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

[Epic Beard Man]

Don't think it was me.

Ok then it's probably @Saint Frankenstein

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Hello EBM

I come from a country where policemen are taught not to use guns instead of using them
..and that is because we have a very weak legislation on legitimate defense.

As a result...an Italian cop was stabbed to death by 2 American guys.
He had a gun. He could have used it. He didn't.

2 American Teenagers Admit Killing Police Officer in Rome, Officials Say

So what's your point?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I like David Pakman's explanation

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

That's idiotic. Did you even read the scenario I presented?

 

[Salvador]

That's idiotic. Did you even read the scenario I presented?

You mean your hypothetical scenario which has yet to ever happen.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Not really true. The main use of nuclear weapons through history has been for 'sabre-rattling' and as part of the M.A.D. doctrine during the cold war.

Actual use of these weapons has been limited.

 

[Salvador]

Not really true. The main use of nuclear weapons through history has been for 'sabre-rattling' and as part of the M.A.D. doctrine during the cold war.

Actual use of these weapons has been limited.

A well-armed civilian population deters oppressive authoritative police states from committing genocide like what happened in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

 

[ChristineM]

A well-armed civilian population deters oppressive authoritative police states from committing genocide like what happened in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

The population suffering under a police state tend not to be well armed.

 

[Salvador]

The population suffering under a police state tend not to be well armed.

Yes, indeed. A well-armed Swiss civilian population deterred the Nazis from invading Switzerland. Whereas, unarmed civilian populations were invaded and oppressed by the Nazi police state.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, indeed. A well-armed Swiss civilian population deterred the Nazis from invading Switzerland. Whereas, unarmed civilian populations were invaded and oppressed by the Nazi police state.

Switzerland has never been a police state. However every suitable male (possible women too) of the correct age is a military reservist and so is issued with a weapon.

Weapons training is taken very seriously

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

Gun owners for sensible gun control unite

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Switzerland has never been a police state. However every suitable male (possible women too) of the correct age is a military reservist and so is issued with a weapon.

Weapons training is taken very seriously

So is gun control. Show me a gun fetishist making the "well ackshually, Switzerland has high gun ownership, low crime" argument, I'll show you someone arguing in bad faith. Switzerland does have high rates of gun ownership. That gun ownership is extremely well regulated. If the US adopted HALF the firearm and ammunition regulations Switzerland has, the average gun fetishist would froth blood.

 

[Salvador]

Switzerland has never been a police state. However every suitable male (possible women too) of the correct age is a military reservist and so is issued with a weapon.

Weapons training is taken very seriously

I'd like to see every able-bodied American citizen be well-trained in using firearms, the NRA offers firearm training and safety courses.

NRA Explore | Firearm Training

Black, Female NRA Member Faces Reality in Chicago

 

[Salvador]

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).

Michael Drejka was not a good guy with a gun, but was a bad guy with a gun. The stand your own ground argument should not apply to somebody like this guy who initiated an argument with somebody's girlfriend over a handicap parking spot in a half empty lot. Michael Drejka was rightfully convicted of manslaughter for shooting somebody who came to the defense of his girlfriend who was being harassed by Michael Drejka. An armed good guy doesn't go around provoking fights in order to have an excuse to shoot somebody.

 

[Shaul]

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

False argument. Firearms and munitions, including nuclear weapons, are qualitatively different.

 

[Shaul]

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.

However not allowing guns guarantees the criminal has the better one. “9 out of 10 criminals approve of having their potential victims disarmed.”

 

[Shaul]

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.

In other words, because you have a vivid imagination people should give up their guns.

 

[columbus]

False argument. Firearms and munitions, including nuclear weapons, are qualitatively different.

But the underlying presumption "If everyone is armed, everyone will be polite" is the same.

The argument is based on the assumption that everybody with a gun will have a clear understanding of the event and good judgement about responding to it. It rather fails when the reality sets in. In an armed society, suicidal maniacs and psychopaths and mentally ill people will also have guns. People will respond to what they think they see, which may have little to do with what really is. This will doubtless work out sometimes, but lot's of times it won't. And the carnage will just grow.
Tom

 

[Estro Felino]

So what's your point?

My point is: a middle way is the best choice.

 

[Shaul]

But the underlying presumption "If everyone is armed, everyone will be polite" is the same.

The argument is based on the assumption that everybody with a gun will have a clear understanding of the event and good judgement about responding to it. It rather fails when the reality sets in. In an armed society, suicidal maniacs and psychopaths and mentally ill people will also have guns. People will respond to what they think they see, which may have little to do with what really is. This will doubtless work out sometimes, but lot's of times it won't. And the carnage will just grow.
Tom

Since the basis for guns rights isn’t “If everyone is armed, everyone will be polite", you have no point. The basis is that the right to bear arms is inalienable. Gun rights don’t require justification. It is a right.