Bear in mind that after the recent Florida school shooting, the President of the United States declared that if he were there, he would have, despite being unarmed, physically overpowered the shooter and saved the day. If that is not worrying enough, half of the country believed him when he said that.

[citation needed]

This is a man who got out of his limo to confront a mugger in Manhattan. (old news articles cover it) I think that this is evidence enough to suggest that yes, he actually would do it.

Good for Trump that he said that. He has an imposing physique, and he might just have impressed the disturbed kid enough to put down his gun. (Ten years ago there was a school shooting in Germany where a teacher did stop a student that way.)

But we must respect the decision of the policeman in Florida who found himself outgunned not to confront the shooter, first responders are trained not to be heroes and to keep their life first priority.

> Good for Trump that he said that. He has an imposing physique

Okay, while attempting to be as neutral and objective as possible, Trump is an obese geriatric. He's decently tall, 6' or so. But that's about it.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bin...

Average gun owner != average CCW holder who would be carrying at that moment

CCW holder just means you took a class (in most states).

Oh, man. Having known a bunch of CCW holders who also carry their guns with them at all times, I would be far more scared of those guys in this situation, full stop.

They talk tough, but I have zero confidence in their ability to add the good kind of violence to a violent situation. Sooooooo overconfident, smh.

Heh heh, struck a nerve with some CCW holders ;)

It has nothing to do with being the hero. People who are a good law abiding citizens should not be denied the right to own firearms because some people misbehave.

This is just a result of America’s individualist society. If we were collectivists we would ban guns for the good of society. But we’re not, and we never will be. We’re rugged individualists, for better or worse, and some people actively vote for things that make their lives worse just to uphold that value. It’s what America was built on. I don’t see a problem with it. It’s just a different way of life.

The same Americans were perfectly ok with draconian sentences for marijuana and other drugs. The same America is imprisoning most people among all countries oftentimes for surprisingly long time. You can get arrested for jaywalking or loitering, both of them being unimaginable to me. You have to keep your hands on wheel when cop stops you, lest cop can shoot you. Meanwhile, I can keep my hands where I want when cops stop me in a car.

I am not sure individualism and freedom are good enough explanations.

Very few Western countries actually ban guns. Sweden, for example, has 2M registered guns (21 for each 100 persons). Germany has 5.5M. In the Czech Republic you can get a PAR MK3 (local version of the AR15).

To the best of my knowledge in Germany it's mostly long guns for hunting, not handguns. To carry a handgun you'd need a permit and demonstrate your need to be armed.

But can you own an AR-15?

According to [0], it looks like you could even own the full auto military version (the M16).

0)https://www.sweden.org.za/gun-laws-in-sweden.html

The current laws in Sweden - the short version is that you need a justified reason (hunting or "shooting club"), you need to pass tests and not have a recent criminal record. Fully automatic weapons are much harder to get permits for than standard ones.

https://polisen.se/lagar-och-regler/vapen-regler-och-tillsta...

I agree with your observations about the US (as an inhabitant myself), a lot of people forget or deny these points.

I do disagree with your conclusions that it must stay this way, because I feel that on the gun issue, the resulting policies are leading to more guns in unqualified hands and more violence. I think there is space for rugged individualism and sane gun ownership requirements.

I think we're at a middle ground that is worse than either idealistic extreme (zero guns everywhere VS everyone trained and carrying).

Having gun-free zones exist alongside available firearms has repeatedly resulted in mass shooters picking the least armed location. The eventual Pulse shooter scoped out the Disney parks but was discouraged by the guards. The presence of a few qualified people carrying is a deterrent that we shouldn't rule out, and it's not worth staffing police on every block like a police state.

Perhaps a better combination might be legislation for sane gun ownership requirements combined with legislation limiting the proliferation of gun-free zones. That way vetted gun owners wouldn't be unarmed in the places in their community that they care about when they come up against a killer with no regard for rules.

This comment breaks the site guidelines noticeably worse than others in the thread. Please don't post ideological rants here and please edit out the name-calling.

You've done this a ton and we've given you a ton of warnings. Eventually this leads to getting banned, so would you please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use this site as intended from now on?

There is zero name calling in this post. Only contra positions to glittering generalities that try to paint dementedness as handsomeness.

I've received three warnings in the years I've posted hundreds of times. That is not in any rational way a ton. You are the only person who has ever picked on any of my posts. None of the posts you've ever complained about have had more than -2 karma at the time of the complaint and this one was at 0.

Your position amounts to bullying: you are in a position of power, you cite vague guidelines and each time I've asked exactly which guideline and in what manner it's a violation you refused to answer. This is a might makes right tactic. I refuse to accept it as fair, or just, or right. And itself is inconsistent with those same guidelines.

There will only be more challenges to such an absurd coddling of discourse that necessarily arise from highly charged events. There will be more such events. They will be even more ideological. That's why they occur and why people want to talk about them.

When people post nonsense, I have always seen enough downvotes by the community to render such opinions moot by their invisibility. I see no purpose or logic in your claim.

I have never opened a throw away account. This is my only account. All your threat does is tell me that was the actual mistake.

"Nonsensical Ayn Rand crap" and "irrational fearful white bunny rabbit gun nut" count as name calling in the sense that the site guidelines use the term. As for previous warnings, here are some:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13513215

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14224942

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14668018

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15479044

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15763025

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15847807

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16232868

That's a rather shocking level of abuse of this site and ignoring of moderation requests. If you don't correct this and abide by the site rules from now on, we're going to ban you. I'm sorry if that feels like bullying; it's routine moderation, and we've already cut you a ton of slack, as the linked comments make clear.

You are just a sheep parroting NRA and not a rugged individual.

Citizens shooting back in a crisis only makes things worse, how do you know who is the real shooter now?

Have you ever been in a shooting situation? If you are not trained for it it is terrifying and it is unlikely you will make a positive difference.

You're wrong. The guy who shot up church in Texas last year was stopped by an armed civilian with a rifle.

Personal attacks are not ok here, regardless of how wrong someone else is. Please don't comment like this again.

Your comment would be fine without the first paragraph.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I could have worded it differently, but I think it is important to point out that the rugged individual label does not apply to most Americans who live in cities and follow the herd.

Also this was in a response to a building where I have many friends was attacked by an active shooter.