Good guy with a gun saved lives at second NZ mosque.

Discussion in 'Australia' started by justoffal, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. sparky
    Offline

    sparky Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,034
    Thanks Received:
    1,193
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    paradise
    Ratings:
    +5,633
    a good guy w/gun?

    any way they can do lunch with bad guys w/gun?


    ~S~
     
  2. Brain357
    Online

    Brain357 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Messages:
    29,517
    Thanks Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +7,591
    Seems this story is mostly right wing imagination.
    Brother hails NZ mosque victim 'hero'

    At the other mosque attacked, in Linwood, a similar intervention occurred.

    Abdul Aziz says he ran towards the gunman outside the mosque, throwing a credit card machine at him.

    In the ensuing chase, the gunman dropped one of his weapons and went to fetch more from his car, when Mr Aziz tossed the gun towards him, smashing the car window.

    The gunman then drove off and was arrested moments later.

    Officials in New Zealand are now carrying out the difficult task of identifying those who died. They have shared a list of victims with families, but not released it publicly.
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    52,424
    Thanks Received:
    10,954
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +37,398
    ‘Good guy with a gun’ is a myth – it in no manner ‘justifies’ gun ownership or the carrying of concealed firearms.

    In the United States it’s a fundamental right to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, no ‘justification’ needed, such as the ‘good guy with a gun’ nonsense.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. grainbely
    Offline

    grainbely Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,480
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +751
    That wasnt even worth posting if you cant explain why you think they are apples and oranges. Seems you are trying to circle back to the idea that the solution is more armed people, but there are plenty of examples like the one I pointed out where it didnt do anything to stop the carnage. If the terrorist knows many are armed they can plan like the vegas shooter did to still do max carnage.

    I'm ok with concealed carry permits that require shooting and de-escalation training and a general competency test. I would only want near experts wielding guns like in the way people fantasize about. Maybe there is room for an official civil service type training and position to formalize the role of a trained concealed carrier. After all, a concealed carrier is basically saying they will go vigilante if it came to it and we dont want just any ho dunk cletus doing that off their own property. Bullets go everywhere. Handguns especially are very inaccurate even when handled by trained police officers.

    We do not want THE solution to be get more guns out there because each one is a statistical liability that jeopardizes more innocent people than it will likely ever save.
     
  5. justoffal
    Offline

    justoffal Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    5,395
    Thanks Received:
    685
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +4,291
    No there are not. There are plenty of examples where an armed citizen stopped the perpetrator and limited the damage. You will never stop the violence. You will also never convince sane people that their best defense is to be unarmed. You do it first asshole. Trot your pansy ass down a back street in Harlem at 1 am with no protection.I can smell your Akadeemiak white skin from a mile away and I can sense your condescending ignorance from a hemisphere away. A guy sets up with a scope and sights from 300 yards and you can't tell the difference? That would be because you choose to be obtuse.

    Jo
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
  6. grainbely
    Offline

    grainbely Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2017
    Messages:
    1,480
    Thanks Received:
    124
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +751
    Its like you didn't even read my post. You just see red and autistically screech when someone proves you wrong.

    I said I'm ok with cc. Read that 3 times to be sure. Better make it 4. I said the solution ain't more guns as proven by las vegas and other. You are looking for a false security blanket that wont save you from well planned evil.

    Do not mistake my words again for some sick fantasy you hold about your opposition.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  7. airplanemechanic
    Online

    airplanemechanic Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,908
    Thanks Received:
    1,572
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +7,841
    That's not true at all. I've seen the full raw 16 minute video. The guy walked in and shot up the place, went outside, reloaded, went back in and systematically shot any survivors and even the dead people. He then got into his car and drove to the second location where he blasted people through the window in his car. Nobody ever returned fire. This is fake news.

    Nobody threw a credit card machine at him or anything else. He just mowed people down.

    I can show you the video to prove it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,294
    Thanks Received:
    13,536
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +55,421

    Now imagine that he actually had his own gun, carried legally, he could have stopped the attack, and stopped the attacker from escaping.....

    And had the other Mosque had an armed citizen, that individual would have been 94% effective at stopping the attack cold.....and saving lives......

    At the second Mosque a man just throwing a gun drove off the attacker.....had he actually had a legal gun...with bullets.......lives could have been saved....

    Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

    Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

    Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.



    In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

    We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

    Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

    If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

    If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

    =====

    One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

    As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.
     
  9. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,294
    Thanks Received:
    13,536
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +55,421

    You just make things up.......

    Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

    Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

    Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.



    In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

    We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

    Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

    If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

    If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

    =====

    One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

    As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.
     
  10. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    74,294
    Thanks Received:
    13,536
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +55,421

    You don't know what you are talking about....


    Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events [FBI]

    Of all the active shooter events there were 33 at which an armed citizen was present. Of those, Armed Citizens were successful at stopping the Active shooter 75.8% of the time (25 incidents) and were successful in reducing the loss of life in an additional 18.2% (6) of incidents. In only 2 of the 33 incidents (6.1%) was the Armed Citizen(s) not helpful in any way in stopping the active shooter or reducing the loss of life.

    Thus the headline of our report that Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time At Active Shooter Events.



    In the 2 incidents at which the armed citizen “failed” to stop or slow the active shooter, one is the previously mentioned incident with hunters. The other is an incident in which the CCWer was shot in the back in a Las Vegas Walmart when he failed to identify that there were 2 Active Shooters involved in the attack. He neglected to identify the one that shot him in the back while he was trying to ambush the other perpetrator.

    We also decided to look at the breakdown of events that took place in gun free zones and the relative death toll from events in gun free zones vs non-gun-free zones.

    Of the 283 incidents in our data pool, we were unable to identify if the event took place in a gun-free zone in a large number (41%) of the events. Most of the events took place at a business, church, home, or other places at which as a rule of law it is not a gun free zone but potentially could have been declared one by the property owner. Without any information in the FBI study or any indication one way or the other from the news reports, we have indicated that event with a question mark.

    If you look at all of the Active Shooter events (pie chart on the top) you see that for those which we have the information, almost twice as many took place in gun free zones than not; but realistically the vast majority of those for which we have no information (indicated as ?) are probably NOT gun free zones.

    If you isolate just the events at which 8 or more people were killed the data paints a different picture (pie chart on the bottom). In these incidents, 77.8% took place in a gun-free zone suggesting that gun free zones lead to a higher death rate vs active shooter events in general

    =====

    One of the final metrics we thought was important to consider is the potential tendency for armed citizens to injure or kill innocent people in their attempt to “save the day.” A common point in political discussions is to point out the lack of training of most armed citizens and the decrease in safety inherent in their presence during violent encounters.

    As you can see below, however, at the 33 incidents at which Armed Citizens were present, there were zero situations at which the Armed Citizen injured or killed an innocent person. It never happened.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page