FBI report debunks popular anti-gun myth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If he didn’t mean the literal meaning of the word never then the entire thread is pointless.

Sorry it’s just one big straw man

That is zero sum thinking, and is a logical fallacy.

He put the term "never" in quotes. You think that such an act might mean that the phrasing isn't his, but someone elses?

Would you not find it more enlightening to debate the actual topic rather than grasping at straws and throwing up a hasty generalization fallacy?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Dude it’s clearly a straw man argument.

I get that you are pro-gun but that does not excuse you from calling out BS arguments on your own side when you see them and this is a BS argument.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Dude it’s clearly a straw man argument.

I get that you are pro-gun but that does not excuse you from all out BS arguments on your own side when you see them and this is a BS argument.

Please explain. To me it looks like you picked out a single word in the OP, a word that he placed in quotations to indicate he was quoting someone else, and are trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Im intersted in what you are seeing here that i am missing.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Op claims people are saying a good guy with a gun has “never” stopped a bad guy with a gun.

This is rubbish, nobody serious would make that claim, it can be easily refuted and it is the absolute definition of the straw man argument.

If you can’t see that then I really don’t see any point in continuing this dialogue with you.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OSOTC, but there are *some* individuals making this claim - prominent voices in the progressive/anti-gun circles. Shannon Watts, for instance, has made this claim a number of times.

“Is there an example in school shootings or a mall shooting or these public facilities, where that has been wrong? Where a bad guy with a gun has been stopped in any other way or by a person other than a law enforcement officer with a gun or by killing himself?” asked Blackwell.

“This has never happened,” replied Watts. “Data shows it doesn’t happen.”

But data shows it DOES happen - in fact nearly as often as police officers stop attackers.

I am merely pointing out that Watts and anyone else that makes this claim is incorrect. I'm not saying "all gun control is worthless" because again, as I said, I support things like fixing NICS, expanding NICS, increasing penalties for violent crimes committed with firearms, etc.

a reply to: JBurns

Well done you found one person who has made this stupid claim

From your OP

Proponents of gun confiscation/gun control often claim the "Good guy with a gun" axiom is actually a myth, and that armed citizens "never" stop shooters/criminals.

Proponents of gun control not some and not this watts person, you said proponents of gun control.

Again straw man argument

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Op claims people are saying a good guy with a gun has “never” stopped a bad guy with a gun.

This is rubbish, nobody serious would make that claim, it can be easily refuted and it is the absolute definition of the straw man argument.

If you can’t see that then I really don’t see any point in continuing this dialogue with you.

OK. Then remove that single sentence and refocus: there are dozens and dozens are mainstream media articles that reference the "good guy with a gun myth". Rather than bicker about the trees, lets discuss the forest.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Another

www.youtube.com...

Look at my search results from earlier OSOTC. There are hundreds/thousands of people making these claims.

Those people are the reason Pro-2A advocates have a difficult time discussing this with anybody. Because while you and I may come to an understanding, you will always have idiots like Shannon Watts, David Hogg or David Pakman trying to intentionally muddy the waters.

I'm not accusing you of making that claim. At all. Clearly you recognize it isn't a valid claim. So the statement doesn't even apply to you. I was clearly refuting statements from those making this specific claim.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Op claims people are saying a good guy with a gun has “never” stopped a bad guy with a gun.

This is rubbish, nobody serious would make that claim, it can be easily refuted and it is the absolute definition of the straw man argument.

If you can’t see that then I really don’t see any point in continuing this dialogue with you.

OK. Then remove that single sentence and refocus: there are dozens and dozens are mainstream media articles that reference the "good guy with a gun myth". Rather than bicker about the trees, lets discuss the forest.

That’s totally stupid and untrue there are much better arguments to support gun control with out even having to mention the good guy with a gun scenario

Now you can pretend all you want but that first paragraph still makes the OP very much a straw man argument.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OSOTC, then you can and should make those arguments.

But attempting to argue that armed citizens don't need firearms because we never protect our own lives/the lives of others is patently false

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

youre from the UK. your Op dont matter on this then does it?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OSOTC, then you can and should make those arguments.

But attempting to argue that armed citizens don't need firearms because we never protect our own lives/the lives of others is patently false

And again I don’t see anyone seriously making that claim at least on this thread so that is you again making the same straw man.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

youre from the UK. your Op dont matter on this then does it?

Awww is that the best you’ve got....

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Op claims people are saying a good guy with a gun has “never” stopped a bad guy with a gun.

This is rubbish, nobody serious would make that claim, it can be easily refuted and it is the absolute definition of the straw man argument.

If you can’t see that then I really don’t see any point in continuing this dialogue with you.

OK. Then remove that single sentence and refocus: there are dozens and dozens are mainstream media articles that reference the "good guy with a gun myth". Rather than bicker about the trees, lets discuss the forest.

That’s totally stupid and untrue there are much better arguments to support gun control with out even having to mention the good guy with a gun scenario

Now you can pretend all you want but that first paragraph still makes the OP very much a straw man argument.

The FBI report specifically counters this scenario. That is the impetus for the entire discussion: that the "good guy with a gun myth" isn't a myth.

Call it stupid if you want. But its a valid topic that our own national law enforcement put out data behind. I'd much rather discuss this data than argue with you as to why you don't think people should discuss the topic.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Can you understand why pro-2A folks are confused by the difference in rhetoric? The anti-gun feelings run the gamut, from sensible & reasonable to entirely out-of-whack (like Watts' claims)

To be sure, I posted it in this forum (vs the mudpit) to avoid making anyone feel as if they were under attack. You included. I am not attacking your ideas, your beliefs, your opinions or your point of view.

I just wanted to point out that one limited statement made by a limited number of anti-gun folks is actually untrue. Not that *all* statements made by *all* anti-gun folks are untrue. There are plenty of great gun-control ideas I've heard, some I mentioned earlier.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: JBurns

The violent thug was their father/grandfather.

And by all accounts, the kids were sleeping.

They could have had a whole armory and it wouldn't have done jack # to defend them against someone they're supposed to trust to protect them...with his legally owned guns...that he used on them.

And would this event have entered the conversation had he used a knife or poisoned them? This was an exceptional case that doesn't fit the usual narrative. It was unfortunate and heartbreaking. It was a tragic event that never should have happened. Being in the house with the victims sleeping, he could have done anything he wanted to them. Why get caught in the weapon of choice snare? The focus should be on the individual and the reasons he did this. In the absence of firearms I believe those people would be just as dead. After all, London just passed New York city in terms of murder and they are doing it with knives. And its no surprise the liberal governments answer is to ban knives now. Banning guns didn't stop the murders so just keep banning stuff until there is nothing left that can be used as a weapon. Uh huh...that'll work.

a reply to: Taggart

Illegal guns are never used in America to kill people so I support this.

a reply to: Chadwickus

ironicaly your post is doing exactly the same thing, "dont trust the fbi on this but on all else do"

if you have some reasons to doubt the data, other then a character attack (shill tactic btw) why not present your reason?
(cause there is none)

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Fair enough.

Let me just say, as a 2nd amendment supporter, threads like this do not do any good for the discussion as whole.

Whether or not the "good guy with a gun" line is real or a myth does not help discuss the 2nd amendment with other people and I think we should be more focused on individual freedoms and how the 2nd applies to that aspect.