Who Stops a ‘Bad Guy With a Gun’?

[ill]

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.

#1 is you imagining things. Someone that has the heart to stop an attack will be ideologically against using guns?

#2 the flip side is theres a majority of reasonable people who would effectively use their weapons without harming innocents. Not every situation would allow it but theres clearly plenty of instances where theres no innocents around.

#3 if youre in a situation where you had to draw your gun, thinking about "other possibilities" is fukking reckless. Your only priority is protecting your life.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

#1 is you imagining things. Someone that has the heart to stop an attack will be ideologically against using guns?

This much alone suggests you're just clowning and have zero desire to engage seriously. Duck out of the thread for a moment and look up the 2000 year history of nonviolence advocates putting their own lives on the line to stop violence in action, then get back to me. Until then you're not even worth engaging with.

#2 the flip side is theres a majority of reasonable people who would effectively use their weapons without harming innocents. Not every situation would allow it but theres clearly plenty of instances where theres no innocents around.

Well, I guess as long as you're only talking about times when no innocents are around.

#3 if youre in a situation where you had to draw your gun, thinking about "other possibilities" is fukking reckless. Your only priority is protecting your life.

Exactly - this is exactly how most gun owners feel. Which is why they nearly always duck and run.

It's funny though that just 2 sentences after suggesting that people without guns are too chickenshyt to stop attacks via means other than firearms, you turn around and straight up admit that people with guns are too chickenshyt to stop attacks via means other than firearms.

 

[Wild self]

Gunheads on TLR cheering on that everyone being strapped on a heavy population density city like NY is a good thing

Shootouts on the Bruckner and the Cross Bronx being a normal thing is "good" according to them

 

[breakfuss]

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 don't know if this was an attempt to provoke discussion but your last sentence clearly contradicts the preceding three. I wish people would be honest and just admit they're okay with the collateral damage that comes with everybody and they cousin owning a gun.

 

[OfTheCross]

I don't know if this was an attempt to provoke discussion but your last sentence clearly contradicts the preceding three. I wish people would be honest and just admit they're okay with the collateral damage that comes with everybody and they cousin owning a gun.

How is it a contradiction?

1/3rd are already stopped by good guys with guns... although it's mostly police officers.

More good guys with guns presumably means they'd stop the shooter even more often and sooner into their rampage.

How is that wrong?

 

[breakfuss]

How is it a contradiction?

1/3rd are already stopped by good guys with guns... although it's mostly police officers.

More good guys with guns presumably means they'd stop the shooter even more often and sooner into their rampage.

How is that wrong?

Explain what a "good guy" even is . And how in the chaos of a shooting you'd be able to discern the assailant? You presume all these fools are dressed up like Bane or some shyt. If you had a gun and shots started flying how the fukk would you know if they're the active shooter? What if the "good guy" is returning fire but you don't realize they're trying to stop the actual "bad guy"? What a moronic strategy that is. Secondly, you're operating on the assumption that gun ownership will ever reach critical mass. I could maybe - maybe - see an argument for "anyone could be armed!!" as a deterrent but we already know most people do not carry. Especially in places like schools. Lastly, we have data that shows less guns correlate with less occurrences of ...*gasp*... gun violence/deaths. Maybe stricter regulation isn't a magical panacea but surely there's a reason why this a uniquely American problem.

 

[88m3]

we need less guns

 

[TheDarceKnight]

It's hilarious because the Uvalde police showed up with special ops level gear, CQB training, fancy hardware...and then what...

The best good guys with the best good guns were there, and they didn't do shyt.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

we need less guns

We do. I'm pro 2a and a gun owner. And think we need less guns. We literally have more guns than human beings in the United States. It's wild.

 

[ColdSlither]

I don’t care how much you like guns as your safety blanket. We don’t need anymore guns. And what we really don’t need, are more good guys with guns, with their Doc Holiday and Punisher power fantasies. And I’m saying this as someone who has a gun now, and because of the Supreme Court, maybe be able to conceal carry in my state one day. If some shyt is going down I am not pulling shyt out to help. Other than my phone to call 911.

 

[Rayg1919]

I hate to say it but if you in an open carry state you gonna have to consider carrying a gun. I think black folk who normally don't like guns gonna have to seriously consider concealed weapons for the protection of their families. Too much going on out here to ignore.

 

[breakfuss]

I don’t care how much you like guns as your safety blanket. We don’t need anymore guns. And what we really don’t need, are more good guys with guns, with their Doc Holiday and Punisher power fantasies. And I’m saying this as someone who has a gun now, and because of the Supreme Court, maybe be able to conceal carry in my state one day. If some shyt is going down I am not pulling shyt out to help. Other than my phone to call 911.

Brehs act like they would activate bullet time if put into these situations.

I hate to say it but if you in an open carry state you gonna have to consider carrying a gun. I think black folk who normally don't like guns gonna have to seriously consider concealed weapons for the protection of their families. Too much going on out here to ignore.

In some cynical way I feel that's what's behind all this. A push to get more people to buy guns. Because at this point it's like shyt, what else you gonna do?

 

[Rayg1919]

Brehs act like they would activate bullet time if put into these situations.


In some cynical way I feel that's what's behind all this. A push to get more people to buy guns. Because at this point it's like shyt, what else you gonna do?

Exactly. They backing us into a corner.

 

[88m3]

better national restrictions would mean less bad guys with guns


that would help stop the bad guys

 

[Rayg1919]

I remenber when Clinton was president and had the assault weopons ban in place. I dont think there were hardly any mass shootings at that time. Then George Bush comes along and lifts the ban and mass shooting go up exponentally.