FBI report shows 10% of active shooters stopped by citizen with a gun.

[Littlejoe]

Do you think you would have been more successful in stopping the Pulse nightclub shooter than off-duty police officer Adam Gruler? Do you think you would have been successful in stopping the Las Vegas shooting if you were armed and in the concert crowd? Even if the answer to either of these questions was "yes", how many people do you think would have been shot dead before you saved the day? Sometimes a civilian with a gun can stop a shooting and sometimes they can't. How can you know so well that you being armed will help?

IDK about the pulse nightclub shooter. I know about it, but have forgot most of the details. Here in Texas, whether you are an off duty officer or not, you are not allowed to carry a gun into a bar or nightclub that derives more than 50% of it's income from alcohol. So, I would not have been successful in that instance because I would have been prohibited by law to carry my gun into the night club. That law did not stop the shooter though did it? Since the Las Vegas shooter was high up in a hotel room, the answer is obviously no. But, you've picked cherry picked 2 instances that would not have helped. Who's being disingenuous now?

[rogue06]

Do you think you would have been more successful in stopping the Pulse nightclub shooter than off-duty police officer Adam Gruler? Do you think you would have been successful in stopping the Las Vegas shooting if you were armed and in the concert crowd? Even if the answer to either of these questions was "yes", how many people do you think would have been shot dead before you saved the day? Sometimes a civilian with a gun can stop a shooting and sometimes they can't. How can you know so well that you being armed will help?

Maybe you should address this question to Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor of the massacre at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas back in 1991 and who watched her parents get murdered.

[Psychic Missile]

IDK about the pulse nightclub shooter. I know about it, but have forgot most of the details. Here in Texas, whether you are an off duty officer or not, you are not allowed to carry a gun into a bar or nightclub that derives more than 50% of it's income from alcohol. So, I would not have been successful in that instance because I would have been prohibited by law to carry my gun into the night club. That law did not stop the shooter though did it? Since the Las Vegas shooter was high up in a hotel room, the answer is obviously no. But, you've picked cherry picked 2 instances that would not have helped. Who's being disingenuous now?

I am intentionally cherry-picking to prove a point. Those are two incidents in which a "good guy with a gun" couldn't stop the shooter (Gruler was working security at the time). There are, of course, past situations where a "good guy with a gun" stopped the shooter. There are also past situations where an unarmed person stopped the shooter. What I'm trying to get across to you is that you can't prepare for an active shooter situation, you can only hope to be lucky that an unpredictable situation made a turn in your favor. There are only two major factors that we know to stop mass shootings. The first is police response. The second is restricted access to guns.

[Psychic Missile]

Maybe you should address this question to Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor of the massacre at Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas back in 1991 and who watched her parents get murdered.

I am not disputing that sometimes a "good guy with a gun" can stop a mass shooter. I am disputing that a "good guy with a gun" can be sure to stop the next mass shooting and thus a guaranteed way to prevent mass shootings is preferable to an unreliable way to prevent mass shootings.

[Cow Poke]

I am not disputing that sometimes a "good guy with a gun" can stop a mass shooter. I am disputing that a "good guy with a gun" can be sure to stop the next mass shooting and thus a guaranteed way to prevent mass shootings is preferable to an unreliable way to prevent mass shootings.

What, pray tell, would that "guaranteed way" be?

[Psychic Missile]

What, pray tell, would that "guaranteed way" be?

Restricted access to firearms at the least, a total ban at the most.

[Cow Poke]

Restricted access to firearms at the least, a total ban at the most.

A) You honestly think it's possible to restrict every gun from every person in America?
2) You honestly believe that a bad guy couldn't still get one?

Remember - you said "guaranteed way". Perhaps you should have said "idea", not guaranteed.

[Littlejoe]

Restricted access to firearms at the least, a total ban at the most.

A gun ban has not GUARANTEED a total lack of gun deaths or mass shootings in any country that it's been enacted in.

I don't think the US could stand the economic hit that a gun ban would impose. Between the Hunting industry, gun manufacturers, ammunition, gun ranges, competition shooting, recreational shooting...we're talking AFAICT ~$100 billion dollars. You're looking at about 300,000 jobs lost...not to mention the cost of damage done by overpopulated game animals and with invasive species like feral hogs. I think the cost would be staggering.

[Psychic Missile]

A) You honestly think it's possible to restrict every gun from every person in America?
2) You honestly believe that a bad guy couldn't still get one?

Remember - you said "guaranteed way". Perhaps you should have said "idea", not guaranteed.

I think it's a reasonable goal for the far future (maybe ~50 years at least) that would require incremental restrictions, and each of those increments would help. It's not about a total absence of gun crime, it's about reducing gun crime. Remember - I said "guaranteed way to prevent mass shootings". I didn't say "guaranteed way to stop mass shootings".

[Psychic Missile]

A gun ban has not GUARANTEED a total lack of gun deaths or mass shootings in any country that it's been enacted in.

I don't think the US could stand the economic hit that a gun ban would impose. Between the Hunting industry, gun manufacturers, ammunition, gun ranges, competition shooting, recreational shooting...we're talking AFAICT ~$100 billion dollars. You're looking at about 300,000 jobs lost...not to mention the cost of damage done by overpopulated game animals and with invasive species like feral hogs. I think the cost would be staggering.

I'm not arguing that anything can cause a guaranteed total lack of gun deaths or mass shootings.

Do you think that economic benefit is worth all the deaths that result?

[rogue06]

Of course simply prohibiting our right to assemble could also go a very long way in preventing a mass shooting.

[Littlejoe]

I'm not arguing that anything can cause a guaranteed total lack of gun deaths or mass shootings.

Do you think that economic benefit is worth all the deaths that result?

Yes...I believe it justifies it. just like I think it's justified in the case of the Auto industry with their 37,000 deaths a year and Medical industry with it's 250,000 deaths a year due to medical malpractice/incompetence.

[Psychic Missile]

Yes...I believe it justifies it. just like I think it's justified in the case of the Auto industry with their 37,000 deaths a year and Medical industry with it's 250,000 deaths a year due to medical malpractice/incompetence.

You think the economic benefit justifies deaths rather than the practical benefit? How much money does someone have to make to justify a single human death?

[Littlejoe]

You think the economic benefit justifies deaths rather than the practical benefit? How much money does someone have to make to justify a single human death?

That's a deliberately misleading question...much like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The real question you avoided is: How many deaths are we willing to tolerate because the benefit outweighs the consequences.

So, using your own criteria...How much money does the medical industry have to make to justify a single human death? How much money does the auto industry have to make to justify a single human death?

[Psychic Missile]

That's a deliberately misleading question...much like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The real question you avoided is: How many deaths are we willing to tolerate because the benefit outweighs the consequences.

So, using your own criteria...How much money does the medical industry have to make to justify a single human death? How much money does the auto industry have to make to justify a single human death?

I don't think any amount of money justifies a single human death. I think the deaths from car accidents and medical mistakes are justified because of the practicality of cars and medicine, the same as choking deaths are justified by the practicality of eating or tripping deaths are justified by the practicality of walking. We should do what we can to mitigate these deaths but at a certain point it's a risk inherent to living.

You are the one who said that deaths are justified based on economics, so I want to know how you justify them. You stated your position, so it's only right you explain it.