Nashville Man Shot, Attacker Repelled By Armed Citizen

'A Nashville man has been arrested following a failed alleged attempt on his boss’s life. The suspect, 62-year-old Ronald Kirby, is now in jail and the victim, 59-year-old Ronald Francis, is in the hospital. However, it looks like Kirby’s attempt didn’t account for an armed citizen standing by'

The odds of ending a mass shooting by merely engaging are actually pretty good.



Source: https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/...s-owner-shot-attacker-repelled-armed-citizen/

 

"There is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – every nine out of 10 days on average". Hmm, those odds aren't playing out very well!

 

Dammit!
How can the anti-gun left push its agenda when armed law-abiding citizens stop people from committing mass murder?!?!?!?!?

 

Tee hee,

This never happens !

So say the Avocados !
Green with envy, over Our Gun Rights !

 

Which is a meaningless statement when viewed without context. The reporting of mass shootings,,specifically, the sensationalization and hysteria associated with ‘mass’ shootings tends to create a perception of the risk that is far greater than actual risk. And, because of the scope of the reporting is equal to the scare factor, mass shooting accounts far more frequently get legs in the media of other countries skewing perceptions. Missing from the picture being fostered in the reporting of mass shootings is understanding of any understanding of the typology, I.e., gang drive by shootings, opportunistic elimination of witnesses to a crime, suicides accompanied by taking family members along for the ride, etc. Yet applying the word ‘Mass’ to incidents of shootings of multiple victims deliberately invokes a broad range to the perception of victimization; 4 victims receive the same magnitude of measure as 20, 50 or 100.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#31

By replacing the actual number of victims with the measure of ‘mass’ is a deliberate tactic to mislead of the scope, risk, and horrific nature of a specific instance to increase the market value and legs of reporting.

Though, the 2013, report of the 2013 study was published before the LV event, it accurately notes the tabulation of the victims of mass shootings is minuscule measured against victims of the overall number of gun deaths.

So, what are the real odds of being a mass shooting victim?

 

That you think a mere reference to the data is meaningless is of course the real problem.

 

Why is it that many of those among the GCA seem to figure it’s ok to quote selectively, out of context to skew or change the message being offered to suit their bias? You had plenty you could have used to formulate an opposing arguement, but chose to ignore, both the data and the arguement by using the selection of the cherry picked phrase to impune. Says loads about your character.
I always invite debate, but I prefer honorable debate.

 

There wasn't an opposing argument. I merely gave a factual comment. Why do you people hate facts so much?

 

I presented facts from one of the most comprehensive studies on firearm violence and remedies of the last 2 decades. I also am not a ‘you people’, I am an independent minded person that does not merely accept the doctrine of any group.

 

I can't remember one instance of you using evidence with credibility. I do remember you referring to terrorists in positive terms mind you. Perhaps try more fact and less ideology in future? You clearly haven't tried to challenge my point with any credibility: why does the US have so many mass shootings, given gun prevalence is deemed to be the means to ensure deterrence or lack of success?

 

First, I did not speak about terrorists in positive terms, as you suggest, but referred to their role in cross border black market smuggling in context to the discussion we were having, not unlike that of various organized gangs in the US that smuggle drugs. That I know certain individuals or groups and what they do in NI, is a product of having lived there most of my early life and my continuing relationships with family and friends still residing there. While outside the scope of discussion here, I suspect the only groups in NI you label ‘terrorist’ are those of Republican ideology and not those supporting Loyalist ideology and fostering violence on Republican/Nationalist onclaves, groups like the UDA, UVF, UFF, or RHC, all still active and all that also engage in black market activities.
Second, while I have referred to sources of analysis and published studies in my postings many times, I note you dismiss the 2013 study I referenced and quoted this go in counter to the scope of victims of mass shootings you proffered.
Given you remaining question, it is clear you did not read the report of the 2013 study this go or previously when posted. That report not only critically reviewed much of the body of study regarding the gun debate, but also highlighted what data and areas of inquiry is missing that would help in both understanding of related phenomena and potential remedies to gun related violence, and it identified many questions that remain.
One thing I haven’t done is suggest I was a participant in any study as you appeared to do in one of your early posts.

As for credibility, I claim none, but leave that determination to others in the forum.

 

Given the conversation was of course about lawful ownership of guns, using terrorists in counter was of course indicative of ideological limitation.

And you should know they are a poor argument to utilise.

This again shows the ponce of your ideology. I've always been in favour of an united ireland and have treated all terrorist groups as terrorist, your comment merely shows just how full of bobbins you really are.

Now you openly lie. You do not refer to the evidence. Happy for you to correct that. Present the reference (author(s), year, title, journal) of what you deem to be particularly important.

Chortle, chortle, a pathetic effort. Give the study here and present an argument. Your preference for a lack of honesty is not appreciated.

 

Not only wasn’t that context of the discussion, it was about ‘sin tax’ and revolved around it’s application in Seattle market response to it, but it was you that introduced terrorism when I referred to cross border smuggling in Armagh when you made a leap. Here’s the specific post that was the origin of the terrorism reference:http://politicalforum.com/index.php...e-violent-crime.522779/page-9#post-1068503520

In terms of smuggling and a blackmarket, any vector of it is relevant, whether a para group in NI, or gang in the US. As I wrote; I an not PC, what is is. I don’t need you to lecture me on what is acceptable to reference.

Outside the context of the gun control discussion you have no idea of my ideology, but are making assumptions. BTW, off topic, but I was victimized severely by security forces in NI... at age 13, along with my family. Let’s see what assumptions you make on that.

I am not the one making an accusation, the burden of proof is on the accuser here, not the accused. Besides, I don’t lie or deliberately deceive to make a point in a debate (or in anything for that matter), nothing is worth doing that to me. And, I have little problem with any record or mistake I make being corrected or acknowledged by me, if true.

Which study? The one I posted above? Again, I will let others judge my level of honesty here. And, I will admit to a bias, when I say, I will not be crushed by any judgement of my honesty or integrity from you when you haven’t upheld to such yourself.

 

That isn't a study. Why do you insist on talking guff? However, prepared for you to show otherwise. What is the study's hypothesis, what is its empirical specification and what are its findings?

I won't forget your positive references to the IRA. That is for obvious reason.

 

Am I missing part of this story? Where is the armed bystander saving a life?

Not going to waste bandwidth on a fake news site like " bearing arms" it is NRA astroturf

 

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#v What would you call it?
Regarding positive references to the IRA, show which of my posts suggested a positive reference to the IRA, and which IRA would that be?
I guess I am surprised based on your comment that you haven’t accused me of being IRA or asked that question. In the US, it would be akin to insinuating racism.

 

Odds? Far far far higher in this country than in any other first world country on the planet

 

A simple Google sear of "Ronald Kirby Nashville", which is 12 words less than your whinging post above, yielded a plethora of results (about 785,000, according to Google) from the mainstream media in 0.42 seconds. Wouldn't your time have been spent more wisely looking it up yourself?

The shooter shot his ex boss in the face, which is attempted murder. He was evidently willing to kill his victim. He failed to do so with one shot whereas he was engaged by an armed civilian. Had he not been engaged, would he have given up his assault or continued until he reached success?

 

hen about 10 seconds later we heard about four or five gunshots, really loud ones and apparently that was the people in there that had firearms they were shooting back at him.”

Police said another employee at the Resolutions Inc. fired his weapon in retaliation, but Kirby wasn’t hit. A third employee was struck in the chin by one of the ricocheting bullets. The wound was confirmed to be minor. He was treated at Skyline Medical Center.

The suspect ran from the building to a nearby Dollar General store ..'

>>MOD EDIT Rule 3<<

 

And could easily have been disarmed without a gun and without a bystander being injured

Why were there so many there armed?

 

Pray tell us the "easy" way of disarming a man with a gun who had already shown a predisposition to using it?

 

really?....better you than I

 

Don't you just hate it when the truth runs against your chosen narrative?

 

Except in this case as most from Bearing Arms, they provide supporting links. In this case to the original news release. Unless, tainted after the fact by Bearing Arms referencing the incident the independent new source’s release magically becomes a fake report. Regardless of your view, a blanket disregard for the messenger doesn’t invalidate a story based on your bias.

I like your thoughts on disarming an active shooter without shooting... something first responders should travel to AU to learn.

 

Have you ever been any where a gun fight?

As to your question, in many states there are sizable numbers of law abiding citizens that carry guns for SD emergencies such as the one reported. Why is it when a citizen successfully intervenes with a legally carried gun, GCAs either dismiss the report or go through any contortion to somehow invalidate, taint, impune, or otherwise dismiss such a successful self defense outcome?

Oh yeah, I forget myself; everyone there that was armed is a criminal timebomb waiting to go off.