Good guys with no guns more successful at stopping bad guys

No I'm comparing that with the US as a whole or do you really need me to repeat those figures again .... and again.

You have no idea about the outside world beyond Fox news

 

I'm happy for her

 

Well I know you are the quintessential definition of a gun hugger so what else is it you want me to say ?

You want and ike the idea of killing easily and I get that. Pardon me if myself and the rest of the civilsed world disagrees

 

I myself do not watch FOX News.....
Try again......

 

Many years ago, I was seated in a Pub, asked for whiskey and the bartender served me and suddenly excused himself to get some stock, and said;
"Keep an eye on things whilst I am gone..."

I heard a sound and a bloke was standing there and had drawn on me, it was pretty much a given, he opened fire, and I felt some stinging tugs, I drew and returned fire while he was still shooting.

I was injured, bleeding and still alive, he not so much.
It was never discovered why he opened fire on me, I could only guess why.....

I know I was glad to be alive, as I have always been after such events....

 

I am too, she's a really neat young lady. I remember when she started shooting with us on the US circuit when she was 12-13. Everyone liked her and she was always trying to learn from us senior shooters. How do you hold your gun? why do you stand that way, where do you pick up the target out of the high house. One of my good friends finished fourth in 96, Kim won. She was 16. Terry was captain of several teams Kim was on. Great shooter, better person. I think she has won more olympic medals in shooting than the Brits have combined since 1996. IIRC Britain won two double trap golds (Faulds and Scott) Peel won a silver in trap, Ling a Bronze.

 

And I dont believe a single word of that. Its simply another Hollywood inspired gun hugger fantasy

 

you have no reason to disbelieve him other than you hope it didn't happen

tell us what happened to you in Alabama that has caused you to obsess over our gun rights

 

I'm happy for her

 

Yes I do based on reality

 

so you can claim this never happened based on what evidence?

 

A lot better. Same goes for extrapolating from RT and AntiSemitic Daily or whatever it is the pro-Palestinian Euros read.

 

Theres no law that says you have to use a gun if you have one. None of these 'good guys with no guns' would have been hindered in the least by having one.

It is entirely true that watching too many westerns skews perception of reality... the 'wild west' really wasnt so wild. Despite (or due to) nearly everyone having guns, the murder rate per capita on the expanding american frontier was actually a bit lower than it is today nationwide (not including govt vs native conflicts, of course). The 'wild' in the west existed mostly in fiction.

 

If any of the above implements are possessed within the home where children reside, it could be argued that it is an act of willful endangerment.

While on the subject, let us discuss the private ownership of motor vehicles. Is such refrained from by yourself, as the operation of motor vehicles endangers countless others around yourself? Motor vehicle-related fatalities are currently higher in the united states in number than firearm-related fatalities.

 

What this selective statistic conveniently leaves out is that the vast majority of gun related successful defenses are not shootings. They are just showing the bad guy you have a gun and it's pointed at him. No shots are fired and the crime goes uncommitted.

 

Da, comrade. I'm sure you don't believe anything unless it's broadcast on RT.

 

Yup your society still hasn't gotten over branding all dissention as communist despite the Cold war being long over

 

'An FBI report released in 2014 examined 160 active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013. As we detailed in a previous article, analysis of such cases provides insights into the role of bystanders in minimizing casualties that an exclusive focus on mass shootings (where four or more people are killed) cannot. Of the 160 incidents in the study, 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians. Six more were stopped by armed guards and off-duty police officers. Only one was stopped by a concealed-carry permit holder, who happened to be a highly trained U.S. Marine. In this highly analyzed sample, unarmed citizens did a better job at preventing tragedy than civilians wielding firearms.

"Indeed, armed citizens who have attempted to intervene in active-shooting situations have had limited success. During the Tacoma Mall Shooting in 2005, an armed citizen who attempted to intervene was gunned down and paralyzed for life almost immediately. In 2011, when a gunman opened fire on Gabby Gifford’s rally in Tucson, a nearby good guy with a gun rushed to the scene and came perilously close to shooting the wrong man. More recently in 2014, a man with a concealed handgun tried to stop an armed couple in Las Vegas and was quickly murdered.

"Along with armed civilians’ dismal track record of halting active shooters, there is very little evidence that using a gun in any self-defense situation is more effective than alternative means of protecting oneself. A recent study published in the Journal of Preventative Medicine by Dr. David Hemenway at the Harvard School of Public Health analyzed data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and found that an individual who uses a gun in self-defense is no more likely to reduce his or her risk of injury than someone who takes no action at all. Firearms also failed to provide any significant advantage in terms of protecting one’s property.

"That’s not to say that armed citizens never stop crimes or save lives. But the data shows that carrying a gun for self-defense does not make a person safer — and because more guns equals more violent crime, it also does not lead to a safer country. While rigorous research has already documented this fact, anecdotes can illustrate it in a way that commands public attention. Unfortunately, these stories are too often forgotten in favor of the narratives cast by gun-rights advocates, in which humans are powerless without the aid of a firearm."
https://www.armedwithreason.com/good-guys-without-guns-thwart-french-train-shooter-validate-data/
More myths destroyed.

Jared Lee Loughner was stopped when he tried to reload by an unarmed citizen. In contrast, the armed citizen who was present nearly made the situation a lot worse by shooting an innocent person.

 

Are you ever going to make an argument from experience and logic, or is it your goal to engage in Google wars only?

 

The data, the study, and the findings are inherently flawed, for counting active-shooting situations that take place in locations where private individuals cannot legally possess a firearm for their own defense.

Law enforcement officers not only shoot, but also kill, innocent people all the time. They demonstrate poor impulse control, poor firearms safety, and have abysmal accuracy rating even when qualifying against stationary targets, with many having to take the test multiple times just to get the bare minimum passing score

 

At the very least, there is good reason to believe that good guys with guns don't make the situation any better.

"Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, 127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU [self-defense gun use]. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, 38.5 of SDGU victims lost property, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188

Law enforcement definitely does need better training. US cops kill way more people than cops in many European countries.

 

Are police good guys?

 

Interesting as all sorts of numbers may or may not be, I care mostly of myself and my loved ones. Good on everyone else who has protected themselves and their loved ones, sad that they had to, but in the end my concerns are vastly more simplistic. I simply support everyone having the same opportunity to protect themselves and others, and thank goodness the Constitution seems to see it my way...

 

people who have no experience in an area have to do that.

 

You can have all that....and gun control too