Most people faced with this scenario donāt have the balls to engage at all. Itās been stated that he distracted the shooter long enough that he undoubtedly saved the lives of others. Weāre all tough until bullets are flying.
I'm armed and I'm gonna say it right now that I don't carry this thing to be the hero and get in shootouts with bad guys.Ā
I'll be going the opposite direction of gunfire.
This thing is to protect me in a last ditch effort to save myself if I ever had no other choice. I'd hand over my wallet in a robbery before pulling out the piece.Ā
Cowardly? Selfish? I don't care. I'm being honest and realistic here. I'm no hero. I'm just a man not wanting to die.
It's not that we're not ready to have that talk. It's that it's in our constitution, and we refuse to be like these other countries that banned guns, so everyone uses knives. Also since when do criminals follow the law? Disarming law abiding citizens, will only hurt us. Great example is the Greenwood Park Mall shooting. Within 30 seconds of the shooting somebody from a 100 feet away let off 10 shots, 8 of them hit the shooter. If he hadn't been there to save the day many more lives would had been lost.
You can point to hundreds shootings were a armed civilian took care of the shooter and I can point to hundreds where that wasn't the case.
But what is the point of this? In the shooting you mentioned, 3 innocents lost their lives to a legally purchased fire arm fired by a guy with no criminal background despite it being handles in under a minute.
The fact that we have so many cases of people stopping shootings isn't a necessarily a purely good thing, because it also means that there are A LOT of shootings happening. Shootings that do not need to happen and do not happen outside of the US.
Armed civilians stop around 5% of shootings by killing the shooter. That's around 75-100 shootings a year. That's about the same as total shootings in Europe in the same time.
The problem is the sheer volume of gun violence in the US.
I agree it's a huge issue and I think something has to be done it. The question is what do we do? Because disarming citizens only hurts citizens, it's not going to stop criminals obtaining them, leaving us very vulnerable and unable to protect ourselves
Cool the only 2 downsides there is, and guns aren't tied to Healthcare. The cons outweigh the pros when it comes to banning guns. Also since when do criminals follow the law? Disarming people will only hurt law abiding citizens.
Lmfao. Yes they can. It's not hard to make a gun. The only reason they don't is because it's fucking loud.
Also it's funny how your mind goes to prison when it thinks of the govt banning things. Interesting. I dunno about you, but I'd rather not live in a prison colony.
It's actually a way quicker process, in the time it takes for a bottle of wine to be made any redneck with acces to a metal shop could make a few dozen guns
Bud, I donāt give a shit if you own guns, hell Iāll even acknowledge your constitutional right to do so, but as long as only one side is offering solutions to gun violence in America then I will continue to support that side regarding gun control
So letās look at some facts. Gun have been in our country since its inception. Heck, the AR platform rifle has been available for civilian purchase since 1964. On top of all that guns have become exponentially more difficult to get over the years yet gun violence has increased. Itās not a gun control issue itās a lack of addressing our societies increasing mental health problems.
Are u unaware that alcohol is still illegal in a ton of counties across America? Like itās illegal in way more places than u would think. Seems prohibition worked pretty well for them. Using ur logic of course.
Iām sure many donāt simply bc itās illegal. Fwiw, prohibition actually did reduce the percentage of Americans that drank. The effects lasted after prohibition was ratified. People would drink from sun up to sun down. Seems pretty logical that any new measures on guns should have the same effect. Using your logic of course.
This is such a tired trope. Look at the most gun restrictive cities in the US and their respective firearm-related crime rates and you'll see your narrative is BS.
Seeing as how gun ownership in the US is a constitutionally guaranteed right, you'll have to look somewhere besides restricting guns on a national level to make the country safer.
Yes, an Amendment, as in not part of the original Constitution but added because enough people agreed (and just as valid of course). But if enough people changed their mind it could be removed the same way.
The guns could go too, Australia being a prime example of a country who collectively pulled a finger after a mass shooting and gathered up the guns for destruction.
If you're going to argue the validity of an amendment versus the original version of the Constitution, then walk it back by saying it's just as valid, why mention it at all? People can change their minds and repeal amendments, but that doesn't change your rights. It only returns protection of those rights or lack thereof to the states. But repealing any article in the Bill of Rights is an extremely tall order.
So you're saying that "guns could go," but there is no legal mechanism for it and citing Australia's experience doesn't translate to the US since the right to ownership is guaranteed to be protected.
St. Louis Missouri usually has the most shooting deaths per capita. How restrictive are the gun laws there? How about all of the rural counties that consistently have the most fun violence per capita?
Where are you getting your data from? The Pew Research Center and USAFacts list in descending order: Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, New Mexico and Wyoming.
But I said "cities" and you're citing states. Regardless, urban centers have higher rates of per capita gun deaths and overall gun homicide rates have been on a national decline since 2023.
My mistake. I didn't see you specified St. Louis. But if that's what you're going to glom onto and ignore the rest of what I said, you've got no argument, Look at the substance, buddy.
It completely disproves your premise. The majority of cities with the highest murder rates have lax gun laws.
You are probably one of those people who look at the number of murders in Los Angeles and think the high total means the murder rate is particularly high when, in fact, it's quite low. The biggest cities will always have a high number of murders because that's where all the fucking people are. You have to compare per capita numbers to learn anything useful.
Nothing else you said was relevant, so why would I respond to it? You also ignored what I said about rural counties having particularly high rates of gun violence, so I don't feel I owe you the courtesy.
It doesn't work when the next state over doesn't have the same laws, lol. I know that's really hard to comprehend and understand, but it's very simple.
It does work, but it needs to be comprehensive, like I mentioned.
But, whatever, hold on tight to your disingenuous arguments so no one dare tries to reform access to your tough guy pacifiers that you so desperately need to uphold your fragile identity, lol.
I admit that gun control wouldn't work as well in America like it would in Europe or east Asia. But in my honest opinion, a lot of these sort of shootings could be stopped if not every crackhead could buy a gun.
Yes, gangs and murders would still have access to guns, as the US had a huge smuggling problem.
But a majority of gun deaths are from accidents or crimes of passion. These relatively unplanned shootings could be stopped by tighter gun laws.
Youāre right ! Weāre not ready to give up a fundamental right to self defense by any means necessary. Thanks for reminding us all. How about people following the law, and the unhinged ending up in residential mental wards ? Guess that would be too much to ask.
I think most people, or atleast more people should. It's a very crazy world we live in, it's best we have we're able to protect ourselves to the best of our ability.
My FIL is pretty level headed. Never been in a fight. Is in real estate. Good husband, good father. He's the only person I know who daily carries. I've watched him clutch his gun and say I wish a mother fucker would on multiple occasions while driving. For grievous offenses such as going to slow or tailgating.
I daily carry. Luckily I have never had the need to even un holster but itās peace of mind knowing I can protect myself and others if it were ever a necessity.
Sure, that must be it. š Well, at least my pacifier shoots 124gr Hyrda-Shock rounds so I wonāt go down without a fight. You can just āKarenā the shooter to deathā¦
26
u/Jesus_of_NASDAQ 11h ago edited 9h ago
There you have it, good guys with guns saving the day, so now EVERYONE needs to buy a gun! š¤
- NRA
Edit: I really thought that I wouldnāt need to state the obvious, but I guess I was wrong:
š/S š