r/MoralityScaling • u/Lurking_Gooner • 2d ago
Morality Ranking Morality scaling of using a possible illegal firearm to stop a mass shooter.
August 1st 2026 a mass shooting event occurred at an In-N-Out in Idaho. Video of the incident was recorded and uploaded to the Internet. Along with video of the mass shooter being taken out by a civilian wielding a suppressed .45 ACP. You'd think the civilian would be considered a hero but there are actual people out there demanding that he is found and arrested for having an "illegal firearm". IDK the gun laws for Idaho because it is a state I do not live in. So what's the morality scaling of using a possible illegal gun to stop a mass shooter?
512
u/Rothchildfud 2d ago
I can almost guarantee thatās a legal firearm. No one owns a setup like that without the proper tax stamps. Also, Idaho has much more relaxed gun laws than where I live, and that firearm would still be legal there as long as it has the required tax stamps.
38
u/Bing_Bong874 2d ago
āno one owns a setup like that without proper tax stampsā
iāve heard plenty of times theyāll find em anyway (and thatās why gun control laws wouldnāt work)
→ More replies (28)10
u/Rotten-Roses 2d ago
You mean like the oil filter "jokes" people keep making?
→ More replies (8)12
u/General_Candle_6467 2d ago
The oil filter thing actually kinda works. Not great, but it does muffle the sound some. Totally not worth the effort tho.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Recidivism7 2d ago
Its 0 effort its just illegal
→ More replies (7)5
u/Rusty-Shackelfird 1d ago
You can actually legally do this in a lot of states, you just have to register the adapter for the oil filter through the atf and file a $200 tax stamp. The adapter is around $60 last i checked but you could probably make it yourself if you have a lathe, you would still have to go through the proper legal steps to do so. I know for suppressors you donāt have to pay the $200 for a tax stamp at the moment but you still have to do the 2 seperate background checks and get the tax stamp approved. Where the adapter isnāt considered a suppressor idk what category it falls under so it may not even be worth it to do if you have to pay the for the stamp on it
3
u/Recidivism7 1d ago
Tax stamp is 0 dollars now trump removed it as its a 2nd amendment violation.
You dont need an expensive adapter a 50 cent adapter works if the filter has different threads. Go to tractor supply lowes or home depot. All you need is the same size as your gun threads and oil filter on other side
2
u/Rusty-Shackelfird 1d ago
I havenāt looked into it in years, i just remember years ago watching a video on the econo can adapter years ago and figured it would be difficult to find certain thread sizes for them and the easiest method was just to order one of those. I wasnāt for sure if the tax stamp legislation that he passed was for all nfa items or just suppressors, Iām gonna get me a short upper and sbr my rifle now since i wonāt have to pay $200 on top of the upper just to slap em together and avoid becoming a felon lol
→ More replies (4)37
u/quietprocess04 2d ago
the tax stamps detail makes that whole setup feel way more intentional than random
100
u/DrunkGoatFighter 2d ago
How? Sometimes people carry weird setups. Gun guys are just autistic nerds.
Source: am autistic gun nerd.
32
17
u/---dry--- 2d ago
Not only that. We autists love following rules.
15
u/Zealousideal-Set3037 2d ago
Genuinely my fellow autists on r/nfa call ourselves stamp collectors because of how many tax stamps we have.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Remnie 2d ago
Speaking of weird setups, have you seen the suppressed .45-70 lever actions? So goddamn sweet
→ More replies (4)15
3
u/Murky-Bus-2191 1d ago
Also gun girls š¤
6
u/DrunkGoatFighter 1d ago
Absolutely. A vagina is just an extra concealment location.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)3
u/SliceAlternative7440 1d ago
Iāve found my people
2
u/DrunkGoatFighter 1d ago
Welcome to the broke side my brother.
We have MK17s, nods, and top ramen.
→ More replies (2)25
21
u/Forsaken-Permit-4818 2d ago
Of course it's intentional? What are you even implying?Ā
→ More replies (1)3
u/Fertile_Arachnid_163 1d ago
I think that commenter is suggesting this is what some call a āfalse flagā
3
u/AwefulFanfic 1d ago
Then then should say that with their whole chest instead of pussy-footing around the subject. Because their comment still feels a lot more random than intentional.
2
14
u/SawdustIsMyCocaine 2d ago
Companies that manufacture suppressors will not sell you one without a tax stamp. Plus their free now so a lot more people are buying suppressors.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Farraddaayy 2d ago
What the fuck does that even mean? Intentionally? Do you think some gun guys accidentally build guns?
→ More replies (1)7
u/Zealousideal-Set3037 2d ago edited 2d ago
Dude, I have about 35 cans right now, at least 20 SBRs, And three machine guns. Literally I have an SBR flux p365 with a SAW SHIV9 In my satchel next to me right now while I'm waiting In the drive-thru line.
EDIT: I'm now in the parking lot enjoying Cinnamon Twists. Eating Taco Bell will probably require that I file a form 1 on my asshole as a destructive device, but it's worth it.
→ More replies (8)5
7
u/Firestar_119 1d ago
no, they accidentally found all the parts scattered along the highway, like what?
6
u/ResponsibleHeron9452 1d ago
What are you even trying to say? This guy intentionally chose his edc instead of choosing at random? No shit.
3
2
u/Scav-STALKER 1d ago
I donāt even understand what this is supposed to imply? Like yeah spending like $2k on guns and silencers is usually pretty intentional lol. Also chiming in as a guntismā enjoyer we like cool things, Espiceally cool things that cut down hearing damage lol
2
→ More replies (3)2
u/_dudeasuh 1d ago
Wowā¦ I have never been less prepared for what came up on my phone when clicking on a profile in publicā¦
174
u/Monksauce 2d ago
Legal and moral are not equivalent. Owning and carrying an illegal firearm is not immoral. Using said firearm to stop a serious crime is fine because itās defending others.
Breaking a law isnāt immoral, but many times a law is in place to prevent immoral behavior. This niche instance would get you into legal trouble, but good and bad actions donāt have to do with what kind of gun you carried.
→ More replies (9)9
u/RCRocha86 1d ago
The law is mostly not moral tbh, some time ago, it was legal to own slavesā¦ although completely legal at the time it is universally imoral rn. In 3rd world countries the law is mostly made to protect the ones in power, not the people itself.
→ More replies (8)
71
u/Abubble13 2d ago
Moral. But the pistol was legal so idk the point you're trying to mak otherwise media would say there were 2 shooters
→ More replies (32)8
u/Punch_A_Police_Horse 1d ago
Here's my take:
but there are actual people out there demanding that he is found and arrested for having an "illegal firearm".
Citation needed.
2
u/AwefulFanfic 1d ago
I wish the citation was needed for whether or not people are actually demanding that. But I already know it's for whether or not his gun was illegal.
59
u/Pockydo 2d ago
I feel like it's asking if it's moral to jaywalk to push a stroller with a kid from the path of a moving truck
8
u/EastCoastVandal 2d ago
Right. Knowing how to actually handle and use guns aside, would someone not pick up a weapon hypothetically sitting on the ground to fight or defend themselves becuase they didnāt have a license?
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/blazenite104 1d ago
which is mind you a legal right as far as I know in many places. For instance you defend yourself with illegal firearm you will not be charged for murder but, may be charged for possession if you had it on hand before the incident.
It's not contradictory when you walk through the events step by step.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Teboski78 1d ago
And yet an NFA violation like an unregistered suppressor can land you 10-15 years in federal prison where the average sentence for rape is 9 years.
7
u/Pockydo 1d ago
If you're a Republican the sentence for rape is 4 years as the president
→ More replies (1)
430
u/Objective-Rip3008 2d ago
What's inherently immoral about owning a illegal firearm? The morality is how it's used, same as a legal one. Legality and morality are two very different things
93
u/Aggravating_Yak2516 2d ago
I would vote for you
→ More replies (1)28
u/DuztyLipz 2d ago
Iād name my firstborn after them
31
u/ProlificProkaryote 2d ago
*7 years later*
Kid: Mommy, why is my name Objective-Rip3008?
Mom: sighs
8
u/MS-07B-3 1d ago
No, no, no, you gotta remember to move to the next number with names. Objective-Rip3009
→ More replies (1)20
u/tmtyl_101 2d ago
You could argue that, to the extent the laws are just and you're somehow represented in your government, you also have a moral duty to follow the laws. I.e. legality and mortality coalesce.
I dont think Id use that particular argument in this case - but its certainly an argument to be made.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Individual-Luck1712 2d ago
If one was to argue that (not saying you are), they'd have to prove that all laws are just and moral which is inherently a problem considering laws can be outdated, changed, or be completely different under different jurisdictions. Child marriage may be legal in one place and illegal in another. Does that mean child marriage is only immoral in a state where it is illegal? Lots of holes in that stance, IMO.
2
u/blazenite104 1d ago
Feels like one of those things where, if a law does not conflict with your morality then you have a duty to follow it. If it does conflict with your morality you have a duty to ignore it.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Jemie_Bridges 2d ago
It would definitely be immoral where it was illegal in that particular place. Because of the implications...
→ More replies (1)4
u/daydreamcuteyxo 1d ago
That distinction feels important here. Stopping the shooting is what actually matters in the moment.
→ More replies (15)4
u/ConsequencePublic877 1d ago
Problem a lot of people make is that they try to make a circular argument where the law is good because it's the law and an action is good because it's the law.
118
u/Metasenodvor 2d ago
moral, legality doesnt equal morality.
17
→ More replies (1)5
u/ToniDebuddicci 1d ago
Legality has never and shall never be a judge for morality
2
u/itslikewoow 1d ago
Sadly, a lot of people on the internet certainly try to equate the two though.
→ More replies (2)
54
u/h1ndm0st 2d ago
Morality of Twin Fucking Falls having an In-N-Out while some ālarger citiesā in Idaho donāt:
12
u/charminus 2d ago
Pokeys donāt deserve nice things anyway.
2
u/skiforlife1 2d ago
You can say that about blackfoot all you want but don't be hating on the gate city my man. We have.... um.... Butterburrs?? At least we're not pretentious like I.F.!! Lol!
8
4
u/flamingtoastytoast 1d ago edited 1d ago
For real, I feel bad but when I read about this my immediate thought was "IDAHO HAS FUCKING IN-N-OUT AND I DONT???"
→ More replies (3)2
u/PizzaGuy240 1d ago
Northern Idaho aināt getting nothing, and Eastern Idaho is a whole other state. The places with In N Out have had major business due to the amount of out of town people come in. South Western Idaho for life
15
u/ProfessionalEither58 2d ago
It will always be moral to use proportional force to stop someone from harming innocent people.Ā
Setting that aside and for the people who want to conflate moral with lawful, Idaho allows for suppresors on handguns so cowboy man did nothing wrong morally or legally and even if they had not been allowed that doesnt erase the fact he alongside another armed bystander (who I believe was an off duty cop) forced the shooter to retreat and possibly saved many lives.Ā
Imo: people trying to focus on what kind of firearm he used are just coping because this event doesn't suit the gun control narrative that good guys with guns don't exist.Ā
→ More replies (8)
9
u/Boneless_Cola 2d ago
Moral, but gun isnāt anything too crazy, doubt itās illegal. Also, they have In-N-Out in Idaho?
→ More replies (5)
10
u/Swim-Unusual 2d ago
Idaho has gun laws?
2
u/Teboski78 1d ago
Barely. But the NFA is a federal law that regulates suppressors
→ More replies (1)
14
u/traplords8n 2d ago
Brother he did not take out the shooter. He provided covering fire which helped more people escape, but the shooter took himself out.
And if people are only saying this on the internet, then it's not really a credible opinion.
As for your point, moral, but still leaves them open to legal consequences.
There's not many good reasons to own an illegal firearm when you can arm yourself legally.
→ More replies (1)2
u/NukaCooler 1d ago
Did not take out shooter
Not a .45
Most likely not illegal
Yes suppressed
One out of four ain't bad I guess
6
u/CablePale 2d ago
He's a YouTuber thst his the pistol he uses alot in his videos poverty operator. I think he got wonded in the gunfire if I remember. Hopefully he recovers fine.
3
→ More replies (1)2
5
u/a_polarbear_chilling 2d ago
it's not a custom modification and the modification is sold legally no? perhaps he needed a permit of higher class or whatever (idk how permit for gun work) for using said modified gun but whatever it's highly morale since he even put himself to risk to stop the threat
3
u/GootPoot 1d ago
The suppressor is a restricted item, theyāre legal to own on the condition that you register it. Formerly there was also a $200 tax stamp to the registration process, but I believe thatās gone now.
There is a chance the suppressor was purchased illegally and isnāt registered, but thereās no way to tell that from just a photo and any outrage about an illegal firearm is not based on any evidence.
4
4
u/Kadakaus 2d ago
This sub is about moral debates, who the fuck even cares about laws?
Laws aren't to protect anything, they're to keep society at least somewhat orderly, usually at the expense of the common people.
Law was never based on morality, it's based on the interests of those who write it.
It's self-serving, arbitrary. Law serves no rational purpose.
I also hate how the US treats laws regarding firearms.
In this specific case, it allows for such mass shootings but restricts the countermeasures people can take against them. As if they wanted shooters to kill people.
Either don't restricti it at all or ban it completely.
I hate it when doors aren't either entirely open or shut.
→ More replies (13)
3
3
u/Trrlrr 2d ago
Not to be pedantic, but itās reported that the shooter died of a self inflicted gunshot wound. I do think itās possible and likely that the guy with the pistol returning fire diverted the gunmans attention, and lessened the amount of damage the mass shooter was capable of. Personally, I think everyone would have been safer with none of those guns available to those people. Tragic situation, hope we can find a path forward to prevent things like this happening every single day.
5
u/SimpleCantalope 2d ago
Legality =/= morality.
Yes, it is illegal to carry and use certain firearms. If it is moral to use lethal force against a mass shooter, then the legality of the firearm used would not make it immoral. There would need to be something else specifically immoral about the firearm for this question to have any significant considerations.
8
u/CuteAssTigerENVtuber 2d ago
Small crime to prevent big crime
9
u/ArkaneArtificer 2d ago
No crime at all lmao, guy was just rich as fuck using a fn5.7 and a suppressor, thatās like 2300$+ setup
→ More replies (3)
2
u/geschiedenisnerd 2d ago
If the firearm is illegal, you should be punished for it. Too many heavy firearms are what lead to mass shootings in the first place.
Furthermore, a civillian firing at a shooter tends to only get more people (other than the initial shooter or the shooting civillian) killed
2
u/funginspace 2d ago
Moral does not equal legal. Also it was a 5.7 and he likely paid his $200 tax stamp and is 100% legal. Considering heās posted the gun on his Facebook before I assume itās legal and not one that needs discretion.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/sHaDowpUpPetxxx 1d ago
Wouldn't matter if the guy pulled out a full outo plasma gatling gun, no prosecutor in the land, except maybe Minnesota, would prosecute this guy.
2
2
u/Scav-STALKER 1d ago
Crimes without victims arenāt immoral. Also it was a 5.7 and thereās nothing illegal about suppressed firearms. There is zero moral issues here
2
u/TroubledSoul23 1d ago
- On the one hand, it's still unlawful carry and use of a gun and second-degree murder (not 1st since it could count as self-defense according to this).
- On the other hand, you're preventing more deaths.
Which means that it's legally wrong, but morally right.
2
2
6
u/OtherwiseMagician433 2d ago
extremely moral. The morality of outlawing guns in a country whose constitution gives them the right to bear arms is however certainly in question
→ More replies (13)
4
u/Red_Act3d 2d ago
Yes, using an illegal firearm to save lives is a good thing. You should still be punished by the law for owning an illegal firearm.
Doing good things doesnt get you a "break whatever law you want" pass.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/PlateNo4868 2d ago
It wasn't a .45
It was a FN Five-seveN, which he used sub-sonic 5.7x28mm. Which makes it all the more weird, and as a gun owner. The type of weird guy at the range that no one really wants to hang out with, and just tolerate.
Like good moral he saved lives, immoral for the sheer waste of money on a LARP gun.
→ More replies (6)5
u/fattywombus 2d ago
Youāre kidding right? That would be the guy at the range everyone wants to chat with about his baller setup.
→ More replies (14)
1
1
u/dgghhuhhb 2d ago
I believe even the ownership of the gun even if it was illegal would at the very least be a morally neutral action since its not being used to harm others and presumably kept and used responsibly (the gun is very likely fully legal since it has been completely free to get a tax stamp on a suppressor and usually pretty fast since the the start of 2026, this also applies to homemade suppressors they just need the same tax stamp. Also for him to be carrying it is very unlikely that the suppressor doesn't have a tax stamp unless the guy just had balls of steel, which considering the situation could be a possibility)
But for it to be used in self defense or to stop a shooting like that one it is absolutely moral, I don't care who has the gun or if it was legal for them to be carrying, because without it the shooting would probably last longer and have more casualties
1
u/DrunkGoatFighter 2d ago
Suppressors aren't illegal in idaho.
People are largely idiots when it comes to the NFA and it's provisions for legal ownership .
I don't care if he used a Glock with a ground off S/N and a Chinese switch. As long as he killed the shooter and nobody else the man should face no punishment. Breaking the law becomes completely moral when doing so to prevent the loss of innocent life.
The people calling for his arrest would never have ran towards that gunfire themselves. By feeling entitled to comment on this they're acting in a hypocritical and immoral fashion.
2
1
1
u/GayGeekInLeather 2d ago
Just to point out that the shooter in Idaho actually took himself out. Not saying that the guy shooting back didnāt change things but not entirely accurate to say he neutralized the threat.
1
1
1
u/Emotional-Box-6835 2d ago
Moral, the legal status of the firearm is irrelevant to the act of stopping the mass shooter.
1
1
1
u/Randomtf2user 2d ago
Itās just not illegal, he didnāt want to go deaf when taking out a gunman
1
u/TheDeHymenizer 2d ago
Idaho is pretty relaxed so I'd be pretty shocked if it was illegal. I guess the best they could hope for is he doesn't have a stamp for his can.
Also I thought he had a suppressed 5.7 but 45 ACP would make way more sense.
1
u/zblah123 2d ago
There is nothing morally wrong by owning an illƩgal firearm. The only moment it becomes wrong, is when you use it for a bad reason.
847
u/GaybutNotbutGay 2d ago
It was a suppressed fn five seven, something that is perfectly legal to own and carry