"...pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse" - Page 3

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - "...pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse" (Page 3 of 3)

Posted: 10/3/2015 2:12:17 PM EDT

[#1]

From where I'm standing, all they're saying is we need to get rid of "gun free zones". Obviously criminals target these areas because they know law-abiding citizens won't be legally permitted to defend themselves.

Edit:

No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian

How many "mass shootings" in the past 30 years have been committed in a non "gun free zone"? RS is a piece of shit douche rag that sucks at covering music, and is even worse at playing politics.

Posted: 10/3/2015 2:14:01 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
So is their favorite victim of rape culture still packing her mattress around?

View Quote

This, they have zero credibility.

Posted: 10/3/2015 2:41:55 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2

2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime.

It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.)

View Quote

What a bunch of fucking jackoffs.

View Quote

I guess they wanted him shot BEFORE he committed the crime

The argument is not SHOULD he be shot ....the argument is by WHOM should he be shot!

Posted: 10/3/2015 2:59:20 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
There was a mass shooter in a shopping mall that was engaged right away by someone who was carrying, he moved away and killed himself. I think only one or two victims in that event. Don't remember the details as of the location or date.

These kind of opinions come from people who are utterly ignorant about all things regarding firearms yet they feel the need to spout their "expertise" gleaned from movies and TV.

View Quote

That's the catch, they prevented a mass shooting therefore it can't be counted as a mass shootings. There have been plenty of times that they've been stopped before the worst could happen but they are not counted and not advertised.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 10/3/2015 3:10:58 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

False.

Oregon Mall shooting a few years back; CHL holder stopped a massacre.

View Quote

Doesn't count because gunman offed himself.

There have been several (I'm mobile so I don't have my resource file), but the golden market, Arkansas Shoney's and gun store in either az or CA come to mind.

Posted: 10/3/2015 3:38:04 PM EDT

[#6]

Firefighters don't prevent fires... after all, how do we *REALLY* know a fire would have occurred? How do we *REALLY* know if a fire wouldn't have stopped on it's own without firefighters?

The fire still happened anyway, obviously... firefighters are pointless.

SAME FUCKING LOGIC!!!

Posted: 10/3/2015 3:39:26 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

Here's a neat trick to allow you to deceive people about the effectiveness of handguns in stopping mass shootings - if four or more people weren't killed, they don't count it as a "mass shooting." Ergo, if you blow the murderer's brains out at the start of his rampage, you did not stop a mass shooting because only one person (the murderer) was killed. That's how Rolling Stone arrived at their retarded conclusion.

View Quote

And if the CCWer shoots the bad guy after the bad guy kills 8 people... then they merely say "Well, it didn't help anyway. The mass shooting still occurred."

No different than saying "Firefighters are worthless... the fire still happened."

Posted: 10/3/2015 3:48:45 PM EDT

[#8]

The line of logic used by that writer, makes me seriously question whether such a person should be walking free. Someone that stupid should be locked up in a state institution before their stupidity causes someone serious harm.

My brain hurts from their lack of logic.

Posted: 10/3/2015 3:50:18 PM EDT

[#9]

Quote History

Quoted:

...And if the CCWer shoots the bad guy after the bad guy kills 8 people... then they merely say "Well, it didn't help anyway. The mass shooting still occurred."
\

View Quote

Indeed. Funny how the brain works.

Posted: 10/3/2015 3:51:19 PM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
The line of logic used by that writer, makes me seriously question whether such a person should be walking free. Someone that stupid should be locked up in a state institution before their stupidity causes someone serious harm.

My brain hurts from their lack of logic.

View Quote

I recommend you not spend too much time here in GD, then.

Posted: 10/3/2015 11:12:27 PM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

I can remember when they made us read 1984 in school and I read that line and thought "Well, that's stupid. Who would ever fall for that?"

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Nice to know Rolling Stone doesn't consider cops to be "good guys with guns"

Well, there is certainly nothing new about that... isn't it funny though how the same group that tells you that cops are trigger-happy thugs who are looking for an excuse to shoot random citizens who aren't committing any serious crimes also pushes really hard for cops being the only people who can be legally armed? Talk about contradictions. And of course, when crime does strike them personally, who do they go running to for help?

It is fascinating. We have now fully forgotten about the demonization of cops and the BLM movement, and are back to the lionization of cops and the "disarm the populace" agenda.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

I can remember when they made us read 1984 in school and I read that line and thought "Well, that's stupid. Who would ever fall for that?"

I'm more concerned with the monthly boot production numbers.

Posted: 10/3/2015 11:23:44 PM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

Me dying could make it worse for me.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
shooting back could make the situation worse, say if you shoot an innocent bystander.
it could also make things better if you put the bad guy down before he kills 20 people.

doing nothing won't make it any worse.
It will most certainly do nothing to improve the situation.

follow your conscience and do what you think is right.

Me dying could make it worse for me.

again, follow the course of action that you feel is right for you.

Posted: 10/3/2015 11:29:27 PM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:
again, follow the course of action that you feel is right for you.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

shooting back could make the situation worse, say if you shoot an innocent bystander.

it could also make things better if you put the bad guy down before he kills 20 people.

doing nothing won't make it any worse.

It will most certainly do nothing to improve the situation.

follow your conscience and do what you think is right.

Me dying could make it worse for me.

again, follow the course of action that you feel is right for you.

when I was a kid the saying was alway "or die trying" funny thing is we meant it. yes my daughter would miss me, but she knows there would be no other way for me.

she is not afraid, she knows that is how dads do things

Posted: 10/3/2015 11:32:39 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Not hotlinked because fuck Rolling Stone.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-pro-gun-arguments-were-sick-of-hearing-20151001?page=2

2. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

If you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime.

It's not that there aren't enough guns, either. There are as many guns as people in this country, and fully a third of people are armed. Even when shootings happen in gun-happy places, where armed people are sure to be nearby, this vigilante scenario simply doesn't work. That's because pulling a gun out and shooting back in the chaos of a mass shooting just makes things worse, as was discovered when a would-be hero at the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords very nearly shot the wrong man. (The actual shooter was tackled by an elderly man.)

View Quote

What a bunch of fucking jackoffs.

View Quote

Ahh "Trolling Stoned:, that pinnacle of unbiased, factual news reporting.

Posted: 10/3/2015 11:34:38 PM EDT

[#15]

No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian?

If they're stopped, they don't become "mass" shootings.
Every time a "civilian" shoots a BG with a gun, he potentially stopped a "mass" shooting, no?

Most "mass shootings" stop when the a-hole is confronted by someone else with a gun, whoever that may be, and they end themselves.

Posted: 10/3/2015 11:34:56 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
Well if an armed civilian stops a shooting at 0 or 1, then it's not "mass" and they can claim their statistics are correct

View Quote

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:26:28 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
Why call the cops then?

They might... *GASP*....shoot back!

View Quote

"Because police are trained professionals, except when we say they're not, like in Ferguson."

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:19:15 AM EDT

[#18]

They're still at it.

Agenda 2015.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/oregon-tragedy-264th-mass-shooting-of-the-year-20151001

It is a level of carnage that our national political system will not and cannot address, because of the strength of the NRA – as I explored in the aftermath of Newtown in a piece titled The NRA vs. America.

View Quote

Funny they aren't upset about GOA or NAGR. They must not know who the real no-compromise gun lobbies are.

Posted: 10/4/2015 3:06:51 AM EDT

[#19]

Otherwise known as Pravda USA.

Posted: 10/4/2015 3:16:13 AM EDT

[#20]

“I've come to believe he (Clinton) needs a certain level of violence in this country. He is willing to accept a certain level of killing to further his political agenda. The vice president, too. How else can you explain this dishonesty we get out of the administration?” Wayne LaPierre quote

Posted: 10/4/2015 6:28:20 AM EDT

[#21]

Why bother calling the police then, because they will make it worse - right?

.

There have been several would-be mass shootings that were stopped by a CCW holder over the years. That's just it, if they stop them, then it didn't turn into mass shooting

.

I recall someone opening fire in a church a few years ago and a CCW holder took him out before a body count got racked up. The controlled media barely reported on it. There has been others too.

Posted: 10/4/2015 6:30:52 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime.

View Quote

Wouldn't it have been murder if he killed someone before they committed a crime?

Posted: 10/4/2015 7:20:50 AM EDT

[#23]

If
you prefer pithy sayings to hard evidence, I can see why this would be
convincing. But if you look at the real world, you'll find that far from
being our only hope, good guys with guns are barely any help at all. No mass shootings in the past 30 years have been stopped by an armed civilian; in 1982, an armed civilian successfully killed a shooter, but it was only after he committed his crime.

View Quote

No shit Sherlock, way to show your massive intelligence. Had the civilian shot the dude BEFORE he killed someone, then guess who would have been up on murder charges?

Good god, the person who wrote that actually goes out of their way to show how massively ignorant and wrong they are.

Posted: 10/4/2015 7:21:24 AM EDT

[#24]

LOL. Twisted fucks.

Posted: 10/4/2015 8:01:59 AM EDT

[#25]

Well then we certainly mustn't send any police with guns in then mustn't we? If it would only make things worse...

Posted: 10/4/2015 8:08:59 AM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
Firefighters don't prevent fires... after all, how do we *REALLY* know a fire would have occurred? How do we *REALLY* know if a fire wouldn't have stopped on it's own without firefighters?

The fire still happened anyway, obviously... firefighters are pointless.

SAME FUCKING LOGIC!!!

View Quote

its party propaganda, a different kind of logic is in play here

Posted: 10/4/2015 8:11:35 AM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

False.

Oregon Mall shooting a few years back; CHL holder stopped a massacre.

View Quote

RollingStone: but it wasn't a mass shooting because the attacker was only able to kill one other person before killing himself when he saw an armed victim! See! it wasn't a mass shooting, so the concealed carrier didn't stop a mass shooting!