Saw this when it aired. Well worth the watch!
I just point to the good guy behind the counter.
Not one part of the tone of this piece helped it in any way.
George Zimmerman thought he was a good guy with a gun.
An inconvenient truth, if there ever was one. And, indeed, studies have linked “Stand your Ground” laws with an increase in homicide where one or both parties thought they were the “good guy”.
I disagree - the tone of the instructors was professional every step of the way
In Colorado (and many other states) there is no training required to openly carry a gun. If you want to do someone’s nails, however, the state requires that you take 350 hours of training to get your cosmetology license. That seems messed up.
That’s the percentage of “active shooter” situations where a non-law enforcement officer was able to stop a shooter with a firearm.
I’d be curious to know how many other bystanders have been killed/injured by a “good guy with a gun.”
Also: perception is a tricky thing- it’s totally possible for two people on opposite sides of a issue to both think they’re right (and, indeed, there are often more than one “right” answer to any given problem…). So how is one to judge, in that high-stress instant, who, exactly, is the “good guy?”
Yes, stupidity. But as far as castle law, I am always a good guy in my own home. That’s not to say all guys are good guys in their own homes. But in my case, I am always a good guy here.
Perhaps we could invent a goodguy-dar and test people for “good guy” before assigning them a gun?
Problem fucking solved!
** drops mike **
Most western states still have the old Wild West mentality with cowboys and six-shooters. In fairness, there’s a lot of rural areas where carrying a gun makes at least some sense. And if you’re going to carry you should have to display it for everyone else to see.
I agree, next to the professional instructors the clowning seemed desperate and idiotic. That contrast undermined any rhetorical high ground the piece was trying to establish. You can’t make the gun instructor seem useless or unserious when you’re the one fucking around with the rubber gun and driving a shitty joke about “breaking rules” so far into the ground that you disrupt the water table.
Me too, because unless that number is really high there’s probably no chance of making much headway against the “good guy” argument. Even at 3%, there are going to be a lot of people who think they should be carrying for that remote chance of encountering an active shooter. And the problem, as this piece points out, is that the vast majority of those people will simply not be adequately trained to deal with the situation.
Yeah. 3% is a terrible number, but people honestly think they’ll win the lottery, so…
Actually, that’s exactly what’s happening here: the NRA is playing into the exact same loophole of the human psyche that lets us think that very low percentage odds with always go in our favor and are worth spending time and money on.
Even though the rate of people killed in gun accidents is way, way higher and would increase even more if guns were ubiquitous. (A gun in every kindergarten class in America? What could possibly go wrong??)
Basically people suck at math.
People are really, really good at math they can relate to- numbers they actually have experience with in real life. Sort-of.
But low odds? Ugly percentages? Edge cases?
Totally terrible. It’s the same reason geology (or evolution) are such difficult things for some people to accept- the numbers are just so huge there’s no way to hold them in your head in any sort of relational way.
It’s so weird how people evaluate percentages. They kind of get 50%, but anything 10% or under registers as either “never” or “will definitely happen to me” depending on some factors I don’t understand.
I recall seeing one study where people did very different risk assessment if told “10% or people will…” vs. “out of every 100 people, 10 will …” So it’s like they literally don’t know what it means. I think a lot of people come out of school thinking that math is magic, despite the fact that they aren’t that bad at applying some concepts to real life. Like if you ask what’s 1/8 + 1/8 you get 1/16 half the time, but if you ask people how much of a pizza they’ve eaten when they ate 2 of the 8 slices they know it’s a quarter.
I realize that the Daily Show’s job is to entertain and satirize things, but really towards the end he said something like, “it’s a lot harder than movies and tv and video games make it out to be.”
Well, no shit. That’s all fantasy. And while I realize this guy was playing a character, it doesn’t reflect the average person (though I am sure you can find someone with that attitude to confirm your bias).
Everyone I know who actually carries doesn’t have this gun-ho, Rambo attitude. They take it as a serious responsibility. I have read many forum posts on “what if” scenarios and pretty much NO ONE thinks its a good idea to try to rush in and stop something going down. If they were in the middle of it, they may react, but none of them are going to rush around actively going after someone. Because of several reasons: 1) not my job, 2) I have a family 3) most carry weapons are not a good match against a rifle or multiple attackers, 4) Cops might shoot me. So it isn’t like people don’t take the concept seriously.
To the original subject, “Good guy with a gun.” Yes, that is how most of them end. Usually with COPS though. Because they are the most trained, most available people. Yes a private citizen can intervene if they are in the right place in the right time. Yes it is more likely an unarmed victim stops or attempts to stop an attacker, because there are simply more of them out there (especially in “gun free” zones). Yes, even more private people protect themselves not against mass shooters, but common criminals, many times with no shots fired.
I disagree the solution is to “arm everyone”. I guess that falls into the same sort of simple minded “we have to do SOMETHING” way of thinking that the anti side likes to come with as well.
ETA - God bless that instructor for putting up with those shenanigans.
Except for that case where the lady pulls her cc and fires at the shoplifters in the parking lot. Unfortunately this kind of mentality is very common among the gun nut set - especially those that are very minimally trained. This is exactly the kind of attitude that TDS was satirizing.