New research puts to death the “good guy with a gun” narrative

[kaz]

.
There can be no doubt, the gun nuts want to pack heat and want to shoot someone.

America needs more guns, and people ready to use them, that way, when police respond to an active shooter call, they will immediately know who among the many people in the gunfight is the "bad guy" with a gun.

It happens that way on TV and in movies. so it must be true.


.

A CCW holder (depending on where you live) is checked out from adulthood until they apply for a permit, then checked some more. We are trained in using our firearm, the laws, and how to react to various situations.

In your scenario, if a CCW holder and a criminal were in a gun fight, the CCW holder would immediately put his weapon down on police arrival, and the criminal would likely turn his gun on the police.

It's clearly possible that the police accidentally shoot you. It's not likely as you say, we are trained and so are the police and obviously we are not going to aim our gun at the police in any scenario. But all that aside, the idea that we're safer not having a gun while the criminal does WHILE we wait for the police when we don't even know when they arrive being less risky than having a gun when they get there is the moronic shit the left endlessly argues

 

[Crepitus]

The idea that only criminals having guns makes us safer is as stupid as it sounds.

Yes, and you're a moron for even suggesting it.

But that's exactly what you support. We are not suggesting it. That's what you support.

Creep was being a playgrounder. If you spend any time reading his posts, his insults are all playground. Am not! You are! It's all he has

Lol, no. I just gave up wasting time explaining things over and over to the same people.

 

[kaz]

Only a dumbass wouldn't have known that. Look at the thread title. It says "a good guy with a gun."

You said

Prove that anyone was carrying a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting.
Well, I did prove it.

And you can't hear how stupid that question sounded in your head?

I'm usually with you Blues Man. I thought you were telling a joke and bripat mistook it as serious.

But if you're being serious that you thought the shooter had a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting addressed the question, then you're being a dick about it. Obviously that wasn't the intent of the question

I'm not a mind reader.

And yes it was a sarcastic comment but the snowflake got offended and had to start the name calling

OK, whatever. You're being a dick. I really thought you were joking and bripat missed it. Guess I did.

Wow, you realized the shooter had a gun in a mass shooting. How were you to be a mind reader? Whatever. Act like a Democrat if that tickles your Willy

Jesus H Christ maybe if people learned how to express a clear concise thought via the written word then tender feelings wouldn't get so hurt

Awwwwww, poor guy. Now Bluesman is crying. Buck up, sport.

Question, you realize you're talking to multiple people, right? We aren't all the same one?

I got in because I thought it was a misunderstanding. You OBVIOUSLY were full of shit when you said you didn't know when it was asked if there was a gun if they were including the shooter. Hopefully it was a joke gone wrong because that was a stupid comment. But either way, it's time to give it up and let it go

 

[kaz]

The idea that only criminals having guns makes us safer is as stupid as it sounds.

Yes, and you're a moron for even suggesting it.

And Creep goes, back to the playground! You've sent more than one kid running home from the playground crying, haven't you?

You having drug flashbacks from all that acid you did?

You can take Democrats out of the third grade ...

 

[kaz]

The idea that only criminals having guns makes us safer is as stupid as it sounds.

Yes, and you're a moron for even suggesting it.

But that's exactly what you support. We are not suggesting it. That's what you support.

Creep was being a playgrounder. If you spend any time reading his posts, his insults are all playground. Am not! You are! It's all he has

Lol, no. I just gave up wasting time explaining things over and over to the same people.

Maybe you could give us more than playground insults to explain your complex views then, ya think?

 

[kaz]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

I'm not surprised. It's only logical.

The far right radical extremists on this board who have a small penis needs their penis extenders to feel like a man.

They will attack you for posting truths they don't like.

people on your side of the road do the same thing....

It's funny how you say that over and over and over to conservatives, but you're silent on telling the left the reverse ...

dana is a conservative?....does he know that?...

OK, fair enough. I'm obviously the one who misfired on that one

 

[Blues Man]

Only a dumbass wouldn't have known that. Look at the thread title. It says "a good guy with a gun."

You said

Prove that anyone was carrying a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting.
Well, I did prove it.

And you can't hear how stupid that question sounded in your head?

I'm usually with you Blues Man. I thought you were telling a joke and bripat mistook it as serious.

But if you're being serious that you thought the shooter had a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting addressed the question, then you're being a dick about it. Obviously that wasn't the intent of the question

I'm not a mind reader.

And yes it was a sarcastic comment but the snowflake got offended and had to start the name calling

OK, whatever. You're being a dick. I really thought you were joking and bripat missed it. Guess I did.

Wow, you realized the shooter had a gun in a mass shooting. How were you to be a mind reader? Whatever. Act like a Democrat if that tickles your Willy

Jesus H Christ maybe if people learned how to express a clear concise thought via the written word then tender feelings wouldn't get so hurt

Awwwwww, poor guy. Now Bluesman is crying. Buck up, sport.

Question, you realize you're talking to multiple people, right? We aren't all the same one?

I got in because I thought it was a misunderstanding. You OBVIOUSLY were full of shit when you said you didn't know when it was asked if there was a gun if they were including the shooter. Hopefully it was a joke gone wrong because that was a stupid comment. But either way, it's time to give it up and let it go

You will realize I didn't say YOU I said PEOPLE

So I wasn't necessarily speaking about you now was I?

You are obviously coming to the rescue of your not too good with words buddy because he got his panties in a twist when he realized he wrote something that was pretty stupid

 

[Crepitus]

The idea that only criminals having guns makes us safer is as stupid as it sounds.

Yes, and you're a moron for even suggesting it.

But that's exactly what you support. We are not suggesting it. That's what you support.

Creep was being a playgrounder. If you spend any time reading his posts, his insults are all playground. Am not! You are! It's all he has

Lol, no. I just gave up wasting time explaining things over and over to the same people.

Maybe you could give us more than playground insults to explain your complex views then, ya think?

There are thise here I will actually discuss things with.

You though?

Not worth the effort.

 

[kaz]

Only a dumbass wouldn't have known that. Look at the thread title. It says "a good guy with a gun."

You said

Prove that anyone was carrying a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting.
Well, I did prove it.

And you can't hear how stupid that question sounded in your head?

I'm usually with you Blues Man. I thought you were telling a joke and bripat mistook it as serious.

But if you're being serious that you thought the shooter had a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting addressed the question, then you're being a dick about it. Obviously that wasn't the intent of the question

I'm not a mind reader.

And yes it was a sarcastic comment but the snowflake got offended and had to start the name calling

OK, whatever. You're being a dick. I really thought you were joking and bripat missed it. Guess I did.

Wow, you realized the shooter had a gun in a mass shooting. How were you to be a mind reader? Whatever. Act like a Democrat if that tickles your Willy

Jesus H Christ maybe if people learned how to express a clear concise thought via the written word then tender feelings wouldn't get so hurt

Awwwwww, poor guy. Now Bluesman is crying. Buck up, sport.

Question, you realize you're talking to multiple people, right? We aren't all the same one?

I got in because I thought it was a misunderstanding. You OBVIOUSLY were full of shit when you said you didn't know when it was asked if there was a gun if they were including the shooter. Hopefully it was a joke gone wrong because that was a stupid comment. But either way, it's time to give it up and let it go

You will realize I didn't say YOU I said PEOPLE

So I wasn't necessarily speaking about you now was I?

You are obviously coming to the rescue of your not too good with words buddy because he got his panties in a twist when he realized he wrote something that was pretty stupid

Yes, obviously you were very rationally and honestly with good intentions not clear whether bripat thought the shooter who was shooting people had a gun or not. You were being completely genuine and honest by observing that the shooter did indeed have a gun. You really thought bripat wasn't clear on that and you were trying to simply reassure him that yes, someone shooting people had a gun.

People like you are a bizarre internet phenomenon. You start out with a sarcastic comment that misfires, then you argue endlessly that you were in the right and made total sense and it's the rest of us who are crocked. Creptus does it all the time.

So you're sticking to that you genuinely, honestly, rationally believed that bripat wasn't clear if someone shooting people had a gun or not. You're sticking with that story?

Sure, ****, sure

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Bullshit. The crime rate went down in every state that adopted concealed carry. It's almost certain the study is based on flawed assumptions.

Should I even bother asking for a source?

Defensive Gun Use Is Not a Myth

Yeah dude. No one ever said people haven’t defended themselves with guns. That is completely besides the point of what this article is saying is that “a good guy with a gun” does nothing to prevent mass shootings. More gun ownership is correlated with more gun violence. These are the facts that matter.

And that right there exemplifies the stupidity of your post and study. You take one out of many possible factors and try to use that single issue alone to make this phony claim. We are right back to the liberal fallacy that people don't kill people, guns kill people.

Well we can all do that. Since the early 90's up until the Ferguson effect, gun and violent crime in the US was on a decline. What's proportional with that decline is more and more states adopting CCW programs, and changing laws that protect the victim instead of the criminal. How is that possible????

The amount of guns is irrelevant. More importantly are the demographics of these areas. In the United States, you are eight times more likely to be killed by a black than a white. Furthermore it's lower income areas where most murders happen. You are wrong. People kill people, not guns.

You and your study are not comparing apples to apples. Take two states with the same demographics and use one with lenient gun laws and one with strict gun laws, and then see what your conclusions are. No anti-gun organization has ever done that to my knowledge.

 

[kaz]

The idea that only criminals having guns makes us safer is as stupid as it sounds.

Yes, and you're a moron for even suggesting it.

But that's exactly what you support. We are not suggesting it. That's what you support.

Creep was being a playgrounder. If you spend any time reading his posts, his insults are all playground. Am not! You are! It's all he has

Lol, no. I just gave up wasting time explaining things over and over to the same people.

Maybe you could give us more than playground insults to explain your complex views then, ya think?

There are thise here I will actually discuss things with.

You though?

Not worth the effort.

And you make no effort. That's the whole point of your third grader playground insults. Total repetition, no effort

 

[elektra]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

can you post the study?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, and you're a moron for even suggesting it.

So what do you think would happen if the Democrats could make all guns illegal? Do you think the criminals would turn their guns in? Of course not. They break laws. That's why they're criminals in the first place.

What we would end up with is a society where only the police and criminals have firearms. The rest of us would be helpless because nobody can open handedly defend themselves from a person with a gun.

 

[westwall]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

That's because a "good guy with a gun" is one bad day away from a murderer.

Sure, that does happen. But, it is exceedingly rare. On the other hand, bad people are one second away from making everyone's day bad.

How are you going to stop that? Hell you're letting those people out to cause more mayhem as we are witnessing right now.

 

[westwall]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

can you post the study?

It's in the link. Just hard to find.

 

[Blues Man]

Only a dumbass wouldn't have known that. Look at the thread title. It says "a good guy with a gun."

You said

Prove that anyone was carrying a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting.
Well, I did prove it.

And you can't hear how stupid that question sounded in your head?

I'm usually with you Blues Man. I thought you were telling a joke and bripat mistook it as serious.

But if you're being serious that you thought the shooter had a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting addressed the question, then you're being a dick about it. Obviously that wasn't the intent of the question

I'm not a mind reader.

And yes it was a sarcastic comment but the snowflake got offended and had to start the name calling

OK, whatever. You're being a dick. I really thought you were joking and bripat missed it. Guess I did.

Wow, you realized the shooter had a gun in a mass shooting. How were you to be a mind reader? Whatever. Act like a Democrat if that tickles your Willy

Jesus H Christ maybe if people learned how to express a clear concise thought via the written word then tender feelings wouldn't get so hurt

Awwwwww, poor guy. Now Bluesman is crying. Buck up, sport.

Question, you realize you're talking to multiple people, right? We aren't all the same one?

I got in because I thought it was a misunderstanding. You OBVIOUSLY were full of shit when you said you didn't know when it was asked if there was a gun if they were including the shooter. Hopefully it was a joke gone wrong because that was a stupid comment. But either way, it's time to give it up and let it go

You will realize I didn't say YOU I said PEOPLE

So I wasn't necessarily speaking about you now was I?

You are obviously coming to the rescue of your not too good with words buddy because he got his panties in a twist when he realized he wrote something that was pretty stupid

Yes, obviously you were very rationally and honestly with good intentions not clear whether bripat thought the shooter who was shooting people had a gun or not. You were being completely genuine and honest by observing that the shooter did indeed have a gun. You really thought bripat wasn't clear on that and you were trying to simply reassure him that yes, someone shooting people had a gun.

People like you are a bizarre internet phenomenon. You start out with a sarcastic comment that misfires, then you argue endlessly that you were in the right and made total sense and it's the rest of us who are crocked. Creptus does it all the time.

So you're sticking to that you genuinely, honestly, rationally believed that bripat wasn't clear if someone shooting people had a gun or not. You're sticking with that story?

Sure, ****, sure

It didn't backfire , he was just to dim to realize it was sarcasm and decided to start name calling.

And I was right

He said to prove that ANYONE in the vicinity of a mass shooting had a gun.

Not my fault he was couldn't see that was one of the dumbest statements anyone could write.

so piss the **** off

 

[TheGreatSatan]

If a Democrat tells you Democrats aren't coming for your guns and you believe that Democrat, you're the one who looks like an idiot. The Democrat is either lying to you or just an MSM brainwashed tool. Taking them seriously makes you look bad.

 

[kaz]

Only a dumbass wouldn't have known that. Look at the thread title. It says "a good guy with a gun."

You said

Prove that anyone was carrying a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting.
Well, I did prove it.

And you can't hear how stupid that question sounded in your head?

I'm usually with you Blues Man. I thought you were telling a joke and bripat mistook it as serious.

But if you're being serious that you thought the shooter had a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting addressed the question, then you're being a dick about it. Obviously that wasn't the intent of the question

I'm not a mind reader.

And yes it was a sarcastic comment but the snowflake got offended and had to start the name calling

OK, whatever. You're being a dick. I really thought you were joking and bripat missed it. Guess I did.

Wow, you realized the shooter had a gun in a mass shooting. How were you to be a mind reader? Whatever. Act like a Democrat if that tickles your Willy

Jesus H Christ maybe if people learned how to express a clear concise thought via the written word then tender feelings wouldn't get so hurt

Awwwwww, poor guy. Now Bluesman is crying. Buck up, sport.

Question, you realize you're talking to multiple people, right? We aren't all the same one?

I got in because I thought it was a misunderstanding. You OBVIOUSLY were full of shit when you said you didn't know when it was asked if there was a gun if they were including the shooter. Hopefully it was a joke gone wrong because that was a stupid comment. But either way, it's time to give it up and let it go

You will realize I didn't say YOU I said PEOPLE

So I wasn't necessarily speaking about you now was I?

You are obviously coming to the rescue of your not too good with words buddy because he got his panties in a twist when he realized he wrote something that was pretty stupid

Yes, obviously you were very rationally and honestly with good intentions not clear whether bripat thought the shooter who was shooting people had a gun or not. You were being completely genuine and honest by observing that the shooter did indeed have a gun. You really thought bripat wasn't clear on that and you were trying to simply reassure him that yes, someone shooting people had a gun.

People like you are a bizarre internet phenomenon. You start out with a sarcastic comment that misfires, then you argue endlessly that you were in the right and made total sense and it's the rest of us who are crocked. Creptus does it all the time.

So you're sticking to that you genuinely, honestly, rationally believed that bripat wasn't clear if someone shooting people had a gun or not. You're sticking with that story?

Sure, ****, sure

It didn't backfire , he was just to dim to realize it was sarcasm and decided to start name calling.

And I was right

He said to prove that ANYONE in the vicinity of a mass shooting had a gun.

Not my fault he was couldn't see that was one of the dumbest statements anyone could write.

so piss the **** off

Then why did you criticize him for not being "clear?" I said I thought it was sarcasm and you started attacking me. Then you said he needs to learn to be clear that when he asks if there is a gun around an active shooter that he isn't including the active shooter's gun, as if that needed to be explained.

Now you're doing an about face and saying it was sarcasm all along. So which story are you going with? It was sarcasm or he wasn't clear? Final answer?

 

[Blues Man]

Only a dumbass wouldn't have known that. Look at the thread title. It says "a good guy with a gun."

You said

Prove that anyone was carrying a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting.
Well, I did prove it.

And you can't hear how stupid that question sounded in your head?

I'm usually with you Blues Man. I thought you were telling a joke and bripat mistook it as serious.

But if you're being serious that you thought the shooter had a gun in the vicinity of a mass shooting addressed the question, then you're being a dick about it. Obviously that wasn't the intent of the question

I'm not a mind reader.

And yes it was a sarcastic comment but the snowflake got offended and had to start the name calling

OK, whatever. You're being a dick. I really thought you were joking and bripat missed it. Guess I did.

Wow, you realized the shooter had a gun in a mass shooting. How were you to be a mind reader? Whatever. Act like a Democrat if that tickles your Willy

Jesus H Christ maybe if people learned how to express a clear concise thought via the written word then tender feelings wouldn't get so hurt

Awwwwww, poor guy. Now Bluesman is crying. Buck up, sport.

Question, you realize you're talking to multiple people, right? We aren't all the same one?

I got in because I thought it was a misunderstanding. You OBVIOUSLY were full of shit when you said you didn't know when it was asked if there was a gun if they were including the shooter. Hopefully it was a joke gone wrong because that was a stupid comment. But either way, it's time to give it up and let it go

You will realize I didn't say YOU I said PEOPLE

So I wasn't necessarily speaking about you now was I?

You are obviously coming to the rescue of your not too good with words buddy because he got his panties in a twist when he realized he wrote something that was pretty stupid

Yes, obviously you were very rationally and honestly with good intentions not clear whether bripat thought the shooter who was shooting people had a gun or not. You were being completely genuine and honest by observing that the shooter did indeed have a gun. You really thought bripat wasn't clear on that and you were trying to simply reassure him that yes, someone shooting people had a gun.

People like you are a bizarre internet phenomenon. You start out with a sarcastic comment that misfires, then you argue endlessly that you were in the right and made total sense and it's the rest of us who are crocked. Creptus does it all the time.

So you're sticking to that you genuinely, honestly, rationally believed that bripat wasn't clear if someone shooting people had a gun or not. You're sticking with that story?

Sure, ****, sure

It didn't backfire , he was just to dim to realize it was sarcasm and decided to start name calling.

And I was right

He said to prove that ANYONE in the vicinity of a mass shooting had a gun.

Not my fault he was couldn't see that was one of the dumbest statements anyone could write.

so piss the **** off

Then why did you criticize him for not being "clear?" I said I thought it was sarcasm and you started attacking me. Then you said he needs to learn to be clear that when he asks if there is a gun around an active shooter that he isn't including the active shooter's gun, as if that needed to be explained.

Now you're doing an about face and saying it was sarcasm all along. So which story are you going with? It was sarcasm or he wasn't clear? Final answer?

I said it was sarcasm in reply to your very first reply to me. Post # 69

One would not open himself up to sarcastic remarks about a post if one took a second to realize that what one wrote was ******* stupid now would one ?

 

[Crixus]

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.

www.yahoo.com

A new study found that states with looser concealed-carry gun laws have higher rates of gun homicide.

The results also showed that higher levels of gun ownership are associated with more mass shootings.

The study suggests the US could reduce gun violence by lowering levels of gun ownership and passing stricter concealed-carry laws.

Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

The "good guy with a gun" theory goes like this: If more well-intentioned people carry guns, there's a higher chance of stopping a violent shooter.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works in real life, according to new research published in the journal Justice Quarterly. The study found that laws allowing more people to carry guns in public are associated with a rise in gun violence. The results also showed that the higher a state's gun-ownership rate, the more likely a mass shooting is.

Well, looser carry laws definitely diddnt work for this retard.