A single photo that debunks every "good guy with a gun" argument

[markpkessinger]

[Girard442]

1. Yup.

And don't forget: these were highly trained professionals whose only job was to keep Reagan safe.

[PA Democrat]

2. What they needed was a few armed math teachers!

Just ask the NRA!

[Yavin4]

6. Don't arm the math teachers

They'd take too long to figure out the right angle.

[MissB]

7. I shouldnt

But

[Ferrets are Cool]

13. No, arm the photography teachers...at least THEY know HOW to shoot...

[GP6971]

27. Geometry teachers to be exact

they can determine the right trajectory in a heartbeat.

[erpowers]

3. Yup

Yeah, I would say that debunks the "good guy with a gun" talking point. According to that picture six guys with a gun could not stop one guy with a gun. In addition, I think the six good guys with guns were highly trained professionals and the bad guy with the gun was a crazy guy trying to impress Jodie Foster.

I guess the Kennedy assassination video and pictures could also serve to debunk the idea of "a good guy with a gun". Kennedy was also surrounded by good guys with guns. We all know how things turned out of Kennedy. The same can be said about his brother Robert. How many good guys with guns were surrounding Robert Kennedy when he was killed at the California hotel.

[markpkessinger]

12. What the "good guy with a gun" argument always fails to account for . . .

. . . is the element of surprise, which not just mass shooters, but many other criminals as well, use to their advantage. For that matter, those who argue they need guns to protect themselves and their families likewise nearly always fail to account for this. No one, not even security professionals, can maintain the kind of constant readiness that would be required to stop an attack before it has done serious damage.

[maxsolomon]

4. I was told on FB yesterday that all these armed men

prevented a "Massacre".

I said "James Brady's ghost is laughing at you." Hinkley had a cheap revolver, IIRC.

not a MSSA.

[markpkessinger]

9. My response to that would be . . .

. . . perhaps they did (although there was no evidence that Hinkcley was intent on shooting anyone other than Reagan). But these were men who trained constantly to handle situations like this, and whose job it is to be vigilant towards potential situations like this. Even if we could give every teacher the gun skills of a S.W.A.T. team member, the notion that they would be able to effectively deploy those skills amid the fear, panic and chaos that a mass shooting unleashes is ludicrous. And expecting that they would be trained like members of the Secret Service is beyond absurd.

What's more, how could we expect teachers to focus on teaching kids if we also expect them to be vigilant for events like this?

[onenote]

24. What prevented a massacre is that Hinkley's saturday night special held only six bullets.

[markpkessinger]

35. Good point! n/t

[Corgigal]

30. Actually a good surgeon

saved the President life. Massacre already happened.

[BoneyardDem]

5. And some of these were the best trained guns to be found

...fat lot of good it did any of those who got shot.

-Are teachers supposed to be on high alert, focused on gun threats and threats 100% of the time the students are in school, (oh and teach at the same time)...like these guys are paid to be?

-Are teachers hired with the knowledge they are supposed to enter into the line of fire and act like trained combatants...like these guys are paid to be?

-And do we all get the share the cost of additional and likely increased life insurance premiums, guns purchases, firearms training, then on going training, overtime for training, licenses, and the eventual cost of civil suits when guns are lost, misfired, misdirected, perhaps not even used during a school shoot out? All so that some idiot can easily get firearms. Perhaps this cost should be incurred by firearms purchasers in the form of property taxes on the items, and annual license and registration fees.

[markpkessinger]

10. If people complain about teachers' salary demands now . . .

. . . just wait until we add this to the job description!

[Dave Starsky]

8. Who's the guy on the far left?

I thought you had to have eagle eye vision to be a Secret Service agent.

[Beartracks]

26. Google Glass prototype

============

[BoneyardDem]

11. hmmmm 6 guns to protect POTUS VS. 1 gun to protect 25-30 students. Don't like the odds.

[Aristus]

14. The guy on the right in the light blue suit is Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy.

One of the bravest men I have ever seen. When the shooting started, he immediately ran in front of Reagan and acted as a shield against the bullets. He was shot in the abdomen and fell to the ground.

Unlike James Brady, (third from left) who was shot in the head and was disabled for the rest of his life, McCarthy made a full recovery.

He later ran for public office as a Democrat.

A Democrat helped save Reagan's life without firing, or even drawing, a weapon of any kind.

[markpkessinger]

15. +1 n/t

[MustLoveBeagles]

31. +1000

[former9thward]

16. So we should do away with the Secret Service?

Because they can't stop 100% of incidents means they can't stop anything? Do you wish to do away with police forces also?

[Leith]

17. Did You Really Just Ask That?

The OP shows that Reagan was surrounded by 6 trained officers with guns and you think that means we want to get rid of the Secret Service and police? Could you explain the mindset that would make a person come to that conclusion?

[markpkessinger]

19. Thank you! n/t

[former9thward]

20. The OP is mocking the fact people with guns could not stop the attack.

With that ridiculous logic then we should eliminate all guns because in that incident they did not stop the attack.

[Leith]

22. It Wasn't Mocking

It was pointing out the obvious truth. YOUR post was the mockery.

[markpkessinger]

18. Where did I say anything remotely like that?

The point I am making is that Reagan was surrounded by some of the best trained individuals in the country -- people who trained constantly, not only in the use of their weapons, but in how to deal with situations like this -- that is, how to remain calm and think clearly under fire -- and whose job it was to be vigilant for precisely a situation such as this. And even they couldn't prevent it from happening (although, as someone else in this thread pointed out, Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy probably saved Reagan's life by taking a bullet for him). So the notion that teachers, even if they are trained in using firearms, will be able to act with the kind of cool detachment of people in the Secret Service. and who certainly cannot be expected to be as vigilant (assuming we also expect them to teach), is simply irrational and absurd.

[former9thward]

21. Well you can insult teachers, I will not.

If a teacher wants to take the responsibility of access to a gun I am confident they will do their best if the situation arises.

[markpkessinger]

23. I come from a family of teachers . . .

. . . It isn't a matter of anybody "doing their best" or not. It's a matter of how human being, except those who are highly trained (and even then in some instances) react under high-stress situations.

[onenote]

25. The point also is that having armed security isn't the great deterrent that Trump et al claim

If being surrounded by a plethora of highly trained, armed security personnel didn't deter Hinckley why do some people think having more armed guards and teachers will deter a committed mass murderer and thus provide a better "solution" to the problem of mass shootings than measures that will make it harder to obtain access to certain weaponry.

A teacher with a handgun, even if trained in its use, who needs to exercise care in firing out of concern that he or she may shoot at the wrong target or unintentionally shoot an innocent is at a significant disadvantage in going up against a shooter with high powered, semi-automatic weaponry who is unfazed at indiscriminately spraying an area with bullets, has the capacity in a magazine to do so, and who typically has the element of surprise on his side. Imagine a scenario where the first room a shooter bursts into is occupied by a teacher with a gun -- who would you bet on -- the teacher who has to react to what is happening, draw his/her weapon (assuming they are carrying it on their person), and make sure they have a shot that won't hit any one of the panicked kids in the classroom instead the shooter or the guy who just burst into a closed space and his shooting at anyone and everyone there, including the teacher?

The point is that Trump et al are offering up armed teachers as an alternative to measures that would restrict access to weaponry that gives the shooter an advantage over the armed teacher.

[markpkessinger]

34. Most of these school shooters fully expect to die in the course of the event . . .

. . . either by their own hand, or by that of police. (The Parkland shooter seems to have been a bit of a one-off in this regard). So it's hard to see how deterrence even enters the picture.

[Demit]

28. Jesus. It's not an insult to teachers.

I mean, it's not much different than saying give me a scalpel and a rib spreader and I'll do my best to operate on you.

And I doubt VERY MUCH that teachers want the responsibility of carrying a gun in case they have to shoot at a mass murderer, your confidence notwithstanding.

[doc03]

29. Since when did Reagan become a good guy. I think he

single handedly did more to destroy the middle class than any president in history.

[Mariana]

32. It would be stupid to pretend Reagan didn't get shot.

It's a fact that all these highly trained armed men, whose single job was to prevent the president from being shot, were unable to prevent the president from being shot. If they couldn't stop the president from being shot, how is it reasonable to expect a schoolteacher to stop a mass shooter?

How do you get "Reagan was a good guy" from that? Good grief.

[markpkessinger]

33. I made no comment about Reagan being a "good guy"

I said he was surrounded by "good guys with guns," and I specifically put that phrase in quotation marks to emphasize that I was using the pro-gun crowd's own phrase.

[doc03]

36. Gee I didn't think I needed the sarcasum thing but I guess did, boy people are touchy around

here. Chill

[Alea]

37. The good guy with a gun argument

never implied that a good guy with a gun prevents a bad guy with a gun from ever shooting. Spin it how you want, but there's quite a difference between preventing someone from starting shooting and stopping them once they start. There's also a big difference between the 4 seconds the Reagan shooting lasted and the 6 minutes the recent Florida shooting lasted.

Hinkley was stopped within 4 to 5 seconds, by men with guns. Yes they couldn't prevent a surprise attack, but once it began it was over. They didn't shoot him but would have if they had needed to. If his plan had been to kill them all and walk the streets for 6 minutes looking for more people to shoot, he would have failed, because of men with guns. If Cruz had stayed and continued to shoot instead of sneaking away he would have been stopped by a good guy with a gun, or shot himself after being confronted by a good guy with a gun.

[rustydog]

38. Wayne LaPissant said:

The ONLY thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. end of quote.
Trained professionals (law enforcement ) not computer gamers are best-qualified to back up this argument and people have still been shot by bad guys with guns as good guys with guns stood there. The FUCKED up argument that armed teachers is the answer to mass shootings shows how desperate NRA tools are getting.