But further in the piece they find the space to write this: "
It's rare to have an armed bystander attack an active shooter, according to a data analysis published by The New York Times." They also included this blip: "
There have been 350 mass shootings this year, according to Gun Violence Archive. Like CNN, the archive defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more people are shot, not including the shooter." You must always consider the source and both of these examples are definitely biased. A drive-by in the 'hood counts as a "mass shooting"...
Maybe a little OT, but although I believe "Constitutional Carry" is a GOOD thing, I also believe one should have at least a modicum of training to buy and carry a gun.
If that quote were made by the NUT (sorry, meant to say NYT), that may be true since NY has all but prohibited citizens from carrying guns. So, that quote is probably true by default for what they see around them, but when looking at the bigger picture in places where people do have more freedoms, is clearly not the case.
The only downside to that, if that were the case you would need training and stuff to buy a gun, no one would be allowed to buy their first gun so they could train with. So, there's that.
The funny thing about rights. You may opt out willingly at any time. Having the right to remain silent, and having the ability to, are often not the same thing.
As an American. You have a right to own a gun. Any one of your choosing. But, you may also choose not to.
That's the great thing about having rights.
But, since many of them don't want others to own guns, they try to prevent them from it.
FWIW, the government always exempts itself from the same laws that you and I must abide by.
Strange how that works and they have over time superceded their authority to rule over people, rather than be ruled by them.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.