[Special_K]

O.K. So I just got done with the national protest for conceal and carry on college campuses.

There was ONE argument that I could give no real good answer to and this was it:

Friend:"What if a person had a firearm with a conceal and carry permit and something like Virginia Tech happened?"
Me: "What do you mean?"
Friend:"What if there was a gunman in a crowd shooting and you decided to use your pistol?"
Friend:"What happens if you use your pistol and miss, what happens to the people around the gunman?"
Me: "The only good response I have to that is that the person conceal and carrying will be accurate and calm enough to make sure he/she doesn't miss their target."



Now to me, that is a terrible argument. How do you argue that accidental crowd shooting if you are trying to defend yourself in that type of situation?

[Mannix]

Would your friend rather the gunman be the only one armed?!?!?

If the carry permit holder could at least have a chance to stop the gunman, even if it comes with the risk of hurting an innocent bystander, I think it would be preferable to just letting the gunman continue his killing spree unchallenged.

[ClickClickD'oh]

An errant shot on the part of an armed individual might injure or kill another bystander. An undeterred psycopath on a killing rampage will surely get more than that.

[Special_K]

An errant shot on the part of an armed individual might injure or kill another bystander. An undeterred psycopath on a killing rampage will surely get more than that.

Duh. . . how come I didn't think about that?

[plexreticle]

It's a stupid hypothetical argument. Why worry about accidental shooting when someone is mowing down unarmed students?

[up_onus]

well, i would say GUESS (as i have never been or seen a situation like that), there certainly wouldnt be a "crowd" for very long. Another thought on that situation....

Could you live with yourself knowing you killed an innocent bystander?

[Hands of blue]

"What if there was a gunman in a crowd shooting "

I am no expert on shooting but when a killer starts killing people I would think any crowd would disappear as most people are not going to stand around waiting to get shot.

[Eagle103]

I'm having trouble envisioning such a situation. That a "gunman" is surrounded by so many people that an errant shot may hit someone just sounds implausible. People would most likely be fleeing the scene if possible, just as you should do, or taking some sort of cover. Victims aren't going to be standing next to the shooter. Even in a close quarters situation where fleeing isn't an option I would think the gunman would be standing while everyone else is probably on the ground. Also, if you're cornered and are forced to defend yourself it would probably be a relatively close shot.
Remember, your job as a concealed carry holder isn't to play swat officer. It's not incumbent on you to take measures to protect others if you aren't in danger yourself.

[CoRoMo]

What if this, what if that?

We know what happens when there are no guns allowed. We create a killing field.

It's time we find out what happens when all Americans are allowed to defend themselves.

[Robert Hairless]

Your friend has an excellent argument. Someone with a concealed carry permit at Virginia Tech who shot at the gunman and missed might have killed an innocent bystander. That would have been awful. It's much better to avoid that risk and let 32 people be murdered by the gunman at Virginia Tech than to take the chance of hurting anyone by accident. Lunatic gunmen determined to be mass murderers are much safer than concealed weapons permit holders: the lunatic gunmen are better shots and more trustworthy too.

Take, for example, one of CNN's current heroes: "Zach Petkewicz's quick thinking during the Virginia Tech shooting spree probably saved lives," is what CNN says about him. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/specials/2007/05/11/heroes.zach.petkewicz.cnn)

Zach is a hero who helped barricade his classroom door when Cho tried entering to shoot everyone there. So Zach probably did save those lives.

What Cho did, though, was go on to other classrooms and shoot people there. Zach didn't save their lives, and it probably didn't matter to Cho whose lives he took. The reason why Cho was more trustworthy at Virginia Tech than any concealed weapons permit holder is that Cho could be trusted to kill as many people as possible but CWP holders aren't trusted to have judgment and skill. That's why they go to Virginia Tech: because they don't know anything.

It would have been absolutely awful if Zach had a concealed weapons permit and Virginia Tech didn't prohibit him from carrying a self defense weapon. In that case instead of barricading that classroom door Zach might have shot Cho and stopped him from killing the other people. And since Cho was already outside the door killing everyone he saw there, there probably wasn't any innocent person for Zach to kill if he shot at Cho and missed. But that's just reality. The important thing, as your friend points out, is that Zach might have missed Cho. Then Zach might have thrown down his hypothetical gun in anger, stamped his foot, and said "Shucksamighty Sarah Brady and Nancy Pelosi!"--or he might have used his brain and taken another shot at Cho and stopped him from killing anyone else.

But as your friend argues, it's much better for 32 people to have been murdered than to risk having one shot by accident. It's why the police never shoot at anyone (they carry toy guns) or if they do shoot they never miss (they use guided missiles that never fail) or your friend is a brainless idiot who knows nothing except how to flap his mouth.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. With that one qualification your friend could become the next president of Virginia Tech and many other colleges and universities in this country. He's a thinker.

[Warren]

Robert wins the thread.

[DMK]

Not arguing the excellent points made here at all, I agree completely, but ponder this for a moment.

Say someone(non-LEO) at VA tech did shoot the deranged maniac. He empties his gun, dropping attacker and stopping the slaughter at just 5 victims. However, one shot misses, overpenetrates, whatever and hits a fleeing student who just happened to run away in panic at the very wrong time and place (yea, freak accident for sure). The student is mortally wounded and dies later.

Now, because this is an alternate reality or whatever, 32 students were not killed and the media and public would never imagine that could happen (they certainly didn't before it happened). All they know is this guy shot five people and one was accidentally shot by a CCW holder. Imagine the negative media spin that would bring. You'd probably read some BS about how he was done with his spree and was about to give himself up or some other excrement.

Now, is that an argument against CCW? No, not in my opinion. However, it would be a RKBA publicity S-storm. Again, not that avoiding that would be worth the lives of 26 people. Just painting the political reality of the situation.

[jlbraun]

32 students were not killed and the media and public would never have imagined that could happen (they certainly didn't before it happened). All they know is this guy shot five people and one was shot by a CCW holder. Imagine the negative publicity that would bring.

But now the media DOES know that could happen. From now on, EVERY mass shooting stopped by a CCW holder has "prevented 32 deaths", no matter what. Even if the CCWer puts down the attacker and no one else dies, that's "32 deaths prevented". In DMK's scenario, that means 26 deaths prevented.

[AndyC]

Say someone(non-LEO) at VA tech did shoot the deranged maniac. He empties his gun, dropping attacker and stopping the slaughter at just 5 victims. However, one shot misses, overpenetrates, whatever and hits a fleeing student who just happened to run away in panic at the very wrong time and place (yea, freak accident for sure). The student is mortally wounded and dies later.
That's the responsibility you take onto your shoulders if you decide to get involved; you're completely accountable for every bullet that you fire.

A good argument for advanced training, no?

[Guitargod1985]

I think Robert's point about the Police missing their target and inadvertently hitting another is an excellent one. I offers a simple rebuttal to such a ludicrous argument.

I don't remember the exact statistic, but I do recall that CWL holders have a lower incidence of hitting an unintended target than police do.

[ProficientRifleman]

Friend:"What if there was a gunman in a crowd shooting and you decided to use your pistol?"
Friend:"What happens if you use your pistol and miss, what happens to the people around the gunman?"

I asked the question in EMT school, as we were discussing heart attacks and flail chests and such...

"What If I...and the patient sufers more harm than when I started?"

The reply from my instructor was..."You can't kill him any deader than he already is."

Your response should have been...

"What if YOU are in the mad gunman's sights? Would you rather have a friend at hand? A friend who you KNEW was armed and capable with his weaponry? Or would YOU be content to just sit there and die while WAITING for your benevolent government servants to arrive?

[yesit'sloaded]

Most self defense shootings happen at ranges of 10 yards or less. A classroom is usually no bigger than this if that large. Most people can make a body shot at 10 yards. A COM hit at that range is almost too easy with most guns. Even under stress a COM hit is not hard. Even more reason to do IPSC.

[SDC]

The answer is that an ordinary citizen who goes through the trouble and expense of obtaining a CCW permit is, in fact, LESS likely to shoot someone by accident than THE POLICE are.

[Old Fuff]

This particular argument comes from liberal Progressives who firmly believe that only authority figures such as police officers or (maybe) someone in the military can possibly be capable and competent enough to handle firearms. The rest of us; be we anything from airline pilots to university students or staff are (or must be) complete dubs, who in any sort of shooting will certainly hit the wrong person. Otherwise their belief falls apart.

So I suggest you invite them to visit a shooting range with you. There they will see “ordinary people” shooting guns and hitting what they are shooting at. Some of them might actually be women.... :what:

Reel out a target, (distance doesn’t matter) and shoot out the center. Reel it back and hand it to your now dumbfounded guest. Then ask him/her if they’d like to try... :evil:

[Fletchette]

The danger of hurting or killing someone by accidentally shooting an innocent person pales in comparison to just letting the murderer keep on shooting. If it didn't, why would the police carry guns?

The anti-gun crowd loves to argue from the extreme (if keeping an arm is an individual right, should people be allowed to own nukes?).

The rebuttal to this arguement is to argue that the citizenry needs to have access to the same weapons the police and criminals have, since the citizenry have a right and a duty to ensure the security of a free state. The criminals in society are the same criminals the police have to deal with, so if the police need machine guns, so do the citizenry. If the police do not need nukes, then nukes can be restricted, etc, etc.

[esq_stu]

If it's any consolation, when a good guy gets shot by another good guy in the course of stopping a bad guy, the bad guy is charged with the murder. It's called the Felony Murder Rule - any death that that occurs in connection with the commission or attempt to commit certain felonies is blamed on the person committing those felonies, even if the felon did not pull the trigger.

[george_co]

This is a very real question and it is a question that everybody who carries a gun must consider, and which every adult should consider.

Since I haven't been a student for a very long time, I won't likely face that scenario, but my personal nightmare is the food court at a mall. I am there with my family and a madman (woman) begins shooting people, what do I do?

I grab my family and take them to safety and wish everyone else in the mall good luck, but you aren't my responsibility. Or,

Do I take out my pistol, knowing full well that I could miss or the bullet could go through the bad guy and hit someone behind them.

As a father my greatest fear in a case like this is not what the courts would do, but what would I tell the mother, father, or other loved one of the person I hit accidently? My conclusion is that I would ask their forgiveness, but say that if I had failed to take the shot more would have died than would have been saved by not taking the shot.

If you are a Star Trek fan it is the Spock question (slightly paraphrased): Does the safety of the many outweigh the safety of the few? Or, do you sacrifice the many to save the one? It would be a good question for an ethics & morals class.

Perhaps you should ask them your own question? If you were at VT and Cho was in the classroom with you and had just shot three people, and you had a device (doesn't have to be a gun) that would stop the attack, but by using it you would kill Cho and one other other person would you be morally right to not use it and condemning 29 other people to death? Why or Why Not?

In my own case I have developed my own answer, yes I will intervene if at all feasible. While I may be haunted by hurting or killing someone I didn't intend too, I would certainly be haunted by the 29 I could have saved. I just pray that I never have to step up to the plate and take a swing at this particular pitch.

These are the kind of moral questions that the sheep hire the police to make, and take the responsibility for, and then scream at them for whatever decision they do make.

George

[FieroCDSP]

I don't remember the exact statistic, but I do recall that CWL holders have a lower incidence of hitting an unintended target than police do.

Statisticly, cops go looking for trouble. Since their job is to find and stop/neutralize said trouble, police naturally have a higher draw probability. It has been reduced quite a bit since less and non-lethal methods have come about, but almost every officer will be forced to draw his gun, and some of those result in shoots. So many cops, so many days, there's going to be a miss, and maybe an innocent killed.
How often do carry permit holders have to draw on someone? How many of those result in shoots?

I think the biggest lesson we can take from VT is the same damn lesson we said we've taken from Flight 93. "We will not be victims. We will decide our own futures."
Well, I guess the American memory IS really that bad. If we can look at the graves of 32 innocents killed by a nut, see the lack of police or security response (not their fault, they're only human, they can't read minds or be everywhere), and still think that preventing everyone from being able to do anything about a gunman is the best way to make everyone safer, then honestly, maybe we deserve, as a society, to have tragedies happen every few years. Maybe that's out of line, but I can't think of any more accurate way of saying it.
Our biggest flaw as a country is that we refuse to see what is around us. An entire religion based around killing everyone who is not of their exact beliefs, crime of epidemic proportions in places where the cops are the only ones allowed to protect themselves, and we sit here, as a nation, and ignore all of it so we can watch some no-tallent singers try to make it big on TV.

Forgive my rant, and I know I'm preaching to the choir. There has got to be some way of making the blind see. :banghead:

[Robert Hairless]

George_co, DMK, and all, I appreciate this discussion.

What's being demonstrated in this thread is the complexity of issues generated by a real deadly force situation, the utter failure of Virginia Tech's (and other colleges') simplistic approach to such situations, and the careful thought everyone here gives to the responsibilities assumed by people who carry a concealed weapon. This is not the caricature of gun owners depicted by the Brady Campaign or imagined by people who are uncomfortable around them. There are no cowboys or ninjas here.

Please take a minute to view the video I noted of Zack Petkewicz talking about his experiences (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/specials/2007/05/11/heroes.zach.petkewicz.cnn). The young man breaks down at the end. I think it's obvious that he is conflicted by confronting these same issues we've been discussing. Zack did help save his own life and the lives of other people in his classroom. That's undeniable. But so is his obvious heartfelt sense of frustration and grief that he could do no more than keep the madman from murdering those in that one classroom. Zack couldn't prevent Cho from continuing on his way to murder others because Virginia Tech denied everyone that possibility by depriving them all of the means to overcome the disparity of force there and then. (I don't think that someone is a hero because he has saved his own life and coincidentally saved the lives of others. It strikes me that Zack doesn't think so either.)

That's what we're all circling around in frustration: the essential immorality of depriving even tested and proven people of the means to level the playing field in a deadly force situation. Virginia Tech and other colleges--and, for that matter, employers and property owners and businesses too--deny everyone a last best chance to survive. It is foolish to assert that Cho would have been stopped dead by the first Concealed Weapons Permit holder he encountered. No one can know that. We all are talking about possibility, and it is indeed frustrating to confront educational institutions that are supposed to open or create possibilities but close the most vital possibility.

Did you know that Virginia Tech posthumously awarded degrees to all the murdered students (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6647509.stm)? It's true. What an obscene gesture that was. Virginia Tech made it impossible for all of those students to survive. The posthumous degrees are of no use to them because their deaths ended all their possibilities. It is Virginia Tech's final insult to those dead young people it sent to their graves.

The decision to take the life of another human being, under any situation, isn't easy and shouldn't be made lightly. It must be especially difficult in the midst of chaos such as prevailed at Virginia Tech when Cho went on his rampage, and must be horribly difficult when there is any possible risk to other people. What's striking about this discussion is that everyone here has thought about those issues from various points of view and recognized their complexity.

There's no way to know in advance what any rational, responsible Concealed Weapons Permit holder would have done at Virginia Tech or would do in another such situation. The reason, I believe, is that holders of Concealed Weapons Permits tend to be a fairly carefully selected subset of the general population. Filtered out are the very young and likely most immature people, all people who have been convicted of felonies or who have debilitating mental or emotional illness, people who are active alcoholics and abusers of other drugs, and so on--all the factors that we know disqualify people from obtaining a Concealed Weapons Permit. No one should argue that permit holders are saints, but it should be clear that they most certainly are not devils, irresponsible demons, or witless imps.

This discussion is evidence that permit holders tend to be thoughtful people who are especially mindful of their exceptional responsibilities.

I doubt that many of Virginia Tech's administrators, faculty, and other employees have had their backgrounds scrutinized as carefully and their lives monitored as continuously as any of the people here--the people they have judged and found wanting. Please resist the temptation to argue that the background checks and monitoring aren't stringent. Gun owners tend to blow them away as insignificant. But they aren't at all insignificant and they are much greater testimony to a person's character than the hiring practices at universities. A permit holder who comes to be known as an alcoholic, a drug abuser, or even an habitually unsafe driver will lose his permit immediately in the states I know. Not so an administrator, faculty member, or other university employee: at least some of us have seen faculty members go to class tipsy, smelling of alcohol, or with a readily-admitted hangover. None of us would tolerate anyone in that condition with a gun.

My guess is that what they fear is the projection of their own irresponsibility and lack of character on other people. Because they cannot control themselves and don't believe that they would behave responsibly, thoughtfully, and competently in a deadly force situation, they can't imagine that anyone with a Concealed Weapons Permit would behave any better. Theirs is a failure of the imagination, the intellect, and the character.

In the end they are pathetic creatures who nevertheless exercise far too much control over the lives of other people. That's the problem, and it extends into many other areas of academia as well. For centuries an honored institution, higher education has fallen to the point at which it is an embarrassment and has earned contempt. Its attitudes towards firearms are perhaps the smallest of its sins. It has stopped being a life giving and life enhancing force.

[Regolith]

Robert: well said.

[Phil DeGraves]

You don't take the shot unless you can make the shot. Remember the 4 rules of firearms safety. All guns are loaded. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot. Don't point at anything you are not willing to see destroyed. Be sure of your backstop and beyond.
Certainly, an exigency might (might) change your priorities; if someone is about to die, you may fudge a little on the rules to distract the shooter, and innocents sometimes get killed (though rarely) by bullets intended for the BG. But the situation as presented is akin to doing without electricity for fear of being electrocuted, or not learning how to swim because you are afraid to get wet.

[Phil Lee]

I'm not qualified to discuss the issue, but since no one has mentioned it, there is an issue of legal liability in the scenario suggested. Even police departments get sued for shooting innocent bystanders.

That said, Cho killed as many as he did because he returned to shoot them more than once. It is possible that all 32 victims might have been saved by a person able to shoot back before that return was possible.

In any case, having a firearm opens the door to possibilities for defense. If you think it too risky to take a shot, you can always choose to die rather than shoot. Without the firearm, you may not have any choice in the matter.

[obxned]

So I guess it would be better to let the phycho keep killing people until the police arrive, formulate a plan, and finally storm the building with automatic weapons, or just wait until he has killed so many innocent people that he runs out of ammo.

The kind of thinking I see coming out of institutions of higher education makes me wonder what it is they use to get 'high'!

[Creature]

I would rather die from being accidentally shot by a well-intentioned CCW'er trying to end a massacre than being gunned down by a maniac. In fact, I would EXPECT the CCW'er to draw and fire on the maniac if I was in that crowd of people being massacred.

While I would hope he/she has the wherewithal to get the job done with little to no collateral damage, but if there was some collateral damage, and I was part of that damage, I would not have any hard feelings toward him/her.

I certainly would not allow my family to file a civil suit for damages against the CCW'er if I had anything to do with it.

[george_co]

Special_K - So now that you have read all of the responses, what are your thoughts on the subject?

[ReadyontheRight]

Should you avoid driving your car because you might hit somebody?

It's statistically more likely to happen than shooting an innocent bystander.

[adobewalls]

+1 Felony Murder Rule

[Deacon Blues]

Seems like an easy one to me. An armed individual, attempting to stop a single attacker, is a much smaller risk to the people around him than the assailant. Besides, the fleeing crowd might just as easily tramble someone or push them into the line of fire. Who is really more dangerous: the man who has prepared himself for the situation, or the man who has nothing to do but panic and flee?

[wheelgunslinger]

+2 Felony murder

The whack job would be charged with the accidental death your gun caused from defending yourself against his felonius rampage.

And, you would have done the right thing by saving lives. And, you would relive that shot for the rest of your life, probably every time you blinked or tried to sleep.

[MiddleAgedKen]

You don't take the shot unless you can make the shot. Remember the 4 rules of firearms safety. All guns are loaded. Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot. Don't point at anything you are not willing to see destroyed. Be sure of your backstop and beyond.
Certainly, an exigency might (might) change your priorities; if someone is about to die, you may fudge a little on the rules to distract the shooter, and innocents sometimes get killed (though rarely) by bullets intended for the BG. But the situation as presented is akin to doing without electricity for fear of being electrocuted, or not learning how to swim because you are afraid to get wet.

Plus 'leventeen, especially the first paragraph. Your self-knowledge of your ability (skill/training/mindset) plus the Four Rules will guide you. Actually, it wouldn't be any bad thing to slip the Four Rules into any gun conversation with an anti, at an appropriate time.

Anti: "You guys think you can just blaze away like Dirty Harry and be a big hero..."

Us (smiling): "Actually, you'd be surprised. Practically the first thing anyone learns when he or she takes up the shooting sports is the Four Rules:

"Treat every gun as though it's loaded at all times.
"Never put your finger inside the trigger guard unless you're ready to shoot.
"Never point the muzzle at anything you're not willing to destroy.
"Be sure of your target and what's beyond it...."

[Deanimator]

Been there, done that.

When some twit worries about people being ACCIDENTALLY shot when somebody stops a mass shooting, I say something to the effect of:

"So what you're saying is that you prefer the CERTAINTY of being murdered by a killer than the CHANCE of being wounded by the person who stops him?"

[Funderb]

All I see is that, once some person pulls out a gun and intends to shoot up the joint, as t were, there will probably be very little crowd around them very fast. So if you are concerned about accuracy, close the distance as much as possible, then fire.

[BigO01]

While on the surface it is an interesting question if you look a little deeper into the facts of these shootings you will see it is implausible at best .

If anyone has paid attention all of these shootings have occurred as we all know 1 in a gun free environment with nothing but helpless victims yes but look a little deeper .

They have all occurred during class hours not in between classes in the halls with students everywhere .

Why ?

Simple the shooters want to completely control the situation and as is the case with most cowards prevent a risk to themselves despite the fact they maybe planning on killing themselves in the end .

There is a huge difference between swiftly ending ones life and being wounded in a gunfight with the police or an armed citizen and even more so of opening fire in a crowded hallway and having a very real risk of being blindsided or attacked from behind and having the living daylights beaten out of you and having to go through the humiliation of a trial and then live in prison .

You notice they always pick a typical academic class in session with perhaps 30-40 and not say a high school P.E class with maybe 100 kids . For one the normal class has females who are more prone to panic and simply freeze vs an all male class with teenage boys full of testosterone who could very well rush a shooter and beat them to death .

When you enter a room and open fire you leave your intended victims with three choices , Run , Hide , or Confront the threat the vast majority will run or hide even if running means jumping out of a window and hiding means you may be found and shot as they see that as a less chance than being shot trying to be a hero rushing the shooter .

A legally Armed student in the typical school shooting wont be faced with this problem as the shooter wont be surrounded by classmates but will station himself alone blocking the door to prevent escape . When the shooting starts the average response will be for students to attempt to use tables as cover and will be on the floor well out of the way of any return fire and as classes will be in progress the chances of a student being in the hall and in the line of his fire will be almost nonexistent .

They all also know the typical response is for the school to go into lock down mode which only aids them in their killing spree .

[JKimball]

It's a stupid hypothetical argument. Why worry about accidental shooting when someone is mowing down unarmed students?


I can appreciate your intent to end the attack as fast as possible, but the anti's argument is a valid concern. Students carrying concealed weapons is not a perfect solution to the problem, but it is a good starting point.

If you're going to CCW you should consider the hypotheticals and be practiced and determined to take a clear shot. That doesn't mean you sit there and wait for it to be clear, but you can use your feet to get to a clear line of fire, or kneel down so the line of fire goes over people behind the attacker. Even then there might be an "accident." But it is worth worrying about IMO.

IDPA and other handgun competitions that intersperse "non threat" targets with the "hostile" targets are not only good practice, but good proof that even concealed carriers routinely blast holes right through the non-threats. I'm not saying they all do, but many are literally more concerned about being fast than they are about hitting the non-threats. (Ironically, the penalty for hitting a non-threat usually puts them out of the running for being the fastest.) And of course, some take their time being determined not to hit the non threat, but they still do because they haven't mastered the accuracy of their handgun. I've watched people methodically pump round after round into a non-threat while trying to hit the hostile target. Painful! I can only imagine how bad it would be under the stress of a real attack. The first time I hit a non-threat it was actually disturbing to me and I made it my top priortity on any stage to never let that happen again.

[jeaves726]

knowing full well that I could miss or the bullet could go through the bad guy and hit someone behind them.

not to get off subject, but this always alarms me...

you (and all) carry hollow points in your weapon...right? Is anyone carrying carrying standard rounds?

[joab]

Is anyone carrying carrying standard rounds?Many do
Start a thread on it and you will get many reasons


Simple answer to the first question

Sometimes it's better to do something wrong than to do nothing right

Miss your shot at the BG or shoot through him you may injure or kill an innocent
Do nothing and you can watch as he injures and kills more innocents

Gonna be hard to live with either action, but there is a better chance that more people will be left alive if you take the shot

[Sistema1927]

Just tell them that we don't live in "Nerf World". Everything in life has its risks.

[JohnKSa]

I've never understood why people are so willing to accept that a well-meaning, law-abiding person with a gun is more dangerous to bystanders than a criminal who is intent on murdering those very same bystanders.

It's gotten so bad that I think that some gun-owners actually believe this about themselves.

[damagefactor]

I had to come out of the shadows and register after seeing this question.

At least in my state, (Wisconsin) we have what is known as the "Greater Danger Theory".

Basically, if that individual is an active threat (and that definition is met by the criteria the original post offered) then you have a legal right to use deadly force. You may even have a legal obligation to, as you are capable of offering assitance. (let me stress, that a legal obligation to act doesn't free you of civil liability!)

In other words, failing to act will result in a higher chance of great bodily harm to others or yourself.

There really is no easy answer, and there is some legal precedent to act. In the end it will be situation dependent.

My answer to your friend: Just as every US citizen is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, every person with the right to carry should be considered competent in judgment until proven otherwise.

Concerning CCW at a campus - if they get a lick of federal or state aid, they should be required to abide by the letter of the law without pre-emption.

(I am not a lawyer nor am I giving legal advise, your specific state laws may differ. I am only giving insight based on training and experience.)

Edit: On the note of overpenetration, if you stopped the threat and there is no reasonable doubt further deaths would have resulted from not using deadly force - you will be fine in a criminal case against you. However if the round overpenetrates and damages another individual - call a lawyer. You will most likely win a civil case, but there is no law preventing tort in such a situation that I am aware of.

[Deavis]

My guess is that what they fear is the projection of their own irresponsibility and lack of character on other people. Because they cannot control themselves and don't believe that they would behave responsibly, thoughtfully, and competently in a deadly force situation, they can't imagine that anyone with a Concealed Weapons Permit would behave any better. Theirs is a failure of the imagination, the intellect, and the character.

bingo. This is one of the underlying currents in an anti's brain. They can't imagine themselves taking control of their own life and protecting it, how could you? They can't imagine shooting another human being, how could you? This is exactly the argument I ended up in with an anti a month ago.

"Are you telling me that if a burglar broke into your house, whipped out a weapon, and told you he was going to kill you that you would not want a gun to defend yourself?"

"That is right, I would rather die than take another person's life over my property."

"We aren't talking about your property, we are talking about your life. He is going to kill you and you won't stop him?"

"No, I could never do that. Could you?"

I'm not sure that someone who is actually willing to hand over their life so willingly is deserving of the vote that can pass laws to restrict my right to defend my own life. I told him he must not have much to live for and it was a shame he projected his own fears onto others.

[mmike87]

What happens to the people around the gunman? Nothing worse than was going to happen anyway.

Having armed citizens on the scene at least give people options other than hidind under a desk, which historically has not worked too well for too many people.

Your friend has a weak argument.

[American_Pit_Bull]

As others have stated, people do not usually huddle around someone that is killing at random. After a very brief period of time the gunman should make a very easy target since everyone else will be taking cover.

[jeepmor]

Robert, please write your representatives on this issue if you have not already. Your focus is keen, your point is well thought out and conveyed. Excellent work sir, just excellent.

[MrPeter]

If I was at VT during the shooting, and had the choice of killing Cho myself, and maybe injuring or killing an innocent before he took a single life, or letting him do his killing spree, then...

I would easily chose option A. If I couldn't defend myself successfully in court, at least I could sleep at night (even if in prison).

And that's that.