• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What happen when the good guy has a guy?

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,893
Reaction score
1,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
According to this video it doesn't end well. That the good guy shoot a innocent teen and got shoot by both the police and the bad guy. That yes you could of course argue that it was all set up. Still are there real evidence that people in countries with a lot of guns are good at handling a situation like a bad guy with a gun at their workplace, school or cinema? That to me it seems like a very confusing, difficult and dangerous situation to handle. Also you have to take in to account stereotypes like for example a good guy with middle easter look with a gun could be in more danger of being shot by other good guys with a gun or by the police.

 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,403
Reaction score
48,869
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Is this really the way you guys look at guns and gun owners? Do you think that was funny or informative?
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
According to this video it doesn't end well. That the good guy shoot a innocent teen and got shoot by both the police and the bad guy. That yes you could of course argue that it was all set up. Still are there real evidence that people in countries with a lot of guns are good at handling a situation like a bad guy with a gun at their workplace, school or cinema? That to me it seems like a very confusing, difficult and dangerous situation to handle. Also you have to take in to account stereotypes like for example a good guy with middle easter look with a gun could be in more danger of being shot by other good guys with a gun or by the police.



IT will take a bit, before he is the last man standing.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Is this really the way you guys look at guns and gun owners? Do you think that was funny or informative?

Oh come on. Informative it was not. But funny.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
When a good guy has a guy?
Are you trying to be funny?
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
According to this video it doesn't end well. That the good guy shoot a innocent teen and got shoot by both the police and the bad guy. That yes you could of course argue that it was all set up. Still are there real evidence that people in countries with a lot of guns are good at handling a situation like a bad guy with a gun at their workplace, school or cinema? That to me it seems like a very confusing, difficult and dangerous situation to handle. Also you have to take in to account stereotypes like for example a good guy with middle easter look with a gun could be in more danger of being shot by other good guys with a gun or by the police.

"The Daily Show" as a source??? Seriously???

Well lets look at what we just saw here: The Daily Show takes ONE incident and tries to project it over a wide array of situations. It also ignores the vast number of positive outcomes of a "a good guy with a gun". What this article is doing is demanding perfection and if we can't have have perfection, then throw it all out. It's a growing attitude among people in America and especially those on the left.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,893
Reaction score
1,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is this really the way you guys look at guns and gun owners? Do you think that was funny or informative?

My father have rifles for hunting like many other people in Sweden. But in Sweden guns are not used for personal protection. So it intersting to know how good people are using their guns for defence in countries their civilians use guns for defending themself and others.

Also this video was mostly about being funny still it makes some interesting points. For example that in some American states you don't need a lot of training to get a concealed carry licence. That it is a huge difference between target shooting and dealing with a real situations. Also even with all the guns and people using them to defend themself in USA, a good guy with a gun only stop the shooter in 3 % of the cases according to a study.
 
Last edited:

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,403
Reaction score
48,869
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My father have rifles for hunting like many other people in Sweden. But in Sweden guns are not used for personal protection. So it intersting to know how good people are using their guns for defence in countries their civilians use guns for defending themself and others.

Also this video was mostly about being funny still it makes some interesting points. For example that in some American states you don't need a lot of training to get a concealed carry permit. That it is a huge difference between target shooting and dealing with a real situations. Also even with all the guns and people using them to defend themself in USA, a good guy with a gun only stop the shooter in 3 % of the cases according to a study.

Every day in this country you can find a story about someone who stopped a home invasion, a car jacking or a robbery with a gun. Bear in mind that you don't need to kill the perpetrator (or even shoot them) to stop them.

The fact of the matter is that in many urban areas in this country the city government goes to great lengths to enable crime. Some of that enabling is intentional and some is the result of good intentions gone bad but the result is that there are horribly crime ridden areas in nearly every major American city and there are drug addicts and manufacturers all over the suburbs and rural areas. Because of that prudence dictates that preparing yourself to react in the interests of public safety should a crime occur is a good idea. The police do a good job of taking notes and investigating after the fact but they are rarely on scene and ready to go when trouble breaks out.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So I looked up that 3% study. Here it is. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

It is being reported on very disingenuously. First, it is only refering to "active shooter events" which it defines as
“an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a enclosed and populated area.” Though this study did include some outside situations.

Here is the breakdown of how such events come to an end:

56% of the time the shooter ends it by taking his own life or leaving the scene.
26% of the time police engage and stop the shooter.
13% of the time unarmed civilians disarm and restrain the shooter.
3% of the time an armed civilian stops the shooter.

So, that doesn't mean that 97% of the time a good guy with a gun tried to stop the shooter and failed. And looking at their pie chart of where such shootings occur, it is obvious that gun free zones are a favorite place for such violence. And since carrying a gun into a gun free zone is illegal "good guys" tend not to do it.

Also, unless I am missing it, the study doesn't differentiate between jurisdictions where CCW is authorized and easy to obtain and where it is not. The worst gun violence happens in places where CCW is not easily obtained. It also doesn't state how many good guys with guns were at the scene who tried and failed or didn't even try. After all, just because CCW is authorized somewhere doesn't mean anyone is actually carrying.

So, the 3% stat is pretty useless.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,158
Reaction score
16,735
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So I looked up that 3% study. Here it is. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

It is being reported on very disingenuously. First, it is only refering to "active shooter events" which it defines as
“an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a enclosed and populated area.” Though this study did include some outside situations.

Here is the breakdown of how such events come to an end:

56% of the time the shooter ends it by taking his own life or leaving the scene.
26% of the time police engage and stop the shooter.
13% of the time unarmed civilians disarm and restrain the shooter.
3% of the time an armed civilian stops the shooter.

So, that doesn't mean that 97% of the time a good guy with a gun tried to stop the shooter and failed. And looking at their pie chart of where such shootings occur, it is obvious that gun free zones are a favorite place for such violence. And since carrying a gun into a gun free zone is illegal "good guys" tend not to do it.

Also, unless I am missing it, the study doesn't differentiate between jurisdictions where CCW is authorized and easy to obtain and where it is not. The worst gun violence happens in places where CCW is not easily obtained. It also doesn't state how many good guys with guns were at the scene who tried and failed or didn't even try. After all, just because CCW is authorized somewhere doesn't mean anyone is actually carrying.

So, the 3% stat is pretty useless.
Basically the reason for the 3% number is because in most mass shootings the only person armed with a gun is the guy trying kill as many people as he can.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,403
Reaction score
48,869
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So I looked up that 3% study. Here it is. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

It is being reported on very disingenuously. First, it is only refering to "active shooter events" which it defines as
“an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a enclosed and populated area.” Though this study did include some outside situations.

Here is the breakdown of how such events come to an end:

56% of the time the shooter ends it by taking his own life or leaving the scene.
26% of the time police engage and stop the shooter.
13% of the time unarmed civilians disarm and restrain the shooter.
3% of the time an armed civilian stops the shooter.

So, that doesn't mean that 97% of the time a good guy with a gun tried to stop the shooter and failed. And looking at their pie chart of where such shootings occur, it is obvious that gun free zones are a favorite place for such violence. And since carrying a gun into a gun free zone is illegal "good guys" tend not to do it.

Also, unless I am missing it, the study doesn't differentiate between jurisdictions where CCW is authorized and easy to obtain and where it is not. The worst gun violence happens in places where CCW is not easily obtained. It also doesn't state how many good guys with guns were at the scene who tried and failed or didn't even try. After all, just because CCW is authorized somewhere doesn't mean anyone is actually carrying.

So, the 3% stat is pretty useless.

That's really a pretty useful study even though it leaves a whole lot of stuff out.

Just because I have nothing better to do today I decided to go through all 160 incidents in the report and sort out how many times various types of weapons were used. Handguns were far and away the preferred weapon showing up in 122 of the 160 incidents. Shotguns were used in 33 incidents and rifles in 44. 33 incidents also involve the shooter using multiple types of weapons (more used multiple weapons but I was just looking at weapon types.


So what we've got is 11.4 "active shooter" incidents per year and less than 30% of those incidents (roughly 3 per year) involve a rifle of any type. For that reason we have a massive push by the gun grabbing crowd to ban "assault rifles".
 

Bootlace

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
597
Reaction score
299
Location
So cal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
My father have rifles for hunting like many other people in Sweden. But in Sweden guns are not used for personal protection. So it intersting to know how good people are using their guns for defence in countries their civilians use guns for defending themself and others.

Also this video was mostly about being funny still it makes some interesting points. For example that in some American states you don't need a lot of training to get a concealed carry licence. That it is a huge difference between target shooting and dealing with a real situations. Also even with all the guns and people using them to defend themself in USA, a good guy with a gun only stop the shooter in 3 % of the cases according to a study.

Here in california, specifically my issuing authority, getting training is voluntary. After you pass your background check, you go through about 5 hours in the classroom going over the pertinent penal codes regarding carrying, transporting on aircraft, use of deadly force, brandishing, etc. the the final three hours of the day on the range where you fire two mags or two cylinders at a target. Only 7 yards so misses are rare but it's to demonstrate you can load, reload, unload, and make safe the weapon you wish to carry. But it is stated over and over that getting your permit is just the first step, and you should get additional training.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,403
Reaction score
48,869
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here in california, specifically my issuing authority, getting training is voluntary. After you pass your background check, you go through about 5 hours in the classroom going over the pertinent penal codes regarding carrying, transporting on aircraft, use of deadly force, brandishing, etc. the the final three hours of the day on the range where you fire two mags or two cylinders at a target. Only 7 yards so misses are rare but it's to demonstrate you can load, reload, unload, and make safe the weapon you wish to carry. But it is stated over and over that getting your permit is just the first step, and you should get additional training.

He'd probably pop a gasket if he knew that in AZ the only requirement for carrying a firearm is having one. You need a minimal amount of training to get a CCW but there is no requirement to have one.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
My father have rifles for hunting like many other people in Sweden. But in Sweden guns are not used for personal protection. So it intersting to know how good people are using their guns for defence in countries their civilians use guns for defending themself and others.

Also this video was mostly about being funny still it makes some interesting points. For example that in some American states you don't need a lot of training to get a concealed carry licence. That it is a huge difference between target shooting and dealing with a real situations. Also even with all the guns and people using them to defend themself in USA, a good guy with a gun only stop the shooter in 3 % of the cases according to a study.


Sweden's rape crisis certainly calls into question its laws that dont allow its Women the means to protect themselves

Sweden's rape rate under the spotlight - BBC News
 

Bootlace

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
597
Reaction score
299
Location
So cal
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
He'd probably pop a gasket if he knew that in AZ the only requirement for carrying a firearm is having one. You need a minimal amount of training to get a CCW but there is no requirement to have one.

Vermont and idaho too.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,403
Reaction score
48,869
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Vermont and idaho too.

My understanding is that Idaho won't be Constitutional until 1 July and then it will be resident only. West Virginia just overturned a veto and went Constitutional this past Tuesday.

Vermont has been a Constitutional Carry state all along. Alaska went that route in 2003 and AZ followed in 2010. Maine went Constitutional last year. Kansas, Idaho, Mississippi and Wyoming are almost there or allow the practice for residents. Puerto Rico is the one that surprised me as being Constitutional Carry but, according to Wikipedia, they're still enforcing prior restrictions until some court stuff gets done.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,218
Reaction score
4,109
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is this really the way you guys look at guns and gun owners? Do you think that was funny or informative?

Well it does make the point that your average US gun owner is nowhere near competent enough to deal with the situations they think they could and are most likely a liability to both themselves and those around them . The real world just isn't like TV
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
36,669
Reaction score
8,568
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well it does make the point that your average US gun owner is nowhere near competent enough to deal with the situations they think they could and are most likely a liability to both themselves and those around them . The real world just isn't like TV

You drew all that from just that one instance did you? Based on that logic, we need to ban knives, wrenches, crowbars, cars, belts, rope, bricks, chainsaws, and anything you can think of that can be used to kill someone. Just bad logic. But when it comes to your arguments, that's nothing new.
 

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
5,893
Reaction score
1,182
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So I looked up that 3% study. Here it is. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

It is being reported on very disingenuously. First, it is only refering to "active shooter events" which it defines as
“an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a enclosed and populated area.” Though this study did include some outside situations.

Here is the breakdown of how such events come to an end:

56% of the time the shooter ends it by taking his own life or leaving the scene.
26% of the time police engage and stop the shooter.
13% of the time unarmed civilians disarm and restrain the shooter.
3% of the time an armed civilian stops the shooter.

So, that doesn't mean that 97% of the time a good guy with a gun tried to stop the shooter and failed. And looking at their pie chart of where such shootings occur, it is obvious that gun free zones are a favorite place for such violence. And since carrying a gun into a gun free zone is illegal "good guys" tend not to do it.

Also, unless I am missing it, the study doesn't differentiate between jurisdictions where CCW is authorized and easy to obtain and where it is not. The worst gun violence happens in places where CCW is not easily obtained. It also doesn't state how many good guys with guns were at the scene who tried and failed or didn't even try. After all, just because CCW is authorized somewhere doesn't mean anyone is actually carrying.

So, the 3% stat is pretty useless.

I think the study is intersting because it show that even in USA there it is much more easy to get a gun and also many have them for defence only in 3 % of cases you hade a armed civilian with a gun stoped the shooter. Of course you can arguee that it was because it was in areas with restriction or ban on caring a gun. But when it would be intersting to see the data for areas there carring a gun is allowed. Because if the numbers is still low it then show that good guys either doesn't want to care guns with them or that they are not able to stop shooters.

Sweden's rape crisis certainly calls into question its laws that dont allow its Women the means to protect themselves

Sweden's rape rate under the spotlight - BBC News

From your own article.

So there's a lot that official statistics don't tell us. They certainly don't reveal the real number of rapes that happen in Sweden, or any other country. And they don't give a clear view of which countries have worse crime rates than others.

Sweden's rape rate under the spotlight - BBC News
Also then it comes to rape the discussion is often about the dangerous stranger even if most rapes is done by someone the victim knows. The same goes with other violence. That in western countries the biggest threath against ordinary citizens are domestic violence. For young males also getting into drunk fights with other males.

So a intersting question is if having a gun in the house reduce the risk or increase the risk of domestic violence? On one hand woman have a greater advantage to threathen or kill her husband. On the other hand it can increase the fear of leaving because the husband can threathen her with the gun.Also if a woman are not able to leave her husband she can also have a hard time shooting him. Or atleast maybe hesitate so the husband can grab the gun. Also this is just speculation from me so it would be interesting if there are studies. That at the same time we hopefully all can agree that having a gun then you are drinking is a bad idea.

Here in california, specifically my issuing authority, getting training is voluntary. After you pass your background check, you go through about 5 hours in the classroom going over the pertinent penal codes regarding carrying, transporting on aircraft, use of deadly force, brandishing, etc. the the final three hours of the day on the range where you fire two mags or two cylinders at a target. Only 7 yards so misses are rare but it's to demonstrate you can load, reload, unload, and make safe the weapon you wish to carry. But it is stated over and over that getting your permit is just the first step, and you should get additional training.

Still it means that you are not trained to handle a violent encounter armed with a gun. So a intersting question is if you don't do any more training are you more or less safe with a gun? Also is society less or more safe with you having the gun?
 
Last edited:

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well it does make the point that your average US gun owner is nowhere near competent enough to deal with the situations they think they could and are most likely a liability to both themselves and those around them . The real world just isn't like TV

Funny thing about the real world, it shows just how goofy and illinformed your assumptions are.
 

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think the study is intersting because it show that even in USA there it is much more easy to get a gun and also many have them for defence only in 3 % of cases you hade a armed civilian with a gun stoped the shooter. Of course you can arguee that it was because it was in areas with restriction or ban on caring a gun. But when it would be intersting to see the data for areas there carring a gun is allowed. Because if the numbers is still low it then show that good guys either doesn't want to care guns with them or that they are not able to stop shooters.



From your own article.



Sweden's rape rate under the spotlight - BBC News
Also then it comes to rape the discussion is often about the dangerous stranger even if most rapes is done by someone the victim knows. The same goes with other violence. That in western countries the biggest threath against ordinary citizens are domestic violence. For young males also getting into drunk fights with other males.

So a intersting question is if having a gun in the house reduce the risk or increase the risk of domestic violence? On one hand woman have a greater advantage to threathen or kill her husband. On the other hand it can increase the fear of leaving because the husband can threathen her with the gun.Also if a woman are not able to leave her husband she can also have a hard time shooting him. Or atleast maybe hesitate so the husband can grab the gun. Also this is just speculation from me so it would be interesting if there are studies. That at the same time we hopefully all can agree that having a gun then you are drinking is a bad idea.



Still it means that you are not trained to handle a violent encounter armed with a gun. So a intersting question is if you don't do any more training are you more or less safe with a gun? Also is society less or more safe with you having the gun?

Yet untrained people do just fine every day and trained individuals make mistakes. My wife did just fine when she used a firearm to defend herself and my son. So are we more or less safe with a firearm? 120,000,000 gun owners seem to be doing fine...
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,826
Reaction score
50,641
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
According to this video it doesn't end well. That the good guy shoot a innocent teen and got shoot by both the police and the bad guy. That yes you could of course argue that it was all set up. Still are there real evidence that people in countries with a lot of guns are good at handling a situation like a bad guy with a gun at their workplace, school or cinema? That to me it seems like a very confusing, difficult and dangerous situation to handle. Also you have to take in to account stereotypes like for example a good guy with middle easter look with a gun could be in more danger of being shot by other good guys with a gun or by the police.






You're going to base your views on a single video about a single incident?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,218
Reaction score
4,109
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yet untrained people do just fine every day and trained individuals make mistakes. My wife did just fine when she used a firearm to defend herself and my son. So are we more or less safe with a firearm? 120,000,000 gun owners seem to be doing fine...

Yes you guys all seem to have a personal story of gun heroism that justifies your obsessions. Sorry but I don't really believe that any such incident ever took place. :roll:
 
Last edited:

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,218
Reaction score
4,109
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Funny thing about the real world, it shows just how goofy and illinformed your assumptions are.

Who needs assumptions ? Your own FBI says only one in every 32 fatal shootings is of a defensive nature so I guess I must be a bit better informed than you about the 'real world' :wink:
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
17,218
Reaction score
4,109
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You drew all that from just that one instance did you? Based on that logic, we need to ban knives, wrenches, crowbars, cars, belts, rope, bricks, chainsaws, and anything you can think of that can be used to kill someone. Just bad logic. But when it comes to your arguments, that's nothing new.

As I've said often here guns make killing far too easy and are very rarely used for defensive purposes
 
Top Bottom