If you ever think when has a a mass shooting been stopped by a armed civilian USA

The majority being suicide and people wanting to kill themselves, who would find a way anyway.

Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the USA yet Chicago had 397 people shot and 66 fatally.

California have the strictest and San Bernardino and ucla show how well that went.

Vermont who are ranked 41st have the least gun murders per 100,000 people of any us state.

This incident serves to highlight the number of legally-armed vigilante nutters wandering the streets of the USA - a major risk to the general public.

Will it balls.

It won't put an end to it in your country, so it won't end it on a site full of idealist students in a country where these things are controlled.

Ok, a "good guy with a gun" stopped a "bad guy with a gun", but they still managed to injure innocent people in the process. If you were the guy who got shot by some randomer you'd be pretty pissed off, regardless of how the incident turned out.

I've used handguns, rifles, assault rifles and full military spec weaponry, I know I wouldn't trust random bum**** guy with them. I'm constantly utterly astounded that anybody does. No training needed, no competency tests, no proficiency testing... it's insane.

They do prefer feels over fact

I trust this will put an end to the anti-gun nonsense on this site.

If there's one thing progressives hate, it's facts. The moment you provide evidence that contradicts their political agenda you run the risk of triggering them and preaching hate. Sadly, most of them will have already found comfort in their safe-space before you can have a reasonable conversation on the issue.

an estimated 50 mass shootings per WEEK are stopped by civilians
the news and media will pick up on any case where it didn't happen and use it to take away your guns so they have total control over you

How is an armed, law abiding citizen a, " major threat to the public"? In the news story presented in this thread it worked out pretty good.

Do you not think its quite feasible that if there were fewer guns then mass shootings would be less frequent? Or is it simply a coincidence that there have been three mass shootings in the past thirty years in the UK? The USA had three school shootings in February 2016 alone.

There are so many guns in the US that it'd take more than a generation to get rid of all of then, hence why an absolute ban would be a complete waste of time, especially given the uproar it'd cause as the right to bear arms is an integral part of the constitution. Also, given that the illegal arms would be imported from Mexico and Cuba if a ban was to occur it wouldn't be hard for someone to get access to a gun through the black market if they really wanted one, much like how easy it is to get cannabis even though it's illegal.

So if an absolute ban wouldn't work, the only other alternative is to arm everyone or have armed guards at every single venue or event. Although the was an armed guard in the case of the Orlando shooting, there needs to be more than one person with a gun and more than one guard responsible for the safety of over one hundred people.

source?

Putting aside the assumption implicit in your question that an armed person with a permit for the gun is law-abiding in all respects, he can be dangerous in several obvious ways. Let's deal with the most obvious few:

He can have an accident - a huge number of injuries and deaths occur in the USA when people mishandle their weapons.

If he uses it against someone (a possible "baddie" there is likely to be a risk of injury to bystanders.

He makes it easier for someone to steal it off him, merely by bopping him on the head from behind and taking it from his pocket.

I am so glad your over there.

I hope such wimpy arguments such as you've given bring you much comfort as your waiting for the local cops to come and save your asses.

When terrorists take the next logical step and begin busting in doors and slaughtering entire neighborhoods I hope such wimpy arguments such as you've given bring you much comfort as your waiting for the local cops to come and save your asses.

Do you not think its quite feasible that if there were fewer guns then mass shootings would be less frequent? Or is it simply a coincidence that there have been three mass shootings in the past thirty years in the UK? The USA had three school shootings in February 2016 alone.

So to defend against something that may never happen we should allow guns to be owned by every person despite the fact that 2013 accidents involving firearms caused 505 deaths in the US?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Only 4% of shootings are stopped by a 'Good guy with a gun'

Why is that? Anti gunners who make concealed carry permits hard to get.

What your saying is that 4% of those killed would probably be alive if not for anti-gunners. I agree.

Nope I'm saying arming citizens doesnt mean they stop mass killing as the amount of variables such as time, position, health mean its impossible for a mass shooting to be stopped by an armed civilian. 'Good guy with a gun' is me being sarcastic

You just said 4% of shootings are stopped by a good guy with a gun. Doesn't it make sense that the more armed citizens there are the higher this percent would be?