"good guy with a gun is a myth!"

I’m not even going to start into that topic statement, it’s about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Don’t even waste time looking it up unless you really need proof on just how idiotic it is.

But here’s something to watch if you’re bored.

2 Likes

and the virginity of all our young men

How’d that work out in Uvalde? I guess cowards don’t count as “good guys with guns” even if they are police.

If the police weren’t ordered to stand down Uvalde would have gone differently. And if literally anyone inside the school or near the school had a gun it would have gone differently.

And how does your question have anything to do with the good guy with a gun “myth?”

1 Like

So we’ll legislate according to exceptions?

Or according to what happens in most cases?

Part of how Israel solved terrorist attacks, was requiring all off duty reservists to carry their service arms with them.

4 Likes

-posted deleted because guts was being a d–k-

and no moderator made me do it.

If you openly aren’t willing to plug the holes caused by exceptions, then their blood is on your hands. I don’t even think this is an exception though to be honest. Gun crimes not stopped massively dwarf crimes prevented by good guys with guns. Good guys with guns preventing crime is the exception

Nope:

“mass shootings account for less than 1% of the roughly 40,000 people killed by guns each year in this country”

I say go after the bulk of the violence, not exceptions. There are some thing we can control, others we can’t. Humility is to know the difference.

For instance, we can’t prevent this from happening; because you have to put the initial point of entry somewhere:

Most shooters are stopped by someone else with a gun (whether shot or forced to surrender, or the pressure pushes them into suicide), and most standoffs end peacefully.

2 Likes

Ignorance is to think that something preventable in 99% of the world is just a fact of life. We can stop both the general trend and the exceptions, they’re not mutually exclusive, you can make more than 1 law.

The Uvalde shooter was technically stopped by a good guy with a gun, but I wouldn’t exactly call that outcome a victory for the good guys with guns

It is preventable; harden these targets.

Shooters go after them, because they know they’re soft.

Nothing about this changes as the shooter will, in most instances, be stopped by another armed person.

Shooters in country’s with harsh gun laws, were also stopped by armed persons. So this is a given.

It’s not though; Russia has higher gun homicides with a smaller per Capita ownership of weapons.

It all goes back cultural norms, and what efficacy allows.

We need to ban everything. I mean everything. And humans too. Or else the violence will just go on and on.

I’m with the democrats on this one; just ban everything. Unless we find a way to journey back in time and prevent our ancestors from learning how to use projectiles and tools. Until we find out how to do that we need to just ban everything. I mean if we just ban people, we won’t even have a need to go back in time because everyone will be dead.

but then you’ll still have lions and tigers killing all those innocent herbivores… I think we just need to ban all life from ever existing. it’s the only way to guarantee peace.

1 What Slim said about exceptions. And what I’ve said about it that you seem to be ignoring; there are many cases of bad guys with guns being stopped by good guys with guns.

2 If you refuse to acknowledge the fact that there is no perfect solution, and that an attempt to bring one about takes us in the direction of what the Nazis called the final solution, then I submit that you need to take a hard look at whose hands whose blood is on. I say again, Gene; those purges were HISTORY. They happened because the citizenry was effectively disarmed.
3 I dispute this (and have before).

4 Different cultures, different problems. But power tending to corrupt and absolute power corrupting absolutely is universal.

Yeah that.

And that.

I highly doubt it comes close to the number of gun crimes not stopped by good guys with guns. Even the ones that do, Uvalde for instance was stopped by the border patrol agent who shot him. Are you really gonna count that as a victory for good guys with guns?

I’ll take whatever problem they have over kids getting slaughtered. If this is our culture I’m starting to think America is kind of a terrible place to live. It’s certainly not a place I want to raise a family.

Doesn’t matter, as long as it’s a net gain. And anything that prevents purges is a net gain. I really think you need to take the purge angle more seriously; they do happen.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

At least in his youth, @Gene will never understand that the all-powerful government that he wants is dangerous and contrary to the concept of human rights. Those who share his political philosophy believe that huge government will use its limitless power for the common good. History shows us that government uses that power to expand its reach and maintain its position.

I am literally living in a place with basically no gun rights whatsoever and it’s pretty fantastic. No one is getting purged. Better yet, we’re not experiencing the mini-purge of 40,000 a year firearms deaths the U.S. subjects itself to

Quite the opposite. You have to realize that a government is made up primarily of its citizenry. It can be tyrannical in some cases, but don’t assume that “by the people, for the people” inherently cannot be done correctly.

Yes, @Gene, and you are next door to North Korea where there are almost no human rights. The goals of the government are to maintain and expand their power over their people and threaten their neighbors with missals and nuclear war. Their true god father is Joseph Stalin.

It means there’s a constant here. People with guns, have to be stopped by someone else with a gun.

You can argue the merits about broad untrained civilians with guns vs security who is trained on countering an armed assailant, but that point remains. In most cases, it will have to be someone with a gun, to stop an attacker with a gun.

It could also be a robot with C4, but that seems a little harder to scale.

Again, I don’t see setting off black markets in weapons getting you what you want, anymore than the War on Drugs and their attached black markets gave those policy makers what they wanted.

Limits of efficacy need acknowledgement here.

I agree Switzerland could be a useful model.

They emphasize training their people to shoot, and looking for warning signs for why someone is acquiring a gun.