'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.
Wait, you mean he wasn't suddenly transformed into a good-guy action hero with a gun? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
This event only marks the beginning of his metamorphosis.
In the future, when an unsuspecting minority youth mistakenly knocks on his mansion’s gate, the transformation will be complete.
Not until they reverse to back down the driveway and try to leave will it complete.
I'm starting to think that the gun lobby might be lying to us...
Don't be ridiculous. They spend tens of millions of dollars a year to have other people lie to us.
Remember kids, you can't buy a gun without donating to the Republican Party.
I would love to be wrong, but it's too bad one of the injured or killed weren't connected to the governor. That seems to be the only time some people give a shit.
They still don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting
The only difference is they were a lot faster to admit it was an act of terrorism. No efforts to limit the access to firearms to prevent it in the future.
I like how little attention this got in the news at the time. /s
They'll just say more guns and you know it.
"Clearly, the 800 police officers that were there weren't enough. 1,600 cops would have made those villains think twice!"
As the saying goes, when seconds count the police are minutes away.
Highschool dropouts need jobs too
If you had a gun would you pull it? There were likely hundreds of guns there. But there was also hundreds of police officers ready to take down anyone with a gun.
At least two of the shooters were taken down by unarmed bystanders who immediately tackled them to the ground.
Linebackers, not guns.
Not an option you have if theres people between you and the shooter like a dense crowd, and firing through a crowd is general frowned upon, even when you're trying to not hit them. The last thing you do if you have a gun in that situation is pull it out before you have cover and know where the threat is coming from or your will absolutely be shot by the cops if not the shooter. Dense crowding also played a part in why they were able to be tackled to the ground. A lot harder to get close if the shooting starts and no one's physically near the shooter.
Lol the fuck would I want a gun for? I think you misunderstood my sarcasm
"Well... why wouldn't you want a gun? It's badass. What, are you one of them huggy, feely readin' queers?"
Yes actually.
That was sarcasm.
But I keep being told that these mass shooters only target gun free zones because they're easy targets.
So what are we tolerating all these mass shooters for, if gun owners aren't delivering on their promises?
Soon with AI it will be:
But what if the streets themselves had guns.
Whimper… if only the federal government hadn’t banned sales of Milkor MGLs to the public, my relative would still be alive now.
If my armed drones had been circling, I could have dealt with the problem with minimal, minimal additional casualties.
But you could be sure the bad guy would be caught up in the kill zone I circled on my drone app on the IPad
I was reading a book about how people change their minds and this is true. Horrible trauma is one of the ways people change.
Fuckin jowls must have been all kinds of flappin.
Like a basset hound in a hurricane
Like Pamela Anderson in Baywatch.
Once he picks up enough speed they flatten out like plane wings and he's able to get some air and fly away.
"Jowls A'Quiver: A Survival Story"
Coming to TBN this November.
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.
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.
Clearly he forgot to bring his Good Guy Gun.
Run faster, you fuck.
I wouldn't mind slower actually
I don't need to be the fastest on 2 feet, I just need to be faster than you trips other person
Things to do during a mas shooting:
Supporting gun ownership or even carrying a gun on your hip doesn't change that. All carrying a gun does for you in a mass shooting is mature the odds a little less terrible if it comes to option 3.
A handgun is imprecise, low-power, and difficult to aim accurately. On top of that a "good guy with a gun" has to care about collateral damage.
The purpose of carrying a handgun is personal defense, not civil defense. It's good defense against assault or a mugger. It's a good deterrent from someone who why's to harm you and walk away. It's not good for taking on an unhinged maniac that's fully intending to die.
Mass shooters are the suicide bombers of the US.
You don't get the main point of gun control. Gun control means vetting out bad people from getting the guns. Like driver's license, if you don't know how drive or regularly violated traffic regulations your license is revoked. Similarly if you have gun license, good people with proper training can get the gun. But people who don't follow laws will be banned from getting guns.
People who don't obey laws are already banned from owning guns.
And they are able to get those guns because there's too many damn guns out there.
Yeah, there are a lot of stories in the news that prove this insufficient. 77% of mass shooters from 1966 to 2019 obtained their guns legally. So great, the laws cover 23% of cases? You know what would happen to me at work if I only handled 23% of my job? I'd be fired.
Clearly new agencies & laws are required, old laws are not effective they need more scrutiny.
"You proclaim to love the ocean, yet you flee from the tsunami.. Curious"
[Charlie Kirk.png]
For getting our own asses out of there, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves.
Now that we're in election season I see political ads for Republicans running for various things on TV, almost all of them show them brandishing or firing some sort of military style assault weapon. These politicians spew bullshit about protecting kids but instead are a big reason why we now have so many dead ones .
If only he was a teacher, then he could have saved himself and everyone around him.
As much as I'm on the same page as everyone here; America's gun laws need to change, are you not allowed to be afraid of the very well known thing your hobby does? Like, being afraid of being shot doesn't make you a hypocrite for liking guns.
I don't think anyone is honestly shaming this person for being afraid.
They are shaming him for refusing to do anything about a situation that he eventually wound up in himself, and suggesting that if he's not going to do something legislatively then he damn well better do something in person, else he has failed in his duty to care for his citizenry. Which is like saying the pot is black, honestly, since politicians don't care about the citizenry.
The GOP had a stance of good guys with guns will defend people with said guns. So voting to have the guns present and not having one and running instead of defending the people either shows he was a coward by their stance, or not one of the good guys.
Yeah man, that looks like a different set of words to describe what I said.
I'll take you at your word that that is what you meant to convey, however their set or words is more succinct than yours.
*convey
Sorry
The first mistake people made was believing the GOP had their back.
The first mistake is assuming the GOP cares about people not related to them, or people who don't benefit them in any way.
Yeah but leaders have to lead and this is what happens when you allow your voters to be terrorized constantly at the expense of your own privilege. He's lucky he hasn't been tarred and feathered yet.
The issue is that the most common argument against gun control is “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” So now this lawmaker has proven that he doesn’t practice what he preaches. If he truly believed a good guy with a gun was the only thing that could stop the shooter, then why not put his money where his mouth is? Surely he’d be hailed as a paragon for gun rights when he took the shooter down…
But clearly he’s a hypocrite who doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying; He only says it because the gun lobby gives him tons of money to do so.
Gun or no gun, he's not a good guy and couldn't have stopped the bad guy...
You think this was legal under current law?
Yeah you can be enamored by nature and its fauna, while still having a healthy fear of being attacked by animals.
I love trains but being tied to tracks while a train approaches isn't what I think of as "fun".
That said proper, responsible gun ownership like any hobby involves accounting for dangers, and also advocating for measures for people to be able to enjoy their passion safely.
Guna don't scare me but people using guns recklessly or maliciously do.
Going to the range and being afraid of criminal shooters isn't hypocritical.
Being afraid of criminal shooters and fighting against gun control reforms makes you a hypocrite and a bad person.
And there's nothing wrong innately with being a hypocrite. But you're a pretty shit person if your empathy and considerations can only extend as far as things that have threatened you personally.
No, but open carry and being afraid of criminal shooters is though.
.... What?
Being afraid of being shot does make you a hypocrite if you are against gun restrictions and regulations.
Your world view is getting people killed, you SHOULD be scared.
If Guns are so Safe why were people running AWAY from the Gun? Wouldn't the Gunman be the Safest person there?
Guns are safe. The shooters aren't. /S
Good thing the shooter only has a range of one arm length
This strikes me as like implying that I'm hypocritical because I support gay marriage, but then turned down a man who hits on me because im not actually gay.
A person can be pro gun rights and at the same time still be afraid of an active shooter.
It would be ironic to loudly and repeatedly declare "If you don't want to get hit on at a bar, put on that wedding ring" and then get chased out of a bar by a bunch of married men slapping your ass.
A person who stakes their reputation on the phrase "An Armed Society Is A Polite Society" fleeing said armed society for their lack of politeness establishes a certain hypocrisy.
A person fleeing that situation who may well be unarmed is self-preservation, not hypocrisy, regardless of their stance on guns. He is however reaping what he has helped sow. Hypocrisy is simply the wrong word. This isn't the same as being anti-abortion and then paying for your mistress to get one. Being pro-gun doesn't mean you just stand there.
A person who insists everyone should be armed everywhere they go and then isn't armed when he asserts a gun would have been handy is ironic.
Of course not.
A handgun compares to a rifle like a dagger to a sword.
What?
What did you not understand? A pistol is a gun, a rifle is a gun, a Soviet D-20 howitzer is a gun.
You can't be that stupid to call somebody a hypocrite for supporting carry of weapons for self-defense because they ran from a mass shooter with a rifle. People usually don't carry rifles for self-defense.
I don't see this guy making any effort to distinguish between gun and rifle ownership. The Barret .50 plastered on a "Come and Take It" flag was part of the Governor's pro-2A rally display as recently as last October.
Why the hell should he? I mean that it's extremely unlikely he had such kind of an instrument with him during that mass shooting.
Who is saying anything about hypocrisy? This is about the guy feeling the consequences for his shitty policies.
2 of the top 5 comments right now are attacking him for not being the "good guy with a gun" and arguably multiple people have challenged me to defend the implicit claims of hypocrisy. So I disagree the implication isn't there.
Apples to oranges argument and a straw man argument all in one. Bravo sir, brav-fucking-o. Yall never cease to amaze me.
You could explain why, but that would actually take thought and effort and open your position up to being challenged, which is scary. I get it. Empty insults are much easier.
When a gay man "sets his sights" on you, death isn't a possible outcome. So supporting gay people isn't a life threatening position to hold. It's just the right fucking thing to do. However, Being full on pro gun does come with the inevitable death of someone. This politician made it so the exact people who shouldn't have a gun, would have one. If you are a responsible gun owner than good on you. Please by all means keep your guns, but is it truly too much to ask that you at least take the time to be background checked before getting another gun? Or maybe take a few classes on gun safety? Or be legally required to have it stored in a place away from children and the mentally unstable?
It's funny how often it happens that when someone falsely accuses of doing something, they are really projecting what they have already done, or are warning you of what they're about to do.
In this case, attacking a strawman. I certainly did not say that they are equivalent when it comes to life and death. It's like you forgotten basic SAT logic (or whatever equivalent test you took). Square : rectangle is like murder : homicide. This doesn't mean that I think all murders have 4 equal sides and 4 right angles.
I was very clear I was talking about the implicit hypocrisy.
And ftr, I'm a firm supporter of stronger gun regulations so the whole rant about what gun regulations you want has zero to do with the point, and reels of just pandering to the opinion of the typical Lemmy user.
you berate me for not fully explaining my position and then come back with a full explanation of your original comment? Just saying sorry I did see through your initial response and should have been more clear in my first comment. I'll personally try to do better.
First, you were an asshole to me out of the gates, so expecting me to kind to you when you misrepresent my position is kind of bizarre. But never the less, you are correct I should have still stayed respectful, so I too apologize for my response.
But this is what I do when someone doesn't understand, whether it's their fault or mine, I try to explain it another way.
I see this soooo much on Lemmy. even more so than on reddit.
But I was assured by every Republican ever that any gop politician is actually Steven Seagal in his prime and could stop any threat with their ankle holstered dual pistols and secret AR??
Steven Seagal in his prime is admittedly a low bar.
Under Siege was a great movie even if he did turn into a Russian stooge.
Yeah I was just busy and drawing a blank haha
That's crazy talk. He wasn't even a young man when he fought off these two attackers at once!
Look at the fine athleticism. Seagal is truly a mater; full of grace, unparalleled power, and frightenly fast. A true Alpha male. /s
How much do you want to bet this coward bought his tickets and paid for his travel to Las Vegas and the food and hotel and whatever else while there with state taxpayer money?
what does this have anything to do with vegas? the parade was in kansas city...
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/state-and-regional/missouri-s-chief-executive-heading-to-super-bowl-in-vegas-to-cheer-the-chiefs/article_0a25f328-c770-11ee-b6e7-f79d6219a991.html
ok, but what does it have to do with this?
I'm not OP, but this could relate to the moral character of the official as is entangled in using taxpayer money to go to the superbowl while not making improvements in the quality of the taxpayers safety and life by supporting pro gun legislation.
I'm gonna need video proof that that old dude can run.
Shove your arm down their throat. They can't bite through your shoulders and you can, theoretically, suffocate the leopard.
Alternatively, stay the fuck out of leopard territory.
I always thought it was unfair to associate these magestic creatures with the stupidity of the right wing. We need a new meme!
Alternatively, there's a small subsection of the population that, thanks to Jay Grant, associate the phrase, "Beat the Leopard," with smoking marijuana.
Typical GOP chickenshit.
It's so ridiculous that in a country where social nets are so poor people go bankrupt from going to the doctor that they expect people to suddenly act like heroes and risk life and limb when a shooter pops up.
Since that's the crux of the gun-clutcher platform, yeah.
It's the entire basis for our lax gun laws. Seems appropriate to point out what an empty promise it is.
you get what you fucking deserve
Can someone tell me what GOP is? Looking to expand my Americana lore lol
Grand Old Party... another term for the Republican Party.
As a Canadian I pronounce it gawp
Gaslight, Obstruct, Project
Grabs Only Pussy, it's from Trump's Inside Edition recording because he's taken over the RNC and Republican party and they all lick his shoes now.
Nah, they're licking his butthole.
It's a false hope, but here's hoping it is a learning experience.
It's tough to learn something when your job depends on you not learning it.
If Sandy Hook and Uvalde weren't learning experiences, nothing will be.
With Republicans the 'it doesn't matter unless it happens to me' seems to be a thing.
Fair point!
Fucking cowardly liars.
Lump ol' Governor Dumb Cop in with Senator "Sedition Solidarity Fist" Hawley as another Missouri Republican who plays tough but runs like a coward when the trouble they've stirred up comes calling for them.
Guess what. The good guys didn't have guns.
Stay strapped or get clapped. Gov. was probably lackin.
Doesn't this cowardice apply to modern day leadership in general though?
Just going to post some of my copypasta I wrote that unfortunately remains timeless:
Lethal Effectiveness
To those saying "it's not the guns, it's the people!" There is a reason why shortly after the Las Vegas shooter committed one of the worst mass-shootings ever, bump-stocks became illegal. There's a reason there is increased REGULATION on fully-automatic firearms. Just look up how much damage a deranged guy in a tank that wasn't armed wreaked on San Diego.
Go either direction and see the result:
If you permit folks more power, such as easy access Abrams battle-tanks complete with depleted-uranium ammunition and various other armaments; if you permit them to have nukes, Apache helicopters, etc... You can see just how much more damage a deranged individual can inflict within the same time-frame. (But hint: these are more highly regulated or completely off-limits in the first place, and the price itself imposes an effective barrier on who can attain such weapons of war... More on this concept later).
If you LIMIT the average lethal-effectiveness the average Joe can attain to something less-than a firearm, you see the opposite trend. Less capacity to inflict mass-casualty harm in a limited time-frame. And let me be clear: I don't think too many people would opt to fight Fist vs Firearm in a surprise attack than Fist vs. Knife. We need only look to the UK to see the net-homicide rates do not carry over to stabbings.
So, sure, the person is who pulls the trigger. But what's important is how much power you're willing to put into the hands of the average deranged individual who will always have the element of surprise.
Squirt-gun scenario
Offensive Gun Uses ALWAYS have the advantage over Defensive Gun Uses.
Let's pretend we're in a game and all armed with squirt-guns (the utopian wild west, according to righties) and I just so happen to be playing the "bad guy with a squirt-gun." At any given moment, it's my interest to (a) rob you, or (b) squirt you in cold blood. Now maybe...Maybe 1 in 100 or 1,000 times I'd fumble somehow. But seeing how I have the element of surprise (and determination to use) at any given moment of any given day of any given year, and (2) you more or less must wait for me to be a threat in the first place means the defender is always at a MAJOR disadvantage. Which means it's a losing race no matter how much you saturate the market. Which is also why the Wild West was not safer and Tombstone and Dodge City implemented gun-control measures in later years.
If I am a mass-squirter (don't.), then a weapon with greater range of spray, more water in the reservoir, and a squeeze-and-hold would amplify my capacity to spray others. (Case-in-point: see the 1997 North Hollywood shootout)
By mitigating the proliferation of firearms in society, you're addressing the problem from the opposite side. This has the added benefit of lowering impulse-related rage-induced homicides (e.g., bar fights, domestic disputes), reducing child-safety accidents, and suicides. It also has the added benefit of moving the illegality to a precursor to homicide and be proactive about stopping a bad guy before they harm someone, as opposed to having to wait reactively.
Supply-And-Demand
A pretty basic concept is that when supply is reduced, the cost of a product rises. The moment firearm manufacturers must cease churning out new firearms and ammunition; the mere moment (independent of gun-buyback programs, etc.) firearms would become illegal in a hypothetical... The black-market price of said firearms soars out of reach of the vast-majority of people, including the vast-majority of criminals (which overlaps with poverty and crimes made out of desperation).
If a car salesperson's job is to make it easier to impulsively buy a car, regulations serve as hoops and friction to inhibiting such an impulse-purchase. Perhaps then a teenager like the Sandy Hook shooter wouldn't just steal his mom's gun where he then probably could not navigate the black market without being caught up in a sting operation. Perhaps that's why the Uvalde shooter himself waited until he could legally purchase a firearm. Just a thought.
Conversely from the criminal side of things, sure there will be a black-market for firearms as they are everywhere. But when a Glock 18 costs $15,000 cash on the black market, these criminals are either good at doing business or not going to rob or mug you for petty cash.
Finally, if printing guns was so effective, then why aren't gun subs littered with them? Why haven't they been used in any mass shootings? They're ostensibly cheaper no less, riiighttt...?
Those questions were rhetorical. The answer: They're inferior in pretty much every way. Anyone remotely trained in engineering knows the quality of printing at a consumer level will never meet commercial or industrial tolerances and be REMOTELY affordable. Leaving aside the fact that raw materials needed to build such things are of course going to be monitored. Leaving aside the fact that one cannot print plastic ammunition with any level of reliability. I'd also love to see the likes of Lanza make his own brass, gunpowder, and gun and (a) not have anyone notice and tip off police, and (b) not have it blow up in his face.
Root Causes vs. Symptoms
Many defending guns will deflect attention from firearms to society and root-problems elsewhere. I will grant that it is not JUST the firearm; there is more to the story and the firearm is just a simple means of slowing a symptom down, not the root cause. But just like any ER doctor must treat the symptoms alongside the root causes, so too must society. Thing is, addressing the symptoms tends to be easier than addressing the root causes. And it strikes me as funny that we go, ""Well okay if you don't want to focus on the guns let's give healthcare to all, widen education, reduce stress in society!"" and they protest that as well...
...
So WHY don't these pro-gun advocates care in the wake of facts as solid as proving climate-change itself? Well it's simple in that they kind of look at guns the way they look at climate change: they value their toy that makes them feel strong over society and don't care about the future. In short, despite draping themselves in the flag they are NOT patriots. They do NOT care about their fellow Americans one iota."
This isn't a "gotcha". I'm a big fan of classic cars but that doesn't mean I'll stand there when one is driving fast straight at me.
I mean most pro-gun arguments boil down to “guns are needed because the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with one”, so when a large proponent of this argument is thrown into a situation where he could be the “good guy with a gun” and he instead runs away because he values his own life more than protecting the lives of those around him, maybe he should stop and dwell on that thought for a minute.
Would I charge headfirst into gunfire? Absolutely not, and thats why I advocate for more gun control.
Maybe he's just not a good guy. In fact in this day and age I would say by being Republican does indeed make him the bad guy.
Of course, this being funny kinda hinges on him having a gun on him at the time of the incident. Just because he is a proponent of a right being available if one so chooses doesn't mean he chooses to exercise it daily, and you can't use what you don't have on you.
Furthermore gun owners are under no obligation to have the hero fantasies often ascribed to them, many do it for simply self preservation who wouldn't run towards gunfire either, opting only to use it if they absolutely have to. That is a decision someone can really only make in the moment, too, many think "I'd blah blah blah," you might blah blah blah, it's an instinctual reaction.
Nah, it doesn’t. If I advocate for the right for everyone to carry grenades on them, and then I get put in a position where someone actually has one and I get scared shitless and run away, thats funny, regardless of whether or not I carry a grenade myself. Its funny because we all can obviously see that the right to carry fucking grenades is ridiculous, and by advocating for it I kinda got whats coming to me.
In fact, the more I think about it, if you advocate for guns, why not also grenades? If you are citing the “well armed militia” part of the second amendment, well, you’re not going to ever be able to fight a tyrannical government with bullets alone will you? And if you’re worried about the self defense part, a grenade would let you take care of a shooter thats behind cover without putting yourself in the line of fire!
And if you think you shouldn’t be able to have a device that could kill a crowd of people in seconds, because thats obviously stupid and dangerous, I beg you to take another look at your stance on guns.
Except that isn't what you said, what you said hinges on the "good guy with a gun" thing, so, yes, what I said is applicable.
This new argument is a little closer, but even then simply not wanting to further restrict rights for those who use them correctly even though they can be abused is not unreconcilable with also not wanting to be shot unjustly. I'd agree if he was a proponent of "the right to commit mass shootings" but nobody has ever said that, so I doubt he's the first.
Fair point, so long as you don't cause collateral damage since you'll still be held responsible just as you would be with a gun today, why not? I mean, it isn't the right tool for home defense imo since guns are much more targeted, but who am I to tell you you can't cut off your nose to spite your face by destroying your own house?
And cars, but "that's different" since while cars will be a cause of many more deaths than guns due to climate change, and they can kill 80 preople and injure 486 on Bastille day in France, they weren't "designed to," so it's fine, and nevermind that while guns were designed to kill people, sometimes it is necessary and acceptible to do so in self defense. We'll ignore all that because "reasons."
The difference is that a cars only purpose isn’t to kill or maim. There are very obvious positives to having widespread access to cars. I can point you countries where there is not widespread access to guns that do not have these problems. Can you point to any that have guns as accessible in the US that don’t?
Because I know your next argument will be about knives or cars again, let me address both of those: A knife is not nearly as deadly as a gun. You can at least run from a knife, its much more personal so less people are willing to use it, and you at least have a chance of fending off the attacker. Against a gun, your only hope is that they miss. And regarding cars, you’re right, they can be used as a weapon! Do you know what solves this issue while also still allowing people to commute? Public transport! Im glad we agree cars are an issue, and that public transport is needed.
Since you clearly don’t think everyone having grenades is ridiculous, how about rockets? Missiles? Should any citizen be able to obtain those too? Mustard gas? Nuclear weapons? How far are you willing to let that go before its obvious the cons outweigh the pros?
Well seeing as there are none that are exactly the same I suppose you've set yourself up for an answer you want, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the Czech Republic, while they have a slightly different system and less guns to people ratio, they've had the right to firearms enshrined like America since the 1500s (except during nazi and communist occupations where they were outright banned and restricted to those deemed loyal respectively). Not only that, but in CZ just as US, though gun ownership grows, gun crime declines.
Furthermore, there are plenty places in the world where guns are completely banned, yet the criminals have them and use them regularly, like Honduras or Brazil. The problem though is you'll discount those places as
brown peoplethird world countries so of course thosesavagespoor browns"unfortunate souls" kill each other a lot (which isn't racist at all somehow). Point still stands however, even illegal guns shipped to an island aren't prohibitively expensive to actual drug dealers, even without guns being legally available, people are making 1911s in the jungles in the Philippines with hand tools out of scrap steel that run just as well as a Springfield, the cartels get full auto M4s and South Korean grenades, those are illegal here much less Mexico and they still get them.Ahh ableism! So fuck cripples who can't run, huh? And the old who are slower than most people victimizing others with a knife? And fat people? Might as well let him carve a few pounds off hmm? Or even women, since men run faster over short distances on average? Hope your last name is "Bolt."
Y'know what ends a knife fight quicker than running and prayer? Well, one time a dude pulled a knife on me and my then GF walking into walmart, before he could say anything I grabbed the grip of my CCW but didn't even draw it, he turned and walked away for some reason, couldn't say why but I have my theories. Must've been less than 10sec but felt like an hour, still though, nobody was hurt and I'm fine with that.
In theory, but in practice they're used to threaten and attack people regularly already even with legal gun ownership. They're cheap and actually accessible (there's no FBI NICs check or prohibited purchasers/possesors for knives). Btw you can run from a gun too, once you get 25yd away most people (especially criminals who aren't known to train or practice) will not hit you with a handgun, which are involved in the most crime (12,000 handgun to 500 rifle deaths a year, criminals like handguns for concealability.)
Well no, that Bastille Day incident I mentioned happened with a stolen
truck"lorry." "Lorries" will still exist for shipping purposes. Furthermore bus drivers can also kill people, they aren't some saint just because they're employed by the city, they're drug tested 1x/yr for their CDL but that's about it, and busses can also be stolen. Though yeah, public transport could surely be improved I do agree lol.Interesting you note this one, do you also think precursors to make mustard gas should be illegal since it's so easy to make? I mean, you support banning guns because they can be used illegally, or at least making them harder to get, why not ban/restrict the ingredients for mustard gas the same way? They're legal now, just like guns, you're just not allowed to kill people with it, just like guns. Maybe the issue isn't actually the implement used to do the killing, maybe the issue is the killing itself.
And lets not forget the story of John Hurley who shot a shooter and was then shot by cops.
True, tbf it's always a risk like any fight, even just a fistfight you could get knocked out, hit your head on the pavement, and that's all she wrote.
There are some things you can do to mitigate it though, whoever calls the cops should give an accurate description of the shooter if possible, and the defender if possible, including clothes etc. And as the defender, after the defense either reholster if you're sure it's safe to do so or leave as you're under no obligation to stay, call the police and say "there's been a shooting at [location]," hang up, call laywer.
No, it is not always a risk.
It is only a risk if you think you are some damn super hero because you like loud explosions and go to a shooting range once every week, without any other gun safety training what so ever, including knowing how to de-escalation a situation.
Leave it to the professionals who were actually trained in using guns.
Yes it is, every fight is a risk same as every time you drive you risk some idiot T-Boning you after running a red. Even deescalation doesn't always work for the professionals, even that's a risk.
Cute, but no.
Trained to do what exactly? Risk their lives defending others (which they don't actually have to do per warren v dc, gonzales v castle rock, and the other one)? Risk? People die from lesser fights all the time, there's no ref like on the TV.
Perhaps he simply wasn't armed. I'm against gun control but am also not armed 24/7 either. Unlike most on the website, I've been in the situation of having to approach a shooter. Some of us still believe what we did before that after.
Well good on you for getting through that situation, but you saying “oh, well maybe he just wasnt carrying” doesn’t really help your point. We can’t expect everyone to be carrying, at all times. And even if everyone could carry at all times, we still can’t expect everyone to be able to pull the trigger. You did, but that’s why people in your role are hailed as heroes for what they do: because most could not do it.
I fail to see how him not carrying at the time doesn't help my point of him maybe not carrying a the time.
Because him not carrying at the time demonstrates why guns could never truly be a solution to these shootings. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and you can’t be prepared at every moment. You can’t live your life never letting your guard down.
Not to mention, if anyone should be carrying and take action in these situations, it should be the ones advocating against gun control. Missouri has some of the loosest gun control in the country. If the main argument against is the right to defend yourself, and when the time comes this guy is either not prepared or not willing to defend the people he is meant to serve, how can we expect others to?
Are we really to say “everyone should be carrying so they can defend themselves in these situations”, when the Missouri governor himself isn’t?
And when you advocate against gun control, that is the statement you’re making. That the issue of these shootings is simply solved by a good guy having a gun. If you’re saying “gun control isn’t alright because i deserve the right to defend myself”, you’re implying that everyone else has the same right, and their only chance to save themselves is to also exercise that right.
But can we expect women and children to do this? And I’m sure there are plenty of people of color who would not be super hyped to have a weapon on them during a police interaction. If the Missouri governor, one of the loudest voices against gun control can’t be expected to exercise this right, how can we expect everyone else?
Yeah in a country with a 2nd amendment, it's not just your right, it's your responsibility to carry. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if people weren't scared of responsibility.
I carry to protect me and mine.
You and yours can make the decision to carry or not. I’m not going to go out of my way to save anyone but my own kin. The police have no legal requirement to save you and they have legal protection from liability if they shoot something they should not. A conceal and carry holder has none of that.
So your solution to the issue of mass shootings is that everyone should carry a gun on them at all times, and everyone should be ready to kill if necessary? And you don’t see the issue with that?
I’m not saying you specifically should not carry or be ready to defend yourself, and I would be a fool to pretend that you shouldn’t be willing and able to defend yourself, especially with how things are now. But do you really want to live in a world where every citizen has to be ready and willing to kill his fellow man at the drop of a hat when things go to shit? Do you want your kids, grandkids, etc. to live in a world like that?
The point isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to defend yourself. The point is that the fact that you need to is fucked up, and we shouldn’t accept it as the status quo.
My solution is to treat the cause. Mental Health and crime are certainly the two leading causes of mass shootings.
A living wage, universal healthcare services, and a fair regulated economy Are solutions to the cause of the problem.
I am not a liberal, I am a leftist. I think we have moved far too much to the right in this country which is why we have many of these problems in the first place.
This ain't a movie, hero.
I never stated I’m a hero. I only wish to defend me and mine.
You're more likely to be killed with your own gun, and possibly others. With your gun. If you're that afraid, stay at home.
No, I choose to exercise my rights. If they scare you then that is your problem.
Freedom is scary, get over it.
So you don't give a fuck if anyone lives except your "kin" and we're supposed to feel safe with people like you walking around armed?
You are free to ensure your own safety. If you choose to depend upon others that is certainly your decision to make.
Statistically conceal and carry holders are the safest segment of society. I would much rather be in a room full of registered conceal, and carry holders than police, or any other segment of society.
That's a lie. Save that NRA apologist bullshit for the firing range.
I apologize for nothing. I merely assert my rights.
If your "rights" endanger others, then those rights should be voided.
Which every healthy democracy has done so far.
My right to own a gun does not endanger you anymore than my right to free speech. I value both equally.
Damn, you must live in a shithole if you need a gun in order to feel safe in your own country and home.
It sounds like you are privileged to live in an area bereft of all violence. Those of us who are not as privileged as you are still want to defend ourselves.
That's cute from a casual. I love the light anarchy manifesto.
Now that I don't carry an automatic weapon for part of my work, I see no reason to be part of the problem and I'm happy to leave it to the pros. But dunning-kruger is a hell of a thing.
Dunning Kruger is the cry of the retards can't conceive a decent argument and are too chicken to just say "'retard"
Feel free to trust your personal safety and the safety of your family to a “pro”. When seconds count the police are just 20 minutes away.
Lol, username should be brain dead or unalive cuz not much is happening up there.
A gun is not a car.
One can jump out of the way of a car, because it isn't faster than the speed of sound.
Got any more brilliant fucking insights about tools meant for specific purposes?
No, I don't need a brilliant insight to know that your analogy was false.
A car is a tool. It moves humans and goods from spot A to spot B. A gun is a tool to convert living critters into dead ones. They are not the same and comparing the two, like in your example, won't work.
Yet I can kill people with both, someone's being disingenuous (it's you)
Bananas and the sun both appear yellow to me. Are bananas and the sun the same thing?
Two things can have something in common and not be the same. Guns are not cars. You can personally attack me all you want but your analogy will still have failed.
Man, you're not even clever enough to fake being.
And another personal attack.
It's because I don't respect you whatsoever.
Depends, got any other false analogies to be taken down?
A gun is a deadly weapon. Its purpose is to kill. It has no other purpose, therefore it is not a tool. That's firearms training 101. If you don't know that, your opinion isn't worth listening to because you don't know the literal first thing about wielding one.
I assume you're not a big fan of totally unregulated cars and I doubt you claim that the only way to stop a car crash is with another car.
You know how it is. This kind of thing always happens the one day you leave your AR15 home!
Everyone should run scared for their life from a mass shooting. It's a mass shooting.
Everyone should also do what they can to minimize gun deaths in this country, obviously this guy isn't doing that, but that is unrelated to how he should act during a mass shooting.
This Private School Trains Student “Warriors” To Swarm An Active Shooter
Literally a thing Republicans were advocating right after the Uvalde Shooting, on the grounds that it was the kids' own fault for getting slaughtered.
Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George sees the fire at the kids birthday party.
https://youtu.be/GYcySgjWGIw?si=_aT3maXLBwOH8Np8
That guy looks like a goose.
I am pro second amendment also, and would run from someone shooting a gun at people. What is he supposed to be doing?
Be the good guy with the gun. Isn't that the reason we need unfettered access to guns?
I dont carry a gun, and my access to something is not why I am in favor of it being legal. Do you want legalized marijuana just because you want to use it or because you think everyone should be allowed to use it?
"I support face eating leopards and would run from one"
Guns are a federally protected right, and yes I would run someone that was shooting at people. You wouldnt?
my dude... of course I would, thats why I dont support gun rights... thats my point...
How would you not supporting gun rights take the guns out of the hands of the shooter(s)?
The same way it works in all other countries. Is not a coincidence that the US is the only country where gun ownership is a right in the constitution and the country #1 in school shootings.
How would you get hundreds of millions of guns out of circulation without making tens of millions of law abiding americans into criminals?
Do you support them being legal and almost entirely unregulated? Because that is the GOP position and there is a big gulf between the two.
I have no problem with guns being legal. Unlike Republicans, though, I don't want them in the hands of, for example, the criminally insane.
I do support unregulated guns, but I am willing to compromise. Right now guns are extremely regulated particularly in some states, which is wrong. I think the biggest problem is that the regulations that some people want are ineffective at best.
Really? So guns for toddlers? Guns for people who have been institutionalized multiple times? Guns for people who have committed treasonous acts?
A former school shooter gets out of prison- give them a gun?
This is the exact reason I support unregulated gun use, because people can claim things and then people lose rights.
Right, so you think clinically insane people and toddlers should have guns.
I think the only valid point you have is that insane people shouldnt have guns; toddlers parents should be in charge of what they have access to. So if you proposition is that we only limit guns to insane people, I agree to this compromise.
Got it. Parents get to decide whether or not toddlers should have access to drugs.
Strawman
Nope, logical inference based on what you said.
Or does "toddlers parents should be in charge of what they have access to" mean something non-literal? Was it metaphorical? I doubt it.
If you're going to make sweeping general statements that apply in every situation, that's not my fault.
The purpose of a joint isn't to kill people. Go ahead, say guns aren't for killing, it'll save a lot of back-and-forth.
I was responding to the idea I want gun rights so I can be a hero. I want people to have guns because they want guns for any variety of reasons. I want legal marijuana because people want marijuana. Both have externality and benefits.
Everyone who takes firearms training learns that the purpose of a gun is to kill things. It is a weapon, and killing is its only purpose. Any reasons to want a weapon involve harming or killing others, or the threat thereof - even if the reason given is "protection", it's only protection in the context of hurting or killing someone before they hurt or kill someone else. This is why cannabis and cars are not a valid comparison.
Guns are for a lot more than just killing. Two other obvious things are target shooting and threat deterrent. Then there is the reason to prevent tyranny.
Target shooting, to make sure you can hit what you're aiming at. Threat deterrent, with the threat of force. "To prevent tyranny" by killing people.
Every reason is a derivative of causing harm. Every single one.
Literally people buy guns to shoot targets. Do you really think people buy 22lr to kill? I have weapons used for target practice and I no plans of shooting anything.
And threat deterrent is more than tyranny, people carry guns so people know they have guns so they are less likely to be attacked (at least that is teh theory).
Everyone should be allowed to use it, because cannabis isn't a deadly weapon.
Knives and bats are deadly weapons too, so no knives and bats?
Was the governor armed? Or his "support for firearms" is a weapon in itself?
I don't care who he is, if he was just running for his life in a mass shooting then leave him the fuck alone. At least give him a little grace period before you start weaponizing his traumatic experience to push your beliefs.
What a brain-dead response.
There are many real arguments you could make against me, but instead you just insult me. You aren't making yourself look very reasonable here.
Well, I don't know who this guy is but still, nobody's going to take my firearm away. You'd have to take it from my cold dead hands. If you think the government is here to help by taking away the ability to protect yourself, then you're a damn fool! They already know what you think and do, next step is to have total control.
Not the point. The fact that you can't realize that probably proves that you are the type of person that shouldn't own guns.
The fact that you couldn't provide one point proves my arguement even further. Here, read this while you're at it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution