375
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
375 points (97.7% liked)
News
23276 readers
3917 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why the “good guy with the gun” BS needs to die. The real world isn’t a movie: there are no designated heroes and villains. Everyone’s a good guy in their own mind until they point a gun at a 6 year old.
I've always wondered how people thought the "good guy with a gun" would work in a chaotic real world situation. Suppose you're armed and there's a mass shooting event. You pull out your gun and keep a look out for the shooter as you hear gunfire getting closer. Then you spot a guy holding a gun. You quickly take aim and fire...
... And hit another "good guy with a gun" who was trying to take out the mass shooter the same as you.
Oh, but then you get shot by a third "good guy with a gun" who thought YOU were the mass shooter.
Arming everyone and telling them to be "good guys with guns" just seems, at best, like it would lead to MORE injuries and deaths.
Or, as has actually happened before, a good guy with a gun kills the bad guy and then gets shot by the cops who arrive thinking the guy with the gun is the bad guy:
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/560798-police-chief-hails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/
Yup, this is how it goes down in my head, and why I don't carry a gun. I think there's a decent chance that I could take down an active shooter (not sure if I have the guts to, but that's beside the point) because I have the element of surprise on my side, but there's an even bigger chance I get shot either in the crossfire or by the police. Most of the time it'll be a single shooter, but I have no guarantee that's the case, so I'd need to be ready for a second shooter.
I've run through a few options, and I just don't see a clear way to distinguish myself from an active shooter.
Of course, the other option is just say "please no don't do it I have a wife and 47 kids!"
You could also try running, yes, or hiding, but "carrying a gun" and "trying to get to an exit or shelter in place and only using said gun if he blocks the exit or finds your hiding spot" are not exactly mutually exclusive, you can do both, you don't have to "run towards the sound of gunfire" like some marine. In fact that would be the much smarter way to do it, "camping" isn't frowned upon in real life, this isn't COD. As for identifying who the shooter is "it's usually the guy shooting unarmed people," but failing that, "better to be sure and confirm your target," unfortunately this puts you at a disadvantage but he's willing to shoot random people and you aren't (I hope), so what're ya gonna do.
Pass gun control rules? And convict people like Rittenhouse.
Unfortunately from a realistic standpoint even with gun control laws this will not be an impossibility, though they may reduce the frequency. There's already upwards of 600,000,000 guns in 50% of the populations hands (and women won't stop buying them, they're the fastest growing group of new gun owners. More specifically black women followed by all women), even if you ban them they'll be out there.
And unfortunately Rittenhouse was textbook self defense, he only shot the guy who grabbed for his gun, and then the guy who hit him with a skateboard and grabbed for his gun, and then the guy who pointed a gun at him, not any of the people who retreated or didn't attack. I know, he lived in a different state and commuted 20 min to kenosha for work every day where his friends and dad lived, but the gun was kept at Dominic Black's house and never "crossed state lines" (also, even if it did, it is legal to cross state lines with a gun so long as it is legal in the state, and WI is far more permissive than IL, any gun legal in IL is legal in WI by far.) Also it is legal for a 17yo to have a gun in WI for some reason. Unfortunately even if we agree with his political opinions we currently can't put him in jail for that, he didn't actually break any laws.
I'm not worried about me identifying the shooter, I'm worried about the police identifying me as the shooter or hostage taker if I somehow shoot the perp but don't kill them.
Best case scenario, I shoot someone and risk getting shot by the police, worst case scenario I get shot by the perp (and even worse, they use my gun to kill people), and average case scenario, I get out alive without using the gun. I just don't see a lot of good things coming out of it. My area is incredibly safe, so the chances of needing it are extremely small, the chances of it helping are even smaller, and the chances of my kids finding it are much higher than I'm comfortable with.
If I was commuting through a bad neighborhood, I could see it being useful. I live and work in safe neighborhoods, so it's not an issue.
Well that's why CCW training tells you to put your gun away if you're sure it's now a safe area, and if it isn't now a safe area (possible other shooters for instance) to GTFO and call the cops and your lawyer. Also why you should give a description of the active shooter if you call it in, so they know "oh this dude in a T shirt may be a defender, we recieved a call about a guy in tac gear." Of course, most often the shooters specifically target gun free zones because you can't have one there, so you technically likely shouldn't have one anyway, so makes sense the cops wouldn't expect a defender in those cases either.
Yeah it's something that everyone needs to decide for themselves (my issue is when people like to decide things for others.) It definitely can be helpful in a specific scenario, like a hammer to a nail, but it is also a responsibility and if you aren't able or willing to, you shouldn't, that simple. Especially if as you say you are you're priviledged enough to live in a good area, in contrast to pizza delivery drivers (well, "ex") who live in bad neighborhoods who may need them.
Agreed, and I'll always defend the right to carry, for those who choose to. I think we should have some extra restrictions, like maybe a CCW for concealable firearms (and subsequent training), plus proof of secure storage in some manner if you have kids.
The only place I'd carry is at work, and it's against company policy to carry. So I don't, it's just not worth the risk and the likelihood that I'd need it is so remote.
Well a CCW is already required in most states to carry except for those recently lightening restrictions. Secure storage is iffy, because the supreme court already ruled it invalidates the right to self defense (most home invaders aren't kind enough to wait until you get your safe open to duel you, they typically just steal the guns from your safe after forcing you to open it at gunpoint when you ask if they'll hold up a sec, and then use those in subseqent crimes.)
And yeah I hear that, unfortunately the fact that your work bans guns even with a CCW means that if you ever do need it, it'll probably be there, gun free zones being the typical targets, and disgruntled employees and all. But I totally understand that it becomes not worth the risk then, you'd either have to risk being found out and fired or keep it in the car which while sometimes necessary because "gun free zone" always feels like you're forced to leave a gun where it can be (and they often are) easily stolen.
Secure storage is mostly for people with kids or at-risk individuals at home.
Secure storage against burglary doesn't exist; if they want your guns, they'll just grind their way in or steal the safe to grind later. Expecting home owners to protect against that absolutely just isn't practical, the goal should be keeping curious (or determined) kids from getting in, and deterring theft from burglary should be a nice side-effect. Unfortunately, most gun locks fail that standard.
Yeah, I'm not going to escape a building with an active shooter to retrieve a gun and go back in. If I know I need it and it's in my car, it might as well be at home. And keeping it in the car is just asking for trouble from an officer, they seem to be easily spooked by such things. Fortunately, I'm white, so I'll probably get the benefit of the doubt, but it's just not something I'm interested in testing.
But if there was an incident in my office, I'd be screwed. There are three exits:
So basically, my options aren't great. Yet I still think I'm net better off not carrying.
As a kid who notoriously defeated locks and found hidden items: good luck. My parents didn't have guns to find but my uncle taught me about them when I was like 10 so tbh they were never really some mystical artifact to play with to me, I'd already shot a few, knew how to use them safely and not to do so without an adult, etc. Conversely nobody educated me about alcohol instead figuring locks would work, hehe. Surprise!
No lol you said work banned them, so people who work there and carry outside of work (maybe they have a life [sorry lol you seem cool but it was too perfect]) have to leave their gun in the car and put it in their pants at 5:00, so, were you to carry, you'd have to also do that. That is what I meant. Problem being, that rule makes for a good scenario for a gun thief. If there were an active shooter and you get out, fuck your coworkers that's their problem, take your gun and go home (unless you wanted to help them because you like them or they're humans or something, point being you aren't obligated to.) As for cops, if you are following the laws (and yeah white helps, but that is another issue that needs to be fixed) they actually seem to think you're on their side because "gun and following laws," oddly they started treating me with some semblance of respect, it was kinda weird.
Exactly ideal tbh, egress and alarm with one action? AND close? Sounds great.
Also a likely point of entry for the shooter, definitely terrible.
Kinda having trouble visualizing this but it doesn't sound great, best bet is the emergency or shelter in place, but SIP is hampered by lack of last ditch weapon. I'd push it out that door.
Yeah I'd agree, simply since it'd be illegal. Functionally, even if I'm heading for that exit or sheltering, I'd rather have a hail mary even if some situations are a Kobyashi Maru, but since it would be illegal to have in the gun free zone, you don't have a choice anyway.
I watch LockPickingLawyer on YouTube, and it seems every gun lock/safe has some gaping security issue, and many that I see at stores that haven't been covered look like they'd have similar issues.
So until I find something that LPL would approve for use around kids, I'm not buying a handgun.
That said, I'll probably get a small rifle soon (probably 22lr) that I can store in the attic. My kids could find it, it would take a lot of effort and it isn't that interesting. I mostly want it to teach my kids to shoot "real" guns (they've shot BB guns) and maybe go hunt some rabbits. I may also get a 22lr pistol, but that's a bit higher on the "cool" factor and thus higher risk.
If I find a lock that I can trust, I might pick up a 9mm or .357 for personal use. I've taken my wife shooting, and she really liked it, so I'd like to take her out to fed land and shoot sometimes. If I did, I'd get a CCW (unnecessary in my state, but necessary for travel) and carry sometimes when I go out to get comfortable with it. But the lock comes first.
Our muster point for most emergencies is right out front of our building, in full view of the front doors and windows where the shooter is likely to be. Our active shooter muster point (blue light alarm) is across the street behind the building in a parking garage (can see from the rear balcony, but there's a place to hide).
If I trigger the fire alarm, people will go right into the shooter's path. If someone else pulls it (far more likely), I would go right out front into the shooter's path. The alarm would also increase the shooter's stress level, which could be the difference between them shooting and not.
It's an office building built into a hill. The front is ground level and the rear has a ledge/balcony about 2 floors above the rear ground level that runs the length of the building in either direction. One side of the building has a parking garage, and the other has the truck loading zone down one level. Here's some crappy ASCII art (top is front, I work bottom right, t is truck loading, p is parking garage, XX is building, and | and - are the railing).
I work near the parking garage, and the no-alarm exit is ~2/3 of the way across the building toward the truck loading zone. From there, I can either run back to the parking garage (lots of windows), or toward the truck loading zone (some windows, drop onto cement).
It's not a gun free zone, it's merely against company policy and probably landlord policy. There is no posted signage, but I did need to sign something when I started acknowledging that I understand the rules. So violation wouldn't result in a criminal case, but it could result in my termination and/or official trespass order.
It's possible some people here carry (constitutional carry state), but given company policy, that number is probably pretty low. I would certainly risk violating that rule if I believed there was an elevated risk, like we fired someone over culture fit reasons (I'd probably just WFH honestly), otherwise I'd comply.
Yeah he's the best, and you're right. Be careful btw, .22lr is just as deadly as any other caliber and is also still pretty cool for someone sheltered away from them, that teaching and hunting will likely be more effective and remove the mystery.
Ah yeah that puts a damper on the alarm for sure lol.
Oh ok I can see it now.
And well good there's no posted signage, likely (depending on state) that means their ban has no teeth and is only actionable by firing which of course still sucks but it's better than dying. Hell, you're lucky you can WFH, I'd just do that as often as possible anyway haha.
Yup, WFH is great. Company policy is 3 days in office, but we're discussing for our department to go back to 2. We also have a department culture of WFH being viable with even a small excuse (e.g. waiting for an important package is sufficient), so something like "I don't feel safe because worker X got fired" would absolutely be acceptable.
And yeah, I know .22lr is deadly, but it has low enough recoil that I can teach even young kids to use it (three under 10), and basic gun safety should be enough to keep it from becoming lethal (don't look down the barrel, don't point at people, etc). Our family gun rules will be very simple: if you touch the gun without permission, you lose shooting privileges. And even if I store it in the attic (they'd need to move a heavy ladder to get to it), I'll keep it secured with a trigger lock and only store ammo separately in a safe (not very secure, but better than nothing).
One day I hope to carry a handgun because I want to be prepared. But preparedness is more than personal safety, it also includes safety for my job and kids. So either the gun would always be with me (impractical), I need to trust my kids (I don't), or it needs to be secure (haven't found a lock I trust). Maybe in a few years.
It’s deflective rhetoric so they don’t have to address the truth:
We don’t know who is going to make a bad decision with their gun until after they do it.
Yeah, my coworkers said how great it would have been after the Colorado movie theater shooting (Batman movie) if everyone was armed. They just knew the original shooter would have been killed right away.
So,
Who in their right mind thinks basically everyone wouldn't have been mowed down in a hail of gun fire?
It's either that, or the people with guns are afraid to use them when the time comes and they hesitate too long to do any good.
They picture it pretty much how it went down here:
Personally, I would just prefer to have a pistol in hand if I ended up in the last part of 'run, hide, fight'.
Yeah they picture it as a very specific scenario with one mass shooter and one retaliatory shooter. Any more than one retaliatory shooter and it all falls apart as OP described though lol.
Well if there is one thing a chaotic and violent situation needs is more guns.
"There are no good guys with guns."
also
"Cops are useless."
You see, this is why nobody takes sentiments like yours seriously. If you can't defend yourself, and don't have others to protect you, then you'll always be at the mercy of whoever is the strongest.
Something tells me all the 'guns and cops are bad' people don't know how to fight.
I've been looking at your other comments and have some things to say.
Clearly your your out of your mind defending cops on Lemmy.world, for real when is calling the cops ever not put you the caller in a new type of danger? Fools with guns is bad regardless of the context and I for one cannot trust someone I have never met, especially the armed paramilitary we call police here in America.
Nice 'something tells me comment, always makes someone's comments feel real sincere.
Most people can't defend themselves, that's reality. I'm actually pro gun but anti-idiot, and most people are idiots and that deeply complicates your arguments.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk, I'm not a professional nor frankly good at most things, if you have problems with my arguments please, comment it don't save it to yourself.
Lol. Clearly you're just upset someone isn't a part of the ACAB bandwagon.
Gonna block you now.
I don't even know what that is lol.
All cops are bastards, he's arguing you're anti police.
Im anti shitty cop and by your comments so are you, dudes the worst kind of low effort troll.
ACAB - All Cops Are Bad
OP is still a tool.
Gonna block you now.
👍
Nice, you can't form an argument so you take your ball and run away. You're a child, go back to timeout and let the grownups talk.
Really? Do you think everyone on the internet is worth arguing with?
Lol, the irony. Gonna block you too, bud. Make sure you respond to everyone, though!
Way to prove you're a child and I'm amazed you needed an edit to come up tm with that absolute gem of a comment.
If you think the cops are actually going to protect you if shit goes down, you're naive as fuck. They're not even obligated to do so.
Yeah. That's why you should have a gun to protect yourself.
Until you become the shooter yourself.
Does that happen to everyone?
Every mentally unstable person with a gun I supposed.
I don’t recall saying cops are useless. Are you sure you’re replying to the right person?
The police do illustrate over and over again that even trained professionals make bad decisions when issued guns. And of course the solution isn’t to escalate things by raising the threat of officers being shot, but instead in finding ways to have less people with guns, so police aren’t on alert all the time and aren’t as tempted to use their guns as their only solution.
As a thought experiment: If we gave every adult in the world access to fire the entire planet’s nuclear payload and destroy everyone, do you think we’d all be safer? Would the world even last 5 minutes?
The more people you give access to deadly weapons, the more likely you are going to run into someone who is stupid, impulsive, or downright crazy and is going to use that weapon to harm themselves or others.
I got pulled over for not seeing a stop sign at night in a bad neighborhood. I remember the young cop watching my hands with the flashlight and the light was shaking slightly while I searched for my registration.
That was not an enjoyable experience for me or him and it shouldn't have to be anything except mildly annoying. He shouldn't be thinking that I am ready to kill him and I shouldn't be worried that he will make a mistake and me getting shot.
I think you're asking the wrong questions.
You should be asking if society is safer if people have guns than if they don't. Of course, answering this isn't so simple because which society matters.
Uh, this has already been answered. Every developed nation with strict gun control is safer.
Lots of rural America is still very underdeveloped. The only protection these people have from threats is the protection they can provide themselves.
This is what I mean by 'which society matters.' There are many differences between nations than just their gun laws.
I think you're confusing "rural America" with a movie called "Mad Max".
Which would have been safer without guns.
In any case, it sounds like what you mean to say is "the lawless hellscapes of the USA need to be civilized by an accountable organisation of some kind", not "guns fix everything, hyuck".
No, I'm not.
I think you are inexperienced with life outside of major cities.
Society is never safer with guns, and the more society you have the fewer guns you need.
If you live in barbarism, sure, you might need a gun, but barbarism is antithetical to a healthy society.
I don't think cops are useless, I think they are a flawed institution that we as a society can fix by reforms. And I don't even see the big deal in this, nothing is perfect, everything can be made better or more appropriate for the situation. Long run it would be better for police unions to agree to some changes in training, scope, and methods because it would restore and gain more public trust. And the public will benefit as well.