The myth of the good guy with a gun

[colossians323]

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.

what are you, white heterosexual privilege?

[colossians323]

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

without a shotgun too!

[BrokerB]

Jack....

That is a load of crap that as soon as you have a drink of alcohol you cannot use a firearm safely. Wonder how just our recent history of cowboy west even survived out here in the saloons.

Take a few minutes and read history over the centruries of just warfare and alchol. Of course getting blitzed is not helpful. Having 1 or two or even more beers for some folks will do nothing negative and can be positive for their accuracy.


I can guaran god dam tee you id rather have an arm on me in a bar with a lunatic then not. I am also not an alcoholic and dont get waisted.

Save your breath... no I do not endorse booze and gun play. I do realize true life that someone who has a glass of wine, or even two is not a sloppy unsafe shooter if called upon.

[pacrat]

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.

You really need to spend some time with your friend "dictionary". And a thesaurus surely wouldn't hurt your vocabulary any.

What you so inaccurately describe as "facts" are in reality "statistics" which can be cherry picked and skewed by ignoring what you don't agree with. JUST AS you ineptly do with your own screwed up and totally innacurate definition of what constitutes facts.

fact (făkt)►

n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
n.
Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
n.
A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

[tankarian]

An editorial piece with lots to chew on:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ory-ncna821976

Yeah, that's a lot to chew on, if you're a leftist who likes to chew on dog shiite

[IVC]

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.

Not facts? Practically every mass shooting was stopped by guns. Do you know of a single mass shooting that was stopped by any other means?

[IVC]

what are you, white heterosexual privilege?

What's funny is that we are joking about this, yet the author of that article was indeed described only by his sexual orientation, army service and location. We are talking about a mainstream media website, too...

[baggss]

The signature is interesting:

Yep. It reveals the bias of the writer, as if the article itself didn't already reveal that.

[Jimi Jah]

Many here in California also consider cops as "bad guys with guns".

[Ross]

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.

Because it's an in your face, accept me or else attitude.

[avbear63]

I'll say it again.

We need more good guys with guns for sure.

[Ross]

The OP article has a lot common with a few members here. "Don't do anything to the aggressor, you may inconvenience him and put him in danger. Plus, others may get upset too."

[Californio]

Because identity Politics automatically validates the subject matter and your an XY or Z if you challenge it.

Californio, Heterosexual Army Veteran

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.

[sarbiker]

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.

They're anecdotes, not facts.......In the meantime, we're left with war stories and opinions.

Pastor Saves Wife, Daughters by Shooting Suspected Home Invader in Head

http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2017/11/19/pastor-saves-wife-daughter-shooting-suspected-home-invader-head/

Maybe you might want to ask the pastor's wife and children if their husband/dad's presence made a meaningful difference, or is this just another war story that does not fit your narrative..??!!

[CG11]

More media drivel.