- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 6,971
- Reaction score
- 1,564
- 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.
Is this really the way you guys look at guns and gun owners? Do you think that was funny or informative?
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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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...
Funny thing about the real world, it shows just how goofy and illinformed your assumptions are.
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.
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?