I should say rather that I have an understanding of the "good guy with a gun" theory, but it is that it is a public excuse which sounds better than other motivations. It sounds better than "I just like guns" or "I like to get my way by threat when I can't get it by persuasion" or "I am gratified by the fear and anxiety of my enemies", etc.

It’s an extension of a good samaritan and believing in the basic goodness of others.

If you have individuals willing to harm, then certainly there are individuals nearby willing to help out.

But only if they’re not defanged.

This is the most extreme case: https://youtu.be/uRc_FlmW2Jc

The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone. The good guy can put an end to the violence in some cases, but almost never before the bad guy has harmed someone. In societies where guns aren't ubiquitous it's the bad guy with a knife or a brick versus the good guy with a lawn chair. It's still the case that the bad guy can cause some damage before he's stopped, but it isn't as much damage, and it's less likely, because you can run away from a knife and dodge a brick.

I question your good-faith intentions here.

> The bad guy with a gun has already shot someone.

So here you start from the assumption that the person was shot and killed.

Shooters miss; they may also miss vital points.

> you can run away from a knife and dodge a brick.

Why not start from the assumption that the person was stabbed or hit on the head with a brick?

Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them. If you succeed, the damage is much greater in the former case than the latter. This isn't just speculation. This is borne out by evidence. In the UK there is a lot of knife violence. It is much less lethal than our gun violence. This isn't because UK thugs are less competent. It is because it requires less competence to injure someone grievously with a gun.

I don't see how this has any bearing on anything.

> Fine, in some cases the bad guy with a gun hasn't shot someone. In some cases the guy with a knife or brick has injured someone. What is the balance? It is easier to shoot someone than it is to stab them or brick them

At point blank it’s easy. Once it’s at range and for pistols it’s a matter of practice.

It’s why rifles tend be used by soldiers; it’s easier to aim with, train, and be accurate with.

It’s a matter of geometry. It’s also highly conspicuous (unlike handguns).

Okay. Say you’re injured and not dead: If size isn’t a deterrent, then wouldn’t an armed good samaritan be able to do more to help than an unarmed?

What if the individual goes after more victims?

But whether a person is being stabbed and bleeding to death, knocked out, or shot incapacitated: They’re unable to run, nevermind help.

At that point they’re at the mercy of the attacker and the people around them.

What I’ll concede is that a gun also enables a lot of individuals to be an attacker: Equalizing goes both ways.

I’ll also concede that in the ideal world we’d have phasers to stun; but as far as I know even beanbag guns and similar are not meant for civilian use. I wish it weren’t this way, but even stun guns and tasers are illegal in places like NYC.

Also, fatality rate: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170622171421.h...

Approximately 25%.

The "good guy with a gun" theory is that having everyone armed will prevent violence because the murderers will fear lethal punishment. Evidence shows this to be false. Many murderers either are not thinking that far ahead or are suicidal. So the net result is that more of the populace can exercise lethal violence if their inner moral governor fails -- they're drunk or irrational or having a bad day or whatever. So we have a lot more gun violence. Sometimes, rarely, a good guy with a gun cuts the violence short, so we have one more body, but societies with fewer guns have less gun violence. That is empirically true. It is the absence of opportunity, not the fear or punishment, that reduces gun deaths.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think this would be different, or why anyone would continue promoting this theory when evidence, logic, and common sense show it to be false.

There, I've laid all my cards on the table. I'm completely candid. Now explain to my why I'm wrong. Show how I'm willfully ignorant.

  > The "good guy with a gun" theory is that having everyone armed will prevent violence because the murderers will fear lethal punishment. Evidence shows this to be false.

the numbers also back this up: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/22/us/shootings-...

also, historically in the (wild) western us in the 1800s, lots of people had guns, didn't stop the violence, in fact it was just a way of life until things got cleaned up with actual policing etc