“If there had been more guns in Pulse, there would have been more dead.” – Fred Wright in Parents Of Pulse Victim On Concealed Carry Bills: ‘More Guns In More Places Not A Solution’ [via miami.cbslocal.com]
“If there had been more guns in Pulse, there would have been more dead.” – Fred Wright in Parents Of Pulse Victim On Concealed Carry Bills: ‘More Guns In More Places Not A Solution’ [via miami.cbslocal.com]
The European fans of the Eagles of Death Metal would like a word.
Yeah, and, many of those have had their genitals in their FING MOUTHS. It’s not just a question of murder or wounding with a firearm. The muslim MF’s performed EXTREMELY BRUTAL TORTURE. There are people in France that may not leave a mental institution because they’re too F’d up by just what they saw, not even what happened to them.
Enough so, that if they let the whole true story out. There wouldn’t be a mf muslim left.
BAN GUNS??? THAT’S AS STUPID AS SAYING “BAN TARGETS”, AND IF YOU HAD AN FING KID AT “THE PULSE” THAT NIGHT THEN YOUR KID PURPOSEFULLY MADE THEMSELVES A TARGET TO PEOPLE WHO DAILY PROFESS THE DESIRE TO KILL THEM. AND, IF YOU’RE REACTION TO YOUR KIDS MURDER WAS “BAN GUNS” THEN YOUR LIKELY A LIBERAL POS MF WHO SUPPORTED OUR LAST PRESIDENT THAT IMPORTED AND AIDED IN THE WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF OVER A MILLION OF THE MURDERING BASTARDS.
Disarm yourselves first shitheads, and dance at the next Pulse reunion. We’ll sit by and watch.
Joe R.,
Please provide sources/citations which corroborate your claim that the Muslim terrorists mutilated/tortured their victims at the music concert in France.
That was a common claim by the media in the immediate aftermath. Fox, The Sun, Daily Mail and Zero Hedge ran the story.
Snopes says the claim has been been debunked, but I don’t have time to fully research it.
Google “bataclan torture” and Google has the original stories cached
Snopes is not fake news, just ask it.
Snopes is a left laying on the ground (not “leaning”) b.s. information system resource.
Get the people to trust it as a resource, then write whatever suits you (a/k/a: “Fake News”).
It’s hilarious, actually, because there are a number of at least RELATIVELY reliable news sources (Fox, Daily Mail, NY Post, Washington Times, etc) who reported the torture, but Snopes uses a single French Government source to prove it “false.” The whole effing POINT is that the French Government covered it up, and they figure the fr.gov is the best source to debunk the cover-up? Snopes is no longer fit for purpose, if it ever was.
This guy (few pictures down on link) nude because he was being treated for heat-rash? See another mark on him? But he’s hooked up to an iv. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3329435/American-survivor-shot-escaped-Bataclan-terror-atrocity-Paris-survived-9-11-attacks-New-York.html
Gently foil-wrapped in this picture this site: http://heavy.com/news/2015/11/bataclan-theatre-paris-terror-attack-shootings-gunmen-victims-dead-concert-hall-explosions-photos-video-eagles-of-death-metal-band-americans-facebook-twitter/
ANYWHO, DOESN’T FING MATTER. ANYONE WANNA BET THE PREGNANT LADY HANGING FROM THE WINDOW SILL AFTER RE-THINKING HER ATTEMPT TO JUMP FROM THE 2ND FLOOR TO THE ALLEY DOESN’T WISH SOME ARMED FROG MF REDIRECTED THE POS TERRORISTS’ ATTENTION FOR A FEW SECONDS?
“ALWAYS REMEMBER” MEANS ALWAYS REMEMBER THE EVENT AS THOUGH IT WAS RIGHT FING NOW.
I wasn’t commenting on the veracity of any report. I was merely stating that that they exist. That’s what I could get in 90 seconds of research.
The point being that whether one wants to believe one report or another report, Joe wasn’t making up his claims.
Joe, are you really a hardcore leftist that posts this kind of crap just to send your friends links and see what lunatics supporters of the Second Amendment are, or are you just an unhinged, hate-filled (real hate-filled, not the kind of hate-filled used by progressives to label those who disagree with their world view) lunatic that comes here to rant about every evil you perceive to exist in the world?
“…PURPOSEFULLY MADE THEMSELVES A TARGET…” Huh? By doing what? By living their damn lives freely and wanting to be left alone? By being out at a bar with like-minded friends? Say what you will about homosexuality, but it sounds to me like you’d have enjoyed playing the role of the shooter and less like you’re suggesting that a few people packing heat could have reduced the death toll.
Duh Stew, shut up before you out yourself to yourself.
They made themselves targets by being disarmed, by being there DISARMED. Now their parents “BECAUSE THEY CARE” want to make us all targets. F-dat. And yes, radical muslims hate homosexual people (choke yourself before you pin that on me) so YES they make themselves a “TARGET” when they bunch up. A slightly bigger target than a non openly-gay nightclub (again, choke your dumbass self-offended self before you attempt to pin that on me).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3692359/French-government-suppressed-gruesome-torture-Bataclan-victims-official-inquiry-told-castrated-eyes-gouged-ISIS-killers.html and the UN has suppressed dissemination of travel and other warnings. Because “UN” isn’t an acronym, it’s a prefix for all things good and right and just and safe, and useful, and humane, and worthy of continuance. . .
Tstew: +++
dONe (at least in 2004, and maybe other times?)
Be offended by what you read [it’s still there] and react to that, not to what your brain was screaming while you read it.
No shit? Islamists murder homosexuals? Thanks for the education, I’d have never known it without you pointing that out to us.
Couldn’t help but notice, through your very well crafted, thoughtful (and predictable) reply that you never did get around to actually addressing my question…which I guess answers it. Shame on me for feeding a troll.
Out myself…that’s funny.
F your question Testestew. I sh_t on your premise. You didn’t even read what I wrote, you got offended by your own head. I responded to whatever portion of my comment you addressed.
Through your hyperventilating, ranting reply you didn’t notice that I didn’t question your claims of mutation, merely your purpose for commenting here.
Addressed? Yeah, you addressed everything I didn’t question and nothing about you likely being a paid troll.
Love the insinuations, by the way. Bet the other kids at junior high just love you! Great stuff! The last time that much ignorant (and inaccurate) hate got thrown at me I was trying to talk to a liberal.
The parents Fred and Maria Wright said this.
“They would like to see universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people like Omar Mateen or people with criminal records or significant mental health issues.”
More idiots who don’t know a single thing about guns or the laws. The Pulse shooter, Omar Mateen PASSED a background check for his Sig MCX. These dummies don’t even have a clue about the issue. Most of these mass shooters pass background checks to buy their gun.
Well, yeah, but see, the background check he passed was not UNIVERSAL, do you see now?
Background checks for guns, but let every Fing Jihadi stroll in here because you are a stupid POS and on their side.
JFK TSA – no problem NY can give away America because America belongs to NY and not you.
iFu<ks for all those who think so.
The San Bernardino shooters had used a straw purchase to obtain their weapons.
A straw purchase was utilized to avoid suspicion, not because of any prohibiting factors. The husband had no criminal record and was US citizen by birth–he had no legal impediment to buying the guns himself. He merely assumed that the FBI would look at him more closely because of his religion and the fact that he was married to a Pakistani.
And straw purchases are already illegal, even if the recipient is not a prohibited person. The idea that these people who engaged in an illegal straw purchase wouldn’t have been willing to illegally transfer the firearms without a background check is ridiculous…mostly because California already has universal background checks, and the straw purchasers bypassed them.
Ironic how this gets paraded as “common sense” when it completely flies in the face of logic.
Right? It’s so silly. “That massacre would have turned into a shootout you lunatic!”
yeah, a shootout, instead of a parade to a bathroom? Love stupid mf’s who try to sell “bend-over-and-take-it” because that’s what they’re into.
FU
After the initial confrontation with the shooter/terrorist, it took the police almost three hours to respond and finally take him out. In that time the shooter/terrorist was able to kill countless more victims while others were left helpless to bleed to death on the bathroom floor.
Such a tragedy is reminiscent of the Columbine shootings and police response, although this incident is far more egregious. The carnage often only stops when armed opposition arrives, otherwise the slaughter will only be prolonged.
Yes, but these brilliant thinkers are among the few who can understand that if there were, say. 20 armed partygoers present, as soon as shots were fired they would ALL have instantly begun shooting their tablemates, since Allah commands it. None would attempt to stop the killer (even the police!) or even to defend their own lives, just kill the innocent!
Indeed, such inanity is quite simply put , pure sophistry at its finest.
So if one person with a gun was there without ill will in their heart and they had shot the terrorist in the middle of his rampage, would that not mean LESS dead bodies? Logic is the missing link.
A gun would be best, but the balls to do something while the bastard made Facebook posts on bis phone during the incident would be required.
The parents of the Pulse victims are people with regrets and loss; I will not add to their discomfort at such a time of stress. I do not think any of us should. We most likely weren’t there when it happened and we aren’t there in the aftermath. Each person would need to grieve in their own private way. May God bless and be their strength facing such a terrible loss.
Screw that. Millions of people across the globe experience tragedy every day. Just because they lost a loved one doesn’t mean they get a pass to advocate infringing MY God-given right to self-defense. They don’t get a pass, and neither do the Sandy Hook parents, the Aurora parents, the parents of the newscasters killed by that gay black dude, or anybody else on Earth.
^^^^ What he said!
Not when they abuse their position of power and influence to become advocates for more blood and death and terror because they want to pass more laws to disarm the decent and law abiding to make them defenseless in the face of a mass murdering psychopath.
In other words, these people, in their legitimate feelings of grief, have become instruments of and mouth pieces for the forces of true evil.
“Each person would need to grieve in their own private way.”
Agree with you 100%. The apt word being “private”.
Once they go public with their dangerous views, I have every right and duty to take an adversarial stance.
You are an idiot. They are not “grieving in their private way” and they deserve to be lashed out against, in public for their short-sighted absurdity. They abviously didnt even read how the attack played out, about the unarmed sitting ducks, etc.
What they really need to be aware of is the police, sitting behind barriers, smoking cigarettes and eating donuts for 3 HOURS, while listening to (apparently) hundreds of gunshots as this fruitcake casually executed their children, with zero fear of any interference, from anyone.
Suffering a personal tragedy does not make them subject matter experts. Once they open their mouths and attempt to use their feelings to influence others, privacy is over. We should counter the BS at every opportunity.
SpongeBob’s pet snail speaks.
You are wrong, Gary.
It’s OK as long as we’re not posting on their Facebook page. They can mourn all they want for as long as they want without any idea that we’re discussing their ridiculous statements.
Unprovable hypothesis. We know the outcome of a club full of defenseless people. Unless you can prove what your saying you should keep your mouth shut. Especially when what your fighting for violates my rights.
…and when a law-abiding citizen stops the carnage after two people instead of 60, the libs say “Well, that wasn’t a mass shooting so it doesn’t count.”
O2
Victim mentality. It’s taught by liberals from cradle to grave. Refuse to be a victim.
…and if you had more brains, you’d say more intelligent things.
I’m sorry for their loss.
But the whole “half a worm left in the apple” argument they’re making is based on two false premises. First, that guns are intrinsically evil, and second, that everyone carrying a gun is intending evil. Under those conditions, yes, more guns would equal more death. But the first premise is always wrong, and the second is far more likely to be true only in “no good-guy guns” zones like this nightclub was.
So, as I understand it, they are ready to proclaim to the world that they are GLAD that their son was unarmed and unable to defend himself, waiting terrorized for hours until a goofball wandered by the bathroom and nonchalantly killed him? Downright happy? Currently celebrating the success of their vision?
Is it backwards day again?
Nope.
One parent does ‘parents’ not make.
He doesn’t speak for all the parents.
There’s a thought! Why is the opinion of these idiots the only one we are hearing? Are there no parents complaining that the victims were forcibly disarmed and left defenseless due to the actions of the state? Which then (in the person of numerous police officers-maybe 100+?) sat outside and listened to the murders from safety?
What could you even say to these people. It sucks they had to lose a loved one in such a horrible fashion. But you could not tell these people anything. Any attempt to do so would be met with indignation and bloody shirt waving. I have been a victim of crime before, although nothing as serious as this. One was a burglary while I was away, the other time I was jumped by some guys and beat up pretty good. It seems people react one of two ways: they fall into victimhood and think that nothing could have been done to avoid it, or they go the “never again” route. I chose the “never again” mindset. Maybe being armed wouldn’t have stopped anything from happening. But we know being unarmed definitely didn’t prevent a massacre.
If you raise a degenerate I suppose there is no end to the regret and self-loathing. If you are a progtard you then blame others for your failure/weakness.
The anti-gun cult again acts as OSHA for violent predators.
They don’t mind guns. They don’t mind killings. Just as long as nobody shoots BACK.
In a case of shooting fish in a barrel, all the shooter sees is fish in a barrel, it is hard to focus on one person with a handgun. One or two people with a gun should/could/would have stopped him before he was able to shoot as many as he did.
Especially if they did not have a uniform.
If several people are armed at a venue where a spree killer attacks, will those armed good guys cause more harm and loss of life than if they did not have firearms?
Real world experience and critical thinking tell us “no”. Armed citizens harm bystanders at 1/5th the rate of police and yet no one is questioning the wisdom of having police confront attackers.
We see that violent attackers who face no opposition for minutes or hours can easily wound/kill scores of people.
Critical thinking tells us that a violent attacker who faces immediate armed resistance either ignores that resistance (enabling the defender to promptly incapacitate the attacker) or immediately faces that armed resistance (and is no longer harming people at will). Either reaction from the attacker reduces casualties.
Of particular interest with respect to spree killers, approximately 75% of spree killers promptly surrender or commit suicide at the first sight of an armed defender or police. That obviously reduces casualties.
Finally, an armed defender who unintentionally shoots bystanders would NOT be placing carefully aimed shots to vital locations on bystanders’ bodies. Rather, any hits to bystanders would be to random locations on bystanders’ bodies. Such random wounds would rarely prove fatal. In contrast an unopposed attacker would be free to carefully slash, stab, bludgeon, or shoot victims to maximum effect.
Clearly, casualties will be far lower in the overwhelming majority of (if not all) attacks when armed good guys immediately oppose a violent attacker who is maiming/killing people.
My understanding (actual data is apparently secret) is that most of the wounded and dead at Pulse were shot more than once. Including survivors, and including those who only died because medical attention was delayed for hours, while they bled out. Accidental shots to bystanders, especially if treated immediately due to the absence of breathing attackers, would be much less a threat.
That makes sense. I’ve read stats that upward of 80% of gunshot victims survive. However, that carries with it a lot of assumptions. It applies first to people in metro areas, where medical help is generally close by. That figure would also include self-inflicted accidental shootings, many of which may just graze someone.
If you start breaking down figures to look at intentional homicidal shots, particularly with long guns, then the survival rate is likely lower. Nevertheless, the point remains that ending the shooting is paramount, as that ends the overall casualty count and gives medical responders a chance to limit the death toll. If armed defenders, even if they happen to hit a bystander or two, can end the attack sooner, then that’s a win.
Yeah.
The terrorist.
Except that prior events show us that that’s not necessarily true. Remember the Dallas shooting? Where a crowd of police and armed citizens started taking fire from a concealed gunman? One of the most stressful situations anyone could imagine, and nobody was shot by police, and no police were shot by regular citizens. Everyone kept their cool pretty much as well as anyone could be expected to in that situation. Granted, the crowd of open carriers didn’t stop the threat because they couldn’t see it, but nobody went Rambo and started blindly firing into the air.
“If there had been more guns in Pulse, there would have been more dead.”
In a way the Fred is right. “More guns” showed up, stood outside for about three hours, while one gun inside the nightclub shot his defenseless victims huddled in corners.
^This- when seconds count the police are HOURS away.
So what Fred and Maria are saying is: When the police finally breached the wall to bring their guns into play, it was too soon. More guns meant more death.
To their final comment, there is common ground: We all agree that you suffered a great loss. I wish nothing but healing for them, but they need to spend more time grieving in private. Their emotions are overriding any sense of logic. They are being used badly by parties that do not have their best interests at heart.
‘They would like to see universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of people like Omar Mateen…’
The only way Omar Mateen would have been unable to pass a background check would be to make everyone ineligible to own firearms.
Liberals simply don’t think like the rest of us, and by that I don’t mean they have different opinions, I mean they have a totally different way of processing information. In this case, I believe that their blind faith in the government is so strong that they believe only government agents should be armed. Any information contrary to this ethos is dismissed out of hand. It’s so strong that they probably actually believe that the loss of their son was an acceptable price for advancing the anti-liberty cause. No amount of reason will budge them. It’s like trying to flip the polarity of Earth’s magnetic field with a refrigerator magnet.
That must mean Black Lies Matter is not liberal.
Less guns in the hands of good guys is always the best solution to a homicidal terrorist. Common sense. Beam, me up.
I believe when you engage in “risky” activities you don’t get to lecture anyone on whether or not a good guy with a gun would have stopped evil Omer. Stupid people-stupid places. And I don’t sympathize. Hundreds of boys-not a single MAN…
Now you sound like the antis. Sorry. If your code keeps you from such behavior that’s what works. Just as the antis have “code” driving them to restrict our rights shouldn’t we be wary of throwing stones. The Left thinks they are right about this. I saw people assembling doing no harm to you and me because we chose not to be there.
If this is Biblical there is no text that says I go to hell because someone else sins.
Our assailant hated his own sexuality. His father thinks he’s President of Afghanistan. Somehow he ended up sitting behind Hillary at a Nationally televised rally. He only mentioned ISIS during that three hour lull when he saw that his actions weren’t trending on social media. Whole lotta crazy. Same MO. Someone can’t handle their personal shite and has to “complain” by killing others.
Not enough guns. More armed security. Libs don’t want to go there. It means things are bad. Hmmm they are, sometimes.
Then why should people like me sympathize with your cause?
More time I spend in gun culture, the more anti gun rights I get. For the first time in my life I didn’t feel shitty over an anti gun decision coming down from a higher court, I sat there and said, “good” to myself. and it’s because of “men” like you.
Criminals, no matter the target or ethnicity of the shooter, do not go into police stations to shoot up the place. Know why? Guns. They know they will be stopped in the first three trigger pulls maximum. If everyone who was legally able, legally carried everywhere Everytime, and criminals know it, they wouldn’t attack large groups and have mass killings. It’d be stupid. They’d find some other way to attack, probably with improvised explosives, but it wouldn’t be guns. Problem solved. Everyone carry all the time.
Sincerely a gay man who doesn’t go anywhere without his.
I remember a video where this big guy in leather jacket drove a car into police station and shot all cops in there…wait, that was Terminator? Never mind then.
Dammit Scoutino! You stole my joke!
And only beat me to it by five hours, I see.
Ultimately people with guns DID stop him. I am reluctant to call them good guys as they waited 3 hours and likely lead to the deaths of many of these people. Even someone shooting into the ceiling probably would have been better than nothing as a lot of these cowards turn tail and take care of themselves when threatened.
Meanwhile, back in 2010/2011 the U.S.gov. oversaw the largest arms in deal in human history when it transferred an estimated 60 billion USD in weapons and ammunition to The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. No one batted an eyelash. Am I the only one that thinks a privately purchased full auto rifle in the hands of a U.S. citizen is less of a threat than pumping weapons into the Middle East?
These poor people are ignorant. Unfortunately, leftists often exploit the ignorant to advance their ill-advised ideology.
Obviously, in this particular case, if there had been even one person there who had been armed and trained, the terrorist might have been incapacitated, therefore saving many lives.
There are no guarantees in life. However, if you don’t have the liberty to exercise reasonable options to protect your own safety, you start at a serious disadvantage when confronted with a deadly force threat.
Two idiots politicizing the death of their child.
Obviously what we need is more gun control… I mean it worked in France right?
Oh wait. It didn’t.
Now I feel for you. Losing a loved one, especially your child is very tough.
But these attacks could have happened anywhere. I truly understand your grieving. But to deny others the ability to armed self defense only emboldens these cowards to keep doing these attacks.
I won’t rip into these people because I suspect that they speak from an understandably emotional position.
I don’t agree with their statement but I also don’t agree with the reverse statement that a few armed bar patrons would necessarily have stopped the guy. These events are things that can be “what if”ed to death and usually are.
There is no guaranteed way to stop the violence this guy perpetrated nor a guaranteed way to shorten his rampage or reduce the body count. Every action that we, as a society, could take will have upsides and downsides. The crazies will continue to crazy but the people who engage in these attacks for Allah will, over time, adjust their tactics to fit whatever reality we present to them.
That said, there are things that can change the statistical chances and make them more favorable to those under attack. Gun control isn’t one of those things.
“I also don’t agree with the reverse statement that a few armed bar patrons would necessarily have stopped the guy.”
How do you figure? I haven’t seen the layout of Pulse, but I’m pretty sure that Mateen couldn’t have had eyes on everyone at all times. So if he hadn’t just so happened to kill the handful of armed gay dudes with the initial burst of fire, they would almost certainly have had the opportunity to take cover, wait until he had his back to them, and shoot him full of 9mm/.40/.45/.357/whatever rounds. Obviously we don’t know that for sure, but what’s the point of even saying that? The point is that a few armed dudes COULD have and very likely WOULD have greatly reduced the number of deaths in the club.
I won’t give you a super long explanation but I will tell you how I generally see this.
Yes, it’s possible that the first people shot would be your CCW carriers but getting all of them right off the bat is statistically unlikely.
The first problem I note is people themselves. Yes, your average CCW permit holder is more prone to do things that others might not but lots of them consider GTFO as the first option rather than intervening in a situation where they are not directly targeted. Others will freeze or shit themselves and abandon the venue in a panic or simply wait to be killed. This type of attack is a surprise and therefore shock and the violence of action are in the BG’s favor. The people he or she is attacking are generally not combat trained folks who know how to respond to such a thing.
Secondly, while you might get to shoot the guy in the back you also might not. You can’t be guaranteed that such a situation will present itself. A lot of people are going to think at least twice about engaging a guy armed with a rifle with their pistol unless they have absolutely no other choice. If they’re behind cover and not detected they have another choice and may well take it. It’s not like your average CCW permit holder has a lot of gunfighting or general combat experience. The decisions they make will be made in a panicked state or one close to it.
Thirdly, the pistols of choice and competency. I won’t shit talk people’s choices for CCW guns or the general competency of your average handgun shooter, I will simply point to the fact that a lot of people at the range aren’t competent to shoot paper at close range and therefore probably are not competent to lay down effective fire in a dark and chaotic situation against superior firepower when they have limited ammo which is relatively under powered. Also, again I won’t trash people’s gun and caliber choices but 30 rounds of 5.56 vs. seven rounds of .380 isn’t a fight I’d want to be on the .380 side of.
The point I’m making here is not that I’m against CCW in a place like Pulse or that I think it’s a bad idea. Neither of those things is true. My point is that a lot of people on “our” side of this argument make it sound like armed bar patrons are a, forgive the bad pun, magic bullet to solve this kind of situation and any rational person knows that this isn’t true. None of these situations are the same and there are nearly an infinite number of variables all of which will affect the outcome and the ability of a legal carrier to respond effectively. All we can say for sure about allowing law abiding folks to carry in such a situation is that it gives them options that they don’t have under the current set of laws. We can’t act like it’s the panacea to the problem because it’s not. It provides options to those being attacked and that’s all it does. They would, should they choose to, have the tools to fight back. If they could do so effectively is an open question which cannot be answered. Look at the guy who said he declined to carry in Aurora and that it wouldn’t have mattered if he had. That’s his personal situation which is based on a ton of factors I’ve covered in a post before and won’t rehash here, suffice to say when he was caught in that particular situation it is his estimation that having his pistol wouldn’t have helped him or anyone else.
Further, while armed patrons may be a solution to one problem it doesn’t cover all possibilities. As I noted before, tactics will change to meet reality. Terrorists (which is what the jerkoff who perpetrated this massacre was) will adapt to reality. If armed resistance is indeed effective and shown to be effective repeatedly they’ll switch to suicide vests, car bombs, blocking exits and lighting the building on fire or some other tactic for which shooting back isn’t really an option.
Simply put, GFZ’s are dumb and should go the way of the dinosaur (and not be brought back at some awesome future theme park) but removing them doesn’t remove the inherent chaotic nature or random chances that occur in a shooting like the Pulse nightclub attack. Those factors can’t be accounted for and they change with every event. Therefore we can’t say “Here’s the answer”. All we can say is “This is the best we can do to stack the odds against the bad guy”.
Why do you presume that terrorists are going to be superior to concealed carriers? They’re likely to have the same skill set, and the terrorist will have multiple targets splitting his attention, while the carrier will have one stationary target. The terrorist is unlikely to be aware he is taking fire until he is shot, at which point his rampage will be curtailed.
I don’t carry because I expect to have a Civil War line-up and volley fire. I carry because I expect to deploy my weapon quickly and shoot somebody before they are prepared. In a mass shooting, I expect to shoot somebody in the back.
Sorry for the loss, but being affected by violence doesn’t make you a violence expert any more than getting hit by a meteorite makes you an astronomy expert.
“If there had been more guns in Pulse, there would have been more dead.”
He’s partially correct. There would have been at least one more death – the guy who started it.
From 1950 to 2016 1.6% of mass shootings* have not been in gun free zones**. From 1998 to 2015 it was 3.8%.
Let’s say the numbers are off by 20% for the sake of argument. That would still mean that over three quarters of mass shooting occur in gun free zones. This is a huge disparity.
Why do vastly more mass shooting occur in gun free zones? I can think of two reasonable explanations. Mass shooters plan out their attacks in a manner that will result in the most casualties possible. In many cases, this has been shown to be true. Many mass shooters take months to plan their attacks.
The other reason I can think of is that failed mass shooters (those that plan to commit a mass shooting, but fail) don’t attack gun free zones. As the places are not gun free, someone with a gun responds quickly before the cops can arrive. That someone is successful. Four or more people are not killed. A mass shooting has been prevented.
I believe the truth is a combination of these two reasons, along with reasons I haven’t thought of.
*A mass shooting is a shooting in public where four or more people are killed, not including the perpetrator, in which no other crime was committed. For example, gang violence wouldn’t be counted.
**Places where civilians are not allowed to conceal carry guns.
Right.
Because the moment one gun hears another one go off, it jumps into someone’s hand screaming “Shoot! Shoot! Kill!”