[toomuchtodo]

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.

[komali2]

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]

> 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

> 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]

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]

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?

[banned1]

"The community is better at self defense than the individual." - Not sure what this means. My own experience comes from someone abusing someone at a bus. Nobody intervenes. Just a bunch of sheep until I have to say "Stop it". So while the community may be better defending, they don't, and it is up to the individual to secure his / her own protection.

If my family was murdered while I was out, then by definition I cannot defend them. The law system will take care of it presumably, but that is not "defense", it is post-fact "justice."

Unclear what your mutually destruction comment was.

[komali2]

In your first example - why aren't there more assaults on buses? Why wasn't there a gang member on the bus demanding a secondary fare or "protection fee"? Because your taxes pay for a local police department and a federal policing force. I'm not talking about "bystander effect" here, I'm talking about government resources designed to protect the population at whole. Isolated incidents will still happen. The Law, and Government, is about doing as much good as possible.

Your family is de-facto defended from murder because it is harder to commit murder and get away with it when the FBI exists, generating criminal investigation resources and distributing them among local police detectives. Your taxes pay for this and are protecting you right now. The very existence of a justice system is preventing crime. Not all crime, obviously, but a great deal. The remainder is more a socioeconomic failure of this country than a justice system failure (or, a justice system failure in that the war on drugs is policy failure enforced by the justice system).

Mutually assured destruction is more a macro-comment. Why aren't hordes of Russian barbarians coming over the hill? Because the US exerts its sovereignty within its borders. Why doesn't an organized community (government) challenge that? Because both communities would be vaporized.

Since we're on the subject, your taxes are a much cheaper way to get clean water, medicine that you are guaranteed actually contains the active ingredients you're looking for, food that won't poison you, and ensure that the city upriver doesn't dump toxic waste into the river. If you wanted to "take care of those problems yourself," you'd be running around like a headless chicken. Communitize, instead.

[thedirt0115]

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

[aianus]

> 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]

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.

[chrisallenlane]

> 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]

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).

[aianus]

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.

[DoreenMichele]

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.

[naasking]

> 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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[FireBeyond]

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]

Can you imagine the deaths of innocent people by crossfire?

[SomeDudeInKy]

Couldn’t be worse than the police