I’ve always wondered how people thought the “good guy with a gun” would work in a chaotic real world situation. Suppose you’re armed and there’s a mass shooting event. You pull out your gun and keep a look out for the shooter as you hear gunfire getting closer. Then you spot a guy holding a gun. You quickly take aim and fire…
… And hit another “good guy with a gun” who was trying to take out the mass shooter the same as you.
Oh, but then you get shot by a third “good guy with a gun” who thought YOU were the mass shooter.
Arming everyone and telling them to be “good guys with guns” just seems, at best, like it would lead to MORE injuries and deaths.
Or, as has actually happened before, a good guy with a gun kills the bad guy and then gets shot by the cops who arrive thinking the guy with the gun is the bad guy:
Yup, this is how it goes down in my head, and why I don’t carry a gun. I think there’s a decent chance that I could take down an active shooter (not sure if I have the guts to, but that’s beside the point) because I have the element of surprise on my side, but there’s an even bigger chance I get shot either in the crossfire or by the police. Most of the time it’ll be a single shooter, but I have no guarantee that’s the case, so I’d need to be ready for a second shooter.
I’ve run through a few options, and I just don’t see a clear way to distinguish myself from an active shooter.
Yeah, my coworkers said how great it would have been after the Colorado movie theater shooting (Batman movie) if everyone was armed. They just knew the original shooter would have been killed right away.
So,
Dark theater
Smoke filled (by shooter)
Bullets suddenly flying
Who in their right mind thinks basically everyone wouldn’t have been mowed down in a hail of gun fire?
Yeah they picture it as a very specific scenario with one mass shooter and one retaliatory shooter. Any more than one retaliatory shooter and it all falls apart as OP described though lol.
I’ve always wondered how people thought the “good guy with a gun” would work in a chaotic real world situation. Suppose you’re armed and there’s a mass shooting event. You pull out your gun and keep a look out for the shooter as you hear gunfire getting closer. Then you spot a guy holding a gun. You quickly take aim and fire…
… And hit another “good guy with a gun” who was trying to take out the mass shooter the same as you.
Oh, but then you get shot by a third “good guy with a gun” who thought YOU were the mass shooter.
Arming everyone and telling them to be “good guys with guns” just seems, at best, like it would lead to MORE injuries and deaths.
Or, as has actually happened before, a good guy with a gun kills the bad guy and then gets shot by the cops who arrive thinking the guy with the gun is the bad guy:
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/560798-police-chief-hails-good-guy-with-a-gun-after-officer-kills/
Yup, this is how it goes down in my head, and why I don’t carry a gun. I think there’s a decent chance that I could take down an active shooter (not sure if I have the guts to, but that’s beside the point) because I have the element of surprise on my side, but there’s an even bigger chance I get shot either in the crossfire or by the police. Most of the time it’ll be a single shooter, but I have no guarantee that’s the case, so I’d need to be ready for a second shooter.
I’ve run through a few options, and I just don’t see a clear way to distinguish myself from an active shooter.
It’s deflective rhetoric so they don’t have to address the truth:
We don’t know who is going to make a bad decision with their gun until after they do it.
Yeah, my coworkers said how great it would have been after the Colorado movie theater shooting (Batman movie) if everyone was armed. They just knew the original shooter would have been killed right away.
So,
Who in their right mind thinks basically everyone wouldn’t have been mowed down in a hail of gun fire?
It’s either that, or the people with guns are afraid to use them when the time comes and they hesitate too long to do any good.
They picture it pretty much how it went down here:
Personally, I would just prefer to have a pistol in hand if I ended up in the last part of ‘run, hide, fight’.
Yeah they picture it as a very specific scenario with one mass shooter and one retaliatory shooter. Any more than one retaliatory shooter and it all falls apart as OP described though lol.
Well if there is one thing a chaotic and violent situation needs is more guns.