That was an “armed civilian response”?
Unless that toddler was military, yup.
Which is my point: you don’t get to limit scenarios to ones in which the civilian was attempting to kill a shooter, unless you want guns to magically appear in civilians’ hands in the presence of a shooter. In order for civilians to be armed when there’s a shooter, they also have to be armed when there’s not a shooter, and the benefit of having guns around when there’s a shooter has to be weighed against all the injuries and fatalities caused by armed civilians.
Of course, this one doesn’t count, because no one was injured:
I will let you know I have 11 pages of google results to sort through, and I’m only on page 2. But I’m sure there aren’t any more.
Moving goalposts galore. Originally gave you mass shooter situations where armed civilians intervened. You are going for just regular criminal acts? I can easily give you dozens of situations where armed civilians confronted criminals and prevented crimes.
Actually, he does get to decide which specific scenario he wants to discuss. You can attempt to shift the boundaries, like you did with the quoted post above, but nobody is obligated to play by your rules. This thread was about one specific scenario and it’d be tits if it stayed on that scenario. Do you really have any new thoughts to bring to the 11 billionth general guns thread?
Fair enough.
Stand-Your-Ground Defendant Shot at Moving Car, Kills Innocent Teenager Across the Street
Do you believe these cases are rare?
I believe there are a lot (and I mean many times) more cases where armed civilians prevented crime and stopped/killed criminals. Want some? And by the way, the case you gave me is not one where an armed civilian intervenes during a crime, is it? You’re really reaching.
Anecdote but the two times I would have needed a gun to defend myself, it wouldn’t have helped or been useful.
Once I was attacked from behind in public with others around that simply took off, I remember my vision going black on one side and waking up on the ground being kicked and then the assailants took off. I wouldn’t have even had time to draw if I had a gun. I can only guess they thought I’d drop the grocery bags I was carrying and they could grab them, but instead my hands locked up. Funny thing was it was a supposedly safe and wealthy area.
When did I agree to that restriction? Any time someone fires a gun in public, they endanger bystanders. Leave your guns at home.
He isn’t moving the goalposts. We are talking about people having guns in case there are armed shooters. Since we don’t know when there will be armed shooters you’d have to carry in all sorts of situations. Any situations in which the gun is carried in an effort to preempting a shooting is relevant. There are no “in case of shooters break glass” guns.
Right here:
“Which is why I vote to take away your right to carry. Most of the hostages were rescued; not so much if someone with a gun tries to play hero.”
Bullshit. All that means is when concealed carry citizens intervene in any armed crime, they put bystanders at risk. It certainly doesn’t limit my examples to kosher delis in France.
Where else are you going to get a hero sandwich?
<golf clap>
No. But it limits it to cases where armed civilians intervene in armed crime. And the case you cited wasn’t relevant.
So name some that are.
I’ve seen one of those types of video, and it was a POS. They showed some asshole taking about 30 minutes (hyperbole) to get his gun, and, of course, the result was that people shouldn’t have guns. Um-hmm. Surprise, surprise.
I think that they best real scenario would be the one in a local town, where one of the locals shot somebody who was wreaking terror on the offices. One victim, and one asshole dead.
Sorry, the concealed citizens ARE the bystanders. They are also the victims.
Apparently, they are less prone to kill the innocent ones than a cop. Wasn’t there some deal about 5 years ago when the SWAT team killed 6-12 people, and they were all non-assailants?
The citizens were armed; the criminals were armed; the victims were not; how does it not apply???
How is this post supposed to be interesting or the least bit non-obvious? Of course he’s not obligated to play by my rules. Of course he gets to decide what he wants to talk about. Of course I can attempt to shift the boundaries.