I occasionally carry a firearm, but it's for protecting me or my family against an attacker. Honestly it's more for if I run across wild hogs than anything. It doesn't make me an action hero who can charge a mass shooter.
In the event of a mass shooting, the rule is to run. If you can't run, you hide. If you can't run or hide, you fight back.
Carrying a gun doesn't change that. My little pocket pistol is inaccurate, low-capacity, and low power. If I try to use it to fight a mass shooter I'm probably just gonna be putting more bullets in the air while getting myself killed.
Tackling the shooter like was done in the video is a better tactic. Even if you could draw and shoot accurately in the time it takes to run a few steps, the shooter would probably still have time to do damage before bleeding out. Tackling them and taking control of the gun is faster and more effective.
There was a case a few years ago where a good guy with a gun stopped a shooter. The bad guy apparently shot and killed a cop, and reportedly wanted to shoot other cops. The good guy shot & killed the bad guy.
Then the cops showed up and killed the good guy with the gun.
It happens occasionally, but it's pretty rare. I heard a story some time back of a gunman who drove up on a birthday party or something, and a bystander shot them.
The rate is far lower than the rate of gun accidents, or even gun homicides though. It's not an argument for lax gun laws. It just is an occasional side effect that can't and shouldn't be counted on.
I think John Oliver did a deep dive and found in the history of shootings, a small handful were stopped by "a good guy with a gun" while a significant number beyond that were stopped by people without guns.
He went further: the good guy with a gun often were used for disciplinary measures (read: send black students to the school resource officer) instead of guarding the place. Not only that, but in school shootings were more violent where there was good guy with a gun.
To be fair, once. We've seen it once. In all the years of mass shootings. That Texas church where the guy shot the killer from like 25m away while he was moving.
I heard a story of someone who was at a gun show and some geniuses thought it would be a good idea to try and grab a bunch of rifles and just run for the doors, and of course about a dozen people drew down on them.
But then, that's like, proliferated guns at a gun proliferation party preventing guns from being proliferated by a tiny degree more than they would have otherwise, so... that kind of feels like a net neutral, overall.
I've seen lots of videos of good guys without guns saving people from bad guys with guns, but I've never seen a "good guy" with a gun do jack shit.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned the guy who shot Charlie Kirk lol. You guys have more class than I do, that's for sure.
It's rare. Off duty SAS guy did work in Kenya that one time. Saved a bunch of people.
This is the only one I've seen. And she's off-duty military police.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sao-paulo-armed-robber-shot-dead-brazil-school-gates-mother-children-a8350726.html
I occasionally carry a firearm, but it's for protecting me or my family against an attacker. Honestly it's more for if I run across wild hogs than anything. It doesn't make me an action hero who can charge a mass shooter.
In the event of a mass shooting, the rule is to run. If you can't run, you hide. If you can't run or hide, you fight back.
Carrying a gun doesn't change that. My little pocket pistol is inaccurate, low-capacity, and low power. If I try to use it to fight a mass shooter I'm probably just gonna be putting more bullets in the air while getting myself killed.
Tackling the shooter like was done in the video is a better tactic. Even if you could draw and shoot accurately in the time it takes to run a few steps, the shooter would probably still have time to do damage before bleeding out. Tackling them and taking control of the gun is faster and more effective.
There was a case a few years ago where a good guy with a gun stopped a shooter. The bad guy apparently shot and killed a cop, and reportedly wanted to shoot other cops. The good guy shot & killed the bad guy.
Then the cops showed up and killed the good guy with the gun.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/colorado-gunman-police-officer-killed
What evidence do you have that the """bad guy""" did anything wrong?
It happens occasionally, but it's pretty rare. I heard a story some time back of a gunman who drove up on a birthday party or something, and a bystander shot them.
The rate is far lower than the rate of gun accidents, or even gun homicides though. It's not an argument for lax gun laws. It just is an occasional side effect that can't and shouldn't be counted on.
I think John Oliver did a deep dive and found in the history of shootings, a small handful were stopped by "a good guy with a gun" while a significant number beyond that were stopped by people without guns.
He went further: the good guy with a gun often were used for disciplinary measures (read: send black students to the school resource officer) instead of guarding the place. Not only that, but in school shootings were more violent where there was good guy with a gun.
Let's stay on topic.
This guy is a hero.
What they said is the topic.
To be fair, once. We've seen it once. In all the years of mass shootings. That Texas church where the guy shot the killer from like 25m away while he was moving.
Jesus YouTube tried to delete this from history. Sorry about the Reddit link.
I heard a story of someone who was at a gun show and some geniuses thought it would be a good idea to try and grab a bunch of rifles and just run for the doors, and of course about a dozen people drew down on them.
But then, that's like, proliferated guns at a gun proliferation party preventing guns from being proliferated by a tiny degree more than they would have otherwise, so... that kind of feels like a net neutral, overall.
And importantly, a guy running away.
And a theft, not an assault.