Steve Marmel

Quit Lying To Yourself About Being That “Good Guy With A Gun” by STEVE MARMEL

Published On June 16, 2013 | By admin |

by Steve Marmel

“It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.”

Yeah, see that’s why my taxes pay for cops.  Actual, ideally well-trained individuals that want to shut a bad guy down with as little collateral damage as possible. Or soldiers!  Or the national guard.

I mean, there are tons of places you can be what society considers “A good guy with a gun.”

Let me share something that will make you sad if you believe that first sentence:  With 99.9% certainty, I can say there is very little chance you will ever, ever save the day drawing your gun on a “bad guy.”  (*caveats for the rare moments it happens.)

You will never be the hero in a story like that unless it’s just you day dreaming as you are shooting tin cans off a fence or targets at a range.

You’re never going to get a badge from the NRA that lauds your courage under pressure.

This is why there are so many more stories about mass-shootings and people accidentally getting shot than a person who happened to have a gun and happened to stop a crime. And you know that. So stop boring us with that justification.

You know in your heart you’ll never be that guy who pulls out a gun to save the day.You’re not the Lone Ranger.  You’re not Dirty Harry.  You’re not John McClane.  You’re just a guy who likes guns and that’s more important to you than anything, including the possibility that mentally ill or dangerous people could kill a lot of people with the same gun you love to hold and look at dreamily.

So just own that. You might never be a hero, but at least you won’t be delusional and you won’t be lying to yourself anymore.


Steve Marmel | Staff Writer | The Everlasting GOP Stoppers

Follow Steve on Facebook

Like what we do? Make a secure donation here!

facebook.com/TheEverlastingGOPStoppers                      twitter.com/theGOPstoppers

75 Responses to Quit Lying To Yourself About Being That “Good Guy With A Gun” by STEVE MARMEL

  1. sb says:

    More likely it will be closer to Barney Fife, shaking and sweating and pointing the gun like a Parkinson’s sufferer during an earthquake. That is if they don’t piss themselves first. Worried about mental capacity for gun owners? Name me anything else you bought that you will almost certainly never have any use for. Or better yet, if you do plan on using it, doesn’t that make you mentally unstable to begin with?

    • Mike says:

      If I’m never going to use it, why in the world do you give a shit what I spend My hard earned paycheck on?

      • Natorni says:

        We don’t care what you spend your hard earned paycheck on. We just don’t want dangerous weapons to land in the hands of mentally unstable people who could wind up using them to kill innocents.

        • Mike says:

          Mine never have and never will, when I am not transporting, using, or cleaning them they are locked in a safe. Again, why should I pay a price for the worlds idiots? I know I am not the only responsible gun owner out there ( I know around 3 or 4 hundred others) so multiply that by whatever number of true good gun owners out there you wish to believe exists. Your going to get extreme pushback on this stuff until you guys stop trying to legislate something you care nothing for, but others do. You should be attempting to work with us, not marginalize us.

          • SteveS says:

            Mike,
            Don’t bother trying to reason with these uneducated idiots. There’s nothing like a peace loving, tolerant Liberal for trying to take away your Constitutional rights, use ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments, and basically act exactly like the pants wetters they accuse us of being.
            To the moron who wrote this idiotic tripe: the world is not filled with peace loving, tolerant Liberals such as yourself. Your stats are BS but even granting that, the .01% chance of needing a weapon to defend myself is justification enough to own one.
            Your tired memes simply don’t play well to the huge crowd of people who fervently and militantly disagree with your infantile position. With yearly defensive gun uses in this country around 55k-60k at the lowest end, and over 2.5 million DG uses on the higher estimate. Guess what? That’s an order of magnitude higher than these rampant “mass killings” you get so breathy about.
            Wanna solve that mass killing problem? Enforce the laws already on the books. Throttle the ACLU. Empower courts, families and police to get treatment for mental illness and lock down those who refuse proper treatment. Ditch human hunting zones, er, gun free zones.
            These items are a good start but I’m guessing in your mind, it’s much easier to target law abiding citizens. Go for it… you might be surprised at what you reap.

        • Mike says:

          And there is that good old “somebody might do something” justification again. Some body could do lots of things. The what if game has no place in legislation.

    • WALT C says:

      ” Name me anything else you bought that you will almost certainly never have any use for. ”

      A fire extinguisher. I have one in my kitchen and my garage, I hope I never have to use it, but in case I do, it is ready to go and I know how to use it.

      Yet no one is trying to take it away from me even though we have a well trained, only minutes away fire department. Why is that?

  2. Mike says:

    You know, a lot of those well trained good guys you speak so fondly of carry off duty. A LOT. None of us are looking to be dirty Harry’s or want to pull our firearms ever. We just know you need to be prepared for those so eloquently stated caveats. The only thing you seem to be able to own is Prejudice against responsible law abiding gun owners, and that smug face. Nothing like being a morally superior corpse. None of us wants criminals or the insane to get guns. Stop boring us with your mass punishment “some crazy guy” could do something justification. Guess what? Millions of legal gun owners didn’t shoot anyone yesterday. Enjoy your enlightened ignorance.

    • rebekah says:

      yeah,thats all great.. but way too many of those “law abiding gun owners” are irresponsible with their guns leading to accidental deaths. like the mom whose 5 yr old shot his sister to death with the birthday present rifle he got that mommy dearest left laying around,,or the daycare kid who brought dads gun to school with him…shall I go on?

      • Mike says:

        Yes, and those people need to be prosecuted and punished. you can’t legislate responisbility. You could make a hundred hoops to jump through, and irresponible people will still go through them. Go on all you want, you won’t convince me that RESPONSIBLE, acountable gun owners should pay a price for the idiots of the world.

        • Bob says:

          Can’t legislate responsibility? Many of our laws are based around that. Don’t drive too fast, don’t drink too much, those are all about responsibility. Still laws for them.

    • Shane says:

      Yes and I’m sure they’re all as responsible as you claim. Here’s the thing though, some are indeed responsible, very responsible, and they keep their weapons in a safe, away from their children or mentally unstable teenagers and they have a lot of training and recognize the responsibility that goes into gun ownership. Unfortunately, they’re the minority of gun owners. Some are irresponsible insurrectionist nut jobs, who think an unlocked closet or nightstand drawer is a perfectly safe place to store their cache of arms in a house full of children. Others are just certifiably insane or psychotic cases, usually young people who can’t differentiate the violence in a video game to the real life murdery kind, these are your mass shooters, almost exclusively from broken homes, with undiagnosed or under-diagnosed mental disorders. Then you have your career criminals, gangs or your wannabe gang-bangers buying guns for “street protection” and “street justice,” you know, the kind of street justice that murders children by the hundreds every year due to stray bullets. Oops! And how can I forget the just plain fucking stupid people? What’s his point? My point is that humans are inherently flawed, often act on emotion before thinking things through and when you put a gun in that human’s hand, it makes murder a hell of a lot easier and less personal than any other handheld weapon. We need to seriously examine who we are as a people and why we so often let fear of the unknown, our own foolish pride or our politics get in the way of common sense. This is a human safety issue, and I’m not gonna just sit idly by while innocent people die in the name of protecting a few 100,000 people’s hobby.

      • Phil says:

        Given Shane’s comment that intelligent gun owners are the minority, what do people think about mandatory gun registration and permitting? Is there some sort of middle ground we can take here? Seems like some of the worst mass shootings have been crazed teen stealing from grandma….not sure what regulation would be effective against that.

        I try to have a lot of respect for responsible gun owners but the nra doesn’t make it easy.

        • Mike says:

          I think permitting could work, with mandatory training. However I am 100% against any form of registry, it really is one of my few sticking points. if you think about it, if someone goes through all the hoops to be able to own a gun, they are law abiding, and have no Ill intention. What will knowing where the legally owned firearms be provide for you? We don’t employ psychics, and can’t time travel, so I cannot see any benefit to a registry, just down sides. i don’t think the cost and manpower would be justified.

          • jsb16 says:

            The benefits for a gun registry would be the same ones as for the car registry that every state has right now: knowing who the owner of a potentially deadly machine is, so that it can be returned to its rightful owner if stolen and so the owner can be held responsible if it’s used negligently…

        • Mike says:

          I can agree that the NRA doesn’t make it easy. People like shane don’t make it easy either, by marginalizing us and assuming we are mostly dumb or careless. With all the guns in the US, if so many were that way, the firearm death rate would be astronomically higher. You are correct, a middle ground, hybrid approach to this problem is needed. gun owners need to be included in the process, not having flawed legislation shoved down our throats, we need to work together. And most, but the extreme gun owners are willing too, as long as we are included, not talked at and marginalized.

        • Mike says:

          this issue absolutely should not be a partisan issue with Dem’s on one side and Repub’s on the other. I am neither.

      • Mike says:

        I realize that there are irresponible gun owners, and they pain me greatly. Yes humans are flawed, but by your logic everyone should live in a padded cell, because everyone is damaged and will eventually do something crazy or stupid. I just can’t buy the mass punishment ideas. I am all for enforcing laws, and reforming current laws to be more effective. I am reasonable and willing to entertain all ideas. By this way, its just a TAD more than 100,000 otherwise you would have had a much easier time enacting bans and rediculous feel good legislation. I as a gun owner am responible for my own safety, and have NEVER endangered anothers safety. Its funny that you should mention people acting on emotion because most of the legislation you are most likely in favor of is just that. Emotionally driven, that would have not had any effect on what transpired.

      • Mike says:

        Shane people like us need to work together.

      • carlos spicyweiner says:

        Yes, you are.

  3. Lee says:

    Steve,

    Could you imagine a world with a breathalyzer in every car, just think how many lives that would save. Have you looked to see how many people are killed by drunk drivers. A breathalyzer in every vehicle would bring DUI related homicide to 0%!! Then we would get rid of all these people trying to be like Ted Kennedy, then we could focus on the John Mclane wanna be’s.

    • Matt says:

      Sounds good, at that point will you finally accept common sense gun legislation or is this just another lame attempt to deflect from the gun violence argument with the “derp, let’s ban cars!” argument. Cars: not designed to kill, require insurance(RESPONSIBILITY), license, registration/tags, emissions testing, city stickers in some cases. Plus, it’s illegal to drive drunk! Maybe one of those applies to guns, in some states.

      • Lee says:

        Its illegal to drive drunk, but people do it anyway? We should have some common sense vehicle legislation. Taking a few seconds before you start your car to save tens of thousands of lives is a small price to pay.

  4. Dave says:

    O enlightened one, it appears you have not grasped the reasoning behind the side of the gun control debate you do not agree with. I’m sorry as this may be at odds with your delusions, but most gun-owning Americans are not George Zimmerman. Most gun-owning Americans don’t want to see the second amendment tampered with and live by the aphorism “The best defense against tyranny is a well-armed populace”. They do not daydream that they are Charles Bronson in Death Wish 3. Essentially they are standing against the attack on a constitutional government by powerful interests that has been taking place ever since the Patriot Act was introduced, which could potentially serve future administrations to legally lead us down a dystopian path. Regardless of where you stand on the issue please in the future make an effort to understand what you’re even talking about.

  5. James Edwards says:

    I carry legally all the time. I am not a hero. Don’t want trouble. I just don’t want someone walking me back into a cooler at some 7-11 and shooting me in the back of the head. That is all. I don’t drink and drive. Plus, the police are far more likely to fire off more rounds than a licensed civilian would. Cops and guns are dangerous to civilians. 6 out of 10 cops are killed with their own guns. Hmmmmmm Save a cop, disarm them! Just sayin’..

    • jsb16 says:

      The wardens who go into prisons go un-armed. Any weapon that isn’t part of your body can be taken from you and used against you…

  6. JP says:

    bs.

    According to brady, an anti-gun group, 108,000 people defend themselves and others every year with guns.

    Less biased organizations estimate the number to be higher.

    A principal stopped a school shooting with a pistol he kept in his car not too far back. Just one example off the top of my head.

    There are countless stories of someone “saving the day” with a gun. Even if they only saved themselves.

    It sounds cliche, but there is a lot of truth to the statement that “when seconds count, the police are minutes away.” This is especially true in rural areas.

    The author obviously has made baseless assumptions and didnt bother to do any research.

  7. Elmer Fudd says:

    Awwww. Too baad. Wittle gun owners get awwll upset when the twuth is towld to them so they try to pull the wesponsible card and insist they don’t want cwazy cwiminals or mentally unstable people to have access to weapons that make it oh so easy to kiwll all the wittle childwen, And yet they support those cwiminals and cwazy people by not supporting perfectly sensible wegiswation that will help combat this. Be a real American. Be men. Sacrifices must be made for the common good, and always have. Your “perfectly responsible” is not good enough, because “perfectly responsible” people relent to perfectly reasonable laws created for public safety. Otherwise you are just as bad as the “bad guys” for allowing them and their deeds to proliferate easily. Ban weapons that make mass murder easy. Close loopholes. Initiate background checks. as far as I’m concerned, without all of the stupid Nazi rhetoric that nutjobs like Alex Jones tries to pull, if you don;t believe in those things then you DO have something to hide and should be considered criminal. I don;t ask for you to help me domestically by carrying a gun, and I don;t want you to. Go pick up a gun and fight in the meaningless corporate wars across seas if you feel like having a gun makes you a man. Domestically – leave that crap behind you. The harder decision. The one that makes you real men, and a real American.

    • Mike says:

      Bullshit. People like you, talking down to us, are part of the problem. you increase the divide, and make the situation worse. You think a reasonable person like me is going to want to work on a solution with a little child like you who mocks someone wanting a real meaningful solution with a fake elmer fudd impression. Other people I am happy to discuss with. you however are just a child, and need to grow up.

      • Elmer Fudd says:

        Double bullshit. Tired of playing with children myself, so figured I’d talk at their level for a moment. If this doesn’t represent you, then relax – it’s not aimed at you, but you should realise that 1) Many of the people you are surrounded by deserve a good talking down to to shatter their childish illusions and 2) Many of those people wouldn’t admit for one moment they are wrong in any way because it takes a real man to do that.

    • Mike says:

      Also, Alex Jones is an Idiot.

  8. “Yeah, see that’s why my taxes pay for cops.”

    You mean the same guys who in some counties have budget issues so serious they best they can do is tell people to ask rapists to leave?

    The same guys who will take 4 to 40 minutes to get at you after you call them? The same guys that took 20 minutes to intervene in a school massacre recently?

    “Actual, ideally well-trained individuals that want to shut a bad guy down with as little collateral damage as possible.”

    Well trained? How often do they train with their firearms? There’s cops who are gun people and will train on their own, there’s also cops that only shoot when they have to qualify and pay someone else to clean their gun because they’re basically gun-illiterate. People who only qualify with their guns because the last instructor of the day just wants to go home and will sign any paper target with 5 rounds center mass (which is something a 5 year old could do if you give him enough ammo and targets).

    Police officers have a 11% chance of hitting innocent bystanders in their shootings. The average normal citizen will only have a 2% chance.

    “Or soldiers! Or the national guard. I mean, there are tons of places you can be what society considers “A good guy with a gun.” ”

    Are you sure you understand the implications of using the National Guard or the Army against US citizens, right?

    “Let me share something that will make you sad if you believe that first sentence: With 99.9% certainty, I can say there is very little chance you will ever, ever save the day drawing your gun on a “bad guy.” (*caveats for the rare moments it happens.)”

    Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen enough times. From 700,000 to 2.5 million times a year.

    “You will never be the hero in a story like that unless it’s just you day dreaming as you are shooting tin cans off a fence or targets at a range.”

    There are whole websites dedicated to pulling news about armed citizens drawing on criminals.

    “This is why there are so many more stories about mass-shootings and people accidentally getting shot than a person who happened to have a gun and happened to stop a crime. ”

    Did you hear about the mall shooter who offed himself when a guy with a concealed Glock 22 went after him? That’s right, because the media doesn’t profit off those news. Their profit comes from tragedy.

    The vast majority of self-defense use of guns don’t involve a shot fired and are never reported to the police since no crime happened.

    Consider yourself schooled.

    • Arthur says:

      >>You mean the same guys who in some counties have budget issues so serious they best they can do is tell people to ask rapists to leave?

      No idea what you’re referring to. Feel free to back it up. Otherwise, it’s just you saying stuff. Silly stuff.

      >>Well trained? How often do they train with their firearms? There’s cops who are gun people and will train on their own, there’s also cops that only shoot when they have to qualify and pay someone else to clean their gun because they’re basically gun-illiterate. People who only qualify with their guns because the last instructor of the day just wants to go home and will sign any paper target with 5 rounds center mass (which is something a 5 year old could do if you give him enough ammo and targets).

      So you’re making the case that cops aren’t well-trained enough with guns…But your average gun-owning civilian IS? Seriously, that’s your argument? With a straight face?

      >>Police officers have a 11% chance of hitting innocent bystanders in their shootings. The average normal citizen will only have a 2% chance.

      Again, would need to see back-up on this. Without it, we’re all left wondering what region of your ass you plucked it from.

      >>Are you sure you understand the implications of using the National Guard or the Army against US citizens, right?

      Are you aware of the distance by which you missed Steve’s point? He’s saying if you want to be a “good guy with a gun”, you can JOIN one of those groups, not that those groups should be used against the citizenry. Air-ball!

      >>Doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen enough times. From 700,000 to 2.5 million times a year.

      The 2.5 million figure is from a completely debunked study. Don’t know where you got the 700K figure, but the National Crime Victimization Survey actually puts it at more like 108K per year. That’s what’s known in the trade as “very rare indeed.”

      >>There are whole websites dedicated to pulling news about armed citizens drawing on criminals.

      Wow, there are whole websites dedicated to that? OMG, then it MUST be huge!!!

      Oh wait, there are also whole websites dedicated to unfortunate and avoidable gun-related violence and tragedies and the need for gun control. Oh well, guess that’s a wash, then!

      >>Did you hear about the mall shooter who offed himself when a guy with a concealed Glock 22 went after him? That’s right, because the media doesn’t profit off those news. Their profit comes from tragedy.

      a) Link, please?
      b) The media profits from compelling, exciting stories. You think when a regular joe saves a bunch of innocent lives by shooting a bad guy down, that’s not a story that interests them? Seriously, that’s your argument? Again…Straight face?

      >>Consider yourself schooled.

      Uncanny. The certainty with which conservatives claim victory in these things just never, ever fails to be inversely proportional to what they actually accomplished. Just uncanny.

  9. Mike says:

    A perspective from one of those true good guys with a gun. A cop:
    http://www.thebangswitch.com/reality-check/

    You may not like that people choose to arm themselves, and thats fine, but that is not your choice to make for me, my family, or anyone elses. That is also not a choice we are trying to force you into regardless of your dramatic claims to the opposite. Responsible and law abiding gun owners do not endanger any of you by owning what they own.

  10. Arthur says:

    >>You may not like that people choose to arm themselves, and thats fine, but that is not your choice to make for me, my family, or anyone elses.

    No one is trying to make that choice for you. No one is trying to take your precious fucking gun away, Mike. Most of us just want a few more safeguards in place that make it a bit less likely for a maniac to legally get a hold of a gun, or at the very least, a gun that can shoot lots of people down with extreme efficiency. Seriously, that’s it, that’s all, that’s what you’re arguing against. Stand proud.

    >>That is also not a choice we are trying to force you into regardless of your dramatic claims to the opposite.

    Exactly no one is arguing that you are “forcing” anyone to have a gun who doesn’t want one. We’re arguing that you guys are standing in the way of reducing the likelihood of events like Sandy Hook because 2nd amendment! From my cold dead hand! Don’t yoo tak mye fukkin’ gun!!!!

    >>Responsible and law abiding gun owners do not endanger any of you by owning what they own.

    Unless a Bad Guy gets a hold of their gun and does bad things with it. Or an Irresponsible person gets a hold of it and does irresponsible things with it. That’s where it kinda breaks down, Mike.

    And anyway, saying that “responsible and law abiding gun owners” do not endanger us is just circular logic. It’s like saying “People who don’t kill are not killers.” So what?

    And as for your link…Yeah? And? You found one cop who wrote a blog for a gun enthusiast website? So if I find a cop who wrote a blog for a gun CONTROL website? Does that cancel it out? If I find two, does that mean I win?

    Cause I could. Without even breaking a sweat. You know that, right?

    • Mike says:

      Good for you, Im trying to highlight that there are multiple ways of thinking out there. A lot are more extreme than others but both sides inability to step to the middle and consider other viewpoints will get us no where.. Some will entertain others ideas, and some will refuse based on party lines and rhetoric. thats just silly. I never said anything about anyone trying to take my “precious” gun. think you could stop talking down to me like Im a dumb 5 year old? fact is there are a lot of people in your camp who want just that, they don’t do any of you serious about the problem any service. I would be interested to know what “safeguards” would have prevented some of these tradgedies. Some I might agree with and some we will probably just have to agree to disagree, and thats how life goes. I think a good place to start is a licensing program, with some mandatory training on safety. As far as your extreme efficiency I disagree if you can trust a person with a bolt action, or a revolver, he is just as trustworthy with a semi-auto and a 30 round magazine. Dont’ pull out the old tank, and stinger missile argument, because I didnt say that. I will be honest and for my jobs I have used firearms professionally for a while now, so you can consider my point of view skewed. Call me names, and try to make me feel small for my choices all you want, doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people have these views, and will have to be included in the conversation at some point. You “unless a bad guy” justification does hold any water. Bad guys do all sorts of shit, and were not using it as justifications to lock everyone up in padded cells. We are trying to stop, and punish those criminals.And so what? Really? You do realize that category of gun owners are just about the only ones these restrictions will effect, so circular sure, but thats my point, those are the people you are targeting. Again, for the article, yeah, one cop wrote that, but you will find that a majority of cops agree exactly with what he said. in any camp, you will find people who will agree with something. those are the ones we are supposed to put all our trust in right?

    • Mike says:

      What exactly would you be winning? I didn’t realize we were playing a ball game. you are right though, I did not clearly state what I meant with my dramatic claims to the opposite comment. What I meant was, a lot of people on your side of the fence claim that anyone owning certain things is a public danger to everyone, when in reality it is not. Im not going to go dig up numbers for you, I am getting that from my personal experience and knowledge not only from myself, but the thousands of other gun owners I know, and associate with. You can dismiss that article if you want since its from a gun friendly site, but the numbers there dont lie.

  11. Arthur says:

    >>I never said anything about anyone trying to take my “precious” gun. think you could stop talking down to me like Im a dumb 5 year old?

    What you said: “You may not like that people choose to arm themselves, and thats fine, but that is not your choice to make for me, my family, or anyone elses.”

    The implication being that you are arguing against guns being banned, guns being taken away, other people trying to choose for you whether you arm yourself or not. In other words: “Dont tuch myy fukkin’ gun!!!!”

    >>I would be interested to know what “safeguards” would have prevented some of these tradgedies.

    Um…Because if it’s illegal for certain people to get guns, then it will be that much harder for them to get them. (Durr?) Sure, they COULD still get them, but they have to work a lot harder to do it, and/or spend a lot more money. Or settle for a less efficient killing machine than they’d like, thus killing fewer PEOPLE than they hope to. Have you really not thought this through even THAT much?

    >>As far as your extreme efficiency I disagree if you can trust a person with a bolt action, or a revolver, he is just as trustworthy with a semi-auto and a 30 round magazine.

    IT’s not a matter of “trustworthy”, the point is if they have to stop and change magazines or what have you, that’s that much more time that they’re not shooting, and who knows how many more people can get away. Surely more kindergartners would have survived Sandy Hook if the shooter had only had 10-round magazines. Isn’t THAT a worthy reason right there?

    >>Call me names, and try to make me feel small for my choices all you want, doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people have these views, and will have to be included in the conversation at some point.

    It’s not your views, Mike, it’s your ARGUMENTS. I’m simply showing the holes in them. For example:

    >>Bad guys do all sorts of shit, and were not using it as justifications to lock everyone up in padded cells.

    That is a bad analogy, because it implies (I believe) that I’m making the argument that all guns should be banned or something, and I’m NOT arguing that, I’m simply pointing out what’s wrong with YOUR argument that responsible gun ownership doesn’t endanger anyone. It CAN, is simply my point. So you’re WRONG to say it can’t. End of story.

    >>You do realize that category of gun owners are just about the only ones these restrictions will effect, so circular sure, but thats my point, those are the people you are targeting.

    It doesn’t bother you that your argument is meaningless? That “People who don’t kill are not killers” is not actually a useful bit of rhetoric? Um…Okay. Whatever works for ya, Mike.

    >>Again, for the article, yeah, one cop wrote that, but you will find that a majority of cops agree exactly with what he said.

    That’s just you SAYING that, it doesn’t actually mean anything unless you back it up. And if that’s really true, why’d you have to dig that up from some obscure gun enthusiast blog and post it like it was something special?

    >>in any camp, you will find people who will agree with something. those are the ones we are supposed to put all our trust in right?

    Hm, I’m not sure, because the question doesn’t actually make any sense. So, moving on…

    >>What exactly would you be winning? I didn’t realize we were playing a ball game.

    Yes, Mike, that’s why I was ridiculing the notion. Try and keep up.

    >>What I meant was, a lot of people on your side of the fence claim that anyone owning certain things is a public danger to everyone, when in reality it is not.

    That as well would probably be a strong point in your favor if it made any sense, but it doesn’t, so it isn’t. You don’t do this much, do you, Mike?

    >>Im not going to go dig up numbers for you,

    Dude, YOU are the one making the point, so it’s on YOU to back it up. What, if you assert something, it’s on ME to find the back-up on it? Or am I just supposed to take your word on faith? You don’t quite know how this works, do you, Mike?

    >>I am getting that from my personal experience and knowledge not only from myself, but the thousands of other gun owners I know, and associate with.

    Yeah, anecdotal evidence doesn’t really cut much ice here, Mike.

    >>You can dismiss that article if you want since its from a gun friendly site, but the numbers there dont lie.

    The numbers that show the cops-to-civilians ratio all by themselves are not an argument against increased gun control, Mike. (They’re an argument for, if anything…More cops.) An argument against increased gun control would be numbers that show increased gun control to lead to more dead people. Do you have THOSE numbers, Mike?

    Whenever you’re ready. Looking forward to it.

    • Mike says:

      Well magazine changes don’t take nearly as long as you’re suggesting, The sandy hook shooter never emptied a magazine, He reloaded on every new room, before even getting close to running out. Are you are telling me you are ok with ten dead children? 10 rounds is an ok number of bullets right? I don’t think it is, and that is exactly why it is a trust issue. You are however pulling some of the classic moves that alienate people like me willing to work with you on the issue. I am not sure exactly where you stand on the issue Because with all the words we’ve exchanged you haven’t spelled it out, as you have already stated I’m having a terrible time keeping up. I’m just a simple minded gun lover, Durr? One thing I think we can agree on is it’s a good thing that the matter has been re-opened for study. Both sides use old numbers, inflated numbers, or manipulated stats to prove their points. A no shit, current, just the flat numbers and facts study is a good idea. That’s one reason I won’t bother digging up numbers, you will no doubt find some excuse to discount it, such as it being found on a obscure blog. I know exactly how this works.

    • Mike says:

      You missed the point of me posting that article entirely. Yes it could be used as a case for more police, which isn’t going to happen under current budget restraints. You didn’t think it through even that much, Art? Come on, try and keep up, you don’t do this much do you? ( man that snark feels so good to validate myself when someone is trying to be sincere, doesn’t it, Art?) That article was posted because of what Steve Marmel said about his taxes paying for trained good guys with guns, which is great, except they cannot be everywhere at once.

  12. S B says:

    SO on Facebook I saw the following: something to the effect of “because I can’t throw a rock at 1155 FPS”.

    My response if you care to indulge:

    But I am trained to kill you whether you can throw a rock at 1155 or try to shoot me with a pistol. Your choice, but bottom line, I will win because I have faced death, combat, and evil over and over again for this country and still live to fight for the freedom of stupid people to own and operate tools of destruction. If you don’t feel safe in the blanket of protection me and my brothers and sisters in arms have fought and died to give you than maybe you should move to a country where you actually need a fire arm at home to protect you, and then learn to use it.Otherwise buy a hunting rifle and a license and kill Bambi for food and antlers and quit acting like someone is trying to take your rights away. Really, no one has made you leave the town you were born in.

    • Mike says:

      Was that a statement to me SB? I am not really clear on what you are trying to say. If it was to me, you are making quite a few assumptions.

  13. mlee952 says:

    judging from your hashtags, you are highly biased. If you read a wider range of news sources, you would see the stories you claim do not exist.

  14. RuralDelivery says:

    So, Steve, you’re just a weak little nebish then? And, that’s OK little rabbit! If that’s who you are, so be it. But, see the increased number of guns in society has lowered the crime rates because while criminals don’t mind shooting your sad widdle ass, they don’t like it when you–not you but somebody else–shoots them. It’s like, Hey, what’s going on? So, crime decreases. So just own that. You might always be a little sweet potato, but at least you won’t be delusional and you won’t be lying to yourself anymore.

    • Paranormal Skeptic says:

      Guns in circulation have gone up, however, the numbers of individuals owning guns has gone down.

      Now, whether or not that’s impacted crime rates, I don’t know.

  15. dirtybluefl says:

    Good thing this story’s only webtraffic is going to be gun owners and liberty activists coming to laugh at it.

  16. Liam says:

    But what if we gave people who wanted to own guns THE SAME TRAINING AS THE POLICE???
    Then anyone could safely own a gun, and there would be no reason for us not to.
    I mean, if you trust the cops with them so much, surely yo wouldn’t have any problem with people that have the same training owning them?

    • WillSpencer says:

      About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

      Perhaps we should give police the same training civilian shooters give themselves.

  17. Mick says:

    ” Actual, ideally well-trained individuals that want to shut a bad guy down with as little collateral damage as possible. Or soldiers! Or the national guard.”
    LOL! Yea sure! a 5 month basic academy makes them “well-trained.” Law enforcement training policy and standards vary obviously but usually depts follow along a semi-annual fire arms qualification that officers must pass with their duty weapon. Training is good, yes but because somebody has a costume and passed the two week course in the academy doesn’t make em Rambo with tele-porting powers to instantly be a location of a violent crime. Recently a nypd officer in time square shot around 20 bystanders “accidently” while trying to take out a criminal. So much for being “well-trained.” You have an inherent right to defend your self and to carry arms. Police just show up later to fill out the report and call your kin.

    Good guys with guns deter crime all the time, most police agencies do not require these events to be reported for record collection but if you read the paper avidly or search youtube you will find plenty of conceal carry etc exercising their rights in defense of their life and/or property.

    BTW, The supreme court ruled that a police officer has no duty to protect you. So how about you quit lying to yourself about who’s responsibility it is for your protection.

  18. Good Karme says:

    this story is so ridiculously bad …i want that minute of my life back…your points are flawed your use of the word never deserves some montoya love …..i do not think u are using that word correctly and your goal in writing this is just to beat your chest and say you are smarter with anyone who does not agree with you ….peace im out)

  19. WillSpencer says:

    Steve, you are a silly little person.

  20. WillSpencer says:

    Steve:

    Your entire argument is based on a lie.

    American citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606).

    • TheHabMan says:

      And a large number of those “criminals” shot by law enforcement are not really criminals but cover ups of unjustified killings by LEOs

    • richardtrombly says:

      Well Americans shoot more than 3000 kids annually , that is twice as many. as your good guys with guns — good job gun nutz. you disproved your own argument,. more people win the lottery than shoot a criminal. and then there is the accidental manslaughter which outnumbers the kid deaths ,
      30,000+ gun deaths annually and only about 2000 are criminals …. 28,000 are not bad guys …
      by your numbers its good guys that better worry about good guys with guns 15:1 over bad guys …. those are shitty odds … good going gun nutz.

  21. WillSpencer says:

    According to the CDC, Americans use guns to frighten away intruders breaking into their homes 498,000 times a year.

    That’s half a million good guys with guns every year Steve.

    • richardtrombly says:

      where is the link to this stat? I call bullshit .

      • richardtrombly says:

        For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home. -American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine

  22. TheHabMan says:

    As your “well-trained” law enforcement officers shoot more people in error than legally armed citizens, your entire argument is wrong.

    Also when seconds count the police are only minutes away and then have no duty to protect you as ruled by the Supreme Court. .

  23. Ryan Parry says:

    hahaha well you go ahead and enjoy waiting 30min-an hour for those cops your taxes pay for to arrive to your 911 call hahahaha some people are just too dumb to realize they’re dumb

    • Ryan Parry says:

      and to add to my comment, the reason you dont hear about the “good guy with a gun” saving the day which is pretty much every day in the US is because a classroom full of dead kids makes for a much better story, more airtime(days-weeks covering the same incident) more ratings from views watching the shock rather than a story about a gunman that went into a school but was stopped before ever getting a single shot off…

  24. Rob says:

    “This is why there are so many more stories about mass-shootings and people accidentally getting shot than a person who happened to have a gun and happened to stop a crime.”

    Wrong, Mr. Nazi. The reason why there are so many more stories about mass shootings than people stopping crimes is because the media, who CHOOSE which stories to tell, are nazi sympathizers just like yourself, who highlight the misuse of guns and downplay the numerous instances in which guns save lives to promote the nazi narrative. With crimes involving guns in the thousands opposed to defensive uses in the MILLIONS, your argument is invalid. Perception is NOT truth, a lesson you nazis seem to have trouble comprehending.

    I realize I won’t be a hero. As much as your liberal projection says I sit around all day stroking my gun dreaming of the day I’ll get to murder someone and get away with it (you really need to seek help), I do not. I don’t carry to be a hero. I don’t carry to “save the day”. I hope to god I never ever have to even draw my weapon, let alone use it. I only hope to have more options if bad goes to worse than hiding under a table hoping that the police will arrive in time (for all the people you prop up as reasons for your scheme, they don’t).

    It is my daily endeavor to return home to the family who relies on me to stay in one piece to provide for them in the same whole condition I left in. I equip myself appropriately for that endeavor as best I can.

  25. macdabby says:

    this is an example of a ‘pulling numbers out of your ass’ article. google the phrase ‘statistics on concealed carry weapons stopping crime’ and see how rare it actually is. Then google how many innocent people are killed by your so called trained and responsible cops. Then think about when someone breaks into your house to rob you and is willing to murder you just for being in the way, if you’ll be able to get to a phone and call the cops and if they’ll get there in time to stop the criminal before he kills you and/or escapes. Your article is emotionally driven, not fact or logic driven.

  26. Origanalist says:

    I feel dumber just having read this moronic rant. Don’t like guns Steve? Don’t buy one, and make yourself into a victim waiting to happen.

    I’m sure the police will arrive in time to help you……

  27. Dave Jones says:

    There is not a single gun owner that I know that looks to be hero. Drawing a weapon, aiming it at another human being and pulling a trigger is a very grave undertaking. We understand that. I hope I am never confronted with self-defense scenario. If I am, I am prepared.

  28. Jake Counts says:

    So I should just let the cops have guns right? You mean the people the are 8 times more likely to kill me than a terrorist? So your vague no true Scotsman fallacy is just perfect for people who are afraid of loud noises. Perhaps we should ban trucks too…they are loud. As a matter of fact there are 3 stories in GA alone in the last 3 months that an armed citizen saved her kids and herself from intruders. Keep worshiping the state and when a person with a badge and a black uniform protects you, that’s freedom. Oh and you don’t pay taxes to the govt, you pay them to a private bank. Federally at least.

  29. OnionLicker says:

    “This is why there are so many more stories about mass-shootings and
    people accidentally getting shot than a person who happened to have a
    gun and happened to stop a crime.”

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    ” With 99.9% certainty, I can say there is very little chance you will ever, ever save the day drawing your gun on a “bad guy.” ”

    [CITATION NEEDED]

  30. EBounding says:

    Great article by a well trained and obedient Slave!

  31. Shellie Meyers says:

    America is not a Democracy. It is a Republic with a democratic system. A Republic whose people are ruled by law (our Constitution) this law grants the individual sovereignty. This sovereignty guarantees individual rights that can not be taken away by a majority. In a democracy, the individual would only be allowed the rights that the majority wants to give. That sovereignty, (protection of the individual) is what makes this country great, and it is why majority-influenced changes to our law (constitution) must never be allowed- because even when it is beneficial change, it will remove that sovereignty and give the mob reign. Understand? Americans have had guns freely since stepping upon the shores of this continent and not had this issue until the last 20 years. Are we so selfish that we can’t admit we, as a society, have dropped the ball somewhere? The blame falls on us collectively for raising a generation of maladapted individuals with no coping mechanisms, and banning guns won’t help those people.

  32. Von Link says:

    Holy shit the first sentence by itself knocked a few points off my IQ.

  33. Guardiana says:

    GOP shills!

  34. libertarianwoman says:

    Just shows your delusion thinking that we consider ourselves heroes. We just want to protect ourselves and no your tax-paid cops can’t do that. They show up after the fact every single time. Plus, it’s part of the Bill of Rights in case you haven’t heard.

  35. Uki says:

    What a fucktard. Stop telling people what will NOT happen. LOL

  36. WillSpencer says:

    “95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.” – US News and World Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>