When Will the Good People With Guns Save Us?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Thanks. That's what I was aiming for with this one.
Now . . . answer the question!
OP apparently not a veteran... Good people with guns have protected this country many times for many years.
The whole purpose of a gun is SELF protection. I'm not actively looking to shoot people I find questionable. What I know is that if there is an active shooter where I'm at, I feel better that I have a gun to defend myself instead of picking up a stapler or can of beans to throw at the person trying to shoot me.
So don't hold your breath WWJD. I'm not your personal body guard and if you're too much of a p@#sy to protect yourself because a big bad gun might go off in your pants for no purpose, well then, that's on you. In the mean time, make sure you can locate some canned goods or a nice hefty three-hole punch to deflect bullets.
So don't hold your breath WWJD. I'm not your personal body guard and if you're too much of a p@#sy to protect yourself because a big bad gun might go off in your pants for no purpose, well then, that's on you. In the mean time, make sure you can locate some canned goods or a nice hefty three-hole punch to deflect bullets.
But that's not what your party leadership keeps saying. They keep telling everyone that the way to stop these events is to have MORE people with weapons that way when the shooting starts people will fire back. I think the OP is just looking for an example.
Yes - you are. Everyone else is using common sense.
Well . . . common sense tells us that the right wing meme that the good people with guns are the best defense against bad people with guns is simply WRONG.
So why does your side keep spouting such nonsense? Where is your common sense?
I assume by now you've clicked on KitingHigh's link above? BTW, do you think that good guys with guns are everywhere? Even in Gun Free zones where a lot of these shootings take place?
lol, did you read those? They go back 20 years and still they're filled with "MIGHT have been going to shoot more people" or "COULD have been coming back to shoot more people". Most even admit that it was a "family feud" or some such event and not a random mass shooting, one even saying that the guy was just looking for attention and didn't shoot at all. You might have one or two that MAYBE were valid examples. With all you rabid gun-petters out there I'd expect more.
There are plenty more. The reason why the term "MIGHT"'was used is because one shouldn't make assumptions like anti gun zealots always do in their claims. By the way, most "mass shootings" are family feuds. 57 percent of them.
Guns are used to stop crimes over a million times a year. Most of which don't involve shooting and the majority are not reported to the police, much less the media.
Sure there aren't a lot of examples of "real" mass shootings being stopped by regular citizens, because there aren't a lot of mass shootings to begin with and obviously if the shooter is stopped early i doesn't get called a mass shooting.
You asked for examples and it took me 30 seconds to provide ten. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is undeniably true that crimes are in fact stopped by citizens legally carrying guns.
Now why don't you point out the mass shootings that were prevented by gun restrictions?
OP should probably just leave this thread. That is how you properly get served. KitingHigh with the win.
There aren't a lot of mass shootings to begin with? We're up to 381 this year alone. You've shown evidence that maybe 10 have been stopped over the past 20 years. That's not an impressive track record for the gun fans.
I'm curious - any idea how many of thesetook place in gun free zones?
And how many in states and cities with strict gun laws like California and Chicago?
If people aren't allowed to conceal carry in the areas where many of these are taking place it seems you can't really blame the gun owners for not being able to respond.
Last edited:
Look it up yourself: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015
As for your second question, you'll find that California's gun murder rate is about the same as Texas.
As for your second question, you'll find that California's gun murder rate is about the same as Texas.
According to an agenda driven group using a very loose definition of mass shooting. Like I said earlier, most of those "mass shootings". Are domestic disputes.
Regardless, the OP and you thought there weren't going to be any and in a short quick search were provided ten. Last year there was another in a shopping center and there are numerous other examples.
And what are you talking of track records, it's not like armed citizens are present every time. Quite the opposite as the perps do tend to target gun free zones.
Y'all like to claim something should be done even if it saves a few. Well, there is some proof that citizens with guns do save some in mass shootings. You were wrong. Own it.
I looked it up and there have been 4.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/0...lly.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
This is a great argument. If more than 4 people are shot then an armed citizenry does not work and if less than 4 are shot because someone step in there is no proof that there would have been 4.
The Walking Dead is on hiatus until February since last week. Do you really have to work this hard to be dumb?
But he's told us so many times that he has guns himself...........just another one of his many lies. Because that's what he does.
NO...we are not. According to FBI criteria...we are at exactly............ 4
The BS Number reported last week was 355....now it's 381? Did we all miss 26 news stories in the last week?
There are some stats out there that would indicate such. And Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, and others do need to be looked at for their stand on gun control.
Patience, grasshopper. It only seems like I'm on HROT all the time.
California has lots of gun regulations; Texas has few gun regulations.
If the gun homicide rate is virtually the same, then I would conclude that gun regulations are ineffective at reducing gun deaths.
This is the problem with looking at a single variable. If there were no regulations, would you expect the 2 states to be the same?
Texas and California are comparable in terms of many variables. Large, populous states with urban centers as well as vast rural areas; racially diverse with large Hispanic populations; etc. It's not like comparing Texas and Vermont.
Similar threads
