Which is why people shouldn’t rely solely on the police to help since as we’ve seen, they don’t always help but instead cower in fear (and/or show up so late that the situation is already over).
State laws vary, but even if a good guy (not a cop) had a concealed firearm he wouldn’t legally be allowed to use it in a gun-free zone. To use it would mean to be arrested, which people won’t risk getting later prosecuted for. Legislating away the right to defend yourself means people won’t exactly be encouraged to help in situations like this.
To be fair, even if in areas where concealed carry of firearms is legal and lawful, it’s just as possible for people to run away and not defend life (the whole point of carrying). Thankfully, one awesome guy made a difference and stopped what could’ve been worse.
That’s marketing. It had zero statistical honesty- including police showing up to stop violence.
The reality is that most people who think they’re a “good guy with a gun” totting it around town are in fact the bad guy, or safety risk at best to those around them as their only gun safety training is watching John Wick movies.
This is a stupid AF take. Conceal carry holders are the most law abiding citizens in the country, even more law abiding than police themselves. It's like so many of you just blatantly ignore statistics, because it helps your world view.
Police barely abide the law at all. If anything they are the opposite of law abiding. That being said, my opinion is to agree with Proser84. both sides of the coin ignore the statistics that dont meet their needs
Two of my friends take their CC everywhere they go. Neither has ever had to use it, but one has lost it while skateboarding, and the other forgot it in a public bathroom.
So you're trying to tell us that all Americans that have and carry guns have received adequate training? My dude just watch how other people shoot at the range and ask how many know the 21 foot rule. It's easy to be law abiding but I think cynicism over skill proficiency is warranted.
Don't know why you are being downvoted, you're absolutely right. In the US, you need virtually no experience in firearm handling to buy a gun. My father, having had no range time in 10+ years, was able to go in and buy a .22 bolt-action rifle with 3 boxes of ammo in 20 minutes with just a simple background check and questionnaire
Yup like that cop the other day who accidentally shot a kid in school. And this was a trained person. Absolute fucking idiot. I've how they use the words accidental discharge like the mf gun shot itself.
It's a response to those who say 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' which isn't true, to the point that it is a fucking joke when you hear gun advocates say it.
Yeah, you're right, the data is out there. If you're gonna repeat it, do it right. This is like if you said, "gravity doesn't exist, the data is out there". Like bro yes the data is out there, what the data suggests is exactly the opposite but ok
Addressing gun lobby assertions that crime is deterred when more law-abiding citizens carry guns, Hemenway said the evidence says otherwise. He said that even though more and more Americans are carrying concealed guns each year—the result of more states passing ‘right-to-carry’ laws—research has not uncovered a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the prevalence of guns and the U.S. crime rate. However, he noted, the presence of more guns does make crimes more violent. “What guns do is make hostile interactions—robberies, assaults—much more deadly,” he said.
Basically, you wanna be robbed or you wanna die? Carry a gun to increase the chances of dieing.
People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.
This result clashes with a classic narrative promulgated by gun rights groups: firearm owners use their weapon to turn away or overpower a threatening intruder, thereby protecting home and hearth. We did not detect even a hint of such protective benefits. If anything, our results suggest that cohabitants of handgun owners were more likely to be killed by strangers, although that result did not reach statistical significance.
Instead of listing sources which only support exactly what you want, present more sources and look at the totality of the research.
There has been a lot of research on this. The minority opinion is that carrying/owning a gun actually makes things worse. In most instances it appeared to either help or not do anything.
The reason that the second source you gave is particularly absurd is that it presents a correlation as caused by gun presence despite the fact that a driving motivation for owning a firearm is because you feel unsafe.
For example, if people lock their doors in rough neighborhoods, but not in very wealthy neighborhoods, locking your doors would be correlated with increased burglary. However, it would be ridiculous to claim that locking your doors is what causes you to be at an increased risk of burglary. I hope that illustrates the flaw in the logic presented by that second source (which somehow got so prolific despite being so obviously flawed and biased).
People living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes. That difference was driven largely by homicides at home, which were three times more common among people living with handgun owners.
We detected much larger differences for particular types of homicide. Most notably, people living with handgun owners were seven times more likely to be shot by their spouse or intimate partner. In many of these cases, instead of being protective, the household gun probably operated as the instrument of death.
An especially troubling finding was that the vast majority of victims in these intimate partner shootings—84% in all—were female. It stands to reason that women bear the brunt of any second-hand risks that flow from firearm ownership. That’s because most people who live with gun owners and don’t themselves own guns are women.
Study findings in one other area were noteworthy: homicides perpetrated by strangers. Homicides of this kind were relatively uncommon in our study population—much less common than deaths perpetrated by the victim’s partner, family members, or friends. But when they happened, people living with gun owners did not experience them less often than people in gun-free homes.
It's not worth commenting if you're going to do it in bad faith, read the article it's decent commentary on the study linked at the beginning of it.
What gave you the idea that I am approaching this in bad faith? Nothing I presented is in any way deceitful and I am coming at this honestly. Just seems like an accusation to try and quit with some manufactured high ground.
Partner shootings were never not an issue. Notice, though, that the study has controlled not just for gun owners when investigating these partner killings, but rather by "handgun owners" who are living with a partner that does not own a firearm. While this may seem innocuous, it indicates that this particular type of firearm gave them the results they want and thus they excluded data for long guns. This may be because handguns are often used in gang activity or for other reasons, but noticeable changes in what they are analyzing without explaining why they change these things is a sign those conducting or analyzing the data have a narrative to push.
Once again, read the rest of the literature and the consensus about this topic beyond one very obviously biased study. If you aren't approaching this in bad faith, which you ridiculously accused me of, you should be able to look at and take in that new information and the other studies.
Or, if we're not arguing in bad faith, LongSHOT is the most complete and detailed database relevant to their study, so they used that.
Their conclusions is literally
Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide. Women are disproportionately affected.
You can keep moaning and the quality of the conversation will remain shit, or you can read the study.
And you say, again in bad faith, "one very biased study", but I doubt you even bother trying to see if there's more, cause my Google searches gave me a full page of results of recent studies.
In theory, ready access to a gun in the home could enhance safety by thwarting or deterring attacks. However, available evidence from ecologic (7–9) and case–control (10–18) studies suggests that gun access has the opposite effect. A 2014 meta-analysis (18) concluded that people in homes with firearms have double the odds of dying by homicide compared with people in homes without firearms.
There's also data that shows that fewer guns = even fewer shootings. As proven by every other first world country. The US, partially due to it's lax laws on lethal weaponry, has the crime stats of a third world country.
The US, sadly, just has higher crime overall. We even have more stabbings than the UK despite knives being the only prolific weapon in that country.
Also, internally, fewer guns/more gun laws =/= fewer shootings. If we look at state law and ownership rates, there is no correlation, positive or negative, between either of these factors (gun ownership or gun laws) and homicide, much less mass shootings. New Hampshire is a pretty good example of this. It is, consistently, the safest state in the union. However, it has quite literally, to my knowledge, zero non-federal gun regulations.
No, they don't; but let's not pretend carrying a sidearm makes you the good guy, or likely to put you neck on the line to stop a shooter. Because if that was the case tou would have a lot more dead people who it turned out were about to commit mass murder in the US.
You have a stat for being shot by BABIES in the US. I haven't heard of that in anyother country.
I mean there’s a reason these shootings happen in gun free zones.
I can see we’re not going to have any actual discussion about this so I’m just leaving. But if you actually cared about saving lives you should look into the subject more. For example a full AWB would save less people then banning bunk beds. And the money diverted to enforcement of the ban would likely cost many lives as it’s taken away from another service
I can understand from your username that you enjoy heavy data.
But statistics can easily be proven to to be logically fallible.
I have read the statistics, I grew up in firearm positive household. Hell my grandfather was a gunsmith who sold firearms to the local police department for their working firearms.
The moment you brought up "I mean there's a reason these shootings happen in gun free zones." you lost your argument. Because it's a strawman argument. "ILl jUsT wAlK AwAy bEcAusE uR nOt pLaYiNg inTo mY gOtChA mOmEnt".
There is a reason it happens there, because gun free zones are typically, schools. Public Schools. 90% of the humans in those areas are under the age of 18. How old do you need to be to buy a firearm?
There should be no reason for anyone in that school to carry. Except the resource officer, that 90% of schools have and those resource officers are carrying.
So how about, you get your head out of your ass and look at this situation for what it is. An extremist mentality targeting the LGBTQIA+ community because they scare that extremist groups views of life.
A non-armed man stood up to the gunman. This proves you don't need a gun to do the right thing. But how often are the "good guys with guns" standing up to help others in similar situations?
There is 1 event in Texas that they were guarding the outside with ARs. Tell me other events.
I’d say 90% of schools having armed resource officers needs to be cited because most of the shootings I’ve seen, they don’t. And even when they do, there’s a chance they run away or don’t do their job (just like the uvalde police). Armed guards of some sort might actually be a viable solution if they did their damn job
851
u/halfanothersdozen Captain Awesome Nov 22 '22
BTW just pointing out that even in Colorado Springs the "good guy with a gun" didn't show up to save the day.
But that guy sure fucking did.