I might be wrong but their is no evidence either way, He mentioned in another post that it should be left to police and i echoed what you said that the only people trained for situations like that are units such as SWAT. I don't know how you can determine that citizens with guns can't adequately defend themselves . What do you base your theory on? I lived in the U.S. for 10 years and knew many gun owners, I was one myself. The people who had them didn't just buy one and put it away for a rainy day.They knew how to use it, clean it, store it, it was not a responsibility they or i took lightly, Most police officers in the States have to qualify every 2 years in most states, how often they go to the gun range is anyone's guess. The people i knew went shooting much more often then that. It's part of their culture.
US problem with open carry
- Thread starter basketcase
- Start date
Situations are different which i explained in another post, in the case of a bar or nightclub, yes it would be very hard to identify who the shooter is, but in the 2 cases in mentioned that you quoted, were places of worship, where most people know each other and it would be easy to identify a guy with a rifle who doesn't belong to your church. In both cases worshipers could identify who the shooter was by eyewitness accounts, but couldn't do anything about it because they were defenseless, all they could do was hide.
Your whole assumption is that people are always rational actors. In reality though, people tend to panic or react in other unpredictable ways when in life threatening circumstances. Add in the absolute lack of experience or training in dealing with gunmen in public and the chance for a mistake are extremely high.
And as you keep ignoring, if police couldn't identify the threat in a well lit mall, what chance does an average Joe have?
Where did i ignore it?Did i not say situations are different?. When police enter a situation they don't have much information. In both cases i mentioned the places of worship knew who belonged there and who didn't. From your post it's sounds like you think every human being would panic when there life is in danger, if that's the case how has the human race lasted this long, our ancestors thousands of years ago faced death on a daily basis yet managed to survive somehow. Absolutely some would panic but others wouldn't. We have fight or flight built in to our DNA. Not everybody crumbles under pressure. Thank God not every human being wilts at the first site of danger.
Proof of what people will do is impossible, that's why you have offered no proof for your contention that more armed citizens will make everyone safer.
But there is all sorts of undeniable evidence for what people do and have done. This thread is about one such 'proven' doings by people carrying guns, who shot and killed another gun-carrying person, innocent of any crime or offence other than having a gun in his hand because he tried to stop a criminal shooter with it. As I and others have said repeatedly.
Your turn: Give us some evidence to back your claim that more people doing what that victim did would make everyone safer or drop your silly chant about it. We heard you long ago, and the repetition just emphasizes how empty the words are.
You keep saying this thread is about this thread is about people carrying guns, shot and killed another gun carrying person, for the 3rd time HE WAS KILLED BY POLICE, not another citizen. you said there is undeniable evidence of what people do and have done this is about innocent people being killed by other gun carrying citizens during a mass shooting, it hasn't happened.
here are 2 examples of what i'm talking about.
https://www.newsweek.com/oklahoma-s...tan-confronts-kills-restaurant-shooter-944081
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ctive-shooter-texas-sports-bar-police-n755136
Right there in your second example is the following:
"Use of force and firearms expert Emanuel Kapelsohn told NBC News that, from his understanding, the man who took down the shooter reacted appropriately.
"I think it's to be applauded," he said. "Not everybody in the world ought to own a gun. Not everybody in the world ought to carry a gun. Not everyone in the world ought to engage an armed criminal where innocent people could be potentially injured."
"But this good Samaritan obviously had the ability to do what he did," Kapelsohn added. "Who knows how many people would be dead if he had not acted?"
I totally agree with the expert here and would argue that a minority of gun owners have this ability.
In your first example - the gunman had mental issues and was previously known to police (who had been warned about the gunman by LGBTQ groups) - so it's as much an example of a failure to treat and prevent. Further the gunman was licensed to carry and worked as an armed security guard - despite his mental issues - which opens up an entirely different debate.
What do you base your theory on? that a minority of gun owners have this ability, I was asked to give proof of when a citizen was able to save lives by using a gun in this type of situation, I provided two. I found more but i'm not going to post every single one. I asked if anyone could provide proof where an innocent person was shot buy another can carrying citizen in this type of situation and no one responded. There have been situations where police shot an innocent person but that's not the issue we are discussing, It's just paranoia on the part of anti-gun proponents. In the first example the gunman had mental issues and shouldn't have had a gun, that's fine. These two men saved lives because they had guns and knew what to do, but according to basketcase everyone would panic, not true.
I base my opinion on my experience - the same as you. Another measure: Just take membership in the NRA (usually a sign of being serious). Only about 10% of gun owners in the US belong to the NRA. Do you imagine that the other 90% are MORE serious or less about handling their weapons properly?
As for examples: You're asking for "proof" to disprove your belief. It's like asking somebody to prove God exists or does not. Impossible to prove or disprove. Eg: In your first example - the situation had already moved outside and the TWO good samaritans shot the shooter (who was pacing about weirdly). A good outcome? Yes - but maybe it could have been better. Was this guy still a threat? Would a professional have been able to diffuse the situation? Again, we'll never know.
So to you, police are not people? Or does being police make them predictable killers, and that's why you say they're an exception?
Unlike ordinary citizens they have at least some training in keeping order, identifying bad guys and using their weapons.And they wear distinctive clothing to distinguish themselves from ordinary citizens and bad guys, so they can betterv project authority, and noit be mistaken for bad guys themselves. None of that operates in your fantasy world where every citizen goes armed.
Yet the police still kill innocent folks who are just doing what you advocate: carrying a gun and trying to use it to stop a Shooter. But untrained, surprised citizens won't shoot each other? And none of their many bullets will do damage beyond the scene?
That's why your proposal to make everyone safer from Shooters by having lots of untrained gun-carrying citizens is laughable lunacy. It will just result in more deadly errors by even less competent responders.
Done. Find another playmate with greater tolerance for silliness.
--------
PS: Don't think your research was ignored. Like the incident this thread's about, they show that: Lots of Americans carry guns, and tha doesn't deter Bad Guys.
Are you obtuse, of course police are people, that's not the point. You asked me for proof i gave it to you, and you provided no proof for your theory. These two "gun carrying" citizens saved many lives or does that not matter, to you, you would rather see them die then have people carrying guns. The laughable lunacy you describe has saved lives. You asked me for proof and i gave it to you and you didn't even mention it in your post, you gave me a typical lefty response, deflect and insult, so predictable, just like the right goes to the conspiracy theory card, pathetic
What experience do you have of an innocent person being killed by a gun carrying citizen in a mass shooter situation, i just gave you proof of two situations where ordinary citizens saved lives because of their actions in this type of situation. In example 1 the courts determined that the citizens did the proper thing and determined the shooter was still a threat, so I think i proved my theory, It's not my "belief" there is actual evidence.
Here are 10 more examples from The Washington Post, 2 were military trained so they were better suited to the situation but none of these people panicked like Basketcase suggests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ootings/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9a3261169b1
Ok now I'm fully with oldjones - you're just being silly. First of all you did not give "proof". You gave examples. Examples are not proof. So you keep asking for something that is pointless. The OP contained an EXAMPLE where a policeman mistakenly shot a good samaritan. But that's not good enough for you. You have this notion that a private citizen with a gun could do a better job. MY contention is that some private citizens and ex-military could definitely do a better job than a regular cop. BUT, the percentage of that type of gun owner is a minority based upon my experience. So you can argue until you're blue in the face about your examples seeing other gun owners clean their guns and store them properly - maybe even shoot really tight groups on paper targets. PROVES NOTHING. There is a completely different type of stress in a high stress dynamic, combat situation. Not everybody is suited for that and fewer people are trained for it - including regular police - hence the tragedy described in the OP.
How are examples not proof? 12 situations of "regular" citizens who stopped shooters without causing injury to innocent people. I expect you to side with oldjones you're both anti-gun, it doesn't fit your point of view. I gave you now 12 situations where citizens with guns saved lives, or does saving lives not matter to you? If these citizens didn't have guns who knows how many more lives would have been lost. If that's not proof i don't know what is. You base your point of view on experience and you say i base mine on my experience, partly true but i also base it on actual real life situations listed in the examples. So your experience is worth more than mine? What do base yours on? Just theory I suppose.
If your not, I apologize for assuming you were, from your posts, that's the impression that i got, When someone is trying to prove a thesis, you use examples and evidence, I thought that's what i did.
No, I am anything but anti-gun. But isn’t it ironic that in a thread that really is about the training and ability to first properly identify then execute some form of action, you messed up the first part. So you serve as an example that you’re looking for. With regard to competence - the number of accidental gun deaths in the States still outweighs deaths by mass shootings. I’m not anti gun, I’m anti untrained idiot with a gun. This number IS dropping but is still close to something like 500/year.
I will say that the one good gun trend in the US is the proliferation of training courses (usually run by ex-military) that provide dynamic training under some form of stress (physical, time based).
I agree there are way to many accidental gun deaths, but in all the examples I provided citizens were able to identify the shooter and stop him without any innocent casualties. I have yet to find an example where an innocent person was killed in this type of situation other than by police, that's all i'm saying, they did save countless lives. I have my opinion you have yours. I guess that's what these forums are for. I don't know how much time you have spent in the States, I spent almost 10 years there and it's a big part of there culture. Before i lived there i always thought, Why do the need all these guns? I get it now. I don't agree with citizens having assault rifles, but as far as open carry to defend yourself, that i agree with.
