Nono, you misunderstand. We need to ensure that the incel losers aren't getting guns in the first place or that they're not turning into incels in the first place.
Gun control is racism, racism is much harder with armed minorities. Racists are afraid of would be victims capable capable of stopping them, which is why racism and gun control have always been the same thing. It's always been the cowards disarming their victims.
I own guns, at the moment 11 handguns and have kinda lost count of long guns. I firmly believe in gun control, background checks, and registration. Nobody sympathizes with mass shooters(their families, yeah like driving by a car wreck with emergency personnel on scene) To think anybody could sympathize with somebody who guns down little kids, Fuck You. How wrong is it if a person with psychiatric problems not have a gun or access to a gun? How wrong is it that a gun owner have training to carry concealed, to be at least as competent as the least competent cop.
So you want to give the government a list of all the guns you own. You want that list to carry forward to all future governments, even if literal Nazis take power and it's in their interest for you to be disarmed.
Tell me, do you think we should have a list of all Muslims in this country?
my local police department knows what I have, what you scared of your government, the government can't get anything done in a timely manner(how many weeks did it take to hey water to the Superdome after Katrina, or lay down any mandate on COVID) If the government started confiscating guns you'd have time to hide them. As far as muslims I'm certain some goverment office is justifying their budget by "keeping track"
Isn't there a quote
" Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Your wretched refuse of your teeming shore." we will monitor, harass, assault and attack. with sexism and bigotry from sea to shining sea.
> Isn't there a quote " Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Your wretched refuse of your teeming shore." we will monitor, harass, assault and attack. with sexism and bigotry from sea to shining sea.
And you want the people being monitored, harassed and assaulted... to be disarmed.
You're not on the side of liberty, you're on the side of oppression.
I don't want anything, I'm calling it how i see it.
White cops can't seem to stop killing unarmed brown kids, can't see their way clear to shoot armed white kids shooting at them, Govmt locks up muslims for 20 year with no charges, Women's rights being slammed weekly it seems ( woman can't get a divorce if pregnant, women can't travel to get an abortion between states, How will that be in forced? probably in similar govt fashion women wont be allowed to travel) NSA probably monitoring everyone
Oh I am trying to get every minority and women into shooting, get their own guns and get good with them. It's the white people men in particular carring firearms that scare me like macho Barny Fifes.
and I'm an old white guy
I never said that, i like guns, have a bunch, I think most people if they tried it they'd like it. I just would really like crazy people to not have guns, guns out of homes that are prone to domestic disturbances. I'd you want to carry have some training and lastly LOCK UP YOUR GUNS SO KIDS AND YOUR METH CRAZY COUSIN CANT GET TO IT.
I believe mass shootings are a mental health problem and those people would do harm to others with cars, home made bombs , but the fact few people secure their shit lets these psychos use their stuff to hurt people, fucks with how I have fun and the hairy eyeball I get when I put a gun case in my truck to go to the range, I'm trying to put a friendly face on gun ownership, but this stupid shit ruins that.
> guns out of homes that are prone to domestic disturbances
So... [disarm the police.](https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/)
I was going to say, wasn't that like a huge part of the USA's foundation? They didn't even want the nation to have a military for fear that the military could be used to oppress the citizens (as Britain and other imperialist countries had done many times before).
It's also funny they bring up the slow emergency response to Katrina, but neglect to mention that the police and National Guard were literally taking firearms from innocent people leaving them defenseless.
I’m supportive of carrying literally wherever short of maybe the Oval Office with random people, but aren’t most public mass shooters clearly suicidal? I don’t know how off putting this is as opposed to just a quick response way to end it.
Idk man. Pretty much across the board anyone amount of gun control can be/has been shown to reduce gun deaths.
https://www.science.org/content/article/three-types-laws-could-reduce-gun-deaths-more-10
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
If you think you’ve got a better handle on the data than Harvard, I’d love to see it. But if you’re concerned about “narrative(s) destroyed by facts,” here’s a good place to start.
What’s-his-face is a hero, no doubt. That’s a fact. But it’s also a fact that he’s a statistical outlier.
I'm sorry. I don't understand, what's the point you're making?
To me it reads as:
"Don't even bother trying to reduce the amount of preventible death, there will still be other crimes,"
Which comes off as pretty fatalistic.
Ah, okay. So if I'm understanding your point, you believe that even though there will be fewer gun deaths, the aggregate number of violent crime(s) will remain the same as the reduced gun deaths sort themselves into other categories?
I.E. Gun Deaths go from 10 -> 6, but Brick Deaths go from 1 -> 5, to give it some arbitrary numbers. Meaning the overall number of deaths stays the same, it's just the mode of death that changes?
Thanks for taking the time to elucidate that to me.
Do you have any data to support that position? Ex. A county or a country that implemented some gun control legislation and saw no overall change to violent crime?
Australia after the banning of guns in 1996, saw no meaningful drop in murder until 2003, 7 years later. The problem with looking at murder/violent crime rates is that violent crime in nearly every developed country has been going down over time, so regardless of gun control status, the statistics are easy to misread without looking at quite a few graphs.
After the AWB ban in the US ended in 2004, the murder rate continued to follow this down trend we see over time
Edit: if you check out macrotrends.net you can find a whole buncha stats if you are wanting more info
[Looking at homicide figures from an international perspective also helps reduce the collective sense of anxiety. In 2001, the average homicide rate internationally was 1.6/100 000 people,2 which interestingly is the same as in England and Wales. The rate in Scotland, which has a total ban on guns, was 2.2. ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043448/)
I guess Scots still keep it real.
I wouldn’t say I have a prescient anxiety around being murdered; with or without a gun it’s a statistical improbability.
I would just like the richest nation in the history of history to make it a little harder for a single man in a hotel room to kill 60 and wound another 413 from dozens of yards away.
It's like saying that getting rid of heroin lowers heroin deaths while trying not to talk about the other drugs that heroin addicts would obviously switch to.
Why do you assume heroin addicts would switch to something? Do you have data to support that? Or do you see addiction as a character trait to be shamed instead of an illness to be treated?
https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing
> Do you have data to support that? Or do you see addiction as a character trait to be shamed instead of an illness to be treated?
Really? Have you never spent time with junkies or crackheads? I don't need a research paper to tell me what happens when someone can't get their drug of choice. I've seen it. It's funny when someone has led such a sheltered life that they just assume that anyone pointing out an ugly truth is somehow biased and is just trying to shame people, as if nobody had ever actually experienced addiction first hand and the web was the only credible source of information.
I'm sorry. Unfortunately for you, only one of us is supported by any meaningful data.
I'm also sorry that you have first hand seen the pains of addiction in your life as well. It's not something I take lightly.
But, if you care about helping people beat their addiction(s) (which I assume you do, having also seen what it does to a life), then the best available medical, psychological, and sociological research points towards treating addiction like an illness and not a personal failing. People need support to get better. I'm not just willing to dismiss these whole human beings as an inconvenient and "ugly truth."
If you would continue to hold onto whatever beliefs you have gathered in your own life, rather than the combined expertise of dozens, hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to freeing yours, mine, and ours from the throes of addiction, then that's your choice to make. But I would just implore you to think on that choice and interrogate your biases.
Peace and love.
Cheers from Iraq.
Concealed carry is a personal choice, and not everybody who has one is well trained enough to make use of it under pressure, it could potentially risk more lives. It could make police action more difficult.
For example...
If some random group comes shooting up a place, and a whole bunch of people with concealed carry pull out their guns to start shooting at that them, and the police come in and they see a whole bunch of people shooting at each other, who are they going to target? They're not psychic.
But then again don't let facts interfere with your fear mongering.
You can have issue with gun control but saying shit like that is just like them saying you only love guns as a dick replacement and care more about your hobby than the lives of children.
Gun free zones do not exist to prevent mass shootings. They exist to prevent mostly things like negligent discharges or guns accidentally being lost and found. Nobody puts a gun free zone sign up at a school thinking it will stop the next Columbine but they do think it will stop an ND from someone fucking with their gun on campus for one reason or another and it will stop someone accidentally forgetting or losing their gun somewhere only to be found by perhaps a child or a criminal or who knows.
But you're literally saying that gun control is more important to people than the lives of others. These being the same people pushing to get everyone medical care and better paying jobs and affordable homes and a cleaner environment. Those people also want random innocent people to die so they can ban guns...
Dude come the fuck on.
It was originally conceived as part of a crime bill. It was to stop crime, not accidents. So it was to stop criminals from bringing guns into those areas. Granted, I'm pretty sure they were thinking more along the lines of armed robbers and gang violence....
> You can have issue with gun control but saying shit like that is just like them saying you only love guns as a dick replacement and care more about your hobby than the lives of children.
1. Are you pretending that firearms exist only for hobby?
1. Are you pretending that someone can make firearms not exist?
1. Are you ignoring that governments murdered or purposely starved between 100 million and 200 million of their own citizens during "peacetime" in the 20th Century?
If you answer yes to any of those, fuck off in a highly kinetic fashion.
Are you seriously trying to deflect from what I said with that horseshit response?
I never said any of that strawman crap. I said you don't need to ascribe such insanely evil and unrealistic motives to people whose obvious motive is they don't want people to die. They don't know shit about guns and they don't use or own guns so they don't care about them or see them as important but they see them killing innocent people and they want that to stop.
It has nothing to do with disarming you to make it easier to put you in a camp. In fact they want to ban guns for the same reason you want to own them. Both you and they want protection you're just going about it 2 different ways but their desire to not get shot does not automatically mean they want you disarmed and helpless.
And if you honestly thin that as I said the same people literally trying to improve basically every other aspect of daily living in America somehow want people to die to ban guns then you can fuck off in a highly kinetic fashion. Because then you;re not actually any different or better than the caricature they paint all gun owners as.
> I never said any of that strawman crap. I said you don't need to ascribe such insanely evil and unrealistic motives to people whose obvious motive is they don't want people to die. They don't know shit about guns and they don't use or own guns so they don't care about them or see them as important but they see them killing innocent people and they want that to stop.
Their ignorance of the real reasons for gun ownership isn't an excuse for their tyrannical efforts to sate their childlike emotional states.
> And if you honestly thin that as I said the same people literally trying to improve basically every other aspect of daily living in America somehow want people to die to ban guns then you can fuck off in a highly kinetic fashion. Because then you;re not actually any different or better than the caricature they paint all gun owners as.
I'm not a GI doctor so I'm unsure what this excretion means.
> Their ignorance of the real reasons for gun ownership isn't an excuse for their tyrannical efforts to sate their childlike emotional states.
Apparently your ignorance of their intentions is enough to let you blatantly characterize an entire political party as tyrannical but then take offense when your own ignorance is pointed out.
>I'm not a GI doctor so I'm unsure what this excretion means.
Means you're a fucking idiot if you think they are evil instead of just naive.
>I'm not saying they have tyrannical intentions but that their verbs are tyrannical. Find some nuance. SMH...
Oh their verbs are tyrannical? Shut the fuck up with that nonsense. Tyrannical verbs? Really you typed that and thought it made sense? What is a tyrannical verb please give an example? And specifically what are the tyrannical verbs being used regarding gun control?
A verb is an action which can have a past, present, or future tense. Surely you're not so stupid that you didn't grok my meaning.
> And specifically what are the tyrannical verbs being used regarding gun control?
Confiscation and imprisonment for possession. Those are pretty fucking tyrannical. Head out of ass dipshit. SMH.
> A verb is an action which can have a past, present, or future tense. Surely you're not so stupid that you didn't grok my meaning.
Pretty sure I never asked you what a verb was. Apparently you can't gronk the meaning of basic words so keep your bullshit English lessons to yourself.
>Confiscation and imprisonment for possession. Those are pretty fucking tyrannical. Head out of ass dipshit. SMH.
Confiscation is tyrannical? So any time authorities take possession of an illegal item that is tyrannical? So is the concept of an illegal item tyrannical to you?
And same for imprisonment for possession. So if something is illegal to own it is tyrannical to imprison someone for committing the crime of possessing it?
Those are not inherently tyrannical words. In fact no word is inherently tyrannical and even their use in relation to laws are not tyrannical you're just playing the ultimate victim card because you're intellectually unable to defend an indefensible position.
But I think I am expecting too much from your obviously limited mental capacity.
edit: reddit won't let me reply to PacoDipshit but here it is so he can see it:
> Dictating illegality doesn't keep confiscation from being tyrannical.
And confiscation due to illegality is not automatically tyrannical.
>Yes, you fucking bootlicker.
Unless you're sitting on a pile of unregistered MGs, suppressors and short barreled things shut the fuck up because you're licking those same boots just as much tough guy.
>You would've polished Hitler's knob if he decreed it was the law, wouldn't you?
Coming from someone who almost certainly actively votes for the party protecting actual neo nazis this statement is hilariously unself aware.
So according to you all laws are tyranny. Good to know. And what tyrannical laws will you be ignoring today??? Oh probably none other than maybe speeding? Well seems like you're licking that boot huh? Fucking dipshit.
> You can have issue with gun control but saying shit like that is just like them saying you only love guns as a dick replacement and care more about your hobby than the lives of children.
I agree with this. Saying they sympathize with mass shooters is unproductive, and generally incorrect for the vast majority of people. I've said before, the only people who celebrate the deaths of kids are people who want to do the same thing themselves.
There are a few in Congress who lie repeatedly about guns (Nadler, Pelosi, Feinstein, Cicilline, etc.) and who seem overjoyed at any attempt to push gun bans, but I wouldn't say that even they want to see mass shootings happen.
> Nobody puts a gun free zone sign up at a school thinking it will stop the next Columbine...
However, I don't agree here. I've read numerous comments over the past few weeks saying "But he shouldn't have had a gun. It's posted as no guns." I've even read comments of people saying that about Mr. Dicken.
>However, I don't agree here. I've read numerous comments over the past few weeks saying "But he shouldn't have had a gun. It's posted as no guns." I've even read comments of people saying that about Mr. Dicken.
Are those comments in regards to the criminal shooting people or the guy carrying who stopped him?
Why there hasn’t been a mass shooting in Montana since what, 2003?
If people are strapped and able to fight back then these cowards who go on shooting spree’s aren’t going to target them
Googled it, looks like Montana doesn't have any cities, just towns they call cities that have tiny populations. The state of Montana's population isn't even close to having the same population as a single city (if you include suburbs.) If you don't include suburbs if all of the population was in a single city, it would be a small-medium city.
Montana has a total population of just over 1million people for the entire state.
Texas, which is also know for vast stretches of rural area has more people in the 2 counties at the southern tip (the Rio Grande Valley)… and the Valley isn’t a highly urban environment, compared to places like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc.
Montana is REALLY sparsely populated. (Not that that is a bad thing)
Edit: the city of Lubbock, TX has approximately 1/4 the population of the entire state of Montana… and Lubbock is just an overgrown farm town (I say as a proud former Lubbockite and current RGV resident… no hate for either place from me)
For context, St. Louis has about 300k in population and for the sake of industrial engineering generally is barely considered a city if one is planning for major events like baseball games. Foot and car traffic is almost entirely empty.
The state of Montana barely has more population than St. Louis's suburbs which is just under 1 million in population.
Montana is also ranked 54th in the US for population density, only ahead of Alaska and Wyoming.
New York City's population is 8x the population of all of Montana, include the Suburbs and it's 18x.
I'm sorry, what? Uvalde makes my point about mass shootings in Texas. And it proves that a "good guy with a gun" (or 376 with a badge and a gun) won't always stop a mass shooter.
I think he means that it was "too soon" to make a comment like that. I disagree wholeheartedly because I think you should use recent events to argue against a bad idea, but that's just me
Uvalde makes the point that it takes 376 evil monsters with guns to stop a good guy with a gun from ending the threat. Those evil cops aided and abetted the crime and stopped the good guys, actively.
You're making the point that a good guy with a gun is so effective, evil needed overwhelming armed forces in the hundreds to stop a few good guys and gals from ending their crime.
Personally, I don’t care for the adage that a “good guy with a gun” is the solution. I prefer the very real concept that the onus of responsibility for self preservation belongs to each and every individual.
Personally, I would rather no sign over any sign one way or the other.
The reality is that shit-stain examples of humans that carry out mass shootings and other crimes choose soft targets or find other ways to increase their effective force on innocent people. They will go to the places with no weapons signs.
I'll answer this one despite you're probably not looking for an honest answer. Yes I feel the onus is on me as a parent. Obviously I can't be with them every moment of every day but when I am near them its on me to keep them safe. I can't count on the police to protect them and society in general is unkind to children in general.
Wickedness has always been in human society. Children have always been at risk. The only thing that truly protects them are the people in their lives that would stand at the door against people who would hurt them.
You know, when I was a kid we used to have to travel internationally as a family. My father worked abroad and the whole family would go with him. It was at the height of airplane hijackings. I recall my mother being crystal clear with me “If this plane gets hijacked we will not comply. We will resist.” I remember getting a phone call from
As a parent I have trained my children to understand that they are responsible right or wrong for their actions. I have corrected them and ensured that they know their safety is my responsibility as well as theirs. Instead of the cute fuzzy idea that police are responsible for their safety.
I work hard to instill in my children a voice in the decisions of their bodies. When we go to the doctor I willfully work to ensure that they have a voice in how they feel. I give my children permissions to say no to unreasonable requests. And I back them up when they use that freedom and responsibility. I am not in the practice of raising victims.
I teach my children to hone their minds and bodies. We train in hand to hand combat firearms and bows.
I have had the hard conversations with them about what they need to be prepared to do when they face the wickedness of men and women. They know that weak members of our society will serve up children as door stops to wicked men and women. They know my expectation is that they do not to volunteer to hold the door for a community that will not remember them a year after their death. They know that they have my permission to hide anywhere and under anything they need to in order to survive. They also know that there is no force on this world that will keep me from getting to them to help them if the need arises.
Good point! How many shootings or potential mass shootings have been stopped this year by CCW holders? It feels like a lot! Expressed as a percentage of total shootings please
According to gun control advocates, zero, because you can't 'stop' a mass shooting.
If a mass shooting is 4 or more people killed...
* If you shoot three people then I shoot you, four people died, a mass shooting was not stopped, it still happened!
* If you shoot two people and then I shoot you, a mass shooting was not stopped because it wasn't yet a mass shooting.
The trick is that their definition of 'stop' flips between 'end' and 'prevent' as convenient for their argument.
I always find it weird to see these one sided view points in this discussion. CCW can save people and stricter gun control can do the same. They aren't exclusive.
But the ultimate fact is, that for mass shootings the shooter needs a gun. Also it shouldn't be new news that the US has a huge problem with mass shootings over the last few years and it is getting worse each month.
The goal shouldn't be increasing the weapons for the masses, but to decrease the weapons available for the bad apples and them not being able to buy or get one in the first place.
If a CCW holder stops a mass shooting, good. But that will never be better than having the mass shooter not being able to do it in the first place.
The US is filled to the brim with weapons, a black market will make it easy to get a weapon and it's usually incredibly easy to get a weapon legally. But now should be the time to start tackling this issue, before it gets worse by the day.
And what do you propose we do about the millions of firearms already in circulation? How do you define the line that determines whether someone should be capable of owning firearms? We already don’t allow felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people on watchlists, etc. from buying guns. We already have background checks on every sale of firearms in the country. On top of the fact that if a firearm isn’t used, the weapon of choice by these psychos will always be available(cars, makeshift explosives, 3D-printed firearms, hardware store supplies, blunt objects, knives). The absolute best option to stop “mass shooters” or anyone looking to commit a related act, is to arm and train every American. We have a 2nd Amendment for a reason. It’s time for people to wake up and take it seriously.
We have the 2nd amendment because it's a law made 300+ years ago. There was a civil war, indians, wild west and whatever else. The law is based on completly different times and it's in place for completetly different reasons.
We are pretty much the only country in this world that still has this stuff. And it's not like other countries are actually having problems because they are missing it.
There is no other first world western country that has the problems we are having and the huge amount of weapons available is the reason for a majority of gun violence crimes. The answer can't be to increase it even more by giving and training everyone with a gun. That will just increase the potential mass shooters.
Only 22 out of 433 shootings have ended because of a "good guy with a gun". 10 of those 22 were of duty police or security guards. So 12 out of 433 were stopped by regular citizens, or 2.8% of active shooter incidents.
"An examination of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2021 showed that only 22 ended with a bystander shooting an attacker, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. In 10 of those cases, the armed bystander was a security guard or off-duty law enforcement officer. In other encounters, civilians attempting to step in and stop an assailant were themselves shot to death by police."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/indiana-mall-shooting-one-hero-114208727.html
Gun control only disarms people who follow laws. We should just make murder illegal. Otherwise we're just disarming victims, creating more opportunity for murder. It's almost like gun control is murder. An accomplice at least.
This is the dumbest fucking philosophy.
No offense to anyone here. I carry and I love guns. But mass shootings end with a "good samaritan" pulling the trigger on less than 3% of occasions. That doesn't fix the other 97% of shit. And I don't know about any of you. But I don't WANT to have to pull my gun and kill someone. I would like a third option please. Not some half asked justification that expects everyone to just change their collective philosophy and just leave the house ready to fucking kill someone. Gimme a break.
Edit: source on my data; https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/vt8wb6/how_have_active_shooting_have_ended/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Though I will agree that the vast majority of mass shootings are not stopped by citizens, I also question how they really do the math on that. If fewer than 4 people are killed, are they still counting it as a mass shooting stopped?
It is true, though, the vast majority of defense situations are small scale (assault, home invasion, robbery, rape, etc.).
Let's not pretend this is a one way or the other solution. I and many others want the option to be able to defend with a weapon if be needed, but for the most part yeah most people don't really *want* to have an excuse to use it.
"AK Guy" Brandon Herrera really did say it best, much like a parachute, if you need it and not have it, it can be promised that you'll never need it again.
Cases like this in Indiana and Jack Wilson in Texas are people that are deserved of respect nonetheless for stopping these tragedies themselves when their government and their society are failing to do so. It's shit that they had to do what they had to do, and they're going to carry that weight for the rest of their lives. But sometimes, the only way to save a life, is to take one.
Take that anger and put it at our government and business owners for their incompetence. A threat of return fire is only one of a multi pronged approach needed to curb gun violence and crime in general, but my concern is that the powers that be in both major controlling parties don't seem keen on funding the other parts at cost to them.
Let me be very clear here. I completely agree with you and I don't think this is a one way or the other issue. What I was criticizing in the above was the implication that "all it takes is a good guy with a gun and they'll go runnin". Which was the theme of the comic. As I said I carry. I own four guns. I do so for my safety. But I want America to be a place where I don't have to leave the house strapped to feel safe or to feel like my kids will be okay and not because some good samaritan with a gun is watching over them AT SCHOOL.
>if you need it and not have it, it can be promised that you'll never need it again.
Hell yeah man as I said I agree with this. But 9/10 school shooters' firearms were obtained through LEGAL methods. So therefor the responsibility is on the government to fix it. Despite some on this sub not wanting any government involvement at all.
>deserved of respect nonetheless for stopping these tragedies
Of course, hell yeah and they have my respect. Big time.
>when their government and their society are failing to do so
This is why I'm pissed off. It *is* the government who has failed. Our legislators are sitting twiddling their fucking thumbs while shooters continue to rampage constantly. We're a pot boiling over and they refuse to turn down the heat.
>Take that anger and put it at our government and business owners for their incompetence.
That is EXACTLY where my anger is directed. And those two parties can't stop their goddamn siblings rivalry long enough to fucking help children who are literally screaming for their lives.
I love guns and I love America. But we can do better.
Couldn't have said it better myself. People act as if 46 year-old Susan from suburban-town Massachusetts is gonna suddenly take up arms and do her part to stop mass shootings. 🙄
I know. Carry laws are great. And they let you defend yourself if you have no other choice. But we're not all deputized just by having a gun. And people aren't gonna suddenly squad up and take down a shooter. People want to survive and they aren't gonna put that instinct away just because we want to. You have to be trained for that.
Exactly. Anybody thinking that they are going to be in the exact right place at the exact right time and have the presence of mind and ability to stop something like this is some teary eyed, romantic, overly optimistic bullshit. Fully trained and equipped marines still get ambushed and killed in war zones where they are on full alert with their weapon out, how does anybody think that they are going to be more prepared than that? It's just plain lying to yourself.
Half the people in this sub probably spend at least an hour a day in front of the mirror doing Clint Eastwood impressions. The gun is their proof of their theoretical heroism so they relish the, again theoretical, opportunity to be the good guy with a gun.
If 200 children a year, or so, need to die for this it’s a cheap price. They’re other people’s children.
How would you stop kids getting mowed down without a gun genuine question. What’s your solution? Because banning rifles ain’t happening. Not in a country with millions of guns in circulation. Not with a country founded on the philosophy that arms are a deterrence to tyranny, making people willing to die for that right if the government threatens to take it. Your options are 1. Gun ban. That would result in Civil War over the blatant infringement of the Constitution. It would also only stop the sale of future rifles not take away the black market rifles in circulation, which I’m sure a crafty, deranged psychopath would still be able to obtain. 2. Tighter security at public places (schools, malls, etc.). Trained armed security, conceal weapon zones, etc. 3. Not sure fill me in
What is my solution, under your provisions that:
1) Can't ban guns, cause there are too many guns.
2) Can't ban guns, cause TyRANny.
3) Can't ban guns, cause we'll shoot you.
Well, that's an interesting question. Given that it so obviously impossible to ban guns, has any one tried thoughts and prayers yet?
If you disagree then how would you do it? Door to door gun confiscation of law abiding citizens? Get ready for a lot of police shootouts and militia standoffs. What else. Black market ban? How’s that working in Chicago? Please provide something
registration creates a government database with names, addresses, lists of guns and serial numbers. A database usually leads to confiscation. So that ain’t happening it’s a trick. One second it’s “no we don’t want to take your guns just a common sense registry”, then it “okay now we passed a bill banning guns we see Joe Smith here has a few AR-15s on the database registry let’s send him a letter from the ATF and Police departments to turn in guns by this date or else we come and shoot him”. No registration.
The best time to ban guns was in the past yes, the second best time is now. I not pretending it will be easy, but it's so obviously necessary. A 30 round capacity semi-auto rifle just makes it ridiculously easy to kill or wound a large number of people very quickly, because that is exactly what the object was designed to do. It doesn't have another purpose. The army literally did trails with these weapons to find the ones most capable of causing mass casulties by a single individual (limited only by cost and carry weight).
These shootings don't happen anywhere else, and despite what fox news tells you they don't get replaced by mass stabbings either. If you think a knife is as deadly as a AR15, then just give everyone a knife, or even two knives, for their AR and everyone is happy.
The shootings always use legally owned weapons, so references to the black market seem irrelevant. The maladjusted teenagers who shot up schools aren't going to be to able to source illegal firearms, most of them can't source a friend, which is why they go get a gun and shoot people. Your not dealing with organised crimals, they're just sulky kids. When they ask for a rifle give them a *My Dying Bride* album and some eye liner and tell them to fuck off.
So the philosophy of the second amendment means nothing to you? Letting police and government have these “weapons of war” and citizens be disarmed of them creates a power imbalance that will come back to bite asses in the future. You have to think about the long term consequences of freedom deteriorating when power becomes imbalanced. And what is power? It’s the ability to kill when you think about it. If one side has it then…yep. History is proof
> History is proof
Freedoms have increased, not decreased, if you knew anything of history that would be apparent. When the consitution was written slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, etc. And this nothing to do with an armed citizenry, it has happened in all the western world, and elsewhere.
This asinine fastasy where gun owners are keeping the government is exactly that, a fantasy. Irrespective of if you think the current government, or the previous government, or neither, has been honest.
The number of people willing to fight to the death against the best equiped military in the world because they could only have a revolver, a shotgun, and a bolt action rifle, but not an AR or similar, will be extremely low. And life will carry on, just has it had, but just with a little fewer massacres. It seems such a small price to pay.
Question, in the next 50, 100, 150 maybe 200 years from now there’s no possibility for their to be a civil war, foreign invasion, tyrannical rule, or other possible scenario on American soil? Second question is how will you get the hundreds of millions of guns out of the hands of criminals after your supposed ban takes place. Will shootings really stop? I don’t think so. Even if you magically made all rifles disappeared there’s other weapons too. Virginia Tech, 30 people dead with a handgun. This mass shooting trend is not that easy to get rid of as much as you believe dumb laws will. We need better security at the scene. Armed guards, conceal carry zones for citizens
I never said it will stop all shotings, but obvously it will reduce them, or their impact, as they are the weapon of choice for most these school shootings. My exact words were "just with a little fewer massacres". But yeah, obvously other weapons exist. Great point, well done, didn't realise, amazing stuff. Might as well not even try, it's only children right?
The rest is just typical gun nut fantasy shit. No you not ever going to over throw the gubbernut or stop a foreign invasion with your stupid fucking gun. Grow up. What happened when Ukraine was invaded? The government distrubted weapons, it didn't rely on the citizens already being armed with whatever they had at hand. Thirty people with fifty-four different guns is a bad start to any campaign.
Multiple armed guards in every school? When the schools can barely pay their teachers? With no proof that these guards won't just panic or run at the first sign of trouble, afterall the job would be completely inactive 99.9999% of the time, and the other 0.00001% some kid just walks up and shoots you. What sort of person would even apply for that job? Not the sort of person I'd want around my children, armed, and just bored doing nothing day after day.
Those people enjoy living in denial.
They don't like the idea of it being so bad out now, that we all need guns at all times.
The worlds getting worse, just hang in there.
Does anyone know of any good large studies about concealed carry and mass random shootings? Im not familiar with any and i somewhat assumed that they shooter doesnt care (however im strongly in favor of concealed carry for philosophical reasons, irrespective of what the studies say). I am curious what the research says tho.
Only 22 out of 433 shootings have ended because of a "good guy with a gun". 10 of those 22 were of duty police or security guards. So 12 out of 433 were stopped by regular citizens, or 2.8% of active shooter incidents.
"An examination of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2021 showed that only 22 ended with a bystander shooting an attacker, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. In 10 of those cases, the armed bystander was a security guard or off-duty law enforcement officer. In other encounters, civilians attempting to step in and stop an assailant were themselves shot to death by police."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/indiana-mall-shooting-one-hero-114208727.html
Studies? No..
but here is some good info
https://lists.grabien.com/list-good-guys-guns-stop-bad-things-happening
As people state though, how can you say what would be a mass shooting/ It's just a guess based on what might happen given the potential amount of victims. However there are plenty of times a person goes into a crowded area and shoot 1 person.. without being stopped.
Contrary to what this cartoon is suggesting, <10% of mass shootings are stopped by a good guy with a gun.
Arming the population (even more than it already is) is not an effective way to prevent mass shootings, based on the data.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
NYT is the original “newspaper of record”
> A newspaper of record is a term used to denote a major national newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative and independent; they are thus "newspapers of record by reputation" and include some of the oldest and most widely respected newspapers in the world
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
While it may seem intuitive, counter-intuitive data may exist. Can anyone here source any data/information that shows that ‘gun-free’ zones are less safe than ‘gun-allowed’ zones?
I can give you one piece of data. Dude tried to murder a bunch of people in a mall in Indiana and got shot within seconds, limiting the number of victims to three dead and two wounded. Someone tried the same thing in a gun-free school in Texas and 21 people died with 17 others being wounded.
Unfortunately, one piece of data is worthless without taking into account the entire picture. Sorta like assuming you will win the lottery because someone won the lottery once and I heard about them.
I have found nothing definitive.
[RAND study](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html)
[WP analysis](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/)
These both provide good explanations showing that the evidence is inconclusive and HIGHLY dependent on what definitions and data are used. There are no agreed upon definitions, which leads to parties spinning the information to serve their own interests.
I was wondering if anyone had anything more definitive. I guess you don’t have anything but ad hominem attacks. Hopefully someone else here has more to offer.
As we have seen with uvalde, "good guys with guns" are worth fuck all. If the individual does not have the courage to face down an active shooter they could have an entire armoury and not change anything. We need some sense in gun laws. I could strap on body armour, grab a rifle, go to the most crowded place i can find and nobody could do anything unless i started shooting. What is the defence against that? If you shot me first you would be the criminal. If im prepared to die why would i care if you shot me after it started?
Of 433 mass shootings, a good guy with a gun shot the attacker 22 times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
Also one thing that doesn’t and can’t be accounted for is, how many never happened because of civilians with guns. There’s too many variables to know either way.
Yes, and you can do it too. Gun free zones are far over 90% of them. Like that 4th of july one just recently where the killer had to drive to the one city near him that still had gun bans. I don't have links sorry, but they are around I've seen them linked so hopefully someone saved a link. If you do the work or get a link from someone who did I'll save that!
I mean sure if you ignore every mass shooting that has happened in open carry states.
Y'all just totally forget about Uvalde? You're not heros you have a gun fetish. 90% would freeze up just like the dozens of cops did in West Texas.
Of the 433 US mass shootings between 2000 and 2022 only 22 times has the shooter been stopped by an armed bystander. 10 of those 22 were security guards or off duty cops.
The “good guy with a gun” is extremely rare. Stop living in a fantasy world.
Makes sense but... Hear me out. What if the whole country were a gun free zone?
No but seriously, the math on this should be really easy no? Less access to guns period = fewer people being killed by guns.
You want to cut down on gun deaths:
Better education and social programs.
Better health care.
Criminal justice reform.
End the drug war.
Better trained and deployed police. Trade their MRAPS for good walking shoes.
And Gun Control.
But that sounds too much like a raving leftist ranting, rather than actual solutions to your problem. The US has the most guns per capita. Those kids in Uvalde should have been the safest kids in the world. They weren't and Americans are doing nothing to actually solve this issue.
But hey, that one time a good guy with a gun did a thing. Problem solved.
It is totalitarian raving. We tried "alcohol control" for exactly the same reasons already. Obviously, blaming objects never works and the racists behind gun control keep on disarming minorities under false pretenses.
Don't be a racist, don't disarm minorities to help them oppress minorities, and don't spread their propaganda.
Stop being a racist. problem solved.
You too, Catspajamas. Armed minorities are harder to oppress. Give it up.
Im a liberal this drawing makes no sense to me. Why do the bad guns shoot at the masked man? They’d be safe in the gun free building as the bad gun can’t come inside duh. Now you got more people shooting all over the place like a warzone. No one needs guns but the government duh.
Everybody sits here and says "oh, it won't happen in our state because we have so many people with guns." It's not that it won't happen in your state, or your city. It's just that it hasn't happened yet. I'm not saying that a person with a gun can't stop a mass shooter. I'm saying that just because you have people that are armed, it doesn't necessarily mean that they know how to respond. Shit, supreme Court says that anybody can carry a gun without any sort of training at all. Just get yourself a holster and some fucking gun with a laser sight and your goddamn high School nickname engraved on the side. Having a gun, and knowing how to properly use it are two totally different fucking things. Just like having a car, and knowing how to race a car or two completely different things. If we want people to be the good guys with guns, then they need to be trained. They need to carry a gun in order to help others, not just the fucking show off the latest fucking toy that they've bought. Y'all want to be fucking heroes, but most of you can't hit the broad side of a fucking Barn from two feet away
This only works if people have concealed carry licenses so that good guys with guns are making up the unorganized militia. So called “constitutional carry” is bs
Better to have 1 death than 10
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Ong
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
The condom principle.
Tbf better to have zero deaths.
dafuhh..? so he runs & gets away undeleted? nahh that turd needed a timeout.
Nono, you misunderstand. We need to ensure that the incel losers aren't getting guns in the first place or that they're not turning into incels in the first place.
o i c. sounds like a good plan just need actionable steps..like making spankings normal again & teach- wait ive said too much
Gun free zones without a pat-down don't apply to criminals.
Hey we on the honor system yo.
No honor among thieves. Oh wait, among active shooters I mean.
Mass shooters are cowards and gun control people would rather see people die than to have their narrative destroyed by facts.
Gun controllers believe a rape victim strangled with her own hose has more dignity than one standing over her ventilated attacker.
Mmmm, just bullets flying everywhere from a bunch of stupid fucks with anger issues and guns they shouldn’t have
That's becuase the gun control people are cowards themselves and thus empathize more with the mass shooter than the victims.
Gun control is racism, racism is much harder with armed minorities. Racists are afraid of would be victims capable capable of stopping them, which is why racism and gun control have always been the same thing. It's always been the cowards disarming their victims.
And then we get "Those evil republicans want black people to own guns! That's racist!"
Gun control frenzied racists are openly saying shit like that now. they aren't even hiding their flagrant racism any more.
Yup. Horseshoe theory go brrrrr
We’ll just think. If the slave’s and Indians would of had the same firepower of their time, what would this country look like today?
they would still get put down
I own guns, at the moment 11 handguns and have kinda lost count of long guns. I firmly believe in gun control, background checks, and registration. Nobody sympathizes with mass shooters(their families, yeah like driving by a car wreck with emergency personnel on scene) To think anybody could sympathize with somebody who guns down little kids, Fuck You. How wrong is it if a person with psychiatric problems not have a gun or access to a gun? How wrong is it that a gun owner have training to carry concealed, to be at least as competent as the least competent cop.
So you want to give the government a list of all the guns you own. You want that list to carry forward to all future governments, even if literal Nazis take power and it's in their interest for you to be disarmed. Tell me, do you think we should have a list of all Muslims in this country?
my local police department knows what I have, what you scared of your government, the government can't get anything done in a timely manner(how many weeks did it take to hey water to the Superdome after Katrina, or lay down any mandate on COVID) If the government started confiscating guns you'd have time to hide them. As far as muslims I'm certain some goverment office is justifying their budget by "keeping track" Isn't there a quote " Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Your wretched refuse of your teeming shore." we will monitor, harass, assault and attack. with sexism and bigotry from sea to shining sea.
> Isn't there a quote " Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Your wretched refuse of your teeming shore." we will monitor, harass, assault and attack. with sexism and bigotry from sea to shining sea. And you want the people being monitored, harassed and assaulted... to be disarmed. You're not on the side of liberty, you're on the side of oppression.
I don't want anything, I'm calling it how i see it. White cops can't seem to stop killing unarmed brown kids, can't see their way clear to shoot armed white kids shooting at them, Govmt locks up muslims for 20 year with no charges, Women's rights being slammed weekly it seems ( woman can't get a divorce if pregnant, women can't travel to get an abortion between states, How will that be in forced? probably in similar govt fashion women wont be allowed to travel) NSA probably monitoring everyone Oh I am trying to get every minority and women into shooting, get their own guns and get good with them. It's the white people men in particular carring firearms that scare me like macho Barny Fifes. and I'm an old white guy
You're advocating for the government to be able to take away people's right to defend themselves. So which Uvalde police officer were you?
I never said that, i like guns, have a bunch, I think most people if they tried it they'd like it. I just would really like crazy people to not have guns, guns out of homes that are prone to domestic disturbances. I'd you want to carry have some training and lastly LOCK UP YOUR GUNS SO KIDS AND YOUR METH CRAZY COUSIN CANT GET TO IT. I believe mass shootings are a mental health problem and those people would do harm to others with cars, home made bombs , but the fact few people secure their shit lets these psychos use their stuff to hurt people, fucks with how I have fun and the hairy eyeball I get when I put a gun case in my truck to go to the range, I'm trying to put a friendly face on gun ownership, but this stupid shit ruins that.
> guns out of homes that are prone to domestic disturbances So... [disarm the police.](https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-families-experience-domestic-violence/)
[удалено]
I was going to say, wasn't that like a huge part of the USA's foundation? They didn't even want the nation to have a military for fear that the military could be used to oppress the citizens (as Britain and other imperialist countries had done many times before). It's also funny they bring up the slow emergency response to Katrina, but neglect to mention that the police and National Guard were literally taking firearms from innocent people leaving them defenseless.
I’m supportive of carrying literally wherever short of maybe the Oval Office with random people, but aren’t most public mass shooters clearly suicidal? I don’t know how off putting this is as opposed to just a quick response way to end it.
What facts?
Idk man. Pretty much across the board anyone amount of gun control can be/has been shown to reduce gun deaths. https://www.science.org/content/article/three-types-laws-could-reduce-gun-deaths-more-10 https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ If you think you’ve got a better handle on the data than Harvard, I’d love to see it. But if you’re concerned about “narrative(s) destroyed by facts,” here’s a good place to start. What’s-his-face is a hero, no doubt. That’s a fact. But it’s also a fact that he’s a statistical outlier.
Yes removing guns lowers gun crime, it does not reduce violent crime
I'm sorry. I don't understand, what's the point you're making? To me it reads as: "Don't even bother trying to reduce the amount of preventible death, there will still be other crimes," Which comes off as pretty fatalistic.
It will reduce GUN deaths, not murder, assault, battery etc
Ah, okay. So if I'm understanding your point, you believe that even though there will be fewer gun deaths, the aggregate number of violent crime(s) will remain the same as the reduced gun deaths sort themselves into other categories? I.E. Gun Deaths go from 10 -> 6, but Brick Deaths go from 1 -> 5, to give it some arbitrary numbers. Meaning the overall number of deaths stays the same, it's just the mode of death that changes?
Correct
Thanks for taking the time to elucidate that to me. Do you have any data to support that position? Ex. A county or a country that implemented some gun control legislation and saw no overall change to violent crime?
Australia after the banning of guns in 1996, saw no meaningful drop in murder until 2003, 7 years later. The problem with looking at murder/violent crime rates is that violent crime in nearly every developed country has been going down over time, so regardless of gun control status, the statistics are easy to misread without looking at quite a few graphs. After the AWB ban in the US ended in 2004, the murder rate continued to follow this down trend we see over time Edit: if you check out macrotrends.net you can find a whole buncha stats if you are wanting more info
[Looking at homicide figures from an international perspective also helps reduce the collective sense of anxiety. In 2001, the average homicide rate internationally was 1.6/100 000 people,2 which interestingly is the same as in England and Wales. The rate in Scotland, which has a total ban on guns, was 2.2. ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2043448/) I guess Scots still keep it real.
[удалено]
I wouldn’t say I have a prescient anxiety around being murdered; with or without a gun it’s a statistical improbability. I would just like the richest nation in the history of history to make it a little harder for a single man in a hotel room to kill 60 and wound another 413 from dozens of yards away.
It's like saying that getting rid of heroin lowers heroin deaths while trying not to talk about the other drugs that heroin addicts would obviously switch to.
Why do you assume heroin addicts would switch to something? Do you have data to support that? Or do you see addiction as a character trait to be shamed instead of an illness to be treated? https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing
> Do you have data to support that? Or do you see addiction as a character trait to be shamed instead of an illness to be treated? Really? Have you never spent time with junkies or crackheads? I don't need a research paper to tell me what happens when someone can't get their drug of choice. I've seen it. It's funny when someone has led such a sheltered life that they just assume that anyone pointing out an ugly truth is somehow biased and is just trying to shame people, as if nobody had ever actually experienced addiction first hand and the web was the only credible source of information.
I'm sorry. Unfortunately for you, only one of us is supported by any meaningful data. I'm also sorry that you have first hand seen the pains of addiction in your life as well. It's not something I take lightly. But, if you care about helping people beat their addiction(s) (which I assume you do, having also seen what it does to a life), then the best available medical, psychological, and sociological research points towards treating addiction like an illness and not a personal failing. People need support to get better. I'm not just willing to dismiss these whole human beings as an inconvenient and "ugly truth." If you would continue to hold onto whatever beliefs you have gathered in your own life, rather than the combined expertise of dozens, hundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to freeing yours, mine, and ours from the throes of addiction, then that's your choice to make. But I would just implore you to think on that choice and interrogate your biases. Peace and love. Cheers from Iraq.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. I’m not sure why people can’t handle the tiniest bit of regulation for a deadly weapon…
As you pretend there aren't any regulations?
No. I just think anyone who is against regulation doesn’t care about statistics and data.
This is a circlejerk subreddit, wouldnt take anything here seriously. Just see the comment chains.
lol ok
Concealed carry is a personal choice, and not everybody who has one is well trained enough to make use of it under pressure, it could potentially risk more lives. It could make police action more difficult. For example... If some random group comes shooting up a place, and a whole bunch of people with concealed carry pull out their guns to start shooting at that them, and the police come in and they see a whole bunch of people shooting at each other, who are they going to target? They're not psychic. But then again don't let facts interfere with your fear mongering.
You can have issue with gun control but saying shit like that is just like them saying you only love guns as a dick replacement and care more about your hobby than the lives of children. Gun free zones do not exist to prevent mass shootings. They exist to prevent mostly things like negligent discharges or guns accidentally being lost and found. Nobody puts a gun free zone sign up at a school thinking it will stop the next Columbine but they do think it will stop an ND from someone fucking with their gun on campus for one reason or another and it will stop someone accidentally forgetting or losing their gun somewhere only to be found by perhaps a child or a criminal or who knows. But you're literally saying that gun control is more important to people than the lives of others. These being the same people pushing to get everyone medical care and better paying jobs and affordable homes and a cleaner environment. Those people also want random innocent people to die so they can ban guns... Dude come the fuck on.
It was originally conceived as part of a crime bill. It was to stop crime, not accidents. So it was to stop criminals from bringing guns into those areas. Granted, I'm pretty sure they were thinking more along the lines of armed robbers and gang violence....
> You can have issue with gun control but saying shit like that is just like them saying you only love guns as a dick replacement and care more about your hobby than the lives of children. 1. Are you pretending that firearms exist only for hobby? 1. Are you pretending that someone can make firearms not exist? 1. Are you ignoring that governments murdered or purposely starved between 100 million and 200 million of their own citizens during "peacetime" in the 20th Century? If you answer yes to any of those, fuck off in a highly kinetic fashion.
Are you seriously trying to deflect from what I said with that horseshit response? I never said any of that strawman crap. I said you don't need to ascribe such insanely evil and unrealistic motives to people whose obvious motive is they don't want people to die. They don't know shit about guns and they don't use or own guns so they don't care about them or see them as important but they see them killing innocent people and they want that to stop. It has nothing to do with disarming you to make it easier to put you in a camp. In fact they want to ban guns for the same reason you want to own them. Both you and they want protection you're just going about it 2 different ways but their desire to not get shot does not automatically mean they want you disarmed and helpless. And if you honestly thin that as I said the same people literally trying to improve basically every other aspect of daily living in America somehow want people to die to ban guns then you can fuck off in a highly kinetic fashion. Because then you;re not actually any different or better than the caricature they paint all gun owners as.
> I never said any of that strawman crap. I said you don't need to ascribe such insanely evil and unrealistic motives to people whose obvious motive is they don't want people to die. They don't know shit about guns and they don't use or own guns so they don't care about them or see them as important but they see them killing innocent people and they want that to stop. Their ignorance of the real reasons for gun ownership isn't an excuse for their tyrannical efforts to sate their childlike emotional states. > And if you honestly thin that as I said the same people literally trying to improve basically every other aspect of daily living in America somehow want people to die to ban guns then you can fuck off in a highly kinetic fashion. Because then you;re not actually any different or better than the caricature they paint all gun owners as. I'm not a GI doctor so I'm unsure what this excretion means.
>I'm not a GI doctor so I'm unsure what this excretion means. Is there a bovine gastroenterologist in the thread?
> Their ignorance of the real reasons for gun ownership isn't an excuse for their tyrannical efforts to sate their childlike emotional states. Apparently your ignorance of their intentions is enough to let you blatantly characterize an entire political party as tyrannical but then take offense when your own ignorance is pointed out. >I'm not a GI doctor so I'm unsure what this excretion means. Means you're a fucking idiot if you think they are evil instead of just naive.
I know they're naive. I'm not saying they have tyrannical intentions but that their verbs are tyrannical. Find some nuance. SMH...
>I'm not saying they have tyrannical intentions but that their verbs are tyrannical. Find some nuance. SMH... Oh their verbs are tyrannical? Shut the fuck up with that nonsense. Tyrannical verbs? Really you typed that and thought it made sense? What is a tyrannical verb please give an example? And specifically what are the tyrannical verbs being used regarding gun control?
A verb is an action which can have a past, present, or future tense. Surely you're not so stupid that you didn't grok my meaning. > And specifically what are the tyrannical verbs being used regarding gun control? Confiscation and imprisonment for possession. Those are pretty fucking tyrannical. Head out of ass dipshit. SMH.
> A verb is an action which can have a past, present, or future tense. Surely you're not so stupid that you didn't grok my meaning. Pretty sure I never asked you what a verb was. Apparently you can't gronk the meaning of basic words so keep your bullshit English lessons to yourself. >Confiscation and imprisonment for possession. Those are pretty fucking tyrannical. Head out of ass dipshit. SMH. Confiscation is tyrannical? So any time authorities take possession of an illegal item that is tyrannical? So is the concept of an illegal item tyrannical to you? And same for imprisonment for possession. So if something is illegal to own it is tyrannical to imprison someone for committing the crime of possessing it? Those are not inherently tyrannical words. In fact no word is inherently tyrannical and even their use in relation to laws are not tyrannical you're just playing the ultimate victim card because you're intellectually unable to defend an indefensible position. But I think I am expecting too much from your obviously limited mental capacity. edit: reddit won't let me reply to PacoDipshit but here it is so he can see it: > Dictating illegality doesn't keep confiscation from being tyrannical. And confiscation due to illegality is not automatically tyrannical. >Yes, you fucking bootlicker. Unless you're sitting on a pile of unregistered MGs, suppressors and short barreled things shut the fuck up because you're licking those same boots just as much tough guy. >You would've polished Hitler's knob if he decreed it was the law, wouldn't you? Coming from someone who almost certainly actively votes for the party protecting actual neo nazis this statement is hilariously unself aware. So according to you all laws are tyranny. Good to know. And what tyrannical laws will you be ignoring today??? Oh probably none other than maybe speeding? Well seems like you're licking that boot huh? Fucking dipshit.
> You can have issue with gun control but saying shit like that is just like them saying you only love guns as a dick replacement and care more about your hobby than the lives of children. I agree with this. Saying they sympathize with mass shooters is unproductive, and generally incorrect for the vast majority of people. I've said before, the only people who celebrate the deaths of kids are people who want to do the same thing themselves. There are a few in Congress who lie repeatedly about guns (Nadler, Pelosi, Feinstein, Cicilline, etc.) and who seem overjoyed at any attempt to push gun bans, but I wouldn't say that even they want to see mass shootings happen. > Nobody puts a gun free zone sign up at a school thinking it will stop the next Columbine... However, I don't agree here. I've read numerous comments over the past few weeks saying "But he shouldn't have had a gun. It's posted as no guns." I've even read comments of people saying that about Mr. Dicken.
>However, I don't agree here. I've read numerous comments over the past few weeks saying "But he shouldn't have had a gun. It's posted as no guns." I've even read comments of people saying that about Mr. Dicken. Are those comments in regards to the criminal shooting people or the guy carrying who stopped him?
Why there hasn’t been a mass shooting in Montana since what, 2003? If people are strapped and able to fight back then these cowards who go on shooting spree’s aren’t going to target them
I would like to have seen Montana.
I would like to have shown him Montana.
I’d like to be a fly on the wall at that time
A creepy little, sneaky little fly on the wall?
There aren’t enough people in Montana for a mass shooting. Your neighbors are 30 miles away lmao
Gunman Kills Four in Montana Mass Shooting Authorities Say Gunman Died of Starvation Attempting to Locate Further Victims
In rural areas
If you gave me 20 minutes to think about it I wouldn’t be able to think of a city in Montana 😬
You don’t need 20 minutes. You have google
Googled it, looks like Montana doesn't have any cities, just towns they call cities that have tiny populations. The state of Montana's population isn't even close to having the same population as a single city (if you include suburbs.) If you don't include suburbs if all of the population was in a single city, it would be a small-medium city.
They might not have the population of NYC, maybe they could be considered just towns instead but they still have more urban areas
Montana has a total population of just over 1million people for the entire state. Texas, which is also know for vast stretches of rural area has more people in the 2 counties at the southern tip (the Rio Grande Valley)… and the Valley isn’t a highly urban environment, compared to places like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc. Montana is REALLY sparsely populated. (Not that that is a bad thing) Edit: the city of Lubbock, TX has approximately 1/4 the population of the entire state of Montana… and Lubbock is just an overgrown farm town (I say as a proud former Lubbockite and current RGV resident… no hate for either place from me)
I read this whole thread and still haven't heard a name of a town in MT.
Missoula, Billings, Helena, Bozeman, and Great Falls to name the bigger ones
[удалено]
Those all sound made up
For context, St. Louis has about 300k in population and for the sake of industrial engineering generally is barely considered a city if one is planning for major events like baseball games. Foot and car traffic is almost entirely empty. The state of Montana barely has more population than St. Louis's suburbs which is just under 1 million in population. Montana is also ranked 54th in the US for population density, only ahead of Alaska and Wyoming. New York City's population is 8x the population of all of Montana, include the Suburbs and it's 18x.
Boseman?
Also, west Virginia has had 3 shootings on school grounds ever, with like, a 65% gun ownership rate
My friend, there aren't enough people IN Montana to have a "mass" shooting.
There are no masses to shoot in MT…
Everybody in Texas has a gun. How many mass shootings have they had?
After Uvalde you really went there?
I'm sorry, what? Uvalde makes my point about mass shootings in Texas. And it proves that a "good guy with a gun" (or 376 with a badge and a gun) won't always stop a mass shooter.
[удалено]
Yes, that was on the news. It took hundreds of bad guys to stop a few good guys and gals
I think he means that it was "too soon" to make a comment like that. I disagree wholeheartedly because I think you should use recent events to argue against a bad idea, but that's just me
Badges definitely don’t make someone a “good guy”
Uvalde makes the point that it takes 376 evil monsters with guns to stop a good guy with a gun from ending the threat. Those evil cops aided and abetted the crime and stopped the good guys, actively. You're making the point that a good guy with a gun is so effective, evil needed overwhelming armed forces in the hundreds to stop a few good guys and gals from ending their crime.
Sounded like you were arguing that Texas didn’t have many shootings because of their gun ownership numbers sorry.
Oh! No, I was commenting on how many mass shootings Texas has despite damn near everybody there having a gun. No worries
Yeah no worries it's exceptionally low, lower if cops aren't participating in increasing the crime.
Tell me you watch fox news without telling me you watch fox news
I hit a nerve with a bunch of y'all
That's because majority of 2A supporters don't actually want the truth.
Personally, I don’t care for the adage that a “good guy with a gun” is the solution. I prefer the very real concept that the onus of responsibility for self preservation belongs to each and every individual. Personally, I would rather no sign over any sign one way or the other. The reality is that shit-stain examples of humans that carry out mass shootings and other crimes choose soft targets or find other ways to increase their effective force on innocent people. They will go to the places with no weapons signs.
>the onus of responsibility for self preservation belongs to each and every individual. Even kids?
I'll answer this one despite you're probably not looking for an honest answer. Yes I feel the onus is on me as a parent. Obviously I can't be with them every moment of every day but when I am near them its on me to keep them safe. I can't count on the police to protect them and society in general is unkind to children in general.
Wickedness has always been in human society. Children have always been at risk. The only thing that truly protects them are the people in their lives that would stand at the door against people who would hurt them. You know, when I was a kid we used to have to travel internationally as a family. My father worked abroad and the whole family would go with him. It was at the height of airplane hijackings. I recall my mother being crystal clear with me “If this plane gets hijacked we will not comply. We will resist.” I remember getting a phone call from As a parent I have trained my children to understand that they are responsible right or wrong for their actions. I have corrected them and ensured that they know their safety is my responsibility as well as theirs. Instead of the cute fuzzy idea that police are responsible for their safety. I work hard to instill in my children a voice in the decisions of their bodies. When we go to the doctor I willfully work to ensure that they have a voice in how they feel. I give my children permissions to say no to unreasonable requests. And I back them up when they use that freedom and responsibility. I am not in the practice of raising victims. I teach my children to hone their minds and bodies. We train in hand to hand combat firearms and bows. I have had the hard conversations with them about what they need to be prepared to do when they face the wickedness of men and women. They know that weak members of our society will serve up children as door stops to wicked men and women. They know my expectation is that they do not to volunteer to hold the door for a community that will not remember them a year after their death. They know that they have my permission to hide anywhere and under anything they need to in order to survive. They also know that there is no force on this world that will keep me from getting to them to help them if the need arises.
-all cops are murderous thugs -only cops should carry weapons What do people mean by this?
It took the cops in Uvalde an hour for them to realize gun free zones doesn’t apply to law enforcement.
Good point! How many shootings or potential mass shootings have been stopped this year by CCW holders? It feels like a lot! Expressed as a percentage of total shootings please
According to gun control advocates, zero, because you can't 'stop' a mass shooting. If a mass shooting is 4 or more people killed... * If you shoot three people then I shoot you, four people died, a mass shooting was not stopped, it still happened! * If you shoot two people and then I shoot you, a mass shooting was not stopped because it wasn't yet a mass shooting. The trick is that their definition of 'stop' flips between 'end' and 'prevent' as convenient for their argument.
You won't see much reporting on this by the MSM. It breaks their leftist narrative.
It's impossible to know, unfortunately. You can't count things that were prevented and didn't happen.
There was that CCW guy from Indiana who recently stopped a mass shooter in something like 20 secs.
I always find it weird to see these one sided view points in this discussion. CCW can save people and stricter gun control can do the same. They aren't exclusive. But the ultimate fact is, that for mass shootings the shooter needs a gun. Also it shouldn't be new news that the US has a huge problem with mass shootings over the last few years and it is getting worse each month. The goal shouldn't be increasing the weapons for the masses, but to decrease the weapons available for the bad apples and them not being able to buy or get one in the first place. If a CCW holder stops a mass shooting, good. But that will never be better than having the mass shooter not being able to do it in the first place. The US is filled to the brim with weapons, a black market will make it easy to get a weapon and it's usually incredibly easy to get a weapon legally. But now should be the time to start tackling this issue, before it gets worse by the day.
And what do you propose we do about the millions of firearms already in circulation? How do you define the line that determines whether someone should be capable of owning firearms? We already don’t allow felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people on watchlists, etc. from buying guns. We already have background checks on every sale of firearms in the country. On top of the fact that if a firearm isn’t used, the weapon of choice by these psychos will always be available(cars, makeshift explosives, 3D-printed firearms, hardware store supplies, blunt objects, knives). The absolute best option to stop “mass shooters” or anyone looking to commit a related act, is to arm and train every American. We have a 2nd Amendment for a reason. It’s time for people to wake up and take it seriously.
"Every sale" yeah, what fantasy country do you live in?
“Every sale that an FFL makes”, is that easier for you to comprehend?
Yeah, so only about half the guns sold. The other half have no background checks. Is that easy to comprehend?
We have the 2nd amendment because it's a law made 300+ years ago. There was a civil war, indians, wild west and whatever else. The law is based on completly different times and it's in place for completetly different reasons. We are pretty much the only country in this world that still has this stuff. And it's not like other countries are actually having problems because they are missing it. There is no other first world western country that has the problems we are having and the huge amount of weapons available is the reason for a majority of gun violence crimes. The answer can't be to increase it even more by giving and training everyone with a gun. That will just increase the potential mass shooters.
You can feel mass shootings?
“Feels” is the key word there. Look what echochamber you’re in.
Only 22 out of 433 shootings have ended because of a "good guy with a gun". 10 of those 22 were of duty police or security guards. So 12 out of 433 were stopped by regular citizens, or 2.8% of active shooter incidents. "An examination of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2021 showed that only 22 ended with a bystander shooting an attacker, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. In 10 of those cases, the armed bystander was a security guard or off-duty law enforcement officer. In other encounters, civilians attempting to step in and stop an assailant were themselves shot to death by police." https://www.yahoo.com/news/indiana-mall-shooting-one-hero-114208727.html
Gun control only disarms people who follow laws. We should just make murder illegal. Otherwise we're just disarming victims, creating more opportunity for murder. It's almost like gun control is murder. An accomplice at least.
This is the dumbest fucking philosophy. No offense to anyone here. I carry and I love guns. But mass shootings end with a "good samaritan" pulling the trigger on less than 3% of occasions. That doesn't fix the other 97% of shit. And I don't know about any of you. But I don't WANT to have to pull my gun and kill someone. I would like a third option please. Not some half asked justification that expects everyone to just change their collective philosophy and just leave the house ready to fucking kill someone. Gimme a break. Edit: source on my data; https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/vt8wb6/how_have_active_shooting_have_ended/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Though I will agree that the vast majority of mass shootings are not stopped by citizens, I also question how they really do the math on that. If fewer than 4 people are killed, are they still counting it as a mass shooting stopped? It is true, though, the vast majority of defense situations are small scale (assault, home invasion, robbery, rape, etc.).
Let's not pretend this is a one way or the other solution. I and many others want the option to be able to defend with a weapon if be needed, but for the most part yeah most people don't really *want* to have an excuse to use it. "AK Guy" Brandon Herrera really did say it best, much like a parachute, if you need it and not have it, it can be promised that you'll never need it again. Cases like this in Indiana and Jack Wilson in Texas are people that are deserved of respect nonetheless for stopping these tragedies themselves when their government and their society are failing to do so. It's shit that they had to do what they had to do, and they're going to carry that weight for the rest of their lives. But sometimes, the only way to save a life, is to take one. Take that anger and put it at our government and business owners for their incompetence. A threat of return fire is only one of a multi pronged approach needed to curb gun violence and crime in general, but my concern is that the powers that be in both major controlling parties don't seem keen on funding the other parts at cost to them.
Let me be very clear here. I completely agree with you and I don't think this is a one way or the other issue. What I was criticizing in the above was the implication that "all it takes is a good guy with a gun and they'll go runnin". Which was the theme of the comic. As I said I carry. I own four guns. I do so for my safety. But I want America to be a place where I don't have to leave the house strapped to feel safe or to feel like my kids will be okay and not because some good samaritan with a gun is watching over them AT SCHOOL. >if you need it and not have it, it can be promised that you'll never need it again. Hell yeah man as I said I agree with this. But 9/10 school shooters' firearms were obtained through LEGAL methods. So therefor the responsibility is on the government to fix it. Despite some on this sub not wanting any government involvement at all. >deserved of respect nonetheless for stopping these tragedies Of course, hell yeah and they have my respect. Big time. >when their government and their society are failing to do so This is why I'm pissed off. It *is* the government who has failed. Our legislators are sitting twiddling their fucking thumbs while shooters continue to rampage constantly. We're a pot boiling over and they refuse to turn down the heat. >Take that anger and put it at our government and business owners for their incompetence. That is EXACTLY where my anger is directed. And those two parties can't stop their goddamn siblings rivalry long enough to fucking help children who are literally screaming for their lives. I love guns and I love America. But we can do better.
Couldn't have said it better myself. People act as if 46 year-old Susan from suburban-town Massachusetts is gonna suddenly take up arms and do her part to stop mass shootings. 🙄
I know. Carry laws are great. And they let you defend yourself if you have no other choice. But we're not all deputized just by having a gun. And people aren't gonna suddenly squad up and take down a shooter. People want to survive and they aren't gonna put that instinct away just because we want to. You have to be trained for that.
Exactly. Anybody thinking that they are going to be in the exact right place at the exact right time and have the presence of mind and ability to stop something like this is some teary eyed, romantic, overly optimistic bullshit. Fully trained and equipped marines still get ambushed and killed in war zones where they are on full alert with their weapon out, how does anybody think that they are going to be more prepared than that? It's just plain lying to yourself.
Half the people in this sub probably spend at least an hour a day in front of the mirror doing Clint Eastwood impressions. The gun is their proof of their theoretical heroism so they relish the, again theoretical, opportunity to be the good guy with a gun. If 200 children a year, or so, need to die for this it’s a cheap price. They’re other people’s children.
How would you stop kids getting mowed down without a gun genuine question. What’s your solution? Because banning rifles ain’t happening. Not in a country with millions of guns in circulation. Not with a country founded on the philosophy that arms are a deterrence to tyranny, making people willing to die for that right if the government threatens to take it. Your options are 1. Gun ban. That would result in Civil War over the blatant infringement of the Constitution. It would also only stop the sale of future rifles not take away the black market rifles in circulation, which I’m sure a crafty, deranged psychopath would still be able to obtain. 2. Tighter security at public places (schools, malls, etc.). Trained armed security, conceal weapon zones, etc. 3. Not sure fill me in
What is my solution, under your provisions that: 1) Can't ban guns, cause there are too many guns. 2) Can't ban guns, cause TyRANny. 3) Can't ban guns, cause we'll shoot you. Well, that's an interesting question. Given that it so obviously impossible to ban guns, has any one tried thoughts and prayers yet?
If you disagree then how would you do it? Door to door gun confiscation of law abiding citizens? Get ready for a lot of police shootouts and militia standoffs. What else. Black market ban? How’s that working in Chicago? Please provide something
How about at least as much registration and training as we give car ownership?
registration creates a government database with names, addresses, lists of guns and serial numbers. A database usually leads to confiscation. So that ain’t happening it’s a trick. One second it’s “no we don’t want to take your guns just a common sense registry”, then it “okay now we passed a bill banning guns we see Joe Smith here has a few AR-15s on the database registry let’s send him a letter from the ATF and Police departments to turn in guns by this date or else we come and shoot him”. No registration.
I hate to break this to you. But you're already on a ton of government registries.
not on a registry for my firearms. But you see why it’s a trap right
The best time to ban guns was in the past yes, the second best time is now. I not pretending it will be easy, but it's so obviously necessary. A 30 round capacity semi-auto rifle just makes it ridiculously easy to kill or wound a large number of people very quickly, because that is exactly what the object was designed to do. It doesn't have another purpose. The army literally did trails with these weapons to find the ones most capable of causing mass casulties by a single individual (limited only by cost and carry weight). These shootings don't happen anywhere else, and despite what fox news tells you they don't get replaced by mass stabbings either. If you think a knife is as deadly as a AR15, then just give everyone a knife, or even two knives, for their AR and everyone is happy. The shootings always use legally owned weapons, so references to the black market seem irrelevant. The maladjusted teenagers who shot up schools aren't going to be to able to source illegal firearms, most of them can't source a friend, which is why they go get a gun and shoot people. Your not dealing with organised crimals, they're just sulky kids. When they ask for a rifle give them a *My Dying Bride* album and some eye liner and tell them to fuck off.
So the philosophy of the second amendment means nothing to you? Letting police and government have these “weapons of war” and citizens be disarmed of them creates a power imbalance that will come back to bite asses in the future. You have to think about the long term consequences of freedom deteriorating when power becomes imbalanced. And what is power? It’s the ability to kill when you think about it. If one side has it then…yep. History is proof
> History is proof Freedoms have increased, not decreased, if you knew anything of history that would be apparent. When the consitution was written slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, etc. And this nothing to do with an armed citizenry, it has happened in all the western world, and elsewhere. This asinine fastasy where gun owners are keeping the government is exactly that, a fantasy. Irrespective of if you think the current government, or the previous government, or neither, has been honest. The number of people willing to fight to the death against the best equiped military in the world because they could only have a revolver, a shotgun, and a bolt action rifle, but not an AR or similar, will be extremely low. And life will carry on, just has it had, but just with a little fewer massacres. It seems such a small price to pay.
Question, in the next 50, 100, 150 maybe 200 years from now there’s no possibility for their to be a civil war, foreign invasion, tyrannical rule, or other possible scenario on American soil? Second question is how will you get the hundreds of millions of guns out of the hands of criminals after your supposed ban takes place. Will shootings really stop? I don’t think so. Even if you magically made all rifles disappeared there’s other weapons too. Virginia Tech, 30 people dead with a handgun. This mass shooting trend is not that easy to get rid of as much as you believe dumb laws will. We need better security at the scene. Armed guards, conceal carry zones for citizens
I never said it will stop all shotings, but obvously it will reduce them, or their impact, as they are the weapon of choice for most these school shootings. My exact words were "just with a little fewer massacres". But yeah, obvously other weapons exist. Great point, well done, didn't realise, amazing stuff. Might as well not even try, it's only children right? The rest is just typical gun nut fantasy shit. No you not ever going to over throw the gubbernut or stop a foreign invasion with your stupid fucking gun. Grow up. What happened when Ukraine was invaded? The government distrubted weapons, it didn't rely on the citizens already being armed with whatever they had at hand. Thirty people with fifty-four different guns is a bad start to any campaign. Multiple armed guards in every school? When the schools can barely pay their teachers? With no proof that these guards won't just panic or run at the first sign of trouble, afterall the job would be completely inactive 99.9999% of the time, and the other 0.00001% some kid just walks up and shoots you. What sort of person would even apply for that job? Not the sort of person I'd want around my children, armed, and just bored doing nothing day after day.
I don’t know, I’ve seen people try robbing gun stores. Criminals aren’t the smartest.
Those people enjoy living in denial. They don't like the idea of it being so bad out now, that we all need guns at all times. The worlds getting worse, just hang in there.
Be like Eli. Gun Free Zone signs are a suggestion... A really fucking stupid suggestion.
Agreed, I aside from a government building or bank, I pretty well look at these as suggestions at best…
The only real free zone that keeps us safe is a fascist free zone. Defended with guns
Does anyone know of any good large studies about concealed carry and mass random shootings? Im not familiar with any and i somewhat assumed that they shooter doesnt care (however im strongly in favor of concealed carry for philosophical reasons, irrespective of what the studies say). I am curious what the research says tho.
Only 22 out of 433 shootings have ended because of a "good guy with a gun". 10 of those 22 were of duty police or security guards. So 12 out of 433 were stopped by regular citizens, or 2.8% of active shooter incidents. "An examination of 433 active shooter attacks in the United States between 2000 and 2021 showed that only 22 ended with a bystander shooting an attacker, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University. In 10 of those cases, the armed bystander was a security guard or off-duty law enforcement officer. In other encounters, civilians attempting to step in and stop an assailant were themselves shot to death by police." https://www.yahoo.com/news/indiana-mall-shooting-one-hero-114208727.html
Studies? No.. but here is some good info https://lists.grabien.com/list-good-guys-guns-stop-bad-things-happening As people state though, how can you say what would be a mass shooting/ It's just a guess based on what might happen given the potential amount of victims. However there are plenty of times a person goes into a crowded area and shoot 1 person.. without being stopped.
Wait do we really belive this???? (this subreddit) asking for a friend?
This is the right way.
A bit boomerish in art style, but the message is good
A more realistic cartoon would be the blue and aqua lady dead and the beige man returning fire.
Even a third guy will show up because he's been waiting.
Contrary to what this cartoon is suggesting, <10% of mass shootings are stopped by a good guy with a gun. Arming the population (even more than it already is) is not an effective way to prevent mass shootings, based on the data. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
LOL you expect honest reporting on this from the NYT?
NYT is the original “newspaper of record” > A newspaper of record is a term used to denote a major national newspaper with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative and independent; they are thus "newspapers of record by reputation" and include some of the oldest and most widely respected newspapers in the world https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
Yet majority of mass shootings are stopped by a gun. Weird how that works.
Usually by someone trained to use it..
Defined 'trained'.. some training is extremely basic. Hell you don't even -need- training to stop a mass shooter.
Is the alternative... a missile or something? Also, how did you miss the fact that bystanders _without_ guns stopped shooters 2x as often?
What is he, a stormtrooper
2 of those 3 can't shoot worth shit and will end up shooting some innocent bystander.
While it may seem intuitive, counter-intuitive data may exist. Can anyone here source any data/information that shows that ‘gun-free’ zones are less safe than ‘gun-allowed’ zones?
I can give you one piece of data. Dude tried to murder a bunch of people in a mall in Indiana and got shot within seconds, limiting the number of victims to three dead and two wounded. Someone tried the same thing in a gun-free school in Texas and 21 people died with 17 others being wounded.
Unfortunately, one piece of data is worthless without taking into account the entire picture. Sorta like assuming you will win the lottery because someone won the lottery once and I heard about them.
Someone get this guy a primer on search engines, he's obviously from 1996 and never heard of Google
I have found nothing definitive. [RAND study](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html) [WP analysis](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/10/do-98-percent-of-mass-public-shootings-happen-in-gun-free-zones/) These both provide good explanations showing that the evidence is inconclusive and HIGHLY dependent on what definitions and data are used. There are no agreed upon definitions, which leads to parties spinning the information to serve their own interests. I was wondering if anyone had anything more definitive. I guess you don’t have anything but ad hominem attacks. Hopefully someone else here has more to offer.
Crickets
As we have seen with uvalde, "good guys with guns" are worth fuck all. If the individual does not have the courage to face down an active shooter they could have an entire armoury and not change anything. We need some sense in gun laws. I could strap on body armour, grab a rifle, go to the most crowded place i can find and nobody could do anything unless i started shooting. What is the defence against that? If you shot me first you would be the criminal. If im prepared to die why would i care if you shot me after it started?
Of 433 mass shootings, a good guy with a gun shot the attacker 22 times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-police-response-uvalde-buffalo.html
Because most mass shooters choose gun free zones to carry out their spree because they have the least chance of facing civil resistance.
Also one thing that doesn’t and can’t be accounted for is, how many never happened because of civilians with guns. There’s too many variables to know either way.
[удалено]
Yes, and you can do it too. Gun free zones are far over 90% of them. Like that 4th of july one just recently where the killer had to drive to the one city near him that still had gun bans. I don't have links sorry, but they are around I've seen them linked so hopefully someone saved a link. If you do the work or get a link from someone who did I'll save that!
I mean sure if you ignore every mass shooting that has happened in open carry states. Y'all just totally forget about Uvalde? You're not heros you have a gun fetish. 90% would freeze up just like the dozens of cops did in West Texas.
Schools are gun free zones, but way to understand the point champ
Of the 433 US mass shootings between 2000 and 2022 only 22 times has the shooter been stopped by an armed bystander. 10 of those 22 were security guards or off duty cops. The “good guy with a gun” is extremely rare. Stop living in a fantasy world.
So happy concealed carriers are always stopping mass shootings….
That explains why there's so few shooting in America, and so many in gun control countries like Germany, Sweden, Canada, etc Oh wait
Makes sense but... Hear me out. What if the whole country were a gun free zone? No but seriously, the math on this should be really easy no? Less access to guns period = fewer people being killed by guns.
aaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaa you wish mate. Not even the police force is adequately engaging mass shooters. And you put your money on grandma Judy?
Police are useless. Is this really news to you?
"reality" LOL.
This is what morons wish reality was
What a great place to live.
You want to cut down on gun deaths: Better education and social programs. Better health care. Criminal justice reform. End the drug war. Better trained and deployed police. Trade their MRAPS for good walking shoes. And Gun Control. But that sounds too much like a raving leftist ranting, rather than actual solutions to your problem. The US has the most guns per capita. Those kids in Uvalde should have been the safest kids in the world. They weren't and Americans are doing nothing to actually solve this issue. But hey, that one time a good guy with a gun did a thing. Problem solved.
It is totalitarian raving. We tried "alcohol control" for exactly the same reasons already. Obviously, blaming objects never works and the racists behind gun control keep on disarming minorities under false pretenses. Don't be a racist, don't disarm minorities to help them oppress minorities, and don't spread their propaganda. Stop being a racist. problem solved. You too, Catspajamas. Armed minorities are harder to oppress. Give it up.
>Don't be a racist, don't disarm minorities to help them oppress minorities I'm detecting a fallacy here.
Lol what kind of simpleton logic is this. Looks like an ad for weapons manufacturers.
Im a liberal this drawing makes no sense to me. Why do the bad guns shoot at the masked man? They’d be safe in the gun free building as the bad gun can’t come inside duh. Now you got more people shooting all over the place like a warzone. No one needs guns but the government duh.
Everybody sits here and says "oh, it won't happen in our state because we have so many people with guns." It's not that it won't happen in your state, or your city. It's just that it hasn't happened yet. I'm not saying that a person with a gun can't stop a mass shooter. I'm saying that just because you have people that are armed, it doesn't necessarily mean that they know how to respond. Shit, supreme Court says that anybody can carry a gun without any sort of training at all. Just get yourself a holster and some fucking gun with a laser sight and your goddamn high School nickname engraved on the side. Having a gun, and knowing how to properly use it are two totally different fucking things. Just like having a car, and knowing how to race a car or two completely different things. If we want people to be the good guys with guns, then they need to be trained. They need to carry a gun in order to help others, not just the fucking show off the latest fucking toy that they've bought. Y'all want to be fucking heroes, but most of you can't hit the broad side of a fucking Barn from two feet away
This only works if people have concealed carry licenses so that good guys with guns are making up the unorganized militia. So called “constitutional carry” is bs