Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?
- Thread starter ADevilYouKhow
- Start date
I wanted to make this thread with screenshots but my computer was acting up.
It low-key makes the case for more good guys with guns
The USA already have far more "good guys with guns" than any other nation in history. More right now than the entire rest of the developed world combined.
And the places with the worst violence seem to be the most gun-friendly states.
Doesn't seem to be working.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Did it?
No it doesn't. It just means more potential innocent people killed because the good guys with a gun doesn't have situational training.
The cop who created the protocol for school shootings even said so
How the ‘good guy with a gun’ became a deadly American fantasy
The archetype can be traced back to 1920s detective fiction, when gruff, gun-toting, cigarette-smoking mavericks became heroic figures.
www.pbs.org
east
Screwed up... till tha casket drops!!
the methodology of this "study" is stupid as hell, it:
- assumes every mass shooting had armed bystanders at the ready, there's no way of knowing how many guns are present at a scene, or if an armed citizen chose not to act
- assumes every mass shooting took place in an area which permits carry, when in reality almost every single one took place in a gun-free zone
- includes incidents from jurisdictions like nyc/nj/hi/etc. which debar all non-leo of the right to bear arms
- excludes all incidents which were stopped by an armed citizen before they escalated to a mass shooting
- uses a tortured definition of "active shooter attacks" without defining it beyond "we excluded gang shootings", they're definitely doing some sort of endpoint massaging on their data
- ignores that 64/249 attacks (26%) were stopped by citizens when only 1% of the population carries daily:
of those 64, it's safe to assume that the 42 who didn't shoot the attacker would have used a gun if they had one, who the hell uses a melee weapon when they have a ranged one available lmao? if anything that makes the case that more people should carry, it would increase the effectiveness of those who chose to fight back unarmed and failed.
as a side note this has to be the first gun article the nyt's run in weeks without glenn thrush on the byline, it always amused me that they gave a sexual abuser the assignment to advocate for prohibition when they're exactly the type of people who want their victims unarmed.
- assumes every mass shooting had armed bystanders at the ready, there's no way of knowing how many guns are present at a scene, or if an armed citizen chose not to act
- assumes every mass shooting took place in an area which permits carry, when in reality almost every single one took place in a gun-free zone
- includes incidents from jurisdictions like nyc/nj/hi/etc. which debar all non-leo of the right to bear arms
- excludes all incidents which were stopped by an armed citizen before they escalated to a mass shooting
- uses a tortured definition of "active shooter attacks" without defining it beyond "we excluded gang shootings", they're definitely doing some sort of endpoint massaging on their data
- ignores that 64/249 attacks (26%) were stopped by citizens when only 1% of the population carries daily:
Loaded Handgun Carrying Among US Adults, 2015
Objectives. To determine the frequency of loaded handgun carrying among US adult handgun owners, characterize those who carry, and examine concealed carrying by state concealed carry laws. Methods. Using a nationally representative survey of US adults in 2015, we asked handgun owners (n = 1444)...
ajph.aphapublications.org
as a side note this has to be the first gun article the nyt's run in weeks without glenn thrush on the byline, it always amused me that they gave a sexual abuser the assignment to advocate for prohibition when they're exactly the type of people who want their victims unarmed.
Last edited:
Good guys with guns stopped the shooter 1/3rd of the time (police and bystanders).
25% of the time the killer committed suicide after his rampage.
another 25% of the time the killer escaped from the scene of the shooting.
more good guys with guns presumably means they'd stop the shooter even more often.
I wanted to read it but... Paywall.
Does this only account for mass shooting incidents or more one on one incidents like a home breakin for example?
Also, sort of related but, after hearing that mother and daughter testimony from the Jan 6th hearing and how these fukking pieces of shyt tried to break into her grandmother's house for a "citizen arrest", I wish and want such a person to fill their yard with as many dead Trump cacs on possible. Those incidents in my opinion are going to increase and regardless of stats, people like that should have some sort equalizer.
But, again I can't read the article so that may be totally irrelevant to the content or the article debunks the effectiveness of that.
Does this only account for mass shooting incidents or more one on one incidents like a home breakin for example?
Also, sort of related but, after hearing that mother and daughter testimony from the Jan 6th hearing and how these fukking pieces of shyt tried to break into her grandmother's house for a "citizen arrest", I wish and want such a person to fill their yard with as many dead Trump cacs on possible. Those incidents in my opinion are going to increase and regardless of stats, people like that should have some sort equalizer.
But, again I can't read the article so that may be totally irrelevant to the content or the article debunks the effectiveness of that.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Do you even math, Bro?
Those numbers are from the article in the OP...what's wrong with them
I dont like framing it as good guy with a gun vs bad guy with a gun.
I think a better descriptor of who stops mass shootings is someone willing to die to prevent a mass shooting vs someone willing to die to cause a mass shooting.
The mass shooter usually wins these conflicts because the person trying to stop them does not want to die
I think a better descriptor of who stops mass shootings is someone willing to die to prevent a mass shooting vs someone willing to die to cause a mass shooting.
The mass shooter usually wins these conflicts because the person trying to stop them does not want to die
dora_da_destroyer
Master Baker
think male athletes are trolling with this trans shyt, just let guns be only available to women...next census US gonna be 95% femaleHow about no more 'guys with guns'? Only women, law enforcement and those hunting are allowed to have guns outside of their homes?
There were a ton of logical fallacies in your gish gallop of a response, but I'll just focus on this one.
You assume that all the people who stopped a shooting without a gun would have done the same thing with a gun. This completely ignores the psychology of gun users.
#1. Many people who stop an attack without a gun would have ideologically been against using a gun in any circumstance, so it's a false assumption to say they would have used a gun.
#2. When reasonable people have a gun available they start considering all sorts of other factors besides "stop this guy as quick as possible", like whether they might hit bystanders or whether their firepower can stand up to what the perpetrator has or whether police might mistake them for the shooter if they pull. There are numerous examples of people being armed who choose not to shoot because of these factors (Uvalde being the most recent, but it's happened over and over in mass shootings and those are just the ones we know who admitted it). So it's false to assume that just anyone would have used a gun in that scenario.
#3. People who rely on guns for defense minimize other possibilities. I have never once heard of a person who had a gun choosing not to use it, but then stopping the attacker in some other way. Just like the cowardly police officers, a man with a gun relies on the gun - so if he doesn't use the gun, he doesn't do anything at all. In many circumstances that might make the person relying on their gun even less likely to stop the attack than if they'd had nothing at all.
