• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"If there was a good guy with a gun" argument

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
The idea of "good" is highly subjective. Of course gun owners (myself included) would believe that someone who owns an instrument that has the ability to take life is responsible, intelligent, just, would be definitively and demonstrably good. However like anything when pushed to its limit, goodness can have its own fatigue where a person can incorrectly judge a situation where use of deadly force which originally thought was necessary became unnecessary. I take into account the recent example of Michael Drejka who was recently convicted of killing a man over a handicap spot. His argument of course was the stand your ground law, because he felt he was in imminent danger. Viewing the video footage, jurors saw after Drejka was pushed to the ground, the victim step back after Drejka displayed the weapon indicating that he was not advancing and therefore not a threat, but the victim was still shot and ultimately died in front of his son and girlfriend (see source).

I take also another example of a man by the name of George Meyer who pulled his gun in a Church by the name of Grace Christian Academy who did so under the pretense to show the martial arts instructor that martial arts isn't necessary when one has a weapon in a confrontation. So, to demonstrate that Meyer pulls out his gun and says "bang you're dead." In his defense Meyer claims to not have pointed the weapon, only to demonstrate his position regarding the argument (see source).

Most certainly all of us who respond to mass shootings wish that there was some reconditioning of gun legislations, some on the other side believe that there ought to be more people with weapons to defend against mass shootings. As @ChristineM (or @Saint Frankenstein maybe??) once said in a discussion "if everyone had a weapon then how could police discern between friendly and villian? It would appear that having more guns is not the solution to our modern problem involving mass shootings. What I'm more concerned about is the individual who believes guns and not diplomacy is the answer. I'm concerned about the drunkard who is carrying a concealed weapon legally who gets into an argument and decides to use his weapon. I'm concerned about the racist who hates this or that culture and decides to pull out his weapon because he cannot stand the sound of rap lyrics.

I'm concerned about these so-called pretentious good guys who are lawfully carrying weapons but do not exercise good judgment. I'm also concerned with the idea that the "good guy" argument is not allocated to everyone. When people of color carry weapons it is a problem as we saw in the banning of assault weapons (called the Mulford Act) in California's capital of Sacramento. It wasn't banned because assault weapons caused deaths it was banned because of the Black Panthers exercising their second amendment rights (see
source). Or when a good guy like the security officer stopping a criminal but happened to be carrying a weapon himself, shot and killed by a police officer (see source).

I firmly believe the idea of 'good guy' fails because we don't know every single person walking on this earth nor their intentions. I understand we wont be able to prevent mass shootings or criminal activity involving guns, but what we don't need are people being judge, jury, and executioner in these streets.
 
Last edited:

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If "an armed society is a polite society" were true, then we'd all be advocating for nuclear proliferation.

How different would US foreign policy be if every government were likely to have a nuke? I expect we'd be a lot more polite.

But I don't think anyone really believes that. They think that only people that they consider trustworthy will have heavy weapons.
Tom
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I feel guns are mostly useless. Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you won't get overpowered, or the criminal won't have a much better gun.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
A problem I see with this "if everyone were armed" argument is this; imagine that gun fire rings out at a busy shopping center, followed by screaming, then a bunch of wannabe heroes draw their firearms and run toward the sounds. One well meaning samaritan with a gun spots another well meaning samaritan with a gun, mistakes them for the perpetrator and then opens fire on them. This causes a chain reaction of chaos and confusion as all of our good guys start shooting it out with each other, followed by the cops arriving with no idea who's who.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
If "an armed society is a polite society" were true, then we'd all be advocating for nuclear proliferation.

How different would US foreign policy be if every government were likely to have a nuke? I expect we'd be a lot more polite.

But I don't think anyone really believes that. They think that only people that they consider trustworthy will have heavy weapons.
Tom

That is a poor argument. All countries having nukes does not stop rogue entities from using them and even using them to mimic as if another country used them. Having nukes and carrying firearms is different. One can destroy an entire ecosystem for potentially hundreds of years and the other can take multiple lives. The fact of the matter is what is stopping a drunk who is legally carrying a concealed weapon from using it all because they are too inebriated to walk away?
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
A problem I see with this "if everyone were armed" argument is this; imagine that gun fire rings out at a busy shopping center, followed by screaming, then a bunch of wannabe heroes draw their firearms and run toward the sounds. One well meaning samaritan with a gun spots another well meaning samaritan with a gun, mistakes them for the perpetrator and then opens fire on them. This causes a chain reaction of chaos and confusion as all of our good guys start shooting it out with each other, followed by the cops arriving with no idea who's who.

I missed mentioning this.....Yes especially in an area or like a mall where sound can echo thus causing more panic. I guess I'm thinking of people here in California who are tough guys who get into these silly confrontations and want to play Doc Holiday and shoot someone because they got their feelings hurt.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
"if everyone had a weapon then how could police discern between friendly and villian?

Yes, that's one very key point.

What I'm more concerned about is the individual who believes guns and not diplomacy is the answer. I'm concerned about the drunkard who is carrying a concealed weapon legally who gets into an argument and decides to use his weapon. I'm concerned about the racist who hates this or that culture and decides to pull out his weapon because he cannot stand the sound of rap lyrics.

We've seen very high-profile cases of just this problem.

Mulford Act

I can predict what would happen if 100 antifa protesters bought the biggest, baddest weapons the law allows, say a .50 caliber BMG which apparently can be purchased in some places, and marched down the street.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
The idea of "good" is highly subjective. Of course gun owners (myself included) would believe that someone who owns an instrument that has the ability to take life is responsible, intelligent, just, would be definitively and demonstrably good. However like anything when pushed to its limit, goodness can have its own fatigue where a person can incorrectly judge a situation where use of deadly force which originally thought was necessary became unnecessary. I take into account the recent example of Michael Drejka who was recently convicted of killing a man over a handicap spot. His argument of course was the stand your ground law, because he felt he was in imminent danger. Viewing the video footage, jurors saw after Drejka was pushed to the ground, the victim step back after Drejka displayed the weapon indicating that he was not advancing and therefore not a threat, but the victim was still shot and ultimately died in front of his son and girlfriend (see source).

I take also another example of a man by the name of George Meyer who pulled his gun in a Church by the name of Grace Christian Academy who did so under the pretense to show the martial arts instructor that martial arts isn't necessary when one has a weapon in a confrontation. So, to demonstrate that Meyer pulls out his gun and says "bang you're dead." In his defense Meyer claims to not have pointed the weapon, only to demonstrate his position regarding the argument (see source).

Most certainly all of us who respond to mass shootings wish that there was some reconditioning of gun legislations, some on the other side believe that there ought to be more people with weapons to defend against mass shootings. As @ChristineM (or @Saint Frankenstein maybe??) once said in a discussion "if everyone had a weapon then how could police discern between friendly and villian? It would appear that having more guns is not the solution to our modern problem involving mass shootings. What I'm more concerned about is the individual who believes guns and not diplomacy is the answer. I'm concerned about the drunkard who is carrying a concealed weapon legally who gets into an argument and decides to use his weapon. I'm concerned about the racist who hates this or that culture and decides to pull out his weapon because he cannot stand the sound of rap lyrics.

I'm concerned about these so-called pretentious good guys who are lawfully carrying weapons but do not exercise good judgment. I'm also concerned with the idea that the "good guy" argument is not allocated to everyone. When people of color carry weapons it is a problem as we saw in the banning of assault weapons (called the Mulford Act) in California's capital of Sacramento. It wasn't banned because assault weapons caused deaths it was banned because of the Black Panthers exercising their second amendment rights (see
source). Or when a good guy like the security officer stopping a criminal but happened to be carrying a weapon himself, shot and killed by a police officer (see source).

I firmly believe the idea of 'good guy' fails because we don't know every single person walking on this earth nor their intentions. I understand we wont be able to prevent mass shootings or criminal activity involving guns, but what we don't need are people being judge, jury, and executioner in these streets.

I agree. Nobody exercises perfect judgement at all times, and everyone is influenced by his/her own biases and past experiences.

I don't understand why when one person says they would like to see better and stricter gun regulations, another person immediately jumps to "They're going to take my guns away". I'm a gun owner, and I would be delighted to see better regulation.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
I don't understand why when one person says they would like to see better and stricter gun regulations, another person immediately jumps to "They're going to take my guns away".

From my understanding that is a tactic many right wing talking heads have used to cause fear mongering among their base. Somehow the conflation between strict gun laws and the removal of legally bought guns was mixed up.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
That is a poor argument. All countries having nukes does not stop rogue entities from using them and even using them to mimic as if another country used them. Having nukes and carrying firearms is different. One can destroy an entire ecosystem for potentially hundreds of years and the other can take multiple lives. The fact of the matter is what is stopping a drunk who is legally carrying a concealed weapon from using it all because they are too inebriated to walk away?
You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Heavily armed rogues, whether individuals or organizations or countries, are generally the problem.
As far as I can see.
Tom
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
In 2016, across the nation there were 331 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR)


Expanded Homicide

Edited: The word "only" had been mistakenly used in context with 331 justifiable homicides. The word "only" has since been removed.
 
Last edited:

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
If "an armed society is a polite society" were true, then we'd all be advocating for nuclear proliferation.

How different would US foreign policy be if every government were likely to have a nuke? I expect we'd be a lot more polite.

But I don't think anyone really believes that. They think that only people that they consider trustworthy will have heavy weapons.
Tom

Nuclear weapons have only one use; that being total annihilation of thousands upon thousands of people; whereas, guns can have more constructive and useful purposes besides personal individualized self defense like hunting or target shooting.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
In 2016, across the nation there were only 331 justifiable homicides1 involving a private citizen using a firearm reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program as detailed in its Supplementary Homicide Report (SHR)


Expanded Homicide

This statistic is somewhat misleading if you are trying to use it as an argument against carrying a gun as protection. It does not report instances where a gun was involved in self defense but did not result in a justifiable homicide. It also does not include unreported instances where a gun was not fired but prevented aggression
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
This statistic is somewhat misleading if you are trying to use it as an argument against carrying a gun as protection. It does not report instances where a gun was involved in self defense but did not result in a justifiable homicide. It also does not include unreported instances where a gun was not fired but prevented aggression

Sorry, I'd mistakenly used the word "only" in context with 331 justifiable homicides. I do believe 331 justifiable annual homicides is a sufficient number for being in favor of gun ownership.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
A problem I see with this "if everyone were armed" argument is this; imagine that gun fire rings out at a busy shopping center, followed by screaming, then a bunch of wannabe heroes draw their firearms and run toward the sounds. One well meaning samaritan with a gun spots another well meaning samaritan with a gun, mistakes them for the perpetrator and then opens fire on them. This causes a chain reaction of chaos and confusion as all of our good guys start shooting it out with each other, followed by the cops arriving with no idea who's who.

The bad-guy would most likely appear to be the one opening fire on unarmed shoppers. The good-guys with guns would likely be wise enough to see this.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Heavily armed rogues, whether individuals or organizations or countries, are generally the problem.
As far as I can see.
Tom

Not a contradiction you're comparing apples and oranges. Nukes are no way near comparable to guns used in mass shootings.
 
Top