The reason why the "good guy with a gun" theory is losing credibility is because we haven't had the chance to put it to the test, at least not in regards to ordinary citizens with guns, not police or military. Despite what Trump said when he was running for presidency we've still got "gun free zones" where you can't bring guns whether you've got a carry permit or not. So we don't have more and more good people armed, at least not in the gun free zones. And besides if good people with guns aren't effective at stopping bad people with guns than why do police officers carry guns? After all its a police officer's job to stop bad people. But, and I speak from experience, its not just about having a gun its about having good training. I would say perhaps ninety five percent of the gun owners in the USA have poor to none firearms training and this includes lots of people who carry and use guns to make a living, people such as police officers and soldiers. Lots of people will buy a gun, buy some bullets, shoot maybe a box of ammo at the range, and then stash it in their closet where it collects dust and think they're all set and that they can effectively use their gun to protect themselves and/or others. So the thing to do is to get a gun that you think you can learn to use well and to get the training so you can use it well. We mustn't give up and let these losers who like to shoot innocent people have their way with us. I call them losers not monsters because as President Trump said, they want to be called monsters. To say that these attacks will only get worse despite all the armed people if you ask me that is a defeatist attitude. Take for instance the Southerland Springs shooting, the shooter was stopped by a good person with a gun and had he not been stopped he probably would've killed more people. If the attacks are getting worse than that is all the more reason why we should work harder and be more prepared. Get guns and get the training.
Mass Shooting In New Zealand
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
- Status
Aguila Blanca
Staff
There are examples of the good guy (or gal) with a gun.
New Life Church shooting in Colorado. Good gal Jeanne Assam stopped it.
Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City, UT. Good guy Kenneth Hammond engaged the shooter and pinned him down until the police could arrive and finish the job.
On a smaller scale, there was a case several years ago of a convenience store robbery that was stopped by a good guy who was carrying a reproduction black powder six-gun.
It does happen, but the major media outlets try not to let the public know about it.
New Life Church shooting in Colorado. Good gal Jeanne Assam stopped it.
Trolley Square Mall shooting in Salt Lake City, UT. Good guy Kenneth Hammond engaged the shooter and pinned him down until the police could arrive and finish the job.
On a smaller scale, there was a case several years ago of a convenience store robbery that was stopped by a good guy who was carrying a reproduction black powder six-gun.
It does happen, but the major media outlets try not to let the public know about it.
Pretty good illustration of the real-world problems of the good guy with a gun premise.
1. The good guy was not actually on the scene; he had to run to the scene.
2. The good guy didn't really have a gun in the sense that most of us would think about having a gun in a situation like this. He had to get his gun out of his safe and load a magazine with loose rounds while running to the scene. He ended up engaging with one partially loaded magazine.
TX is pretty big on guns. So there are lots of folks carrying here, right? Well, let's look at the numbers.
4.7% of the population has a handgun license.
Of those people, based on my informal surveys of the many gun owners I know, fewer than 10% of them actually carry on their person with any regularity.
That means that fewer than 0.5% of the population is an "armed good guy" if we assume that all armed license holders are good guys.
In practical terms, if you're in a room of 200 people, there's a decent chance ONE person is carrying.
And, we know from Parkland, that even trained persons sometimes choose not to engage. That means even in a huge crowd of hundreds of persons there's a good chance that if there is someone armed, they will choose not to engage.
So the odds of someone being present, armed and willing to engage when one of these tragedies happens could be well over 500:1 against.
If we really want the "good guy with a gun" to be demonstrated when these tragedies occur, we need two things to happen.
1. Gun owners need to get licensed.
2. License holders need to carry ALL THE TIME when it's legal.
3. People who carry need to get enough training that they feel competent to engage a serious threat if the need arises.
4. People who carry and who feel competent to engage, need to carry a firearm that has some reasonable chance of being effective in these kinds of scenarios. The low-capacity belly gun that might make perfect sense for general self-defense is a terrible choice for engaging a shooter at distances of tens of yards as might be encountered in a large public building.
Until we see significant progress in achieving all 4 of those, we likely won't ever really get to put it to the test.
NZ prime minister warns firearm 'panic buyers' to wait before investing
Some highlights from the article.....
"Hours before Ardern’s appearance, the country’s biggest online auction site, TradeMe, banned semi-automatics and “associated” accessories, saying “it is clear public sentiment has changed”.
"On Monday, an 18-year-old man was charged with distributing a live stream of the mass shooting and was denied bail."
"She urged gun owners to hand in their weapons, and advised anyone considering buying a gun to wait a few days to get some certainty around the laws before investing."
"Gun control experts told the Guardian such weapons can be easily converted into a military-style semi-automatic rifle using a high-capacity magazine, the sale of which is not regulated in New Zealand."
"Reactions differed in the wake of the attack, at Christchurch firearms retailer Gun City panic-buying began. One customer, Rick, said on Sunday afternoon there was no reason for anyone to buy a semi-automatic besides “looking cool”. “They are far too strong for hunters, they will rip any animal to shreds,” said Rick, who hunts deer."
Full Story
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/christchurch-attack-jacinda-ardern-says-cabinet-has-agreed-in-principle-gun-reform
Some highlights from the article.....
"Hours before Ardern’s appearance, the country’s biggest online auction site, TradeMe, banned semi-automatics and “associated” accessories, saying “it is clear public sentiment has changed”.
"On Monday, an 18-year-old man was charged with distributing a live stream of the mass shooting and was denied bail."
"She urged gun owners to hand in their weapons, and advised anyone considering buying a gun to wait a few days to get some certainty around the laws before investing."
"Gun control experts told the Guardian such weapons can be easily converted into a military-style semi-automatic rifle using a high-capacity magazine, the sale of which is not regulated in New Zealand."
"Reactions differed in the wake of the attack, at Christchurch firearms retailer Gun City panic-buying began. One customer, Rick, said on Sunday afternoon there was no reason for anyone to buy a semi-automatic besides “looking cool”. “They are far too strong for hunters, they will rip any animal to shreds,” said Rick, who hunts deer."
Full Story
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/christchurch-attack-jacinda-ardern-says-cabinet-has-agreed-in-principle-gun-reform
Last edited:
they say.
If you want to continue to own guns, get everyone you know to vote.
The southerland springs shooter wasn’t engaged until he was departing. People stopping robbers don’t really count as this topic goes. I don’t know enough about the mall shooting mentioned to really comment on it, but that’s one instance per many mass shootings that weren’t stopped.
rickyrick said:
I curious about the scrutiny afforded the idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.
Why wouldn't the Sutherland Springs incident count? Do we imagine that the wrong doer would have proceeded peacefully after his crime?
If a robber is a bad guy with a gun who is stopped, why doesn't that illustrate the utility of a good guy carrying a gun?
Doubt it, he was bunkered in the room with lotsa weapons and ammo..Only if they somehow stopped him when he was carting in his arsenal..but once in the room and set up..even a more immediate armed response, he would have still killed a lot of people at the concert.
Double Naught Spy
New member
It is strange when people consider themselves to be "sheepdogs" like it is supposed to be a good thing to the "sheep." Most have no clue as to what sheepdogs do or why. The sheepdogs are not there for the benefit of the sheep, but for the master. The sheep are held captive for the master under the watchful eye of the sheepdog where they are regularly pillaged for their wool and/or slaughtered for their meat. The sheepdog does protect them from the wolves, but solely in order that the sheep may continue to be exploited for the benefit of the master as they are held captive.
When a sheepdog turns on one or more of the sheep and kills it, and some do, it isn't the other sheepdogs that that stop it, but the master. It isn't the other sheepdogs that dole out punishment, but the master. The sheepdog is no friend to the sheep, despite being in a cute story recounted from an unnamed veteran by Dave Grossman in On Combat.
Instead, just be a concerned citizen active in the affairs of the community. It doesn't have a misrepresentative catchy name, but it is a noble cause.
To those who are iffy about a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun, you should come to Front Sight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfOqdpWAELE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfOqdpWAELE
Ok I’ll give in. The southerland shooter was stopped from murdering lots of people by a good guy with a gun.
How many other mass shootings have happened with no effective civilian intervention? We have more guns in the hands of good guys out on the street than ever was, but still the likelihood of a civilian with a gun preventing these tragedies from escalating is very low. I doubt that any of these will ever be stopped.
How many other mass shootings have happened with no effective civilian intervention? We have more guns in the hands of good guys out on the street than ever was, but still the likelihood of a civilian with a gun preventing these tragedies from escalating is very low. I doubt that any of these will ever be stopped.
RR, I saw both your responses, but only quoted part of one below. If that strikes you as unfair or leaving something unaddressed, please tell me and I will rectify it.
Clearly we've seen quite a few shootings without effective civilian or police intervention. We've also seen civilian intervention that is only marginally effective, perhaps in part because the civilian was unarmed.
I recall the "good guy with a gun" locution from Lapierre in response to a school shooting, a school at which no adult was armed. The phrase seems to observe the perversity of establishing zones in which low statistical probability that an armed civilian will be present into a probability that approached zero.
If I offered you a dish of M&Ms and assured you they are safe would you have some? Would your response change if I told you one of them might kill or cripple you?
Clearly we've seen quite a few shootings without effective civilian or police intervention. We've also seen civilian intervention that is only marginally effective, perhaps in part because the civilian was unarmed.
I recall the "good guy with a gun" locution from Lapierre in response to a school shooting, a school at which no adult was armed. The phrase seems to observe the perversity of establishing zones in which low statistical probability that an armed civilian will be present into a probability that approached zero.
If I offered you a dish of M&Ms and assured you they are safe would you have some? Would your response change if I told you one of them might kill or cripple you?
Well, you said the ONLY thing that would have stopped him
was an armed staff of some sort, I’m saying that would not have stopped him.
Private gun ownership is high, getting higher but still mass shootings will happen. Even if everybody in the room is armed, a guy busting thru the door with a rifle, is going to kill some(large number) if people. These guys are not deterred by being opposed, sometimes they relish it.
was an armed staff of some sort, I’m saying that would not have stopped him.
Private gun ownership is high, getting higher but still mass shootings will happen. Even if everybody in the room is armed, a guy busting thru the door with a rifle, is going to kill some(large number) if people. These guys are not deterred by being opposed, sometimes they relish it.
I think that if armed people are in a location such as a school or place of worship then yes, the chance of stopping a mass shooter is greatly increased.
I don’t see any efforts to consistently have armed individuals in those places, so we are still left with a random but still really low probability of a civilian stopping a shooting.
I’m for trained and armed persons at schools, worship places, malls and similar locations. The public is not open to armed personnel at these locations. I think the political climate will not allow armed persons at these locations... there is also a significant push to disarm police. Until something drastically changes... the good guy with a gun is just not going to be there in future events.
I don’t see any efforts to consistently have armed individuals in those places, so we are still left with a random but still really low probability of a civilian stopping a shooting.
I’m for trained and armed persons at schools, worship places, malls and similar locations. The public is not open to armed personnel at these locations. I think the political climate will not allow armed persons at these locations... there is also a significant push to disarm police. Until something drastically changes... the good guy with a gun is just not going to be there in future events.
I'd like to point out that a "good guy with a gun" INCLUDES THE POLICE!!
And armed citizens, and off duty police.
The reason you don't see many (any, really) of these shootings stopped before they start is simple. The attacker(s) ALWAYS have the advantage of complete surprise. Literally, no one but the killer knows what is going to happen until the shooting starts.
Then, you have to have a good guy with a gun THERE, in a position to respond, and then, they have to respond, effectively.
Even though there are "more guns carried today" than ever before, the odds of someone having one at the right time and location to respond to a shooter is extremely small,
And if those tiny odds are beaten, and there is someone armed who could respond, they have to actually respond, AND then that response has to be effective. And NONE of that can happen until there is something to respond to...
SO, you can't stop these things before the shooting starts, and then, in effect, there has to be multiple "lottery wins" for an armed citizen to stop the attack. The police are in the same position, but a bit better off, as they are "they" and not "you". Responding in numbers, with some idea of the situation gives those "good guys" better odds than the single armed individual, civilian or (off duty) police.
There have been instances of single armed responders stopping mass shooters before the police force did. There have also been failures. Someone (usually the police) has stopped almost every one of them, eventually. And this includes those killers who killed themselves, when someone (not always the police) frustrated their plan.
There has been one, perhaps more, where the shooter wasn't stopped at all, and finished their attack, THEN got stopped afterwards.
No one in New Zealand legally buys a gun with out police approval. Unless there is some kind of massive breakdown in the system, no one who is considered at threat (at the time of investigation) get approved.
Time after time we see these killers pass every required test, EXACTLY THE SAME as the rest of us, and then, later go on a killing rampage. BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO!
The mind of man is as trackless as a bog at midnight...
No one knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and the Shadow isn't telling...
I hear this over and over, "the killer bought his guns legally!!!" and the response is to ban certain guns, and make buying any guns more difficult.
Never once do I hear how the killer wasn't a killer, or any kind of recognizable threat when they bought their guns. They were the same as the rest of us, citizens with legal rights who had committed no crimes.
And armed citizens, and off duty police.
The reason you don't see many (any, really) of these shootings stopped before they start is simple. The attacker(s) ALWAYS have the advantage of complete surprise. Literally, no one but the killer knows what is going to happen until the shooting starts.
Then, you have to have a good guy with a gun THERE, in a position to respond, and then, they have to respond, effectively.
Even though there are "more guns carried today" than ever before, the odds of someone having one at the right time and location to respond to a shooter is extremely small,
And if those tiny odds are beaten, and there is someone armed who could respond, they have to actually respond, AND then that response has to be effective. And NONE of that can happen until there is something to respond to...
SO, you can't stop these things before the shooting starts, and then, in effect, there has to be multiple "lottery wins" for an armed citizen to stop the attack. The police are in the same position, but a bit better off, as they are "they" and not "you". Responding in numbers, with some idea of the situation gives those "good guys" better odds than the single armed individual, civilian or (off duty) police.
There have been instances of single armed responders stopping mass shooters before the police force did. There have also been failures. Someone (usually the police) has stopped almost every one of them, eventually. And this includes those killers who killed themselves, when someone (not always the police) frustrated their plan.
There has been one, perhaps more, where the shooter wasn't stopped at all, and finished their attack, THEN got stopped afterwards.
No one in New Zealand legally buys a gun with out police approval. Unless there is some kind of massive breakdown in the system, no one who is considered at threat (at the time of investigation) get approved.
Time after time we see these killers pass every required test, EXACTLY THE SAME as the rest of us, and then, later go on a killing rampage. BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO!
The mind of man is as trackless as a bog at midnight...
No one knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, and the Shadow isn't telling...
I hear this over and over, "the killer bought his guns legally!!!" and the response is to ban certain guns, and make buying any guns more difficult.
Never once do I hear how the killer wasn't a killer, or any kind of recognizable threat when they bought their guns. They were the same as the rest of us, citizens with legal rights who had committed no crimes.
There are some shooters who are even bold enough to shoot up police stations, but they don't last long. There was a case of a shooter at a Detroit police station, the only death was that of the shooter when the police returned fire. Had the shooter targeted a place where people usually don't carry guns such as a school or a church or a mall there would've probably been lots of innocent people killed but since he targeted a police station there were zero innocent people killed.
- Status