You cannot win the “good guy with a gun” argument.
It’s not that the facts are on your side (they are), it’s that the other side does not argue in good faith.
Remember when two armed civilians stopped and killed a man who shot three people in Louie’s Grill & Bar in Oklahoma City?
The police credited the men with potentially saving more lives. You’d think that this was evidence for the “good guy with a gun” theory.
Not according to Think Progress.
There was a little bit of confusion when the police first arrived on the scene. The armed “good guys” were not shot and the police praised them. But there could have been a problem that might have made the police shoot the good guys thinking they were the bad guys.
Besides, the “good guys” were a National Guardsman and ex-cop so they had the fairy dust of goverment sprinkled on them so they were more than just “good guys with guns,” they were goverenment Ubermensch.
So much for your “god guy with a gun” theory.
Then there was the Waffle House shooting in which an unarmed customer tackled the shooter.
Well, according to Think Progress NRA finally speaks on Waffle House shooting, says man who stopped it should have used a gun.
That guy was lucky as hell that he managed to disarm a guy with a rifle bare handed. But that proves you don’t need a gun because the good guy doesn’t need a gun.
So once again, so much for your “god guy with a gun” theory.
Then there was the FBI agent who did a drunken backflip, dropped his gun, and had an AD when, like an idiot, he tried to cover his embarrassing fumble and pulled the trigger.
Well according to Think Progress It was a bad weekend for the NRA’s ‘good guy with a gun’ myth.
So when an Federal LEO – you know, the only kind of person who they think should have guns – acts like an idiot, he’s downgraded form govenment Ubermensch to “good guy with a gun.”
Also, there was a shooting in Texas at a stadium in which no good guy was present to stop it.
Again, so much for your “god guy with a gun” theory.
This is the dishonesty of the argument:
- Armed civilians stop a shooter, but there could have been a problem, so no “good guy with a gun.”
- Armed civilians stop a shooter, but they were actually off duty military and/or ex-police, so no “good guy with a gun.”
- Unarmed good guy manages to survive an armed encounter and emerge victorious, so no “good guy with a gun.”
- Law Enforcement Officer is irresponsible and accidently shoots someone, so no “good guy with a gun.”
- A bad guy shoots up a gun free zone where there is no armed civilians, so no “good guy with a gun.”
Every scenario is twisted into proof why we can’t be allowed to carry.
There is no scenario that they will accept as evidence of a “good guy with a gun.”
I would continue to hammer them until their heads are flat.
I am adding my notes: You are not arguing to convince the fanatical Opposition, you can never convince the. You argue with the Opposition to convince those who are not decided or their position is not yet firm.
Whenever the Antis crap on Good Guy With a Gun, they attack not only civilians but LEO and the Military. We ain’t in the Vietnam years and the cops for all the concerted attacks against them are still respected by many, so their trying to disgrace gun owners, police and military will not work.
I still stand on my belief that “Good Guy with a Gun” was a masterful strategy done by the NRA and one that will be written in the history books.
Schrodinger’s gat: until you pull the trigger you don’t know if it will fire.
Been harping on this for years.
The oppositions argument has always been “No armed civilian has ever stopped a mass shooting.”
And, they are 100% correct with that statement.
So, a mass shooting is where four or more are shot by a single shooter in one incident. (OK, not the technically accurate FBI definition, but close enough.)
The two possible scenarios are:
1. An active shooter starts killing people, and a good guy with a gun stops them before they kill four people. Not technically a mass shooting, therefore, the good guy did not stop a mass shooting. (You cannot prove the shooter was going to kill more people)
-OR-
2. An active shooter is stopped after killing four people by an armed citizen. Well, the shooter killed more than four people, so you did not stop a mass killing.
See, the anti gun crowd is correct. No armed civilian ever stopped a mass killing.
That is the exact example I use to describe the dilemma and I wanted to post it in the comments but you beat me to it 😀
This was going to be my reply. Like J.Kb said, the anti-gun side does not argue in good faith. This is just another example.
I think Lucy (with the football) is a better analogy than Schrödinger, though he will certainly do in a pinch.
Classic “No True Scotsman” fallacy. No wonder — fallacies are their favorite form of “reasoning”.
I love that one! (In a thick Scottish accent) … “No TRUE Scotsman would EVER…”
The “Skeptics Guide to the Universe” web site has a downloadable “favorite logical fallacies” page.
And you are right: the left seems to think that these are suggestions for how to make a point.
Sadly, too many people on the right think the same thing.