Guns aren't useful in mass shooter situations?

[Loren Pechtel]

Several people on here have said that having a gun in a mass shooting situation won't help you.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/news..._XdB-qo33UyASUsaXJttvK94JDPNZfjglEbuJDLcJPkl0

33 events where an armed citizen was present--and in 25 of them they stopped the shooter. 6 more they reduced it. Of the two cases where they were of no benefit in one case they were the target and in the other they failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice.

Zero others harmed by their actions.

The reason we don't see more mass shooters stopped this way is that most of the time there is no armed civilian about.

 

[Rhea]

Is it your opinion that “concealedcarry.com” counted all he cases? Because I don;t see the two that were in the news just this year when a gun owner didn’t use their gun because they couldn’t figure out what was going on to decide or they felt it wasn’t safe.. I’m going to go with Cherry Picking for 800, Alex.

 

[Underseer]

https://www.sfgate.com/breakingnews...m-friendly-fire-in-Thousand-Oaks-13450142.php

Even with just cops with guns, they still have friendly fire incidents.

Do you think the chances of friendly fire goes up, or down in a mass shooting if random citizens also have guns?

Don't answer. The news already did.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/police-officer-shoots-security-guard-chicago.html

 

[Artemus]

I’m going to go with Cherry Picking for 800, Alex.

Not to mention the fact that most if not all of shootings wouldn't happen in the first place if we had rational guns laws like the rest of the first world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is it your opinion that “concealedcarry.com” counted all he cases? Because I don;t see the two that were in the news just this year when a gun owner didn’t use their gun because they couldn’t figure out what was going on to decide or they felt it wasn’t safe.. I’m going to go with Cherry Picking for 800, Alex.

But were they mass shootings? It's usually quite clear what's going on in one.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of the two cases where they were of no benefit in one case they were the target and in the other they failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice.

You have found two (out of 33) cases where it wasn't useful. Therefore by the logic of this forum, you have just proved that it is never useful. Sorry, but you undermined your own case that way and proved the opposite of what you intended.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Several people on here have said that having a gun in a mass shooting situation won't help you.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/news..._XdB-qo33UyASUsaXJttvK94JDPNZfjglEbuJDLcJPkl0

33 events where an armed citizen was present--and in 25 of them they stopped the shooter. 6 more they reduced it. Of the two cases where they were of no benefit in one case they were the target and in the other they failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice.

Zero others harmed by their actions.

The reason we don't see more mass shooters stopped this way is that most of the time there is no armed civilian about.

Without reading the rest of the responses I am going to agree with you.

However, if more people carry firearms more people are going to die from firearms. If the shooters don't have firearms because they are difficult to obtain you won't have mass shootings. And in the cases where you do people will die, but overall less people will die within the society by being shot to death.

 

[Bronzeage]

Several people on here have said that having a gun in a mass shooting situation won't help you.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/news..._XdB-qo33UyASUsaXJttvK94JDPNZfjglEbuJDLcJPkl0

33 events where an armed citizen was present--and in 25 of them they stopped the shooter. 6 more they reduced it. Of the two cases where they were of no benefit in one case they were the target and in the other they failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice.

Zero others harmed by their actions.

The reason we don't see more mass shooters stopped this way is that most of the time there is no armed civilian about.

I like that "failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice." That's Latin for "shot in the back."

 

[Rhea]

Of the two cases where they were of no benefit in one case they were the target and in the other they failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice.

You have found two (out of 33) cases where it wasn't useful. Therefore by the logic of this forum, you have just proved that it is never useful. Sorry, but you undermined your own case that way and proved the opposite of what you intended.

To me it just means, “not bothering to waste my time on ‘concealedcarry.com’ since it is obviously lying.”
Got anything from NIH?

- - - Updated - - -

Is it your opinion that “concealedcarry.com” counted all he cases? Because I don;t see the two that were in the news just this year when a gun owner didn’t use their gun because they couldn’t figure out what was going on to decide or they felt it wasn’t safe.. I’m going to go with Cherry Picking for 800, Alex.

But were they mass shootings? It's usually quite clear what's going on in one.

They stopped it and you still somehow “know” that it would have been a mass shooting? The fish that got away?

 

[ZiprHead]

Officer responding to mass shooting at Thousand Oaks bar was killed by friendly fire: authorities

 

[Rhea]

Officer responding to mass shooting at Thousand Oaks bar was killed by friendly fire: authorities

Wow, that is heartbreaking. I expect the patrol officer who shot the fatal shot will have a very very hard time recovering from that trauma.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Several people on here have said that having a gun in a mass shooting situation won't help you.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/news..._XdB-qo33UyASUsaXJttvK94JDPNZfjglEbuJDLcJPkl0

33 events where an armed citizen was present--and in 25 of them they stopped the shooter. 6 more they reduced it. Of the two cases where they were of no benefit in one case they were the target and in the other they failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice.

Zero others harmed by their actions.

The reason we don't see more mass shooters stopped this way is that most of the time there is no armed civilian about.

I like that "failed to realize the shooter had an accomplice." That's Latin for "shot in the back."

I don't know if it was the back but that's basically what happened. The guy was an idiot, there was no need to immediately engage (while the situation is considered a mass shooting it wasn't an active shooting incident when he acted), he went after the one he saw and didn't realize there were two.