What Would Happen if the Right to Bear Arms was Taken Away.

Post Reply New Topic

If I were on a jury hearing such a case, I would definitely sympathize ... yet I would still vote for at least some low level of manslaughter since we dare not let society return to the days of "the wild west".

The scenario mentioned there was no SWAT team on hand to end the killing. How clear does it need to be made for some of you that the law can not be everywhere yet trouble can crop up at any time and any place???
Even if they did show up they'd likely "assess the situation" long enough for the bad guys to run out of ammo or kill themselves before they manned up and went in to do what they’re supposed to.

I'm presenting alternate results; from someone that might not be as good as they think they are with a weapon or do not have the training to assess the situation properly. Skills in shooting aren't the only skills that law enforcement receives in training that can allow them to make the right judgement in using a weapon They also may have experience in dealing with similar situations.

The original point that led to the McDonalds example was the question of whether or not if it was easier for people to carry guns; more public shootings might be prevented.

I used the SWAT as an example of skills; regardless, of if they were at the situation or not. I don't see any indication in the post of whether or not they were there, but that is not why I mentioned it. Part of their skill is assessing the situation, and a Swat Team is often successful in preventing a massacre, depending on the situation.

Now if a person has a weapon and a permit to carry it and they are successful in defending themselves against someone who is threatening to kill them in public, I'll be the first to defend them.

On the other hand, if someone posseses a weapon, it is clear they have one, there is an argument and a statement of if you don't shut up I'll shoot you and someone from across the room takes them out, or misses and takes someone else out, that is where the risk comes in from living in the wild west, and the relationship with reducing restrictions for people to have the authority to carry a concealed weapon.

For those people that are responsible with their weapons, and have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, it's not likely they would be stupid enough to do something like that.

How many heated arguments or fights might end with someone pulling their gun and shooting someone, if many people carried a gun? Humans are more likely to kill someone with a gun than if they are in a physical fight with no weapon.

The original point assumes that the laws would change to make it easier for people to carry guns legally than it is now.

I don't have a problem with someone that has a permit for a concealed weapon, as it is now; only people that are checked out to be responsible can gain such a permit.



Well, you've got a shooter killing innocents. How much worse can it get???

I'm not talking about that specific example, I'm talking about civilians with greater access to concealed weapons using their judgement on whether or not to use a gun against an armed individual.

Just because someone is armed doesn't mean that everyone is going to get massacred; and if many people are armed to defend themselves, it becomes a matter of judgement on when to use lethal force.

Statistically, if every adult that could gain a license for a weapon could carry it as a concealed weapon, what would the result would be? How many massacres in a year would happen vs. how many heated arguments would lead to lethal force with a hand gun?

I think the gun control we have now is fine, but the fact remains, and statistics prove out more people are injured by their guns from domestic violence in the home than they are used in self defense in the home. Would this be any different on the street if there were many people carrying concealed weapons?



Where did you get this from? Your average patrolman isn't that skilled with weapons. Training is better now than it was in the old days because of more emphasis on tactical type shooting but on the whole we're not talking about expertise. Training done at the academy or by the individual agency is budgeted by bean counters and bureaucrats that could care less about the quality of training. Some agencies pay for advanced training which is good but not all officers get to attend and not all agencies will spend the money on it. Some individuals officers take it upon themselves to hone their skills, too.
SWAT is better trained but they are usually not the first responders and have shown a reluctance to engage in the really nasty scenarios.

It's not just shooting expertise, it is the training they receive to take appropriate action when when there is a risk by an armed gunman in the public. That is the key difference. And it is not only the training they are much more likely to have had experience in similiar situations than someone carrying a gun that is not involved in law enforcement.



What if there is no one else? I can pretty much assure you that those members of the "public" that are being massacred would like very much for an armed citizen to intervene on their behalf.

I agree, if someone who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, is able to correct the situation, with appropriate justification, they should receive accolades. They would be stupid not defend their life, if they have that opportunity. My issue here is what would happen if it became easier for people to get the legal authority to carry concealed weapons and the cost/benefit of loosening the restrictions.



If the shooter came in to do some killing and said employee hadn't been successful it stands to reason that there still would have been deaths.
Businesses like that make those policies not out of concern for safety but for liability reasons. If the sh!t hits the fan they can be sued from any direction, right or wrong, including by the shooter if he is stopped by the employee and is injured. The fact that the shooter was in the wrong won't matter so much in civil court if "his rights were violated".
The only concern Wal-Mart has about you or anyone else being hurt is the company getting sued, that’s just business in the world we live in.

Walmart employees are not trained to deal with armed customers; they have procedures to contact people that are, if the situation arises. Whether or not Walmart get's sued, it's stupid for an employee to try to subdue an armed individual when they have people that are responsible to respond to the situation that are trained to deal with it.

It's the same in the general public, someone might be successful in preventing a massacre, but someone could just as easily cause a massacre by getting involved with a weapon, if they use the wrong judgement because they are not properly trained to assess the situation and make the proper judgement. I think a cost benefit analysis should be weighed before more individuals could have the opportunity to make this kind of judgement.



There are laws, of course. The shooting must be justifiable (in defense of life and limb) and you are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your weapon. If you miss the bad guy and the bullet goes through a window and kills someone across the street it’s your ass. You (probably) won’t be charged with murder but very possibly involuntary manslaughter and/or being sued.

True, but would you feel more comfortable if the majority of people on the street had the right to carry a concealed gun. The possibility that every person that might not be having a good day that thought you looked at them the wrong way, might snap and shoot you?

Yes, it can still happen with or without a permit, but statistically I think it is more likely to happen if many people are carrying guns and the requirements to carry them aren't as strict as they currently are. I think the bottom line is the likelyhood of individual incidents like this happening vs people stopping massacres that might happen several times a year at most.


I could go on and on about the legal ramifications associated with this and this topic in general but I hope I don't have to.
This topic has come up before.