The geopolitical divide in America: gun rights

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mainah

They might. Or they might realize that the Mossberg or Glock that they got hasn't contributed to global warming or used the wrong pronoun on someone. To me the bottom line is that when faced with uncertainty the American public chose gun rights.

No, they didn't necessarily choose gun rights. They chose a gun. I agree with 44 AMP. It's a toss-up how they will behave and vote in the future. There's a very real possibility that they will be happy to have theirs, and continue to support no guns for everyone else. It would be a classic, elitist act. They went out and got theirs while they could. They may just regard it as being their good fortune to have gotten in before the lock. "I've got mine. Oh, you didn't buy one before the new ban went into effect? Gosh -- it must suck to be you. Ta ta."

[Double Naught Spy]

You mean law-abiding citizens with guns are not effectively thwarting crime to any degree in any of those cities? Chicago and LA basin have harsh gun control laws anyway. It could be that a lot of those "people with firearms" are outlaws harming innocents. You have to also distinguish the GUILTY from the INNOCENT: not merely the ARMED from the UNARMED.

I don't know about the wards of Houston, but I do know more than one mass shooter have been thwarted in Texas churches over recent years. Armed citizens must be helping do something right somewhere.

You are probably thinking of the shootings in Sutherland Springs and White Settlement. Any others? Neither of these events are as you described, however.

Let's look at Sutherland Springs. The church shooting was NOT stopped by an armed citizen. The shooter had left the church when he was engaged by Stephen Willeford (by Willeford's own accounting). The shooter was not engaged in the church where he had shot and killed numerous people, but outside of the church where he was not shooting. Willeford was not your ordinary citizen, but was a NRA firearms instructor. By all accounts, Willeford did well, but even by his own description of the event, he didn't stop a church shooting. He shot a fleeing shooter.

Maybe you are thinking of White Settlement. Jack Wilson did stop an active shooter in what could have been a mass shooting. Jack Wilson, former law enforcement officer, current firearms instructor, current head of the church's armed security team did engage and kill the shooter AFTER another member of his security team and another church member were killed.

It has been my experience that most citizens with guns are not firearms instructors or involved in law enforcement during their lives. Most are not members of armed security teams. Most don't even carry guns.

[44 AMP]

Here's the fly in the ointment about stopping a mass shooter.

They aren't a mass shooter until they begin shooting. So until then, they haven't actually done anything to justify deadly force to stop them. Brandishing a firearm and/or actually threatening people can be justification but until/unless anyone who is armed and in a position to intervene recognizes the the threat, they don't know to do anything.

And that's the rub, once they start shooting, everyone recognizes the threat, so then it becomes a matter of time (and location) and the capability of the armed citizen that matters. But generally speaking, the shooting has to start before that happens and that means that the shooting was NOT prevented. It can mean the shooting was stopped after it began so fewer people get shot. but that's not "preventing" the shooting and so that doesn't count in a database about preventing such shootings.

After the shooter finished in the church and left, he was confronted, and that prevented him from doing any MORE, but not from doing what he had already done before armed response arrived.

Same to a degree in the other shooting, the shooting wasn't prevented but it was stopped before it got any worse. He was able to shoot a couple people before being stopped, so the shooting wasn't prevented, but it was STOPPED.


and I think my point about the "massive wave of first time gun buyers" is a valid one. Some of them will, hopefully take up the cause of gun rights, because they are now gun owners. However there are a lot of people in this country with the attitude AB mentioned. "I got mine, sucks to be you!"

I wouldn't count on any of them to support gun rights.