, homicides, accidents, etc. that would cause more deaths than any reduction in the lethality of a given mass shooting.
- FireBeyond 9y agoHow do you possibly plan for each of those people to know decisively who the "shooter" is? You're all shooters to each other, until proven otherwise.
- DanBC 9y agoCan you imagine the deaths of innocent people by crossfire?
- SomeDudeInKy 9y agoCouldn’t be worse than the police
- dragonwriter 9y ago> I tend to think that mass shootings would turn out better if everyone was armed. It is so much harder to kill a lot of people if someone is shooting back at you. It's probably much easier, if you count the deaths you cause and not just those from bullets you fire. When there is one person shooting, there are myriad reports from eyewitnesses with different numbers and descriptions of the shooters. When you've got multiple people shooting you are going to have multiple people perceiving who started the shooting differently.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- komali2 9y agoIt's not just the training in a broad sense - if you're armed with your concealed carry, and you witness a shooting, are you duty-sworn to act? Put it another way, in that it actually happened: If you're duty sworn to act, and don't, are you partly responsible for further deaths? See: The on-campus resource officer for a recent highschool shooting who did hide. I for one support a clear division between who is responsible for general civilian safety. I draw the line at buckling my seatbelt and not drinking cleaning product - beyond that, I don't think I should be in charge of making sure I don't get shot, or smashed into by a drunk driver, or ensuring the train I get on doesn't derail. I want my government to take care of that and I'm happy to pay for it.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago> Put it another way, in that it actually happened: If you're duty sworn to act, and don't, are you partly responsible for further deaths? Legally, no. See Warren v DC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia > the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists
- banned1 9y agoThe country was founded on the notion that all you have is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So I rather defend myself. If you want to “happily pay for” your own protection, you should hire your own bodyguard. I don’t want my taxes to go to your protection just because you want the government to solve all your problems.
- komali2 9y agoThe community is better at self defense than the individual. If your family member was murdered while you were out, do you have the expertise to find out who did it and meter justice? Do you have the resources to guarantee mutually assured destruction with another community?
- 9y ago
- thedirt0115 9y agoI'm actually replying to sibling comment regarding being duty-sworn to protect but don't see reply button there for some reason... Police are NOT duty-sworn to protect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
- rhcom2 9y agoAmerica has a pretty big obsession with thinking that they would be the hero in this situation if only they were there and had a gun. The average gun owner (hell, the average police officer probably) is in no way prepared for an active shooting situation. It's a fantasy to think you'd be the one to stop it.
- carry_bit 9y agoAverage gun owner != average CCW holder who would be carrying at that moment
- Frondo 9y agoOh, man. Having known a bunch of CCW holders who also carry their guns with them at all times, I would be far more scared of those guys in this situation, full stop. They talk tough, but I have zero confidence in their ability to add the good kind of violence to a violent situation. Sooooooo overconfident, smh.
- Frondo 8y agoHeh heh, struck a nerve with some CCW holders ;)
- rhcom2 9y agoCCW holder just means you took a class (in most states).
- matte_black 9y agoIt has nothing to do with being the hero. People who are a good law abiding citizens should not be denied the right to own firearms because some people misbehave. This is just a result of America’s individualist society. If we were collectivists we would ban guns for the good of society. But we’re not, and we never will be. We’re rugged individualists, for better or worse, and some people actively vote for things that make their lives worse just to uphold that value. It’s what America was built on. I don’t see a problem with it. It’s just a different way of life.
- moate 9y agoIf only America were actually obsessed with credentials on this one... But before playing into your hand further: It doesn't seem odd that most people are not mentally/physically capable of dealing properly with an active shooter/combat situation and therefor don't feel that they would/should be the person to deal with it. Gonna make the bold assumption that most people's job descriptions don't involve annual firearm training, and they would therefor feel more comfortable with police dealing with these sort of situations. Which is the point other sane humans are trying to make before you deride the conversation for douchery.
- prklmn 9y ago>>shooters who don’t abide by guns laws. Get your facts straight. Hint: the large majority do abide by gun laws in their purchase. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-s...
- AnimalMuppet 9y agoWell, they may abide by gun laws in how they get the guns, but they sure aren't in how they use them... (Though I suppose that's not "gun laws" that they're breaking, but rather laws against murder.)
- mdwyer6 9y agoActually no, most shooters do not own their guns legally. Only 18% of guns used in crimes were legally owned. Although your claim may be the case for mass shooters, a tiny minority of all perpetrators of gun homicide. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.026ea70675b2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...
- thaumaturgy 9y agoStop. Nobody has ever successfully used a shooting situation with victims as an opportunity to convince other people to own and carry firearms when going to school, work, or church. All it does is piss people off, make gun enthusiasts look bad, and start up flamewars online. If you want to convince other people of the merits of gun ownership, the time and place to do that is offline, with friends, at your favorite range or other safe shooting area.
- curun1r 9y agoMaybe more importantly, uniformed people with guns. In an active shooter situation, people in plain clothes are all suspects and suspects holding guns get shot.
- DanBC 9y agoAnd also, shoot everyone because guns just aren't accurate weapons unless you're in the calm situation of a range. See all the innocent bystanders shot by police who miss the alleged offender. https://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love-you-why-do-you-make-us-angry-like-that/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-lov...
- Washuu 9y agoMyself and coworkers joke about our "armory" of weapons ready to combat a shooter. However, we're not stupid enough to actually do that. We know the police that would show up within seconds would see us as targets as well.
- jakeogh 9y agoseconds? Nope. 5+ minutes (which is usually too late).
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoThe fact that it's common knowledge that you're armed means you'll likely never have to deal with that kind of situation.
- x14 9y agoUhm, have you seen our cops?
- humanrebar 9y agoYeah, I don't see how support for BLM and gun control mesh. If cops are corrupt and biased, then why would you want to wait on one in an emergency?
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoIt's hard to see minor details like that from high up in an ivory tower. Lower income urban voters tend to be split on gun control depending on the type. There's little support there for anything that would make it more costly or time consuming for someone without a record of violent crime to buy a firearm.
- Blackthorn 9y agoYou'd still need to hide if you happened to have a gun in the event that you don't, I don't know, want to get shot. A gun is a weapon, not armor.
- mywittyname 9y agoAlso, having a gun out might make you a target for the police. They don't know that you're a good guy. We had a shooter situation at my apartment complex not long ago and the police were on scene before I had time to unlock my pistol.
- rmdashrfroot 9y agoConsider, though, those living outside major population centers, where the police response time can be on the order of 10 to 30 (or more) minutes and there's an active shooter situation. There's very little that can be done to mitigate damage done by the shooter or prevent him from escaping in that span of time.
- Cyph0n 9y agoProfessional people who are formally trained to use guns in situations involving other people who have guns. It's both funny and sad that you think that being a SWAT member boils down to "here is a gun".
- imtringued 9y agoWell they not only have a gun. They have something far more important: body armor. Even a completely untrained SWAT member is going to be more successfull than a random citizen with a gun.
- Cyph0n 9y agoEven a SWAT member without body armor is way more effective than a random dude with a gun.
- eli 9y agoAnd if the assailant didn't have a gun, you also would not need to hide from an active shooter.
- humanrebar 9y agoYou'd need to hide no matter the weapon.
- sincerely 9y agoPeople who are specifically trained in the use of guns as a group in responding to active shooter situations. Not just "people with guns".
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 9y agoI’m not SWAT. If I had a gun and there was an armed maniac going around shooting people, I would still hide.
- naasking 9y ago> Is it not true? What did they do in response to an active shooter? They called the police and SWAT -- people with guns. People with guns that will take down anyone else brandishing a gun in that area. Still think it's a good idea to have a gun in this situation?
- Animats 9y agoThe big edge the SWAT guys have is armor and shields, and sometimes armored vehicles, along with enough tactical training to use them. This lets them survive getting close enough to do something. Regular cops have guns too, but that's not enough. The Parkland shooting had an armed sheriff's deputy in the school, but he wasn't armored up to take on someone with an assault rifle.