Glenn Beck (of all people) dismantles the gun control argument

[beagle9]

There are no gun control “arguments”, only an irrational fear of guns manifested as suggested policies.

Unless you take into account all the problems countries with gun control don't have. Like mass shootings, road rage shootings, cop killings, cops killing people, toddlers shooting people.... Then it is clear too many guns is a big problem.

Homicide rates and vectors remain unaffected in those nations before and after gun control measures were passed there making those problem not a case of gun control measures but of culture.

Those nations put the brakes on guns before they got out of control. Ownership never reached the insane levels we have here.

. The ownership rates on guns here date back forever in this nation, and the crime rates have fluctuated throughout time as well in this nation. What we need to do is to look at cultural decay's, trends, family destruction, infiltration by foriegn enemies, infiltration by domestic enemies across cultural and moral boundaries, the radicalization of citizens in vacuums created where leadership fails, and disrespect replaces decency and morality.

The guns are there to protect ourselves against the decay set in motion by many factors involved, and yes guns can end up in the hands of the bad guy's sure, but it's the price we all pay for our ability to hold on to our security against anyone attempting to steal our country, our liberty, our lives, and our pursuit of happiness.

 

[rightwinger]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

So I watched the entire thing. -
-First argument: more guns bring more crime.
Beck here first has to establish that liberals equate more guns to more crime, something he fails to do. More importantly he tries to establish that although the amount of guns per capita rose the murder rate went down, as a prove that the argument is bogus. Most gun owners have more then one gun and quite a few have substantially more so per capita doesn't necessarily mean that more people own guns but can just as easily be explained that those people who like guns expanded there arsenal. So although I won't contest the numbers using a single stat as a prove of something can be terribly misleading. I also want to point out that the gun fatalities in the US are insanely high even now the murder rate went down.Three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns in the US
-Second argument: It's all the NRA's fault.
In your clip I see no clear argument against that statement.
-Third argument: Assault weapons should be banned.
Here he tries a few different arguments. First he tries to equate military style carbines with high muzzle velocity, large capacity clips to handguns. Handguns even semi automatic ones don't have the same range nor accuracy, or killing potential. Then he tries to make an appeal to emotions by stating that six shooters won't be able to protect is daughter from rape. How is the speed of loading is crucial to preventing it? Or you have your gun loaded or it is useless to begin with. The third argument is that computers can print weapons so banning it is useless. How many people you know have a 3-d printer laying around?
-Fourth argument: Gun control has worked in different countries.
Again no counter argument was presented.
Can you please explain how Beck dismantled the gun control advocates arguments again?

Can't help someone who has preconceived biases coming in. You essentially asserted that mass shootings are the NRA's fault without presenting your own case. This basically invalidates your entire premise.

He never mentioned the NRA

 

[rightwinger]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

Why did you make me watch that?

Same old shit....nothing new
False assumptions on available data

 

[MarcATL]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

So I watched the entire thing. -
-First argument: more guns bring more crime.
Beck here first has to establish that liberals equate more guns to more crime, something he fails to do. More importantly he tries to establish that although the amount of guns per capita rose the murder rate went down, as a prove that the argument is bogus. Most gun owners have more then one gun and quite a few have substantially more so per capita doesn't necessarily mean that more people own guns but can just as easily be explained that those people who like guns expanded there arsenal. So although I won't contest the numbers using a single stat as a prove of something can be terribly misleading. I also want to point out that the gun fatalities in the US are insanely high even now the murder rate went down.Three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns in the US
-Second argument: It's all the NRA's fault.
In your clip I see no clear argument against that statement.
-Third argument: Assault weapons should be banned.
Here he tries a few different arguments. First he tries to equate military style carbines with high muzzle velocity, large capacity clips to handguns. Handguns even semi automatic ones don't have the same range nor accuracy, or killing potential. Then he tries to make an appeal to emotions by stating that six shooters won't be able to protect is daughter from rape. How is the speed of loading is crucial to preventing it? Or you have your gun loaded or it is useless to begin with. The third argument is that computers can print weapons so banning it is useless. How many people you know have a 3-d printer laying around?
-Fourth argument: Gun control has worked in different countries.
Again no counter argument was presented.
Can you please explain how Beck dismantled the gun control advocates arguments again?

What he means is that Beck's emotional appeal worked exactly well on HIM!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[beagle9]

There are no gun control “arguments”, only an irrational fear of guns manifested as suggested policies.

Unless you take into account all the problems countries with gun control don't have. Like mass shootings, road rage shootings, cop killings, cops killing people, toddlers shooting people.... Then it is clear too many guns is a big problem.

Homicide rates and vectors remain unaffected in those nations before and after gun control measures were passed there making those problem not a case of gun control measures but of culture.

Those nations put the brakes on guns before they got out of control. Ownership never reached the insane levels we have here.

Irrelevant, it is a hard fact that the homicide rates in those nations continued the same trend lines before and after the gun control measures were passed making them utterly ineffective. Clearly the lower homicide rates have something to do with other factors.

Clearly there are other factors. But the gun control stopped the crimes from rising. Look at how few of mass killings they have compared to us. Look at how few of police are killed in those countries. Gun control works. Right now our crime rates are rising from all the unrest due to guns. Our police shoot a lot of people, that doesn't happen in countries with gun control. But since our police are also shot often it happens here a lot. Now we have lots of unrest due to these shootings and an increasing crime rate. The primary cause is too many guns.

.

The crime rates are rising due to guns eh ?? Ohhh it couldn't have anything to do with the decaying of society in which the reactionary gun grabber's or rather the crazies have been engineering so quitely over the years eh ? Blame them dam guns right, but not the hands that are carrying them eh ? Interesting !!

Yes, I can see why we have some of these adamant gun grabber's running about blaming the guns for everything now, and thus trying to get them as they have been for the last longest by way of every event recorded, and this being regardless of the cause and effect of the event (just lump it all together somehow), and blame those guns.

So are these the people who have been attempting to socially engineer/manipulate a society into thinking that NO means YES, and UP means DOWN the gun grabbers ??

So if you try to correct the problems peacefully or resist, then they threaten your entire life, culture and world if you don't capitulate ?? Of course they would be sitting on a stockpile of destroyed weapons laughing because they had rendered you useless if you had any thoughts of making a stand by way of a constitutionally formed militia against the things in which you might see as being threatening to you, to your family, your friends, and the country in which you and so many others have Loved for so long now.

No need for a militia though, but rather just a government change that supports unity, morality, decency, standards, family, peaceful religion's, American culture, freedom, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness once again. Go figure upon having to defend such things as these now right ?

The counter stands or foward aggressions may have already begun or have started within the various time frames over time now, and the skirmishes or acts taking place in these tragic events, well are they just a preview of the dissatisfactions being shown by those who went bonkers over it all ??

The gun grabbing thoughts, are they more previlent now, and is this because some can't get their way in order to subdue what they see as being a problem for their group or either as a reaction to those who are resistant to so much change all at once that is being thrust upon the nation ? How many broken people are out there one wonders ? So the idea is to control the access to the weapons as a best response, and this is because no one really knows as to how many are sick in the heads after all that has went down in society, and as to how many are actually out there now ??

 

[NYcarbineer]

This from Beck's site:

All this week on the show, Glenn will be taking a long hard look at the arguments surrounding gun control in this country. Those who advocate more gun control typically use one or more of these four main arguments: 1) There are too many guns in the US, 2) It’s the fault of the NRA, 3) “Assault weapons” should be banned, or 4) gun control has worked in other countries.

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/11/07/watch-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-gun-control-debate/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

Notice the argument that gets left out...closing the background check loopholes....

 

[beagle9]

This from Beck's site:

All this week on the show, Glenn will be taking a long hard look at the arguments surrounding gun control in this country. Those who advocate more gun control typically use one or more of these four main arguments: 1) There are too many guns in the US, 2) It’s the fault of the NRA, 3) “Assault weapons” should be banned, or 4) gun control has worked in other countries.

Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/11/07/watch-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-gun-control-debate/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

Notice the argument that gets left out...closing the background check loopholes....

. Agree, there should be no background check loopholes of any kind.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

lol, you want us to waste bandwidth watching a video we know will be stupid?

Like I said, preconceived biases...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

So I watched the entire thing. -
-First argument: more guns bring more crime.
Beck here first has to establish that liberals equate more guns to more crime, something he fails to do. More importantly he tries to establish that although the amount of guns per capita rose the murder rate went down, as a prove that the argument is bogus. Most gun owners have more then one gun and quite a few have substantially more so per capita doesn't necessarily mean that more people own guns but can just as easily be explained that those people who like guns expanded there arsenal. So although I won't contest the numbers using a single stat as a prove of something can be terribly misleading. I also want to point out that the gun fatalities in the US are insanely high even now the murder rate went down.Three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns in the US
-Second argument: It's all the NRA's fault.
In your clip I see no clear argument against that statement.
-Third argument: Assault weapons should be banned.
Here he tries a few different arguments. First he tries to equate military style carbines with high muzzle velocity, large capacity clips to handguns. Handguns even semi automatic ones don't have the same range nor accuracy, or killing potential. Then he tries to make an appeal to emotions by stating that six shooters won't be able to protect is daughter from rape. How is the speed of loading is crucial to preventing it? Or you have your gun loaded or it is useless to begin with. The third argument is that computers can print weapons so banning it is useless. How many people you know have a 3-d printer laying around?
-Fourth argument: Gun control has worked in different countries.
Again no counter argument was presented.
Can you please explain how Beck dismantled the gun control advocates arguments again?

Can't help someone who has preconceived biases coming in. You essentially asserted that mass shootings are the NRA's fault without presenting your own case. This basically invalidates your entire premise.

He never mentioned the NRA

"-Second argument: It's all the NRA's fault.
In your clip I see no clear argument against that statement."

Clearly you weren't paying attention...

 

[forkup]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

So I watched the entire thing. -
-First argument: more guns bring more crime.
Beck here first has to establish that liberals equate more guns to more crime, something he fails to do. More importantly he tries to establish that although the amount of guns per capita rose the murder rate went down, as a prove that the argument is bogus. Most gun owners have more then one gun and quite a few have substantially more so per capita doesn't necessarily mean that more people own guns but can just as easily be explained that those people who like guns expanded there arsenal. So although I won't contest the numbers using a single stat as a prove of something can be terribly misleading. I also want to point out that the gun fatalities in the US are insanely high even now the murder rate went down.Three percent of the population own half of the civilian guns in the US
-Second argument: It's all the NRA's fault.
In your clip I see no clear argument against that statement.
-Third argument: Assault weapons should be banned.
Here he tries a few different arguments. First he tries to equate military style carbines with high muzzle velocity, large capacity clips to handguns. Handguns even semi automatic ones don't have the same range nor accuracy, or killing potential. Then he tries to make an appeal to emotions by stating that six shooters won't be able to protect is daughter from rape. How is the speed of loading is crucial to preventing it? Or you have your gun loaded or it is useless to begin with. The third argument is that computers can print weapons so banning it is useless. How many people you know have a 3-d printer laying around?
-Fourth argument: Gun control has worked in different countries.
Again no counter argument was presented.
Can you please explain how Beck dismantled the gun control advocates arguments again?

Can't help someone who has preconceived biases coming in. You essentially asserted that mass shootings are the NRA's fault without presenting your own case. This basically invalidates your entire premise.

How do you spout so much nonsense in 3 sentences?
-You think a bias invalidates the validity of a point on a political forum? Guess what everybody here has biases..... including you. The difference is that I know and freely admit to being biased but don't let that bias mean I don't need to listen to the other side. I've even conceded and even changed my position here when good counter argument were presented to me. Can you say the same?
-You also seem to think that being wrong on a point,( Lets put aside that I didn't make the claim you said I made) invalidates the premise of all arguments in some way. I've been wrong before, that doesn't mean I'm never right.
The way I see it, you using a straw man argument and a stupid argument like, bias dismisses me of any obligation to defend my assertion, points to either laziness or, more likely inability to argue the merit of the point.
In the original OP you asked me to watch the clip and not be dishonest. I used the claims Beck put on the blackboard and then made counterarguments to his claims. I didn't present my case for gun control because that isn't the premise of your OP. The premise was that Beck destroys the arguments of gun control advocates. something I believe he didn't for the reasons stated in my original reply. That's the proper way to have a debate on something. One person puts out an assertion the other person argues against.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

lol, you want us to waste bandwidth watching a video we know will be stupid?

Like I said, preconceived biases...

If you want to debate Beck's views, either post them in transcript or in your own words.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There are no gun control “arguments”, only an irrational fear of guns manifested as suggested policies.

Unless you take into account all the problems countries with gun control don't have. Like mass shootings, road rage shootings, cop killings, cops killing people, toddlers shooting people.... Then it is clear too many guns is a big problem.

Countries with gun control have mass slavery, mass rape, mass terrorism etc.

Really? Which ones are those? Germany? Australia? UK? Denmark? Japan? You are pretty silly.

Just look at the sovereign nation of Catalonia being invaded and enslaved by Spain...they're not so sovereign without firearms...are they?

 

[hazlnut]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

How's that possible?


I'll answer that for him…


We put many of the criminal in jails.


See:
3 strikes laws
mandatory minimums
federal trafficking laws
state/local police budget increases

Read freakinomics, get a better understand of how things work. More guns DO NOT make for less crime.

The NRA’s theory that more guns mean less crime is debunked in a new Stanford analysis

 

[FA_Q2]

Homicide rates and vectors remain unaffected in those nations before and after gun control measures were passed there making those problem not a case of gun control measures but of culture.

Those nations put the brakes on guns before they got out of control. Ownership never reached the insane levels we have here.

Irrelevant, it is a hard fact that the homicide rates in those nations continued the same trend lines before and after the gun control measures were passed making them utterly ineffective. Clearly the lower homicide rates have something to do with other factors.

Clearly there are other factors. But the gun control stopped the crimes from rising. Look at how few of mass killings they have compared to us. Look at how few of police are killed in those countries. Gun control works. Right now our crime rates are rising from all the unrest due to guns. Our police shoot a lot of people, that doesn't happen in countries with gun control. But since our police are also shot often it happens here a lot. Now we have lots of unrest due to these shootings and an increasing crime rate. The primary cause is too many guns.

Again, compare those stats to BEFORE the laws were passed and you have a point. Compare them to our stats and it is pointless - you are not controlling for other factors.

They never got to the extreme levels of ownership we have. They cut the problem off before it got too bad. Mass shootings is the obvious one as they are very rare in countries with gun control, but happen regularly here. You must believe policing effects crime. Well look at how many cops are killed each year, over 50. Countries with gun control are in the single digits. Those are cops taken off the street. And if 50 are killed there are many more taken off the street with injury. Now throw in all the people shot by police, those officers are always taken off the street for an investigation. Our policing is hurt because of our extreme levels of gun ownership. And also we obviously have much more armed criminals, a gun is empowering. Our criminals get that gun courage just like the legal gun owners. They are committing crimes they might not otherwise have to the courage for because guns are readily available. Look at our stats after the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control, crime dropped dramatically. We also got background checks and crime remained lower. Now it is increasing with all the unrest caused by too many guns.

What you have is a lot of conjecture.

You can go on and on about what you want the data to show but that does not make it a reality.

 

[Brain357]

Those nations put the brakes on guns before they got out of control. Ownership never reached the insane levels we have here.

Irrelevant, it is a hard fact that the homicide rates in those nations continued the same trend lines before and after the gun control measures were passed making them utterly ineffective. Clearly the lower homicide rates have something to do with other factors.

Clearly there are other factors. But the gun control stopped the crimes from rising. Look at how few of mass killings they have compared to us. Look at how few of police are killed in those countries. Gun control works. Right now our crime rates are rising from all the unrest due to guns. Our police shoot a lot of people, that doesn't happen in countries with gun control. But since our police are also shot often it happens here a lot. Now we have lots of unrest due to these shootings and an increasing crime rate. The primary cause is too many guns.

Again, compare those stats to BEFORE the laws were passed and you have a point. Compare them to our stats and it is pointless - you are not controlling for other factors.

They never got to the extreme levels of ownership we have. They cut the problem off before it got too bad. Mass shootings is the obvious one as they are very rare in countries with gun control, but happen regularly here. You must believe policing effects crime. Well look at how many cops are killed each year, over 50. Countries with gun control are in the single digits. Those are cops taken off the street. And if 50 are killed there are many more taken off the street with injury. Now throw in all the people shot by police, those officers are always taken off the street for an investigation. Our policing is hurt because of our extreme levels of gun ownership. And also we obviously have much more armed criminals, a gun is empowering. Our criminals get that gun courage just like the legal gun owners. They are committing crimes they might not otherwise have to the courage for because guns are readily available. Look at our stats after the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control, crime dropped dramatically. We also got background checks and crime remained lower. Now it is increasing with all the unrest caused by too many guns.

What you have is a lot of conjecture.

You can go on and on about what you want the data to show but that does not make it a reality.

Policing is pretty well proven to lower crime. Clearly with all our guns policing is hurt with dead cops, cops taken off the street, injured cops, less trust for police due to shootings... looks really clear to me.

 

[beagle9]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

How's that possible?


I'll answer that for him…


We put many of the criminal in jails.


See:
3 strikes laws
mandatory minimums
federal trafficking laws
state/local police budget increases

Read freakinomics, get a better understand of how things work. More guns DO NOT make for less crime.

The NRA’s theory that more guns mean less crime is debunked in a new Stanford analysis

. Not more guns as in numbers without reason, but rather more guns in the hands of good people, and more training on how to use those guns.

 

[FA_Q2]

Irrelevant, it is a hard fact that the homicide rates in those nations continued the same trend lines before and after the gun control measures were passed making them utterly ineffective. Clearly the lower homicide rates have something to do with other factors.

Clearly there are other factors. But the gun control stopped the crimes from rising. Look at how few of mass killings they have compared to us. Look at how few of police are killed in those countries. Gun control works. Right now our crime rates are rising from all the unrest due to guns. Our police shoot a lot of people, that doesn't happen in countries with gun control. But since our police are also shot often it happens here a lot. Now we have lots of unrest due to these shootings and an increasing crime rate. The primary cause is too many guns.

Again, compare those stats to BEFORE the laws were passed and you have a point. Compare them to our stats and it is pointless - you are not controlling for other factors.

They never got to the extreme levels of ownership we have. They cut the problem off before it got too bad. Mass shootings is the obvious one as they are very rare in countries with gun control, but happen regularly here. You must believe policing effects crime. Well look at how many cops are killed each year, over 50. Countries with gun control are in the single digits. Those are cops taken off the street. And if 50 are killed there are many more taken off the street with injury. Now throw in all the people shot by police, those officers are always taken off the street for an investigation. Our policing is hurt because of our extreme levels of gun ownership. And also we obviously have much more armed criminals, a gun is empowering. Our criminals get that gun courage just like the legal gun owners. They are committing crimes they might not otherwise have to the courage for because guns are readily available. Look at our stats after the Bill Clinton crime bill and gun control, crime dropped dramatically. We also got background checks and crime remained lower. Now it is increasing with all the unrest caused by too many guns.

What you have is a lot of conjecture.

You can go on and on about what you want the data to show but that does not make it a reality.

Policing is pretty well proven to lower crime. Clearly with all our guns policing is hurt with dead cops, cops taken off the street, injured cops, less trust for police due to shootings... looks really clear to me.

Because you, again, are making assumptions without any evidence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

“Glenn Beck dismantles the gun control argument”

No, he doesn’t.

Beck’s ‘argument’ is the same inane strawman fallacy conservatives have been propagating for decades.

No one advocates going back to ‘cowboy days’ or ‘six-shooters’; no one advocates prohibiting the possession of semi-automatic firearms (Beck should also know that one loads his revolver with cartridges, not ‘bullets’).

No one has maintained that a given firearm regulatory measure – or firearm regulation collectively – would be a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence. To argue that firearm regulatory measures are ‘invalid’ because gun crimes continue to be committed is nothing but specious sophistry.

Beck hasn’t ‘dismantled’ anything – he succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance and stupidity, and the ignorance and stupidity of anyone who agrees with him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Via Prager University and the Blaze...

Look, I don't care for Beck himself. But I know a well presented argument when I see one. Watch him dissect and dismantle the vaunted liberal gun control arguments point by point below:




Don't be dishonest, watch the video before you spout off. I'm the substitute Santa Claus this year, and I'm watching you like Pennywise in the storm drain!

How's that possible?


I'll answer that for him…


We put many of the criminal in jails.


See:
3 strikes laws
mandatory minimums
federal trafficking laws
state/local police budget increases

Read freakinomics, get a better understand of how things work. More guns DO NOT make for less crime.

The NRA’s theory that more guns mean less crime is debunked in a new Stanford analysis

. Not more guns as in numbers without reason, but rather more guns in the hands of good people, and more training on how to use those guns.

Wrong.

The notion of the ‘good guy with a gun’ is a myth:

‘In major cities like New York City and Los Angeles, the measured hit rates of police, according to Firearm Discharge Reports, hover far below 50 percent, some years dipping into the teens. This statistic doesn’t imply police are poor marksmen; it merely reflects the stressful, difficult, and dangerous reality of confrontations, unmatched in a shooting range or training situation. By telling unprepared civilians it’s their responsibility to be heroes, the NRA contributes to the possibility that “good guys” add to the confusion at the crime scene.’

The “Good Guy With a Gun” Myth | Harvard Political Review

Citizens have the right to carry concealed firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Not to act in the compacity of ‘law enforcement.’

Not to ‘deter crime.’

The sole responsibility of someone carrying a concealed firearm in an active shooter situation – where his life or safety is not at imminent risk – is to keep his firearm holstered and remove himself from danger.