The most damage Trump has done to the United States is placing three judges on the Supreme Court who may never have read the Constitution IMHO. Just today they handed down a decision that strikes down the New York Handgun bill which placed restrictions on concealed carry outside the home. A lot of states have similar laws. It actually takes away States Rights, ISTM
Are you arguing that the logic used in this case is different from the logic in Heller? To me, the cases look structurally very similar.
The most damage Trump has done to the United States is placing three judges on the Supreme Court who may never have read the Constitution IMHO. Just today they handed down a decision that strikes down the New York Handgun bill which placed restrictions on concealed carry outside the home. A lot of states have similar laws. It actually takes away States Rights, ISTM
Are you arguing that the logic used in this case is different from the logic in Heller? To me, the cases look structurally very similar.
As I understand it, what the Supreme Court has done is extend the right of defense from home into the public. The New York law required a stated reason to obtain a license. If you said self defense, you had to show proof of the need for self defense. While the court struck that provision down, it indicated the state does have the right to license concealed carry and even gave states permission to require training in gun handling and the lawful use of a firearm as well had a criminal and mental health background checks and the ability to restrict where guns can be carried. So it might be a blessing in disguise.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Pope Francis on Wednesday and received Communion during a papal Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, witnesses said, despite her position in support of abortion rights.
Pelosi attended the morning Mass marking the feasts of St. Peter and St. Paul, during which Francis bestowed the woolen pallium stole on newly consecrated archbishops. She was seated in a VIP diplomatic section of the basilica and received Communion along with the rest of the congregants, according to two people who witnessed the moment.
Pelosi’s home archbishop, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, has said he will no longer allow her to receive the sacrament in his archdiocese because of her support for abortion rights. Cordileone, a conservative, has said Pelosi must either repudiate her support for abortion or stop speaking publicly of her Catholic faith.
This is taking "I'd like to speak with your manager" to a whole 'nother level.
Expressed how? To what end? I'm expressing futile existential angst at the fucking insanity of the most powerful failed state there has ever been and ever will be. At the corruption of the Constitution by old white Christian men worse than at its inception.
10 miles from my house. I have friends who were nearby. All activities in nearby communities (including mine) were cancelled. I was already not in the mood to celebrate, but Jesus, this is not just heartbreaking but maddening. As I've seen elsewhere on teh interwebs multiple times today: There's nothing more All-American than a mass shooting! Happy Fourth!
Pardon my cynicism, but you know what will happen as a result of this? Not. A. Goddamn. Thing.
Perhaps Americans on this forum might be directly affected by this - have you given that any consideration ?
Extremely unlikely. 10 in 100,000,000 order of magnitude. And if they were, I would be appalled at their ravening, meaningless, insane loss.
Fuck you, Martin, you innumerate little shit.
30,000 people live in Highland Park. Many more live in the surrounding communities - this is suburban Chicago. One in 10,000 Americans lives in Highland Park. Your numbers are way off.
Many people - whether living nearby and/or directly involved or not - are, as @Mamacita says, affected by these horrific events.
Yes, it may be extremely unlikely for any of our US Shipmates to be caught up in an actual RL mass shooting, but it really doesn't do to make light of the emotional effects country-wide.
Perhaps Americans on this forum might be directly affected by this - have you given that any consideration ?
Extremely unlikely. 10 in 100,000,000 order of magnitude. And if they were, I would be appalled at their ravening, meaningless, insane loss.
Fuck you, Martin, you innumerate little shit.
30,000 people live in Highland Park. Many more live in the surrounding communities - this is suburban Chicago. One in 10,000 Americans lives in Highland Park. Your numbers are way off.
How many are reading this thread? You? And how are you affected if you are? Apart from by the insane horror a few blocks away? And therefore a couple of degrees of separation. As I am from multiple 9 11 victims.
You see the 10:100,000,000 is about Americans on SOF. Which is pretty obvious from the context. So the numbers stand.
10 miles from my house. I have friends who were nearby. All activities in nearby communities (including mine) were cancelled. I was already not in the mood to celebrate, but Jesus, this is not just heartbreaking but maddening. As I've seen elsewhere on teh interwebs multiple times today: There's nothing more All-American than a mass shooting! Happy Fourth!
Pardon my cynicism, but you know what will happen as a result of this? Not. A. Goddamn. Thing.
Perhaps Americans on this forum might be directly affected by this - have you given that any consideration ?
Extremely unlikely. 10 in 100,000,000 order of magnitude. And if they were, I would be appalled at their ravening, meaningless, insane loss.
Fuck you, Martin, you innumerate little shit.
30,000 people live in Highland Park. Many more live in the surrounding communities - this is suburban Chicago. One in 10,000 Americans lives in Highland Park. Your numbers are way off.
How many are reading this thread? You? And how are you affected if you are? Apart from by the insane horror a few blocks away? And therefore a couple of degrees of separation. As I am from multiple 9 11 victims.
You see the 10:100,000,000 is about Americans on SOF. Which is pretty obvious from the context. So the numbers stand.
Therefore the fag packet probability of a Highland Park American reading this thread is 10,000:10,000,000; 1:1,000
The probability of anyone directly affected reading this, at most 1:10,000
And of course they have my empathy, I'm not sociopathic or even alexithymic. The Lord is.
Perhaps Americans on this forum might be directly affected by this - have you given that any consideration ?
Extremely unlikely. 10 in 100,000,000 order of magnitude. And if they were, I would be appalled at their ravening, meaningless, insane loss.
Fuck you, Martin, you innumerate little shit.
30,000 people live in Highland Park. Many more live in the surrounding communities - this is suburban Chicago. One in 10,000 Americans lives in Highland Park. Your numbers are way off.
How many are reading this thread? You? And how are you affected if you are? Apart from by the insane horror a few blocks away? And therefore a couple of degrees of separation. As I am from multiple 9 11 victims.
You see the 10:100,000,000 is about Americans on SOF. Which is pretty obvious from the context. So the numbers stand.
Therefore the fag packet probability of a Highland Park American reading this thread is 10,000:10,000,000; 1:1,000
The probability of anyone directly affected reading this, at most 1:10,000
And of course they have my empathy, I'm not sociopathic or even alexithymic. The Lord is.
Perhaps Americans on this forum might be directly affected by this - have you given that any consideration ?
Extremely unlikely. 10 in 100,000,000 order of magnitude. And if they were, I would be appalled at their ravening, meaningless, insane loss.
Fuck you, Martin, you innumerate little shit.
30,000 people live in Highland Park. Many more live in the surrounding communities - this is suburban Chicago. One in 10,000 Americans lives in Highland Park. Your numbers are way off.
How many are reading this thread? You? And how are you affected if you are? Apart from by the insane horror a few blocks away? And therefore a couple of degrees of separation. As I am from multiple 9 11 victims.
You see the 10:100,000,000 is about Americans on SOF. Which is pretty obvious from the context. So the numbers stand.
Therefore the fag packet probability of a Highland Park American reading this thread is 10,000:10,000,000; 1:1,000
The probability of anyone directly affected reading this, at most 1:10,000
And of course they have my empathy, I'm not sociopathic or even alexithymic. The Lord is.
The . Lord . does . not . have . mercy.
Oh yes He does!!!!
How's that mate? On whom? Who is He to have fucking mercy? When?
Hi Martin54, I'm honored you call me mate. As to how His mercy works or operates I don't know. But I see it alll the time and it's what I pray for personally daily and especially in our church services.
I'm following a long standing Christian tradition of prayer. I guess I'm just feeble minded in this regard or in love with God!
I hope this doesn't come over as pious bullshit. We all need mercy .....
Hi Martin54, I'm honored you call me mate. As to how His mercy works or operates I don't know. But I see it alll the time and it's what I pray for personally daily and especially in our church services.
I'm following a long standing Christian tradition of prayer. I guess I'm just feeble minded in this regard or in love with God!
I hope this doesn't come over as pious bullshit. We all need mercy .....
Not at all. We all do indeed. From each other. For each other. But not from God. He's not entitled to give us mercy, for what?
Hmm ....this is a topic for another thread, possibly Epiphines ...
What I see and pray for has been Christian experience and practice for millenia. The only way I can have mercy for others is because of the mecy God has shown me I'm not really the one to argue it. The topic need Rowan Williams!
Calling it a spread of gun madness seems a bit of a push. Reports I'm seeing is that the weapon was an improvised gun, it being effectively impossible to obtain guns in Japan - the small number of gun crimes are almost all associated with criminal gangs. And, it was targeting a very public figure, very different from attacks on schools or shopping malls.
It does show that you can never prevent someone using a gun in a crime, but putting in reasonable steps to restrict gun ownership to just those who have genuine need can drastically reduce gun crime - even between criminal gangs - and practically eliminate spree shooting events that kill ordinary members of the public.
I'd expect that over the coming months there'll be a significant investigation of how the shooter got the gun, and whether there's anything that can be done to make it harder for anyone else to get a gun by similar routes. When was the last time there was a full review by the US government into how to keep military style guns out of the hands of angry young men?
3D printed firearms are showing up more on American streets. No surprise there, I think if anything the shooting killing of former PM Abe shows that even in the countries with strict gun control measures, there are ways of getting around the restrictions.
3D printed firearms are showing up more on American streets. No surprise there, I think if anything the shooting killing of former PM Abe shows that even in the countries with strict gun control measures, there are ways of getting around the restrictions.
No system is perfect. Japan has suffered between one and four shooting fatalities per year each of the last five years (2017-2021) for which data is available. Data is not available for 2022 yet (at least nowhere I could find), but it's distinctly possible that former Prime Minister Abe is Japan's first shooting death this year.
3D printed firearms are showing up more on American streets. No surprise there, I think if anything the shooting killing of former PM Abe shows that even in the countries with strict gun control measures, there are ways of getting around the restrictions.
Another day; another mass killing at a shopping mall in Indiana. But an armed bystander is hailed as a hero, a Good Samaritan, for killing the first killer. Despite the frequent loud protests to the contrary, the bystander didn't have to kill the man. If he was skilled and properly trained in the use of a gun he could have disabled him, but no: he lived the American dream of the wild west and killed another person with impunity.
I have to wonder how many people who use the term, 'Good Samaritan' have any idea of what they are talking about? Is it possible to read that story and take it to mean that if the Samaritan had been carrying a gun he would have used it on the robbers?
I have to wonder how many people who use the term, 'Good Samaritan' have any idea of what they are talking about? Is it possible to read that story and take it to mean that if the Samaritan had been carrying a gun he would have used it on the robbers?
The Samaritan encountered a bleeding and broken stranger in need, and gave of his own personal time and resources to ensure the man was healed, and had a safe place to recover. He chose not to pass by on the other side.
How would the Samaritan have acted had be been armed, and had he encountered the man as the robbers started to attack him? Jesus didn't tell us that, but there are basically three options available to someone in such a position:
1. Run away and never come back.
2. Hide, then come out when the robbers have left and take care of the victim
3. Attempt to aid the victim in defending himself against the robbers.
We can eliminate 1 as a possibility given what we are told about the Samaritan in the story that Jesus actually told. You seem to be suggesting that 3 is impossible. I would have thought that for most people in the Samaritan's position, the choice between 2 and 3 would depend on the prospect they had of successfully defending the victim. If by joining the fight, you just double the number of victims, then you didn't help. If, on the other hand, by joining the fight you prevent damage to the victim, you did help.
The official policy says firearms officers “shoot to incapacitate”. They are trained to target the centre of the chest as the quickest way to “neutralise” a suspect, even though it is highly likely that this will kill.
The idea that officers will shoot to wound is dismissed because it is felt that it places the public and officers in too much danger.
Concerns about marauding terrorist attackers mean officers have been told they may need to shoot a terrorist suspect in the head because they may be wearing body armour.
Perhaps you are right, but I was taking the original story at face value: the Samaritan was presented only as an unconditional carer. His potential for this including killing in other circumstances is beyond the story as I read it. I reacted badly to what I saw as yet another perversion of the original story and its message. It is happening too often.
If you want to argue that we should reserve the term "good samaritan" for people who stop and render medical assistance to strangers, and use some other term for people who offer different kinds of assistance to strangers in need, that seems reasonable enough.
423 mass shootings in 20 years. 249 of those ended before the police showed up - 113 times the shooter finished shooting and left, 72 times the shooter committed suicide, 42 times a bystander physically subdued the shooter, and 22 times a bystander shot the shooter.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is, of course, told to address a single question from a lawyer who's desperate not too look too foolish - "who is my neighbour?". And, the parable effectively tells the lawyer "that's a stupid question - even the Samaritan knows that neighbours are anyone who is in need". The Parable also presents the act of loving neighbours as something we do at potential risk to ourselves - the Samaritan stops on a road where there was a substantial risk of being set upon by robbers (the evidence for that is on the ground in front of him), and makes the actions of the others hurrying on by seem to be prudence in getting out of danger, and takes the time to bind the wounds of the injured man (which would involve the vulnerability of kneeling at the roadside) and travelling slowly with the man on his donkey. Would carrying a weapon to defend himself and others be consistent with that being vulnerable while helping others?
Would carrying a weapon to defend himself and others be consistent with that being vulnerable while helping others?
With all the usual caveats about extending parables beyond their purpose, why not?
The Samaritan is going about his business, comes across the injured man, and proceeds to offer all the assistance he can offer. It doesn't matter whether or not the Samaritan has a weapon.
Sure - you could say that an unarmed man stopping to help might place himself at more risk than an armed man doing the same, but the amount of risk isn't the point. You don't score extra holiness points for deliberately exposing yourself to more risk.
The man needs help, and the Samaritan helps him to the absolute best of his ability, sparing no resource he has that could be helpful.
@Leorning Cniht 'You don't score extra holiness points for deliberately exposing yourself to more risk.'
Yeah you do.
No, you don't. Taking on unnecessary risk isn't holy, it's stupid.
Sure - if you take on more risk, and in doing so, save someone's life or whatever, then great. Points for you. But if you've got two equally-good ways of helping someone, and one of those ways is safe for you, and the other is risky for you, it's not better to put yourself at risk.
Which directly addresses the "good person with a gun" argument. By far the safest thing for an individual is if they do not carry a gun. Even owning a gun is a dangerous choice, with risks of accidents.
And, of course, "good people with guns" don't stop people getting shot. From memory, something like 20% of active shooter incidents in the US are ended by a member of the public who has a gun shooting the shooter (about 20% also by unarmed members of the public tackling the shooter). Are there any examples of a member of the public (or even police) taking out an active shooter (with or without using a gun) before anyone has been shot?
@Leorning Cniht 'You don't score extra holiness points for deliberately exposing yourself to more risk.'
Yeah you do.
No, you don't. Taking on unnecessary risk isn't holy, it's stupid.
Sure - if you take on more risk, and in doing so, save someone's life or whatever, then great. Points for you. But if you've got two equally-good ways of helping someone, and one of those ways is safe for you, and the other is risky for you, it's not better to put yourself at risk.
Which directly addresses the "good person with a gun" argument. By far the safest thing for an individual is if they do not carry a gun. Even owning a gun is a dangerous choice, with risks of accidents.
And, of course, "good people with guns" don't stop people getting shot. From memory, something like 20% of active shooter incidents in the US are ended by a member of the public who has a gun shooting the shooter (about 20% also by unarmed members of the public tackling the shooter). Are there any examples of a member of the public (or even police) taking out an active shooter (with or without using a gun) before anyone has been shot?
There was a woman earlier this year in West Virginia who shot someone who had started shooting but hadn't hit anyone. "Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia" is the headline if I've stuffed up the link.
I was kind off hoping there wasn't ... because that plays into the "good person with gun" bullshit that some idiots spout to justify reducing controls on access to guns.
There would, of course, be examples of "good person with gun" shooting someone who they thought was about to engage in lethal violence against others, only for them to be mistaken and they'd shot (possibly killed) someone who was innocent. Plenty of examples of police officers doing that, if there are a lot of members of the public armed then if that hasn't happened in those circumstances it won't be long before it does.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is, of course, told to address a single question from a lawyer who's desperate not too look too foolish - "who is my neighbour?". And, the parable effectively tells the lawyer "that's a stupid question - even the Samaritan knows that neighbours are anyone who is in need". The Parable also presents the act of loving neighbours as something we do at potential risk to ourselves - the Samaritan stops on a road where there was a substantial risk of being set upon by robbers (the evidence for that is on the ground in front of him), and makes the actions of the others hurrying on by seem to be prudence in getting out of danger, and takes the time to bind the wounds of the injured man (which would involve the vulnerability of kneeling at the roadside) and travelling slowly with the man on his donkey. Would carrying a weapon to defend himself and others be consistent with that being vulnerable while helping others?
In one of the very few decent decisions of the UK's highest court last century, Lord Atkin said:
" Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
I was kind off hoping there wasn't ... because that plays into the "good person with gun" bullshit that some idiots spout to justify reducing controls on access to guns.
I just posted the stats earlier. In the last two decades, about 10% of mass shootings were ended before the police showed up by a bystander physically subduing the shooter, and about 5% were ended by a bystander shooting the shooter.
There would, of course, be examples of "good person with gun" shooting someone who they thought was about to engage in lethal violence against others, only for them to be mistaken and they'd shot (possibly killed) someone who was innocent. Plenty of examples of police officers doing that, if there are a lot of members of the public armed then if that hasn't happened in those circumstances it won't be long before it does.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
"Good guys with guns" end 5% of mass shootings, and presumably save some lives by doing so. But Zimmerman also thought he was being a good guy.
It's fair enough for the gun ownership lobby to take credit for the actions of Elisjsha Dicken - the young man who shot the Indiana mall shooter - but they have to take ownership of people like George Zimmerman as well.
Comments
Are you arguing that the logic used in this case is different from the logic in Heller? To me, the cases look structurally very similar.
As I understand it, what the Supreme Court has done is extend the right of defense from home into the public. The New York law required a stated reason to obtain a license. If you said self defense, you had to show proof of the need for self defense. While the court struck that provision down, it indicated the state does have the right to license concealed carry and even gave states permission to require training in gun handling and the lawful use of a firearm as well had a criminal and mental health background checks and the ability to restrict where guns can be carried. So it might be a blessing in disguise.
Interesting non-gun follow-up on this topic.
This is taking "I'd like to speak with your manager" to a whole 'nother level.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/jul/04/chicago-shooting-fourth-july-parade-highland-park
Lord, have mercy.
Nothing . will . be . done . Nothing . can . be . done .
US Shipmates are far better qualified than I to make any further comments.
How can He have mercy on them? And what is the qualification for commenting?
Extremely unlikely. 10 in 100,000,000 order of magnitude. And if they were, I would be appalled at their ravening, meaningless, insane loss.
10 miles from my house. I have friends who were nearby. All activities in nearby communities (including mine) were cancelled. I was already not in the mood to celebrate, but Jesus, this is not just heartbreaking but maddening. As I've seen elsewhere on teh interwebs multiple times today: There's nothing more All-American than a mass shooting! Happy Fourth!
Pardon my cynicism, but you know what will happen as a result of this? Not. A. Goddamn. Thing.
Fuck you, Martin, you innumerate little shit.
30,000 people live in Highland Park. Many more live in the surrounding communities - this is suburban Chicago. One in 10,000 Americans lives in Highland Park. Your numbers are way off.
Chicago is one of the largest urban areas in the US. Perhaps work on your own ignorance first.
Yes, it may be extremely unlikely for any of our US Shipmates to be caught up in an actual RL mass shooting, but it really doesn't do to make light of the emotional effects country-wide.
How many are reading this thread? You? And how are you affected if you are? Apart from by the insane horror a few blocks away? And therefore a couple of degrees of separation. As I am from multiple 9 11 victims.
You see the 10:100,000,000 is about Americans on SOF. Which is pretty obvious from the context. So the numbers stand.
I am so sorry. And you are so right.
Therefore the fag packet probability of a Highland Park American reading this thread is 10,000:10,000,000; 1:1,000
The probability of anyone directly affected reading this, at most 1:10,000
And of course they have my empathy, I'm not sociopathic or even alexithymic. The Lord is.
The . Lord . does . not . have . mercy.
Oh yes He does!!!!
How's that mate? On whom? Who is He to have fucking mercy? When?
I'm following a long standing Christian tradition of prayer. I guess I'm just feeble minded in this regard or in love with God!
I hope this doesn't come over as pious bullshit. We all need mercy .....
Not at all. We all do indeed. From each other. For each other. But not from God. He's not entitled to give us mercy, for what?
What I see and pray for has been Christian experience and practice for millenia. The only way I can have mercy for others is because of the mecy God has shown me I'm not really the one to argue it. The topic need Rowan Williams!
With your blessings, I'll stop there!
.
It does show that you can never prevent someone using a gun in a crime, but putting in reasonable steps to restrict gun ownership to just those who have genuine need can drastically reduce gun crime - even between criminal gangs - and practically eliminate spree shooting events that kill ordinary members of the public.
I'd expect that over the coming months there'll be a significant investigation of how the shooter got the gun, and whether there's anything that can be done to make it harder for anyone else to get a gun by similar routes. When was the last time there was a full review by the US government into how to keep military style guns out of the hands of angry young men?
Human ingenuity and/or wickedness will always find a way round laws, however comprehensive they may be.
A single-shot gun is only marginally more complicated than a tube.
No system is perfect. Japan has suffered between one and four shooting fatalities per year each of the last five years (2017-2021) for which data is available. Data is not available for 2022 yet (at least nowhere I could find), but it's distinctly possible that former Prime Minister Abe is Japan's first shooting death this year.
The security was shit.
I have to wonder how many people who use the term, 'Good Samaritan' have any idea of what they are talking about? Is it possible to read that story and take it to mean that if the Samaritan had been carrying a gun he would have used it on the robbers?
The Samaritan encountered a bleeding and broken stranger in need, and gave of his own personal time and resources to ensure the man was healed, and had a safe place to recover. He chose not to pass by on the other side.
How would the Samaritan have acted had be been armed, and had he encountered the man as the robbers started to attack him? Jesus didn't tell us that, but there are basically three options available to someone in such a position:
1. Run away and never come back.
2. Hide, then come out when the robbers have left and take care of the victim
3. Attempt to aid the victim in defending himself against the robbers.
We can eliminate 1 as a possibility given what we are told about the Samaritan in the story that Jesus actually told. You seem to be suggesting that 3 is impossible. I would have thought that for most people in the Samaritan's position, the choice between 2 and 3 would depend on the prospect they had of successfully defending the victim. If by joining the fight, you just double the number of victims, then you didn't help. If, on the other hand, by joining the fight you prevent damage to the victim, you did help.
I found this interesting graphic at the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
423 mass shootings in 20 years. 249 of those ended before the police showed up - 113 times the shooter finished shooting and left, 72 times the shooter committed suicide, 42 times a bystander physically subdued the shooter, and 22 times a bystander shot the shooter.
With all the usual caveats about extending parables beyond their purpose, why not?
The Samaritan is going about his business, comes across the injured man, and proceeds to offer all the assistance he can offer. It doesn't matter whether or not the Samaritan has a weapon.
Sure - you could say that an unarmed man stopping to help might place himself at more risk than an armed man doing the same, but the amount of risk isn't the point. You don't score extra holiness points for deliberately exposing yourself to more risk.
The man needs help, and the Samaritan helps him to the absolute best of his ability, sparing no resource he has that could be helpful.
Yeah you do.
No, you don't. Taking on unnecessary risk isn't holy, it's stupid.
Sure - if you take on more risk, and in doing so, save someone's life or whatever, then great. Points for you. But if you've got two equally-good ways of helping someone, and one of those ways is safe for you, and the other is risky for you, it's not better to put yourself at risk.
And, of course, "good people with guns" don't stop people getting shot. From memory, something like 20% of active shooter incidents in the US are ended by a member of the public who has a gun shooting the shooter (about 20% also by unarmed members of the public tackling the shooter). Are there any examples of a member of the public (or even police) taking out an active shooter (with or without using a gun) before anyone has been shot?
Really? Oooooh. Why didn't I think of that?
There was a woman earlier this year in West Virginia who shot someone who had started shooting but hadn't hit anyone. "Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia" is the headline if I've stuffed up the link.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
There would, of course, be examples of "good person with gun" shooting someone who they thought was about to engage in lethal violence against others, only for them to be mistaken and they'd shot (possibly killed) someone who was innocent. Plenty of examples of police officers doing that, if there are a lot of members of the public armed then if that hasn't happened in those circumstances it won't be long before it does.
In one of the very few decent decisions of the UK's highest court last century, Lord Atkin said:
" Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."
I just posted the stats earlier. In the last two decades, about 10% of mass shootings were ended before the police showed up by a bystander physically subduing the shooter, and about 5% were ended by a bystander shooting the shooter.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
"Good guys with guns" end 5% of mass shootings, and presumably save some lives by doing so. But Zimmerman also thought he was being a good guy.
It's fair enough for the gun ownership lobby to take credit for the actions of Elisjsha Dicken - the young man who shot the Indiana mall shooter - but they have to take ownership of people like George Zimmerman as well.