FBI report debunks popular anti-gun myth

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Or more likely, you aren't capable of coherent argument, so you'll just throw a comment and let people think what they will. Lol

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Or more likely, you aren't capable of coherent argument, so you'll just throw a comment and let people think what they will. Lol

Jaden

Are you suggesting he is right in his assessment?

Like really....

a reply to: Masterjaden

So what's the coherent argument then?

Is it coherent in saying that if Australia had gun laws more like America, this family wouldn't have been murdered?

This is the vibe I'm getting here, and it's utterly wrong, since it was a trusted patriarch of the family who OWNED multiple rifles shot his family in their sleep.

I'd love to hear you explain how American gun laws would have prevented this...

a reply to: JBurns

Always important (sometimes interesting too) to read official government 'conclusions' - the devil is always in the details...

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JBurns

So in this case the FBI is to be believed and trusted?

But on other matters, not so much.

Interesting...

FBI senior management, directors and other higher-ups have been found lacking transparency and ethics - whether that be Comeys ever-morphing recollection of all-things-Clinton or pissing hookers OR even a sizeable ambush exercise resulting in the murder (read pre-meditated killing) of a US citizen - FBI management - at fault.

Now, in regards to this report, it appears to not have Comeys 'lordy, I hope there are tapes' oozing from it - I've just finished reading the whole thing.

This report is resultant from collaboration with other institutions and was published for the benefit of US citizens so as to determine the best way forward based upon the statistics provided.

TL;DR? I don't trust the Comeys of the FBI to tell it as it is - they are politically agenda driven, sad, I know, but thems the facts to date - but I sure as hell trust the agent Mulders of the FBI - they're the good guys who are, unfortunately, copping the brunt of the social backlash by way of the low-informationers insistence that 'guilty by association' means guilty until proven innocent because apparently every FBI employee has the same moral and ethical compass as Comey.

and we, being the me's and you's of the world, and the rank-&-file FBI, have Comey et al to thank for the current reputation of the FBI and the new argument that either everything is truth or none of it is truth because there are apparently no shades of grey when the US government is involved.

Quite convenient, innit???

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Masterjaden

So what's the coherent argument then?

Is it coherent in saying that if Australia had gun laws more like America, this family wouldn't have been murdered?

This is the vibe I'm getting here, and it's utterly wrong, since it was a trusted patriarch of the family who OWNED multiple rifles shot his family in their sleep.

I'd love to hear you explain how American gun laws would have prevented this...

Classic strawman. By actual definition. Look it up.

You are forcing a discussion about national stats into individual anecdotes.

originally posted by: Taggart
Schrodingers FBI - Everyone hates when them when Trump is mentioned, yet their reports matter on this?

As for "Proponents of gun confiscation/gun control often claim the "Good guy with a gun" axiom is actually a myth, and that armed citizens "never" stop shooters/criminals. "

It's also a fact that countries where guns are illegal, mass shootings don't really happen. Imagine that, you probably can't at this point.

Classic zero sum mentality

Better check that bathwater before you toss it out

ETA...the discussion is going as badly as i suspected. No statistical counter arguments. Just strawmen and hasty generalizations.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I didn’t bring it up.

I’m discussing pretty much this..

Now *you* imagine how this could've been different if those folks had actual firearms to defend themselves with.

Also, how is it a strawman when I made no argument but only asked a question?

A strawman would be suggesting you support that nonsense because instead of calling that out, you’ve called me out.

So..do you support such a stance?

a reply to: introvert

introvert, if the "man of the house" engaged in this terrible crime then he is a violent thug. I don't use that phrase as a coded word, I mean any person who would take the lives of innocent people

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Thank you Sublimecraft, this is why I sometimes avoid posting at 12:00 AM

a reply to: Chadwickus

Second guessing specific instances requires a crystal ball, which none of us have.

What we do have is statistical data. And it says what it says.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Am I not correct? Clearly extreme gun control is not helping anything EXCEPT mass shootings in Australia - and it has not eliminated those as many like to pretend.

There are far more crimes than mass shootings. Mass shootings are one of the lowest and least prevalent causes of death in any country. Even Honduras, which has an extremely high murder rate, suffers relatively few mass shootings.

Mass shootings aren't worth solving if every other crime stat increases. The Rape, assault, robbery, burglary, total number of victims... all are drastically higher in Aus. than the United States. There is only one reason for this: our firearms.

Despite the fact we may occasionally have a mass shooting here, our other crimes (violent crimes and property crimes) are much lower than Aus.

a reply to: Chadwickus

In this particular instance? You may be correct. However, FBI's statistics shows just how many criminals were put down by armed citizens. Zero innocent bystanders were killed by armed Citizens in 2016/2017 (the years that report covers)

Armed citizens have nothing to do with criminals, thugs, gangsters and mass murderers. By the book, however, we have stopped *nearly* as many as LEOs have. A good partnership between LE and the community is extremely important as are the citizens who voluntarily arm themselves in order to make a real difference.

My sincerest appreciation to each and every armed citizen out there.

And yes, those kids were/are perfectly capable of grabbing a firearm in defense of their own life. Nothing immoral or illegal about that whatsoever.

a reply to: JBurns

Id suspect it would be more frequent but "no gun zones" are something that only law abiding citizens observe.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: introvert

introvert, if the "man of the house" engaged in this terrible crime then he is a violent thug. I don't use that phrase as a coded word, I mean any person who would take the lives of innocent people

Sure. I am certain you didn't read the source before you posted it.

Your entire post shows just that.

At least read your sources.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Very true and unfortunate that this attack had to prove that a "hunting weapon" vs so-called "weapon of war" is just as capable of inflicting mass murder and chaos

I never have understood the logic of a gun free zone myself. Maybe some folks just can't accept the reality that criminals will break their anti-gun laws, while leaving the rest of us less and less defended against brazen attacks

a reply to: introvert

But this is not a thread regarding the recent Aus. attack. Someone else brought Aus up.

This thread is in regard to the United States FBI, who's report indicates 8 armed citizens stopped mass shootings IN THE USA.

You all are the group bringing up Australia.

***But yes, you are correct. I was not/am not acquainted with the full facts RE: Aus. I linked that in a quick rebuttal to someone attempting to non-sequitur their way out of FBI's facts.

problem:

Proponents of gun confiscation/gun control often claim the "Good guy with a gun" axiom is actually a myth, and that armed citizens "never" stop shooters/criminals.

I don't think anyone is actually saying that a good guy with a gun never stops a bad guy with a gun.

Rather I think this is just simply a invented argument, nobody is seriously going to claim that a good guy with a gun has never stoped a bad guy with a gun. That is not the argument.

What is happening in this thread is that someone is using made up argument, pretending that it is being used by the pro-gun control advocates when it is not then claiming a victory by winning said fake argument. Its rather silly when you really think about it and if anyone ever wants to see a perfect example of a straw man argument look no further.

a reply to: JBurns

But this is not a thread regarding the recent Aus. attack. Someone else brought Aus up.

Irrelevant to my point.

You all are the group bringing up Australia

I did no such thing.

***But yes, you are correct. I was not/am not acquainted with the full facts RE: Aus. I linked that in a quick rebuttal to someone attempting to non-sequitur their way out of FBI's facts.

And therein lies the problem. It's very difficult to defend our 2nd amendment right or engage people in a discussion about it when so-called 2nd amendment supporters such as yourself are so lazy in it's defense. Not to mention you seem to be spitting the same rhetoric we have heard many times over.

This thread, and your approach, does not help. Stop trying to help. You don't have a clue what you are talking about and I'm tired of people like you being the example/voice thrown in my face when I engage people about our 2nd amendment right.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Yeah, no one would ever call the "good guy with a gun" into question.

To think that is could even be recommended is just plain absurd.

I mean, even folks like our veterans obviously understand that being able to defend oneself is critically important.

Especially when it proves true...theres just no way it would be lambasted.