Good guys with guns.

[Father Heathen]

Those are all possibilities, but what is in the realm of likelihood?
I've read of many cases of using a gun in self defense, & I don't recall either of those scenarios.

How many of those situations were mass shootings? If you're in a situation where you're getting attacked directly and left with no other options, take your shot, but we're talking specifically about running blind into a situation to play action hero. Obviously the intentions would be honorable and noble, and perhaps their bravery might save the day, but I'm merely pointing out how it could go horribly wrong. Real life tends not to work out like it does in the movies. Relying upon Joe Shmoe to play the part of Rambo flawlessly should these situations occur doesn't sound like a solid solution.

 

[Revoltingest]

How many of those situations were mass shootings?

I don't recall a mass shooting where anyone defended with a gun.
Perhaps that played a role in their becoming mass shootings, eh?

If you're in a situation where you're getting attacked directly and left with no other options, take your shot, but we're talking specifically about running blind into a situation to play action hero

I don't advocate jumping into a non-self defense situation.
It's a whole different kettle of fish.
Some are qualified to do that, but I'm not.

. Obviously the intentions would be honorable and noble, and perhaps their bravery might save the day, but I'm merely pointing out how it could go horribly wrong. Real life tends not to work out like it does in the movies. Relying upon Joe Shmoe to play the part of Rambo flawlessly should these situations occur doesn't sound like a solid solution.

Are there any instances of this occurring?
I know of this recent defense of a 3rd party.
The cop survived the attack because of this irresponsible "Rambo".
Video shows passer-by shooting Florida deputy's attacker

 

[Father Heathen]

I know of this recent defense of a 3rd party.
The cop survived the attack because of this irresponsible "Rambo".
Video shows passer-by shooting Florida deputy's attacker

But in that situation, there were no crowds, chaos, and confusion. It was pretty strait forward, cut and dried.

 

[Revoltingest]

But in that situation, there were no crowds, chaos, and confusion. It was pretty strait forward, cut and dried.

I say that what matters is real world results.
That was one.
What needs to be examined is all the cases of guns used in self defense.
Is there a net benefit which justifies carry?
If we look only at single or hypothetical events, that tells us nothing.

 

[Father Heathen]

I say that what matters is real world results.
That was one.
What needs to be examined is all the cases of guns used in self defense.
Is there a net benefit which justifies carry?
If we look only at single or hypothetical events, that tells us nothing.

*shrugs* at the rate that these instances are occurring, perhaps we'll eventually see how an armed bystander intervention will play out.

 

[Curious George]

A. Would be burglars are not inherently violent

B. Cherry picked singular examples are not a good basis for forming general opinions.

Like school shootings?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Like school shootings?

Um, no. The "s" at the end of the word "shootings" in your post is the clue.

 

[Revoltingest]

*shrugs* at the rate that these instances are occurring, perhaps we'll eventually see how an armed bystander intervention will play out.

Whether it happens or not depends upon the news source.
Wash Po readers know it does....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-stop-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.79be2178ff66
Mother Jones readers know it doesn't....
Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No.

 

[Curious George]

Um, no. The "s" at the end of the word "shootings" in your post is the clue.

I thought it was parallel with the "s" in your "examples."

Are you saying if he gave two instances that would remedy the problem?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I thought it was parallel with the "s" in your "examples."

Are you saying if he gave two instances that would remedy the problem?

Did I only provide two examples of anything?

Here's a tip. If you want to be involved in an adult discussion, try reading what people actually say, rather than being pointlessly contrarian.

 

[Curious George]

Did I only provide two examples of anything?

Here's a tip. If you want to be involved in an adult discussion, try reading what people actually say, rather than being pointlessly contrarian.

I read what you said. It lacked substance. You were attempting to point out that specific instances are irrelevant when discussing statistical trends.

But, what you failed to realize is that there is a relevance. There are instances where guns have helped protect people. It counters the argument that none exist. If you are saying all swans are white, and I provide you with an instance of a black swan, then you are wrong. It really is that simple. If you would like to play the statistics game we could.

But what statistic would you like to present? The number of school shootings. The number of children that have died in school shootings? And this is a reasonable basis to discuss how guns are bad? It is a very narrow way to look at the equation.

Guns sometimes hurt people. Guns sometimes help people. Both of these statements are true. OP cited specifically the shooting in Florida. And then offered 18 shootings in 2018 as a trend. Then went on to say that it was faulty logic to assert that guns can help people. Another poster suggested that this was a narrow way to examine the issue. And it is.

This is analogous to saying, "look here are 18 white swans, therefore all swans are white."

You chose to call out the poster who had challenged the OP. When asked rhetorical questions, the poster gave you one solitary example. That is all that was needed.

Here is a tip: Sometimes we are guilty of not following our own tips.

 

[Revoltingest]

I read what you said. It lacked substance. You were attempting to point out that specific instances are irrelevant when discussing statistical trends.

But, what you failed to realize is that there is a relevance. There are instances where guns have helped protect people. It counters the argument that none exist. If you are saying all swans are white, and I provide you with an instance of a black swan, then you are wrong. It really is that simple. If you would like to play the statistics game we could.

But what statistic would you like to present? The number of school shootings. The number of children that have died in school shootings? And this is a reasonable basis to discuss how guns are bad? It is a very narrow way to look at the equation.

Guns hurt people. Guns help people. Both of these statements are true. OP cited specifically the shooting in Florida. And then offered 18 shootings in 2018 as a trend. Then went on to say that it was faulty logic to assert that guns can help people. Another poster suggested that this was a narrow way to examine the issue. And it is.

This is analogous to saying, "look here are 18 white swans, therefore all swans are white."

You chose to call out the poster who had challenged the OP. When asked rhetorical questions, the poster gave you one solitary example. That is all that was needed.

Here is a tip: Sometimes we are guilty of not following our own tips.

And let's not forget that the "18 school shootings" figure is exaggerated by including
cops who just had accidents in a school. People use that figure to measure violence
& carnage, not a damaged wall on a firing range in cop school.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I read what you said. It lacked substance. You were attempting to point out that specific instances are irrelevant when discussing statistical trends.

But, what you failed to realize is that there is a relevance. There are instances where guns have helped protect people. It counters the argument that none exist.

I didn't make that argument. Sure, if one goes looking, one can cherry pick examples of people using a gun in legitimate cases of self defence, but what happens more often? That or unprovoked shootings? (not to mention, suicides and accidents) The only way to get a handle on the issue is to look at rates and trends, not individual cherry picked examples.

Full points for writing a response, though.

 

[Curious George]

I didn't make that argument.

Full points for writing a response, though.

Yet that was the argument that you came into the discussion engaging. Had you "read what people actually say" before trying to join in an "adult conversation," You would have realized this.

Or you could have added more substance to your post instead of rhetorical questions.
But thanks for the points, I take 'em where I can get 'em.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yet that was the argument that you came into the discussion engaging. Had you "read what people actually say" before trying to join in an "adult conversation," You would have realized this.

Or you could have added more substance to your post instead of rhetorical questions.
But thanks for the points, I take 'em where I can get 'em.

I don't believe you are parsing OP's "argument" correctly. But anyway...

 

[Curious George]

I don't believe you are parsing OP's "argument" correctly. But anyway...

Really, you do not think that the argument in the OP was trying to assert that a good guy with a gun does not stop or prevent a bad guy with a gun?

I would be interested in your analysis of the OP. You think the OP was suggesting that while instances of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns exist, they are statistically outweighed by the number of instances where a good guy with a gun fails to stop a bad guy with a gun?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Really, you do not think that the argument in the OP was trying to assert that a good guy with a gun does not stop or prevent a bad guy with a gun?

I would be interested in your analysis of the OP. You think the OP was suggesting that while instances of good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns exist, they are statistically outweighed by the number of instances where a good guy with a gun fails to stop a bad guy with a gun?

I don't think he was making any claims about it never happening, but that there have been 18 school shootings so far this year, and so far as I know, the much vaunted "good guy with a gun" has failed to materialise and stop them. So while, yes, sometimes use of a weapon is appropriate in defence of self or others, and sometimes armed people are in a position to perform such a defensive act, "good guys with guns" aren't actually a meaningful countermeasure against school shootings.

That was how I understood it. OP is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but either way, arguing semantic differences between "never" and "rarely" doesn't actually move the discussion forward.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think he was making any claims about it never happening, but that there have been 18 school shootings so far this year, and so far as I know, the much vaunted "good guy with a gun" has failed to materialise and stop them.

Because schools legally prohibit ordinary citizens from carrying guns in schools, we
should deduce that they won't be there to defend against a shooter bent on mayhem.

Having looked at 2 of the 18 "school shootings" this year, I discovered that one was a
range accident which damaged a wall at a criminal justice college. The other was a
cop who allowed a child to pull the trigger of his lodeded & cocked duty weapon.
This is just the 2 I looked at. How many others in this bogus statistic are not really
shootings in the sense that there was injury or intent thereof?

One thing is clear, & should find wide agreement.....
Since over 10% of school shootings are due to poor safety, every gun owner,
including cops, needs much better training in safe gun handling & storage.
There's a regulation which doesn't infringe upon gun rights, but will work.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think he was making any claims about it never happening, but that there have been 18 school shootings so far this year, and so far as I know, the much vaunted "good guy with a gun" has failed to materialise and stop them. So while, yes, sometimes use of a weapon is appropriate in defence of self or others, and sometimes armed people are in a position to perform such a defensive act, "good guys with guns" aren't actually a meaningful countermeasure against school shootings.

That was how I understood it. OP is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but either way, arguing semantic differences between "never" and "rarely" doesn't actually move the discussion forward.

Is it rare? Based on 18 school shootings? Is cherry picking 18 examples of an area where guns for the most part are not allowed, the best way to put forward the notion that this is a rare phenomenon? If that is how you interpreted the OP, it seems to me your rhetorical questions would have been better served to the OP.

I see why trying to turn the OP into a suggestion that it is more frequent that people are helped by guns than hurt by guns, but I do not think that the OP can be honestly read in such a way.

Let us read it again:

With the mass shooting that took place in parkland yesterday you have a lot of people that are saying the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

So far so good. This seems to bring into question the argument that "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

That means the poster will argue:

The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is sometimes not a good guy with a gun"

Or

The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is never a good guy with a gun.

Let us see which way he goes...

18 school shootings so far in 2018.

And not one good guy with a gun came to save the day!

So here we have a statement analogous to "look 18 swans and not one is something other than white"

Choosing to use the words "not one" is the first indication of intent. But that isn't conclusive. He may have just been saying here are 18 examples where a good guy with a gun did not save people from a bad guy with a gun. But that is an interesting read. First it assumes that all of the "school shootings" were committed by a bad guy with a gun. Second, instances or even a trend of a good guy with a gun not stopping a bad guy with a gun do little to show that the argument "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" is invalid. It does serve to assert that sometimes, some good guys with guns do not stop a bad guy with a gun.

But perhaps we need to read further.

Also there were armed grauds on the campus and they couldn’t prevent the shooting. Why do people continue to cling to this faulty logic?

Ok, we'll the first sentence does seem to suggest that any good guy with a gun will not prevent a bad guy with a gun. Then we have the last sentence. This sentence seems to refer back to the argument "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Now, as I previously stated, the assertion "any good guy with a gun will not prevent a bad guy with a gun" does not contradict the statement the argument that the OP is discussing. Given the colorful language of "cling to their faulty logic," we can assume that the poster is not likely arguing that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

To further understand why it is not the case that the poster was arguing never as opposed to sometimes, is that the argument for which he is trying to contradict is hyperbole. Very few people might suggest that any good guy with a gun would suffice, and very few people would not acknowledge that sometimes better alternatives exist.

It was an attack on people that think a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. (Nevermind, that law enforcement officers are good guys with guns). The poster was correctly taken to task for ignoring examples that might support such a belief.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because schools legally prohibit ordinary citizens from carrying guns in schools, we
should deduce that they won't be there to defend against a shooter bent on mayhem.

Having looked at 2 of the 18 "school shootings" this year, I discovered that one was a
range accident which damaged a wall at a criminal justice college. The other was a
cop who allowed a child to pull the trigger of his lodeded & cocked duty weapon.
This is just the 2 I looked at. How many others in this bogus statistic are not really
shootings in the sense that there was injury or intent thereof?

One thing is clear, & should find wide agreement.....
Since over 10% of school shootings are due to poor safety, every gun owner,
including cops, needs much better training in safe gun handling & storage.
There's a regulation which doesn't infringe upon gun rights, but will work.

In the news.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.2de1151fcb2c
The stunning number swept across the Internet within minutes of the news Wednesday that, yet again, another young man with another semiautomatic rifle had rampaged through a school, this time at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in South Florida.

The figure originated with Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit group, co-founded by Michael Bloomberg, that works to prevent gun violence and is most famous for its running tally of school shootings.

“This,” the organization tweeted at 4:22 p.m. Wednesday, “is the 18th school shooting in the U.S. in 2018.”

A tweet by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) including the claim had been liked more than 45,000 times by Thursday evening, and one from political analyst Jeff Greenfield had cracked 126,000. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted it, too, as did performers Cher and Alexander William and actors Misha Collinsand Albert Brooks. News organizations — including MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, Time, MSN, the BBC, the New York Daily News and HuffPost — also used the number in their coverage. By Wednesday night, the top suggested search after typing “18” into Google was “18 school shootings in 2018.”

It is a horrifying statistic. And it is wrong.

Everytown has long inflated its total by including incidents of gunfire that are not really school shootings. Take, for example, what it counted as the year’s first: On the afternoon of Jan. 3, a 31-year-old man who had parked outside a Michigan elementary school called police to say he was armed and suicidal. Several hours later, he killed himself. The school, however, had been closed for seven months. There were no teachers. There were no students.

Also listed on the organization’s site is an incident from Jan. 20, when at 1 a.m. a man was shot at a sorority event on the campus of Wake Forest University. A week later, as a basketball game was being played at a Michigan high school, someone fired several rounds from a gun in the parking lot. No one was injured, and it was past 8 p.m., well after classes had ended for the day, but Everytown still labeled it a school shooting.

Everytown explains on its website that it defines a school shooting as “any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds.”