Propaganda
Superstar
The best good guys with the best good guns were there, and they didn't do shyt.
well, get GREAT guys with guns then. problem solved.
The best good guys with the best good guns were there, and they didn't do shyt.
Reminder folks open carry laws aren’t for us.
This means we need to focus on concealed carry.
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.
....or is severely outgunned.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
....or is severely outgunned.
Would love to see the data on what happens in these scenarios when the good guys and bad guys basically wield the same weaponry. Good Guys with guns for the most part probably aren't stopping a Columbine or a Uvale. But they are also severely outgunned, which the media never takes into consideration. Me and my LCP 2 are just as fukked as anyone else when the assailant is wielding an M4 Carbine. Which is why this shyt is so disingenuous.Would love to see some data on what happens to civilians(good guys with gun) who injure or kill innocent people and damage property during their attempt at stoping bad guy with gun
That's before we address the elephant in the room. Most armed folks are only looking to protect themselves and their loved ones.Would love to see the data on what happens in these scenarios when the good guys and bad guys basically wield the same weaponry. Good Guys with guns for the most part probably aren't stopping a Columbine or a Uvale. But they are also severely outgunned, which the media never takes into consideration. Me and my LCP 2 are just as fukked as anyone else when the assailant is wielding an M4 Carbine. Which is why this shyt is so disingenuous.
Would love to see the data on what happens in these scenarios when the good guys and bad guys basically wield the same weaponry. Good Guys with guns for the most part probably aren't stopping a Columbine or a Uvale. But they are also severely outgunned, which the media never takes into consideration. Me and my LCP 2 are just as fukked as anyone else when the assailant is wielding an M4 Carbine. Which is why this shyt is so disingenuous.
First of all that's bullshyt. Lets look at drunk drivers, no one on the planet would place the blame on sober drivers for preventing wrecks or fatalities caused by drunk drivers. So why is it up to "good guys" or basically responsible legal gun owners to stop "bad guys" with guns. When did that become our responsibility?Sounds like you're making a strong case for an assault weapons ban.
But I can also see that the vast majority of the 20,000 gun homicides and 100,000 gun injuries each year are committed with far less powerful weapons. So with 400 million American guns already in circulation, the overall strategy of "arming good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns" doesn't seem to be working. We have a higher homicide rate than any other Western nation, it feels disingenuous to assume that even more guns are suddenly going to crest that crucial inflection point and finally start making things better. All else being equal, states with fewer guns have fewer homicides.
First of all that's bullshyt. Lets look at drunk drivers, no one on the planet would place the blame on sober drivers for preventing wrecks or fatalities caused by drunk drivers. So why is it up to "good guys" or basically responsible legal gun owners to stop "bad guys" with guns. When did that become our responsibility?
I'm not the one who expects "good guys with a gun" to prevent jack shyt, that's y'alls narrative.
My narrative is why you wanna take guns away from legal law-abiding citizens because criminals kill people.
Law-abiding citizens, who aren't trying to use their guns to shoot other people, are not getting their guns taken away in our lifetime. Target practice and hunting and gun collecting are going to be lawful in the USA forever. There are more guns here than people, I own guns myself, though i don't keep them anywhere they might lead to any trouble.
The question is whether increasing the presence of guns in particularly volatile situations makes the public more or less safe. The question is whether gun rights extremists will continue to keep the country from passing even common-sense gun laws that could lower the # of shootings and # of guns in the hands of criminals. And the false claim that loading the country with "good guy guns" makes us all safer is one of the main narratives which keeps the public unsafe.