Good guys with no guns more successful at stopping bad guys

Nonsense the great bulk of gun deaths are intentional be they murder or suicides. They are not accidents like auto fatalities which are common to all developed countries

 

Once again conflating suicides into "gun deaths" just as I said:

 

Yes because one is always more successful in a defensive scenario when they are helpless.

The drivel you post is amazing.

 

I have a few neighborhoods the op needs to visit without a gun and being the good guy. Consider how many unreported situations go by daily without reports or police.

 

Well we know of one who did, was instructed by the authorities to back off once he'd called his "observation" in, and got away with murdering an unarmed teenager.

And then there are also these guys, merely offered in the interest of a full picture.

http://dailynewsbite.com/colorado-cop-killer-was-a-trump-supporting-alt-right-moron/

 

The garbage conclusion reached here by this garbage article is that, because 21 incidents were stopped by unarmed people and only 5 were stopped by gun armed people, therefore the unarmed were 4X "more successful". Of course, that is directly comparing the brave unarmed heroes who were there to brave armed heroes who weren't there. Pretty easy to win a competition against someone who doesn't show up. Anyone with any brains at all knows that the only way that conclusion could be valid is if the number of armed people and unarmed people were the same. So, in any given shooter incident, are 50% of those present carrying a gun right at that moment? Almost certainly no (since they often happen in schools and such, where the brave armed heroes cannot tread). How about 1 in 4? Also very probably not, but that is the point at which the "good guys with no guns" statistical advantage disappears, and if fewer than 1 in 4 people are armed (as is usually the case), then the stats reverse and now the armed are "more successful".

The stupidity of the OP article's conclusion is perhaps best illustrated thusly: imagine you are a good guy with a gun, and a shooter incident happens in your presence that you are inclined to stop. Do you drop your gun so that you will be "more successful" at stopping it?

 

"In fact, the FBI recently released a massive study on the 160 active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013. Most of these situations ended with the shooter committing suicide. But 26 of 160 were stopped when someone in the crowd stopped the shooter. You might think this is a decent enough percentage to justify the good guy with a gun myth, but according to the study, only 5 were stopped with a guy with a gun while 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians.

"Good guys with no guns were four times more successful at stopping bad guys with guns."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theolo...is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun/#hxBylH2PeKWtR9EZ.99

Watching too many westerns can result in a skewed view of reality.[/QUOTE]

You are certainly free to be the unarmed guy , I would never advocate depriving you of that right.People that presume to tell others how to live and protect their lives are really annoying don't you think?

 

Did no one both to determine whether increase of gun in a community follow an increase in residential burglarys?

 

Thats why no one forces you to own a gun. More people drown in their own pools than people who dont have a pool as well. I can play your stats game all day and be better at it. Heres another. Tell the forum how many people succesfully defended themselves with a gun over those that didnt have a gun. Got that stat?

 

The aforementioned "thousands of hours" of training mentioned in the article is for learning how to gauge wind variables at distances of a mile or further away, being intimately familiar in the trajectory of a given round of ammunition, and the rifle and scope being calibrated to a specific individual. None of which is relevant to personal defense with a firearm at ranges of less than one hundred yards.

 

I am sure you're are not to be trusted with a blunt scissors or anything much.

I have defended myself countless times from criminal attack and from rabid animals.

As a Retired LEO and a well trained one at that, I prefer my safe firearms that endanger nobody except criminals.

 

You got all that from my post? Fascinating.

 

Sorry, my senility, I was posting to an Anti Gunner, not you, apologies......
My bad etc...

 

I am sure you're are not to be trusted with a blunt scissors or anything much.

I have defended myself countless times from criminal attack and from rabid animals.

As a Retired LEO and a well trained one at that, I prefer my safe firearms that endanger nobody except criminals.

Corrected post.......

 

No worries, Doc. I have those moments myself. Happy to see you man up about them. It makes you above average around here.

 

Thank you !

It really annoyed me to see what a stoop I was.....

Lol

 

Sorry .... I simply don't believe you. I suspect you are a gun hugger of the most pathetic kind

 

In my experience Russians and Russophiles are always a bit paranoid. What is your opinion?

 

I have no opinion other than that Americans are more obsessed with guns than they are with life. I lived in Alabama for two years and have seen it first hand

 

So, from wherever you lived before and wherever you are now, you extrapolated all of your opinions of Americans from 2 years in 'Bama. ****ing awesome, tovarish.

 

So there should have been a >50% gun death rate then eh? Roll Tide.

 

I hug cute athletic hawties with blond hair green eyes
and big feet .....lol....

Sometimes, I hug my sappy doggy.....
..

Never guns, though, anymore than a tool.
Try again.......... Snicker.......

 

Oh well !
That makes you an Expert then !

2 years in Alabama State Penitentiary.....
Hmmmm.....

 

He’s alive, as I am, because he had a gun as are I and a few others posting here.

 

The good, and to me very interesting, info is that at least 3-4 of the most ardent anti-gunners on this forum can't even vote in the US.