'Gun-loving' GOP governor reportedly seen 'running scared for his life' from mass shooting
rawstory.com
Run, you fucking piece of shit. Go go go gogogogogogog!
My niece told her grandmother about her fear of getting murdered at school. Feel that fear, asshole.
You are viewing a single comment
So what you're saying is that he wasn't the good guy with a gun?
They never are. And by "they," I mean everyone who carries a gun for "protection," and by "never," I mean that the good guy with a gun almost never actually stops shootings.
Just look at the numbers of justifiable homicides vs the number of murders by guns in the US. The justifiable homicides are almost statistically insignificant in comparison.
Last I looked, they had a lower success rate than unarmed people.
I'm a firm support of much strong gun control laws, and so this claim is something I would really love to be true ..which is exactly why I'm pausing here and asking to see the evidence. Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.
So what is this based on?
It was a while back, so i can't remember the caveats (if any). It may have been for that year or something. A quick dig looks like it holds up though.
This media investigation, aided by Texas State University shows the stats.
It also briefly touches on the trauma when an actual good person kills someone.
He is actively forcing himself to not see the shooter as a person and it's clear the image of the person he killed twitching on the ground will haunt him forever.
The pro-gun crowd didn't save that man, they sold him and everybody else in that church out. They armed the mass shooter then used Wilson as propaganda, claiming his trauma is actually the gold standard for dealing with gun violence and that teachers and targeted minorities should be enthusiastically following suit.
I'm sure the fact that it would preserve or increase the profits of a lobby group that gives $16 million a year to Republicans is purely coincidence.
After all, if an industry was causing massive social harm, they'd immediately cease operation for the public good, not suppress research and statistics about how many people they'd killled while astroturfing and hiring politicians as shills.
And this begs the question. . .what percentage of people actually carry a gun? If it's less than 20% then that means gun owners were more effective at stopping it (well, it would actually be more complicated, but I'm just trying to demonstrate my point).
Not only is it more complicated, it doesn't even matter.
Around 80% of mass shooters bought the guns legally. Of the 20% remaining, the majority are teenagers who used their parent's legally owned firearm.
Criminals in America have better access to firearms than they do in anywhere else in the world, with many of the guns in South America being originally purchased from a store in the United States.
This has resulted in a homicide rate that is far higher than it should be. Sort this list by homicide rate and take note of just how far before and after "United States" you have to scroll before finding a country you would consider "wealthy and stable".
As compensation for that, we're told things like "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". But the "good guys" have been given all the guns they want and they stop exactly fuck all. It's not even close to the number of shootings they enable.
So who gives a fuck how "effective" they are on paper? In the real world, police and unarmed civilians stop more mass shooters and it doesn't require arming the mass shooters in the first place.
If it doesn't matter, why did you bring it up?
Because you posted apologism using exactly that phrasing. You've also misinterpreted "You shouldn't give a fuck" as meaning "I don't give a fuck".
So, wait. . .it's my fault you made a BS claim you can't back up, despite the fact that you made the comment before I ever even posted in the thread? And I was posting "apologism" despite explicitly saying I want it to be true. Wow, I'm quite amazing! lol
At no point did you use the phrase "you shouldn't give a fuck." Another amazing thing by me misinterpreting something you didn't even say. Man, I'm even outdoing myself today.
You mean the one I immediately backed up, that you could have fact checked yourself in seconds? Because "citizens with guns have stopped fewer mass shootings than unarmed civilians" is objectively true.
So? It's the internet. People lie about who they are and what they think all the time, especially among the far-right. I'm not obligated to politely believe you.
And to put it bluntly, I don't.
Your "do you have the stats" sounded like sealioning and when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered, your entire comment focused on trying to claw back a win for gun owners.
Now suddenly it's a "BS fact", despite still being objectively true. Are you sure you haven't let your true feelings get involved?
I also didn't use the phrase "I don't give a fuck", but that didn't stop you.
And to which I immediately pointed out why it doesn't actually support your claim that they had a "lower success rate" but only that it happened more often one way. It's like arguing that the crime rate is higher in some place because there is 5x the amount of crime there, but ignoring the fact that the population is 20x as great.
I explained why I was doing it: confirmation bias is a hell of a drug. If be cognizant of my own biases is suspicious to you, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
This is the ultimate problem here. I'm trying to get to the truth, you're trying to be right. So the fact that I'm not just blinding agreeing with you, and pointing out the faults in your argument. . .well, that must mean I'm arguing the other side. You're thinking is too black and white, which is probably why simply pointing out the fault in your position has sent you into a partisan fit.
Stop me from what? I never said "I don't give a fuck" or even that "you don't give a fuck." I asked, after you questioned why anyone would give a fuck about the claim you made, why you brought it up in the first place. You've been sent into such a tizzy by someone simply trying to help you refine your argument, instead of just blindly saying "you're right," that you can't even follow the posts from one to the next.
You'd be far better served to stop trying to be right, and start trying to figure out what's right.
Sounds like you're going to have to prove that for each of these shootings, it wasn't the case that every single person there had a gun on them, otherwise it would be completely unfair on unarmed civilians.
At the very best, you've immediately latched on to semantics to twist "which groups more often stop a mass shooter" into "is someone more likely to stop a mass shooting if they have a gun".
Thanks for clarifying that you absolutely did misinterpret exactly the part you were insisting you didn't misinterpret. I was asking who gives a fuck about which group "more effective".
The goal of defensive use of a gun isn't homicide, you can't compare that statistics
That's interesting because I was always told never to point a gun at anything I didn't want to kill.
"Defensive use" does not implicitly imply pointing and shooting a gun at anyone. Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot. This IS a defensive use of a firearm in the clearest sense. And in such a scenario, it will not make the news for you to hear about nor is it likely to even be reported to law enforcement. And this is more likely to happen than drawing and shooting - because very few people actually want the extreme problems that will follow. Shooting someone is the last resort.
As far the this governor running away well, as governor it was very unlikely he was armed - he has a security detail carrying the guns for him, (just like any liberal person with money or power). And secondly, if you've ever taken a self-defense class for a carry permit, there is a checklist of things to do BEFORE you draw and shoot. And guess what, running away if at all possible is at the top of the list......
Still, this guy is an idiot and much like most loud idiots no matter their political beliefs they get the most ink. But there is more to this argument than the circle jerk that is happening here. You are a liberal thinker and probably pride yourself on being smarter and more intellectually honest. Be what you believe you are. Otherwise, you are no better than this clown.
I was raised around guns. Had some (superficial) training in the military with guns. I'm not a gun owner now, but while I think R and the right in general are absolutely culpable regarding our gun violence problems due to their refusal to acknowledge them or do a damn thing about them, I'm not anti-2A, and not being disingenuous with my comment here.
I was told by everyone who was ever responsible for training me in gun safety that you don't pull it out unless you are prepared to use it, and you should not be prepared to use it unless you are prepared to kill with it. I was also taught that brandishing was illegal, and more likely to escalate than defuse a situation.
You can be prepared to use it and not have to use it when the criminal decides to disengage.
I'm not going to redo this entire discussion. You can see the other replies in this same comment chain that trod the same ground.
The brandishing part is why it's not reported or on the news. But that does not mean it doesn't happen successfully.
So one of the best uses of a weapon defensively is to break fundamental gun safety rules that are in literally every gun safety course (and the law)? Aren't R the party of law and order?
you realize 'brandishing' doesn't mean pointing at, right? you get that don't you?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?height=800&def_id=18-USC-25375849-946262285&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:44:section:924
So, it's illegal to brandish a firearm. Pointing it at them is included in that definition, it seems to me, but not required to have broken the law. If I'm missing your point please clarify.
brandishing isn't a breaking a "fundamental gun safety rule". yes it can include pointing at someone, but simply SHOWING someone your holstered gun is considered brandishing. simply drawing your weapon can be considered brandishing. but it can also thwart people meaning to do harm. you insinuated that brandishing was only pointing a gun at someone, thus breaking one of the 4 fundamental safety rules.
And in all those cases it would be illegal. The statement being made is that a good way to use your gun defensively is to break the law.
In the original comment that I replied to it was unclear. (I've quoted that bit below.) I assumed he meant pointing it, and stayed with that assumption throughout the rest of the discussion. I see now I glossed over his clarification. So fair point I suppose, but I don't think it changes the overall argument that there's almost never a "good guy with a gun" around, which is at the top of the comment chain that the quoted comment below was replying to, and is the context for all this ensuing discussion.
Independent of any argument about gun control, I absolutely agree with the comment at the top of the chain that it seems self-evident that private gun ownership in most parts of the country is doing more harm than good, and it seems exceptionally uncommon for a "good guy with a gun" to be the person who ends one of these shootings.
It's also not particularly hard to find stories where the cops show up and shoot the "good guy with a gun" afterward when there IS one, so personally, I'd rather take my chances unarmed since I've concluded that: It's statistically unlikely I'll be in a shooting, even more unlikely that I'll be able to do something about it if I am, and there's a nonzero chance that if I do, the cops (edit: or some other "good guy with a gun") will shoot me anyhow, thinking I'm the bad guy.
You and others can of course make a different decision, but let's not pretend that "Good guy with a gun" stories are anywhere near as common as "bad guy with a gun" stories.
They can't be too concerned since the crime rate in America is functionally identical to countries with gun control (except there is much more murder).
The rest of your comment just undermines the gun laws you're trying to defend, functionally claiming "We need to keep selling guns to the public to keep them safe from the people we've sold guns to, but only if they can't run away or hide, even if they have a gun or a team of people with guns".
The person you are most likely to use a gun on is yourself.
The second most likely person you are to use a gun on is your spouse, with men overwhelmingly preferring firearms as a form of spousal homicide.
The third most likely person you are to use a gun on is a family/tenant.
Home invaders are way down on the list of "at-home gun use" targets. And, to make things even more stick, police tend to be more concerned with facing an armed resident than actual burglars. This leads to a high rate of police homicides ruled justifiable, on the grounds that the officer entering the home believed that the resident possessed a gun.
So, we're looking at a solid four different likely ways keeping a gun in your home will result in the death of you or another lawful resident of your house.
Someone setting out to kill another is NOT comparable to someone trying to stop a threat.
I don't know, shooting an unarmed teenager in the head and claiming you were scared makes it sound like homicide is the point for some people.