A reader who prefers to remain anonymous writes . . .
Who stops a bad guy with a gun is purely circumstantial. Determining the most effective means of stopping bad guys with guns is far more important. A recent New York Times presentation of data suggests the effectiveness of citizens. However, it does not isolate the effectiveness of armed citizens. That’s a shame.
Most people do not carry weapons. When murderers target movie theaters, supermarkets, and malls, armed citizens are not usually present to defend themselves or others. That’s why the numbers are low.
Despite what politicians want us to believe, there isn’t a plethora of armed individuals walking the streets. But simply expressing how uncommon something is has nothing to do with its effectiveness.
To measure such effectiveness, the presence of a legally armed citizen has to be consistent throughout the data. In other words, you can’t use examples of completely unarmed victims to make conclusions about how armed citizens might influence mass shootings.
When this variable exists, legally armed individuals often minimize injuries and loss of life. The opposite is true when victims are completely unarmed. This logical conclusion is supported with proper analysis.
‘Gun violence’ is the culmination of everything wrong in America. However, armed individuals remain the most effective tools against active shooters. That’s why security guards are often armed. That’s why police officers are always armed. That’s why civilians in these situations typically yield better results of saving themselves and others when they are armed.
The New York Times article seems most concerned with refuting the NRA’s contention that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The data they reference, compiled by Texas State University, shows that indeed, shooters are often stopped by those without firearms.
However, all hypothetical, theoretical, and extraneous variables are irrelevant to the main debate. When even one judiciously armed person is present during an active shooter situation, everyone around that person stands a better chance of surviving.
Instead of obsessing over properly permitted citizens, we need to address how and why troubled souls keep slipping through the cracks. Making it increasingly illegal to carry weapons clearly does nothing to stop these determined and deranged individuals from breaking laws and killing more people. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be in this predicament in the first place. Unyielding restrictions only prevent the law-abiding from protecting themselves and others. We deserve better.
It’s not sensible to arm everyone all the time. That simply isn’t going to happen. However, until we live in a world where armed psychopaths and unsavory characters don’t enter public spaces — many of them designated “gun-free” — and shoot innocent people on a recurring basis, making it increasingly illegal for law-abiding people to use their concealed carry permits as intended is counterproductive and many times deadly.
Legislation that burdens the law-abiding while failing to address our underlying problems is unacceptable…but par for the course. Furthermore, suggesting that armed individuals are ineffective against active shooters is, as even the New York Times demonstrates, demonstrably false.
These days I’d say the most probable answer is “Krispy Kreme” but maybe that’s just me being jaded as fuck.
But really, in reference to the article, I would suggest that we prepare for the idea that such incidents will become more common before they become more rare.
For whatever reason, a “public health crisis, real or perceived” tends to lead to all sorts of things historically, including large upticks in violence and a public that tends to prefer a strongman-type of government in response. The correlation is crazy high, like .88 (out of 1 for those not big on stats).
Add that to the other issues that get discussed here all day. A mess and a half is what you’ve got.
I suspect that the increased stress, gaslighting, propaganda and general reliance on potentially dangerous pharmies instead of counselling and lifestyle changes will continue to provide a fertile base for people “losing it”, probably increasingly in segments of society that it wouldn’t normally be expected in due to .gov/self imposed isolation.
“But really, in reference to the article, I would suggest that we prepare for the idea that such incidents will become more common before they become more rare.”
I think so. There are things that could be done to help the situation we’re in. The powers that be are doing the opposite of that. I imagine they’re listening to the devil on their shoulder, or maybe just propaganda from our enemies who understand it’s easier to let us destroy ourselves instead of physically attacking us.
The annoying thing IMHO is that we have some really, really big problems but the majority of our problems would be fairly simple to address if a majority or large plurality would just wake up to the existence of those problems.
That’s been an annoyance of mine since I was in high school 20 years ago but, as I did with the school system, I figure you’ll just have to treat this like an alcoholic and let them hit bottom so they can see the problem and make a choice. Of course, if people are as quick on the uptake as they were about the school system we’re totally boned but there’s not much I can do about that.
Part of it is that whole “It’s easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled”, part of it is people just not having time and part of it is people not wanting to admit the problem that they actually kinda know is there because it scares the shit out of them.
Surprising! I’ve been creating a hundred greenbacks associate hour since I started freelance on the web six months ago. I work long hours daily from home and do the essential work that i buy from the business I met online.xd33) share this work for you chance this is often undoubtedly the simplest job I even have ever done move to this link…………… http://googlepay01.pages.dev
Because all of these mass shootings occur in “Gun-free Zones”, that is why so few ever get stopped by a good guy with a gun. These good guys obey the signs banning guns from these zones and are just sheep in a slaughterhouse. If we truly want to stop these mass shootings from killing large amounts of victims, we have to either stop creating these gun-free zones or avoid them all together. An establishment that puts up signs that ban guns on the premises and then doesn’t do anything to ensure that this ban is followed should be held responsible for any gun violence that occurs in that location. But of course, this is just common sense. Something that is truly lacking these days.
“I suspect that the increased stress, gaslighting, propaganda and general reliance on potentially dangerous pharmies instead of counselling and lifestyle changes will continue to provide a fertile base for people “losing it”,…”
And some are deliberately mentally fvcking people up to create chaos, this article demonstrates that clearly :
“Headline: When a quarter of the class identifies as trans”
https://pitt.substack.com/p/headline-when-a-quarter-of-the-class?s=r&utm_medium=email
I honestly think most of this is a fad pushed by loony teachers.
Yeah, a disturbing number of kids fall for it and get [potentially permanently] fucked up but mostly I think it’s like ripped jeans or midriff shirts but with the added bonus of getting the kid a special status that grants extra privileges.
I don’t see too many kids who actually take this seriously. But certain *special* adults do. One of them flew off the handle on me the other week for asking “Whatever happened to normal shit like old fashioned crossdressing and just being gay?”.
The whole thing is nonsense. The new LGBTQ++ flag has a BLM addition to it. Even the people pushing this are just doing it for political points.
These days you can get some people really heated by spitting out a simple phrase like “Motility of gametes” (the actual scientific determination of sex). Fuckin’ hilarious to troll those people.
They talk intersectionality, I start babbling nonsense about “urban hip hop culture” and then throw on something like this just to watch their head explode (SuCh A bIgOt!!!):
the guy in cuffs having all of his property impounded.
Just another load of self justifying poppycock . When the obvious answer is and always has been TO REDUCE the AVAILABILITY of totally unnessessary firearms in circulation. The e number of times a ‘Crime in Commission’ using firearms has been stopped by a civilian you can probably count on the fingers of one hand per annum -that’s why they make the headlines whilst shootings if the involve less that three or four victims seldomn get the same attention.
That’s why the guy who shot a ‘mass-shooting’ perp in a mall is hailed as a National Hero – not becasues he’s in fact particularly heroic but because he is such a rarity. and got far more coverage that the poor bloody victims!
“When the obvious answer is and always has been TO REDUCE the AVAILABILITY of totally unnessessary firearms in circulation.“
Define “totally unnecessary firearms”… I own a fairly substantial collection and I can’t think of one that is the least bit “unnecessary”, let alone “totally unnecessary”.
I can relate to an ever-increasing number of unnecessary human being wannabes, though. Perhaps it’s really those you’re referring to.
The UK has low firearms crimes because it severely punishes anyone with a gun.
A man caught with a pistol will serve a long prison sentence, longer than a rapist or pedophile.
All this proves is punishment works.
Firearms are available to anyone with cash in the UK (I was offered a pistol for £150 but this was maybe 1998). The various organized crime people import them to meet the modest demand. British gangs use children to carry the guns as they avoid prosecution.
But the key point here is that at any time usa could begin aggressively punishing criminal use of guns. For example if a known felon was caught with a pistol and actually served 3 years in prison, carrying a gun becomes unacceptable.
The mass shootings of children etc. many think are a result of extreme hype from media which stimulates copy cats.
At this point, banning retail sales of “black guns” would only result in the crazy persons buying “black guns” from criminal organizations.
Singapore has near nil crime. They achieve this by detecting criminals at a young age and ending their opportunities. A woman can walk through a park at midnight in a negligee without fear. Perverts, at first transgression, (say groping that woman in the park) are severely punished by whipping then breaking rocks in the sun. At say second error, say rape, they may be executed or more likely do a long miserable multi year sentence sleeping on a thin mat and breaking rocks 12 hours a day 6 days a week. Punishment works.
I think there is a mistaken belief that prison is seen as punishment by the segment of our population committing the vast majority of crimes with guns. I would argue perhaps not the opposite, but that at a minimum, prison is no deterrent.
And segregating the items used to commit crime for stiffer punishment has, does, and will backfire on otherwise innocent people. Just saying, if someone is out shooting their now illegal “SBR” and not hurting anyone, do we really think they should be hammered the same as the gang member doing the drive by?
Violence is violence, violent people, however they choose to act out, should be incarcerated until somehow, if ever (and I’m talking ANY physical violence against others, looking at you Will Smith) they are determined to have been rehabilitated and/or no more threat than anyone not incarcerated. Locking people up after the fact is counter-productive. Innocent people shouldnt have to die before someone is locked up, potentially for life. It (and most crime) could be averted long in advance, if we were willing to see that violence is a people problem, not an implement problem. But that means serious introspection, to include failed leftist policy, and that will never happen.
Singapore, negligee? Instant jail!!!
You like it, go there! Oh right, they won’t have you…
The UK also protects its borders, something this country refuses to do these days. We don’t stop all the drug traffic across our borders. Why in hell would anyone think that it would be any different with guns flowing across our borders. Banning something never works. All it does is create a black market for whatever is banned. The UK is a free country because of the United States and the United States is free because of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.
Albert theres way to many gunms in America to take away all the gunms in America.
Just watch an episode of “Larmie” them cowboys tossed gunms like Santa Claus tossing candy.
Gunms are laying everywhere, a little wd40 and theyll be shooting again.
You just dont know America Albert, most babies over here grow up teething on shotgunm shells.
We’re a bunch of gunm crazy, pickup driving, badass sums a beetches.
Ain’t nobody messes with us and dont get a black eye.
Gunms
Albert the Poncy Wanking Subject,
Hint: NO ONE CARES WHAT YOUR F***ING IGNORANT, SUBJECT “OPINION” IS. Haven’t since 1776. Feel free to shut the f*** up, or babble elsewhere, you pathetic wanking poofter.
Enact whatever laws you and your fellow subjects choose; I care not a shart. Have whatever “opinions” you wish about OUR laws . . . and feel free to whisper them up your own arse.
Oh, and SOD OFF, SWAMPY.
“When even one judiciously armed person is present during an active shooter situation, everyone around that person stands a better chance of surviving.”
100% of these mass killers are cowards. They always go after the unarmed. This is why they attack innocents in schools, malls, theaters, and stores. They correctly conclude they will not face any armed resistance. They never attack police stations or other hardened targets. I’d bet dollars to donuts that most of these scum would run away if confronted by armed resistance. The killer in Indiana didn’t get the chance; he was riddled with bullets by a good guy in less than 30 seconds.
We need more law-abiding citizens carrying firearms, not fewer. Especially with police officer shortage across the country. As Strych9 said above, we’ll probably see more such events in the short-term, but if more people carry, I’d bet my house there will be fewer such events in the long term.
And eliminate the Gun Free Zone attractant.
“Instead of obsessing over properly permitted citizens, we need to address how and why troubled souls keep slipping through the cracks.”
No! First we have to do something to stop law abiding people from having any guns at all. Then crazy people can’t shoot up schools, malls and movie theaters. Without guns, crazy people won’t be killing a bunch of innocents. We just gotta do something.
Violent crime in the ‘hoods? Well, nothing can be done about that, but if it could, first we gotta stop the school shootings. The shootings in the ‘hoods are just a natural part of life. We can tolerate high rates of death in the inner cities, but not in the nice places where normal people go.
Because regardless of whatever government program or service you speak of. No one can screw shit up like the government. The 9 scariest words. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Ronald Reagan
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand” — Milton Friedman
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand” — Milton Friedman”
Thanx for posting that. Placed it in my log of useful quotes to be used when engaging lovers of government. The Friedman quote rests alongside, “Treason doth never prosper, for if it doth prosper, none dare call it treason.”
My favorite, short, quote on government probably is from Teddy Roosevelt, partly because it’s hilarious and partly because it’s true.
“When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not Guilty’.”
The other short one, which is far less amusing, is from H.L. Mencken.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable…”
“Furthermore, suggesting that armed individuals are ineffective against active shooters is, as even the New York Times demonstrates, demonstrably false.”
Well, of course its false.
Its anti-gun fuzzy partial truth statistics math again:
In a fruit basket we put 10 apples then took 9 apples out and put 9 oranges in = there was never ever never 10 apples in the fruit basket only 9 oranges and 1 apple were in the fruit basket when a piece of fruit, an orange, was selected therefore oranges are more popular than apples so 90 % of the American population prefer oranges.
Just a small smidgen of truth to make the slanted omitted data lie seem believable.
Well, I guess that when one guy in an Indiana mall can do in fifteen seconds what 370 cops CAN’T do in 77 minutes in Texas, the answer is the same as ” King Dribblecup’s favorite place to poop”… Depends.
What you saw in Uvalde was the result of a school having their own private police force. The only thing more incompetent than a school is a government Guess i repeated myself.
Oh yeah, what about the Capitol Police?
…. Okay, never mind.
“we need to address how and why troubled souls keep slipping through the cracks”
As they say, we’re in a transition period. No, I’m not talking about energy. I’m talking about a society that used to value family and traditional morality that has devolved into a society that values hedonism and the worship of the self. It turns out, it isn’t what it promises to be and people are unhappy. Things have accelerated lately due to the magic of social media. It’s easy to spread the word and infect young minds.
“Things have accelerated lately due to the magic of social media.”
People on the big social media sites seem to believe they have lives as glamorous, or more so, as celebrities in Hollywood.
……………..gonna have to kick my own ass for not picking up on that. All of the hollyweird trends without the “talent” or massive stores of wealth to support the lifestyle unless they go full loco and get monetized by their antics. No wonder we are seeing a lot more broken people.
Those loony TikTok stars are role models for children.
Act right or you will end up like these mutants?
Remember how ethical the shows”Rat Patrol” and “Batman” were?
The “Rat Patrol” writers were careful to not dehumanize the enemy.
“Batman” always acted properly with his enemies, and explained his motives.
All kid shows now simply exterminate the enemy in glorious devastating battle. Kinda plugs into the mall shooter crazy doesn’t it? They feel wronged (maybe rightly) but the action is insane revenge in glorious horror.
So nowadays no Hollywood writer can depict even slightly gender shame etc., but mass murder yeah sure no sweat.
If you’re talking about the 60s show, Batman was Barney Fife with cooler toys. No matter how many crimes he solved, the same handful of villains endlessly plagued Gotham’s citizens – consequence-free – thanks to his blind trust in the same failed “solutions” that had made his vigilantism necessary in the first place. Kid shows today seem to preach the same crap: hatred of justice because it isn’t “nice”.
“The data they reference, compiled by Texas State University, shows that indeed, shooters are often stopped by those without firearms.”
I see evidence that shooters are more often “subdued” than shot, but none that the “subduers” were unarmed. Absent that evidence (and absent evidence that ninja masters outnumber armed citizens), it’s logical to suppose the opposite.
The first rule of being a ninja master is, you do not talk about being a ninja master. Don’t ask me how I know.
You guys think you’re all covert, but then always give yourselves away by saying “Wa, wa” when you should be approaching silently😉
Damn, and here all this time, I thought it was my black jammies, hood, and sandals that gave me away. So, I can say “Wa, wa” as much as I want, as long as I wear jeans, sneakers, and a T-shirt???
Just askin’, for a friend.
Not that long ago Matt Easton (British collector, practitioner, and dealer of antique weapons) did a video with a ninjitsu historian who ridiculed that very concept – that people whose missions and survival depended on remaining anonymous would have a distinctive “uniform” like that.
The second rule of being a ninja master is, always look cool.
Dude,
LOL
I’ve already looked at this Texas study before and researched it. According to the Texas study:
* Of the 433 active shooter attacks in the study 249 ended before the police arrived.
* In 64 of those attacks a bystander subdued the attacker 42 times and shot the attacker 22 times
*12 of the shooting bystanders were citizens, 7 were security guards, 3 were off duty police officers
so lets go on… with their numbers
*In 185 of the 249 that ended before police arrived 133 of that 185 left the scene before police arrived and 72 committed suicide. The study does not tell you that of the 113 that left 108 of those left because an ordinary citizen (not security or law enforcement) with a gun brandished their firearm and repelled the attacker thus stopped the active shooter without firing a shot. This study also does not tell you that of the 72 that committed suicide 68 did so either while under fire by a citizen with a gun and they could not escape or keep firing being suppressed by the citizen weapons fire but were not hit by the citizen weapons fire or the citizen brandished and the active shooter simply stopped firing and killed their selves when seeing the citizen brandish.
some math: 185 – 72 = 113 attackers left to subdue but they departed the scene before being subdued and before police arrived …. so 249 – 72 – 113 = 64 attackers left to subdue on scene.
This 64 is interesting because you will notice it includes two categories of defenders as if there are those with firearms and those without – those that shot the attacker (22) and those that subdued by physical force (42). Of those defenders that shot 12 were citizens, 7 were security guards, 3 were off duty officers. Its interesting because it does not mention that of those subdued by physical force that the shooter was stopped first in 18 of them by a citizen (not security or law enforcement) brandishing a gun but not firing but the attacker stopped firing when confronted by that armed citizen then the attacker was able to be subdued by physical force.
So of the 433 attacks in the study armed citizen (not security or police) stopped the attack …
108 + 68 + 12 + 18 = 231 attacks stopped by an armed citizen (not security or police) with a gun.
Notice how the Texas study only credits an armed citizen (not security or police) with stopping the active shooter if they actually shot the attacker. This is the slanted biased part of such studies – they start by defining that an active shooter is only stopped by an ordinary armed citizen if the citizen actually shoots and hits the attacker and that causes the attacker to stop. They do not credit armed citizens that stop attacks by brandishing (and thus repelling) or firing on the attacker and suppressing the attacker so they can not continue but not hitting the attacker – these also stopped the active shooters.
433 – 231 = 202 and of that 202 … 7 were shot by security and 3 were shot by off duty police. 7 + 3 = 10
53.3% of these 433 active shooter attacks were stopped by ordinary armed citizens with guns.
1.6% of these 433 active shooter attacks were stopped by armed security.
0.69% of these 433 active shooter attacks were stopped by off duty police officers.
The study uses only one one category of an armed citizen stopping an active shooter and that is only when the armed citizen actually shoots the attacker. It completely ignores and does not include that armed citizens also stop active shooters with guns simply because they acted in a defensive gun use manner without firing or without actually shooting or hitting the active shooter or would be active shooter.
The FBI also uses the same thing, that a citizen with as gun only stops an active shooter if they actually shoot and hit the attacker and the attacker then stops. This is also the definition used by anti-gun. But police are credited with stopping an active shooter if they show up then act after the fact of the shooter firing.
In other words there are a lot more active shooter type incidents stopped by ordinary citizens with guns than are credited to citizens with guns in the media and by anti-gun. This study was just looking at 433 of them.
Just to also point out, in context with what I wrote, that the Texas study wasn’t biased per se’ because of data manipulation like that frequently used in anti-gun studies and by anti-gun, for example, where they re-interpret data definitions and purposely leave data out. It just used a very narrow ‘excluding’ definition and focused on that in relation to actual ‘active shooter’ shooting by defenders. It was basically focused on the definition used by the FBI for ‘active shooter’ which is “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area”. That can be any where, it does not need to be a mass shooting, it can just be one person shot or killed and can also be no one shot but being shot at.
But they only allowed that an active shooter was stopped by a civilian with a gun only if the active shooter got stopped by being shot by that citizen with a gun. This is the same concept the FBI and anti-gun uses, that it only counts if the citizen actually shoots an active shooter and that stops the active shooter. This is why anti-gun and media claim the ‘good guy with a gun’ stopping active shooters is (mostly) myth and they rarely stop active shooters.
In reality it happens thousands of times daily across the US in all sorts of places from convenience stores to open public areas but less than 5% of the defenders actually fire, and the rest repel the active shooter attack by brandishing (some threatening) and the attacker leaves when they realize there is resistance before the defender has fired or can fire.
That brandishing (in some cases threatening) in those thousands of daily cases also stops an active shooter, and in a lot of cases a would-be active shooter is stopped from becoming an active shooter when they are detected by and encounter a good guy with a gun that brandishes (in some cases threatening) and that also stops an ‘active shooting’. For example, using the FBI definition, when you hear of a convenience store robber with a gun threatening (e.g. indicating verbally or by action or presence threat activity) to shoot someone in a robbery and they are repelled by a customer or employee with a gun even if the customer or employee do not fire that is stopping an ‘active shooter’ but its only credited by FBI as stopping an ‘active shooter’ if the ‘active shooter’ gets actually shot by the customer or employee and the ‘active shooter’ is actually stopped by getting shot.
Thank you for analyzing the actual facts logically, rather than attempting (like the Times) to cherry-pick items that superficially appear to support a conclusion.
Is it bad my first thought from that was more bad guys got shot by armed citizens than cops and security guards combined and security guards outdid cops by more than a 2 to 1 ratio? But why do you need guns you can call the police right?
It’s always a good idea to go directly to the source.
Correction:
“108 + 68 + 12 + 18 = 231 attacks stopped by an armed citizen (not security or police) with a gun
Should have been
108 + 68 + 12 + 18 + 25 = 231 attacks stopped by an armed citizen (not security or police) with a gun
Clarification… there were 25 of the 108 the left that came back to try again and were repelled a second time. This happened before police arrived. In the study they are not counted as a separate attack.
‘Sorry bout that
I count this 25 as a separate attack because it was.
The 25 were stopped and repelled. They left ‘defeated’ at the point. But they came back to start again. This is two separate instances of their appearance in the target zone and required two separate instances of successful defense to repell them.
“When murderers target movie theaters, supermarkets, and malls, armed citizens are not usually present to defend themselves or others. That’s why the numbers are low.”
Based on the comments I have read over the years since I have been TTAG. There are an awful lot of gun owners, who don’t go into crowded public places. I on the other hand, like to get out and go about my business, wherever I please. Which includes restaurants, an occasional movie theater, museums, and the county fair.
And the gun range is getting more and more crowded over the past ten years.
Armed citizens don’t always step up to the plate. They may have other concerns as well just like anyone else. They are not omniscient super beings.
They may be with family and choose to get their family out first.
They may not be in a position where they can target the bad guy without hitting others. Mass shootings in public places like those you mention are very chaotic and there is usually a lot of people in the way.
Heck, they may not even be carrying at the time for one reason or another especially if it’s a ‘no guns’ area.
And some may not have the chace to because they are suppressed by the shooters weapon fire into the area where they are.
Some may not have the skills ability under fire to engage a hostile shooter.
Then there is the thing about ‘no guns’ areas, a mis applied and short sighted stupid mis-guided decision to expect them to ward off mass shooters like crosses are suppose to ward off vsmpires. This keeps coming up in mass shootings because 94% of mass shootings happened in ‘no guns’ areas.
Etc….
Most folks who don’t own a firearm believe what they hear from the Left because they don’t know firearms, or the issues associated with them. Quite frankly the best thing to do other than fight the Left in the court is to just ignore any new laws they put in place and create an administrative nightmare for them. With over 150 million gun owners and 300 plus million guns out there and only 3 million military and law enforcement, you can see the nature of the problem for THEM. Don’t register your firearms, permit anyone to come into your house without a warrant, give them any information whatsoever, no buy backs, and make them come after you. When they do and if they have no warrant and try to bully their way into your home just treat it as a Make My Day or Castle Domain situation and send them packing either vertically or horizontally, their choice. Its time to draw the line in the sand and defend your rights agains these oath breakers. They have no respect for the Constitution nor you.
Big talk, tough guy. Sorry i have small kids and they come first. I’m not going to suicide by cop to prove a point and leave my kids fatherless. I doubt when it comes down to it you are going to risk your life or freedom either. But sure keep telling us how tough you are and how you are going to shoot cops who come to your door. Good luck with that boogaloo nonsense.
Let’s shift the argument to something that the NYT *might* understand: death by choking.
Over 4,000 people per year die of it in the US. It can often be remedied by quick application of the Heimlich Maneuver. The HM can also cause serious, even life-threatening injury itself.
If we were to parallel this with the NYT’s understanding of defense against gun violence by armed and trained citizens, then shouldn’t the Heimlich Maneuver be outlawed? It’s not perfect, you can injure/kill someone, not everyone knows how to do it, and it doesn’t save all choking victims.
So, what’ll it be, NYT?
All I know is I don’t intend to get shot for lack of shooting back.Go armed.
Amen brother
“Instead of obsessing over properly permitted citizens, we need to address how and why troubled souls keep slipping through the cracks.”
We have a serious lack of morality in the United States. Because the secularist believe that government could replace the traditional family and replace the church/synagogue.
In 1960 a 16 year old high school student could take his long gun and ammunition with him to school. And store it on school property in his locker. That same 16 year old could buy a long gun without his parent’s permission. But usually the gun store owner would ask for the parents to be present when the child paid for the weapon.
And in 1960 those children with guns were not harming anyone. By insisting on the lowering of morality standards. And lowering what was considered proper civil behavior in public. The secular humanist have created our current Society.
Just look at San Francisco and the rest of California. Or Seattle. Or Chiraq. Or etc, etc.
In other words, what happens after 50+ years of Leftists controlling the culture. We’re living it.
Or 50 years of Rightist denigrating public service and government. Rs have been in charge more often than Ds over the past 50 years so whose fault is this collapse of morality?
Right wingers control the culture? Yeah, okay. Smoke one for me while you’re at it.
Rightist working in public service, the criticisms are almost always well founded and our representation/influence on culture is generally negligible so leaning towards your argument being invalid.
I think Drierees is just looking at who controlled the legislative and executive branches. That’s a very small piece of the pie. Who controlled/controls the rest?
The MSM, Hollywood, academia, and Big Tech are all firmly controlled by the Left. When looking at the government, it’s important to note that the Left controls the bureaucracies, even when the executive is right wing. That was painfully obvious during the Trump Administration.
Drierees,
“public service” and “government” are two ENTIRELY different things. Someone OTHER than a Leftist/fascist might be aware of that. “Public service”, to me, would include police, firemen, EMTs, active military. Politicians??? That ain’t’ “public service”, Champ. That is sucking off the public teat, PERIOD.
“Government”?? AYFKMRN?????
The “government” could screw up a one car parade. And usually does.
Fair enough gents, decent counter arguments. In rebuttal I’d say plenty of cultural influencers (corporate CEOs, musicians, artists, etc) are plenty conservative/Rightist. Dude: Re: “the Bureaucracy” I would not agree it has much, if any, influence on American culture. Trump himself definitely influenced American culture, and not necessarily in a positive or morally upright manner, even if his politics and policies were good ones.
“Re: “the Bureaucracy” I would not agree it has much, if any, influence on American culture.”
“corporate CEOs”
I take it you aren’t familiar with DIE? Diversity, Inclusion & Equity.
Who’s pushing that? Answer: The bureaucracy and major corporations.
Who’s pushing ESG scores? Right wing corporations?
Ask yourself, when was the last time a major corporation pushed right wing talking points? Now do left wing talking points. Why are candy bar companies pushing trans kids in their commercials? Was BLM a right wing movement? Corporate America bent over backwards to promote and fund BLM. I see a trend.
Agreed.
When I was a kid a boy (age 11) brought his 22 revolver to school and shot at crows by the fence to show his friends.
The principal came out, took the gun, calmly brought the boy in and called his Father. Dad came, apologized, 3 day suspension, boy said he just wanted to impress his friends.
End of story.
Now, we can’t even imagine this crisis.
The thing was that everyone was better socialized and knew the sanctity of life. Firearms were serious and everyone knew you had to act properly with them and around them.
Oh, there was zero trauma to the children. They talked about it but no upset. Now, years of therapy would be required.
“Oh, there was zero trauma to the children. They talked about it but no upset. Now, years of therapy would be required.”
The shining result of three consecutive generations raising children to remain children.
uh, yeah not sure society was better when kids were shooting at crows during school. but sure, if you think that’s a better world, more power to you!!
In the 1960’s Farmers considered nature their enemy. Crows (which I am very fond of btw), eat corn. So cattle farmers massacre them to stop them from picking at the drying racks.
The boy chose the crows to shoot at because he was raised to consider them pests.
Today, if a boy brought a pistol to school he would be shot. So yup, back then was better.
Trauma has a profit motive these days.
“Trauma has a profit motive these days.”
Yes, big pharma, hospitals, healthcare companies, big media, politicians, lawyers.
Yosemite Samatha was lucky that she did her imitation of Sam’s in an Airport. I wonder how it would have gone for her in other places knowing how many of you Texans are armed.
People need to be carrying firearms. They need to be able to do it legally and with the will to use them if the situation arises. The more people own guns, the better. This ownership needs to be tempered with maturity, wisdom, and love. It’s use must be accompanied by regular practice.
Seems that when armed defenders are present, they have a near 100% success.
Buffalo but that was a weird one and you are close enough on the numbers that I would be splitting hairs arguing over the 100 (seems more around low to mid 90’s)
When in walmart shopping, i see a man with a gun, shopping as i am, is he an active shooter? a bad man with a gun, or a good man with a gun ? & if he sees another man ,or woman with a gun, & he follows him to see if he is going to start killing peoples ,then there is an offduty policeman, he has a gun, if the first man is a killer, & pulls his gun & starts shooting, the second citizen pulls his gun & shoots at him, the offduty policeman, pulls his gun, which does he think is the biggest threat, he starts shooting, all the customers are running, & screaming, & pulling their guns & shooting, a lot of innocent peoples are getting shot,. so who is suppose to stop the bad man with the gun???
“When in walmart shopping, i see a man with a gun, shopping as i am, is he an active shooter? ”
Is he alone? Is there an accomplice you can’t see? Important questions because a coupla years back, an armed defender shot an killed an active shooter in a Walmart, only to be killed from behind by the active shooter’s associate….of which the armed defender was totally unaware. A one-for-one exchange is not a comforting outcome.
You are.
@marvin long
“When in walmart shopping, i see a man with a gun, shopping as i am, is he an active shooter?”
See, that’s the difference between you and the gun community. The gun community knows what the term ‘active shooter’ means by knowing what the word ‘active’ means. Its only an active shooter if the shooter is actively shooting – see how that works?
We need Charles Bronson to come back to life and put this human garbage in the ground. How’s about some good old vigilante justice? Damn cameras are everywhere probably stopping a few heroes from taking out the trash undetected.
Mass shootings prevented, deterred or cut short are not mass shootings, and do not show up in the data on mass shootings.
Hence the apparent rarity…
This is all very terrible, very many cases have become more frequent with mass executions of people, and on the one hand, this is possible of course due to the free circulation of weapons, and on the other hand, people in any case, if they wanted to commit such a crime, would have found and bought weapons on the black market. Therefore, in fact, it seems to me that we are better protected when someone has a weapon with him for protection. Personally, I have only pepper spray, but how can it help me from a person with a gun? Unfortunately, we live in such a world where ordinary, simple people and those who have a demon in their heads get along!
@Kayla Hariss
“Personally, I have only pepper spray, but how can it help me from a person with a gun? ”
Most people that are shot in a mass shooting have had their instinct of self-preservation survival suppressed in some manner.
For examples … your first thought is to use pepper spray instead of trying flight (running away) if you can do so safely, and kids in school shootings that would have escaped the school and the shooting thus not been shot or shot at are stopped from opening doors leading to outside the school and sent back into the school by school staff to go to a lock down area and thus sent right back into the shooter kill zone, and people learn in work places training or public information to find cover in place and so they tend to stay in place in mass shootings instead of running away to escape and end up getting shot or shot at, and over 80% of school shootings victims are shot within 30 feet of a lock down area but for some reason schools still keep sending kids into the shooter kill zones to lock down areas that school shooters hunt because that’s where the most targets are.
Pepper spray dont work on a determined attacker.
My buddy sprayed high strength pepper foam on sone enraged cranked cons and they didn’t slow down at all but they closed their eyes (reflex).
He said other than killing them you can damage legs so they fall over.
So the patriot at the mall in Indiana who stopped the crazy active shooter with a 40 yard shot is nothing. It’s all just circumstantial? I give up trying to understand these progressive fools. I’m getting to old and to tired to deal.
The future
Wish I was 40 again.
People of the Gun should petition the president to award Mr. Dicken with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He’s not going to do it, but the publicity surrounding a letter writing campaign may garner some positive publicity, and possibly persuade those that are not hard core anti- gun to contemplate the value of an armed citizen.
@strych9
“The most dangerous man to any government…”
Thanx. Adding it to my list of useful quotes.
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand” — Milton Friedman
“For every complex problem there is always a well-known solution that is —neat, plausible, and wrong.”
– H.L.Mencken
Correction:
“108 + 68 + 12 + 18 = 231 attacks stopped by an armed citizen (not security or police) with a gun”
Should have been
108 + 68 + 12 + 18 + 25 = 231 attacks stopped by an armed citizen (not security or police) with a gun.
Clarification… there were 25 of the 108 the left that came back to try again and were repelled a second time. This happened before police arrived. In the study they are not counted as a separate attack.
‘Sorry bout that
While victims actively resisted in only 7 percent of the robberies studied, those incidents accounted for 51 percent of the deaths.
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/11/science/don-t-resist-robbery-chicago-study-warns.html
Here is another very lengthy in depth study (not the Harvard).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
Another
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-concealed-carry-gun-self-defense-risks-20190114-story.html
dacian the dunce,
You hereby have my permission NOT to respond to an active shooter. In fact, in your case, I would STRONGLY recommend it (assuming you ever actually owned a firearm, which I HIGHLY doubt!!). There, happy now????
I’ll take my chances, thankyouverymuch. My life, my choice, and please go f*** yourself, dacian the dunce. Oh, and go micturate up a cable, you wanking loser.
The pink elephant in the room that everyone is avoiding is why are mass shootings happening in the first place? Making schools into fortresses, arming teachers and armed resource officers is only putting a band-aid in the problem and not a long term solution.