Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I woke up this morning with a thought. Rare, I know.

One line I keep hearing from the people who oppose civilian carry of firearms is that "there is no such thing as a good guy with a gun".
Aside from that being nonsense from the beginning, let's follow this line of reasoning.
They argue that an "active shooter" has not been stopped by an armed civilian while committing mass homicide.
Well, they're wrong, but let's not dwell on the facts and assume that they are right.
The vast majority of the mass shooting take place in "gun-free zones", places that are posted against legal concealed carry.
Therefore, we can assume, since law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law, that there was no legal concealed carry anywhere in the vicinity of those mass shootings to stop the shooter.

So then, the anti-gunners are arguing that lack of concealed carry in GFZs and resultant lack of armed civilians stopping active shooters... is proof that armed civilians are not helpful.

That's like prohibiting a certain race from going to college and then arguing: "see, there's none of them in college, so they must be too stupid to go there" and then using that to prohibit them from going to high school.

It's a dumb recursive argument, and anyone using it should be beaten with a logic textbook.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
Welll...
You can't prove a mass shooting was stopped. Why? Because you have no proof it would have actually happened.
That's logic.
It's just as bad as the argument by pro-gunners that a drop in crime is directly attributed to increased gun ownership. Until the "bad guys" are all surveyed and explain why they didn't commit a crime, you can't accurately attribute it to any one cause.
That's logic.

But you are right about the (il)logical fallacies against carry. There are many, and they often don't stand up to scrutiny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,090 Posts
Here are a couple of factors to keep in mind.

Some shootings don't rise to the designation of "mass shooting" simply because they are stopped before the body count gets that high. I think I heard once that a mass shooting is 4 or more deaths. The media simply refers to them as shootings (if they talk about them at all). And who knows if or by how much the body count would have risen had it not been nipped in the bud. Since we can only speculate what would have happened next, the anti-2A crowd can quickly ignore them.

Sometimes a person with a CCW in the middle of a mass shooting will evade rather than engage. Anyone that has spent much time on this forum will know that there are very different opinions on that subject. Some carry to simply keep their family safe and will only use their gun if they have no other option. And other feel a sense of duty to stop the attacker. (Please, let's not turn this thread into another debate on that subject. That has been discussed here ad nauseam.)

The vast majority of the anti-2A crowd have made up their mind. Things like logic and facts will not change that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,478 Posts
I recall that there's a consistent pattern of mass shooters committing suicide immediately upon any sort of plausible resistance. Also in many other cases the shooter simply gives up if there's resistance. So, an armed civilian puke (ACP) like myself offers a mass shooter return fire which lead to him sitting down behind the corner and turning his weapon on himself blowing his brains out rather than bleeding out from the sucking chest wound that the ACP inflicted then it's very easy for the role of the ACP in ending the fight to be discounted or even totally disregarded.

Personally I much prefer to think of myself as an ACP than as a G cubed (good guy with a gun). I'm not 8 anymore and some days I don't feel particularly good :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
653 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Some shootings don't rise to the designation of "mass shooting" simply because they are stopped before the body count gets that high. I think I heard once that a mass shooting is 4 or more deaths.
Actually, I think in the most recent "statistics" they designate any event where more than one person gets labeled as a mass shooting. That's how they are getting "thousands" of "mass shootings" a year.

To me, a "mass shooting" will always be defined as an armed attempt to claim as many lives of random individuals at a targeted location, with the sole purpose being to kill as many people as possible, and without targeting a specific person or persons.
Sometimes a person with a CCW in the middle of a mass shooting will evade rather than engage. Anyone that has spent much time on this forum will know that there are very different opinions on that subject. Some carry to simply keep their family safe and will only use their gun if they have no other option. And other feel a sense of duty to stop the attacker. (Please, let's not turn this thread into another debate on that subject. That has been discussed here ad nauseam.)
There are plenty of opinions on that issue. But that's a subject for another thread. I was merely trying to highlight a logically inconsistent position.
The vast majority of the anti-2A crowd have made up their mind. Things like logic and facts will not change that.
I actually think that the phenomenon you're describing will be the downfall of the modern society. The wise men and women in ages past had great debates, often via mail, often lasting months or even years, and they were able to change each other's mind. It's so easy these days (and we're all guilty of it to some extent just by being on this forum) to sanitize your worldview to reflect only a single opinion, and then to interact with people who share it. There's no respect for plurality of opinion... and a politician that changes their mind is a "flip-flopper". I respect a good argument. I used to believe in much more strict gun control, as well as in the value of the death penalty. I changed my mind on both after some discussions with very smart people and learning more about the issues. We should have more arguments, not less, but they shouldn't degenerate into the kind of namecalling fallacy fests that even our national election debates have become. It's shameful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,468 Posts
Liberals usually try to say that most mass shootings dont occur in gun free zones. Which I guess could probably be true when you factor in gang/drug shootings that are never reported on at anything above the local level. However, those dont typically endanger the average citizen who is minding their own business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
There is a seldom cited Harvard study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (Vol. 30, No. 2) conducted in 2007. There is an inverse relationship between private gun ownership and murder; the greater the number of privately owned guns, the lower the murder rate. The study also cites Russia having a murder rate four times the U S and 20 times Norway. This, in a country where private gun ownership is completely banned. They also go thru a series of comparative analyses of U S gun control state by state and indicates that states with the strictest gun control laws have some of the highest crime rates. Not all, but a significant majority. Funny, our president is a Harvard grad and he never takes pride in this piece of research's findings.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,890 Posts
On June 6th 1944 My Uncle and My Dad entered a huge GFZ (France) along with 100,000 good guys with guns and put a stop to a historical mass killing at the hand of evil demonic tyrants. Today, me carrying a .380 in a pocket holster with the commitment to prevent being a victim of evil is really just a small microcosm of the same principle.

Good men with guns have stopped evil men from perpetrating their crimes against the innocent
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
I woke up this morning with a thought. Rare, I know.

One line I keep hearing from the people who oppose civilian carry of firearms is that "there is no such thing as a good guy with a gun".
Aside from that being nonsense from the beginning, let's follow this line of reasoning.
They argue that an "active shooter" has not been stopped by an armed civilian while committing mass homicide.
Well, they're wrong, but let's not dwell on the facts and assume that they are right.
The vast majority of the mass shooting take place in "gun-free zones", places that are posted against legal concealed carry.
Therefore, we can assume, since law-abiding citizens by definition follow the law, that there was no legal concealed carry anywhere in the vicinity of those mass shootings to stop the shooter.

So then, the anti-gunners are arguing that lack of concealed carry in GFZs and resultant lack of armed civilians stopping active shooters... is proof that armed civilians are not helpful.

That's like prohibiting a certain race from going to college and then arguing: "see, there's none of them in college, so they must be too stupid to go there" and then using that to prohibit them from going to high school.

It's a dumb recursive argument, and anyone using it should be beaten with a logic textbook.
You are being "logical' , you are more aware of the facts "mass shooters have been stopped" (several examples of that), and they are liberals who don't care about being logical and ignore all of the facts. You might point out .... that about all Mass Shooters, have been Democrats. So, are they saying that there is anyd Democrat that should own a gun ? Drunk drivers kill people, so ban all cars ?

They are idiots. They have been trained to be good little victims. Instead of defending their position, they want to go cry and sit in their safe-place, because they are unable to either defend their position, or stand up for themselves.

If someone says they are "offended" .... I tell them that's good .. I have 9 to go for today. They always ask, and I tell them that my goal is to offend at least 10 liberals / idiots every day.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
Almost nobody carries a firearm to be a 'GGWAG'. They carry to give them the sense of reduction of risk. But you're right it's a recursive argument that the anti-firearm nuts promote.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
You are spot on.

The muppets in the news media are all bucking for promotions so they follow the Anti-gun freaks and prefer not to make national news with stories about good guys with a gun stopping a potential mass shooter. Usually, the same muppets can be found following Gore and global warming.

Next they will attempt to take our guns because they are the main contributor to Global warming, surpassing freons and cow flatulence. :santaclaus::banghead:

12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns
In a Minnesota mall, a 'good guy with a gun' stops a 'bad guy' with a knife - LA Times
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,327 Posts
Liberals usually try to say that most mass shootings dont occur in gun free zones. Which I guess could probably be true when you factor in gang/drug shootings that are never reported on at anything above the local level. However, those dont typically endanger the average citizen who is minding their own business.
As per the definition of mass shooting, most do NOT occur in GFZs (more than three shot, not including the shooter{s}). Probably most actually occur in gang events as you noted and in familial/home sorts of mass murder events (usually murder/suicide). We are victims of overreacting along with the media, focusing on mall and school sorts of events, but a lot of public mass murders do happen that simply fail to make the news in a manner that holds our pro-gun attentions. Even if they make the national media, they die very quickly in the news. The sad thing is that many gang shootings do injure folks who are not gang members.

Mass shooting in downtown Baltimore, at least 8 victims - BNO News

The problem as I see it is that not enough good guys with guns are stopping mass shootings. Even when a state 10% of the population with carry permits, you know that maybe only 2% are actually carrying. Daily carriers still tend to be the exception rather than the rule. We need more carriers, not permit holders, but carriers and carriers who will react. Of the ones who are carrying, a bunch of those will be of the sort who will not be in places where mass shootings are apt to occur, public or private. Even if the mall allows it, most won't be at the mall. We don't go those kinds of places.

Here is a classic, public mass shooting that you don't hear anything about. It has no residual media value. It happened and was over.
BREAKING: Mass Shooting At Anti-Trump Protest in Seattle


I recall that there's a consistent pattern of mass shooters committing suicide immediately upon any sort of plausible resistance.
Consider updating your recollections. There is NOT a consistent pattern of mass shooters committing suicide immediately upon meeting resistance. Some do, maybe even most, but a goodly percentage do not give up. So wipe the notion from your mind that if you come up against a mass shooter that s/he will just give up once you provide resistance. If it happens, great. Don't count on it. You may come up against this guy...

Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com

or maybe this guy, who was countered by a LTC person who was shot through both legs and may be crippled...

Concealed Carrier Battled Mass Shooter In Houston: Media Silent

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE OPPOSITION.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheRiddler

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,778 Posts
To harbor the expectation that anti-gun zealots are going to use common sense when arguing their numerous indefensible positions is IMHO a waste of energy, emotion and time.

It's like trying to convince an atheist there is, in fact, a God. Until they have an up close, personal experience that illustrates they're wrong, they will never change their mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
The problem with any studies around guns is that the people conducting the studies have an agenda (whether it is pro/anti gun). They will present the data that is most helpful to the result they want to find. For example, of the 30K gun deaths per year in the US, 20K are from suicides. But, the 30K will be used and with terms to conflate all of them to murders or accidental shootings.

Whether suicides should be included when trying to research "gun violence" is debatable (but I think it should not be). However 20K is a big number. So, some researchers will compare the US firearm suicide rate to another country's firearm suicides (e.g. .Australia). This is also disingenuous. If a country bans firearms, there will of course be less firearm suicides. The real question is whether they have less suicides in total. People could simply trade one method with another. If we banned rope, the number of suicides by hanging would be reduced as well.

The issue of firearms is almost as contentions as abortion. I don't think there will ever be a middle ground that everyone can agree to. Fortunately, we have the US Constitution on our side which guarantees our (the PEOPLE) inalienable right to keep and bear arms. No right is absolute, but I am astounded on the sheer number and scope of restrictions that are allowed on a right that is not to be infringed. Us law abiding gun owners must jump through numerous hoops and put up with onerous restrictions in order to exercise that right. Plus, that right can be taken away without due process. But, heaven forbid we actually require someone to prove they are a citizen when they register to vote or provide ID at the time they vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,468 Posts
The issue I have with suicides being used to discuss "gun violence" is that it is used as a statistic to show how unsafe the US is because of guns, but someone committing suicide, generally speaking, does not endanger anyone else. Yes suicides are tragic, but they should be addressed as mental health issues, not gun issues. One of the most famous people to ever commit suicide did so without a gun. I have literally had people try to convince me that owning a gun makes me more likely to commit suicide or kill a family member. I love my life, and I love my family. There is no logical explanation as to why I would suddenly want to kill myself, or a family member just because I bought a gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,070 Posts
I have literally had people try to convince me that owning a gun makes me more likely to commit suicide or kill a family member.
That is exactly due to how the data is used. It is absolutely true that if you have a gun in the house you are substantially more likely to commit suicide with a gun - because it is impossible to kill yourself with a gun if you don't have one available. What those studies don't say is whether the people in that house are more likely to attempt suicide (by any means).

People who get married will experience divorce at a significantly higher rate than people that do not get married. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,468 Posts
That is exactly due to how the data is used. It is absolutely true that if you have a gun in the house you are substantially more likely to commit suicide with a gun - because it is impossible to kill yourself with a gun if you don't have one available. What those studies don't say is whether the people in that house are more likely to attempt suicide (by any means).

People who get married will experience divorce at a significantly higher rate than people that do not get married. :)
You are absolutely right. The problem is the people reading those studies can not comprehend this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
623 Posts
Did you know that most car accidents happen within 10 miles of the home?

That must mean that people are less likely to get into an accident the further away they are from home, right?
The same lack of critical thinking that leads people to believe such nonsense is what allows the "statistics" about guns and suicide to get and gain traction.
People LIKE being spoon-fed, even if they are being fed bovine excrement.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top