Good guys with no guns more successful at stopping bad guys

"Unfortunately, the real world is much more complicated than Hollywood makes it out to be, even though The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly remains one of my top five favorite movies of all time. I’ve got a friend who’s a Navy SEAL sniper, and a darn good one at that. He laughs at the 'good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun' myth. As a sniper, he has trained for thousands of hours to be the good guy with a really accurate gun, and even he says that high intensity situations are so incredibly unpredictable. Even with thousands of hours of training, pulling that trigger is one of the most hardest things he’s ever done.

"What makes us think that the average Joe with a concealed weapon permit is qualified to make these split second decisions?....

"Call me a party pooper, but I don’t trust the average American, revved up on Fox News and a vigilante spirit, to perform well in a high intensity situation that he’s not trained for.

“ 'It is, for the most part, a myth perpetuated by people who’ve never been shot at,' says this trained soldier. And many combat veterans agree. The good guy with a gun mantra is largely a myth.

"In fact, the FBI recently released a massive study on the 160 active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013. Most of these situations ended with the shooter committing suicide. But 26 of 160 were stopped when someone in the crowd stopped the shooter. You might think this is a decent enough percentage to justify the good guy with a gun myth, but according to the study, only 5 were stopped with a guy with a gun while 21 were stopped by unarmed civilians.

"Good guys with no guns were four times more successful at stopping bad guys with guns."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theolo...is-a-good-guy-with-a-gun/#hxBylH2PeKWtR9EZ.99

Watching too many westerns can result in a skewed view of reality.

 

Successful defensive gun uses happen and are published by various local media outlets every day. Fact.

Licensed carriers generally do so to save their own life or of their loved ones.
More times than not, a shot is never fired. Amazing how criminals retreat at the sight of a gun pointed at them.

Licensed carriers are not cops, don’t want to be, and rarely interject themselves into a potentially deadly situation unless they believe they will die if they don’t draw their firearm.

 

Successful defensive gun uses are rare. The FBIs own figures show that for every defensive shooting there are over 30 criminal ones in the US. And before anyone tries to justify defensive non fatal uses of a firearm these are also vastly outweighed by criminal non lethal usage in respect of mugging and other nefarious crime

 

People use guns everyday to defend themselves. Fact, I post them often on here and we have two threads with nothing but reported news stories.

They are reported everyday in various news outlets.

All the stats in the world mean nothing at the moment you are the person that’s life is in danger if you don’t act.

 

In every single one of these incidents, there were good guys with no guns. Every single one. How many of the locations of these shootings were gun free zones? How many of these shootings actually had "good guys with guns"? In how many instances where "good guys with guns" present did they not engage the shooter?

The conclusion above is really bad science.

 

Good guys with guns are called regularly when a rape, mugging or homicide occurs.
If you call 911 eventually a good guy with a gun will show up. Too bad he’s not standing next to you when you need him.

 

Bet the Iranian people in the streets wish they had the Second, and concealed carry.

 

So those in LE that respond, Armed, to active shooter incidents are not good guys with guns? Well, many on the left would have many believe that while advocating the law abiding give up guns and delegate their security to the very same people.

 

Correct to a point. The point you are glossing over is the deterrent factor. By your logic, having nuclear weapons hasn't done anything for the US since August 1945, but that overlooks the fact the Soviet Union AKA the Evil Empire didn't start WWIII because of the deterrent factor by nuclear weapons. It's the main reason Israel (probably) has nukes and why Iran is seeking nukes. Not shoot at someone one but as a deterrent against attack. Same goes for CCW laws; Crooks don't know who is armed and who isn't. In Texas, they certainly don't know which houses are armed.....although a Hillary sign out front might be a clue on who isn't armed.

 

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d0/89/89/d089893f6436a42380aea5c4101b1d10--fun-stuff-funny-****.jpg

 

Yes!

Another version of same picture since the profanity filter took out the s-word:

 

Funny how many women have had guns pulled on them, outdrawn, and one would consider them dead, and still managed to turn the tables on their attacker and kill them.

Navy Seal notwithstanding,
He is dead wrong.
Too many accounts prove him wrong.
How much training can a 12 year old girl have ?

Yet many 12 year old females have defended themselves successfully.

So your N.S. pal can go pound sand.

https://townhall.com/columnists/cel...ith-gun-proves-need-of-2nd-amendment-n1257531

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/17-year-old-girl-defends-home-intruder/

 

Act you say ? I am already some 50 times less likely to be shot and 5 times less likely to be murdered than you are so what is it you think I should be doing ?

 

well good luck to the op using kah rah tay to defend himself and family against intruders. I prefer to use a center mass body shot. Saves all that money and time on kah rah tay classes and pracricing what I saw in imaginary kung fu movies.

 

Deliberately endangering my family by keeping guns in the home would be madness. In the US far more innocent people are killed or injured in the home by allegedly defensive guns than are intruders.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

 

deleted

 

While the stats are interesting, I don't see an apples to apples comparison nor data explaining why this is so. For example, 100% of those killed in a car accident were either driving/riding in or hit by a car. The majority of those inside the car were the car owners. Can we deduce from this that car owners are more likely to be killed than non-car owners? Yes, we can. Same goes for pool owners and family members drowning. It's difficult for a family member to drown in a pool they don't own.

So, yes, it makes sense that gun owners will suffer tragedies, mostly suicide. As discussed in other threads, firearms are used in 51% of over 44,000 suicides. The other 49% percent use suffocation (hanging is popular), poisoning and other means. Banning guns won't stop suicides. Better to focus on better mental health care.

 

It is you not making the apples to apples comparison. The great bulk of gun deaths require intent to kill and are not accidental. The great bulk of auto accidents are just that ..... accidents.

All other developed countries have auto fatalities too, but where they differ greatly from the US is in not having a tally gun deaths that match them. Why do you think that might be ?

 

The "great bulk of gun deaths" are suicides. You know that because you used the phrase "gun deaths" not homicides. Do you honestly believe banning guns will stop suicides?

The other "gun deaths", the ones that are actual murders are primarily from gang-bangers and domestic violence. Banning guns won't stop criminals from accessing firearms nor men beating their wives to death.

 

From what I understand a "gun" can be "printed" that will shoot a few rounds before it fails.

 

Correct. Zip guns were an old-fashioned way of making a gun.

Still, shredding our Constitution is not the best way to stop 22,000 gun suicides each year. Better mental health care, mental health laws and a reduction in the stigma of those needing mental health care should be our primary focus in saving thousands of lives each year from suicide. Those who give lip-service to this and then turn back to banning guns aren't really concerned about reducing suicide, they are obviously solely concerned with removing guns from the hands of innocent citizens.

 

At least 600 rounds, according to this story:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...printed-semi-automatic-fires-over-600-rounds/

 

False analogy between guns and nukes. There isn't much evidence of an overall deterrent effect. In fact, the opposite effect has been found:

"The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like. A more systematic exploration requires data on local rates of gun ownership and of residential burglary, and such data have only recently become available. In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence -- the proportion of suicides that involve firearms -- together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns. The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence."
http://www.nber.org/papers/w8926

More guns means more crime.

 

Translation: ban guns = no crime.

Sorry, we shredded the Constitution with the Patriot Act. I'm against doing it again to ban or severely restrict the right of self-defense.

 

Do we actually have more guns and more crime, or is it more guns and less crime?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm