The fail of the "good guy with a gun" theory.

Many Pro-gun supporters seem to feel empowered by the romantic notion that if, Just IF, someone "good" is armed when a mass shooting starts, they could have prevented it!
"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
I call BOGUS on that, and here is why.

First of all, many people seem to think that the Oregon Campus shooting was on a "Gun Free Zone", and so there was no way to carry a gun there for protection.
Let me make this perfectly clear, that perceptions is FALSE! Oregon has a concealed gun license permit that supersedes the gun free zone of schools, and incidentally, there were some armed citizens on the campus grounds at the time of the shooting!

So why didn't one of them stop the "bad guy with a gun"? Veteran John Parker explained that his military training provided him with the skills to “go into danger,” but said he felt lucky he and others didn’t try to get involved going after Mercer.
“Luckily we made the choice not to get involved,” he explained. “We were quite a distance away from the building where this was happening. And we could have opened ourselves up to be potential targets ourselves, and not knowing where SWAT was, their response time, they wouldn’t know who we where. And if we had our guns ready to shoot, they could think that we were bad guys.”

Parker noted that he was hustled into a classroom with other students by a professor who asked if anyone was armed. He said he raised his hand and said he would attempt to protect his fellow students if they came under attack.

So here is the basic problem in these events, how do the cops know WHO is the bad guy with the gun or the good guy with the gun? If some good intention citizen actually goes into a situation with their gun ready, the law enforcement might be "distracted" from the real shooter.They also might just shoot the wrong person. Such a distraction might give the "bad guy with a gun" the opening to either kill more people or even the cops who might think they got the problem in front of them.

So what's the ideal answer to this? Where a "white" hat so the cops know? LOL! Then the Bad guy could play wolf in sheepskin! Not to mention target white hats to get them out of the way first. If you got your gun concealed in a holster, who's more likely to get the first shot off, you or the "bad" guy?
Now, I'm sure some of you will point out that "everyone" needs to be armed to prevent this kind of thing from happening, but you know what, I found this little reminder of just how little armed people can help in a surprise situation.



The only thing that saved Reagan was the fact that the gun was low caliber and cheap, it practically blew up in the guys hands. If that shooter had access to today's arsenal, Reagan would have joined JFK.

So just keep listening to the NRA, as they mock you with your own money!



If the NRA actually believes anything they say, why don't they allow guns in their own buildings? Gotcha!

 

This post is dynamic and demonstrates with the photo how hypocritical the NRA is by banning guns at their conventions. Also, you pointed out the dilemma how the police could not tell the bad guy from the good guy when a gun retaliation is involved.

Excellent post! A+

 

I don't see how the fact that this shooting happened in a place where there were no good guys with guns discounts the theory. The problem with gun free zones is that good guys actually obey them.

And the NRA offices allow guns, and even have a shooting range in them.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/05/303573-this-office-has-a-firing-range/

- - - Updated - - -

Guns were not banned at the conventions.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/nraban.asp

I thought liberals were supposed to be all about facts and science? You guys didn't even bother checking Snopes.........

 

Any brain-toting human with the balls to confront a shooter would also have the intelligence to know when the cops arrive, put the weapon down, move away from it and let them do their jobs. They usually arrive after the sound of their sirens and at that time, armed citizens could just be in the way and get caught in a crossfire. If I'm that guy with the gun trying to help, I'd do so until help arrives and then disarm myself, keep my hands where they can be easily seen by law enforcement trying to assess the situation and identify bad guys, and I'd then go into the mode of bystander or try to direct them toward the shooter if I know where that person went.

Common sense should come pretty easily, but people on both sides get blinded by ideology. An armed citizen is only as good as his skills, his bravery, his intelligence, his situation and his proximity. Too much depends on circumstances to even know how you'd react, but a former military guy who is armed can stand next to me all day in a dangerous situation. Being a veteran myself, trying to help and knowing when not to help are both important, and knowing when to not be a target of police is critical. It's not that difficult and little different than a federal active shooter exercise trains people to act anyhow. Evade, hide or fight. Those are your choices, and in that order. And know when law enforcement arrives or be prepared for it so you aren't a target.

 

Obama killed 22 people a day after Mercer. Secondly, are Obamas security team armed? How about this, we will disarm immediately after Obama does and his children are protected by nothing more than kah-rah-tay. Deal? OR are you going to prove yourself a hypocrite? Let see. Yep, Im going with the latter.

 

So they were able to secure that classroom.

Our classrooms are very poorly designed often with both exits on the same wall when they need to be on opposing walls so that a single gunman cannot cover both exits on approach from one position.

 

Google "Uber driver stops mass shooting". Another idiotic thread form an OP that is completely clueless.

 

Excellent points!! BRAVO!!!

 

Every guy with a gun thinks he's a good guy with a gun.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/nraban.asp

Meanwhile....

 

The fail of the idea that strict gun control works.

Chicago has deadliest September in 13 years.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-ch...omicides-in-september-20151002-htmlstory.html

Bloody Baltimore: No end in sight to homicide spike.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/0...omicides-shootings-continues/?intcmp=trending

It is unfortunate that Obama chose to campaign on the blood of innocent Oregon students. Maybe he should take another look at the fact that one of the hero's that stopped the Islamic train attack in France last summer was supposed to be on the school grounds the day of the shooting and in the area where the shooting occurred and that ISIS has taken credit for the attack.

And just why is Obama allowing returning ISIS fighters to roam freely throughout the US?

 

"Could have"... of course.

In some cases they could. Not in all. No one is pretending otherwise.

Not sure why that bothers you.


But what you may not know... is that an unarmed person has even less chance of doing so.

 

I don't know, sometimes I wonder whether people even know basic physical principles. Of course, gun control in a city alone, and gun free zones, like on the Oregon campus CANNOT work, if they are islands surrounded by a flood of easily available weapons. If you want a gun in Chicago, just go to the closest state where gun laws are non-existent and buy your arsenal there. The physical principle behind this is called DIFFUSION.

Now, if you want to make gun control and gun-free zones work, you have to make the WHOLE COUNTRY a gun-free zone, or at least make it much harder to obtain the weapons.

 

Why do people who have no clue assume that CCP holders are all trying to be heroes? If I were in that school with my gun, and I had the opportunity, I would have vacated the premises post-haste or found someplace safe to hide until it was all over, as PLAN A. Sorry, unarmed public. If you want some hero rush the shooter and protect you, I'm not your guy. I protect myself. It's YOUR job to protect yourself (unless, of course, you've outsourced that job to a 911 operator and a cop who's 15 minutes away eating donuts.) I'm armed, I'm practiced, and I'm confident.... but I'm no idiot.

 

Federal law prohibits the private sale of any firearm unless both parties reside in the same state.
Federal law prohibits the purchase of a handgun outside your state of residence.
Federal law prohibits the purchase of a firearm for any person's other the than the purchaser.

 

This the best you can do? For every story you find like that, I can drop at least 2 of these on it.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/tex...ots-carjacking-victim-in-head-then-runs-away/

http://deadstate.org/woman-with-con...pot-while-trying-to-stop-alleged-shoplifters/

 

Well odds are that the bad guy will be long dead before the cops show up

 

Umm, they didn't. This was a city ordinance at the venue that banned firearms. Just once, read the news in depth rather than left wing talking points. BTW, have you ever been to an NRA convention? If you had, you would have seen hundreds and hundreds of guns on display.

 

Well, the thing that belies that argument is the fact that one would conclude that in a strictly gun controlled environment there should be at least SOME reduction in the rate of gun violence over that in environments where they are more freely available.

Washington DC, with VERY strict gun laws has consistently had far higher rates of gun killings across the nation. Right across the Potomac River, in Virginia where guns are readily accessible, shall issue, concealed carry, the murder rate with guns is orders of magnitude lower. So are we to conclude all those who shoot others go to Virginia, get guns then go to DC and shoot people rather than the citizens of Virginia getting guns and shooting up each other? If access to firearms is the problem, that is.

 

They lease the buildings.

 

John Parker wasn't in danger of being killed by the gunman. 100% of victims of mass shootings were unarmed. Would you like to argue that having a gun never saved anyone from violent crime? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm? Pretty please?

 

A good discussion on the "sheepdog" concept. If I am armed, I am going to protect me and mine. I am not going to look for the badguy, as in go to another building to confront a shooter. However, if the shooter is in my classroom, I would confront him since the alternative is to be a victim. Gun free zones are killing fields.

[video=youtube;AldptFMs2AM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AldptFMs2AM[/video]

 

First off the NRA has to follow the laws of the areas the conventions are held in:

www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/201...the-nra-really-banning-guns-at-its-convention


Geez....how about a little honesty. Secondly, gun free zones set people up to be sitting ducks for these lunatics. That is why they shoot people there.

 

Can you drop between 500,000 to 3,000,000 stories because that was the CDC estimate on the number of crimes stopped by firearms in the hands of lawful gun owners? You post is the delusional ranting and ravings about how gun owners never stop crime. The uber incident was just one a few months ago.

Furthermore you are a liar and a fraud because the NRA did not ban guns at the convention. The only time they don't allow firearms is if local laws tell them not to. The convention in Tennessee allows people with licenses to walk around in the convention armed. You are a charlatan and a lying hack.

 

An utterly ridiculous assumption consistent with flawed liberal thought. NO ONE goes LOOKING for an active shooter. However, IF you're DIRECTLY involved in the assault then defensive use of a weapon is likely and plausible, keeping in mind you're probably reasonably sure who is shooting at you. Those are two very different scenarios. BTW I'd would trust the NRA security over anything liberals could provide.