4 ms·

> “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” lie has been repeatedly disproven over and over again Has it? They certainly don

> “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” lie has been repeatedly disproven over and over again Has it? They certainly don't stop themselves (unless resulting from being surrounded by good guys with guns).

ceejayoz 2y ago
Examples in both directions abound. Guns aren't required: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/indiana-school-shooting-teacher/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/indiana-school-shooting-te... https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1136617873/buffalo-clinic-gunman-ar15-guard-police https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1136617873/buffalo-clinic-gun... https://time.com/6249944/monterey-park-mass-shooting-brandon-tsay/ https://time.com/6249944/monterey-park-mass-shooting-brandon... https://nypost.com/2022/02/01/waffle-house-shooting-video-shows-hero-james-shaw-disarm-gunman-in-2018-attack/ https://nypost.com/2022/02/01/waffle-house-shooting-video-sh... https://abcnews.go.com/US/abc-news-exclusive-teacher-hugged-school-shooter-disarming/story?id=77774494 https://abcnews.go.com/US/abc-news-exclusive-teacher-hugged-... Guns (even nearly 400 of them, carried by explicitly trained professionals) don't necessarily help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting
- foivoh 2y ago
  [dead]
- tremon 2y ago
  That last example is very weak, since the platitude explicitly mentions good guys with guns.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    If there's not a single good guy in ~400 cops, that indicates a substantial related issue.
    - harpiaharpyja 2y ago
      Indeed
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  You're trying to disprove the political slogan, which is obviously rhetoric. "The only way to X is Y" is generally going to be false because absolutist statements in general are going to be false. The real question is, for example, does prohibiting school staff from having firearms make it better or worse? Which is pretty hard to measure when there is a federal law against it. But a point in favor of "better" is that senseless mass shootings tend to happen disproportionately in schools and other places where the shooter knows nobody else is allowed to be armed.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    What federal law is that? I heard more than half of states allow it now.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > What federal law is that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1...
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        "unauthorized" is in the first sentence for a reason. States can (and do) authorize teachers to carry guns.
        giantg2 2y ago
        That's what I was thinking. States can and do authorize others, such as people with carry permits too. So it can be a lot of people, and it's my understanding this has been going on for decades in many states.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > The real question is, for example, does prohibiting school staff from having firearms make it better or worse? Which is pretty hard to measure when there is a federal law against it. Federal law forbids unauthorized individuals from possessing firearms at schools. All it requires is the state authorize it. Result: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-teachers-guns-at-school/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-teachers-guns-at-school/ > According to the Texas Association of School Boards, "school districts can grant written permission for anyone, including designated employees, to carry firearms on campus" under Texas Penal Code 46.03, but the law does not lay out standards for training. The only thing a school employee needs in order to carry a firearm on campus is a license to carry, which requires a background check and a proficiency demonstration. Otherwise, individual districts determine the amount and type of additional requirements, which can include active-shooter training courses and psychological evaluations. It's entirely legal to arm teachers under Federal law. (I don't think it's a good idea; I've met enough teachers.)
beart 2y ago
Yes it has, unless your definition of "stop" is limitd to "after people have been killed", and your definition of "only" is limited by current public policy in the US.

ceejayoz 2y ago

Examples in both directions abound. Guns aren't required: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/indiana-school-shooting-teacher/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/25/us/indiana-school-shooting-te... https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1136617873/buffalo-clinic-gunman-ar15-guard-police https://www.npr.org/2022/11/15/1136617873/buffalo-clinic-gun... https://time.com/6249944/monterey-park-mass-shooting-brandon-tsay/ https://time.com/6249944/monterey-park-mass-shooting-brandon... https://nypost.com/2022/02/01/waffle-house-shooting-video-shows-hero-james-shaw-disarm-gunman-in-2018-attack/ https://nypost.com/2022/02/01/waffle-house-shooting-video-sh... https://abcnews.go.com/US/abc-news-exclusive-teacher-hugged-school-shooter-disarming/story?id=77774494 https://abcnews.go.com/US/abc-news-exclusive-teacher-hugged-... Guns (even nearly 400 of them, carried by explicitly trained professionals) don't necessarily help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting

foivoh 2y ago
[dead]
tremon 2y ago
That last example is very weak, since the platitude explicitly mentions good guys with guns.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  If there's not a single good guy in ~400 cops, that indicates a substantial related issue.
  - harpiaharpyja 2y ago
    Indeed
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
You're trying to disprove the political slogan, which is obviously rhetoric. "The only way to X is Y" is generally going to be false because absolutist statements in general are going to be false. The real question is, for example, does prohibiting school staff from having firearms make it better or worse? Which is pretty hard to measure when there is a federal law against it. But a point in favor of "better" is that senseless mass shootings tend to happen disproportionately in schools and other places where the shooter knows nobody else is allowed to be armed.
- giantg2 2y ago
  What federal law is that? I heard more than half of states allow it now.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > What federal law is that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1...
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      "unauthorized" is in the first sentence for a reason. States can (and do) authorize teachers to carry guns.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        That's what I was thinking. States can and do authorize others, such as people with carry permits too. So it can be a lot of people, and it's my understanding this has been going on for decades in many states.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > The real question is, for example, does prohibiting school staff from having firearms make it better or worse? Which is pretty hard to measure when there is a federal law against it. Federal law forbids unauthorized individuals from possessing firearms at schools. All it requires is the state authorize it. Result: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-teachers-guns-at-school/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-teachers-guns-at-school/ > According to the Texas Association of School Boards, "school districts can grant written permission for anyone, including designated employees, to carry firearms on campus" under Texas Penal Code 46.03, but the law does not lay out standards for training. The only thing a school employee needs in order to carry a firearm on campus is a license to carry, which requires a background check and a proficiency demonstration. Otherwise, individual districts determine the amount and type of additional requirements, which can include active-shooter training courses and psychological evaluations. It's entirely legal to arm teachers under Federal law. (I don't think it's a good idea; I've met enough teachers.)

beart 2y ago

Yes it has, unless your definition of "stop" is limitd to "after people have been killed", and your definition of "only" is limited by current public policy in the US.