The advantages a mass shooter has over a

[ego_nation]

“good guy with a gun”:

1) Ambush factor. The shooter is the only one prepared for what is going to happen. Even if everyone else in the room is armed, how many will be shot before they can get their gun out? The shooter has also likely done their homework and have a plan.

2) They can shoot indiscriminately. Most mass shooting cases are seem to be more about the total death toll, not going after specific targets. Any “good guy with a gun” will be looking for a clean shot amidst the chaos and people fleeing, taking cover. Meanwhile, the mass shooter can rain down bullets on anyone that comes into view.

3) The shooter will likely have a lot more ammo. I don’t know what the average c-and-c carrier packs, but I doubt it comes anything close to what the Dayton shooter had on him.

I’m sure there a more, but I wish there was more pushback on the notion that simply being armed makes you safer.

[sagesnow]

1. Mental derangement...

Total lack of regard for their own or other's lives should be added to this list. Psychiatric patients are hard to predict and manage during a rampage.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

4. And exactly how many of the recent shooters have been psychiatric patients?

The "mental illness" claim is total bullshit. Yeah, normal, well-adjusted people don't go off and kill a bunch of people, but hiding behind the "mental illness" thing just doesn't cut it.

Unless we simply take as our starting point that every single person who wants to buy a gun, or who currently owns one, is probably mentally ill and needs to undergo psychiatric evaluation to prove otherwise. And we pre-emptively take their guns away, giving them back if and only if they prove they're certifiably sane.

Hmmm. I like that. It's better than my usual anti-gun position of confiscating them all.

[sagesnow]

6. They seem to have undiagnosed mental instability at the very least.

I don't know many normal people who have shot multiple civilian victims with assault rifles.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. So, how exactly to we guard ourselves agains people like that who have guns?

Again, the bullshit of "mental illness" is used to more or less excuse what happened, and more to the point, is used to do NOTHING at all about the current gun carnage.

I still think taking away all guns could work. I mean, what have we got to lose?

[oldsoftie]

23. Well, first of all, you cant take away all the guns. Great if you could, but it wont happen.

theres 300 million of them and very few will simply turn them in. Obviously the crooks wont. And if you do a buyback, you'll get trash guns
If we had started out with none getting rid of a few would be simple, as has been shown in other countries. You can bring up Australia, but they still have a good number of weapons. And Americans also have rights that others have, and i'm not just talking about the 2nd. Remember after Parkland when trump said this about dealing with possible mentally ill people: "just go get the guns. Worry about due process later". And everyone went nuts over it because its unconstitutional

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. So let's bring up Australia.q

Remind me of the many mass shootings they've had since that one in Tasmania? Okay, so they've had a few, but not the kind of double digit deaths that are essentially routine in this country.

And to shrug our shoulders and say, gee, we can't take away the guns is bullshit. And it's saying essentially that these mass murders will continue to occur and gosh, we can't do anything to stop them.

Let's just take away the fucking guns and see what happens. My guess is that all of a sudden there will be no more mass shootings. And how terrible will that be?

In reality, laws could be passed that say you can't own certain kinds of guns. They must be turned in. All guns must be registered. All gun owners need serious insurance. How about we try that? What could possibly go wrong?

I am so fucking sick and tired of the endless mass shootings, the hand wringing and the pious statements of, "Oh, gosh, we can't take away the guns." Well, so far as I'm concerned those kinds of statements are saying, "Oh, well, it's okay that mass murders occur." Personally, I don't agree with the inevitability of the mass murders.

[cwydro]

33. Thank you.

“Psychiatric patients.” Smh.

[maxsolomon]

5. Nope.

Islamic terrorists aren't deranged, and they depend upon the same tactics for tactical success.

Sure, these domestic terrorists are probably 1. alienated, 2. angry, and 3. depressed, but they aren't insane. They know what they're doing is wrong.

I'll give you the Giffords and Virginia Tech shootings, committed by Schizophrenics, but those are the exception. The general rule is angry white men who want infamy in making the world to hurt like they do.

[sagesnow]

8. Mass shooters have to have underlying sociopathic tendencies.

They lack any ability to care or understand that other human beings suffer just as much as they do.

[maxsolomon]

46. but that's not treatable unless that person seeks help

keeping them away from MSSA rifles is simpler and more effective.

[sagesnow]

49. Both need to be addressed:

1. Ban Assault rifles and military style weapons
2. Register guns the same way we do cars and drivers.

[maxsolomon]

50. As any DU Gunner will tell you

"Assault Weapons" aren't a thing. You mean MSSAs, Military-Style Semi-Automatics. AK-47s, etc.

Regardless, we're decades away from either of those proposals being enacted. The culture has to change.

Our anger and despair falls on deaf ears in nearly every state government and courtroom in the country.

Either proposal would be interpreted as a direct assault on White Male rights by the ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ crowd. People will die in the streets.

[oldsoftie]

24. No. Almost every one of these people have shown mental issues.

The religious freaks aside, they've usually exhibited problems well before killing. The biggest exception to this would be the Vegas shooter.
And we can stop giving them infamy by never using their names after the murders. And execute them post haste

[maxsolomon]

45. "mental issues" doesn't mean insane, deranged.

limiting and/or delaying access to guns is more practical than "treating" whatever's wrong with an incel.

[oldsoftie]

56. Dayton shooter had a girlfriend; dont know about El paso killer. But i have a bigger question:

What i want to know is if any of these guys were on medication, and if so what types? We see these ads and also hear the "side effects include...". One is suicidal thoughts. We are a highly medicated society. I want to know of there is more to this. We have long had these weapons in the public, but we also never had the level of "personality" meds that we have now. Does the rise in mental medications have anything to do with the rise in these types of shootings? The AR15 & similar weapons have been sold to the public for decades. My friend had one 35 years ago. Rarely had mass shootings. Is there a connection? Will anyone ever study to find out?

[maxsolomon]

57. now it's the SSRIs?

35 years ago there were plenty of shootings - men killing wives, children.

you're following a dead end. angry young men should not be able to quickly acquire MSSAs.

[LanternWaste]

58. You'll supply evidence to support this allegation, yes?

"Almost every one of these people have shown mental issues."

[elocs]

10. I heard a mental health expert on PBS News tonight say

that the mentally ill are responsible for 3-4% of the gun deaths which mirrors their percentage of the general population.
Hatred and anger are not mental illnesses.
Trump's blaming the mentally ill makes for a nice deflecting slogan and we should not buy into it.

[FBaggins]

29. That intentionally confuses the issue

He blurs the distinction between violent criminals and someone who decides to indiscriminately fire dozens of rounds into a crowd.

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths are in the first category. The severely mentally unbalanced are in the second.

[SHRED]

32. OFFS

Just stop it.

“Routinely blaming mass shootings on mental illness is unfounded and stigmatizing. Research has shown that only a very small percentage of violent acts are committed by people who are diagnosed with, or in treatment for, mental illness."

https://t.co/dVGcX5xVl3

[treestar]

52. It is evil, not mental illness

Was the shooter, when Islamic, said to be mentally ill? Were the hijackers mentally ill?

[Hoyt]

3. The average toter is a cowboy --hero wannabe -- and likely a racist

out to protect themselves from irrational fears.

Really, no such thing as a “good guy with a gun.” If they truly were “good guys,” they’d see their gun love contributes to our gun problem.

[ego_nation]

38. The problem is, gun owners see the second amendment as

indestructible. If there was an actual risk to repealing it, they would probably do a better job of policing themselves.

[FakeNoose]

9. Most of them seem to be suicidal

They think they're going to die anyway, so they might as well kill as many people as they can. It's a sickness.

On your point #2, the Las Vegas shooter killed so many because they couldn't tell where he was shooting from. By the time they finally spotted him, 500 people were dead. So the "good guy with a gun" may not even be within range when the shooting starts.

[elocs]

11. I heard on PBS tonight that the good guy with a gun is a myth,

that they are as likely as anyone else to run away from a dangerous situation with an active gunman (have there been any active gun women?).

[ego_nation]

37. Absolutely it is a myth

I just wish the public discourse did a better job of poking holes in it - especially when you have a media personality like Hannity proposing that we essentially turn our country into a police state.

[Blue_true]

12. Someone on DU posted a video in relation to what you posted.

A group of people that were trained to use guns were put in a room. These were not everyday people, they worked in the security field. If I remember correctly their guns had non lethal rounds because they were told that would be needed later in the training. And then they were surprised by a shooter and what happen was recorded. Basically the shooter took pretty much every single one of them out, the rest either fled or hid.

[oldsoftie]

26. That video was a terrible example. It was setup to fail.

And i'm not one who thinks everyone should be armed. But that video had a trained cop with a gun, knowing who else in the room had one, and the others wearing baggy clothing to make it even harder to pull the weapon. One girl still hit the cop. the rest were "killed'. I hate setup videos regardless of their point

[FBaggins]

30. I've seen the opposite setup in real life

Sargeant gives assault rifle to 18 year old with no training. Full auto and an extra magazine to take on a crowd of torso-sized targets 20-40 feet away.

The result was like many of the mass shootings. Scores of rounds fired... several targets injured... a couple killed.

Then he uses a single magazine in a 9mm and “kills” a dozen targets with 15 shots in less time. Hardly a miss in the bunch.

Training matters.

[oldsoftie]

42. Exactly.

[dobleremolque]

13. When the police show up,

the "good guy with a gun" won't be wearing a sign that says "I'm the good guy, not the demented shooter you're here to stop." And if the "good guy with a gun" IS wearing such a sign, why would the police believe it?

[ego_nation]

39. Yep, that's another one.

Imagine a crowded dark movie theater where everyone is armed? What happens if people freak out to the point where they they start shooting back regardless of who may be in the path out of panic?

[Cosmocat]

48. Reason #1,000,000 it is a horrible idea, and it does not matter

to the idiots.

Modern training for school shootings is for law enforcement to enter the building as soon as there are three or four, and kill anyone who is a threat.

They see some idiot trying to be John McClain, they are going to center mass him.

So, he is dead, and they have to live with having killed him.

But, they love the police ...

[NurseJackie]

14. Excellent post!

[uponit7771]

15. K&R,

[DemocracyMouse]

16. All of the above is welcome.... but...

Why does everyone forget that the 2nd Amendment is couched in terms of a WELL-REGULATED militia.

None of these mass shootings and none of our guns are well-regulated.

Every time a mass shooting occurs and Republicans (and Republocrats) scream "it's a lone wolf crazy guy" they are effectively admitting that the 2nd Amendmemt doesn't apply. Such solitary actions are neither well-regulated nor are they the embodiment of a militia. A militia is a group, not an individual.

Furthermore, none of these people are actually DEFENDING an attack. They're ON THE ATTACK.

2nd Amendment my ass.

And don't get me started on the definition of "arms" in the age of single bullet rifles.

[ego_nation]

40. My thought is we need to expose the weaknesses in their own arguments.

As a general rule, conservatives seem to operate based on what is intuitive to them, without considering possibilities that would be counter-intuitive.

[FiveGoodMen]

47. The right is prepared to disbelieve any and all arguments that don't emanate from their dear leader

Reasoning with them is a lost cause.

[GulfCoast66]

17. Your points are good. And as someone who know about guns I'm reluctant to post at all.

But he main difference is that these mass shooters almost always use high capacity magazine, semiautomatic rifles.

At less than 30 feet it is way harder to miss because rifles give a huge accuracy advantage. Especially if you have any practice.

But the fictional ‘good guy with a gun’ always carries a hand gun. Hitting a target at 30 feet even with lots of training is really hard. Even at a calm range. Which is why militaries treat handguns as accessories. They are almost never used in battle! Because if you use one against a guy with a rifle you will be dead! Not to mention, as you did, the shooter is prepared and excited about this. Anyone surprised is shitting their pants and running like hell, which is the smart thing to do. Oh, Unless you are like the poor lady in El Paso, who knowing she was going to die found a way to save her baby!! Now I’m really pissed all over again!

The answer is as clear as the problem. Find a way to stop selling, then slowly remove high bullet capacity, semiautomatic rifles from the public. They are weapons of war. And when some other gun owners gets on here saying they aren’t because fully automatic, blah, blah blah, they are full of shit.

My deer rifle is fucking deadly. Way more powerful that an AR15. Kill at 300 yards. And holds 4 fucking bullets! Takes more than a minute to reload. No one is staging a mass killing with a gun like that! And it has been around for 70 years. It no accident than it was a decade or so after the industry began flooding the country with weapons of war that those weapons began to be used on Americans! A certain percentage of the people buying them are so taken with them, and their hatred that they have to give them a spin. Notice how few of the actual served in the military?

Sorry for the rant. But I’m still upset.

[sir pball]

22. Agreed, see my post below

It's suicidal insanity to go up against a rifle with a handgun. Police have a greater duty, but the generic "good guy" would just be killing himself.

[oldsoftie]

28. And even in the military, you're taught to most often NOT use full auto.

Accuracy falls off a lot. Its good for clearing and cover.
Your example of your hunting rifle is a great one.

And another thing. When the 2nd was written, the people and the govt were fairly equally armed. Thats not been the case for 150 yrs now. they can talk about "protect us from the govt" all they want, but if the govt WANTS you, they will. GET you, no matter WHAT arsenal you have. Ask David koresh.

[GulfCoast66]

34. Sorry if I don't understand your full meaning here.

David Koresh got what he had coming. And rather than doing the right thing, like Jim Jones choose to take all those kids with him.

If when Cliven Bundy and his supporters had first pointed their AR14s and AR15s at law enforcement the reaction had been the same as a black man points their gun at a cop=dead the western rebellion would have ended.

You agree?

[oldsoftie]

43. Yes i agree totally. I've always said Koresh had 50+ days to walk out the damn door

[Alwaysna]

18. I just left a Liberty, MO Walmart.

There is a cop at the entrance stationed there.

[B Stieg]

19. And don't forget the body armor

that a lot of these shooters wear on scene.
Also, the weapon caliber mismatch. I'm no expert, but I don't see how a .22 or a 9 mm handgun can stand up to an AR-15 rifle.

[BigmanPigman]

20. I heard someone in law enforcement say

after the Dayton shootings that the weapons that the shooter had would probably have harmed a policeman who had a bullet proof vest on. Even cops aren't safe from these weapons apparently.

Only one solution...keep weapons of war in the hands of the trained military in combat (and not civilians) as they were designed and intended for.

[sir pball]

21. 4 - he has a rifle, the GGWIAG has a handgun

I own a couple of handguns, safely locked up except to shoot at the range.

I would NEVER go after a guy with a rifle.

"The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you never should have put down in the first place."

[GulfCoast66]

25. Yep. I'm guessing you are ex military?

Cause that saying does not work in a Wal Mart!

Full disclosure. I’ve never served. Never liked seeing gun ranges taken over from average hunters, many of them democrats there to sight in their rifles for deer season, by the nuts with the black guns with high capacity magazines. I remember the days before them. Of course I remember days when the NRA was not opposed to gun laws and was not an extension of the Alt-right!

[sir pball]

27. No, not at all. Never served, medically disqualified cuz I have a bum eye.

Full disclosure on my part - I own guns, I like to shoot them. I like precision target shooting, so I own almost exclusively bolt-action rifles and load my own ammo; I've learned a bit of amateur gunsmithing and a lot of detailed knowledge of firearms. That's beside the point, though.

20 years ago, in CT, I wanted to buy a pistol, so I had to take a pretty detailed class for an ownership permit that also was a CCW. I learned about the legal ramifications of shooting somebody, and more to the point our instructor, a State's Attorney who WAS ex military imbued that bit of wisdom in us about handguns - he also said "If you see a guy with a rifle, run away!"

[RichardRay]

31. GGWAG's unlikely to have been in a gun fight

Even folks who train regularly and vigorously can get confused in a chaotic scene. Your average joe (or jane) is more likely to add to the shooters victim list than to do much good. Then the police shoot the GGWAG.

[GulfCoast66]

35. And if a GGWAG has been a gun fight, he or she will run away faster from a guy,

With an assault weapon!

So the answer? Eliminate high capacity magazine rifles and handguns from the civilian population! Granted, it won’t be quick. But we have to start somewhere.

[NCLefty]

41. It's so much more messy than that. The "good guys" could accidentally shoot the wrong people, or

themselves be accidentally shot by another good guy or a cop. The friendly-fire possibilities are horrific if there are multiple good guys.

More guns than people. Madness.

[ego_nation]

44. Right, that was what my second point was getting at ....

“good guys” need to take care with their aim, mass shooters do not.

[NCLefty]

60. And the cops have radios so they can tell each other what's going on. A good guy isn't in the comms

loop and that could be deadly.

[treestar]

51. Amen

They keep up with this argument, no matter how many holes it has in it.

[Turbineguy]

53. I don't know if anybody talked about this around here but

last night Rachel Maddow laid out a road map for financially wiping out the republican party and trump and quite possibly the NRA.

Trump inspired this El Paso guy. There are legal precedents for laying this at his door.

[melm00se]

54. The difference between a good guy with a gun and the bad guy

is that the bad guy has already given thought to what he is going to do when he gets to wherever he is going to shoot.

The good guy may have a general (very general) idea as to what they are going to do but not the level of specificity that the bad guy has.

This is why, in most firearm training classes, you are advised to hunker down in place, draw your weapon, aim at the entrance point and wait.

Avoid hunting for the bad guy unless you really really have to (like you are downstairs and your kids are upstairs).

[hunter]

55. A desire to own a gun is the first red flag that someone might be a little off.

Most people in the U.S.A. can't be bothered to own a gun.

And if they do have one or two guns safely locked away, they don't think about them most days.

Anyone walking around with a gun at hand, nurturing some nebulous idea of "self defense" in their head, is dangerous.

[ConnorMarc]

59. This is the choir you're preaching to.