Why A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Bullshit

[daws101]

'Gun free zones" = shooting fish in a barrel
Perfect for a -coward

Imaginary gun free zones, when the shooter or shooters bring gun it's no longer a gun free zone.

but all the people shot are unarmed
I wonder why that is

If there were good guys with guns a good percentage of them would get shot too.

Maybe, maybe not

Fact.

 

[daws101]

Living in AZ, I see a lot of people walking around wearing guns. I am absolutely convinced that they are not doing it to protect themselves. Most of it for the same reason guys get macho tattoos. It used to be known as "puttin' on the style". People who actually are prepared to use guns never let someone see the gun until it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.

Yes and they do not draw attention to themselves by trying to look "tactical"

I don't dress any different than most people I don't have NRA stickers on my car. Don't wear any pro second amendment T shirts etc. I want to blend in and be unnoticed

Some of them do, kinda hard too miss when it's in a hip holster.

Was speaking about concealed carry which is far more common than open carry

Thanks I knew that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

'Gun free zones" = shooting fish in a barrel
Perfect for a -coward

Imaginary gun free zones, when the shooter or shooters bring gun it's no longer a gun free zone.

but all the people shot are unarmed
I wonder why that is

If there were good guys with guns a good percentage of them would get shot too.

Maybe, maybe not

Fact.

Prove it then

 

[daws101]

Imaginary gun free zones, when the shooter or shooters bring gun it's no longer a gun free zone.

but all the people shot are unarmed
I wonder why that is

If there were good guys with guns a good percentage of them would get shot too.

Maybe, maybe not

Fact.

Prove it then

How do you prove something that has not happened ?

 

[Skull Pilot]

but all the people shot are unarmed
I wonder why that is

If there were good guys with guns a good percentage of them would get shot too.

Maybe, maybe not

Fact.

Prove it then

How do you prove something that has not happened ?

You said it is a fact that CC holders would be shot in a mass shooting

So you should be able to find some mass shooting in this country where among the dead were people with holstered concealed weapons among the casualties shouldn't you?

Or are you telling me you know for a fact that not one CC weapon holder has ever been shot in a mass shooting?

 

[daws101]

If there were good guys with guns a good percentage of them would get shot too.

Maybe, maybe not

Fact.

Prove it then

How do you prove something that has not happened ?

You said it is a fact that CC holders would be shot in a mass shooting

So you should be able to find some mass shooting in this country where among the dead were people with holstered concealed weapons among the casualties shouldn't you?

Or are you telling me you know for a fact that not one CC weapon holder has ever been shot in a mass shooting?

Nope I'm saying that good guys with guns CC or not have been shot by terrorists , nut jobs , bank robbers etc.
Once the shooting starts the CC theory becomes irrelevant.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have nothing to back it up, but it would not surprise me if civilians ended up shooting each other in a terrorist attack. Witness the fact that cops go in to a situation like that under the assumption that anyone holding a gun is a bad guy, until they prove otherwise. Not all cops are going to ask questions before they fire. Even less civilians will.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Maybe, maybe not

Fact.

Prove it then

How do you prove something that has not happened ?

You said it is a fact that CC holders would be shot in a mass shooting

So you should be able to find some mass shooting in this country where among the dead were people with holstered concealed weapons among the casualties shouldn't you?

Or are you telling me you know for a fact that not one CC weapon holder has ever been shot in a mass shooting?

Nope I'm saying that good guys with guns CC or not have been shot by terrorists , nut jobs , bank robbers etc.
Once the shooting starts the CC theory becomes irrelevant.

So no proof

Got it

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have nothing to back it up, but it would not surprise me if civilians ended up shooting each other in a terrorist attack. Witness the fact that cops go in to a situation like that under the assumption that anyone holding a gun is a bad guy, until they prove otherwise. Not all cops are going to ask questions before they fire. Even less civilians will.

Which is why I avoid places where the flocks gather as much as possible

 

[daws101]

Fact.

Prove it then

How do you prove something that has not happened ?

You said it is a fact that CC holders would be shot in a mass shooting

So you should be able to find some mass shooting in this country where among the dead were people with holstered concealed weapons among the casualties shouldn't you?

Or are you telling me you know for a fact that not one CC weapon holder has ever been shot in a mass shooting?

Nope I'm saying that good guys with guns CC or not have been shot by terrorists , nut jobs , bank robbers etc.
Once the shooting starts the CC theory becomes irrelevant.

So no proof

Got it

False lots of it.

 

[martybegan]

Lol, "lame"

Are you capable of more than a 2-3 sentence or word response, or does that tax the empty space in your head you call a brain?

Lame and pretentious.
Communication is most accurate when it's concise .
Blathering on like you do, is what stupid people do to appear intelligent.

Ooohhh! Three sentences. No content though. So go get yourself a cookie, but a meh cookie, like oatmeal raisin.

Best you could do?

You lose 2 points for repeating the same method of "attack".

Try to get more creative.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[martybegan]

Why use the best this early? I'd rather keep you strung along with some base level insults, it only adds to my post count.

I'll take that as a yes, that's your best .
The rest is rationalizing.

Ah the progressives 2nd favorite word, "rationalizing", right after any word with ist,ism, or ic at the end.

And like the latter, you don't really know what it means, or how to properly use it.

More rationalizing!

Again, using the word wrong.

Nope the perfect word.

Wrong.

 

[martybegan]

For me its a prevent me from getting a gun with bullshit laws designed to make it as difficult and expensive as possible

Try to keep up.

Bullshit !
You are like a spoiled child who got everything they ever wanted and is abruptly taking in hand.

It's the only obvious answer. Why does NYC take 3-6 months and $1000 to issue a license for a handgun?

To you yes, in reality no.
The only logical answer for someone to need immediate access to firearms is imminent threat.
Not the imagined need .

So what happens to someone in NYC who has an "imminent threat"? Does the NYPD then provide 24-7 protection?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[daws101]

Lame and pretentious.
Communication is most accurate when it's concise .
Blathering on like you do, is what stupid people do to appear intelligent.

Ooohhh! Three sentences. No content though. So go get yourself a cookie, but a meh cookie, like oatmeal raisin.

Best you could do?

You lose 2 points for repeating the same method of "attack".

Try to get more creative.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes you are a master of stupid.

 

[martybegan]

Ooohhh! Three sentences. No content though. So go get yourself a cookie, but a meh cookie, like oatmeal raisin.

Best you could do?

You lose 2 points for repeating the same method of "attack".

Try to get more creative.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yes you are a master of stupid.

Ah, "I know you are, but what am I", the primordial ooze of crap message board responses.

 

[daws101]

I'll take that as a yes, that's your best .
The rest is rationalizing.

Ah the progressives 2nd favorite word, "rationalizing", right after any word with ist,ism, or ic at the end.

And like the latter, you don't really know what it means, or how to properly use it.

More rationalizing!

Again, using the word wrong.

Nope the perfect word.

Wrong.

I'll take that as a yes, that's your best .
The rest is rationalizing.

Ah the progressives 2nd favorite word, "rationalizing", right after any word with ist,ism, or ic at the end.

And like the latter, you don't really know what it means, or how to properly use it.

More rationalizing!

Again, using the word wrong.

Nope the perfect word.

Wrong.

false !
Definition of RATIONALIZE

It's the perfect discription of everything you post.

 

[martybegan]

Ah the progressives 2nd favorite word, "rationalizing", right after any word with ist,ism, or ic at the end.

And like the latter, you don't really know what it means, or how to properly use it.

More rationalizing!

Again, using the word wrong.

Nope the perfect word.

Wrong.

Ah the progressives 2nd favorite word, "rationalizing", right after any word with ist,ism, or ic at the end.

And like the latter, you don't really know what it means, or how to properly use it.

More rationalizing!

Again, using the word wrong.

Nope the perfect word.

Wrong.

false !
Definition of RATIONALIZE

It's the perfect discription of everything you post.

Double wrong.

Hey look! you can link to back up your stupidity!

 

[hadit]

Your premise is wrong at the most basic level. The correct mode of action for a CCW holder is to hold in place, and if the shooter tries to enter the area he controls, take him out.

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

Bravo!

Suck up, and also, see my response, twat-waddle.

Perhaps you think being snide and snarky will stop a shooter, too? What if the active shooter never was able to get that gun, to begin with? Wouldn't that be more effective and address the issue? And how do we do THAT, you may ask. You fill in the blanks. It may involve everything gun huggers and the NRA fears.

So to stop gun violence your solution is only government actors should get guns? And when that impossible event happens, do you propose on confiscating every type of machine tool that could produce guns? because if you ban people from buying them, and there is still a demand from criminals, people will figure out how to make them.

Freedom is messy, chaotic, dangerous, and wonderful. We CANNOT eliminate risk from our lives, because the only way to do that would be to totally surrender all freedom. Enjoy coffee in the morning? Sorry, you're allotted only 1 cup every other day, because more might be dangerous. Enjoy putting the top down and cruising the highway? Sorry, convertibles are dangerous. You have to have a solid roof on your car, and forget riding a motorcycle. Like searing up some burgers on the grill? Sorry, you might burn yourself. And on it goes.

Some would say I'm being ridiculous. Well, a hundred years ago, people would think the whole mess about banning guns is ridiculous, because they used guns as youngsters and no one shot up a school.

 

[hadit]

Private CCW holders can be compared to a minefield, what you are hoping for is the active shooter doesn't expect armed resistance and the CCW holder can get some shots in before the active shooter realizes he is being confronted.

LMAO. You really have no business with a gun.
"What you are hoping is the active shooter......".
You gotta be kidding. Hoping isn't a plan. Today's criminals don't expect to encounter someone with a gun eh?

It is claimed that over 4000 DGUs per day happen. I think criminals don't have any problem with you having a gun. The crazed shooters expect to die anyway. So what difference does it make to them?

It can make the difference between 3 dead victims and 30. Which do you think the crazed shooter wants? There's a reason why crazed shooters generally don't target places where guns are known to be available.

 

[hadit]

No, you are being stupid here. The OP nailed the situation, and in very few active shooter situations did a civilian with a conceal carry permit ever stop the shooter. 99% of the time it's law enforcement AFTER the fact. Guns don't help. They are the problem.

How many of these shooting occurred at locations that declared themselves "gun free zones" but did nothing to assure that?

You can't say "CCW's do nothing" when most of these shootings take place in areas CCW's are either disarmed by law, or by the desire of the property owner.

Until recently all public areas were gun free zones.
People were being shot in them long before that stupid name was slapped on them.
Making the term meaningless .
Then you assholes have since attempted to
Make a false correlation between the gun toting zone and gun free zones

Not really people have been carrying concealed weapons with permits for decades

Irrelevant.

All public areas are not now nor have they ever been gun free zones
I carry concealed in public areas all the time and I will even if there is a gun free zone sign

This will quickly eliminate gun free zones.

Tennessee law now dictates that businesses wishing to create a "gun-free zone" will be held liable for the safety of concealed carry permit holders.

'Gun Free' Zone Tennessee Business Liable For Disarming Concealed Carry Holders