Though experiment: If I were a criminal....

If I were a criminal I bet I could shoot most of you and your ownership of guns would make very little difference. I would have the advantage of surprise. I could plan for days about how I would victimize you. At most, you would only have a few seconds to recognize that I am a threat and draw your weapon and by that time it would be too late. I think this is part of the reason why gun ownership doesn't lead to lower crime rates. No matter how armed to the teeth you are, you can't expect to engage in a fair fight with a criminal. Gun ownership empowers criminals more than it does you.

 

The first victim or two would be easy, but that hasn't stopped most mass shooters from choosing "gun free zones" as their target location.

Often, I am not the only person armed in my presence. At church every Sunday, there are typically 3 guns on my pew alone. Most of my coworkers and many of my friends and family members also carry. Choose your target wisely. Or even better, quit fantasizing.

 

A lot of us train for the threat. Besides you're a snowflake and fooling yourself.

 

"Study: Only 13 Percent Of Mass Shootings Between 2009 And 2015 Took Place In So-Called 'Gun-Free Zones.' An analysis by Everytown for Gun Safety looked at the 133 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 and found that only 13 percent of those mass shootings took place in a 'gun-free zone,' while the vast majority of shootings took place where carrying a gun is legally permitted"
https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...ia-s-false-gun-free-zone-talking-point/210903

Another myth that the gun lobby likes to chant gets destroyed.

What I'm simply saying is that it is much easier to use a gun to victimize others than it is to successfully use a gun in self defense. Thus, widespread gun ownership's effect on the crime rate can not be good.

 

Like California?

 

I'm your Huckleberry. You continue to demonstrate that this is not an area you have much, if any, experience and training in. I suspect it would look something like this

note there is some language that might offend some so I am merely supplying the link to youtube, rather than quoting the comments!

 

lol that is a joke because how they define mass shootings. all of the MAJOR active shootings took place in areas where the victims couldn't have firearms. Every town for gun safety is a hard core anti gun propaganda group that has no credibility. we are talking about massacres were a shooter targets people merely for being in his kill zone. Most of the things anti gun organizations try to count are murder suicides involving families. the active shooting massacres that everyone thinks about when thinking about mass shootings are

Columbine-a gun free zone
the Orlando Nightclub-a gun free zone
SandyHook, a gun free zone
Fort Hood (yes, a gun free zone)
Virginia Tech-a gun free zone
The Luby's diner in Texas-a gun free zone
The McDonalds shooting in San Ysidro California-a gun free zone

some guy whose upset he lost custody of his kids who shoots his family and then himself is a completely different issue than the massacres where innocent victims are killed by some active shooter for no reason whatsoever other than their presence in his rampage. and those are the type of massacres where armed victims could make a big difference-like that case in colorado where an active shooter targeted a church and a woman with a gun shot the active shooter who then killed himself.

 

We've got two years worth of threads proving that assumption wrong.

Go have a nice long read.

 

If your intent was to shoot me and only me you are correct, you would have a definite advantage. If you were standing near me and your intent was to start shooting other people at random it wouldn't be long before you would be dead.

 

Oh look that lie again.

How many on the list minus people getting shot in thier homes were in gun free zones? Most of them.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

 

Head shot in under 2 seconds. Over and done.

 

Anyone can be ambushed... there are no guarantees. However, there are many videos of self defense where a bad guy holding a gun on a good guy loses the fight and many, many stories of good guys surviving. Shooting someone isn't like Hollywood depending on a number of variables someone shot may shoot back or in the case of one case I witnessed as I have previously posted, the fellow shot killed his attacker. One other case, one I didn't witness, a bouncer, Tiny, I knew was shot point blank with a .38 in the belly and Tiny pulled out his flahlight, beat the fellow into submission before walking in his pub and having a beer before the ambulance came for him...bad guy went to jail & Tiny (yeah he wasn't tiny) was back tovworkna few days later.

While these cases may not be typical, good guys don't always lose to criminals who have the element of surprise else we wouldn't worry about arming the Police and we wouldn't have reports of people successfully defending themselves. But, I have survived because I was armed...good enough for me. As I often say, we have liberty in this country to choose, make your choice, I have made mine and nothing you can say will convince me to reverse my belief that I'd rather not be a subject that submits to being a victim in waiting like a sheep for slaughter.... Like a stone fish, leave me be and no foul, step on me and I might sting. I am prepared to win or go down fighting. So any bad guy that wants another shot, can role the dice.

 

Here is one of my favorites. bad guy has the drop on an off duty cop-but he didn't maintain attention and died as a result

check out how this cop uses concealment (the woman behind him) to draw and when the robber sees the gun, he's dead

 

Sure, you can always cherry pick out exceptions. I don't find mere anecdotal evidence that persuasive. The police are obviously in a different position than the ordinary citizen. It is their job to fight crime. They can and do catch the bad guys by surprise. So the element of surprise does work in their favor at times.
"Dozens of MS-13 gang members nabbed in 50 Los Angeles raids"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/us/ms-13-raids-los-angeles/

I'll bet a lot of those gangsters were caught by surprise. In contrast, the ordinary citizen with a gun can only react.

 

That's why we train. There's a fellow that retained his head. Great use of screening.

 

Weak. 7 is not a majority out of 133 mass shootings.

 

The bottom line as I have said... I survived situations because I had a gun... good enough for me. I am not the only one who has that posts in this forum. You choose, I already have. Enough said.

 

I watched various youtube postmortems of this incident. The cop does everything right, complies when the thug has the drop on him, shoots the thug dead as soon as he can, covers the environment looking for another threat. what is amazing is the reactions of the sheeple in the area. or lack thereof. that spinning around the woman was one of the slickest moves I have seen.

 

Like I said, I don't find mere anecdotal evidence that persuasive.

 

weak is pretending that some nutcase shooting three family members and himself is the same as Sandy Hook or the Orlando massacre. why don't you count victims rather than "mass shootings"

four murder suicides with say 10 fatalities and several others injured is less than one Columbine. shootings in a home where the killer is part of the home is a completely different scenario and tactical response requirement than an active shooting in a public place

lets compare massacres by the NUMBER Of people KILLED and you will see most of the MASS KILLINGS took place in Gun Free Zones meaning the people killed were legally prevented from having a defensive weapon at the time they were killed.

 

I could care less what you do or do not find persusive. I have no stake in convincing you to go armed. And don't care. My experience is just that, experience, which I trust over anything else in this instance including any arguement you may have.

 

your posts suggest you don't find any facts that are contrary to your faith based anti gun beliefs, to be persuasive

 

I don't... I have been arguing this topic for years, lived in oppression, been in gun fights, survived, and to me, that supersedes armchair 'thought experiments'.

 

I get more out of discussions when I see as was posted a video where someone reatained composure, screened his actions and won... that will stick in my mind.

 

Einstein made a lot of progress with thought experiments.