So, where were all the good guys with guns?

[Kelvin Mace]

This was Texas. I would guess there several hundred guns in the shooting area (not counting police). So, why did none of these people use their lawful guns to stop these lawbreakers?

[TeddyR]

1. There are at least tens of thousands

Of defensive gun uses every year. But good guys with guns can't stop every crime that occurs. In this instance, the "good guys with guns" were the police who protected the civilians and eventually stopped the killers.

[Jerry442]

4. The Good Guys With Guns scenario works every time...

...if you're Clayton Moore in front of a camera.

[TeddyR]

9. A little research

Will reveal stories almost daily of someone using a firearm to protect themselves or families from a criminal.

[Jerry442]

11. There are 320 million people in this country.

Odds are, someone out there is successfully protecting themselves with, say, a radish. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[TeddyR]

13. Perhaps

But guns save thousands of lives each year. Radishes probably fewer. And I think you'll find that most people in the US (according to polls anyway) support an individual right to own firearms.

[Jerry442]

15. I guess I missed the press release from the NRA...

...where they're teaming with the CDC to do a massive public study that will resolve the issue once and for all.

[Duckhunter935]

42. The CDC did a study a couple of years ago

That included defensive gun use. It was directed by President Obama.

[LanternWaste]

56. Helps to know the full story, rather than only that part which validates your bias.

The study analyzed Wilmington’s 127 recorded shootings in 2013, it did not address how the perpetrators acquired their weapons, or if attempts to limit access to firearms might lead to a dip in crime. Instead, the report simply outlined already well-established trends and risk factors.

In a proper epidemiological study, guns themselves would be treated as a risk factor for many types of violence or injury — just as mosquitoes would be treated as a risk factor for contracting malaria, for example. As it is, the agency was confined to rehashing social or environmental factors that have already been thoroughly studied by injury researchers.

Helps to know the full story, rather than only that part which validates your bias. Good luck!

[MattP]

26. Guns save thousands

[madinmaryland]

29. Do you have any concrete evidence to support your assertion of saving thousands of lives. We do

know that guns kill well over 30,000 people a year.

TIA.

[TeddyR]

34. See this discussion

For some statistics on defensive gun use: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172191826

[MillennialDem]

46. The problem with that study is it doesn't prove a gun was required to stop the

commission of a crime, let alone save a life (an even higher bar). Are you really suggesting there would be 700,000 murders per year if there were no guns? :lol:

Also, I'd need to see the data further, but many defensive gun uses are... quite ambiguous as whether they're justified or not. Is pulling a gun on someone during a road rage shouting match justified? Maybe, maybe not. If it's self reported, the gun owner will 99.999% say it was justified though. Who is going to admit "yeah, I pulled a gun, but it wasn't justified"?

[TeddyR]

51. Oh, I agree

But I'm not sure you are going to find anything that can provide a concrete number for lives saved. If a gun owner shoots a home invader or scares off a rapist there's often no way to determine if the criminal intended to actually kill the victim. Sometimes you'll see stories where someone breaks into a home and shoots the home owner and is killed/wounded in return so that might indicate a life was saved.

[Duckhunter935]

43. Of course 2/3 of those are suicides

[MillennialDem]

47. So they don't matter, right? Way to treat people with mental illness like depression and

PTSD.

Your only justification of "they were suicides" is that maybe people with depression or PTSD should have the right to kill themselves.

[Duckhunter935]

49. Nope, I agree with much better mental health services

But I am told that is just an NRA talking point

[MillennialDem]

50. Good, I'm glad you do. I just don't like when people brush suicides under

the rug as not mattering in the body count. Suicide is just as much a cause of body failure as old age or infection. Guns make by far the easiest and almost the most deadly vehicle for that though.

[Duckhunter935]

53. A friend of mine hung himself last month

I do not blame the rope. I do not care for the fact that you have to include suicides in gun violence statistics to make it look worse.

[MillennialDem]

55. I'm sorry about your friend. But again, the thing is guns are the easiest way to

kill yourself. There's no way we could stop all suicides, I wouldn't be surprised if homo erectus and neanderthals didn't have rope and jumped off cliffs on purpose.

But again, guns make it so much easier. As someone who has been suicidal myself, I'd say guns are an even bigger step up in technology for suicides than they are for murders. Not that I'm psychopathic enough to do this, but I think outside of doing a mass killing, if I wanted to kill one person I could do it just as easily without a gun (maybe even easier) as I could with. With suicide though, the methods at easy disposal I did not take advantage of. The very deadly methods, I usually lost the will before I could do them (like jumping off a building).

[Duckhunter935]

57. Suicides should not be conflated

With actual gun violence. It is done on purpose to deceive and I think you know that.

[MillennialDem]

60. No, I really don't view that way (honest). If others do, I obviously can't speak for

the actual thoughts in their heads.

[maxsolomon]

100. Sorry, no

it's a violent death, and it involves a gun. suicide by gun belongs in the tally of gun deaths.

[Eleanors38]

103. So, how do the Japanese "outgun" us with their suicide rate?

[PJMcK]

101. Very sorry to hear of the death of your friend

You're right to not blame your friend's state of mind on the rope. Having lost friends, I know your pain.

(I still don't like guns or nooses, for that matter.)

[Kelvin Mace]

16. And there are many more stories of guns

killing people accidentally or on purpose outside the context of "self-defense".

Last time I looked, the ratio was rather lopsided. If you have a gun, the chance you will harm yourself, or a family member, is much greater than the chance it will save them from a bad man.

[Jerry442]

17. Old saying: "Plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'"

[Straw Man]

30. Anecdotes and data.

Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey reports over 200,000 in a five-year period.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=197091

[Kelvin Mace]

8. This argument gets trotted out everytime there is a mass shooting

Good guys with guns who don't show up and stop this type of thing are no use to us. If this job falls to police, then we don't need any "good guys with guns" confusing the issue.

If ever there was a situation in a location tailor-made for some Rambo wannbe to be a hero, this was it, and yet none rose to the occasion.

[Jerry442]

14. Once again people are surprised...

...that you have to deal with Real Life on its own terms.

[frankieallen]

87. I don't know the exact details, but if the cops had a clear shot at this guy, they

would of shot him. I'm sure if there were civilians legally carrying a firearm, and they had a shot at the coward who was hell bent on killing white cops, they would have taken it.
As it was they ended up having to blow him up, so even the snipers couldn't get a clear shot.
So, I guess the point you are trying to make, is crap.

[Kelvin Mace]

88. Interesting.

He is a "coward" because he shot "innocent" people from a distance. But when people like him shoot people they are told are "guilty" from a distance, they are a "hero".

It says something that he was SO dangerous with a rifle, that he had to be killed with a bomb. So, next, we all need to have bombs, because only a good guy with a bomb can stop a bad gun with a gun.

[frankieallen]

90. Yes, he is a coward because he shot innocent people from a distance. Apparently you disagree?

"But when people like him shoot people they are told are "guilty" from a distance, they are a hero".

who specifically are you referring to? I think I know but I'd really like to see if you have the balls to really make that comparison.

[Kelvin Mace]

91. Let's see,

drone pilots come to mind.

Good enough for you? How about B-52 pilots?

[frankieallen]

94. No, it isn't good enough,

whom is it you are exactly referring to?
don't be a pus

[Kelvin Mace]

95. Ah, sexist language

I am suitably chastened.

If you don't see a drone pilot killing people they don't know because "orders" as morally questionable, I don't have time to teach you morality.

Good day.

[frankieallen]

96. morally questionable? I see you are backing off your original comparison.

have a nice day.

[Eleanors38]

104. Your post needs correction: The bearing of arms is for self-defense, not for an LEO auxillary...

The "trotting out" seems to come most often from controller/banners who can't seem to distinguish between the two concepts. That some pro-2A people think carrying is some how help the police doesn't change that. My arms are for hunting and SD, not for a back bench to law enforcement, and that is how most of the nearly 100,000,000 armed civilians see the RKBA as well.

[Kelvin Mace]

107. The the NRA and its ilk

need to STOP offering that excuse as to why access to weapons should not be restricted.

[Eleanors38]

113. Who needs the NRA? My reasons are sufficient.

[treestar]

61. And they don't always win, even

Good guys can have guns and still end up getting killed in the gunfight.

[maxsolomon]

69. I know of one 3 days ago

Alton Sterling used his gun to scare off an aggressive panhandler.

Who then called the cops, and Alton Sterling got killed.

[In_The_Wind]

2. If they are like me, sitting at home with their family, guns are unloaded and stored

with the ammo in a separate secure location.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Well, that would describe most people

whether they have guns or not. We weren't there. The question is about people who were there and did have guns.

I have three possible answers:

1) They were hiding somewhere safe because gun, or no gun, it was DANGEROUS out there, and that's a job for the police, so they will just stay where they are.

2) They started to take out their guns, and then in a moment of clarity realized that running around the street with a gun drawn would be a great way to get shot by the police (or some other "good guy with a gun&quot

3) Some of the suspects in custody were "good guys" with guns who got arrested because they were running around an active shooting scene waving a gun.

[Eleanors38]

105. You missed the more likely reason "good guys" didn't fire back...

Because they see their arms for self-defense, not as police back-up. And they probably are quite willing to let the pros do their work and not get in the way. I would have done the same myself.

[GreatGazoo]

3. while I take your question as rhetorical

there were civilians with guns there and one offered to help police then his picture was tweeted out as being a suspect:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/08/during-deadly-dallas-shooting-confusion-swirled-around-armed-man-carrying-a-rifle/

Guns in duffle bags, open carry, etc only seems to have added to the confusion.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. But they keep telling us these things can be avoided

if only good guys had guns.

And yet, here we are. It happened despite Texas being awash with guns.

[GreatGazoo]

19. That's what I'm saying --more guns equals more death

It makes the job of police officer and other responders harder and more dangerous. Carrying a gun makes some people bolder and makes deadly conflict over common interactions more likely.

[rurallib]

5. isn't that what the police are supposed to be?

[Kelvin Mace]

7. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Absolutists

are not fighting for the police to have guns. They are fighting for EVERYONE to have them. Well, in Texas, damn near anyone can legally own a gun, and yet this happened and no "good guys with guns" stopped it.

[Marengo]

12. This conceal carry permit holder would have fled the fuck out of there...

It's not my responsibility to perform law enforcement duties. My license gives me the option to conceal carry if I feel the need for the purpose of self-defense, not to spring into action as some some of auxiliary police officer.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Likewise.

My concealed handgun if for personal defense in an up-close situation. Even if I were inclined to try and intervene in a situation like this (which would be stupid), a handgun is so not the right tool for counter-sniper use.

[Duckhunter935]

45. Exactly right

[greytdemocrat]

18. Stupid thread IMHO.

[Eleanors38]

106. Yes, and we see it "trotted out" so often.

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. The more relevant question would be

...given that there were, in our estimation, "several hundred guns" in private hands in the shooting area (which is laughable, by the way - you should get your information about places unknown to you from sources other than Merrie Melodies), why do these shootings not happen every day, all day?

If the premise is that open carry is so bad, why don't 4-5 cops or other people get slaughtered every day in Downtown Dallas?

[clarice]

36. This.nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. You don't try to counter snipers with a concealed handgun.

That's suicide.

[Kelvin Mace]

27. Do you seriously believe their were no

rifles of appropriate type in the area to deal with a sniper? In Texas? Besides, the NRA never differentiates about our needs for guns. All guns must be available to everyone, so the good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns. So, where were the good guys with guns?

[Lizzie Poppet]

31. In the area? Sure. In someone's possession at a location to actually get a shot? Doubtful.

There are reports of one guy carrying a rifle, the poor sod who was falsely pegged as a suspect. That guy handed his rifle, an AR-15, over to a police officer as soon as the shooting started (a wise move, as he is black and would likely have been shot by the police if he'd continued carrying).

Counter-sniper work is pretty specialized stuff. It's not a matter of someone with an appropriate (or otherwise) weapon electing to intervene and hey presto! Dead sniper!

[Duckhunter935]

48. What, a person of color with an AR?

That can't be. I am glad after bring falsely accused of being the shooter, he did the safe thing with his empty weapon.

[Eleanors38]

108. Plenty of rifles AND handguns. For self-defense, not a private police force, ye of little faith...

The only time people came to fore as your fanciful "Good Guy" Army was in the 1966 University of Texas shooting. Here, the police-issue .38 Specials were of no value, but student/faculty use of deer rifles suppressd the murderer after he got his several minutes of unresisted fame. Indirectly, the North Hollywood shootout was in part brought to an end by the police when they appropriated rifles ...from a local gun shop. These are exceptions to your strawman rule.

But even the CDC (yep, those guys) agree that there are at least tens of thousands of successful Self-Defense incidents each year. But your strawman keeps a-flaming.

[backscatter712]

23. Money quote is at 2:03...

?t=2m3s

[clarice]

24. Lawbreakers? You meant murderers of course.nt

[Kelvin Mace]

25. Ok, where were all the good guys with guns

who we are told are needed to protect us from murderers?

[clarice]

35. Probably home with their families, getting ready for work the next day.nt

[Kelvin Mace]

39. So, no good guys with guns were to found in the middle of Dallas?

Sounds like poor planing.

[clarice]

40. And if there had been... you would be first one yelling...

about "Right Wing Militia" groups planning to insight violence. I see your game. Weak.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. You see something that is not there

If people are going to offer this argument as justification for virtually unrestricted access to guns then they have to explain why their strategy does not work when put to the test.

[clarice]

59. ok.nt

[Eleanors38]

109. Heh-heh. On the nose.

[uncle ray]

71. it was nearly 9pm. who is out on the streets at that time but dangerous thugs? nt

[clarice]

86. Good point Uncle Ray. nt

[krispos42]

28. I'm guessing, that to avoid ending up like that guy in Minnesota, they left them at home.

n/t

[jonno99]

32. Yep, you're right. Only the police should be trusted to carry guns. nt

[Kelvin Mace]

38. With appropriate accountability

[Eleanors38]

110. "Yes, we've had it so many times before." ( Apologies to Ed McMahon)

[inwiththenew]

33. Seems like a great way to end up dead

Either by the police mistaking you for a hostile actor or the gunman shooting you with a better weapon than anybody could reasonably carry.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. Oh, I agree,

but the NRA and their supporters keep talking about this trope. So, it is only fair they tell me why they didn't stop this. If there was ever a state where everyone and their dog has a gun, it is Texas.

[beevul]

54. Right after you explain why the laws didn't prevent it. N/T

[Kelvin Mace]

62. The "laws" such as they are,

allow practically anyone to get a dangerous military-grade weapon with laughable ease.

[beevul]

70. Do they also allow murder?

LOL@ 'military grade'.

[friendly_iconoclast]

73. This is a subject in which the ignorant are often proud of their ignorance

[beevul]

74. Habitually. N/T

[Kelvin Mace]

76. Does the law allow murder?

Hmmm... Let me ask Treyvon Martin? Oh, wait...

How about any of the 1,134 men killed by the police in 2015? How many were punished when they had clearly crossed the line?

So, yes, the law allows murder as long as the right people kill the right people.

Military grade is funny?

The SKS is a Soviet semi-automatic carbine chambered for the 7.62×39mm round, designed in 1943 by Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov. Its complete designation, SKS-45, is an initialism for Samozaryadnyj Karabin sistemy Simonova, 1945

The 7.62x39mm round was designed by the Soviets for use in combat and has a muzzle velocity between 2100 and 2900 feet per second. So, yeah, military grade.

[beevul]

79. Yes. 'Military grade' is funny.

Yes. 'Military grade' is funny.

The 7.62x39mm round was designed by the Soviets for use in combat and has a muzzle velocity between 2100 and 2900 feet per second. So, yeah, military grade.

The 7.62 x 39 is the ballistic equivalent of the 30.30 - one of the most common deer calibers in existence.

'Military grade' is meaningless hyperbole, intended to lead the reader to a less than factual conclusion.

But then, you and everyone else that repeat it as if it has meaning already knew that.

[Kelvin Mace]

82. Equivalent, to a round normally fired by a bolt-action rifle.

Fine, I will allow such weapons, but only bolt-actions. No more semi-auto weapons.

But, I know it won't fly with the gun purists. In the end it comes down this absolute truth, well articulated by the Atrios:

Legal guns (including open carry, concealed carry, stand your ground, etc.) exist so that white people can enact their vigilante fantasies involving "protecting" themselves from black people.

Whatever the law says, it is illegal for black people to own and possess guns, and possession is proof of an imminent threat that justifies execution by law enforcement or any white person.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to protect slave owners from a slave uprising. We just live with a variation of that justification today.

[beevul]

83. So what?

Equivalent, to a round normally fired by a bolt-action rifle.

So what? Oh, you want to move the goalposts, I get it.

Fine, I will allow such weapons, but only bolt-actions. No more semi-auto weapons.

Were you planning on confiscating them yourself?

Sorry, you and the anti-gun bunch aren't going to outlaw semi-auto weapons or technology.

That you desire to take citizen ownable firearm technology back into the 1800s says about all that needs saying about your viewpoint: It is extremist and well outside the mainstream in America. Even here on DU which is far left of mainstream America you get lots of opposition.

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to protect slave owners from a slave uprising. We just live with a variation of that justification today.

This is an opinion, and one which is well disconnected from reality.

The point of the 2a can be found in the preamble to the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://www.billofrights.org/

To restrict government, just like amendment 1, amendment 3, amendment 4, and so on.

[Kelvin Mace]

84. I stand by my views

Good day.

[beevul]

85. Of course you do.

Good day.

[ileus]

44. I thought we whined when "good guys with guns" show up at protests?

[Kelvin Mace]

66. How do I tell the difference between a "good guy with a gun" and

a deranged killer with a gun before he starts shooting? Once he starts shooting, it would be a little late.

But again, this dodges the question, Texas is overloaded with guns. I would guess that excluding the police there were dozens, if not hundreds, of guns within a six block radius of the "bad guy with a gun". Yet, it was the police, using a bomb, who took the guy down.

If "good guys with guns" are not going to do their job, why let them have guns?

[sarisataka]

52. Do you want every person

With a gun to intervene in an active situation or should they continue leaving its to the paid professionals?


And if there were several hundred armed people there, how come it didn't devolve into the mass shoot out of everyone shooting at everybody as we've been promised would happen in such a situation?

[Kelvin Mace]

64. Kind of my point about the stupidity of the argument.

If we are going to leave this to the trained professionals, then we can make their job a bit easier by putting some common sense rules in place prohibiting certain types of weapons, ammunition, and magazines from being legal to own, and certain types of people from legally possessing in the first place.

We could also make our society safer.

[Marengo]

77. What types of people would you prohibit?

[Kelvin Mace]

78. The mentally ill,

convicted felons, spouse abusers, child abusers, rapists, you know, the usual sorts we believe really shouldn't have access to firearms. Oh, and anyone who has ever mishandled a firearm, like allowed children access to them, "accidentally" shot themselves, or others while "cleaning" their gun.

[jmg257]

58. I think your confusion lies in thinking so many lawful gun owners are "Rambo wanna-be heroes".

Seems most Rambo wanna-bes are already LE (or military).

I don't know too many civilian gun owners who's notion it is they arm themselves to save the world.
It is actually frowned upon as not their responsibility, or even capability.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. However, it is the argument offered against restricting

the type of weapons people can buy, the type of ammunition, the capacity of magazines and the types of people who should be prohibited from buying them.

So again, my question is valid. Why didn't the "good guys with guns" stop the "bad guys with guns"? Why did the police have to resort to a bomb in order to stop a single bad guy with a gun? They police chief said that it would have been too dangerous to use anything short of a bomb, so what next? The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a bomb, so let's legalize bombs?

[arthritisR_US]

65. Running to WalMart...

they've run out of Depends...

[Kelvin Mace]

67. That was #1 on my list of reasons

The others were:

#2 - It dawned on them that running around at night waving a gun in front of armed and scared police might be suicidal.

#3 - Other "good guys with guns" might think they were a "bad guy with a gun".

[arthritisR_US]

68. Bingo! nt

[Rex]

72. You are a good guy with a gun, until that nanosecond you decide to become a bad guy with a gun.

And people just don't want to do anything about it, those that pretend or fantasize about being 'the hero' and getting lavished with attention have their mind made up.

EVERYONE gets a gun!

[Eleanors38]

111. Ah, the Magic Force Field theory again.

[Skittles]

75. crapping their pants

they are COWARDS

[oneshooter]

89. Who are cowards?

PLEASE POINT THEM OUT FOR US.

[Eleanors38]

112. Penis-talk gives way to self-defacation. Dialog improves, but it doesn't clear the atmosphere!

[joshcryer]

80. It was an ambush.

The cops even thought there were several shooters.

It was well planned in advance by someone familiar with those tactics (army guy).

You cannot account for a pre-planned event, it is impossible. Similar questions were asked about the Orlando shootings and the result is the same.

If someone plans to become a mass murderer, they will likely succeed more often than not, and there's little anyone can do about it.

[Kelvin Mace]

81. Again, despite these events being planned

the NRA and its supporters tell me "more guns", all it takes is good guy with a gun, ect. So, if you are saying that it is impossible in these instances, then the argument is invalid and we need to start cracking down on who can own guns and what types can be owned.

[arely staircase]

92. Being detained on suspicion.

20 to 30 protestors with rifles had to be vetted as possible shooters when the shit hit the fan.

[Kelvin Mace]

93. Again, that would kind of render the argument

for unfettered access to guns invalid. In a situation such as this, who do the police shoot?

[BKH70041]

97. They don't hang out at BLM events.

What the BLMers have to say doesn't interest them.

Well, you asked.

[Kelvin Mace]

98. It's Texas

They are hanging out doing other things and are armed to the teeth. I would think they would find time in their busy schedule to run out and stop a "bad guy with a gun"

[BKH70041]

99. Nah!

Not their part of town.

Maybe BLM could arrange a protest in Midland or Lubbock or something.

[TwilightZone]

102. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in Texas is armed to the teeth.

The Open Carry nuts are relatively few, and many TX businesses (several hundred, at last count) prohibit open carry. Many more prohibit CC, as well. So, not everyone wanders around with their guns, hidden or not.

That being said, there were more than likely some in the area at the time. As one noted in a TV interview, they did what everyone else did - ran for their lives.