Why A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Bullshit

[daws101]

Why do you feed the troll?

Because they're so cute when they start flailing around, desperate to save face in any way they can, but completely unable to do so. Then their little ears and whiskers start twitching and they're just adorable.

Excellent description of yourself.
I never flail and have no face to save.

Then you have no idea what you're posting.

False!

 

[hadit]

So, to sum it up, the shooter who is trying to rack up the body count is Chuck Norris and kills a lot of people, but anyone who opposes him is Barney Fife and doesn't have a chance of killing him. This in spite of evidence that they actually do and have done so.

This is why we think you're drunk. You're making no sense at all.

Didn't say that, you are making false inferences based on your paranoia.
Like I said there is no hard and fast answer to this problem.
Your whole fantasy is based on a few "lucky breaks".

Nonsense. My idea is to give a victim a chance. Yours is to give him no chance. That's as simple as it gets.

False!

• 
• DONATE

Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.
Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny.

MARK FOLLMAN DEC. 19, 2012 7:01 AM

Pack Shot/Shutterstock

In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed aM-4 assault rifle she could've stopped the killer, they say. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed.) And law enforcementoverwhelmingly hates the idea of armed citizens getting involved.

So what options do you want victims to have when facing a shooter? Spell them out.

Asked and answered.

I saw that, so deleted my post while you were responding.

 

[hadit]

Why do you feed the troll?

Because they're so cute when they start flailing around, desperate to save face in any way they can, but completely unable to do so. Then their little ears and whiskers start twitching and they're just adorable.

Excellent description of yourself.
I never flail and have no face to save.

Then you have no idea what you're posting.

False!

Wow, that's authoritative, said no one in particular.

 

[daws101]

Here is a novel idea , take it for what it is FACT.

The trouble with that is it is not factual. You're making stuff up.

Nothing I said is fantasy , on the other hand your stuff is mostly fantasy.

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

 

[daws101]

Why do you feed the troll?

Because they're so cute when they start flailing around, desperate to save face in any way they can, but completely unable to do so. Then their little ears and whiskers start twitching and they're just adorable.

Excellent description of yourself.
I never flail and have no face to save.

Then you have no idea what you're posting.

False!

Wow, that's authoritative, said no one in particular.

Best you could do?

 

[hadit]

The trouble with that is it is not factual. You're making stuff up.

Nothing I said is fantasy , on the other hand your stuff is mostly fantasy.

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

 

[hadit]

Because they're so cute when they start flailing around, desperate to save face in any way they can, but completely unable to do so. Then their little ears and whiskers start twitching and they're just adorable.

Excellent description of yourself.
I never flail and have no face to save.

Then you have no idea what you're posting.

False!

Wow, that's authoritative, said no one in particular.

Best you could do?

Oh heck no. I reserve my best for those who deserve it.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. All the other weapons listed were described properly, the "carbine rifle" was not.

Another distinction without a difference.
Talk about bored. ..

Words mean things.

Yes they do and you misinterpret them constantly.

nope.

Yawn.

Nope.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

True.
Also true, is that you are a twat.

Oh come on; duhs lacks the warmth and depth of a twat.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
False!

Compelling!



You fucking drunk retard...

 

[martybegan]

[

True.
Also true, is that you are a twat.

Oh come on; duhs lacks the warmth and depth of a twat.....

I stand corrected.

 

[daws101]

Nothing I said is fantasy , on the other hand your stuff is mostly fantasy.

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

doesn't answer the question.

 

[daws101]

Excellent description of yourself.
I never flail and have no face to save.

Then you have no idea what you're posting.

False!

Wow, that's authoritative, said no one in particular.

Best you could do?

Oh heck no. I reserve my best for those who deserve it.

of course you do dear.

 

[2aguy]

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

doesn't answer the question.

Actual situations where concealed carry permit holders did stop mass shooters answers your question......

 

[daws101]

[

True.
Also true, is that you are a twat.

Oh come on; duhs lacks the warmth and depth of a twat.....

how would you know the only twat you've ever experienced is two dimensional, not counting your inflatable friend.

 

[2aguy]

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

doesn't answer the question.

Here you go......

Some details to help you make your guess....

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)

**********

No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)


Temple massacre has some Sikhs mulling gun ownership

The president of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin had only a butter knife on hand, which he used to fight the gunman. He was killed, but his heroic actions were credited for slowing the shooter. Guns were not allowed in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin.

“No guns [were] allowed in the temple,” Kulbir Singh, an attendee of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, told FoxNews.com. “Everyone knows that it’s not allowed, anywhere in the temple.”

 

[2aguy]

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

doesn't answer the question.

Here is another answer...

Yep...another case that the gun grabbers say never happens...this Uber driver stopped a guy during a mass shooting....

Police in Chicago Give Hero his Gun Back - The Truth About Guns

On April 17th, John Hendricks reacted quickly and accurately to stop a mass shooting, likely saving numerous lives. Hendricks was exercising his Constitutional rights in Chicago, a town where they had been suppressed for generations. He was taking a break from accepting Uber fares when he saw a man rack a slide on a pistol across the street . . .


That’s when the man began firing at a group near him. Hendricks acted quickly and precisely. He fired about six rounds, hitting the attacker three times, a more accurate result than in most police-involved shootings.

Hendricks made the tactically correct decision to leave the area once the threat was down. He returned to give an account to the police on the scene.

From buzzpo.com:

Hendricks returned to the scene when police arrived and held his arms in the air, concealed carry and firearm owner identification cards in hand.

He said it was a common-sense approach after what had transpired.

“A shooting just happened,” Hendricks said. “I’m the one that called, and I’m the shooter.”

“At the time, I remembered I still had my firearm on me,” he recalled. “I let them know that my firearm’s on my right side.”

The police took Hendricks’ gun, which is common in self-defense situations. I have often taught concealed carry students to expect their gun to be impounded by the police while they sort things out.


The man is not a SEAL, a SWAT member, or James Bond.....and he stopped an active mass shooter...gee........I wonder why this doesn't count....prepare for the gun grabbers to move the goal post on the stopping of a mass shooting in 3......2......1.....

 

[2aguy]

Simply stating that is not authoritative. You want to take away a victim's last line of defense. It's just that simple.

Let's put it this way. When a shooter is picking off people in a crowd, do you want the victims to have guns available to them or not?

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

doesn't answer the question.

And another one....

Armed Doctor Opens Fire and Stops Active Shooter in Pennsylvania Hospital

Reports indicate that the active shooter situation in a hospital in Darby, PA on Thursday was brought to an end by an armed doctor who exchanged gunfire with the patient, striking him several times in the chest.

According to My Fox Philly,

According to Whelan, the shooter came into the 3rd floor Psychiatric office and opened fire. The Psychiatric office offers outpatient services and has a pharmacy located inside. The building was active at the time of the shooting.

Whelan confirmed one female employee, who was a case worker, is dead and the doctor has a graze wound to the head. The doctor is expected to be treated and released from HUP. The doctor and case worker’s name has not been released.

Whelan confirms the suspect also suffered three gunshot wounds to the torso area and is in critical condition at HUP. He is undergoing surgery at this time.

 

[daws101]

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

doesn't answer the question.

Actual situations where concealed carry permit holders did stop mass shooters answers your question......

false.

However, there have been enough mass-shootings in shall-issue states that it’s time to admit that the notion that “it will stop mass killings” is not a valid justification for shall-issue CCW. For all the bloody publicity they garnish, mass shootings are anomalies, freak incidents of human mayhem, the equivalent of bridge collapses or flesh-eating-bacteria outbreaks. Terrible and tragic, but not very common, and not really “preventable” in any practical sense.

I have to admit that I sometimes think that the extreme pro-gunners are the mirror image of the gun banners. The gun banners see guns as the cause of every problem and the gun-rights extremists see guns as the solution to every problem. The reality: complex problems won’t be resolved with bumper-sticker solutions, no matter how attractive or simple or convenient they might appear.

I’m not saying there aren’t valid reasons for shall-issue CCW. I think there are many. But the notion that liberalized CCW will prevent “mass shootings” is not one of them.

Does CCW Prevent Mass Shootings? - The Truth About Guns

 

[daws101]

Can they shoot?
Can they shoot under duress?
Do they have the werewithal to not freeze and shoot another person?
If "they" have the above , then yes .

Then why are you still arguing? That's who is supposed to have guns. You only need a few in every crowd.

False!
There is no way of knowing that.

Concealed carry permit holders are generally very responsible people. Let's start with them.

doesn't answer the question.

And another one....

Armed Doctor Opens Fire and Stops Active Shooter in Pennsylvania Hospital

Reports indicate that the active shooter situation in a hospital in Darby, PA on Thursday was brought to an end by an armed doctor who exchanged gunfire with the patient, striking him several times in the chest.

According to My Fox Philly,

According to Whelan, the shooter came into the 3rd floor Psychiatric office and opened fire. The Psychiatric office offers outpatient services and has a pharmacy located inside. The building was active at the time of the shooting.

Whelan confirmed one female employee, who was a case worker, is dead and the doctor has a graze wound to the head. The doctor is expected to be treated and released from HUP. The doctor and case worker’s name has not been released.

Whelan confirms the suspect also suffered three gunshot wounds to the torso area and is in critical condition at HUP. He is undergoing surgery at this time.

you can stop any time now, the incidences you list are fairly insignificant .
it's not that under certain specialized situation a citizen shooters can stop a mass shooting.
the problem is it's not and cannot be near as effective a deterrent as you guys wish it was.