Good guy with a gun actually stops mass shooting.

[Nessie]

In the linked to news we learn that the shooter went into the restaurant, shot at three people injuring them. Meanwhile two diners went to their cars, got their guns and shot the shooter after he had left the restaurant. They are being hailed as heroes for stopping anything else bad from happening.

So, two guys with guns shot and killed another guy with a gun after he had stopped shooting at people.

 

[BStrong]

In the linked to news we learn that the shooter went into the restaurant, shot at three people injuring them. Meanwhile two diners went to their cars, got their guns and shot the shooter after he had left the restaurant. They are being hailed as heroes for stopping anything else bad from happening.

So, two guys with guns shot and killed another guy with a gun after he had stopped shooting at people.

None of us know what the criminal shooter intended at that moment - maybe going for a reload, maybe going for a bigger firearm or other additional firearms or an explosive device. The fact that they had already shot what would appear to be strangers in public is reason enough to suspect that the situation would degrade further.

In the US, an individual that has committed certain criminal acts with a weapon resulting in death or serious injury to a victim or victims is considered to be an immediate danger to the public at large.

Force, up to and including lethal force, can be used to restrain or stop that individual, by civilian or LE witnesses to the act.

This isn't some yahoo shooting a driver in a hit and run fender bender.

If the facts are as reported, this appears to be a good shoot.

 

[mgidm86]

In the linked to news we learn that the shooter went into the restaurant, shot at three people injuring them. Meanwhile two diners went to their cars, got their guns and shot the shooter after he had left the restaurant. They are being hailed as heroes for stopping anything else bad from happening.

So, two guys with guns shot and killed another guy with a gun after he had stopped shooting at people.

Works for me. But how could anyone know he really stopped? Maybe he went to grab another gun, or shoot different people outside.

And what is the time limit on this?

"Hey wait he stopped shooting!"
POW!
"Oh crap no he didn't, maybe that was his last shot, let me try and cuff him."

Maybe they confronted him and he pointed a gun at them. Me personally, I don't care if they shot him in the back. The bad guy is the bad guy here.

"Oh damn he went outside. It will take me 30 seconds to grab my gun and the time limit is only 15 - better just let him go."

 

[Nessie]

OK, so the argument is that anyone who shoots in public is fair game for summary execution. How long after the shooting does that apply? Say the shooter did not shoot anyone else for the next ten minutes? Are they still considered such a risk they can just be shot?

 

[BStrong]

OK, so the argument is that anyone who shoots in public is fair game for summary execution. How long after the shooting does that apply? Say the shooter did not shoot anyone else for the next ten minutes? Are they still considered such a risk they can just be shot?

Rule of So, but it's not any sort of "Summary Execution" under U.S. law, it's the stopping, by the use of force or otherwise, by a witness to the crime, of an individual or individuals that have injured or killed a victim, and before some wit throws this out, no, that doesn't entitle a "good guy with a gun" to fire on a uniformed police officer observed using force to stop a criminal suspect. If a witness yells "Boo!" at a shooter and they go TU at that moment, that's great, but most people in a shooting mood need some convincing to surrender or cease and desist. The law generally recognizes that fact

If an individual that was observed by a witness or witnesses, a member of the general public or LE, is encountered and refuses to submit to arrest or disarm force may be used to effect an arrest or to stop the individual in question. It's a valid use of force in the instance of the commission of he crime or in the immediate aftermath of the crime - but the longer the time between the commission of the act and the encounter between witnesses and the subject, the greater the need for a clear threat to be at hand for the use of lethal force.

There is no codified timeline for the use of lethal force in cases like this because of the simple reason that there hasn't been a raft of cases that fit the parameters.

 

[Nessie]

The title of the thread is;

"Good guy with a gun actually stops mass shooting"

that is wrong. The guys with the guns did not stop the mass shooting. It had already happened. It was also not a mass shooting by the usual definition.

It is then assumed the shooter is going to continue, but is there any evidence for that

1- in this case?
2- generally?

This is about creating and maintaining a myth that armed civilians make the USA safer. The thread does that just by its title and the news story by reporting the shooters as heroes.

Meanwhile, actual study finds;

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/right-to-carry-gun-violence/531297/

"The question of whether armed citizens deter violent crime or exacerbate it has been controversial in academia since at least the mid-1990s—not to mention the debate it continues to fuel in American politics. Conflicting studies have informed polarized lawmakers in the parallel battles over gun regulation....
In the roughly two decades since, additional academic studies have strongly suggested that the opposite is true: that these laws lead to higher rates of violent crime."

The thread title should be "Two civilians kill man after he shoots and injures three in restaurant"

 

[TheGoldcountry]

OK, so the argument is that anyone who shoots in public is fair game for summary execution. How long after the shooting does that apply? Say the shooter did not shoot anyone else for the next ten minutes? Are they still considered such a risk they can just be shot?

Unfair strawman. No one said he deserved to die. I am anti-gun, in general, but I have no problem with these actions. Standing by and doing nothing is also a choice. Maybe sometimes the right choice, but I don't fault these men for doing something in a situation I have never faced.

 

[Lothian]

Who cares, he shot up the place killing no one, he deserves to die. He may have learning difficulties, he may be acting under duress, with his family held hostage, it could be a film or prank. We really don't care about a fair trial when a passing member of the public can easily shoot the 'perp' in the back

 

[dann]

Works for me. But how could anyone know he really stopped?

How could anyone know that the two good guys with guns weren't going to on a rampage and shoot innocent people the next day?!

I know, it's not bloody likely that they would, but how can we know for sure, right?! How can we know what anybody with a gun is up to?

I think I'd better buy me a gun ...

 

[sadhatter]

How could anyone know that the two good guys with guns weren't going to on a rampage and shoot innocent people the next day?!

I know, it's not bloody likely that they would, but how can we know for sure, right?! How can we know what anybody with a gun is up to?

I think I'd better buy me a gun ...

Seems everyone involved didn't have too much trouble sorting things out. If you couldn't, that's on you.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

How could anyone know that the two good guys with guns weren't going to on a rampage and shoot innocent people the next day?!

I know, it's not bloody likely that they would, but how can we know for sure, right?! How can we know what anybody with a gun is up to?

I think I'd better buy me a gun ...

Rather silly argument. Someone randomly attacks another person, you defend him using your fists. How could anyone know that you weren't a violent rampage monster?

People make judgment calls every day in stress situations. You an argue that they made a mistake- but you can''t reduce it to the ridiculous sum of "nobody knows." Context matters.

If the argument is, NONE of them should have had a gun, fine, that's rational. Your argument wasn't.

 

[Meadmaker]

The title of the thread is;

"Good guy with a gun actually stops mass shooting"

that is wrong. The guys with the guns did not stop the mass shooting. It had already happened. It was also not a mass shooting by the usual definition.

At the time I wrote the thread title, news reports said four injured, which is the most common definition used of "mass shooting". It turns out one of those wasn't injured by gunfire.


I will admit that I am with the people who figure that there's no real problem with the civilians killing the shooter. Bummer. Sort of. But he's obviously dangerous. He still has a gun. They apparently even made some attempt to spare his life by demanding he drop the gun. Ok. Put an end to his miserable existence before he hurts someone else. I'm ok with that.

Does this incident demonstrate that more guns make us safer? I don't think so, but it does show that the situation is more complicated than "guns are bad".

ETA: On this board, I don't think there are many people who think, "Guns are bad", but that's because this board is populated, generally, by people more thoughtful than the average American. Among the general population, I think there are plenty of people who have such monolithic opinions.

 

[dann]

Seems everyone involved didn't have too much trouble sorting things out. If you couldn't, that's on you.

Rather silly argument. Someone randomly attacks another person, you defend him using your fists. How could anyone know that you weren't a violent rampage monster?

People make judgment calls every day in stress situations. You an argue that they made a mistake- but you can''t reduce it to the ridiculous sum of "nobody knows." Context matters.

If the argument is, NONE of them should have had a gun, fine, that's rational. Your argument wasn't.

Yes of course, it's a silly "nobody knows" argument. It was poking fun at a silly "nobody knows" argument:

Works for me. But how could anyone know he really stopped?

But apparently you didn't even notice that the two allegedly good shooters didn't actually defend anybody - except, maybe, themselves - which is implied by your attempted analogy: "you defend him".

 

[dann]

I don't think so, but it does show that the situation is more complicated than "guns are bad".

I don't think anybody here has argued that guns are bad. Guns are guns, and people usually argue that too many people in the USA have guns.

ETA: On this board, I don't think there are many people who think, "Guns are bad", but that's because this board is populated, generally, by people more thoughtful than the average American. Among the general population, I think there are plenty of people who have such monolithic opinions.

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do, however, and they usually do so with guns. That's the purpose of guns. The same way that the purpose of waffle irons is to make waffles.

 

[Nessie]

Unfair strawman. No one said he deserved to die. I am anti-gun, in general, but I have no problem with these actions. Standing by and doing nothing is also a choice. Maybe sometimes the right choice, but I don't fault these men for doing something in a situation I have never faced.

So calling it a summary execution is not a strawman. You have just agreed it was acceptable to shoot him dead after he had committed a crime.

 

[Nessie]

....

I will admit that I am with the people who figure that there's no real problem with the civilians killing the shooter. Bummer. Sort of. But he's obviously dangerous. He still has a gun. They apparently even made some attempt to spare his life by demanding he drop the gun. Ok. Put an end to his miserable existence before he hurts someone else. I'm ok with that.

.....

I am OK, that you are OK with that.

That there is so much support in the US for such actions is one of the reasons why I have been arguing that the USA cannot stop its high rate of gun deaths.

The Wild West posse is alive and well and fully supported.

 

[Lothian]

With so many potential bad men with guns, you are never going to have enough police to keep the public safe. Arming the public is the only way to do that. If they are armed you can then make do with fewer police and put the $$$ savings into rewarding those brave soles who take out the bad men. Perhaps put up posters with the bad men's faces in it and offer rewards based on how bad the bad guy is. $10,000 for a bank robber, $3,000 for a robber, $1,000 for a shop lifter and $500 for a jay walker. Think of the savings you would make with fewer prisons, not to mention the boost to the undertaking industry.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

So calling it a summary execution is not a strawman. You have just agreed it was acceptable to shoot him dead after he had committed a crime.

It depends on how you define 'summary execution', had he dropped the gun I'd certainly agree with you but given he was armed and had already shown his willingness to attack other people I'd consider this to be self defense/defense of others.

 

[Ranb]

OK, so the argument is that anyone who shoots in public is fair game for summary execution. How long after the shooting does that apply? Say the shooter did not shoot anyone else for the next ten minutes? Are they still considered such a risk they can just be shot?

Why are you jumping to "summary execution"? You seem to know lots more about this incident than anyone else or you're using a different definition of summary execution than I'm familiar with.

If the two men who shot the prep had disarmed him then shot him while he was standing in front of them helpless, this would be a good example of summary execution. How do you know the shooter was no longer a threat when he was killed?

Ranb

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's not the first time but doesn't fit a popular narrative.

Oh, I don't know... "Good guy with a gun" seems like a pretty popular narrative.