The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun …

Good guys with guns stopping a bad guy with a gun

This is the scene I imagine every time I hear a gun owner say, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”


Bullshit, I say. Dangerous, deadly bullshit.

38 thoughts on “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun …

  1. SO…you don’t like the scenario of take out the bad guy that has a gun with a good guy with a gun; so what do you think will work? At very close range maybe a tazor, but any farther than that what: a rock, a bow and arrow, a cross bow , a flame thrower. I know…you can talk his ear off until he drops his gun. Wait until they come out with a laser gun, then you will not even hear where the shooter is. The criminal will get them and they will use them. Remember the “good guys ” are the cops and guns are their preferred weapon of choice

    1. I object when the good guys are ordinary citizens, as depicted in the cartoon. I’ve no objection to police, security officers, or military being armed.

    1. I assume if he (the “good guy”) killed the bad guy (the one who first started shooting), he wouldn’t be prosecuted (it would probably be called self defense). That’s assuming he was properly licensed and legally permitted to have a gun in that particular place. But if several guys (not obviously law enforcement) pull guns and start shooting, I don’t know how anyone is supposed to know they’re “good guys.”

        1. You and I have (at least) one thing in common. Neither of us lived the Wild West. Not too many months ago, a particular Wikipedia…erm, what to call them, articles…a particular Wikipedia article informed me that hundreds of years ago in Scotland all law was common law. I think I could get along nicely in a common law world. You?

      1. I’ve been wondering what if the bad guy kills the good guy and was licenced to carry a weapon, wouldn’t he claim self defence ? Assuming he hadn’t had a chance to go on his rampage who to say he was a bad guy?

          1. The Common Law of England :English Law, covers everything from common to criminal. We in Australia follow the same system pretty much, strange?Not for us πŸ™‚

          2. This may interest you from Wikipedia naturally;

            The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. A decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, the highest civil appeal court of the United Kingdom, is binding on every other court.

            For example, murder is a common law crime rather than one established by an Act of Parliament. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, for example, now carries a mandatory life sentence rather than the death penalty.

        1. Not sure what you mean by “common law society.” We have common law marriage in some states, but beyond that, I’m clueless. I’ll have to do some reading.

          1. Well a good place to start will be 1154,when Henry II came to the throne of England. It was he that laid the foundation stones of Common Law, It was this Law that first went to the American colonies and upon which the US Law of today is based/ formed, I believe it may have been referred to as Common Law in the US right up until the late 19th century

  2. LordBeariOfBow…I think you are on to something. Back then we didn’t have a society of citizens trying to undermine the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.

    1. Back then there was no law enforcement in much of the west and people had to protect themselves. We no longer live in the Wild West. It’s the 21st Century and our society is much more civilized … except for the gun advocates who think we still do and should live as we did in the Wild West.

      1. People not from the United States might well wonder about that statement “It’s the 21st Century and our society is much more civilized … ” when they are frequently assailed with another mass shooting somewhere in the USA

  3. Robert Heinlein said that “An armed society is a polite society.” Maybe he had something because fewer people died on the streets of Tombstone, AZ than on the streets of Baltimore during the wild west of the late 1800’s.

    On the other hand, it’s true that we need to try to stop bad guys from getting guns legally. The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from doing that, so I believe the best solution (constitutionally) would be for gun sellers to bear the sole burden of due diligence before they sell one. Trouble with that is that there is a feeling among certain people that a business owner can’t pick and choose their customers… remember the baker who didn’t want to sell a cake to be used at a gay couples wedding?

    I happen to know a man who also sells guns in a sporting goods outlet. He has personally refused to sell weapons to people he judged weren’t fit to own one for one reason or another. Of course, the retailer believed that discriminatory action would get them in hot water so… he no longer works there.

    But… that solution will only work to prevent bad guys from getting guns legally… and they don’t care about legalities.

    1. The gun seller shouldn’t have to make that decision. Adequate, strict background checks and waiting periods should cover it (but the NRA insists that’s unconstitutional). I very much appreciate the merchant who, somewhere this week, refused to sell a gun to someone. That was the responsible thing to do, even if it does get him into a lot of trouble. (Call me prejudiced and out of step, but I do feel that if I run a business, it’s my decision who to serve, not the government’s.)

      1. Legitimate, registered, gun sellers ought to have access to the data that the current background checks have access to. They are the ones who should be empowered to make a decision that is to their own best interests. Air carriers should also have access to the data that would insure that their own best interests are served. Merchants ought to be able to protect their reputations and the safety of their current and potential customers. When gun sellers tell the FBI that a customer isn’t someone they want to sell to… and the FBI ignores them, who’s fault is it when that customer turns out to be a serial killer? No FBI person gets fired or fined or imprisoned but a gun seller ignores warning signs… they become civilly liable. Merchants have more to lose than any government bureaucrat and should therefore be empowered to prevent that loss. It’s just common sense.

    2. I propose that sometimes “bad guys” actually do care about legalities. I’m a bad guy when it comes to drinking. By that I mean Please Never Offer Me Alcohol You’ll Wish You Hadn’t.
      At this very moment I am definitely sober, and I’m doing nothing illegal or should I say “bad.”
      I have it in me to be a bad guy and I have it in me to be a good guy. Don’t you?

      1. The fact is if someone who knows of your condition, sells you alcohol and you wind up killing somebody while subsequently driving under the influence… they are liable and heirs of the victim can sue whoever ignored the known risk and sold you alcohol regardless of it. The stake holders need to be empowered to refuse your business and protected against your frivolously suing that merchant. It’s just common sense.

  4. I blame the idiot that invented such a stupid weapon in the first place, really, how has it actually helped us? Just allowed wars and arguments to be quicker and waaay more deadly

    1. You’d have to go back to 13th Century China to find that idiot. But you also have to blame the idiots who decided to wage war with it and not settle for just defending themselves against wild animals.

... and that's my two cents