Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/27/2012 4:09:40 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: neverdem

Jared Louchner at the Tucson shooting was stopped by an Arizona CCW holder.


2 posted on 12/27/2012 4:19:23 PM PST by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Mother Jones News = Barking Moonbat Central


3 posted on 12/27/2012 4:22:17 PM PST by TigersEye (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

“We identified and analyzed 62 of them...”

Out of how many?

“In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

You mean, in those 62? Out of how many?

“For the purposes of their study, they identified mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people were killed.”

In other words, there were a ton MORE at 3 that they did NOT want to have to average in.


4 posted on 12/27/2012 4:22:30 PM PST by jessduntno ("Socialism only works...in Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they have it." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

The Mother Jones conclusion, that none of the mass shootings were stopped by an armed civilian, is one of those “no s... Sherlock” kinds of statements that would be unintentionally hilarious except for the gruesome fact that people were slaughtered because they didn’t have a weapon to counter the killer(s). It’s something the idiots at MJ would not understand.


5 posted on 12/27/2012 4:25:49 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Mother Jones is apparently saying anyone who has been trained to use deadly force is not a “civilian”, thus, once a police officer, never a citizen again.

They show their mindset... civilians can not be trained to arms by definition.

Anything to support their agenda.

Conservatives see all citizens as potential citizen-soldiers, Mother Jones sees them as disarmed victims.

List of mass shootings and potential mass shootings stoped by armed citizens:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html


6 posted on 12/27/2012 4:26:39 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
the evidence does not support the liberals position (as usual) so (as usual) they must lie loudly and often in order to sway opinions their way. Their tactics are easily rebuffed by calmly laying out the vast array of scientific evidence that supports our position. The truth is a powerful ally.
7 posted on 12/27/2012 4:31:14 PM PST by RC one (From My Cold Dead Hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Probably a good idea to post this reporter’s house on an interactive Google map.


9 posted on 12/27/2012 4:43:59 PM PST by gotribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

“In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”
FALLACY:
One cannot prove an ex post facto negative hypothesis.


10 posted on 12/27/2012 4:45:10 PM PST by bunkerhill7 (?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Being a MASS shooting, by definition it wasn’t stopped before or during its happening. The conclusion is that lack of an easily accessible gun to stop the perpetrator RESULTED in the MASS shooting. Ultimately, the presence of a “friendly” gun DID prevent additional killings — even of the gunman.


11 posted on 12/27/2012 4:47:43 PM PST by Optimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

The are issues to take with Mother Jones, but the article doesn’t take them correctly. First, the definition of “mass shooting” that MJ uses is four or more fatalities. Which is the same definition as the FBI uses. There were only two fatalities at PEarl, and two at the Clackamas mall, and two at the New Life Church. So none of them even “makes the grade” of being a mass shooting. Of course, one can’t know how many fatalities were intended by these perpetrators, so one really can’t say whether a mass-shooting-to-be was stopped or not. The biggest objection to the article is that with only one exception, armed citizens were banned from the locale of the mass shootings. What sort of evil does one have to have, to criticize the utility of armed citizens, by saying that they never stopped mass shootings, when said armed citizens were not allowed to be there? (Answer: Mother Jones and other gun grabbers.) Finally, the article is wrong. The mass shooting in Tucson AZ (in which Rep. Giffords was wounded) *was* stopped by an armed citizen, although it wasn’t stopped by the citizen killing the shooter. That was the only exception to the rule that mass killers prefer (pretend) “gun-free” zones. Needless to say, mass killers choose the locations of their massacres, and they overwhelmingly prefer “gun-free” zones.


13 posted on 12/27/2012 5:03:49 PM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

It actually proves the opposite. Typical liberals.


15 posted on 12/27/2012 5:19:33 PM PST by FlJoePa ("Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Mother Jones is politically aligned with governments that have slaughtered TENS OF MILLIONS OF DISARMED MEN AND WOMEN.

All serious American men and women should defecate on Mother Jones.


17 posted on 12/27/2012 8:45:05 PM PST by Yehuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Interesting that the propagandist from Mother Jones analyzed 62 “mass shootings” but doesn’t bother to mention how many of those occurred in “gun free” zones.


18 posted on 12/27/2012 9:35:39 PM PST by VeniVidiVici (Bathhouse Barry wants YOU to bend over for another four years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Man, we were like? stoned? when we we wrote that $H!t, man! Can’t you tell by readin’ it?


19 posted on 12/27/2012 9:41:38 PM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

There was actually more basic flaws in the Mother Jones report, that this article misses sadly.

First, they studied 62 mass killings. Mass killings are defined as 4 or more killings. They then dismissed claims of civilians stopping shootings, sometimes by noting that they weren’t “mass killings”.

In other words, if a civilian stopped a gunman before he killed 4 people, then the incident wasn’t a mass killing, so the civilian didn’t “stop” a “mass killing”.

And of course, if the killer actually DID kill more than 4 people, then they would claim the killer was probably done before the civilian stopped them.

And another big flaw — most mass killings happen in gun-free zones. That means two things; first that civilians are prohibited from having guns, so it is much less likely that a civilian can stop a mass killer. And second, that if the civilian can help it, they will remain anonymous, so they don’t get arrested for using a weapon in a gun-free zone.

So, for example, recently a civilian stopped the portland mall shooter, by showing a weapon, thus scaring the shooter into running into a store and killing himself. But that didn’t count for Mother Jones, for two reasons — first, because 4 people weren’t killed, and second, because there is no PROOF that the guy was the reason it ended (because the guy didn’t come forward since he would get arrested).

The last flaw is that the best use of a weapon is as a deterrent (much like our nuclear arsenal — did it end dozens of wars, by keeping them from starting, or are they a complete waste because since WW2, not a single nuclear weapon has ever been used to END a war?) There aren’t hardly any mass killings where you find guns, because guns deter them. There is no way to know how many mass killings have been prevented because the would-be killer was afraid to carry out his ideas, for fear of getting shot.


20 posted on 12/27/2012 9:54:14 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson