Once again, when only 1 person has a gun (which is the case in most homicides) the person with a gun wins virtually every time. Put a gun in the intended victims hands and then look at the data.
The point was clear. Your 21 ft rule never applies in real life. You knew that was the point. Also, when someone starts shooting in a public place with a lot of people, the people don't become a well oiled cohesive unit trying to stop the shooter. There is mass panic. Nothing you've said is relevant because nothing you present is even remotely connected to reality. Your scenarios are complete fiction.
Thank you for once again DISQUALIFYING yourself from any further meaningful interaction on this topic as far as I am concerned by reason of your being incapable of engaging in civil discourse as evidenced above. Have a nice day!
The EVIDENCE is in all the posts that demonstrate the ABSENCE of such knowledge while erroneously professing that guns are the only means to stop a shooting.
Kneejerk denialism without any shred of credible substantiation is about all one can ever expect from the gun obsessed!
Only if a firearm is involved. Not if lack of a father is a factor, or alcohol abuse, or never having learned respect for the value of human life. It’s 2019 dude. Ideas like that just impede “progress”. Disclaimer: some of this post is sarcasm and no offense is directed towards the quoted member.
Are you kidding me? Not only is nothing you said logical, but what you've described doesn't happen. We've had mass shootings, your scenarios don't play out in real life. You are the one with no evidence. Your claim that i have no evidence is a lie (my evidence is literally every mass shooting we've had....yours is a fantasy scenario that doesn't happen ) but it's quite literally the only card you have left to play in this discussion.
IAO seems to have run away. All across the country people are searching for a way to prevent school shootings and IAO claims we needn't do anything at all. Those kids just have to 'man up". It's a moronic idea.
Ask any brave man who stopped a shooting while unarmed if he would have rather had a gun on hand.. The answer will be yes. It takes a very special kind of person to think we are better off when people are forced to take on shooters while unarmed.
Imagining your hypothetical scenario, where every person in the vicinity ignores their flight response and instead rushes the shooter, then YES, unarmed people can certainly take down a gunman quickly. But then, you're believing in fantasy and not accounting for reality. The reality is very few people are brave enough to attack a shooter unarmed. To insinuate, why do we need guns when a bunch of unarmed people can easily rush the shooter and disarm him, is asinine. I'll assume your logic for a second. There would be no mass shootings or murder for that matter, if people actually followed all our laws. So, can't we just hope and pray bad people don't do bad things, because our world would be fantastic if bad people didn't exist. Problem solved!!! Crap. We wouldn't even need laws if people just used their brains and did the moral thing. But that would be ignoring human nature. /derp
You cannot show this to be true. Yes, yes, we know - ubermensch > untermensch This described almost perfectly the impetus behind the leftist push for more gun control - add 'irrational' before fear and you're there.. Nah. Didn't happen.
An unarmed brave man who stopped (past tense) a shooting would certainly not have wished he had a gun available! Guns are not toys. Shooting someone is not something that you would quickly forget. It's not like the movies where you see no blood
Strawman - no one has made this argument. Unsurprisingly, you deliberately mal-represent the pro-gun position.
Be that as it may, there are places in Canada where the murder rate is as high as the US. Canada is also sparsely populated, and sparsely populated areas have low homicide rates. Idaho has more guns than people, and 1/4th the homicide rate of the US as a whole.
Maybe @Robert would agree with me when I say that perhaps it is more accurate to say, more guns, less NON-GANG/ORGANISED CRIME RELATED crime. Also, your above "fact" talks about homocides, not crime. Not all crime ends in homicide. And using Robert's example, surely you can see how a gun would be useful for a woman who is facing a large male attacker who she has a snowflake's chance in hell at overcoming. How do you think you would go with your bare hands?
