The myth of the good guy with a gun

[sofbak]

An editorial piece with lots to chew on:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-m-army-veteran-gun-owner-good-guy-gun-theory-ncna821976

[Blade Gunner]

If CA is apothetic towards gun control, how does it manage to pass 10-20 new gun control laws every year. If a good guy with a gun is a myth, explain how the recent Texas church shooter was incapacitated by an NRA instructor with an AR15. Military small arms training is not a prerequisite for CCW. Military personal are not allowed CCW or even open carry while on base or not on duty on US soil. Ask how well that went for the victims of Nadal.
Since the writer identified as “gender queer” how would he think the Orlando massacre would have turnout if just 5% of the patrons where CCW. Taking fire from 10 or 15 different directions would have ended this pretty fast. 150 to 200 round, even from the lightly trained, has a very high probability of multiple hits on target. Or does he think hiding the the bathroom saved lives.

[IVC]

The signature is interesting:

Charles Clymer is a genderqueer Army veteran and writer based in Washington, D.C.

What does sexual orientation of the writer has to do with the article and why would that be included in the signature? I mean, are we supposed to put our sexual orientation on business cards?

The rest of the article is equally weak, sprinkled with links to the anti-gun organizations and their "research" (cherry picked statistics, no proper testing of causality). It's just an agenda piece.

--- IVC is a non-gender-confused member of CalGuns and his opinion is worth what you paid for it - nothing.

[navydad2010]

Just more FUD from a SJW...

[L84CABO]

If by "lots to chew on" you mean lots of liberal propaganda, then you are right. Lots of b.s. in this article.

The author makes the claim that the Good Guy in Texas didn't stop anything. Except it's highly likely that the turd wasn't done killing people when the good guy with a gun stepped in. We'll never know of course but thinking he was finished when the citizen engaged him is pretty naive.

It would also surprise me greatly if average police officers have "thousands of hours of weapons/tactical training." Thousands of hours of training, sure. But not specifically in weapons and tactics. 1000 hours is 25 weeks at 40 hours per week. How long is the average police academy? Even if it's 50 weeks long...almost a year, I'm pretty sure that 50% isn't devoted to weapons and tactics.

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.

[JackEllis]

how would he think the Orlando massacre would have turnout if just 5% of the patrons where CCW

Probably not very well. People typically drink something alcoholic at a night club and the moment they do, they are unfit to have a firearm in their hand because their judgment is impaired. Period.

But even without alcohol, I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be a number of "friendly fire" injuries and/or deaths in all the confusion that surrounds a shooting.

If even a small fraction of the concert attendees in Las Vegas had been armed, I could see something similar happening since pistols would be useless from the outside against a shooter holed up in a building.

We can all find examples to bolster our point of view on this topic but I'd like to see statistics, not stories. I'm also not suggesting "good guys with guns" are entirely without merit but neither am I prepared to buy into the argument that their presence makes a meaningful difference.

As I've said many times before, if you want to worry about random, uncontrollable events that can kill you, drunk and distracted drivers are a far bigger threat than bad guys with guns.

[edgerly779]

What myth? It works in real life just read American rifleman in Armed Citizen.That dikhed Biden chastised the shooter that engaged and shot the Texas shooter.

[CALI-gula]

Asinine article with an agenda.

.

[njineermike]

The signature is interesting:



What does sexual orientation of the writer has to do with the article and why would that be included in the signature? I mean, are we supposed to put our sexual orientation on business cards?

The rest of the article is equally weak, sprinkled with links to the anti-gun organizations and their "research" (cherry picked statistics, no proper testing of causality). It's just an agenda piece.

--- IVC is a non-gender-confused member of CalGuns and his opinion is worth what you paid for it - nothing.

It's an attempt to paint the author as some sort of expert on firearms but also having SJW credibility. It's the classic "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

[TMB 1]

What myth? It works in real life just read American rifleman in Armed Citizen.That dikhed Biden chastised the shooter that engaged and shot the Texas shooter.

Biden probably pissed because an NRA guy stopped his guy before he got to the next church.

[boopiejones]

I can't believe I wasted time reading that article.

Boopiejones is a straight, non-GMO curious calgunner based in northern commiefornia.

[IVC]

But even without alcohol, I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be a number of "friendly fire" injuries and/or deaths in all the confusion that surrounds a shooting.
...
We can all find examples to bolster our point of view on this topic but I'd like to see statistics, not stories.

During Gabby Giffords shooting there were many people with CCW and carrying. It was a large crowd and a mass-shooting, so it should fit what you're asking about.

How many innocents did they shoot up?

You wanted facts, so now it's time to accept facts. You can't keep searching for "facts" until they fit your narrative.

I'm also not suggesting "good guys with guns" are entirely without merit but neither am I prepared to buy into the argument that their presence makes a meaningful difference.

Ever seen a well armed place attacked? Remember the shooter at Oregon mall who offed himself as soon as a guy carrying engaged him so there were no other casualties?

There are countless other examples, but by definition they don't make the news since no/few people were killed. Again, you can ignore facts if you wish, but you cannot deny them.

[JackEllis]

Again, you can ignore facts if you wish, but you cannot deny them.

They're anecdotes, not facts. To get the facts, someone needs to compile all of the relevant events and develop a scorecard. I'd be interested in seeing that scorecard if one exists. In the meantime, we're left with war stories and opinions.

[shakyshoot]

.

But even without alcohol, I have a hard time believing there wouldn't be a number of "friendly fire" injuries and/or deaths in all the confusion that surrounds a shooting.

I fail to see how just allowing the guy to kill everyone in the room is preferable to even the worst case of friendly fire. If I'm in a room with someone trying to kill everyone there, I'd welcome ANYONE to try and stop it.

[jonnyt16]

We can all find examples to bolster our point of view on this topic but I'd like to see statistics, not stories. I'm also not suggesting "good guys with guns" are entirely without merit but neither am I prepared to buy into the argument that their presence makes a meaningful difference.

Are you kidding me? You sound like the genderqueer who wrote that article.

Gary Kleck has done more exhausting research on this subject than anyone else in the nation. I suggest you study his findings.

And according to the FBI, firearms sales skyrocketed to record levels over the last 8 years while violent crimes and property crimes have decreased.

Or you could simply ask anyone who has ever had to use a firearm to protect himself or his family whether or not "good guys with guns" make a meaningful difference.