Over 60 percent of active shooters stopped by good guy with a gun

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

I'm aware of what disciplined free speech is currently and a few of the laws surrounding it.

Now where firearms we are concerned, lets go with handguns as they are the vast majority of use cases in gun violence.

Most states require both parties register themselves and the firearm for transfer due to sale.
Most states have brandishing, threat, cohersion laws and are amplified for firearms being involved.


Your argument doesn't follow.

Read the Quora link and people's experiences.

Im speaking directly to you.

Not Quora

a reply to: quintessentone

A LEGAL face to face private sale needs to have a gun purchase permit which is obtained from your local police or sheriff’s department.
Now that is the law here in Michigan, I don’t know about any other states.

Edit - That applies to handguns only, not long guns.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
So, when one leaves their home or property, they are fair game for attack? What about renters who don't own their property? What about walking the dog in ones neighborhood? What about coming home from a trip to the bank in a car?

We don't have to worry about that any longer, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling of June 23rd, 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. They said that people have a guaranteed Second Amendment right to protect themselves even if they're away from their home.

That means that I, living here in Illinois, can't be prohibited from carrying a gun to protect myself when I'm away from my home. And since it's an inherent right, they also can't charge me a lot of money to get a permit before I can avail myself of that right.

That's the fact, Jack.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Why do mass shooters tend to choose gun free zones?

Why did you move the goal post with that comment when the other person just made a simple observation?
You know for a fact there is no good way to answer your proposed question so why ask unless your intended purpose is to create a debate that you clearly just want to do to ruffle some feathers.
Why don't you propose a solution to your own question?

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

That's not entirely true. Even with a conceal carry license you still have to get a pistol carry license in NY to carry.

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

Why did you move the goal post with that comment when the other person just made a simple observation?

The goalpost wasn't moved. The entire point that was attempting to be made is that there may be other factors for mass shootings, which can certainly be true, yet we know per the OP source that the deterrent is civilian firearm holders.

You know for a fact there is no good way to answer your proposed question so why ask unless your intended purpose is to create a debate that you clearly just want to do to ruffle some feathers.

Did you stop to ponder what I thought before posting what you think I thought?

Tell ya what, tell me what you think and we can go from there.

Why don't you propose a solution to your own question?

Not only did I post the OP which shows what stops mass shootings in 43-61% of instances but I also provided my thoughts on solutions.

Education and more firearms is my solution. We live in a country where our ability to speak is backed up by our ability to keep and bear arms.

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

That's not entirely true. Even with a conceal carry license you still have to get a pistol carry license in NY to carry.

I think it is entirely true and so does the Supreme Court. A right is not something the state (any state) can charge you for before you're entitled to have that right. "Rights" can't come under the condition that you have to pay for them first.

Quick edit to add:
I think that aspect you speak of in New York will be the next challenge to get clarified. I know I'm going to go to the local State Police facility here and ask about how they intend to enforce Illinois law, which clearly goes against that Supreme Court rulling.

a reply to: JinMI

Ok so more people with guns is a good thing. Can't say I agree or disagree. A vast majority of people that do carry or wn should probably take classes but we all know most do not.
I say make it mandatory for all gun owners to take classes on a yearly basis along with a mental health check. More often than not someone that is ok one month could be oh so not ok the next.

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

Ok so more people with guns is a good thing. Can't say I agree or disagree. A vast majority of people that do carry or wn should probably take classes but we all know most do not.

There are more guns in the US than people. You may certainly choose to not own or carry one, which certainly is your right. However I have to ask why?

I happen to agree that those who purchase and carry a firearm should be in some form required to take safety training and be encouraged to take further training. Yet, I don't think it should be mandated by the state.

I say make it mandatory for all gun owners to take classes on a yearly basis along with a mental health check. More often than not someone that is ok one month could be oh so not ok the next.

Do you think it's a good idea to ask the government for permission to speak? Do you think its a good idea to ask a government for permission to not search or imprison you without due process?

originally posted by: Stopstealingmycountry
Ok so more people with guns is a good thing. Can't say I agree or disagree. A vast majority of people that do carry or wn should probably take classes but we all know most do not.
I say make it mandatory for all gun owners to take classes on a yearly basis along with a mental health check. More often than not someone that is ok one month could be oh so not ok the next.

You actually don't have to worry about disagreeing or agreeing. It's a fact, according to the OP. So I guess that means I can't have an opinion about it either - facts are facts.

And to your suggestion about yearly mandantory gun classes - I don't agree with that. We only have to be checked on our driving ability every four years, and cars kill a lot more people than guns, don't they? I'm against every proposal that would infringe upon my rights. Besides, a lot of gun owners shoot their guns regularly and that keeps them in practice. And once we know the rules, why should we have to keep relearning them every year? We wouldn't if Liberals didn't keep trying to change the laws alla time.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

The only hole in your argument here is all the existing infringements as well as recurring infringements (see NM Governors recent actions).

Like with many crimes in the cities, simply ignoring established law and legal precedent likely causes more harm than anything.

a reply to: JinMI

100% of shooters were someone with a gun.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

The only hole in your argument here is all the existing infringements as well as recurring infringements (see NM Governors recent actions).

Like with many crimes in the cities, simply ignoring established law and legal precedent likely causes more harm than anything.

This is not a criticism of what you said, I just don't quite understand what you said. I don't understand how it's a hole in my argument. When you say "simply ignoring established law and legal precedent likely causes more harm than anything," do you mean when the politicians do the ignoring, or when I do the ignoring?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JinMI

100% of shooters were someone with a gun.

Yes, guns exist.


Is this a new concept to you?

a reply to: Stopstealingmycountry

I think the more people that are perceived to maybe have guns is a bigger deturrent than open carrying. If the bad guy doesn't know who is carrying, they will assume there are more than they actually are.

I don't see yearly mandatory classes but possibly an hour a year range time with a quick safety and law changes refresher. It would be provided free by the government body requiring it including ammo of your choice as to not disadvantage the people of less means to afford the ammo.

If we go for mandatory mental evaluations, I propose the same for all government employees as the judges, legislatures, and even local officials are more likely to badly affect more people than any single shooter ever could.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Sorry, allow me to clarify.


The hole in your argument is that you possibly assume that because the legal precedent has been established that you are within your rights. When we see infringements upon our 2nd amendment like the NFA, licensing, taxes etc that exist, trying to follow the logic that because the SCOTUS clarified what gov't cannot do, we can't fall into the assumption that we are within the law and our rights. Thus I brought up the NM govenor.

Then I attempted to posit that city govts not abiding their own laws and making lax the penalties associated with them, that that is the greater threat to harm the populace. More than all the legal firearms across the nation.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
If we go for mandatory mental evaluations, I propose the same for all government employees as the judges, legislatures, and even local officials are more likely to badly affect more people than any single shooter ever could.

I was gonna say that, too, but I forgot. I'm glad you said it!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

Sorry, allow me to clarify.

That's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to make sure. Thanks for the clarification!

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JinMI

100% of shooters were someone with a gun.

Yes, guns exist.

Is this a new concept to you?

There are more shooters with guns, than there are good guys with guns stopping them.

The good guys with guns that stop shooters are never going to exceed the number of shooters.

As a well armed society, you can only loose.

a reply to: chr0naut

You've made many, many posts on your aversion to our Constitution and way of life.

I simply don't care about your opinion on it.

There are more shooters with guns, than there are good guys with guns stopping them.

This is clearly a lie. with 30,000ish gun crimes per year and the 393,000,000 guns that exists here as evidence.

Furthermore, there is approximately double the reported gun ownership than there is gun crime. All while 90 percent of gun crime is used with illegally obtained firearms.

I'm glad you continue to come out and spew the same nonsense so that the talking points can get smacked down.

You're providing a valuable service.