Reader: Rahami Capture Puts the Lie to “Good Guy With a Gun” Scenarios

cc9984bf555cebdc_1

Reader 2ASux writes:

It appears the recent shooting of the New Jersey bombing suspect put the lie to the notion of a good guy with a gun stopping an armed terrorist.

One of the favorite pastimes of those who frequent this blog is the story-telling of how a private citizen with a gun will stop or reduce deaths and injuries by “a bad guy with a gun.” Ahmad Khan Rahami was pursued and attacked by multiple police in Linden, New Jersey. Rahami fired one round, hitting the officer who initially found him, an abdomen shot by a likely untrained and unskilled gunman.

Then a reported “walking gun battle” ensued between Rahami and multiple police officers, in broad daylight, on public streets. (Note: the fight did not take place in a crowded, dark venue with all the problems that would pose.)

The outcome of the event was a wounded, but still living suspect. The police hit Rahami between seven and 11 times, yet he suffered only non life-threatening wounds. I’m not privy to information regarding the calibre of handguns used by Linden police, but most likely they sport either 9mm, or .40 handguns. Giving the police credit for never missing a shot, multiple officers hit Rahami numerous times before he gave up the fight. What we have here is not “a” good guy with a gun, but several.

Rahami fired his first shot dead-on striking “center mass” of vest-protected police officer. That officer returned fire and missed. So a single “good guy with a gun” could not stop Rahami, at close range.

Based on how events unfolded , how can one believe a single “good guy with a gun” conducting uncoordinated return fire with an unknown number of strangers (who may very well be defending themselves) actually alter the outcome of horrors those seen in Brussels, Paris, or Orlando?

“A good guy with a gun” may (may, that is) successfully defeat a home invade (or even a few of them). But based on the confrontation in Linden, it seems unlikely that an armed private citizen would be successful against a single, much less multiple attackers, especially in the kind of less-than-ideal conditions in which Rahami was taken down.

It’s time to give up the boyhood dream of riding to the defense, guns a-blazing, frightening off or killing the blokes wearing black hats. Walking about heavily armed is neither a useful deterrent, nor an effective defense against a determined “bad guy”.

The usefulness (or “need” as may you put it) of carrying a firearm in public can’t be defended by the likely results. Consider carefully the lessons of the capture of Rahani. Be honest with yourselves, if no one else.

It’s time to give up the boyhood dream of riding to the defense, guns blazing, frightening off, or killing of the blokes wearing black hats. Walking about, heavily armed, is neither a useful deterrent, nor an effective defense against a determined “bad guy”. Usefulness (“need” as you put it) of carrying a firearm in public cannot be defended by the results, or likely results. Consider carefully the lessons of the capture of Rahani. Be honest with yourselves, if no one else.

comments

  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    You know what, you’ve convinced me. Since one single event did not turn out perfectly in favor of our desired outcome, every single thing I think and do must be completely wrong. Thank you so much for showing me the error of my ways. I shall promptly build a forge in my backyard to melt down all of my useless guns into bar stock so that I may recycle them into low cost housing for the poor.

    1. avatar John Thomas says:

      or provocative and controversial modern art pieces.

      1. avatar Mike Betts says:

        You had such a great idea that I stole it immediately. Having melted down all of my firearms in my backyard forge (How did all that PLASTIC get in there?), I have cast it into a controversial art piece, a HUGE but absolutely anatomically correct penis. I sold this piece of art to some fellow who calls himself 2ASux. He is currently using it as a lawn chair.

    2. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      I know, right? He’s such a deep thinker. What an amazing individual.

    3. avatar hobbez says:

      This whole argument falls apart because it took place in New Jersey, where good guys are not allowed to carry guns. How would an armed citizen ever be able to stop a psycho like this if they are never “allowed” to carry? Nice try 2ASux, nice try…

      1. avatar Boba Fett says:

        I would describe it as a terrible, obviously flawed try, at best.

        Anyway, I can’t help but feel he’s just trolling. I mean, he HAS TO know that pointing to a single event that (sort of) supports his subjective feelings about guns is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a valid premise for dismissing the utility of all guns. He HAS TO know that.

        The guy is a total goon, and if that really is what he wrote, verbatim, then he sucks at both objective thought and writing.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          The article was not published verbatim. TTAG cleaned-it up for me. I was in too much of a hurry to complete the write-up between campaign events. My point is that if multiple cops had that much trouble “defending” against a single individual, it is not logical to believe a single armed citizen can do better, even in hear ideal conditions.

          Bernie/Clinton 2, Trumpettes 0.

        2. avatar Boba Fett says:

          2Asux:

          EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. One more time: EVERY SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. There are a million variables that will come into play and influence the outcome in any scenario, tactical or otherwise.

          As I’ve already said, pointing to one single event and declaring that all other events that even slightly resemble it will pan out the same way simply because of said resemblance, is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. How are you not getting this???

          That’s like saying that all airbags are useless because one person died in a car accident after their airbag deployed; like putting two football teams against each other and declaring that the winner of the first game will win all games between them based on that single outcome. Do I really need to elaborate any more on this?

          Nobody ever said that a good person carrying a firearm will win every time, but at least they’ll have a chance. And they deserve that chance.

          Also, Bernie is out of the race. Get with the program, dude.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        I’m late to this party, so I’ll jump in here near the top…

        “The usefulness (or “need” as may you put it) of carrying a firearm in public can’t be defended by the likely results.”

        The usefulness (or “need” as we put it) of carrying a firearm in public can be defended by the certain results of what will happen if confronted by bad guys such as this if we are NOT armed, whether or not we are immediately successful in stopping him.

        The value of an immediate armed response (such as the BG mounted against the police officer by firing the first, accurate shot) is that it MIGHT end the incident at that point. Not all pistol shots are ineffective, it’s just that they cannot always be depended upon to be immediately effective. Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find where the BG either dropped immediately or changed plans and beat a hasty retreat as opposed to those who managed to stand and fight it out. The point being, as in the case above, the nefarious plans of the criminal/terrorist are altered the moment any opponent with a firearm intervenes, regardless of the effectiveness of that intervention.

        The police are using issue firearms, many with heavy trigger pull that make then intentionally difficult to fire accurately, especially under the stress of an adrenaline dump and return fire. Notice that the BG got ONE good hit, center mass, on the first shot. So far as I know no other police were hit in the ensuing battle while BG was hit six times. Any one of those hits at a moving target, that was shooting back, COULD have been fatal or incapacitating, it was pure (bad) luck that none of them were.

        And now we have to spend all the time and treasure necessary to try, convict and put that bastard in prison for the rest of his life. Way to go, Jersey.

        Oh, and by the way, 2ASux, sucks.

    4. avatar jay says:

      We have no reason to believe that 2Asux likes the backside of a romance, anymore than we have reason to believe he is not a troll. His spelling of “calibre” in particular makes me wonder if this person is from this country at all, which would give his opinion as much weight as that of Piers Morgan. If the Land of Hope and Glory was the richest country in the world with the most raw power, maybe they would both have a leg to stand and lecture on. but they don’t. They have almost nothing. As it stands now, they will come begging for help before 2 decades have passed. Sharia will not be denied except with blood and savage retribution. I am not inclined to follow our grandparents’ example and send anything to Britain. They have dug their own hole, and can die in it.

      This comment was no doubt published by RF because it had none of the glaring grammar errors most trolls have, and was likely to inflame the masses of commenters! Shall we take the bait?

      I think not. Remember that neither the constitution nor the words of the founders’ letters and writings guarantee a life of peace, nor plenty. Rather, they assure a man that he will have warning of a government coming to steal both. These warnings do not promise a result, but they give everyone of sound mind an opportunity to fight, kill, and risk death, to earn protect the liberties that God intended for him.

      If Hillary Clinton is elected president, I expect to see a civil war or a secession happen in my lifetime, and that’s if we’re lucky. I’m watching this elect knowing that is is going to change my life.

      The sucky part is, you’re going to have to kill those close to home first, unless you want jackboots kicking in your door. Imagine your local media outlet, your democrat office, wherever and whoever will turn you in if she gets the Supreme Court to agree to another AWB. Those are the ones you will have to kill. Those are the stakes of this election.

    5. avatar pat says:

      TTAG needs upvote and downvote buttons. If I could like this a thousand times.

    6. avatar Henry says:

      Note that a “good guy with a gun” who is NOT wearing a uniform is not an automatic target for the bad guy.

    7. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Or to put it another way, this is the’logic’ of ‘if your approach isn’t 100per cent effective, we shouldn’t do it’.
      Well perhaps we should apply that thought process to every gun control law ever written.

    8. avatar MikeP says:

      I presume 2Asux doesn’t wear seatbelts and has disabled his/her airbags. I mean, even with these things as standard equipment and near universal use, people still die in auto crashes. Therefore, we should all stop fantasizing as we click our seat belts that our fetish for these so-called “safety devices” (really compensation for a tiny penis) will guarantee that we walk away from a car crash with nothing more than a bruised ego and higher insurance premiums to look forward to.

      1. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

        Nailed it.

  2. avatar Sad88 says:

    Uh, 2a you should read the preceding story about the mall stabbings.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      LOL. Checkmate.

    2. avatar Jack says:

      I’m rather astonished this blog would lend legitimacy to ‘2ASux’ on here. He/she is a known troll and has a track record of hating Americans and their civil rights.

      As to the conjecture by this troll, should (God forbid) you (2ASux) ever come face to face with a terrorist madman that is hellbent on slaughtering you, I sincerely hope that in your final moments while you cower or try to escape, you’ll take just a moment to briefly reflect on how you wish you were able to defend yourself and those you love.

      Granted, that may sound harsh, and to be clear, I’m not wishing this on you (truly, far from it — in fact I hope that you never encounter such a thing). However, if you feel that concealed carry as a defense against killers is a terrible idea, you’re obviously okay with seeing those you love and the innocent people around you being unable to save themselves from said killers. You’re effectively stating that you are fine with being murdered and with them being murdered too, because guns, not terrorists, are bad.

      In other words, you are a fool.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        You are making a clear case for greater police presence at your “soft” targets, not more cowboys with guns. I agree there.

        1. avatar Bill in IL says:

          Wrong again! Simply amazed that this guy can’t even beat a broken clock.

  3. avatar John Thomas says:

    except that it happens hundreds of times every day in the US.

  4. avatar junkman says:

    Police are not known to be good shots–a lot of civilians are much better shots & at times in the right place at the right time to prevent further tragedy–shot placement is everything; dead from a single .22LR round or still kicking after several larger caliber hits

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    I don’t make a habit of listening to the ravings of delusional patsies.

    1. avatar Adub says:

      …But when I do, 2ASux is always there for me.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        If only we could launch into space 2Asux, like they did with ‘The Most Interesting Man in the World” when the ad company milked it for all they could…

  6. avatar Hank says:

    So the only difference between “good guy with a gun” in theory and this circumstance was the letter “s”…as in “good guyS with gunS” stopped him. So, is the conclusion really that we need no good guys with guns because of this one instance, or is it that in some circumstances we need more good guys with guns? I’m sure this one will bring out plenty on both sides.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      The police needed more than one “good guy with a gun”. Why would anyone supposition that they (the lone ranger), with their single pistol, will be more effective?

      1. avatar Bill in IL says:

        You prove your ignorance and your evil nature with each post. I take a stab at your latest fallacy – because it happens hundreds, if not thousands of times every day!

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          There is no empirical evidence to support that. Even your favorite gun guru, John Lott, admits to surmising, assuming, and estimating to projecting a result .

      2. avatar Gonzo Surg says:

        Your argument is invalid, in that it uses one example, and erroneous assumptions to make an unrelated point. The fact that these particular good guys failed to immediately stop this particular bad guy with one shot, or even one pistol, proves absolutely nothing. We could just as easily provide you with anecdotal reports of individual gun owners who saved their own lives, or the lives of those near them with a single pistol, or even a single shot.

        All that being said, it has absolutely no logical relationship with the individual right to keep and bear arms in this country. We carry guns to defend ourselves, our families, and our homes. Nobody of any respect or distinction suggests that we carry guns to kill terrorists.

  7. avatar JoshFormerlyinGA says:

    Anyone else see the irony in 2Asux own argument: 1. bad guy gets off one good shot with handgun, and wounds good guy with gun first, which means you would die if you were the good guy with gun. 2. Bad guy is wounded with 7-11 handgun rounds and doesnt die; therefore handguns arent going to stop the threat so you shouldnt bother carrying one.

    1. avatar Bob h says:

      Also remember NJ bans hollow points and expanding ammo, so the cops were likely using 9mm FMJ’s. No freaking wonder he didn’t drop.

      1. avatar NJ-EMT says:

        LEOs, naturally, are exempt from the restrictions on hollow points.

        1. avatar Bob H says:

          Im not surprised, classic animal farm.

    2. avatar 2Asux says:

      A re-look at YOUR logic would expose the irony….the first shot did NOT kill the good guy (handgun ineffective). The police shots did NOT kill the bad guy (handgunS not effective). Good guy with a gun not effective against a bad guy with a gun.

      1. avatar Bill in IL says:

        Are you in the second grade? I ask, because your complete lack of logical methods is at about that level.

      2. avatar Steve Pendry says:

        If the Good Guy with a gun is NOT effective against a bad guy with a gun, then your LOGIC would also mean the bad guy with a gun is not effective against a GOOD guy with a gun. So what is your point.
        The point about handguns being less effective in a gunfight is a valid one. But they are LESS EFFECTIVE FOR BOTH PARTIES. Not effective for the good guy but effective for the bad guy. Juvenile thought process to say they would differ for the two.

  8. avatar W says:

    1. Pastimes has one “t.”
    2. If a civilian does not stop one attack, it does not logically follow that they will stop no attacks.
    3. Armed citizens know that their concealed firearm does not make them “heavily armed.” They also know that it is there for their defense, not for them rushing to the affairs of third parties.
    4. New Life Church, Colorado Springs.
    5. St James Church massacre, South Africa.
    6. New York Mills AT&T store.
    7. Past your bedtime.

    1. avatar 2004done says:

      AAAHHHHHH! You’re using reasoning, logic, and thought processes on someone who thinks only that “its feelings” are all that matters. Please let him continue his fantasies, because he has been indoctrinated completely by now, obviously, and unless one of his heroes (Alinsky, Marx, Mao) tells him differently, he won’t “think” for himself. [Why, yes, I have been in more than one of those “keep-banging-my-head-against-the-wall-because-it-feels-so-good-to-finally-stop” discussions with ‘unicorns & pastels’ know-it-alls. Why would you ask me such a question about experiences you and I both have had?]

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        It is sufficient to remind him of the Thoughts of Mao: Political power emanates from the muzzle of a gun. Inasmuch as the sovereignty of the US is vested in The People, it is right and fit that political power always remain in their hands.

  9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

    Why give a platform to this nonsense?

    1. avatar Benny the Jew says:

      “The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data.'”

      You can consider that line stolen. So simple, it’s poetry.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Isn’t it? I can’t claim authorship; I merely applied it where it seemed appropriate.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Yes sir … the good old anecdote.

      Exactly how can we conclude that all events will have the same outcome as this one particular event?

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        How can you suppose many events of this type wouldn’t end exactly the same way?

        1. avatar Scoutino says:

          Many concealed carriers are better shots than most cops.
          Killing of the attacker is NOT a desired outcome of defensive gun use. Nor is it measure of defensive gun use success. The point is to STOP the attack. The attacker might die – it is an unfortunate side effect.
          So I would call your anecdote a successful (if a bit lenghty) gun use as the cops clearly stopped the attacker. …Eventually.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          My point was that it took multiple police to “stop” one Bover Boy. The idea that one cowboy with a gun will be effective against multiple Neds is just a jumped-up child’s fiction.

          Must be off, chum. The Donald is making a play to lose in the largest landslide in history. Wouldn’t do to not be part of helping him be about it. Not likely to have time to bandy about with the mates on the blog until after election. Cheers.

    3. avatar kenneth says:

      Q: Why give a platform to this nonsense?
      A: Because it makes such great clickbait. Look at the number of comments it created…

    4. avatar MarkPA says:

      The Antis want a “conversation”; however, they won’t allow it to take place on their turf. If there is to be a conversation then we, the PotG, must host it. That’s why TTAG ought to publish such articles; so that we have organic material to critique.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        I yield to your statement…it is sad and inexcusable the numerous gun sense forums refuse to engage properly. It is a grand thing that TTAG is willing to entertain opposition thinking.

        1. avatar Bill in IL says:

          Yes, because when we read it, it makes us laugh.

    5. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Look at the number of responses and clicks any article on TTAG has involving our favorite statist, 2ASux. That’s should answer your question on why this gets air time. He gets the clicks!

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    I’m not going to bother to pick this apart. Everyone here is smart enough to do it on their own.

    I’ll leave it at this: *slow clap* for the dumbass who obviously can’t think critically.

    I just wonder if 2Asux is embarrassed to have this posted.

    1. avatar James says:

      He’s not embarrassed. He feels good about himself and how morally superior he is to us. The reason his critical thinking skills barely register on life support is that he is all about “feelz”.

      1. avatar Anonymous says:

        Well. I don’t know about all that. But he is british, so, embracing responsibility for your own individual defense is probably very foreign to him. I mean, the British now even have “knife” turn ins. “Save a life, surrender your knife. lol.

        1. avatar W says:

          A Britisher who wants to disarm Americans? Maybe he should review how that went the last time they tried.

    2. avatar 16V says:

      Alright folks, time to get ‘hip to the scene’ and all that for the newer arrivals and/or those who just never paid any attention to “2A’s” seminal work.

      He’s an agent provocateur. He’s no troll, he’s actually on our side. He makes better arguments than most antis make, and expects that we formulate an intellectual retort beyond ‘GFY’.

      If you doubt me, please go back through the history, I’ve engaged him one-on-one and he has readily admitted to it. Honestly, I wish the guy could land a real job, because he seems smart enough, and frankly, his efforts are fartin’ in the wind with those of us who just blindly react without thinking.

      1. avatar Michi says:

        Eh? I thought he was Australian or something… It would be less maddening if what you said was the case, but I’ve looked at his output from time to time — I think he’s just a well spoken anti, who backs it with a bit more than only the usual talking points.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          I engaged him on a few occasions, and I can promise you, that as far as I can tell, that’s truly what he is.

          He’s admitted to it, and we’ve had a couple of discussions about doing what he does. I wish I could remember the threads. Perhaps you can Boolean them in TTAG search. It wasn’t that long ago (>12 months).

          He’s a guy with more free time than I have (or would be willing to spend on such an exercise). He thanklessly works for the greater good. I’m just an old school forensics nerd, I’ll bury the enemy with facts, and those who can’t appreciate that don’t really matter much to me. This cat is actually trying to teach people with far more of his own effort and time than anyone else is seemingly willing to put into the effort.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Actually, 2ASux cane out of the closet some time ago, by admitting that the devil’s advocate role was merely a facade, and that his moniker is a genuine reflection of his beliefs.

          I think it was his utter incredulity that the TTAG comnentariat wouldn’t acquiesce to his “it’s for the children” appeal to enotion that finally led him to reveal his true intentions.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Eh? I thought he was Australian or something…”

          I suspect he’s Irish, a number of months back he made a passing comment on the Titanic so I replied to him the real reason it sank was a combination of poor-quality iron rivets and hull plate brittle in cold water (true), and the wrong-sized rivets used on some of the failed joints (also true).

          I was a bit crueler in my closing to him by pointing out it was crap quality Irish materials and typical shoddy drunken-Irish workmanship that condemned 1500 souls to freeze to death in the north Atlantic.

          That got from him a response that led me to guess he’s Irish. Nothing racist about it, both my beloved grandparents were Irish, and grandpop sure could drink.

          I consider it one of my better trolls of all time…

      2. avatar Yawnz says:

        He’s a “Devil’s advocate”. An “agent provocateur” is most certainly not on your side, unless you mean that in the sense that he, despite his apparent anti-2A stance, provides us with a more challenging bit of rhetoric to quash thereby making us stronger.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          You are correct, technically speaking he is a “devil’s advocate”. I”m just relying on the common current usage of the phrase “agent provocateur” which is basically the same definition.

          English is wonderful and cursed at the same time – it is a fluid language and the “accepted” definition is subject to the whims and caprice of the English speaking public-at-large at the current moment. Sort of like “verbiage”, which is “supposed” to mean “excess words” yet has been used to mean “the words” for the last 15+ years.

        2. avatar John in CT says:

          In this case, it’s not a stronger bit of rhetoric.

          “Guy with gun held off multiple people, so a guy with a gun can’t hold off people”.

          Gee…

          Alternately, as mentioned lower in the comments section “OK, so it might take multiple people to stop a major threat. “Good- that’s why I support my neighbor’s RKBA as strongly as I do my own”

          I’d love to know the arguments you think it’s stronger than. Only thing I can think of is the “But Gun Owners are all racists and misogynists” thing, but judging from media coverage and adulation, that argument seems to be doing pretty well for them.

      3. avatar Doug says:

        I was wondering if this was some sort of “devil’s advocate” thing.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Either way, it doesn’t really matter. He doesn’t just clip-n-past crap, he actively defends his positions.

          That makes him truly valuable as a resource to practice debating anti-gunners we run int in our daily lives.

          He’s *far* more valuable a troll than ‘blaine’, for example.

  11. avatar Nativeson says:

    I really wish that one of these officers had shot and killed Ramadii with a well placed shot to his head, but unfortunately the bast**d lived. But, that in no way proves that a single shooter couldn’t have stopped. How do we know that? Because we have countless documented instances in which that has happened. It’s no myth or urban legend; it’s a fact. I suggest that 2ASux head back to parents’ basement and have his mommy tuck him into bed so he can go night night.

  12. avatar Dev says:

    This happened in New York City and northern New Jersey. Places where it is practically impossible to get a permit to legally carry a gun. Therefore the whole point of the article is invalid.

  13. avatar Anonymous says:

    You’re right! I agree! If more than one cop is needed – more than one concealed carrier will also likely be needed. More people need to carry concealed!

    1. avatar John in CT says:

      I came here to say this also.

      For that matter, isn’t it a little bit weird to say that one armed private actor could take on a squad of cops but another armed private actor couldn’t take on a single other armed private actor? I don’t get the OP’s point.

    2. avatar jwm says:

      You and 2asux make a valid point. We all need to be armed. Open carry of sidearms, rifles(full auto) and shotguns(why not full auto?). Coast to coast every neighborhood in America teeming with good guys with guns.

      I am not being snarky, sarcastic or other. I’m serious. Constitutional carry nationwide is the answer.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        One hundred percent correct.

        I’ll go further. The usual arguments against open carry (“you’ll just get targeted first” and “it freaks people out”) would be complete non starters (rather than having to be rebutted by statistics) if open carry were common enough that in, say, a supermarket, there were likely to be two or more open carriers at any given time.

  14. avatar Kilo says:

    If firearms are so ineffective (uneffective?), then why do they care if we have them?

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      Nice!

      Excellent point.

  15. avatar 2Asux sucks says:

    Like my name

  16. avatar Anonymous says:

    It’s time to give up the boyhood dream of riding to the defense, guns a-blazing, frightening off or killing the blokes wearing black hats. Walking about heavily armed is neither a useful deterrent, nor an effective defense against a determined “bad guy”.

    Well. Let’s the cops know. Let them know they don’t need guns, even though it was good guys with guns that that stopped this guy.

  17. avatar Canon says:

    I thought someone had hacked Dan’s typewriter until I went back to the top of the article and saw it was a troll submission.

  18. I hate to break it to the writer here, but “the story-telling of how a private citizen with a gun” all cops are private citizen’s with a gun. So any time a cop stops a gun man it is the same as a non police officer doing it. Police are just people with a badge who can not shoot very well.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      “Police are just people with a badge who can not shoot very well.” Priceless!! We need to add this to our list of one-liners.

  19. avatar Gilbert says:

    At least he got the last part of his screen name right.

  20. avatar Anonymous says:

    The usefulness (or “need” as may you put it) of carrying a firearm in public can’t be defended by the likely results. Consider carefully the lessons of the capture of Rahani. Be honest with yourselves, if no one else.

    So disarm cops? Then we have disarmed cops and armed terrorists? Right? Why are cops helpful but we are not?

  21. avatar ropingdown says:

    One armed civilian with a gun may have sufficed. Several armed cops, however, did not serve to protect. Therefore I infer that the OP should want them to stop carrying. I’ll let the cops defend that bit.

    Statisticians know that if the incident took place in NYC the number of shots fired, and misses, would have been much much higher, with a likely 1.5 bystanders shot. This in a jurisdiction with effectively no “good guys with guns” who are not also cops. A sad commentary.

  22. avatar Anonymous says:

    You have one anecdote, so here is my anecdote:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/

    So now that we each have one anecdote – they cancel out right? Haha.

    Maybe Texas cops can shoot better than Jersey cops?

    1. avatar Joel (in Texas) says:

      You can take the maybe out of your sentence. It should read like this: “Texas cops can shoot better than Jersey cops.”

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      This is common-sense. Perhaps John Lott could research police hit ratios from diverse jurisdictions. I suspect that police who were bred and buttered in gun-free jurisdictions. Generally, police jurisdictions recruit from the pool of applicants who lived in their regions from ages 13 – 23. How many people raised in HI, MD, NJ, DC, NYC had dads who took them to the range? Generally, they had no experience with guns prior to the police academy and they didn’t develop any interest at the police academy. Therefore, they don’t practice much (unless they really need to practice to pass periodic qualifications.)

  23. avatar MyOdessa says:

    Using this logic, if air bags did not prevent an injury during an accident, then we should remove them from all cars. Same goes for seat belts, safety glass, safety hats, steel toe boots, ets, ets , …. .

    What a bizarre logical conclusion from Rahami arrest.

    It would be more honest to just come out and post: “I, Dan Zimmerman, am not in favor of carrying firearms in public by private citizens.” At least it would an honest opinion, not some post supported by convoluted logic.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      Dan Zimmerman did not write this post, 2ASux did. Dan just posted it. Try to keep up.

  24. avatar jack says:

    Police are not experts at firearms. The tool the use every day is a pen to write you a ticket. Gun enthusiasts practice for fun more often than police qualify with their weapon. Young gun enthusiast in gun friendly states sometimes grow up to be excellent police marksmen. in Gun restrive state they don’t grow up to be policemen. they grow up and move out of state.

    1. avatar Michi says:

      Come on now. Police are highly trained, elite, infallible, possess perfect ideal judgment capabilities, define right and wrong through their actions, and are superhuman and magical. I know, I’ve seen movies that prove it. If *police* couldn’t hit their target, how on earth could a *normal everyday human* be accurate?

      Jeez.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Right, my good man. Righto. You said it much better. I used too many words, as it were.

  25. avatar Nanashi says:

    No it doesn’t. All it proves is the well known fact that cops can’t aim worth a shit.

    There are people in basic wearing glasses with the wrong prescription having to shoot wrong eye wrong hand with a busted up old rifle older than them that aim better than cops.

    1. avatar Alex waits says:

      I can second this, as I was that.

  26. avatar former water walker says:

    Yikes-troll submissions. C’mon guys you’re better than this. You COULD re-run some of your best gun reviews. It would beat the he!! out of this twaddle…

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    It’s bad enough when a tr0ll hijacks a thread. But when TTAG gives a thread to a tr0ll, I have to wonder why.

    Why?

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Clicks > Comments > Revenue

      Hey, I’m happy to contribute.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “But when TTAG gives a thread to a tr0ll, I have to wonder why.

      Why?”

      Oh, please. It ain’t ‘Blaine’, it ain’t ‘god’, and it isn’t any of the usual fvckwits that pollute TTAG. (Including lil ‘ole me.)

      It’s the highest-quality troll TTAG currently has, and it makes for good practice arguing the 2A…

  28. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    With Bruce Piatt being the exception, it’s why you don’t see street cops dominating the shooting sports. Most cops cannot shoot well.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Dianna Muller is a retired cop who does well competitively.

      But your analysis is still correct.

  29. avatar James in AZ says:

    Hahaha typical misleading liberal BS… I actually suspect 2ASux is just a moniker used by a TTAG writer to stir up the comment section, but whatever.

    Lemme rewrite your cool story this way:
    A barely trained violent criminal was stopped when equally barely trained righteous men with guns incapacitated him. Compared to the “law-abiding vs mass murderer” ratio in the entire population, the fact that several men was capable of completing such a valorous feat, owes its entirety to the glorious gun culture of the USA.

    Look, I can do that too. So shut up and change the Constitution. Write to your congressman and get the motion started. No one’s stopping you.

    And, you make it sound like all these matter in someway, and we give an F about the “results” you give an F about. I can’t speak for others, but to me, guns help me fight when I have to fight. I’m a self-serving animal. I cannot defeat my opponents barehanded or using melee weapons when they are bigger and stronger, but as a USPSA GM guns will level the playing field, or better yet tilt it in my favour. That’s all I need to know. Your guns-cause-crimes thing is none of my biz even if it’s true (hint, it’s not).

    1. Nope. 2ASux is an actual reader. Scout’s honor.

    2. avatar 16V says:

      If he’s a TTAG construct, he’s a very thoroughly designed one.

      His writing style is not consistent (that I can see) with any of the TTAG writers (current or former). And were he a plant, they went to the trouble of having him interact with me and admit that he was an agent provocateur on more than one occasion.

      I’m not saying that RF&Co. are not capable, just that it’s a lot of genuine effort for very little payoff.

  30. avatar Reggie says:

    I don’t understand this obsession with not defending yourself. There is no guarantee of success when defending oneself from a violent attack. So to you Mr 2ASux, I say flee as is your heart’s desire, but don’t you dare suggest that those of us with more backbone disarm ourselves so you can FEEL better about your decision to not defend yourself.

    When did we become such a nation of cowards?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “When did we become such a nation of cowards?”

      Indeed. Analogies of evil being allowed to prosper come to mind.

      I’d rather live in a country where evil is forced to concede it may meet its match in public at a time not of its choosing…

      1. avatar NorincoJay says:

        “All It Takes for Evil to Triumph Is for a Good Man to Do Nothing.”

  31. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    If he actually understood the argument he’d know it goes something like this:

    The good guy with a gun is not a Navy Seal. He may or may not stop the attack. What he will do is disrupt the attacker’s plans. This may result in the death of the attacker, the death of the armed civilian, or the death of both. It may disrupt the attack enough to end it, or to allow more innocents to escape and LEO more time to respond. Whatever the case, any disruption to the attackers plan is almost certainly going to be an improvement.

    The author of that post would seem to prefer lying down and waiting for death as a game plan. Doesn’t work for me.

  32. avatar Racer88 says:

    Statisticians would rightfully scoff at the author’s conclusion by saying, “N=1.”

  33. avatar NorincoJay says:

    Are police allowed to use hollow and soft points in NJ? I know the peasant class isn’t.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      NJ police may and do. Out-of-Staters and retired police carrying under LEOSA may not. Shocked the hell out of a retired FBI agent I met. He didn’t know he was committing a felony when he carried hollo-points in NJ.

      1. avatar NorincoJay says:

        Thank you.

  34. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    All we can conclude, besides the fact that cops aren’t great marksmen, is that they should switch to 10mm or .357 Magnum for their duty weapons.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I don’t think so. We would all be better off if they carried .32 revolvers (as in the good old days). Remember, those missed shots and over-penetrations are apt to hit innocents.

  35. avatar Mk10108 says:

    The absolute evil here is not stopping a criminal with a gun, it’s another human being imposing a value on another. Telling he or she has no right to stop a murder and not continue because only law enforcement should intervene is immoral and sanctions the murder of citizens.

    2Asux is British, their politicians systematically removed the right of lawful self defense and now cort Muslim vote to remain in power. In return roving bands of Muslims beat people for being Christian, murder soliders, and standard lawlessness.

    Americans removed the yolk of the crown 240 years ago. Any attempt to of sux muffin to voice his opinion in our affairs was forfeit then and has no bearing on us working to restore our country.

  36. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    Robert, you do realize that 2Asux is probably Mike bunch of numbers reborn?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      TD, I highly doubt 2Asux is Mikey Numbers. Writing style doesn’t jibe between them.

      That’s the weakness in those who change their nick on TTAG, the name will change, but the general writing style usually doesn’t.

      I don’t think that’s him…

  37. avatar dlj95118 says:

    …maybe, way in the back of my mind I have visions of running to the rescue of attacked citizens with my itsy LC380 a’blazing.

    But you know what? Living in California (bay area), I’ll NEVER KNOW because I can’t get a fvcking CCW license!

    I will just have to take my chances and run like hell (hopefully in the correct direction) like the other hapless and frantic people.

  38. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Nice article. But….. Since this bit, “It’s time to give up the boyhood dream of riding to the defense, guns blazing, frightening off, or killing of the blokes wearing black hats. ” doesn’t apply to me because that was not my boyhood dream, nor is it a current dream, I will continue to keep on keeping on with my arms and my right to keep and bear them.

  39. avatar Simon says:

    “The outcome of this event was a wounded, but still living suspect”.
    This is only a negative outcome if you believe that the purpose of carrying a gun is to kill your attacker. It isn’t. Your goal for defending yourself with a firearm is to incapacitate your attacker. If they die in the process, that’s unfortunate, but not worth risking your own safety for. If they survive, more power to you, now you don’t have to live with any guilt over killing someone.

    Gun owners are not psychopaths. We don’t have fantasies about ending people’s lives.

  40. avatar MLee says:

    The chances of any of us being in a position to stop a murderous rampage is horrendously small.
    I don’t waste my time even day-dreaming that unlikely fantasy.
    The most realistic situation is walking to your car where some meth-head or heroin addict pulls a knife and says give me your fu— wallet. He isn’t getting it.

  41. avatar otalps says:

    What a bunch of idiotic drivel. WTF was this worthy of a post?

  42. avatar Taylor TX says:

    So, POS Saracen was not immediately incapacitated or killed (thanks to the glory of the Death God amirite!) because he like many humans kept on living after they were injured. “Humans being resilient = good guys with guns are bad” is the logical clusterfvck that I ended up with after this article.

    This turd cant even spell the name of the person he is using as evidence to his laughable point consistently throughout the article, is it an m or an n? Seriously, I understand that articles like this get a lot of clicks and views , but why are we even calling communist trolls to our community a reader? These are people that we will need a lot of short ropes for here in the next few years, even pretending that they arent the enemy is wrong.

  43. avatar Brad Goodwin says:

    Well, if nothing else it shots the hell out of any logic behind large capacity magazine restrictions.

  44. avatar Alex waits says:

    Doesn’t matter. Current events and popular opinion does not amend the Constitution.

    We are a free people because that document reigns in the government, why would anyone want to be less free?

    The tree of liberty is often watered, by the blood sacrifice of those who are taken from us by evil. They don’t have to be patriots, or die for country, they only must die free.

  45. avatar Jeff Fisher says:

    @2ASux
    First of all, NJ (among others) has spent countless hours and millions of dollars ensuring that there are as few non-LEO “good guys with guns” as possible in their jurisdictions, so I will agree that in liberal anti-gun strong-(weak?)-holds, relying on non-LEO “good guys with guns” to achieve herd immunity is a terrible tactic. Imagine if a town banned civilian ownership of thermometers and then complained about flu outbreaks. Kinda the same idea.
    Now that we’ve got that out of the way, It’s not necessary for civilians to kill or even wound an attacker (or attackers) with their fire. It’s enough that they fire back with reasonable accuracy and care for bystanders. Attackers in these scenarios know time is against them, and in all likelihood won’t commit the time necessary to breach a building or room if the aforementioned building or room is defended with even a small amount of return fire. Instead, they’ll bypass the defended building/room and move on to undefended areas to continue their attack. This is a classic “Guerilla warfare” tactic and is actually doctrine in certain circles.The goal here isn’t to turn every good citizen into a “pistol-sniper” with perfect accuracy and lightning speed (It’d be nice though) but to allow any given building/room to transform from a normal building/room into a defended “bunker” dedicated to saving innocent lives. A bad-guy ducking is a bad-guy NOT shooting, and a bad-guy not shooting is a bad-guy running out of time before a SWAT Team runs him over with an MRAP. And don’t even start with the whole “civilians turn to putty under stress” bit, because we’ve seen over and over that they DON’T. Aftermath of the Boston Bombing? Civilians rendering aid. Aftermath of 9/11? Civilians rendering aid. Don’t project your personal weakness on everyone else. Just because you don’t have the strength of character to risk personal injury for a stranger doesn’t mean there aren’t people that will. Have some faith. Maybe train up a bit and arm yourself too. We could use the help these days…

    1. avatar Robert C. hall says:

      Jeff Fisher’s is the best response. The job of us good guys is not be the police and try to run the bad guy to ground to arrest or kill him if he resists. Our job is to make the attack, the killing, STOP. Make him break off and go somewhere else. That almost always happens when the bad guy is first confronted, esp. if that confrontation includes putting a few rounds on board him, even if they do not drop him on the spot. We just want him to stop the bad things he’s doing and leave our area. Note that at least the NJ cops achieved that.

    2. avatar 2Asux says:

      Interesting reply. Quite interesting. Deserves a bit of pondering.

  46. avatar Rob says:

    There are numerous examples of people who continue the fight after being shot multiple times however, the norm is people give up the fight or die after being shot once. I sincerely hope 2ASux won’t use his/her assumption in a manner that places them-self on the business end of a muzzle regardless if the muzzle is held by someone in a black or white hat.

  47. avatar H says:

    I take two classes a year from experienced teachers. The LEOs who attend always remark that the requirements in the classes far exceed those of their departments. They remark how many civilians are better shots. They remark that the civilians they meet put in way more time at the range then their fellow officers do. Most just qualify twice a year.

    So you decide who you want to save your keister. If we can we will. Maybe not since you don’t want us there.:) We’ve also been trained to leave the scene as the first best defense.

  48. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

    “It’s time to give up the boyhood dream of civilian disarmament”. There…..fixed it for you old bean.

  49. avatar HAFS says:

    Dagnabbit, we are CITIZENS NOT CIVILIANS!!!

  50. avatar MiniMe says:

    Troll headliners? Lovely.

    Next, a tenderly written 50 page article from Shannon telling us we are all baby killers and that we ought to shoot ourselves, right?

  51. avatar Dylan says:

    What I don’t understand is that your argument seems self-defeating.

    You’re saying no single good guy with a gun in public would be effective at stopping a bad guy with a gun. Because even these trained police officers took multiple shots from multiple guns to stop one bad guy.

    But, aren’t you missing the fact that there was one bad guy versus multiple good guys and that one bad guy with the gun was able to effectively engage multiple good guys?

    So how come that one untrained bad guy was able to “defend himself” against multiple good guys?

    Is the only difference because he was a bad guy? And he had some supersecret bad guy power so his gun with effective against multiple assailants? Where is mine would not be?

    You can’t say look here’s an example of one guy fighting multiple guys with guns and the one guy holding his own.

    Then turn around and say there is no way one guy with a gun would be able to engage multiple bad guys with a gun.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Think it through. Multiple good guys couldn’t quickly subdue a single bad guy with a gun. A single bad guy couldn’t subdue multiple attackers. Ergo, the notion of gun-armed self-defense is fantasy.

  52. avatar neiowa says:

    2Adimwit is no doubt one of the marxists that thing Hellery’s story about Trump of the weekend matters. Thinking that tactic is going to put the whore in the White House.

  53. avatar surlycmd says:

    The effectiveness of carrying a gun in public is not the correct metric. I may or may not use my gun in a given situation. Many factors will have to be determined first.

    The only metric to be used is freewill. It is my choice and my choice alone whether I carry a gun. No other person should be able to make that choice for me. If I should misuse my gun, then due process should be used to decide my fate.

    Otherwise, FLAME DELETED

  54. avatar Jack says:

    Ok, I see your point.

    I’m still not going unarmed. Always armed and not with a 9 or a 40. 45 acp or a heavy 44 Special load from Buffalo Bore.

  55. avatar JW says:

    I’m a physician.

    So – imagine 2ASux goes to his physician and is delivered an accurate diagnosis for a disease – then told no treatment should be given because there has been a report of a treatment failure.

    I wonder if he would nod his head and meekly walk out of the office waiting to see what manifestation the disease would follow.

    Am I missing something here?

    It sounds rather that he is making an excellent case for the use of a sbr in this situation over a handgun – more accurate and powerful.

    The take home message then – all lives matter and pick a black rifle over a handgun if it’s an option.

  56. avatar joe says:

    I am just announcing that I will no longer comment. It is just not worth my time to respond to this stuff.

  57. avatar ^Sammy says:

    It has probably been said but in Jersey good guys with guns can’t carry them.

    Added:
    “frightening off, or killing of the blokes wearing black hats.” How many Americans call men blokes?

  58. avatar Joe R. says:

    2asux ain’t from here, if she could fix herself, then she might have a shot at unfu<king where she's from. Instead she has to dump on America while selling pieces of her broken country's way of life. Eat sh_t and live (quietly).

    About NJ – Jersey is rife with (POS) always has been, it's a liberal_progressive_communist evil gun-grabbing (D) small patch of resl estate that tries to dictate to the rest of us. NJ disarmed the majority of its citizens. If the (POS) muslim terrorist incident there is an indication of anything, it's that, if we let 'people' like 2Asux run anything they'll F up everything that's good and decent and right with the world.
    Push back 300%.

  59. avatar drago111 says:

    What an absolute load of carp. This event does nothing to prove that a good guy with a gun can’t stop a bad guy. In this case it took a few cops to take him down. But there are regular examples of one guy with a gun stopping the bad guy. Take for instance the Texas event where they were going to have a contest where people drew comics about Mohamed. That PO’d a couple jihadies, who were bent on shooting the participants. A single cop took them out with a couple well placed shots. He ended it before it had a chance to become a mass killing event. In other news, you regularly hear about intruders being put down,robbers being put down, etc.

    The author of this article is totally wrong. This article should never have seen the light of day on this forum.

  60. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    So, in the end, they got the BG, using guns to do it.

    It’s a shame any of this happened, and a shame that there weren’t more GG’s better positioned, better trained, better armed, to resolve this mess sooner. But, NJ, where the “solution” to GGs taking some time to stop a BG doing bad things, is to further hobble the GGs. Really, this rant sounds like an argument for, I don’t know, arming everybody, with evil assault rifles, self-targeting rounds, and possibly explosive devices.

    (Explain to me what “better” would be? Really, I see no case for anything in the rant. What’s the proposal?)

    Sadly, NJ makes it hard for people to take care of themselves, or others, and the anti-gun folks are so tangled up in fetishizing objects, they want to make situations like this one impossible for anyone to do anything about. Anyone peaceful and responsible, that is. A BG is free to keep shooting up whatever’s nearby. Eventually he’ll tire himself out & then we can grab him (those of us who are left) while he’s napping. Or something like that.

    Kudos to the people who stepped up: to those who nabbed the BG in the end, and the rest along the way. (God only knows what he would have managed had they not, risking themselves, opposed him.)

    I’m a little offended at Our Correspondent who seems to argue that it would have been better to let the BG just continue on his way, forever (or, until he got tired, as above.) It’s like he thinks Shooter McShooteyFace didn’t get to run amok long enough, or something.

  61. avatar John says:

    Look on http://www.keepandbeararms.com lots of stories of defsive gun use everyday

  62. avatar Geoff PR says:

    TD, I highly doubt 2Asux is Mikey Numbers. Writing style doesn’t jibe between them.

    That’s the weakness in those who change their nick on TTAG, the name will change, but the general writing style usually doesn’t.

    1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      I didagree. There was a post where he used almost identical language.

      BTW: Good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun;

      http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/09/townville-sc-school-shooter-taken-armed-citizen/

  63. avatar Stuki Moi says:

    Talk about not seeing the forest fro the trees….. And being to blind to see the trees as well..

    If someone shoots at you, does this clown honestly think NOT being in a position to shoot back, is somehow preferable to being in a position to do so?

    Who the heck did stop the guy in the end? The cops, who did carry guns and engage the terrorist, or the guys who followed the article writer’s advice, and did not carry?

    It’s beyond ridiculous that supposedly grown people are even stuck debating this stuff! Earth to Planet Dumb: When attacked, some means of defending oneself, trump no means of doing so! How bloody strange!

  64. avatar Icabod says:

    Fair is fair, if he tells on anecdote then here are 12.
    To start:

    “Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.

    Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.”
    http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

    Let’s see, good guy with gun, doesn’t fire a shot, stops the killing.

  65. avatar Steve Day says:

    Why bother publishing such drivel?

    The event took place in NY … anyone with even the most minimal amount of actual knowledge about Officer involved shootings in NY vs the rest of the US will have not bothered reading the rantings of Ms “2ASux” beyond the first paragraph – just like I did.

  66. avatar David Z says:

    How dizzy you must feel with this spin

  67. avatar DetroitMan says:

    So many logic fails from 2ATrollz, where to begin?

    First, in the cited example, it was the police who were in fact the “good guy with a gun.” If we apply your logic, then the incident proves that it is in fact the government sanctioned police force that is incapable of protecting us. So we had better all tool up, because it’s going to take a lot of bullets to stop the bad guys, and more guns equals more bullets. After all, you yourself argued that a single person with a gun can’t be expected to stop the bad guys.

    Second, statistics on shootings show that people shot with handguns survive about 50% of the time. So Rahani’s survival is nothing out of the ordinary. It is merely one of two possible expected outcomes.

    Third, the obvious fallacy that in order for self defense to be successful, the offender must die. In fact, the only reasonable criterion for a successful self defense is that the innocent party survive. In this case they did.

    Fourth, the fallacy of making categorical statements based on the outcome of a single event. In 2012, 92 people were killed PER DAY in traffic accidents in the US. If we apply your logic, that means all of us should give up the boyhood fantasy of driving our own cars and opt for public transportation. After all, driving goes horribly wrong for someone 92 times per day, which is orders of magnitude more frequent than the police failing to kill a terrorist in a gun battle.

    Lastly, the fallacy that something must be 100% successful in order to be useful. Not all house fires are successfully extinguished with fire extinguishers, but I’ll bet you have at least one extinguisher at home. If I told you that on your way home tonight, you would be confronted by a homicidal madman with a gun, and you had the option to have your own gun to protect yourself, would you turn it down? If the answer is yes, then you are a fool.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      I would call the police with the information, and ask for assistance.

  68. avatar Matt says:

    2 days later and not one comment from 2Asux defending his/her position. I’m shocked!

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Debate prep,old boy. Debate prep. Campaign business. Finally go moved from volunteer to paid staffer.

      1. avatar Matt says:

        I’m glad to see you appear. We don’t agree but I appreciate reading your comments in any case since you keep it civil and articulate.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          Happy to be of service, mate. And thank you for the consideration.

          Must be off, chum. The Donald is making a play to lose in the largest landslide in history. Wouldn’t do to not be part of helping him be about it. Not likely to have time to bandy about with the mates on the blog until after election. Cheers.

  69. avatar sgtmango333 says:

    If I find myself in a position to have to defend myself with a firearm, I HOPE there are 10 other guys out there as skilled if not more so with their firearm. But as 2Asux has demonstrated – in this one scenario – I am hoping for more than 10 guys to end it even quicker.

    The answer isn’t less guns for the good guys, the answer is more good guys with guns.

  70. avatar Jim Macklin says:

    If a terrorist has an atomic bomb? Or if hillary gets her wish and nobody has a gun for self-defense, then a thug with a brick will do what ever they want to do.
    Cute little girl, some thug will have her because she won’t be allowed to have a equalizer, neither will her mother or father.

    Armed cops die because there is no perfect defense. But a lawfully armed society serves as a deterrent to ordinary crime and some terrorism.Be alert and watch your surroundings. Seeing a threat before it kills you is te first step.

    Cops have always waited for obvious confirmation. But the BLM movement isn’t about saving black lives, it is about killing cops, black cops too.

  71. avatar Robert says:

    Yep, this guy is right. There is only one solution. Disarm everybody. That will solve the problem.

    What an idiotic poster. Yeah, this scenario was not a perfect scenario. There was an active shooter in a heavily populated urban environment, and the cops can just “pray and spray,” because they actually have to concern themselves with collateral damage. So, even with these officers shooting this guy multiple times and avoiding hitting any innocent bystanders, the criminal still manages to keep fighting for quite some time before his injuries weakened him to the point of incapacitation.

    The point of the “good guy with a gun” concept is that an armed, law-abiding citizen who practices the disciplines of carrying and responsibly using a firearm can provide a quicker response and more covert response to a violent criminal who is hurting or killing others than the police can. This does require some level of proficiency with a firearm, but the good guy, in many cases, has the advantage of the element of surprise, because the attackers often don’t know who their armed opponent is until he addresses them with gunfire. This does not negate the necessity of law enforcement; it supplements it.

    In a decent society, every able-bodied, law-abiding man would be the “good guy with a gun” and violent criminals would not only be able to accomplish less before incapacitation, but they would also be afraid to act, knowing that a lethal counter could come from almost anywhere.

  72. avatar Jim says:

    I still feel better with my Glock 23 then throwing rocks.

  73. avatar Steve Pendry says:

    This piece is so juvenile as to be absurd. There is only one true response to this delusional child. Good guys with guns stop these kinds of attacks DAILY. In REAL LIFE, with real gunmen and in a variety of situations. NUFF SAID. I can give you more youtube videos of these situations. Responding to this crap is a waste of time on these people.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email