Alright, I'd be a bit more elaborate, but I'm very tired and finally got these forums to cooperate, so I'm gonna keep it brief.

[quote author=davedan link=topic=8302.msg327372#msg327372 date=1582682542]
[quote author=Vanto link=topic=8302.msg327367#msg327367 date=1582647893]
[quote author=Skybison link=topic=8302.msg327347#msg327347 date=1582394647]
Plus with Kelley even with the good guy with a gun he still killed more then Roof did and there have been other times like the Pulse nightclub shooting where the good guy wasn't able to stop the shooter.
[/quote]

That's because Kelley was targeting a larger group of people than Roof. Would you rather Willeford hadn't been there?

[quote author=Cloud3514 link=topic=8302.msg327365#msg327365 date=1582615711]
The "good guy with a gun" rhetoric just flat out ignores that the shooting still happened. Whether it was stopped short or not doesn't change that. The pro-guns crowd never talks about prevention, only reaction.
[/quote]

Because preventative measures don't reliably work. Chicago's gun crime statistics are proof of that.

[quote author=dpareja link=topic=8302.msg327366#msg327366 date=1582619273]
[quote author=Cloud3514 link=topic=8302.msg327365#msg327365 date=1582615711]
The "good guy with a gun" rhetoric just flat out ignores that the shooting still happened. Whether it was stopped short or not doesn't change that. The pro-guns crowd never talks about prevention, only reaction.
[/quote]

The point the pro-gun crowd would make is that it's impossible to know how many shootings would have happened but for the possibility of the presence of a "good guy with a gun".

To which I say, look at Australia.
[/quote]

No offense, but if you think Australia's gun control is working... well, let's just say it's a standpoint based on a surface-level understanding of the issue.

For starters, gun-control advocates like to point to the fact that Australia's homicide rates fell after they instituted their 1996 legislation. This ignores the fact that murder rates fell all over the Western world at around that time. Correlation does not equal causation. In fact, [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html]studies have debunked the "gun control saved lives in Australia!" narrative[/url].

Also, I'd like to point out that about that same time, many American states loosened their gun laws. You could just as easily argue that this is proof that more relaxed gun laws mean less crime using the exact same logic. But for some reason, the gun control crowd doesn't. Isn't that funny?

Second, Australia has more guns now than it did in 1996. Moreover, their gun laws have accomplished nothing, and have [url=https://reason.com/2016/03/22/australias-gun-buyback-created-a-violent/]created a violent black market[/url]. While a lot of people tout the supposed effectiveness of Australia's gun control, [url=https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/11/10/australias-secret-gun-problem-exposed/]Australians may be more at risk from gun violence than ever[/url]. Ben Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." What does that say about people who would give up liberty for the mere [i]illusion[/i] of safety?

Lastly, even if gun control [i]did[/i] work in Australia, that doesn't necessarily mean it would work in America.

So, if anything, what we can learn from Australia is that gun control does not work. You might as well point to 1920s America as an example of how prohibition works.
[/quote]

Ok [s]Paragon. [/s]Where did you find all those old links?

 'The studies have debunked the gun control saved lives in Australia' is not a link to those studies at all. All they were was a link to a journalist who reached a similar conclusion but that doesn't  disclose an actual study or a statistical analysis. Nevermind that there was a mass shooting almost every year in Australia for the years leading up to Port Arthur and that there has been only one or two in the 28 years since. Even those aren't really mass shootings where a shooter starts shooting the public but are rather unfortunately domestic violence shootings where someone wipes out more than 1 family member.

The whole narrative that only criminals have guns being a problem is silly as criminals don't usually go out and commit mass shootings. The most common and horrific mass shooters appear to be marganilised people who are otherwise not worth paying attention to until they flip and shoot a bunch of people. Career criminals are not out there shooting kids at school.

Name the last school shooting in Australia. When was it?

Name the last school shooting in Britain. When was it?

When was the last school shooting in the US? How many others happened that year? The year before?


That is not to say that there aren't cultural issues at play between different countries. The swiss for instance have a huge number of firearms for the population but low mass shootings. That is probably reflective more of the unique cultural qualities at play in Switzerland than the idea everyone should have guns.

I dare say that there are reasons, such as the sheer number of guns, which would make a gun buyback ineffective in the US. But the reality is that the US have decided it is more important that they as a society get to own guns than that their children get to go to school free from the fear of being shot.

The suggestion that isn't a choice is just obfuscation.
[/quote]

Woah buddy, who pissed in your cornflakes?

1. Correlation does not equal causation. Violent crime sharply declined in the West during the mid-90s. How do we know that wouldn't have happened regardless of gun laws? Especially considering that there are some cases of countries passing tougher gun laws, and mass shooting rates staying the same or even rising.

2. You're hyping up the potential risk of dying in a mass shooting. Americans are 6 times more likely to be killed by constipation, 12 times more likely to be killed by farming equipment, and [i]30[/i] times more likely to die from falling out of bed. Nor is America particularly prone to mass shootings. [url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238736]The U.S. has 4.6% of the world's population, but only 1.43% of its mass shootings[/url].

3. That "your guns are worth more to you than your kids" rhetoric is emotional manipulation with no substance behind it. You sound like a Karen, no offense.

[quote author=Skybison link=topic=8302.msg327375#msg327375 date=1582696731]
[quote author=Vanto link=topic=8302.msg327367#msg327367 date=1582647893]
[quote author=Skybison link=topic=8302.msg327347#msg327347 date=1582394647]
Plus with Kelley even with the good guy with a gun he still killed more then Roof did and there have been other times like the Pulse nightclub shooting where the good guy wasn't able to stop the shooter.
[/quote]

That's because Kelley was targeting a larger group of people than Roof. Would you rather Willeford hadn't been there?[/quote]

Okay that strikes me as dishonest.  You're completely dodging my point that good guys with guns don't reliably stop mass shootings.  My obviously desired option would be that Kelley not have a gun meaning there would be no need for Willeford to be there.


[/quote]

Kelley wasn't legally allowed to own guns. Unfortunately, the Air Force screwed up. Do you honestly think that the same law enforcement system that can't keep drugs out of prisons will be able to keep criminals from getting guns?

Willeford's actions undoubtedly saved many lives. The fact that it was him, not the cops, who stopped Kelley's shooting really undermines the point you're trying to make. If he supposedly proves that "good guys with guns don't reliably stop mass shootings", what does that say about the 5-0?