8 ms·

America'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 an

America'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 ago
I 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 ago
    Agree, 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 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. 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 ago
        How 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 ago
        Can you imagine the deaths of innocent people by crossfire?
        SomeDudeInKy 9y ago
        Couldn’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.
      - naasking 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. I don't think you've thought this through. You hear one, then two gun shots coming from two different people in a plaza with a bunch of people. Who's the real attacker? Say you actually witnessed it, what about the 50 other people around you who now see you brandishing and firing a gun? Are you now the threat? If everyone is shooting back at everyone else, the death toll will be WAY higher than just ducking and hiding with only one shooter. The real threat is clear in this scenario. The police know who to take down.
      - DoreenMichele 9y ago
        I grew up with gun culture. I was taught you don't pull a gun unless you are genuinely ready to kill someone. If you aren't prepared, both logistically and psychologically, to actually kill someone, this goes very bad places. The idea that we just need to arm everyone pretty much guarantees that most people won't actually meet that standard. It goes all kinds of bad places. The other thing is you don't find your way to a more peaceful civil climate by escalating the violence. That's so very much "Going to war to protect the peace is like fucking to preserve virginity." We need to be fostering a more civil climate where Americans are better cared for. That's the real solution here. We need to be fixing healthcare and housing and the extremes of poverty in this country that are appalling for a first world country. And I think that most of the discussions of gun violence overlook that larger reality and see it is as not relevant. But there are reasons people go postal here, and it isn't because a side effect of gun ownership is insanity.
    - chrisallenlane 9y ago
      > Agree, but edge case. This is by no means an "edge-case" if you live in a rural area. "Sound policy" within a heavily urbanized area may be unworkable elsewhere. > Can't base sound policy at scale on the stars aligning "Failing to scale" here would be to allow urban population centers to dictate policy that would be untenable in other areas of the country.
      - FireBeyond 9y ago
        What range training features people who are bent on killing _actively shooting back_ at you? _You_ don't want to harm anyone else, you only want to protect yourself (and possibly others). They have no such compunction. Being able to put a few downrange with a Glock is not an active shooter situation, and honestly, as a first responder, most people in such situations find themselves vomiting, urinating in terror (and reasonably so).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 9y ago
  It'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 ago
    The 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 ago
      The 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 ago
  I'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 ago
America 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 ago
  Average gun owner != average CCW holder who would be carrying at that moment
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Oh, 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 ago
      Heh heh, struck a nerve with some CCW holders ;)
  - rhcom2 9y ago
    CCW holder just means you took a class (in most states).
- matte_black 9y ago
  It 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 ago
If 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 ago
  Well, 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 ago
  Actually 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 ago
Stop. 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.

America'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 ago

I 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 ago
  Agree, 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 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. 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 ago
      How 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 ago
      Can you imagine the deaths of innocent people by crossfire?
      - SomeDudeInKy 9y ago
        Couldn’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.
    - naasking 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. I don't think you've thought this through. You hear one, then two gun shots coming from two different people in a plaza with a bunch of people. Who's the real attacker? Say you actually witnessed it, what about the 50 other people around you who now see you brandishing and firing a gun? Are you now the threat? If everyone is shooting back at everyone else, the death toll will be WAY higher than just ducking and hiding with only one shooter. The real threat is clear in this scenario. The police know who to take down.
    - DoreenMichele 9y ago
      I grew up with gun culture. I was taught you don't pull a gun unless you are genuinely ready to kill someone. If you aren't prepared, both logistically and psychologically, to actually kill someone, this goes very bad places. The idea that we just need to arm everyone pretty much guarantees that most people won't actually meet that standard. It goes all kinds of bad places. The other thing is you don't find your way to a more peaceful civil climate by escalating the violence. That's so very much "Going to war to protect the peace is like fucking to preserve virginity." We need to be fostering a more civil climate where Americans are better cared for. That's the real solution here. We need to be fixing healthcare and housing and the extremes of poverty in this country that are appalling for a first world country. And I think that most of the discussions of gun violence overlook that larger reality and see it is as not relevant. But there are reasons people go postal here, and it isn't because a side effect of gun ownership is insanity.
  - chrisallenlane 9y ago
    > Agree, but edge case. This is by no means an "edge-case" if you live in a rural area. "Sound policy" within a heavily urbanized area may be unworkable elsewhere. > Can't base sound policy at scale on the stars aligning "Failing to scale" here would be to allow urban population centers to dictate policy that would be untenable in other areas of the country.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      What range training features people who are bent on killing _actively shooting back_ at you? _You_ don't want to harm anyone else, you only want to protect yourself (and possibly others). They have no such compunction. Being able to put a few downrange with a Glock is not an active shooter situation, and honestly, as a first responder, most people in such situations find themselves vomiting, urinating in terror (and reasonably so).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
komali2 9y ago
It'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    The 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 ago
I'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 ago

America 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 ago
Average gun owner != average CCW holder who would be carrying at that moment
- Frondo 9y ago
  Oh, 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 ago
    Heh heh, struck a nerve with some CCW holders ;)
- rhcom2 9y ago
  CCW holder just means you took a class (in most states).
matte_black 9y ago
It 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 ago

If 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
Actually 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 ago

Stop. 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.