- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,116
- Reaction score
- 33,462
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
It appears they do.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I’m sure some are though to be fair, pretty much every mass shooting is started by a civilian with a gun too.
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.
That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.
This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.
You mean that someone standing her man could have stopped the Orlando Massacre before 100 odd people were down? She would have been a hero.
One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.
That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.
This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.
There’s no sure way to stop a mass killing and you can’t “make sure the attacked can kill” anyway. You can make it legal and easy for citizens to obtain and carry firearms but you can’t guarantee their presence in the event of a mass shooting or the competence of their response if they are.the only sure way to stop a mass killing is to make sure those attacked can kill the attacker
Orlando would have never happened in most places. That was ONE GUY holding ~300 people hostage. He should have been "bum-rushed" and had his ass kicked after the first person he shot. I just don't get why people allowed themselves to be shot without fighting back en masse.
Orlando would have never happened in most places. That was ONE GUY holding ~300 people hostage. He should have been "bum-rushed" and had his ass kicked after the first person he shot. I just don't get why people allowed themselves to be shot without fighting back en masse.
"bum-rushed", huh?
You mean that someone standing her man could have stopped the Orlando Massacre before 100 odd people were down? She would have been a hero.
Not true the media would have failed to mention it.
12 times and remember these are GUN FREE areas being discussed in case you try to claim why so few.
Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.
Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.
Read more: 12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns
Or, we should say: They almost never do.
This is the 'party' line of gun advocates. That deterrence, implicit or explicit, will stop gun violence..One thing gun control advocates continue to ignore is that almost all mass shooting happen, as the article states, where the perpetrator expects little or no resistance.
That's why they target schools, churches, bars, movie theaters, etc., rather than police stations, gun clubs, or places where they know people with guns hang out.
This story properly points outs a number of times people with guns have stopped mass shooting attempts in their tracks, but the fact is...the knowledge that victims possess weapons is also a major deterrent in-and-of itself against mass shooter targeting.
Or, we should say: They almost never do.
To wit: The article cited 10 examples, covering a period of around 10 years. Even if we accept this at face value, there were well over 3000 mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were killed by one shooter in one incident).
Even if we double that number, that means 0.5% of mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.
To call that "rare" would be an understatement.
Or, we should say: They almost never do.
To wit: The article cited 10 examples, covering a period of around 10 years. Even if we accept this at face value, there were well over 3000 mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were killed by one shooter in one incident).
Even if we double that number, that means 0.5% of mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.
To call that "rare" would be an understatement.
This is the 'party' line of gun advocates. That deterrence, implicit or explicit, will stop gun violence..
How do you explain the wild west of America in the 1800s where everyone had a gun (to survive) and there were daily..hourly shootings?
If there's going to be successful gun legislation, there needs to be actual gun legislation and not legislation that attempts to legislate guns and appease gun enthusiasts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
It appears they do.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Or, we should say: They almost never do.
To wit: The article cited 10 examples, covering a period of around 10 years. Even if we accept this at face value, there were well over 3000 mass shootings (incidents where 4 or more people were killed by one shooter in one incident).
Even if we double that number, that means 0.5% of mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.
To call that "rare" would be an understatement.
But that stat doesn't tell us the efficacy of a "good guy with a gun" unless it is accompanied by the stat that tells us in how many of those mass shooting situations was a good guy with a gun even present. If nobody there but the assailant had a gun, due to it being a gun free zone or just nobody there carrying, then the fact that a good guy with a gun didn't succeed in stopping it doesn't mean anything.
The overwhelming majority of people, even in places with a strong gun culture, don't carry. So even if it isn't a gun free zone, and since most mass shootings "only" involve 4-6 people, statistically it is unlikely a concealed carrier is going to be present.
There's this link for your perusal. De-mythologizing the Wild West: gun laws were actually stricter then than now The wild actually had stricter gun control laws than now...because of gun violence.Evidence please. Oh, wait...I don't believe there were any efforts at accumulating such statistics back when the West was "Wild."
Now I actually studied the "Wild West," it was my Master's Degree minor. It really wasn't quite as "gunslinger" wild as you seem to think it was.
True, it was relatively lawless until organized into territories and Federal Judges and Marshalls were appointed. There were vast (if shrinking) swathes of land controlled by Native tribes, some towns had sheriffs or constables, there were issues with Mexico on who controlled/owned what over time, but you need to stop getting your ideas from watching cowboy-and-indian western movies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?