These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news.
"Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".
I will never understand how people watch this kind of shit unfold and think to themselves, "That's why we need more guns."
Originally posted by Robtard
So armed guards did their job? Okay, good; that's their job. It's a same two innocent people had to die first.
Yes the armed volunteers successfully killed the bad guy thanks to a law passed by the texas governor earlier this year allowing firearms to legally be carried in places of worship.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news."Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".
Likewise "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards" sounds better for the anti-gun argument than "Good guy with a gun saves dozens". Why is one of those headlines more acceptable than the other?
I will never understand how people watch this kind of shit unfold and think to themselves, "That's why we need more guns."
In this specific case it's not hard to understand seeing this and thinking "we should have more guns".
The reason the body count isn't higher is because the governor of Texas signed a bill allowing people to bring firearms into a place of worship.
So yes, more guns in the hands of responsible citizens would be a good thing.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These stories always try to hype up the good news to downplay the bad news."Good guy with a gun saves dozens!" sure sounds better for the pro-gun argument than "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards".
I will never understand how people watch this kind of shit unfold and think to themselves, "That's why we need more guns."
An alternative perspective is that gun prohibition never works and only affects people who would obey the law, anyway.
Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative perspective is that gun prohibition never works and only affects people who would obey the law, anyway.
Remember the church shooting in Texas back in 2017? 26 people died and another 20 were injured. The shooter was stopped by a good guy with a gun, but not one from the church. This was a guy who lived nearby and heard the shots and came running.
Imagine if this law allowing people to carry in places of worship existed in Texas back then and you had armed volunteers in that church? Instead of 26 dead you might have only had a few people dead. Of course any death is tragic, but 2-3 dead is preferable to 26.
For this recent shooting clearly the crazed killer wouldn't have stopped if the law prohibited guns in places of worship. Prohibiting that would have only impacted the responsible law abiding citizens who saved the day.
I can see why some on the left will not like this story. This isn't merely just some good guys with guns who saved the day. This is a direct result of legislation passed by conservatives in Texas.
Originally posted by Robtard
These were security personal.Don't get any ideas about taking your gun to church, you're inexperienced and more likely to harm yourself or an innocent, Surt.
I see what you're trying to do but it's not going to work.
From the article:
A man in the back then pointed a handgun at the gunman and fired. The gunman fell, and at least three or four more people armed with handguns walk toward the gunman.
Disregarding the security personnel responding quickly, 3-4 other people, armed with guns, walked toward the gunman as soon as he was shot. They were also within 1-3 seconds of responding. The security personnel, perhaps, saved 1-2 more lives by their quick response. But armed citizens were very closely behind them, responding to the shooting.
Originally posted by Surtur
Likewise "Piece of shit with gun shoots and kills two people before being shot by guards" sounds better for the anti-gun argument than "Good guy with a gun saves dozens". Why is one of those headlines more acceptable than the other?
It's a much more accurate assessment of the situation.
Originally posted by Surtur
In this specific case it's not hard to understand seeing this and thinking "we should have more guns".The reason the body count isn't higher is because the governor of Texas signed a bill allowing people to bring firearms into a place of worship.
So yes, more guns in the hands of responsible citizens would be a good thing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
An alternative perspective is that gun prohibition never works and only affects people who would obey the law, anyway.
Were there significant difference in murders per capita than in the US?
Did the introduction of stricter gun laws reduce the overall number of homicides?
Is there a statistic for how many violent gun crimes are committed by people with no prior gun crime offenses?
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
It's a much more accurate assessment of the situation.The problem there is that loosening up gun control laws also makes guns more accessible to violent criminals, citizens without a prior criminal record with violent intent, and irresponsible gun owners...the very people responsible gun owners and otherwise want more protection from. It just seems like a vicious cycle.
What would you suggest to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while leaving law abiding citizens alone?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I see what you're trying to do but it's not going to work.From the article:
Disregarding the security personnel responding quickly, 3-4 other people, armed with guns, walked toward the gunman as soon as he was shot. They were also within 1-3 seconds of responding. The security personnel, perhaps, saved 1-2 more lives by their quick response. But armed citizens were very closely behind them, responding to the shooting.
What I'm doing is following what the story said: "The gunman fatally shot two people before two members of the congregation’s security team returned fire during a service at about 10:50 a.m."
The shooter was stopped/killed by security guards, it's what the story says. Your trolling of me is getting redic.
Originally posted by Silent Master
As opposed to the people that watch it and think "we need to take away guns from law abiding citizens."
Originally posted by Silent Master
What would you suggest to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, while leaving law abiding citizens alone?
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I know you've posted information about other countries with very strict gun laws before, and have made the argument that while gun crime is low, actual incidents of violence have remained roughly the same.
Right. In Japan's and Australia's cases, violent crime actually increased as well as their murder rates after their strict gun laws went into effect.
And in some places, violent crime and homicides sharply increased after strict gun laws went into effect.
This should not be used as evidence that guns help keep violent crime down or help reduce murder rates: that's not the case. They are likely to be independent variables, for the most part, or have confounding factors at play that sometimes creates a correlation and sometimes has none. Defensiv Gun Uses (commonly referred to as DGUs in research) may lower both violent crimes and homicides. Jury is still out on that.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Were there significant difference in murders per capita than in the US?
Not sure what your question is but this at least partially addresses your question:
Part 2 of Chicago's Handgun Ban Data which is important:
Also, I should note that the US doesn't have a homicide problem. We have a black-on-black violence problem. If you compare our white population to, say, all of Germany, we have lower homicide rates than even Germany. This is not something the Media and leftists want to talk about. They LOVE to talk about guns being the problem instead of us having a black culture problem. I'm quite adamant about the black violence problem needing to be addressed. More prison time, harsher sentences, more racist police-policies are NOT the correct answer. None of those help.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Did the introduction of stricter gun laws reduce the overall number of homicides?
No, there seems to be a trend of homicides and violent crimes increasing after stricter gun laws go into effect (see above charts).
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Is there a statistic for how many violent gun crimes are committed by people with no prior gun crime offenses?
There is recidivism data but what you're asking, I don't know if it exists. That seems to be a subset of a subset of people. Such a small data set that you could probably google search every single case for the last 10 years to find your data. Almost none are first time offenders.
The cases where they are not first time offender are crimes of passion or familial disputes. Or gang violence.
Probably the best case of strict gun laws not doing jack is Russia. Much stricter gun laws than the US. MUCH higher homicide rates than the US.
I thought about and compiled a long list of actions I think we should take from a legislative perspective. In that, I included no-nonsense gun regulations.
Originally posted by Robtard
What I'm doing is following what the story said: "The gunman fatally shot two people before two members of the congregation’s security team returned fire during a service at about 10:50 a.m."The shooter was stopped/killed by security guards, it's what the story says. Your trolling of me is getting redic.
You simply ignored the point I made.
Your point: "IT WASN'T THE GUN HOLDERS THAT STOPPED THE SHOOTER! IT WAS THE ARMED SECURITY!"
My point: "And the congregation was armed as well. They were within 1-3 seconds of also stopping the shooter. Your point is stupid. Calm down."