Good Guy With a Gun

Our opponents have argued and would argue that this guy didn’t stop a mass killing, because it was stopped before it reached the definition of mass killing …

Our opponents have argued and would argue that this guy didn’t stop a mass killing, because it was stopped before it reached the definition of mass killing. But that hardly matters, since the headline is going around, and people know better. The quickest way to stop a mass shooting in progress is well-placed return fire.

8 thoughts on “Good Guy With a Gun”

  1. So their claim is that more gun laws can prevent mass shootings, but people actually stopping mass shootings before they become mass shootings aren’t “preventing” them?

    There’s logic in there somewhere, right?

    1. A while ago, when people were arguing with Ladd Everett when he was at CSGV, he argued citizens never stopped mass shooters. When offered counter examples like this he’d respond “Only two shot. Not a mass shooting.”

      1. That kind of thing drives me nuts. It’s like saying that a gun wasn’t used to stop a murderer, because the victim was stabbed twice before he pulled out a gun, and was then saved by surgery, and therefore no murder.

        There’s a thing in the law we call “attempted murder”. It’s not all that of a stretch to look at someone who fits the pattern of a mass murderer and, upon failing to kill a significant number of people, conclude that he was an “attempted mass murderer”.

        Sure, in both cases, we can’t know for certain that the person committing the crime was going to become a murderer, or a mass murderer; however, there is reasonable evidence that that was the mindset of the person attempting the crime!

        1. That behavior drives me nuts, too.

          – 3 or fewer people shot before the shooter is put down == “Doesn’t meet the definition of mass shooting, so nothing prevented.”
          – 4 or more people shot before the shooter is put down == “Mass shooting that happened, which was not prevented.”

          It’s not even that they move the goalposts; they paint BOTH goals with their team colors, and then try to claim both ends and use ANY goal by EITHER team to support their argument.

          IOW, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

          Using your example, it’s also like arguing that it was murder when the victim shot the guy who just stabbed him twice; it COULDN’T be justifiable self-defense because the victim’s survival indicates his life wasn’t really in danger.

          All in all, a very warped sense of reality.

    1. Nowadays four shots from a BB gun makes something a mass shooting by some definitions.

      These anti-gun types would have us believe that such things are “mass shootings”, but when we observe that a mass shooting was prevented, all of the sudden it’s “nope, we’re only counting *six* people *killed*, and if you don’t have six people killed, then a mass shooting wasn’t prevented!”

      It isn’t just that they like moving the goalposts. They have the goalposts permanently mounted on their cars, and are ready to move them at a moment’s notice. Actually, it’s worse: they also have tarps to throw over the posts, so they can say “Nope, that’s not a goal” and then pull them off when you’re not looking and yell “But what about this one?!?”

    2. Exactly. If they change the definition of mass shootings so that they can claim there are 300 a year, then this is clearly a mass shooting.

  2. Will the author of that idiocy warranty my complete safety and lack of need for self defense at all times, all places, and all situations from now until the end of my life? If not, to hell with him.

Comments are closed.