Gun Rights FAIL!

[Monster]

Sooo...I guess running away really is the best way? http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/...-with-armed-civilian-and-everyone-still-dies/

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not surprised by the results, but I am actually pretty impressed by their honesty.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not surprised by the results, but I am actually pretty impressed by their honesty.

I was also surprised by that.

I would be even MORE surprised if any of them were to put 2 and 2 together and say "Maybe more gun ownership ISN'T the answer to our problems."

 

[Monster]

I just love that the one person who escaped is the one who fled instead of engaging in a fire fight.

 

[tigersofjustice]

That is amazing that they would even try it. It tells me that they actually believe what they say, which I am always somewhat suspect about.

The results....well those were not surprising at all really.

 

[Michchamp]

This comment is rich:

Another volunteer, Parks Matthew, said he ?still got killed, but did better than I thought I would.?
His ?death? would not, however, deter him from acting in a situation with an actual hostile shooter. ?If I?m in a movie theater and someone pulls a gun, what am I going to do?? he asked.
?I know now I?m not gonna just fall on my kids and protect them, I need to advance on the threat.?
​

LOL. some people are so in love with guns, they'd die just for the privilege of getting to shoot one. "Well, I could've run to save my life, but then I wouldn't get to fire a gun!"



And how often would one be in a position to shoot a crazed gunman in a dark, crowded, chaotic movie theatre to protect their kids? More likely this is what happens. Or worse... this.



The scenarios these idiots come up with to justify their child-like obsession with guns are ridiculous.

 

[zyxt9]

to be somewhat fair, what is missing from this is the exact situation for the 1 who survived. was that individual by an easily accessed exit? he left immediately upon hearing gunfire, so had he already played the scenario in his mind, giving him a few extra seconds that someone in that real life scenario might not have had, and thereby increased the probability of being killed as well?

fact is the attackers had automatics while the victims likely had pistols as well. one would naturally expect the odds would favor the attackers in that situation. there are tons of variables to consider. did any of the victims try to hide (a valid instinct for many) only to get cornered and killed? did they kill any of the terrorists during the confrontations (something completely left out in the report is how many "bad guys" were killed, incapacitated, or otherwise put out of commission, thereby reducing their potential of harming others.

don't get me wrong, it is a valid statement on how having a gun does nothing to save your life. but does it provide others an opportunity to escape like the one who did run. some people, former military and police for example, have an instinct to try and save others though they themselves will die in the process. is that instinct to be condemned? that info is also left out of this report. did the odds of others being able to escape increase thanks to someone who had a gun delaying the bad guys long enough to let others survive who otherwise would have been killed? did they only allow one person to have a gun to defend against the numerous bad guys? did they run a scenario where every victim had a gun and one where every victim did not?

like I said, tons of variables, just curious as to what ones were used and which were not and of the ones that were not run, what was the reasoning for why it was not.

not saying the data is useless, just wanting to know more.

 

[Spartanmack]

It's a pretty weak sample size and limited to a single scenario and like zyxt9 says, there's a lot of information left out (like did any more survive when the armed civilian intervened, etc) but that won't stop the anti-gun crowd from saying it proves, no matter what that you're always better off not having a gun. This proves it - even though it doesn't.

And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesth...s-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.bhewLEBWd

 

[zyxt9]

yeah, they ran 12 scenarios, so the acquired dataset is small. also, each time it seems the scenario involved only 1 victim having a sidearm. I would expect that person to die every time they engaged.

anytime a scenario like this plays out in reality, the attackers have the advantage of surprise at a minimum and usually superior firepower and numbers as well. so I can believe the best course of action actually is to try and run away instead of fighting, provided there is a clear exit available. but if I'm cornered, I'd rather have a gun in hopes of maybe getting one of them before dying, while realizing that has a very slim chance. if I don't have a gun, I'm going to try finding something to use as a weapon or a distraction/misdirection object that can be thrown against a different wall to draw attention away from me or even at the attackers face in hope it invokes the natural instinct to duck for the attacker while I try to charge and tackle them. all I'm saying is if I'm cornered and only foreseeable option is death, I'm not cowering and doing nothing...it just goes against my nature. even if it is to serve as a distraction in hopes that others have a chance to survive, knowing I will die in the process...I'd rather that than not take that opportunity and there be zero chance of anyone surviving.

again, too many variables. I could be killed by the first bullet fired being one of those variables.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm surprised they didn't concoct any scenarios where the shooter delays the attackers allowing some others to escape. If the guy with the gun can run away, why not someone without a gun?

 

[Spartanmack]

I'm surprised they didn't concoct any scenarios where the shooter delays the attackers allowing some others to escape. If the guy with the gun can run away, why not someone without a gun?

There are a lot of pretty obvious questions that the piece doesn't address. It did say they haven't posted the results to their website yet (or was it FB page?) - perhaps they are still going over the results and some answers will be made available.

 

[Michchamp]

There are a lot of pretty obvious questions that the piece doesn't address. It did say they haven't posted the results to their website yet (or was it FB page?) - perhaps they are still going over the results and some answers will be made available.

LOL, @ "going over the results..."

Yeah Texan gun nut groups have gotten a lot more circumspect since their decision to open carry in Chipotle backfired.

these are your intellectual peers spartanhack...

 

[Spartanmack]

LOL, @ "going over the results..."

Exactly the point of my earlier post - doesn't matter to the leftists whether the armed citizen saves lives - if the guy who intervenes dies, they don't need any other information. That's all the proof you need...having a gun is useless, even though you yourself have said that you own a gun and keep it in your home. Why? If you're sure to die confronting an armed intruder or more likely to shoot yourself in the ass and you clearly believe there are too many guns in America, why do you own one? Will you only use your gun for unarmed intruders? Would you shoot an unarmed man dead? What if he was a black teenager just looking for some candy? How could you live with yourself knowing what a horrible person you are for shooting an unarmed person? You could be the second registered Democrat you accused of being a racist, right wing gun nut murderer. LOL

By the way, I bet both those idiots in that picture are smarter than you. Dumbass.

 

[tigersofjustice]

It's a pretty weak sample size and limited to a single scenario and like zyxt9 says, there's a lot of information left out (like did any more survive when the armed civilian intervened, etc) but that won't stop the anti-gun crowd from saying it proves, no matter what that you're always better off not having a gun. This proves it - even though it doesn't.

And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesth...s-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.bhewLEBWd

Don't think this was meant as anything but a test of that exact scenario. As a sample size for that, and based on the results, it probably is adequate.

 

[tigersofjustice]

Exactly the point of my earlier post - doesn't matter to the leftists whether the armed citizen saves lives - if the guy who intervenes dies, they don't need any other information. That's all the proof you need...having a gun is useless, even though you yourself have said that you own a gun and keep it in your home. Why? If you're sure to die confronting an armed intruder or more likely to shoot yourself in the ass and you clearly believe there are too many guns in America, why do you own one? Will you only use your gun for unarmed intruders? Would you shoot an unarmed man dead? What if he was a black teenager just looking for some candy? How could you live with yourself knowing what a horrible person you are for shooting an unarmed person? You could be the second registered Democrat you accused of being a racist, right wing gun nut murderer. LOL

By the way, I bet both those idiots in that picture are smarter than you. Dumbass.

I get that you don't like Michchamp, but it is pretty obvious he is reasonably well educated. Don't know that calling him a dumbass who is less intelligent than two fairly obvious idiots furthers your point at all. Ditto for him.

Are you professionals? If so, how is it possible you can act reasonable all day and then come here and say none sense like that?

 

[hailhail]

I don't know what "results" we're waiting on, as if this were some kind of well thought out social science experiment...

 

[Michchamp]

the presence of guns in Chipotle that day resulted in 43% fewer incidents of people taking too much tabasco sauce, or stealing a whole bottle and taking it home.

when are liberals going to stop ignoring these facts???

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know what "results" we're waiting on, as if this were some kind of well thought out social science experiment...

zyxt9, gulo and I all pointed out that the piece creates more questions than it answers - particularly, what was the survival rate of others in the office when the armed worker intervened? If the reenactment was just to see what would happen to a guy when he pulls a pistol on two men armed w/ AKs who intend to kill as many people as possible, then it was a waste of time.

 

[Spartanmack]

the presence of guns in Chipotle that day resulted in 43% fewer incidents of people taking too much tabasco sauce, or stealing a whole bottle and taking it home.

when are liberals going to stop ignoring these facts???

Strawman. I haven't seen one person advocating for open carry in any of these threads - certainly not in this one.

 

[hailhail]

zyxt9, gulo and I all pointed out that the piece creates more questions than it answers - particularly, what was the survival rate of others in the office when the armed worker intervened? If the study was just to see what would happen when a guy pulls a pistol on two men armed w/ AKs, then it was a waste of time.

I don't think the answers to those questions, or the "survival rate" of the "armed citizens" even, are particularly valuable data points. I'm pretty sure Champ and Monster know that, and are simply making fun of a position they consider stupid (because it's kind of funny after all, unless you're some humorless, overly sensitive dimwit....).