New research puts to death the “good guy with a gun” narrative

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

True.

The notion of a ‘gun free zone’ is as much a myth as ‘good guy with a gun.’

A business owner who prohibits firearms on his property isn’t going to know a patron is carrying concealed.

Depends where it's at and what time of year it is. When I wear my back holster, the gun pops up under the shirt anytime I bend over in a store. That's besides the fact that most CCW carriers are law abiding and will obey a no gun sign thus making it a no gun zone.

In the winter time is different because I have a coat on, and nobody can see my gun when wearing my shoulder holster. However again, if there is a sign in the window, I still won't take it anyhow.

The good thing about our state is when CCW's came out, almost all the stores had those signs posted. As the boycotts took place, more and more started to take them down. Now they are rare if you see any at all.

 

[Billy000]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

 

[bripat9643]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

 

[Billy000]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

 

[bripat9643]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

 

[Papageorgio]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Insider is a left wing bias site. Not sure if I’d trust them as a reliable news source.

 

[Billy000]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

 

[Billy000]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

But for the purpose of these studies, the term has to be defined with a number. Right now there is no other arbitrary number to go off of.

Of course, either way, the large majority of mass shootings of any number still don’t have a good guy with a gun stopping it. It just isn’t a deterrent. It sounds like it would be, sure. It’s not though.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Those mass shootings all occured in "gun free" zones, moron. You can thank yourself for the killings.

No that gun free zone shit is a myth. The study
That makes that claim is bullshit:

Louis Klarevas, a University of Massachusetts professor and the author of “Rampage Nation: Securing America from Mass Shootings,” dismissed Lott’s reasoning, noting that plenty of mass shootings occurred in residential settings and querying why those victims should be overlooked. Everytown’s director of research and implementation, Sarah Tofte, went further. “The claim that so-called ‘gun-free zones’ attract mass shooters doesn’t stand up to scrutiny,” she told us via email. “It’s just not what the numbers show. We look closely at the data on mass shootings, and it shows that relatively few take place in areas where civilians are prohibited from carrying firearms. In fact, the vast majority of mass shootings take place in private homes and are often tied to domestic violence.” The organization’s data found that incidents that took place in private homes accounted for 63 percent of the total number of mass shootings they examined between 2009 and 2016”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/?outputType=amp

Of course, your author uses a politicized definition of "mass shooting" that says three people being shot is a mass shooting, and it also includes gang shootings. It's virtually worthless for scientific purposes.

Lol virtually worthless huh? Okay so what is the actual scientific definition of a mass shooting? You cite the number and source.

Most people use the FBI definition of mass shootings which is four or more people being shot. The problem is there are many cases of family murder/ suicides that are considered as mass shootings under that definition. There are also events where a drive-by shoots several people, and they all sustained non life threatening injuries.

So there is a difference between mass shootings and mass murders, but they all have the same definition of what "mass" means.

But for the purpose of these studies, the term has to be defined with a number. Right now there is no other arbitrary number to go off of.

Of course, either way, the large majority of mass shootings of any number still don’t have a good guy with a gun stopping it. It just isn’t a deterrent. It sounds like it would be, sure. It’s not though.

The chances of me stopping a "mass shooting" is probably a little worse than hitting the lotto. Mass shootings are not why states procure a program like CCW's. It's for personal protection. However, CCW holders stop crimes hundreds of thousands of times a year either to them or other people.

Most of those cases, a CCW holder doesn't have to fire a shot. The mere presence of a gun stops whatever devious deed they planned to carry out. Let me draw two scenarios:

20 years ago in my state (as well as others) citizens were not allowed to carry a gun yet alone use them. So I am illegally carrying a gun. I see a woman in the parking lot of my grocery store getting beat up for her purse. I pull my weapon. The criminal laughs because he knows I won't use it due to our laws. I shoot him, I go to prison. I kill him, I'm going to prison for murder.

Scenario two: I now have the legal ability to carry and use my weapon. I see that woman getting beat up for her purse. I pull my weapon to stop harm to her. The criminal knows two things: I have the legal ability to use that weapon, and I will kill him if he continues his assault and nothing will happen to me.

In other words, the criminal knows I will more likely use deadly force by the law allowing me to than if I used deadly force when I was not legally allowed to.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Where's your example of crimes that were stopped other than by a good guy with a gun?

 

[Billy000]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Where's your example of crimes that were stopped other than by a good guy with a gun?

Well that happens all the time by police but either way that isn’t the point. I’m not suggesting there is some better way. I’m just pointing out that the “good guy with a gun” narrative is a myth.

 

[Arresmillao]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Trying to educate deplorables? good luck with that...

 

[Billy000]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Trying to educate deplorables? good luck with that...


View attachment 375968

It’s true. They are so emotionally charged that they can’t handle any sort of cognitive dissonance. Rather than being adults, they must double down on their bullshit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Where's your example of crimes that were stopped other than by a good guy with a gun?

Well that happens all the time by police but either way that isn’t the point. I’m not suggesting there is some better way. I’m just pointing out that the “good guy with a gun” narrative is a myth.

I understand that but you are wrong. Good guys with guns stop crime of all kinds every day.

 

[Marion Morrison]

OP is still a commie disarm America faggot.

 

[Blues Man]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. People have a legal and moral responsibility to protect themselves, their loved ones and other innocents when it is possible to do so. People unwilling to accept that responsibility are simply a waste of good oxygen.

Wrong

I have no legal obligation to protect the general public from criminals.

SCOTUS has ruled that the cops have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so are you trying to tell me that I as a private citizen and concealed carry permit holder have more of an obligation to protect the general public that the police do?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Where's your example of crimes that were stopped other than by a good guy with a gun?

Well that happens all the time by police but either way that isn’t the point. I’m not suggesting there is some better way. I’m just pointing out that the “good guy with a gun” narrative is a myth.

How is it a myth when good guys with a gun stop crime and defend lives hundreds of thousands of times a year? If there were no good guys with a gun, what do you suppose would have been the outcome of those situations?

 

[dannyboys]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

A 'new study' found that if every illegal gun in DEM controlled inner city shitholes was confiscated the murder rate in those cities and the country would be virtually zero. But the rise in the purchase of baseball bats would soar.

 

[Blues Man]

The entire good guy with a gun argument is bogus because it assumes that a gun owner has some sort of responsibility to stop crimes.

He doesn't. If the fucking cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of the public then law abiding gun owners sure as hell don't.

I carry for self defense (that includes the defense of my wife) that is all. If people choose not to carry for self defense that's their choice and they can live with the consequences

I am not a cop and don't want to be a cop so I will not come to the aid of the general public and risk my life for some stranger.

It assumes no such thing. In a mass shooting, the good guy with a gun is likely to be one of the potential victims. He has every reason in the world to put down the shooter.

You say this shit like it happens or something lol. It doesn’t. Just because it sounds reasonable that this would happen, it doesn’t mean it actually does.

Don’t give me this no concealed carry shit in Wal Mart or some shit. Gun nuts aren’t going to not carry their guns wherever they want if the gun is, you know, concealed. Remember that shooting in El Paso? No one did shit. No one ever does shit.

It does happen, moron. Recall the church mass shooting in FT Worth Texas? A good guy with a gun killed the shooter.

Not sure what happened there but is that it? That’s your backing? I mean we are talking about one case in the shitload of mass shootings we have every year.

Where's your example of crimes that were stopped other than by a good guy with a gun?

Well that happens all the time by police but either way that isn’t the point. I’m not suggesting there is some better way. I’m just pointing out that the “good guy with a gun” narrative is a myth.

How is it a myth when good guys with a gun stop crime and defend lives hundreds of thousands of times a year? If there were no good guys with a gun, what do you suppose would have been the outcome of those situations?

There really is no way to corroborate that