Pretty well from the examples you can find everyday.
Of course some get it wrong too and they need to be held accountable.
Do citizens (not police officers) with guns ever stop mass shootings?
- Thread starter LuckyNed
- Start date
Pretty well from the examples you can find everyday.
Of course some get it wrong too and they need to be held accountable.
Where do you read about them tracking anyone down?
All of those stories are about defense.
Don't make stuff up.
So you're arguing that ordinary citizens are better than the police at defending large groups of people against gunmen? I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're saying here.
I'm sorry... what are the ordinary citizens supposed to do while they wait for the police to come and defend them from the lone-wolf gunman?
My first choice would be to run. I guess you expect everyone to suddenly become John Wayne.
How valiant of you. Would you knock over women and children in your escape?
What if it was your wife and kids? Still running, or do you try to protect your family?
The truth is you don't need everyone to be a hero, but having one or a few makes a huge difference. Just look at 911.
So in the example given you want the mother carrying the baby to run from an armed person who's already shot and killed someone.
If the opportunity presents itself that's great but in mass shootings obviously those people don't have the opportunity to run.
I spent 20 years in the military, including time in a combat zone, and I spent much more time cleaning my weapon than actually firing it.
The last few years before I got out I spent a lot of time in training in Rules of Engagement. Most of us felt that if you followed the ROG you would probably end up dead.
Go back and read my first post in this thread. A gun is simply a tool, guns don't do anything by themselves. Whether in the holsters of cops or non cops they are inanimate objects utilized by those that bear them. They can be used righteously or used as a tool for evil. But nonetheless they are simply a tool.
People on the other hand can be good, evil, indifferent, smart, stupid, brave or cowards. I don't think we should hamstring those who are brave because of those who are cowards. Bad things will always happen. As I said before it only takes one or a few with good intentions, bravery, and the right tool at the time to prevent the evil ones from causing great tragedy.
In the case of 911, brave men were willing to sacrifice their lives to prevent a greater loss. Maybe if they had guns, they could have saved the lives of those on the plane. Maybe they wouldn't have. Either way citizens that weren't part of law enforcement saved lives. Every day citizens that aren't part of law enforcement prevent crimes. Sometimes, often, they do so because they have a gun.
I've never carried a firearm for any other reason than to target shoot. It's not my thing. I've been escorted by armed guards though and every one of the major politicians and celebrities who want to take guns away have as well.
I really don't get why people like you want to take guns out of public hands. Do you look at Tiananman square and Kent state and think they are just collateral damage? Would you rather people get robbed, assaulted, raped and killed and not be able to defend themselves?
The article itself referenced many studies that dispute the "millions" of DFU studies. It's one article that bases its findings on other studies, accepting only the studies that back its claim while dismissing the others without providing scientifically sound reasons for accepting one study over another.
In general, I could care less about this issue as the studies were all related to home invasions and the original post was about the use of guns in public places to prevent crimes like mass shootings. In other words, nothing in the article you linked has anything to do with mass shootings or citizens carrying weapons in public that have been used to stop other citizens carrying guns who were attempting to kill others.
In other words, I don't have a problem with people who want a gun to defend their home, but carrying guns to prevent crimes outside the home? I never hear about it unless its an off-duty cop or something like that. I imagine people carrying guns in public for "self-protective" reasons wind up killing people in road rage incidents far more often than they ever use them to stop crime. I don't have any stats to back up the latter statement at all ... but that's because there aren't any studies one way or the other about the use of guns carried in public. We can say with certainty that the mass shooters definitely were carrying firearms in public and they used them effectively to achieve their goals.
Laughable. Just thousands of times a day in this country people are sending burglars packing, and don't bother calling the cops afterwards. Absurd.
Your dismissal is childish and frankly idiotic. Why on earth would someone call the cops? So they could waste hours making a report that would accomplish nothing?
Latest posts
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-
-