I might add that a lot of articles get little attention. They might put them lower on the list because it generates less clicks. Some shootings get stopped without loss of life and then they no longer become a shooting or mass shooting. To many variables. It’s not total bullshit that some media coverage gets passed over. Both sides do it.
B/c if it were a significant number the NRA would have above the fold on their website and on every single piece of marketing material they produce. But, yet, no one knows.
Because we have a societal problem of people with guns killing in mass shooting incidents, you seem to be saying that we need more people with guns, including people who dream about carrying off mass shooting incidents, to be able to be heavily armed at will, under the illusion that they are among those who are eager to protect innocent people from mass shooters.
That's logical about the media. A mass shooting that doesn't start is not click-worthy. Agenda-driven or money driven?
I wonder if there is any data on the number of good guys with guns (non-LEO) who have accidentally shot an innocent bystander while trying to stop the bad guy. That would be interesting to know, as well.
Could be both as money is an agenda.
Conversely, you seem to labor under the assumption that the people who carry out these mass shootings will somehow be affected by passing laws that they won’t pay attention to anyway, and that will only affect people like our Greenwood Good Samaritan.
It is somewhat significant. The problem is a bunch of shootings happen where guns aren’t allowed. I believe the guy who killed the greenwood shooter was actually carrying in an area not allowed. So technically he broke the law while not breaking the law.
Actually they (the NRA magazine or at least one of them, I think they have two [or more] these days) used to have an entire section devoted to those incidents and it was full in every issue...
MtM, your comment about a good samaritan made me think what would happen if the good samaritan killed an innocent bystander by mistake.
Or who ended up getting shot by the police in the fog of war
Crazy thing is the mall is a gun free zone I believe. So that Good Samaritan might’ve been breaking the law. Insane isn’t it?
That’s because he didn’t start the shooting. He becomes a civilian officer. Same as if a police stray bullet kills a bystander.
Oh gee...
Kentucky passed constitutional carry 2 years ago. I’ve not heard of any Hatfield and McCoy incidents yet.
See Victor's post above yours. The number of mass attacks stopped by citizens was 50 out of 316 but only 10 of the 50 were with a gun. The bumrush tactic seems to work pretty well too.Actually they (the NRA magazine or at least one of them, I think they have two [or more] these days) used to have an entire section devoted to those incidents and it was full in every issue...
Couldn't tell you what they're doing nowadays.
I haven't belonged since 2008 because I think LaPierre is a bit of a nut and more than a little bit of a schister too (but he did have a couple of great speech writers on staff back around 2005-2007)... There are plenty of good people that do still belong though that don't necessarily agree with every move the guy makes...
Took about 20 seconds for me to find this under NRA...:
An Official Journal Of The NRA | The Armed Citizen®
Millions of Americans use firearms to defend themselves, their families and their homes. We highlight the remarkable stories of these Armed Citizens every week.www.americanrifleman.org
Bumrush tactics work well against everything but the AR style high capacity long guns.
The only info left out is wether those were a gun free zone. I suspect that would tighten up the stats. I’d bet money more than half are.
There was an incident recently in Colorado where the cops shot and killed the good samaritan.
So a survey by gun nuts of America says cops think armed citizens will cut down on mass shootings but then cops don’t want you to have a gun if they pull you over?
376
Of course. Cops have no way of knowing.
That’s not my argument or stance. There is also a disconnect of some agencies on this matter.
I should have said: significantly Under Reported at least when there's a good guy involved...
This is certainly a fair point: that likely most times a gun is used in self defense is as a deterrent and this isn’t statistical or newsworthy. However, it is also likely that many times the presence of a gun escalated the situation.
From that national survey (the Georgetown paper)
Well, our perceptions of downtown Indy are very different.
Too many people have a self-image of being superman and think that their badass gun keeps everyone away, that they are super-capable, cool under pressure, and God's superhero gift to the galaxy. When it reality they'd be shooting themsleves or acting like the Uvalde cops.
I’m not sure who you hang out with but I’m around a lot of gun owners and I’ve not seen or heard any of them posture to the point you are stating. Inmho that is way overblown. Are there instances of people like this? Yes but it’s not rampant among them. This is why it’s hard to engage discussion because people dismiss guys like me. My first reaction is not to use force. It’s quite the opposite and most if not all people I know are the same.
It's just the most vocal ones usually. A guy who plinks cans for enjoyment or uses it to hunt generally doesn't act like an asshole.
I’ve only seen guns pulled in the “wild” 2 times and both times I was the helpless one.
And both were criminal elements. Even the ‘banger that pulled one on me for no reason other than to intimidate.
