Anonymous #2 12w

This is a rare instance. For most shootings “the good guy with the gun” doesnt help and can also lead to worse outcomes.

2

Anonymous OP 12w

The real determinator wasn't just the fact that the good guy was armed, but that he was armed and aware of his surroundings.

1

Anonymous #2 12w

Yes he was a marine. Your average American isn’t a trained marine.

4

Anonymous OP 12w

The government would have a hard time making it illegal to be aware of your surroundings, I'm more worried about them trying to stop or discentivize lawful gun owners from carrying

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Him being a marine doesn't make a whole lot of difference other than the fact that marines are trained in shooting and situational awareness. You don't need to enlist to be a good person and be knowledgeable.

1

Anonymous #2 12w

Stricter gun control has been proven to help the general populous than harm. Ultimately those unfit are more likely to not get a gun than a person who is fit not being able to get one.

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Thats an opinion, and I'm sure after you've already determined it's a believable one it's easy to find facts to suit that belief.

0

Anonymous #2 12w

Him being a marine helped a lot in that situation. You can look up several studies and situations of someone with a gun doing more harm than good.

1

Anonymous OP 12w

It's just odd to me that you chose this one to suit your anti gun narrative.

0

Anonymous #2 12w

Brother not everything is an opinion. This is a proven fact. You’d be hard pressed to find any reliable data that goes against this fact. A simple look on google scholar would pull up multiple pieces of data on this topic.

4

Anonymous #2 12w

Brother my initial post was never about guns. My initial post was to point out the absurdity of the punishment the man is getting. You brought up gun politics and I just followed. If you didn’t want to involve this situation in a gun talk then why bring up the topic of guns in the first place?

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Name just one that finds such a broad conclusion that it even sounds remotely similar to "gun control is proven to help the general populous more than harm"

0

Anonymous #2 12w

PubMed

5

Anonymous #2 12w

SFL stands for strict Firearm Legislation btw

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Note how it doesn't even fucking mention, let alone investigate any potential harm caused by gun control like reduced rates of defensive gun use

0

Anonymous OP 12w

Also interesting how they use completely different parts of the country as control samples, seems really rigorous.

0

Anonymous #2 12w

You are quite literally less likely to get away from a perp if you have a gun than with one. Also gun defense is quite literally uncommon. Less than 5% of crime. Your gun is more likely to be stolen and used on a crime than it is to be used to defend you.

3

Anonymous OP 12w

I find it hard to believe that those numbers could be true comparing to anything besides NCVS or the number of DGUs reported in media. I'll outline my issues with using each of those as a maximum figure after you confirm my suspicions.

0

Anonymous #2 12w

Brother I’m not having this conversation with you anymore. All my post is talking about is this situation. You can find the information if you’d like. It’s out there. I’m not wasting my time looking for more info for you to just say “nuh-uh” Especially since most of the “facts” you will pull up probably comes from the NRA. I’m enjoying my summer vacation.

3

Anonymous OP 12w

I haven't tried to sway you with a single statistic, don't accuse me of being one of those number pushers, I don't have billions of dollars to put behind me and propagandize the fact that I think I'm right. You're free to disagree too, but I'm going to see you as anti gun for having such a reaction to our rights. Have a nice day!

0

Anonymous #2 12w

Genuinely don’t care what a rando on the internet sees me as. 🤷🏿‍♂️

3