So in one case, we are talking about an off-duty police officer, and in another about a volunteer security guard with law enforcement experience. I’m still looking for the case where a civilian, someone with no on or off-duty training or responsibility to protect, intervenes to prevent a mass shooting.
To be fair, I asked for anecdotes. I was curious to read about all of the incidents mentioned by the OP. If the OP was referring to incidents in which law enforcement personnel or people working security used their weapons to stop crimes, then there’s not much more to discuss. I fully support such people carrying guns, and expect them to be able to use them in the defense of themselves and others.
Hey, c’mon, we all know the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is . . . well . . . a good woman with a heart.
Do you ever wonder if mass shootings in gun free zones happen because citizens are disarmed?
No. The majority of mass shootings happen in places that are not gun free zones (a Navy yard, for example). I think they happen because some deeply disturbed individuals decide to take out their anger and frustration on others. I don’t think that the gun laws of the particular jurisdiction even enter the shooter’s mind.
You think the Navy yard was a place where people should carry?
If this was a motivating factor for mass shooters, I’d think a significant number would be crossing the border into Canada, no?
No. Canada protects their borders.
That’s your response, seriously? Have you ever actually crossed the U.S./Canada border?
Wow you’re nuts.
It’s fuckwits like you that need to be disarmed post-haste. Your reflexive parroting of whatever the NRA tells you will be the death of the 2nd Amendment. You ARE the evil that must be defended against.
That, and you have a tiny dick. Live long enough to regret it.
Hunh, made to 59 years today, and I’ve never had to point a gun at anyone. Just lucky, I guess.
Anyway, in a likely pointless effort to suss out exactly what the OP is claiming, I suggest the following:
Premise 1: Mass shootings occur more often in areas with heavily-regulated gun ownership.
Premise 2: Mass shootings happen everywhere consistently, but are worse in areas with heavily-regulated gun ownership because there are no armed civilians to stop shooters.
Premise 3: People who are contemplating a mass shooting (or some percentage of them) take local gun laws into account when planning their attacks and travel accordingly.
Am I getting close?
Who exactly are you saying this to? Who are the gun grabbers? People here who advocate for gun control?
A 70-yo packing heat could easily be more of a public danger than the career criminals, who even hopped up on drugs are at least more likely to hit what they think they’re shooting at than to hit something/somebody else.
That Navy yard was pretty much a “gun free zone”. Military bases mostly are.
The OP is an excellent example of the sublime beauty of Poe’s Law.
So the Navy is a gun grabber? They don’t want just anyone running around with guns on their facilities?
I’ll defer to the Navy on this one. I understand they are rather experienced with weapons and people.
BTW, I should have said “US military bases mostly are”. I know in Israel, for example, all soldiers are armed, on base and off. I wonder why the difference. US military authorities do not trust the military personnel to handle their weapons responsibly?
It’s depressing, but often true: the worst enemies of our rights aren’t the ostensible opponents of those rights, but the supporters who lack balance, proportion, and moderation.
It’s true of free speech; it’s true of marijuana decriminalization; it’s true of immigration reform; it’s true of both sides of the abortion issue. Extremism leads to bad legislation, usually in an oppositely-directed reaction.