Trump; "Good guy with gun woulda stopped shooting." ...Except They Couldn't

[Shiranu]

http://occupydemocrats.com/2016/06/13/trump-just-said-good-guy-gun-stopped/

In the wake of the Orlando massacre, gun-rights advocates and right-wingers are already screaming about how it was a “gun-free zone” and if only there had been a good guy with a gun, this wouldn’t have happened. Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump announced that “If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had.”
As usual, however, this line of reasoning is so divorced from reality they might as well be in Narnia.
Because there was a good guy with a gun. There was armed security at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, when Omar Meddique Mateen walked inside with an AR-15 assault rifle and a handgun. Not just armed security, but an off-duty police officer who “exchanged gunfire” with the shooter before he barricaded himself in a bathroom with hostages. Police were wary of storming the building out of fear for the innocents inside and the possibility that Mateen had a suicide vest or other possible explosives on his person.

Trump went on to say that “If you had guns in that room, if you had â€" even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy.” Ignoring the fact that this statement makes no logical sense and inherently contradicts itself (other direction right at him? which is it?) the idea that lives would have been saved by having people firing weapons randomly into a dark and crowded nightclub is utterly laughable.

And if “good guys with guns” really did save lives, why haven’t they done so in the past? USarmy veterans have said that the NRA’s “good guy with a gun” is a “dangerous fantasy.” In fact, an FBI analysis of 185 mass shootings over the past thirteen years found that a grand total of one was stopped by an armed civilian.

•The desire to have freedom of guns is more important than the desire to protect innocent people from being killed. Your "desires" are more important than actual human lives.
•The argument that having more guns will prevent tragedies is statistically a bold-faced lie.
•The only "valid" counterargument left at this point is "We are American and we are special idiots so gun control wouldn't work for us even though it has worked in literally every other country.". You know what? Maybe we should at least fucking try instead of just burying our head in the sand and pretending it cant be fixed so oh well... guess more innocent people have to die.
•The only arguments used are arguments pushed by organizations like the NRA and gun manufactures and idiots who think the Constitution is some infailable and unchangeable document. At the risk of sounding exactly like a theist arguing that statistics lie and their book is "the unchangeable truth"... gun favourists consistently ignore statistics on the dangers of gun proliferation, believe that statistics that worked for literally every other human wouldn't work for them because they are the "special, chosen people" and that their Holy Book (The Constitution) could never be wrong or misinterpreted (so long as it is interpreted in a way they agree with.

Tl;dr - Gun favourists are secretly Muslims.

[Baruch]

Agreed ... open carry nut cases have watched too much Gunsmoke.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

This kind of thing is pretty much what changed my overall opinion on this issue. Nothing short of a 100% armed populace is going to stop a massacre like this, and even then casualties are still a near guarantee. Not to mention that such a thing just isn't practical.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

[trdsf]

This is the masturbatorial revenge fantasy of the ammosexuals: that if someone (read: they) had been there with a gun, it wouldn't have happened.  And every statistic we have on mass murders like this gives that the lie.  It's just not true.

Not that I expect a truth to come out of Donnieboy's mouth, except by accident.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agreed ... open carry nut cases have watched too much Gunsmoke.

Open carry lets criminals know who to hit for a free gun.

[Hakurei Reimu]

This kind of thing is pretty much what changed my overall opinion on this issue. Nothing short of a 100% armed populace is going to stop a massacre like this, and even then casualties are still a near guarantee. Not to mention that such a thing just isn't practical.

Exactly. With that many guns in play, how does one tell who the real "bad guy" is? Unless you were paying attention from the beginning (and from experience, people don't), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the instigators and the ones who are shooting in self-defense. So who do you shoot at?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How many people have experience with close combat? Of those, how many people can be expected to react reliably and sensibly in a sudden combat situation?

I know how I'd bet. More guns makes things better, if you're in the mortuary business.

[stromboli]

Open carry lets criminals know who to hit for a free gun.

My sentiments exactly.

[Baruch]

Exactly. With that many guns in play, how does one tell who the real "bad guy" is? Unless you were paying attention from the beginning (and from experience, people don't), you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the instigators and the ones who are shooting in self-defense. So who do you shoot at?

Catholic Church figured this out centuries ago ... "kill them all, let G-d sort it out".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Catholic Church figured this out centuries ago ... "kill them all, let G-d sort it out".

The fucker who just call Graves Registration .

[widdershins]

•The desire to have freedom of guns is more important than the desire to protect innocent people from being killed. Your "desires" are more important than actual human lives.

This is exactly right.  You have to care more about yourself than you do human lives to be on the other side of this debate.

•The argument that having more guns will prevent tragedies is statistically a bold-faced lie.

Also exactly right.  EVEN IF there were a grain of truth in it AT BEST it would reduce the number of dead, not eliminate it, and there would certainly be cases where it increased the number of dead.  You can't tell "good guys" from "bad guys" in a room full of people shooting each other.

•The only "valid" counterargument left at this point is "We are American and we are special idiots so gun control wouldn't work for us even though it has worked in literally every other country.". You know what? Maybe we should at least fucking try instead of just burying our head in the sand and pretending it cant be fixed so oh well... guess more innocent people have to die.

I would call that the only "honest" argument.  I certainly wouldn't go as far as calling it "valid".

•The only arguments used are arguments pushed by organizations like the NRA and gun manufactures and idiots who think the Constitution is some infailable and unchangeable document. At the risk of sounding exactly like a theist arguing that statistics lie and their book is "the unchangeable truth"... gun favourists consistently ignore statistics on the dangers of gun proliferation, believe that statistics that worked for literally every other human wouldn't work for them because they are the "special, chosen people" and that their Holy Book (The Constitution) could never be wrong or misinterpreted (so long as it is interpreted in a way they agree with.

These people don't know or care what the Constitution says.  All they know and care is that they believe it to say that they have unrestricted access to whatever the fuck guns they want.  These people are Zimmermans.  They have a hardon for being a hero, but really they're just out to shoot someone to make their dicks feel bigger.  There is the occasional "normal" one, but for the most part this isn't the most mentally stable group in the country.  They often have extreme (usually VERY right leaning) political views and view the government with suspicion.  They're often the type of people that after talking to then you think to yourself, "Fuck!  THAT guy is carrying a gun??!"

The REALITY is that you MAY save SOME lives if the "good guys" carried guns, but you would not stop mass shootings.  The death toll MAY go down, but the bad guy still has to open fire and start killing people before you can identify him as a bad guy.  It would not "stop" mass shootings.  AT BEST it would cut them short.  But statistically you are 2.7 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member than an intruder, and that's not even taking into account the gun the intruder brought, the gang shootings, the random violence, the OTHER innocent people you may shoot who are not family or yourself, the random idiot like the lady in the Wal Mart parking lot shooting at an unarmed shoplifter, road rage incidents or even a guess at how many innocents may be killed as a result of "good guys with guns" like George Zimmerman, who very much saw himself as a "good guy with a gun" which he then used to kill an innocent teen.  2.7 times is the tip of the iceberg.

So let's take a look at some of their arguments and analyze them:

If you make guns criminal only criminals will have guns.
True.  Absolutely true.  But if guns were criminalized there would be far FEWER guns.  They would be a lot more EXPENSIVE and harder to replace when they were taken off the street.  The idea here is that you wouldn't be able to defend yourself because every criminal would have a gun and it would be anarchy.  THIS is absolutely false.  Most low-level criminals would be unable to obtain a gun, so while the statement is true, the implications of the statement are categorically false.

The Constitution gives me the RIGHT to own guns.
Again, true.  The AMENDED Constitution does give you the right to bear arms, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of the state...."  In the modern world the "militia" is "regulated" by something we call the "draft".  We don't use militia any more so the REASON for the Second Amendment no longer exists, not to mention that groups like the NRA vehemently fight the "regulated" part tooth and nail.

The answer to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.
FALSE!  The answer to bad guys with guns is to take their guns.  If this reasoning were accurate we wouldn't care that North Korea is building nukes because the "answer" to that would be that we have nukes, which we already do.  It shouldn't be a problem, BUT IT IS!  Why?  Because bad guys with weapons might USE those weapons and you don't get people un-killed by using yours right back!  Given a choice between "justice" and "prevention", which is the better choice when considering murder?  According to this statement, "justice" is more important than "prevention".

Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.
Psychobabble bullshit without meaning.  People WITH GUNS kill MORE people than people "without guns".  Besides that it is a categorically FALSE statement.  There are cases of gun malfunctions where the GUN, NOT A PERSON killed a person.  Malfunctions happen.  Misfires happen.  Through no fault of a human being it is very much possible for a gun to kill a person and it HAS HAPPENED.

If a person really wants to kill someone it won't matter if they don't have a gun.  They'll just use a knife instead.
True.  If a person really wants to kill someONE, they will find another way.  But to see what is fucked up about this, name 100 instances where an individual killed one or more people WITHOUT a gun.  Add up the death toll.  We're talking one individual murdering others forcefully here, not Jonestown cult shit.  Now start naming the instances where an individual killed one or more people WITH a gun and see how many you can name before you SURPASS that death toll.  I bet that if you took the BEST CASE scenarios for murder without a gun you could STILL surpass the death toll in 100 cases NOT involving guns in fewer than 5 cases which DID involve guns.  Removing guns from the picture will not stop murder.  It will, however, VASTLY reduce the death toll.

If you have a gun for self defense you are better able to protect yourself.
Yes, but then we go back to that "2.7 times more likely to kill yourself or a family member" thing.  You're also better able and MORE LIKELY to kill yourself or a family member.

I'm sure there are other arguments and I'm sure they're equally bathed in dipshiterry, but I can't think of any right now

[TomFoolery]

I don't know how any rational person can think having guns in a club where people get drunk and dance is a good idea.

One of my Army friends has been going through a series of horrible family tragedies that started about two months ago. She has two younger brothers and they were drinking (at home) and playing some video game, and one playfully pointed a handgun at the other and accidentally shot him in the head. Thankfully it was a grazing wound that caught him in the temple and he lived (though from the sound of it, it's going to take him years to recover and he most likely will never recover fully).

Anyway, the brother felt so guilty he committed suicide. Now my friend has one brother who can barely walk or talk and one who is dead. Because of guns.

What I find most interesting is my friend was the sort of person who always gave the pro-gun party lines. You know:
- good guys need guns to stop bad guys with guns
- don't take guns away from responsible gun owners

But isn't that just it? EVERYONE thinks they're responsible, and it's always other people who are idiots. Think about it: when you're driving, anyone who goes slower than you is a dumbass and anyone who goes faster than you is a maniac, but YOU, you're responsible. No one ever admits to tailgating, speeding, accelerating through yellow lights, cuttting people off, or brake checking. But it happens all the time, and I guarantee the people who do it think they're great drivers. Gun safety isn't that different. 

My friend's brothers grew up in gun-toting households and had all the training and were supposedly raised with the proper respect for guns, just like she was. Then they got drunk and look what happened. But of course, that kind of thing only happens to other people. Until it happens to you or someone you know.
http://www.unionleader.com/Goffstown-man-21-hospitalized-with-gunshot-wound-older-brother-held
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20160528/NEWHAMPSHIRE1409/160529314/-1/mobile&template=mobileart

What I find interesting is that even after what happened to her family, my friend continues to insist guns are safe in the right hands. Ain't no such thing as the "right hands," just varying degrees of "acceptable hands" and "bad hands."

[Flanker1Six]

Some of you seem rather excitable...........................maybe you shouldn't own or handle guns?   (Flanker ducks quickly to avoid objects thrown by easily excitable lefties!).  .)   

Seriously....................to categorically state guns at the night club would have, or would not have helped or hurt is bootless theorizing at best.  We'll never know.   In the interest of transparency; that seems to be such a fashionable buzz word nowadays (I'll try and work in proactive and synergistic later); I'm a Life NRA Member, former ERT Commander, fire arms, chemical agents, disturbance control, and critical/hostage incident management instructor, plus two of my overseas years were armed and lurid...............I'm not unbiased on the topic of guns, armed carry etc.

I lived and worked in Israel from June '04 until Mar '06; when I got there it was at the tail end of the second Intifada.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada

As you may have heard there was some fairly serious political, cultural, and religious disagreements between the Israelis and various Palestinian factions.
While I was there I lived in the secular, very urban area of W. Jerusalem.  Many of the business I frequented, or bus stops I passed by had been the sites of multi fatality bombings.  Casualties amongst the aggrieved Palestinian groups had been heavy as well.  There were tens of thousands of Israeli Palestinian citizens present in Israel, and thousands more who entered daily with a work permit from the W. Bank via many check points.

Virtually every business in Israeli controlled areas; featured an armed door person (hand gun or micro Uzi), and they usually had expandable batons and/or chemical agents; who wanded you (metal detector) and/or had walk through detectors at larger venues, and inspected bags etc (many business did not allow any bags/backpacks). Some licensed staff in some businesses were also armed. Armed patrons in bars were an absolute no no, and would get anyone caught arrested and charged.   Armed police presence was VERY HEAVY every where, and featured searches of all kinds for targeted demographics.  I routinely carried a large tactical folder (4" blade) or an expandable baton--I was never hasseled by Israeli State or private security for carrying them. 

It worked well, but I would not want to see it in the US.  There was a lot of inconvenient shit that went with it.  Part of the reason it worked was the mind set, training, and security consciousness of the Israelis.  None of that exists in the US.

Orlando:  Those of you who negatively commented about guns in bars are absolutely correct.  Intoxicants and guns NEVER mix well.  The attack commenced at 2AM or later------referring back to my bar prowling days; I'm going to guess most of the patrons were what is technically called shit faced.
Having them armed would almost certainly have increased the casualty count.  Armed screeners (along with the metal detection stuff), and sober armed staff would likely have made Shithead pick a different; softer target.  He was looking to kill; not fight.  In the end; I think those things would have prevented the night club attack.............but, maybe not.  There is very little certainty in life.  As a side note: Given the number of casualties Shithead
inflicted.............he had to reload several times; I'm think one or several patrons (if they'd been less cowed) could have rushed and subdued the fuck during the reload, even if Shithead was pretty quick about it.  There again.................we'll never know. 

There is one thing that would have absolutely prevented the attack...................his wife narcing on his dumb ass.  She knew what he was planning, and did nothing.  No different than if she had helped pull the trigger.  If and when all the facts come out................I'll predict one or more of his family i.e. Father, Mother etc) knew it was coming.  Sound like San Bernadino?  Where the neighbor watched for weeks, and said nothing; while suspicious activity took place in the killers garage. 

Long guns of all types (shotguns + rifles) make up less than 5% of annual US gun fatalities.   Pistolas account for the other 95%.  The assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004 accomplished this: 

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[27] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.

In case you're wondering......................I own two hand guns.  A small carry pistol in .45 auto, and a full size 10mm for uninvited guests at home.  I've only owned one rifle in my life; an AR15 variant I bought just before the '94 weapons ban went into effect.  The ******* thing sat around in my closet collecting dust for years,  and I ended up selling it to a coworker----turned it into a new set of tires for my car. 



 

[Unbeliever]

Agreed ... open carry nut cases have watched too much Gunsmoke.

Yeah, they should've watched the Rifleman instead. He was much more wise than Dillon.

[GSOgymrat]

Trump's response to the Orlando massacre convinced my husband not to vote for Trump.