One of the most common (if not, THE most common) defenses against anti-2A arguments is the idea of the good guy with a gun.
Now, if you’re new here and aren’t familiar with that concept, what it is referring to is the idea that law enforcement can’t be everywhere, so, the best way to keep people as safe as possible is to make sure that there are good people (who are trained) on site with the tools necessary to prevent (or reduce as much as possible) incidents of violence.
Think of it this way: if a person with evil intent goes somewhere and starts shooting, it’s pretty unlikely that a member of law enforcement will be on site at that time. They will have to travel to get there, but if a law-abiding citizen with a gun is on site, they can stop the person from shooting more people (or, sometimes, from shooting anyone at all).
Anti-2A people argue, though, that the idea of the good guy with a gun is a myth. Is that the case? Mark Reynolds has some thoughts on that worth considering. Reynolds writes,
Is Stopping a Bad Guy With a Gun By a Good Guy With a Gun a Myth?
According to the lying mass media it is. Why? Well because they use twisted logic. For instance, there is this “Catch 22” problem. If someone shoots a potential mass shooter before they begin, theoretically a mass shooting never took place. With that being the case one can’t definitively claim it was prevented. Or conversely, if a mass shooting is underway and is then stopped by an armed civilian, literately the mass shooting wasn’t prevented. Because they will claim, it already had happened. This “Catch 22” makes it technically impossible to stop a mass shooting.
It is simply mental gymnastics by the people who want to disarm the general population.
Reynolds nails the issue with that last statement. To claim that the good guy with a gun is a myth is to be fundamentally dishonest by intentionally not looking at the full context of how violence plays out and all of the statistics around violence.
It doesn’t take a genius to realize that a good guy with a gun (whether law enforcement or an armed civilian) stops active shooters and reduces gun deaths. But it takes a dishonest person to deny that a good guy with a gun is the reality of how to save lives.
I, keep asking the Question. Ya’ll seen enough yet???
A good guy with a gun has stopped many bad guys with a gun ever since the invention of firearms. The states with the most lax gun laws have a lower crime rate than the states with the most strict gun laws. The Democrats couldn’t care less about victims of mass shootings. They want to ban firearms in order to push their tyrannical Marxist agenda on us. They don’t want us to have the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. You’ll never hear about the Democrats wanting to disarm their bodyguards.
Do you think all the dems would fit into 3 states. (cal.) New York) and (New Jersey) Would be nice if We The People could cram them all into these areas and let them live the life they think is reality and leave the rest of the country alone with being normal
Gary, that is a great idea. Put all the libs and release all the murderers to Cal, NY and NJ. Then let them all live their happy lives together.
They don’t believe there is a good gun so how can they believe their is a Good Guy With A Gun, people don’t enter into their equations …
To them tis all the guns fault ………………….
If good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns, why are they sending literally billions of dollars in guns and ammo to stop a so called “bad guy”?
Why did US fight WW2?
Obviously it wasn’t the guns that solved the war, itis banning meat or oil, and defiling our children that wins wars.
Comments are closed.