Many anti-gun fanatics don’t hesitate to repeat rhetoric that has been proven false time and time again. They often repeat these lies because their agenda to disarm America is more important than the truth.
They continually blame guns for violence but they don’t blame the people. They do nothing to change the people, proving their agenda has nothing to do with reducing violence and everything to do with pushing more and more gun control until all guns are banned from private ownership.
This agenda driven erroneous rhetoric has been taken to a new level of lies by Stanford Professor John J. Donohue. He is saying that more unarmed people stop mass shootings than armed people do. Oh really?
Stanford University professor and researcher John J. Donohue suggested Wednesday that it is “much more common that an unarmed person will stop a mass shooting than an armed citizen will.”
He made his comment on the Pat Morrison Asks podcast at the Los Angeles Times, based on the observation that “most people are unarmed.”
Donohue’s suggestion can be proven wrong via logic and experience.
First, consider how it would look if one tried to present Donahue’s statement as a logical argument: …
When is the last time you heard of an unarmed person successfully stopping a mass shooting from happening or stop a mass shooting in process and save lives? How does an unarmed person stop an active shooter? If Donohue is right, then what happened at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando or the theater in Aurora or the party in San Bernardino or Fort Hood? Clearly, Donohue hasn’t a clue of the real world and his statements are drive by his agenda, not by the facts.