The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Private Gun Carriers' Self-Defense Against Public Shooters
The Charleston (West Virginia) incident from a few days ago, the FBI 2021 statistics, and more.

Mass shooting incidents—or incidents that looked like they might have become mass shootings—often lead both to some calling to try to limit would-be killers' access to guns, and others calling to try to increase the number of law-abiding people who can have guns easily available for defensive purposes. Both kinds of calls in turn lead to practical skepticism:
- Can we really effectively stop people who are willing to deliberately plan to violate laws against murder, just by adding more laws against gun possession or carrying?
- And can we really expect ordinary citizens to stop would-be murderers?
Whatever your answer to these questions, it seems to me that they are good questions to ask. Optimally, they would be answered through careful data analysis, but good data on such matters is often hard to get. And sometimes, even some specific illustrations can be helpful (whether specific illustrations of shootings or of citizens stopping the shootings).
Because of that, I thought I'd offer a story from a couple of days ago; it's been long enough since the shooting that at least some of the initial factual uncertainty is likely to have been resolved. From WCHS-TV (see also the Associated Press); there's also a video of an interview with the chief (starting at about 1:10):
Police said a woman who was lawfully carrying a pistol shot and killed a man who began shooting at a crowd of people Wednesday night in Charleston.
Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday …. No injuries were reported from those at the party.
Investigators said Butler was warned about speeding in the area with children present before he left. He later returned with an AR-15-style firearm and began firing into the crowd before he was shot and killed.
"Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night," Charleston Police Department Chief of Detectives Tony Hazelett said.
According to WCHS-TV (Bob Aaron), Butler was a convicted felon, and was thus not legally allowed to own guns. In principle, perhaps he might still have been stopped by (say) a law requiring background checks, which would likely have stopped law-abiding sellers from selling him the gun; but it's not clear whether someone with his criminal record would have much been stymied by that, as opposed to just buying a gun on the black market. Chief Hazelett reported in the video interview that the woman was legally allowed to carry (in West Virginia any law-abiding adult 21 and above can carry a concealed weapon without the need for a license).
I gathered some more examples from over the years here, and then followed up with data based on FBI reports of mass shootings in 2016 and 2017: legal civilian gun carriers tried to intervene in 6 out of 50 incidents, and apparently succeeded in 3 or 4 of them.
The FBI also has just released 2021 data; it reports 61 "active shooter" incidents (of which 12 were treated as "mass killing" incidents), and 4 of those active shooter incidents led to "shooters [being] killed by citizen," all apparently involve gun-wielding citizens (PDF p. 4, 11-12). Two more incidents involved citizens detaining a shooter without using guns themselves. (Some of the incidents I discussed in my earlier post involved gun-wielding citizens stopping a shooter without killing him, but none seem to have occurred that way in 2021.)
A few thoughts, which I'd mentioned before, but which I thought I'd repeat:
[1.] Unsurprisingly, sometimes the good guy (or gal) with a gun succeeds and sometimes not. Sometimes the success might be a lucky break; sometimes a lucky break for the defender might have ended the incident more quickly. And it's impossible to tell for sure how many lives, if any, were saved in the aggregate, because that's generally a counterfactual. Still, the aggregate pattern seems to be that armed civilian self-defense takes place in a significant fraction of active shooter incidents.
[2.] None of this proves that broad concealed carry rights on balance do more good than harm (or vice versa). But it is a response to claims that I've heard that the good guy with a gun never helps; these incidents further show that there are potential pluses to broad concealed carry rights, and of course there are potential minuses as well.
[3.] Some shootings are in places where concealed carry is not allowed, such as on school premises or in jurisdictions where concealed carry licenses are often hard to get. It's hard to tell for sure how many of the shootings fit into this category, because laws vary from state to state, and rules vary from business to business (plus in some states carrying in a business that prohibits guns is itself a crime). But it's possible that there would have been more defensive uses of guns in some cases if people were legally allowed to have their guns there.
[4.] Finally, always keep in mind that active shooter situations should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for less than 1% of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). But people talk about them a lot, so I thought I'd offer a perspective on them for those who are interested.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“And can we really expect ordinary citizens to stop would-be murderers?”
As last week’s incident showed us, we certainly can’t expect the police to stop them.
Had the parents been better armed, they could have fought their way through the police and stopped the killing.
Parents probably were better armed (I am), but the cowards wouldn’t let them do their own jobs
They probably could have taken out the shooter, but they didn’t have the means to clear the 19-150 obstacles to get to the shooter.
Considering two of our greatest warriors couldn’t stop a suicidal nut from killing them when they were armed at a gun range…mass shooters are going to kill as many people as they want until they decide to stop shooting or a gun freezes up or they run out of targets or they blow their own brains out.
You forgot: “In some cases.” A body count of one rarely makes the national news. A body count of zero where a would be mass shooter is foiled just don’t make the national news.
The school resource officer that shot and killed who had already non-fatality shot two students about two years ago was a local story.
In 2019 and 2020 of the 24 mass shooters shot and killed 18 were by police while 6 by armed civilians.
You missed ‘or until someone else blows their brains out’
From your previous commentary history, I say that was purposeful
The cops would have murdered the parents in their tracks.
And did zip to protect the kids.
I hate to say it—but once this mass shooter is stationary and given a little time then it doesn’t really make a difference if the cops take 5 minutes or an hour. So once the cops start trying to break down the door a mass shooter with an assault rifle and a high-capacity magazine can inflict a lot of carnage in a short time. Remember these people are suicidal and they are going to do whatever they feel like doing.
It actually does make a difference. You can’t tell exactly what the shooter is thinking. And that time gives the shooter more time to kill victims, more time for victims to bleed out.
I agree about the bleeding out, but with we have a lot of examples unfortunately and generally the mass shooter kills however many people they want to and stop on their own.
The lawyer will crush public self help, and put effective defenders through the wringer. They do not want to be replaced by people who are 10 times more effective at stopping crime than the lawyer and its agents, the police. These are worthless government workers. They allow 15 million common law crimes, and 100 million internet crimes a year. They take our money and return nothing of value. They are good at nitpicking middle class people to fine them and to enrich their thug governments.
Instead of tormenting citizen defenders, the lawyer needs to pay a bounty of $10000 for every violent criminal hunted and killed by private citizens. The savings in cost to society is $2 million a year of criminal life not lived.
Of course, ridding us of a member of the lawyer hierarchy is worth $billions in damages prevented.
Oh God. Kids were calling 911 from inside the class. The agents of the lawyer, the worthless police, the pro criminal lawyer and Democrat feminized police responded with procedure.
Imagine what would have happened to this lady if she did have the proper work. In New Jersey, a woman with PA permit eas arrested and imprisoned for the gun in her car. It was not even used.
Whatever culpability the Uvalde police may have — and I personally think the Uvalde police should be charged with negligent homicide — the fact remains that the school shooter was the primary bad guy here. None of this would have happened if not for him, and his ability to easily access the tools of mass murder.
There is no such thing as a legal solution that will reduce murders 100%, but that is not a reason to not reduce them as much as we can. And it’s also not a reason to make it easy for them. If you’re planning to shoot up a school, the legal system should put as many roadblocks in your path as it can, mindful that there will always be some that find a way around the roadblocks.
What I’m hearing from the NRA fanatics is that unless a system works 100% it shouldn’t happen. Well, if that were the standard, we should repeal all laws against drunk driving because nothing will 100% keep them off the road either. We do what we can.
Right. Under US criminal law, three things are required for a crime: means, guns, and guns are scary.
Wait, was that how it went?
Maybe in your mind.
Maybe in my mind too, because it sure read like all your verbiage ended up being no more than another call for gun control.
Gun control and gun confiscation are not the same. Cars are heavily regulated but no one seriously thinks auto confiscation is looming on the horizon.
There’s that guns to cars comparison again. Can we please, please, PLEASE regulate guns in California the way we regulate cars? Or conversely, regulate cars the way we regulate guns in California so people can see what it actually takes to buy a gun?
What I’m hearing from the NRA fanatics is that unless a system works 100% it shouldn’t happen
That’s because you’re not listening
What we’re saying is we have an absolute right to self defense, and to keep and bear the arms that make that self defense possible.
And we will not listen to or accept ANY proposal that makes it more difficult for us to engage in our own self defense.
Including the societal self defense of being armed with weapons such that the government knows that an attempt to crack down will just get the government pushers killed
You don’t like that? Molon labe
And there will come a tipping point at which the American people simply become unwilling to endure school shootings because you think you have an absolute right.
And we won’t have to come and take anything. Just regulate and restrict ammunition. Your guns are worthless if you’ve got nothing to load them with.
Gasbags keep claiming that pubic opinion will change, but solid majorities keep on realizing there is a trade-off, and remembering that tyrants start out by disarming the public.
Public opinion already supports banning assault weapons.
Correction: Public opinion that the left agrees with supports banning “assault” weapons. Those that support the 2nd Amendment do not.
Also, all weapons are “assault weapons” so the left is saying they want to ban all guns.
Cindy, I bet you believe the election was stolen, too.
And your change of topic demonstrates you’ve lost.
No, it demonstrates that if she believes one stupid thing, the likelihood is she believes other stupid things too.
No, public opinion supports banning assault weapons when you phrase it with the left’s lie (the creator of the term admitted he did it to confuse the public into thinking they were full-autos). New York has banned “assault weapons” for years. The buffalo shooter used one without any of the cosmetic features that defines one, and the media is STILL calling it an “assault weapon.”
So it’s clear that your definition means “any magazine fed semi-automatic.” That is, nearly every gun out there. Ask the public if they support banning nearly every gun on the market, and see what the polls show.
Do you have a source for that claim that isn’t a dishonestly-run poll?
I just spent five minutes on google. A Vox poll shows 63 percent favor an assault weapons ban; do you consider Vox a leftist organization that does dishonestly leftist skewed polls? A John’s Hopkins poll puts it at 68 percent and an NPR poll also showed 68 percent. So that’s three pills done by groups across the ideological spectrum that all got majority support.
The lowest number I found was a Chicago Tribune poll that only got 52 percent.
“A Vox poll shows 63 percent favor an assault weapons ban; do you consider Vox a leftist organization that does dishonestly leftist skewed polls?”
Somebody DOESN’T?
“A John’s Hopkins poll puts it at 68 percent and an NPR poll also showed 68 percent. So that’s three pills done by groups across the ideological spectrum that all got majority support.”
“Across the ideological spectrum”? Yeah, sure.
Most states have permitless carry. Half have constitutional carry laws. You’re not winning this argument. You never have.
Vox, John’s Hopkins and NPR are “across the political spectrum”?
Please stop selling bullshit and trying to tell everyone it’s fresh clean cattle fodder.
Guys, I’ve offered four surveys that all showed majority support for banning assault weapons. Can you cite any that reach a contrary conclusion?
Do any of these polls actually define an assault weapon the way that the laws (and proposed laws) do?
Same question as above, Harvey: I’ve offered four surveys that show majority support for banning g assault weapons. Can you offer any surveys of your own that show a contrary conclusion?
Krychek….do any DEFINE assault weapons?
The real rhetorical beauty of saying you only want to ban assault weapons, is that you can move the goal post on what constitutes an assault weapon, and still say you only want to ban those evil assault weapons.
It’s defined by statute, and politicians control that definition, are free to make that encompass whatever they want, and to change it without difficulty.
You can be absolutely certain it will be expanded to include all semi-automatic rifles once they acknowledge that a mini-14 fires the same bullet just as fast as an AR-15.
Another excellent example of democracy being in conflict with liberty. Some would argue democracy is merely the legalization of plunder. I would add that it is the means of depriving individuals of their rights. You just gave us an example of an attempt to do just that.
Maybe the majority thinks it has the right to self defense by banning assault weapons.
Ukraine screamed for more guns, literally, not just big iron.
RRR is the biggest movie on the planet right now, and concerns getting guns into the hands of Indians against English colonization, for whom it was made illegal.
Right before our eyes, one real time, one real time historical.
I, too, would love to inagine the days of dictatorship are over, and this is just an anachronism.
Evidence yanks one back to sad reality.
Krychek_2, there is a process to change the Constitution. Is it unreasonable to ask that it be followed, particularly if the elimination of an enumerated individual right is contemplated?
When the process for amending the Constitution is itself unreasonable then yes, it is unreasonable to demand an amendment before being permitted to make school shootings more difficult.
Suppose the Constitution contained a provision that said that no conservative may hold public office. And suppose the process for amending the Constitution required that every person whose social security number contains the digit 2 agree to it, and my SSN contains a 2 and I don’t agree to it. And I said to you, XY, if you don’t like it, there is a process for amending it. What would be your response?
It is not unreasonable because it gets in your way.
That is the amendment process working as intended.
God help this nation if the powerful get the power to change the Constitution at their whim. If the powerful get the power to add to their own power, with little more than stimulating a simple majority by fanning passions.
For thosr pig ignorant of human history, see, that’s what they are skilled at.
No, it’s unreasonable because it’s objectively unreasonable to require near unanimity. Taking one sides preferred policies, casting them in constitutional concrete, and requiring near unanimous consent is not reasonable.
Krychek,
We’ve amended the Constitution dozens of times. Literally. It’s very possible.
It’s just not possible if you don’t have the supermajority support that you need for it.
Do you think the Second Amendment, as currently written, could get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states? Neither do I. So we have constitutional governance by inertia.
That works more or less until there’s a crisis. I would argue that the Constitution was one of the causes of the Civil War. It certainly played a role in January 6, which would not have happened without the electoral college.
And here’s the thing: I could even live with the supermajority requirements if I thought the minority blocking progress were doing so out if noble reasons. But they’re not. It’s about them staying in power despite not having majority support.
“we have constitutional governance by inertia.”
That’s how it’s supposed to work. Indeed, that’s how the Constitution is supposed to work, to defend important rights against a temporary 50%+1 fleeting majority. When Constitutions can be so easily altered, they cease to act as a protection of the rights of the people.
“And here’s the thing: I could even live with the supermajority requirements if I thought the minority blocking progress were doing so out if noble reasons.”
What are your “noble reasons”?? The issue is you’re putting your reasoning for “noble reasons” above that of others. Other people are allowed to have “noble reasons”…even if you don’t agree with them.
This isn’t a 50% plus 1 fleeting majority (and even if it were, the remedy is another election in two years). This is something a majority of Americans has wanted for a long time, and can’t get, because of a relatively small number of obstructionists who, under our constitution, have political power far disproportionate to their numbers. The majority has rights too.
As for “noble reasons,” survey 1000 Republicans who live in West Virginia, Wyoming, and Idaho. Ask them why they oppose abolishing the electoral college. I’ll bet you anything the overwhelming first response would be “because we would lose power.” Not single payer health care. Not gun control. Not abortion. Not taxes. No, “We would lose power” would be at the top of the list.
” This is something a majority of Americans has wanted for a long time, and can’t get”
Bullshit
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/terminology/types-of-concealed-carry-licensurepermitting-policies/shall-issue/
Shall issue means that as long as an applicant passes the basic requirements set out by state law, the issuing authority (county sheriff, police department, state police, etc.) is compelled to issue a permit. In other words, local law enforcement officials cannot deny an applicant a permit if the applicant meets all of the criteria. There are currently 41 shall-issue states, including permitless-carry states that issue permits for purposes of reciprocity (allowing residents of their state to carry in other states with favorable reciprocity)
There is no State with “shall issue” where the people actually agree, as in would vote for it or politicians who advocated it, the gun laws you want.
“No, it’s unreasonable because it’s objectively unreasonable to require near unanimity. ”
So, you opposed SCOTUS forcing Lawrence v Texas, Windsor, Obergefell, Roe, and Casey on the American people”?
No?
Then let’s cut to the chase, shall we? Your definition of “unreasonable” is “anything that prevents me from getting what i want.”
GFY
What makes you think the American people oppose all those decisions you listed?
If they could have gotten an amendment to protect killing babies and gay sodomy, they wouldn’t have needed to get the courts to invent new words.
“When the process for amending the Constitution is itself unreasonable”
It’s not unreasonable. It is difficult. As it damned well should be.
“Suppose the Constitution contained a provision that said that no conservative may hold public office. And suppose the process for amending the Constitution required that every person whose social security number contains the digit 2 agree to it, and my SSN contains a 2 and I don’t agree to it. And I said to you, XY, if you don’t like it, there is a process for amending it. What would be your response?”
I’m not sure why an outright asinine hypothetical should be taken seriously.
“It’s too hard to do it” is not an excuse to not have to abide by the previously agreed upon rules. It has happened 17 times since the Bill of Rights. So, clearly, not unreasonable. Just hard to do.
The point of the hypothetical is that it’s unfair to require the consent of those who would lose their unfair advantage to take away their unfair advantage. It’s like having a super bowl in which one team starts with a free touchdown, and the rule can only be changed with the consent of the team that gets the free touchdown. Of course that team won’t agree to the change — why would they — but no honest person would think it’s a fair rule
Now, that said, I also disagree with the NRA fanatics that most gun control violates the Second Amendment, for the same set of reasons I would disagree with someone who claimed that child pornography violates the First Amendment. There are few rights that are absolute and with no exceptions, and other people have rights too. So when rights are in conflict — your Second Amendment rights versus the right to life of schoolchildren — sometimes you have to do balancing tests to decide which right is more important.
The First Amendment does not give me the right to shout under your bedroom window with a bullhorn at midnight, even though it is pretty clearly speech, because you have rights too. Same principle here.
Given that most gun control called for by the left is a complete ban on possession and carry, I’d love to hear how you think in good faith it doesn’t violate the 2nd Amendment.
Because you’re simply lying when you say that most gun control called for by the left is a total ban.
Like I said before, stop trying to claim your bullshit isn’t.
And like I said before, gun regulation and gun confiscation are not the same thing. Automobiles are heavily regulated but nobody thinks there’s any real likelihood of them being banned. You’ve just convinced yourself that any proposed regulation is just a first step toward confiscation.
The First Amendment does not give me the right to shout under your bedroom window with a bullhorn at midnight, even though it is pretty clearly speech, because you have rights too. Same principle here.
1: You might want to explain that to the lefties who are currently claiming that it’s “unconstitutional” to block leftie “protesters” from harassing SCOTUS members at home.
2: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The “shouting outside your window at 4 AM” version of that is felons owning guns, or law abiding citizens owning nukes
It’s not “law abiding citizens owning military weapons like those carried by a typical infantryman”, since that’s what “the militia” normally carries.
Another version of “loudspeaker under the window” would be “the government gets to create a database tracking every gun owner / purchase”.
Any government that feels threatened by 30%+ of the population owning firearms is a government that SHOULD be threatened
The government should be less worried about actual insurrection than by school shootings, which happen with depressing regularity. Maybe the majority has the right to collective self defense by banning assault weapons.
That horse has long left the barn. The easy and cheap access to home reloading, CNC, and 3d printers makes any caliber in any configuration easy and cheap to manufacture and obtain.
And there will come a tipping point at which the American people simply become unwilling to endure school shootings
And we’ll know they’ve reached that when they demand that their States allow teachers to be armed at school
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377801
Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe: Data on the Rate of Shootings and Accidents in Schools that allow Teachers to Carry
Just keep in mind an 18 year old suicidal nut with an assault rifle and high-capacity magazine and tactical gear can outgun a Navy SEAL…so they are going to inflict as much carnage as they want until they get their wish of dying either with their own bullets or someone else’s bullets.
What I’m hearing from the NRA fanatics is that unless a system works 100% it shouldn’t happen
The voices in your head are NRA fanatics? Because nobody here in the real, physical world is saying that.
It’s Wuz, Rev Arthur Kirkland’s right wing counterpart.
“Professor Ann Althouse also finds that the police response diminishes the anti-gun crowd’s arguments: “If the police don’t arrive and save us from violence, how can this event support the argument for restricting guns? This is the very situation that makes the most responsible people want to own guns. It reminds me of the summer of 2020, when there were riots, and the police stood down.”
More guns means more mass shooters because they want to die in a blaze of glory. They aren’t like bank robbers or gang members.
Seems like more of a media problem than gun problem.
“Unsurprisingly, sometimes the good guy (or gal) with a gun succeeds and sometimes not. ”
Geez EV, isn’t that true of almost everything in life?. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
The lawyer does not the public to engage in self help. Public self help is the sole factor that unifies all jurisdictions with low crime rates. Some are rich or poor, religious or secular, rural or urban, black or white. All have one thing in common. The criminals fear the neighbors far more than they do the police.
The criminals are well known to the authorities. They should be hunted, and bountied for $10000 a scalp. To deter.
Eugene is an indoctrinator for the pro-criminal cult enterprise. He does not care if little kids are screaming as they are being slaughtered. He opposes self help against the criminals, the good clients of the lawyer.
And sometimes like in the Uvalde and Margery Stoneman shootings nobody even tries.
It’s worth noting the mass shooting attempt last week in California was foiled by an unarmed man who rushed the shooter giving up his own life.
Calling police, fire, EMS, whatever ‘first responders’ is a lie. They are perhaps second responders…..sometimes (Uvalde) not even that.
The first responders in a crime, a fire, a medical emergency are the people around when it happens. We have done an .. ok.. job teaching CPR skills…we can do better.
But in responding to shootings, we need to do much better. When seconds count, the police are minutes to hours away. Other authorities (The ”teacher” that propped the door open for the murderer to enter) are either complicit or unwittingly helpful…
Waiting around for the authorities to remove their thumbs from their thinking organ doesn’t work. All the gear is useless when it is locked away: All the plans are useless when the chief picks the wrong one. What works is rapid application of shock, and awe.
The scumbag lawyer profession will crush self help. They want only worthlessgovernment employees responding.
You watch police drams on the leftist media. Their effectiveness and their stopping criminals at the end is more fictitious than a Star Wars movie.
LOL
Considering the targeting accuracy of an Imperial Stormtrooper…..
FLIGHT-ER-DOC — Do you notice your assumption? You presume that an unscripted situation organized to proceed according to routines will cease operation, then transform itself almost instantly into a scripted performance to satisfy a romantic narrative—while someone with a gun shoots at whoever can be seen trying to make that happen.
Compare that to what typically happens when expected routines break down. Even without armed resistance, how often do those incidents give rise instantly to novel, reorganized, purposeful activity?
Imagine a team of professionals, trained and drilled in emergency response—the crew of a naval warship, for instance. If in the midst of their professional readiness, some completely unexpected disruption occurs, will they likely get that major surprise under control in less time than it takes a mass killer with an AR-15 to shoot up a classroom?
What a forlorn hope that seems.
Well, Stephen, it’s easy to hold your beliefs, when one lives in a world of fantasies abotu Chucky the psychotic 4th grader, rather than actual reality.
I provided a study below: armed teachers leads to no shootings on campus, by good guys or bad guys
Do you have any links to actual data showing this wrong?
No, all you have is the voices in your head?
That’s what we thought
Greg J — I suppose you must be wrong often, and thus used to it. Still, you could try to spare yourself the further degradation of being aggressively rude while being wrong.
Of course I made that comment up, without any better source than first-hand experience about how feckless people handle guns. It was a hypothetical comment. Hypotheticals are made up. That one was about the increase in risk the nation could expect if it armed school staff as a security measure.
But because you were rude, I took the next step. It took one Google click. Here:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/
Wow, you really are stupid
Did you even read the thing you linked to?
Here’s the things they highlighted:
A teacher’s loaded gun falling from his waistband during a cartwheel. [No one injured]
A student grabbing an officer’s gun while the officer attempted to subdue the student. [So it was a police officer’s gun, the the gun of a private citizen]
A teacher unintentionally firing a gun in class during a safety demonstration.[No one was hurt]
That’s their top 3
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377801
Here’s the relevant counter:
There has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, between 6 AM and midnight at a school that lets teachers carry guns.
So, in choosing between there two results, Stephen claims that going with the one where no one has been wounded or killed is the “bad” results.
Special
Greg J is lying about the list. See for yourself.
I urge everyone interested in the notion of gun carrying, and school security, to take a deep dive into the list linked in my reply to Greg J above. It is not shocking. It is ordinary. It delivers a sample of the ways good guys and good gals handle guns. The information is strongly sourced, and clearly reliable.
There might be a suggestion that the fecklessness which characterized the incidents reported cannot be representative of typical gun carriers, but only of the less competent. It could be that way. But there they are. When your advocacy is to arm everyone, this is what you get.
Also, the reasonable higher standard that better-managed gun carrying could deliver would be what? Perfect conduct? Of course not. It would be the kind of conduct described in the list, but less frequently, to add to the listed misconduct practiced by the less attentive folks already reported.
Note also the dates of the incidents. Only a tiny fraction of schools at that time encouraged staff to carry guns. If that policy became general, as the NRA now advocates, that list of dangerous gun incidents in schools would multiply a thousand-fold or more. It is certain statistically that worse costs in injuries and lives would follow.
A quick perusal of that list seems to show that most offenders are LEOs. It is striking how often cops screw up or commit actual crimes and the anti gunners want those same people to be the only ones allowed to have guns.
Mosley — LEOs are prominent in the list, not predominant. An obvious explanation is that the time interval 2016–2020 was probably one where guns in schools were not much carried except by LEOs and security guards. Whatever you think that means, I do not think you get away with implying without proof that LEOs handle guns more carelessly than everyone else.
Note also, a few of the incidents involved kids grabbing guns out of LEO’s holsters, or kids firing guns while they were in LEO’s holsters, usually without injury. A better illustration would be hard to find of the proposition that gun presence, by itself, creates a significant hazard. A proposal to multiply guns in schools by thousands will multiply that part of the hazard, no matter what kinds of people carry (or misplace) the guns.
More guns in schools will degrade safety, not enhance it. You can rely on the NRA to say otherwise, because the NRA has desperate self-interest to advocate that way. If you put the question instead to the U.S. military—an organization with gigantic gun-management experience, no stake in the outcome of this debate, and a custom to keep guns on military bases under lock and key except when using them supervised—they would tell you the opposite.
More generally, that high-quality list of incidents in schools is excellent evidence to prove that increased gun prevalence is by itself a risk worth regulating.
An obvious explanation is that the time interval 2016–2020 was probably one where guns in schools were not much carried except by LEOs and security guards
Bzzt, wrong. From my link:
Twenty states currently allow at least some teachers and staff to carry, although the rules vary. Utah, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and parts of Oregon allow all permitted teachers and staff
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3377801
to carry, without any additional training requirements (Table 1).16 Other states leave it to the discretion of the superintendent or school board. As of December 2018, 315 Texas school districts have teachers who carry, over 30 percent of all school districts.17 That is up from 217 school districts in June 2018.18 By September 2018, Ohio teachers in 82 or the state’s 88 counties had received training to carry a concealed handgun.19 At the other end, there are states such as Colorado and Florida where in 2018 there were only 30 and 13 school districts respectively that had teachers carrying guns.
Clark Aposhian, the senior member of Utah’s Concealed Firearm Review Board, estimates that roughly 5 percent of teachers in his state carry permitted concealed handguns at school. Support staff — including janitors, librarians, secretaries, and lunch staff — carry at a higher estimated rate of between 10 and 12 percent.20
To finish:
A couple of facts immediately become apparent. There hasn’t been a single mass public shooting in any school that allows teachers and staff to carry guns legally. Since at least as far back as January 2000, not a single shooting-related death or injury has occurred during or anywhere near class hours on the property of a school that allows teachers to carry.
Once again, read the list:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/
1986 USS Forrestal. There was a flight deck fire. An A-6 had an engine throw a turbine blade rupturing a fuel tank, which caught fire. The fire was out in less than 10 minutes and we were recovering aircraft in 50 minutes.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/57234
Sounds impressive to me. But way too long a response to save many lives in a classroom massacre.
Successful stop of a shooter by an armed civilian. Had to go to BBC to find this. Wonder why.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
Obviously disinformation.
I trust the Beeb more than WAPO.
Well, to be fair, the AP did cover this over on this side of the ocean, as my link notes. The AP story is also at the ABC News site; Fox News also has a story.
Did you also happen to read the news story about the elementary school students who were gunned down in school? It was covered by pretty much every news outlet. It seems odd that you would have missed it while reading the news. Although, I read on a pretty reliable source that the real victim in the tragedy is the NRA.
I bet when she tells her kids to sit down in the car, they sit down!
That is funny, of course. Kudos. But of course she is a model. Note the photo attribution to Oleg Volk.
Google Volk and you discover he is an immensely talented commercial photographer, with a speciality in churning out work at the intersection of gun policy and gun porn. Volk’s specialty is to cast romanticized lighting on unlikely scenes staged and posed to make open gun use look everyday, pleasant, and mainstreamed—while casting super-attractive people to play the parts. Which is to say, Volk works like most other commercial photographers, but with a focus on promoting guns. Volokh and Volk are a natural match, and Volokh has used Volk’s work repeatedly.
And in Toronto, Canada last Thursday, someone for reasons unknown pulled a pellet rifle (some of which are treated exactly like firearms under Canadian laws, depending on their power) from his car in the neighborhood of a school.
The Toronto Police shot him dead right there. No negotiating, no barricading, no waiting for a tactical team to dress tactically then drive their tactical team equipped tactical vehicles to the tactical location.
DRT.
Pellet guns are similarly treated here in the US. IIRC, their status as a firearm is based upon FPS.
In the U.S.? No.
Possibly by some state statute, but not by federal law.
Stop Making Sense, You Psycho Killer! (HT Talking Heads)
Oh, and go to the NRA website and look for “The Armed Citizen”. You’ll find many instances of self-defense with a firearm, all taken from news reports across the nation.
At least they have a higher batting average than the Uvalde PD.
As for the question: is it safe to have armed teachers in K-12:
https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/
After the Columbine school shooting 20 years ago, one of the more significant changes in how we protect students has been the advance of legislation that allows teachers to carry guns at schools. There are two obvious questions: Does letting teachers carry create dangers? Might they deter attackers? Twenty states currently allow teachers and staff to carry guns to varying degrees on school property, so we don’t need to guess how the policy would work. There has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, between 6 AM and midnight at a school that lets teachers carry guns. Fears of teachers carrying guns in terms of such problems as students obtaining teachers guns have not occurred at all, and there was only one accidental discharge outside of school hours with no one was really harmed.
Link includes links to the paper, and the data.
What are you? Some sort of factist?
I try 🙂
I posted a link to some guys analysis of this from 10 years ago: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/05/28/private-gun-carriers-self-defense-against-public-shooters/?comments=true#comment-9516966
See for yourself. Everything Greg J says is refuted here:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/
Assertions made on the link provided seem also to be disproved.
No, NOTHING Greg says is refuted there.
A couple of facts immediately become apparent. There hasn’t been a single mass public shooting in any school that allows teachers and staff to carry guns legally. Since at least as far back as January 2000, not a single shooting-related death or injury has occurred during or anywhere near class hours on the property of a school that allows teachers to carry.
Your “source” does not provide even a single incident where someone was injured by a teacher legally carrying firearm.
There are two incidents involving teachers where there was any injury:
Blount County District Attorney Pamela Casey said one student was struck by a fragment and checked out by the school nurse.
1: “Checked out by the school nurse. Not “sent to the hospital.” Not anything of a serious nature.
The substitute teacher who had the gun that discharged was not legally carrying
2: Seaside High School | Seaside, California
March 13, 2018 — A teacher unintentionally fired a gun in class. One 17-year-old boy suffered moderate injuries when fragments from the bullet ricocheted off the ceiling and lodged into his neck.
Again, it’s illegal in CA for the teacher to have that gun there
So, there’s not been one single innocent person harmed by a legally carried teacher firearm, according to Stephen’s own source.
So less then 10% of the shootings were stopped by people with guns and the Republicans are going to claim that is the only solution. Republicans are as chicken shut cowards as the cops who stood by and allowed children to get murdered.
Ask the people saved by an armed citizen how they feel about not being a statistic.
And what about the other 92% who died because Republicans jerk off to guns?
Wow. And I thought that claims that hurricanes were caused by gays were far-fetched.
Seriously? Where is Chuckie Cheese Schumer’s gun control bill?
Oh wait he knows he won’t even get all 50 Dems to vote for what he wants so it’s break time again and he’ll leave it to the voters in November.
I put the blame on the 50 Republicans who won’t even consider any gun control measures.
Then call them out and put forward a bill.
They will consider gun legislation, just not the type that you want. Likely get >50 votes in the Senate right now for mandatory concealed carry reciprocity. You assume that everyone wants what you probably consider commemoration sense gun control legislation. But those 50 Republican Senators represent their constituencies, who know that that is all BS. Very few people die every year from AR-15s or actually any long guns. Even 8n years like this with a mass school shooting using an AR-15. Most firearms deaths utilize handguns, because they are far more concealable (and in the case of suicide, the logistics are much easier).
What are you proposing in your “common sense” gun control legislation? Banning “assault weapons”? Almost never used to Kill people in this country. Tighten up background checks? This guy passed a background check, and shouldn’t have. The bureaucracy screwed up, and didn’t flag his name. This is what almost always happens with school shootings Ike this – the authorities knew the perp was dangerous – they just never did anything about it. How precisely do your proposed laws supposed to fix bureaucratic failure?
Hayden — If AR-15s are such a small part of the problem, what is your objection to controlling them and making that small part better? I am disinclined to take seriously gun control advocates who say these controls won’t work, and I won’t endorse any controls which will work.
anti-gun-control advocates who say
See my comment below where some guy showed wht the stats are so skewed: the average number of deaths when civilians stop shooters are below the FBI and Mother Jones cutoff of 4 victims. One begins to suspect a bootleggers and Baptist situation, where neither one wants to admit that armed civilians make for a safer country.
Without a doubt armed citizens make for a much more dangerous country. This has been well established by looking at gun violence in peer counties.
Hey turdface stop slinging shit.
If gun violence in half a dozen turdface dem controlled cities are removed from US stats the US compares well with other cities.
One solution is no minorities between 15-55 should be allowed to own any type of guns; that would lower the gun violence numbers faster than anything. If the dems proposed a bill doing that I would bet dollars to donuts the pubs would support it.
BS
So less then 10% of the shootings were stopped by people with guns and the Republicans are going to claim that is the only solution
What’s your “solution” MollyGodiva, gun prohibition?
After all, it worked so well with alcohol!
And we all know that it worked with pot, and is working with meth, cocaine, etc.
What’s that? People can pretty much get any drugs they want in the US?
But gee, I’m SURE that no one would smuggle in guns illegally, or make them illegally, or sell them illegally.
And I know no cop would EVER sell Department weapons on the side.
Is the sarcasm coming through here?
There are over 500 millino firearms in private hands in the US.
If you think you can get them OUT of our hands with anything less than a Civil War, you’re insane.
If you think your side would actually WIN that Civil War, you’re insane.
If you think the death toll from that war would be less than 10+ years worth of “gun deaths”, you’re insane
So, your options are:
1: Make sure as many law abiding citizens are armed as often as possible, so that anyone trying to shoot up the public gets quickly killed
2: Fight against universal carry, and get more people killed while the police sit around with their thumbs up their backsides
There are no other options. Because we’re not going to let you disarm us
You’re trying to be serious but your choice of photo says otherwise. Why not have her wear a bikini?
Another example of frat house style juvenility in a (virtually) all-male blog.
A woman in a tank top! I will send for your feinting couch immediately, sir!
White, male, right-wing.
With predictable consequences.
Hi, Rev. STFU you hypocrite until you resign your inequitable job.
Not much of a frat house if you think that picture does anything for most guys.
Bikini would be great, stradling a cannon.
Doubly bizarre considering it wasn’t even the woman in question.
Seriously, why do you guys see all women as sex objects? It’s just a person holding a pistol.
Gaslight, obstruct, project.
You’re literally claiming blog posts shouldn’t show pictures of women. Perhaps you would be happier joining the Taliban.
That’s not “literally” what I’m saying.
If the image were at least of the woman who shot the attacker described in the OP, it would at least make sense. But apparently Eugene’s most salient takeaway from the story was “woman with a gun,” so he grabbed some random image to illustrate a post where no illustration was necessary.
It’s no secret that the vast majority of you goobers are overweight white men of advanced age. So the point of the appeal seems apparent.
Why can’t autistic right-wingers have a little fun, too?
SimonP — That is not a random image. It is an Oleg Volk image. Which is to say it is the work of an extremely talented commercial photographer, working with a posed model, to equip pro-gun advocates with marketing materials based on idealized situations. It deserves as much respect as any corporate image showing an upper management conclave, with a surprisingly young, surprisingly fit, surprisingly attractive, perfectly racially diverse cast of executives working together in a tidy, non-specific office setting, with you the viewer as the tacit focus of their attention.
Never mind all that, tell me about the blood libel!
Why? You wouldn’t listen to anything pro-gun.
There was a cop who engaged the shooter at Dayton within 32 seconds….nine people still died. Unless a “good guy with a gun” was hiding in the closet in the shooter’s hotel room at Las Vegas, a good guy with a gun wasn’t going to intervene to save people in time.
So if “gun owners stop other gun owners” is the justification for an even more armed society…then it has an acceptable fail rate baked in because more people with more guns simply can’t stop some shooters before they do massive amounts of harm. A Vegas or Dayton is the cost of this philosophy.
A safer society is the benefit of this society.
Except it’s not. You’re still letting people kill over ten people at once with ease.
Since you cannot identify ANY strategy that *prevents* individuals killing other individuals by firearm, it’s hard to see how failing to agree to laws that in practice only restrict multitudes of the law-abiding (but not the criminals) constitutes “letting people kill people”.
If you don’t like guns, stay away from them. But don’t presume to know what is in my best interests. We have armed guards at the symphony and ballet. But not in our schools. Talk about nonsensical priorities. See any deranged shooters in police stations? Let me know when you find a criminal willing to comply with your gun control laws. None of my couple hundred clients over a 40-plus year legal career did. Personal Protection Device—Never Leave Home Wthout It.
“If you don’t like guns, stay away from them.”
That’s not a choice for shooting victims, dude.
“See any deranged shooters in police stations?”
https://www.fox6now.com/news/milwaukee-police-station-shooting-gunman-hospitalized.amp
https://www.nbc12.com/2022/01/17/man-killed-police-station-parking-lot-shooting-identified/?outputType=amp
“ Let me know when you find a criminal willing to comply with your gun control laws.”
A nonsense sentence that is basically saying: why even have laws if people break them. It’s also extremely silly coming from conservatives who recognize that burdens on access works and that’s why they try to ban abortion!
“None of my couple hundred clients over a 40-plus year legal career did.”
You only represented 5 clients a year?
“You only represented 5 clients a year?”
Umm…you realize it’s pretty common to represent a client over multiple years, right? Often for multiple different items…
25000 military troops to defend 200 acres of the National Capitol
No one disputes that there are individuals lawfully carrying guns who are able to stop crimes, including burglary, assaults and murders. And no one dispute that anyone can find anecdotal evidence to support this observation.
But what anecdotal evidence does not provide is the cost of that type of crime prevention. For example, in how many cases does the lawful shooter injure or kill innocent people by mistake? In how many cases does the lawful gun owner’s carelessness result in children playing with the gun and shooting and killing siblings, their mothers and other grownups?
In other words, this post is largely useless in terms of making the case for expanded gun ownership and lawful public carrying.
Or address situations in which expecting them to be there is ludicrous like Las Vegas or that shooters can kill a lot of people before a thoroughly brave and engaged person with a gun can react in time like Dayton.
Sidney r finkel
May.28.2022 at 6:47 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
“But what anecdotal evidence does not provide is the cost of that type of crime prevention. For example, in how many cases does the lawful shooter injure or kill innocent people by mistake?”
Maybe there would news reports of those type errors by armed citizens
Are there any reports?
What would happen if we looked at cases where police engaged a gunman to figure out the effects on nearby citizens?
What was the cost vs. the value, of the Uvalde School District Police Force last tuesday?
Indeed. And in how many previous instances has the lawful gun carrier used the gun for unlawful purposes? Is there some reason to suppose the laws of good-guy/bad-guy preclude, “good-guy gone-bad helps out,” (fair maiden). Anyone got that all figured into the scoring?
Yes, actually, the “scoring” has been looked at. More than once.
The studies I am aware of found that individuals with a concealed carry permit were far less likely than POLICE to commit any crime (“people with concealed carry licenses are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offences than the general public and 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public.”) Another study found “the four-year violent crime arrest rate of CCW holders is 128 per 100,000 [but] for the general population it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime [than the general public].” The last study my quick google found examined how CCW holders behave when compared to police and concluded that “concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding,” adding, “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.”
Seems like if you aren’t afraid of the police officers randomly shooting you, you should be even less afraid of your good neighbor carrying legally.
susancol — I am familiar with that advocacy. More than 5 years ago I looked into the concealed carry license statistics for Florida and Texas. Suspended permits which should have been there in considerable numbers—for alcohol abuse and domestic violence—were all but completely absent among millions of person-years of licensed concealed carry. That is not credible. Nobody thinks licensed concealed carry utterly cures alcoholism or domestic abuse. Nobody thinks absence of those offenses on an application license assures that behaviors like that will never happen going forward. But no one was getting suspended.
I suggest that claims of impossibly high levels of personal virtue ought to lead to skepticism about the folks making the claims. For more insight into how gun carriers behave see this list:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/
How do you square that catalog of feckless conduct by gun carriers with your supposition of perfect virtue?
Um, it appears that you have a fixed vision that the self-selected (and interested in abiding by the law) population must nonetheless exhibit social pathologies at the same rates as the population at large. Because your anticipated outcome did not occur, you declare that the data are incorrect, defending your hypothesis as somehow being “fact”.
Crying that someone *must have* falsified the data (based on an untested assumption of yours) is the antithesis of actual science.
susancol — You are not thinking clearly. I did not say they would show pathologies at any particular rate. I said that no conceivable true account could show near-zero pathologies in two particular categories.
What do you have to say about the data in my link? They show what a sample of self-selected lawful carriers (and some others) actually did. I presume that you do not say those data are made up, given links to the source for each case, so you can see for yourself. Why would that case-by-case data about actual experience be so at odds with the generalized picture you paint?
Seems odd, to me, that these shootings tend to occur in gun-free zones.
Surprisingly, or not, civilians responding with firearms injure bystanders at a lower rate than cops.
Do the math: cops have a hit rate of roughly 20%. One shot stops are rare, it often takes up to 5 to stop an attacker. So in the instance where you face a solo attacker, how many rounds would be a reasonable amount to have?
My answer is if I could, I’d prefer an infinite magazine. Not sure how anyone could convincingly argue that I’d want fewer rounds available.
Also, I’m not sure how anyone could convince me, or anyone for that matter, that when faced with violent attack they would be better off not having a firearm. Ok, maybe Bruce Lee. You could convince someone like him.
Lawson — your analysis is suspect. First, of course, full use of your hypothetical infinite magazine would of course deliver hypothetical infinite bystander casualties.
Second—and more seriously—what you prefer cannot be the test of policy. Any policy would be illegitimate to deliver what you personally prefer, as opposed to a policy tailored to treat all needs alike, likely on the basis of compromises by all.
Third, your point about being better off during a violent attack begs the question. Given the unlikelihood of violent attacks on most people, useful comparison must instead include all casualties predictable on the basis of elevated gun prevalence your preferred choice inflicts, to encourage the public to go armed against mere contingency, which experience will only very rarely deliver.
I assume your vice is not malice against the public, but merely carelessness to view the question solely on the basis of yourself. In that (with your faulty analysis as mentioned), of course, you represent the style of pro-gun advocacy generally. Thus, the folks around you may not be equipped to supply social cues to help you do better. The mistakes you make likely sound as good to pro-gun advocates around you as they do to you. Finding many in agreement, you mistakenly judge your reasoning sound.
“Can we really effectively stop people who are willing to deliberately plan to violate laws against murder, just by adding more laws against gun possession or carrying?” — other countries have, so clearly yes.
I’d like to see a realistic estimate of how many fatalities there would be if there was an attempt at nationwide gun confiscation.
That analysis should recognize that clingers are blustering but generally inept, all-talk losers who spend their entire lives complying with the preferences of their betters.
This is something rarely brought up, but we have real evidence would occur.
The compliance rate with New York’s assault weapons registration and Canada’s assault weapons turn in strongly suggests any national effort would be a cluster of epic proportions. If you can’t get New Yorkers to comply, good luck with Montana.
The civil disobedience rate would be astronomical, there’s just not enough boots to kick in doors to make enforcement happen. if there was, the number of Waco style shootouts would cause politicians to quickly backtrack.
That is why you wouldn’t kick in doors. Just incentivize the wives and girlfriends to bring in the extra guns while Bigshot is off at the NRA Convention.
Why would you think women are any less supportive? My wife could hit a dime hundreds of yards out. She’s put afew rounds through the AK today. I wouldn’t tangle with her. Just looking up and down my one road this holiday weekend and there are no shortage of women and kids out back shooting. A neighbor trains dogs for law enforcement and private security. He loves when we all shoot. It helps to desensitize the dogs.
Life out in the sticks sounds great, perhaps, until one considers:
What happens to your community as all of the smart, ambitious young people depart at high school graduation, never to return? After a few generations on the wrong side of bright flight, what remains other than a depleted human residue mired in backwardness, economic inadequacy, bigotry, guns, superstition, addiction, disaffectedness, more bigotry, and another generation afflicted by backwater religious schools?
Sure, you can be hauled toward civilization for medical treatment when necessary, and government checks will prop up a desolate community to some degree, but as the American sifting continues the future is unlikely to be kind to our can’t-keep-up southern and rural stretches.
You won’t be able to shoot your way out of that one, clingers.
We went through that long ago when steel collapsed. Those days are long gone. Those of us who remained have built or rebuilt decent quiet lives. We are left alone and keep to ourselves for the most part. The township does very little and we like it that way. People get all weird because we are all on well and septic but it keeps high intensity development away. Last thing we want are HOA hells moving in with the controlling Karen’s that come along. I like our wildlife too much, even the occasional bear.
I live 10 miles from several Level 1 trauma centers. How many miles on the pickup for you to get to anything close to a high-quality trauma center? How far for more than a bandage and a shot for pain?
I can drive within 15 minutes to best-in-the-world cancer, heart, pediatric, and other specialty treatment centers.
I live 20 minutes from first-rate universities. How far for you to get to anything within the top 100?
I live 15 minutes from plenty of employers who pay six- to seven-figure salaries to hundreds or thousands of employees. How far must people in your neighborhood travel to find jobs like that (if they could qualify for them)?
The residents of your community depend on those in my neighborhood for high-quality medical, dental, legal, financial, engineering, and other professional assistance. They must rely on people in my neighborhood for any good education they might wish to arrange or high-paying jobs they might wish to have.
I left the backwaters for something better long ago. Most of the smart, ambitious young people in that situation do the same. What’s left is . . . what’s left.
Why would you think women are any less supportive?
Yeah, that’s what Bigshot wonders too, on his way to the NRA convention.
Nice to know you don’t buy into cliches too hard…
Look at the Australian public’s compliance rate with covid restrictions. Now look at America’s.
Tell me again that America can be just like Australia.
You know, Eugene, just the other day I was reading a piece here about the merits of retaining the LSAT as a screening device for law students. And it reminded me of one of my main takeaways from studying for the LSAT, which of course involved reading a lot of passages – many of them paraphrased from news or other media sources – with embedded logical fallacies that test-takers need to be able to identify and explain.
Reading your posts also reminds me a lot of studying for the LSAT.
Here, you’re making a number of self-serving dodges and obfuscations. There’s the notably charitable reading of the FBI stats – 6/50 and 4/61 apparently representing “significant” fractions of events, with scant attention paid to the fact that a “significant” fraction of the cases where armed civilians intervened to stop a shooter were in some sense “unsuccessful.” There’s the strawman you set up for yourself in point [2]. In point [3], you speculate that more permissive gun laws could increase the number of mass shootings where people might be armed and able to act in their self-defense, without also acknowledging that more permissive gun laws could, by the same token, increase the number of mass shootings or their lethality. (Would it be unfair to assume that you feel justified in this omission because you subscribe to the usual and wholly unsubstantiated conservative line about mass shooters being unaffected by gun control laws?)
But there’s a more fundamental problem with this post, and it should be top of mind in light of Uvalde, and it is this: How often, in these mass shootings, were there “good guys” with guns, but who nonetheless failed to use them at all, or got shot themselves for their trouble? I appreciate that the FBI stats may not provide this kind of insight, but it would be an essential question to ask, wouldn’t it? If half of these mass shootings have had armed civilians present, but only a tiny portion of those armed civilians, when push came to shove, actually did anything other than cower and hide, then broader firearm access is not really a viable solution, is it?
That’s what’s so obnoxious about this kind of “good guy with a gun” response to mass shootings. Yes, in principle, one could argue that having a person on site, armed and capable, who can confront an active shooter, could help to save lives. But surviving ordinary, everyday life should not require us (or our teachers, our security guards, even our police officers) to have an abnormal level of fortitude and expertise in firearm use. I should not have to pack heat to go to the grocery store; my safety at the grocery store should not be contingent upon someone fortuitously choosing to be armed at the grocery store; and it should not be a social expectation that someone will step up and put their lives in the direct line of fire in order to keep us all, collectively, safe from the risk of random gun violence. I did not grow up in an American society where any of that was the case, and I do not see any good reason why that’s where our society should now go.
The cheerleaders for more and broader gun ownership, in response to mass shootings, are fucking insane. Is this what it means to “make America great again?” Make our civilized society more like the Wild West again? Are we unable to come up with any solution to gun violence other than more guns?
Finally – I appreciate that mass shootings are not the main, or even a significant, source of gun deaths. But they attract inordinate attention because their spectacular nature has a broad impact on the way we live our lives. We can rationalize and “other” gang violence happening in the “inner city” – we figure that none of that affects us, or is really that great of a risk, as long as we don’t join a criminal gang or go to the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time. Ditto for gun suicides. But every parent of small children in this country likely was thinking of Uvalde when they dropped their kids off for school the next day. Just like 9/11 changed how we fly, mass shootings change how we live our ordinary lives, in ways wildly out of proportion to the actual risk.
Besides which, measures that are designed to reduce the frequency or lethality of mass shootings may also affect those broader gun deaths. So the topics aren’t totally unrelated, either.
Hey Simon.
What we need is more guns and fewer doors. Just ask Ted Cruz, the object of Eugene’s admiration.
An object of such admiration.
John Eastman and that woman in the photograph also seem to qualify.
(More from Mr. Starkey, with Leland, Joe, Russell, Benmont, and Waddy.)
I think Ted’s proposal was fewer entrances, it wouldn’t significantly affect the number of exits.
After all most theatres only have one entrance, but lots of exits, so it isn’t a hard concept to understand.
Sure. I understand that.
Let’s have every kid in the school crowded at the entrance when school starts, or recess ends. That’ll foil the shooter.
Anyway, I wouldn’t refer to him as “Ted.” You’ll give the impression that he’s a friend of yours.
Have you never been to a school?
Every school I attended in the past 50 years – and I moved a lot as a kid, so more than most people – had all students enter the building through the main doors. School bus drop off and parent drop-off both funneled through the main doors.
Sure, kids are packed in there – but rather than a gun, an efficient mass killer would just drive an SUV through the crowd. It worked in Waukesha, and would be even more effective against elementary school students.
What does that matter when a teacher (as in Uvalde) propped open a locked door?
It is not possible to have sufficient doors in a large school to accommodate fire safety, and to keep almost all of them locked without guards at every door. Too many people—students, teachers, staff, and parents—lose too much convenience, and will create workarounds.
There are simple, reliable electronic mechanisms to detect when a door is ajar or locked. Lots of alarm systems use them.
How about we just don’t put handles on the outside and have an alarm sound when opened? You know, a Fire Door.
All the shooter has to do is knock on the door. Any kids inside standing close to the door will open it. Curiosity — or the instinct to be helpful — will prevail over safety.
The doors at the local high school open with keycard issued by the school. Limited entrance.
The doors open from the inside with the press of a bar for emergency exit. Unlimited exit.
This was so long before Parkland/Stoneman.
Why not refer to him as Ted, I like and admire him. And it was common to refer to his last election opponent by his nickname by admirers and detractors alike, same with Hillary.
What should he refer to him as? Rafael?
But there’s a more fundamental problem with this post, and it should be top of mind in light of Uvalde, and it is this: How often, in these mass shootings, were there “good guys” with guns, but who nonetheless failed to use them at all, or got shot themselves for their trouble?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377801
After the Columbine school shooting 20 years ago, one of the more significant changes in how we protect students has been the advance of legislation that allows teachers to carry guns at schools. There are two obvious questions: Does letting teachers carry create dangers? Might they deter attackers? Twenty states currently allow teachers and staff to carry guns to varying degrees on school property, so we don’t need to guess how the policy would work. There has yet to be a single case of someone being wounded or killed from a shooting, let alone a mass public shooting, between 6 AM and midnight at a school that lets teachers carry guns. Fears of teachers carrying guns in terms of such problems as students obtaining teachers guns have not occurred at all, and there was only one accidental discharge outside of school hours with no one was really harmed. While there have not been any problems at schools with armed teachers, the number of people killed at other schools has increased significantly – doubling between 2001 and 2008 versus 2009 and 2018.
Any other questions, person too stupid to look for an answer before he posts his moronic screed? (This is posted above, too)
Do you know who John Lott is? Is there any reason I should trust his “research” or “analysis.”
This paper has this real humdinger of a lampshade, where he declines to engage in any kind of meaningful statistical analysis because the “trend” is so clear.
This is a work of advocacy, not real research, from an AEI alum, member of the Trump administration, and “stop the steal”-er. No thanks.
Do you know who John Lott is? Is there any reason I should trust his “research” or “analysis.”
The Data is all publicly available. If he played games with it, it should be trivially easy for you to find an article showing that.
Stephen Lathrop posts above a “counter” from the Gifford’s institute. The problem is that even they can find a single case of a teacher legally carry a gun, and that gun injuring or killing anyone other than a legally targeted attacker.
If Lott made any false claims in there, they’d be trivially easy to disprove. So, disposed them!
Or don’t, because you can’t
Nobody knows who John Lott is. Some folks confuse him with Mary Rosh. Of course, that happens because Lott uses Mary Rosh as a sock puppet.
Because Greg J keeps mischaracterizing the list that I linked to, in ways which would be tedious to explain, see for yourself:
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/
Well, good for her, but let’s be careful about our conclusions.
“Dennis Butler was killed after allegedly shooting at dozens of people attending a graduation party Wednesday …. No injuries were reported from those at the party.”
IOW, had Butler been a better shot, there still would have been deaths, possibly many. Because the guy had an AR-15, after all, and seemed to be able to get off a number of shots.
This is not clear:
Butler was a convicted felon, and was thus not legally allowed to own guns. In principle, perhaps he might still have been stopped by (say) a law requiring background checks, which would likely have stopped law-abiding sellers from selling him the gun;
Was there a background check? If not, why not? Was it a private sale?
but it’s not clear whether someone with his criminal record would have much been stymied by that, as opposed to just buying a gun on the black market.
This is pure conjecture. I think EV is trying to slip one by us here.
If you think that a background check was performed, then you also seem to be assuming that the seller then knowingly committed the crime of selling a gun to a felon, after having just put his name on the background check request. Denied applications are kept permanently, so we’d find out pretty quickly.
Or, like the majority of guns used in crimes, the gun was illegally purchased from a black market seller.
Toranth,
I’m just asking. The OP isn’t at all clear about the background check question. If it was obviously a case of a black market sale then EV might have said so. Instead, he seems to equivocate abut the whole thing.
Can you be sure it wasn’t a sale exempt from background checks? Or maybe the gun was stolen from some “responsible” gun owner.
I think he’s hedging because it wouldn’t be the first time a background check was run but didn’t properly deny someone ineligible to own a firearm. So either there was a background check that improperly passed, or he bought it on the black market.
He also could have stolen it, or bought it in one of those “private sales” that don’t require a background check.
What’s the difference between that and a “black market” sale?
Bernard,
I know this is hard to understand….but people buy guys illegally. A lot of the time. Especially if they are convicted felons, and know they can’t buy one legally….but know lots of criminals.
It’s kinda like how cocaine and meth are illegal without the required permits…yet somehow people still buy them a lot.
That would work if you could be sure that he was entered into the background check database. Several years ago in New Hampshire a guy drove a truck through a group of motorcyclists. During the investigation it was found that his driver’s license should have been suspended from a DUI he had in Mass. When that was looked into it was found that some State employees were stashing records in storage instead of entering them into the databases. This was to ensure that they got their bonuses. When those records were looked into there were many that should have been entered into the firearms database, but, were not.
He’s a tricky fellow….
“I gathered some more examples from over the years here, and then followed up with data based on FBI reports of mass shootings in 2016 and 2017: legal civilian gun carriers tried to intervene in 6 out of 50 incidents, and apparently succeeded in 3 or 4 of them.”
Pretty meaningless unless you know where these occurred.
I may as well post this again….
http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/
This guy wondered why both Mother Jones and the FBI set the lower limit at 4 victims, and did some investigating of (my paraphrasing) stranger shootings, where some random nut starts shooting strangers — not kith or kin, not colleagues, fellow students, etc. He found
He attributes this to the common sense idea that civilians are on the scene right then, whereas cops have to be called and dispatched, then drive over, assess the situation, organize themselves, etc.
The solution is obvious: get rid of gun-free school zones, and allow staff to carry, whether open, concealed, or in a locked desk. School mass shootings will stop so fast, everyone will wonder what the fuss was.
Forget the locked desk. Keep the weapon on the person at all times. Odds are that the first person shot is going to be any adult in the room. That weapon doesn’t do any good if the teacher is in the front of the class and their desk is at the back of the classroom. They also might not have enough time to unlock the desk.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at how many people advocate an authoritarian solution to gun violence. Ignoring the civil rights of millions of law abiding gun owners is unlikely to provide an end to gun violence or reduce violence overall. First of all mass shootings are a small percentage of homicides overall and addressing that specific problem with a draconian gun confiscation may and probably would increase homicides overall.
Rifles of any kind were responsible for 455 out over 17,000 homicides every year, so a complete ban semiautomatic rifles would account for only 3% of homicides, but there is no reason to think the killers wouldn’t arm themselves with handguns which are already responsible for 20 times as many murders as rifles.
Then would come a ban on semi-auto handguns, which would only leave most guns in the hands of criminals, and experience in Chicago, Baltimore, DC, has shown that near total handgun bans have no effect on reducing gun violence, in fact they make it worse by disarming just the law abiding.
Still, the aggregate pattern seems to be that armed civilian self-defense takes place in a significant fraction of active shooter incidents.
You know what takes place in 100% of active shooter incidents? A good guy with a gun, or a previously-good guy with a gun, starts shooting at people. The would-be defenders could score 70%, or 90%. That would still hand society a big net loss for the arm-everybody notion.
An invented good/bad dichotomy, attributed to people as an abiding aspect of character, is a romantic literary notion, without basis in reality. Gun advocates struggle to rationalize an emotional impulse toward grandiosity. Then they use the reason they invent to justify creating peril in the first place.
Among the people who have put my life in jeopardy with guns, at least 3 had not the slightest intent to shoot me unjustly, but each entertained at least for a moment or two a notion they could have shot me justly. Had they pulled the trigger during one of those moments, would that have made them good people, bad people, or mistaken people? Whatever the answer, what would it have meant for me, or for anyone else except the shooter?
Well I could have chosen to shoot my ex wife when I caught her in bed with my ex best friend, it was within reach. As a sane person I chose not to as the vast majority of people do. I could have just as easily grabbed a baseball bat and beaten them to death and got off with a light sentence. Just because some people are less in control than others is not justification to restrain everyone.
I am sorry to hear that happened to you.
Appreciate it but it was really the best thing that ever happened to me. I met the best woman in the world. We are inseparable. I definitely married up. Sitting out in the garden today listening to classic jazz smoking Arturo Fuente Opus X, sipping on Lagavulin 16. Might cut a sugarcane, pick a fresh lime and make mojitos. Don’t ask how we grow them in PA. Life is good when you have your soul mate.
I mail them a thank you card every year on the anniversary.
You know what takes place in 100% of active shooter incidents? A good guy with a gun, or a previously-good guy with a gun, starts shooting at people.
Well, thank you for establishing that you’re either entirely delusional, or entirely dishonest.
The vast majority of American shootings, and shooting deaths, come from people with criminal records, using guns they obtained illegally.
“previously-good guy”? What, when he was 2 days old?
Does it embarrass you to make such pathetically stupid arguments? Does it embarrass the rest of you to know that the only way you side can be defended is with pathetically stupid arguments?
Just some random thoughts.
The bozo who shot up Las Vegas spent really big bucks buying guns, ammo, bump stocks, and was able to parlay his Vegas history into getting an ideal perch to shoot down on a very target rich crowd. A lot of money and planning went into setting up the best possible situation to maximize the body count.
But one of my standard rants is even with all his money and planning the Las Vegas bozo did a poor job. Given the location it would have been easy to spend less money getting full auto weapons that would not jam as frequently as his off the shelf ARs with bump stocks did. Some type of .50 snipper rifle with tracer rounds would have been in easy range of the gas tanks at the airport which could have caused a massive fire making things even worse. Even some RPGs with cluster rounds would have greatly increased the body count while the fire raged out of control in the early stages of the attack. Truth be told I am an old time 11B40 and suspect these Vietnam Era weapons and tactics are really out of date and more modern weapons and tactics are easy to come up with.
Lucky for us most mass shooters don’t really have the big bucks the LV guy did but they do suffer from the same poor planning skills. Unlucky for us they don’t really need a lot of money or planning to do damage.
To me the real question is not the lack of resources the bad guys have but the even greater lack of resources the good guys often seem to have. But at this point I have to mention something a few posts touched on before, pure luck. In the recent Texas shooting someone (suspected teacher) left a door that was suppose to be locked propped open; blind luck for the shooter and a bad move by someone in the school. I do have to point out it is possible to have electronic monitors to alert peeps when a door that is suppose to be closed is open, kinda like what happens when I leave the trunk of my car not completely closed and there is a light on the dash that blinks and an annoying beep.
While I try to keep up to date on shootings the Texas mess was not the result of a single thing. First the kid was a bozo who seemed to get into too many arguments. The one with has Grandmother kinda started the incident and shooting her was not cool; not to mention stealing a truck he could not drive, crashing it into a culvert, exiting but leaving one long gun and ammo on the ground, (not completely sure about this but getting into a fire fight outside a school seems to be silly). I am still not clear if there really was a plan to shoot up the school (I know about the internet stuff about it) or he crashed the truck and wound up at a school and ran into a door he was lucky to find open and the wheels came off from there.
The point is the Texas shooting had so many crazy things that happened I have to wonder about any plan beforehand. Hard to understand how crashing the truck or leaving long gun and ammo on the ground was part of any plan. Even harder to understand how anything could have stopped it from happening in some form.
Ragebot, want to get into almost any school, after normal school hours? Enter from the athletic fields through the locker rooms. School bus drivers who deliver teams for games learned that, because once they started locking schools down after hours, the drivers still had to find a place to pee. That means that if someone like a guard, or a janitor challenges you, you just say you are the bus driver who brought the team, and ask where the urinals are. They are used to that.
If it is cold outside, you could ask if there is somewhere you could sit down inside to read a book, until it is time to drive the team home.
Or, often, there is a teacher parking lot somewhere toward the back of the school. Teachers who need stuff from their cars do not want to go out the front, and walk all the way around, both ways. So the back door closest to the parking lot is often open, or informally propped. Either way, whoever monitors door security expects it.
Big schools leak like sieves, partly because almost everyone in the building wants it that way. Fear of the unlikely mass shooter is so far off the radar that it does not register, unless some official outside the school shows up in a rage to enforce it.
Maybe more to your point, which is a good one about happenstance, if there is no way to plan sensible security in advance, that becomes boldface for the need to reduce the lethal efficiency of weapons available to would-be shooters.
Just as an aside I am a somewhat serious astronomer who has spent a couple of thousand dollars on telescopes and filters to view the nearest star to earth, the sun. I am also a dues paying member of the Tallahassee Astronomical Society. TAS ran an auction where the highest bidding school won a presentation on solar observation (which I was not aware of) and I got stuck doing the presentation. Not a big shock that the school that won was in the upper crust area of Tallahassee. Driving up to the school I was reminded of a comment I saw about modern architecture saying with many buildings now it is hard to tell if they are a minimum security prison or a junior high school.
In any case it took me at least 45 minutes to drive from the main entrance to the school to the main office where I was required to show a driver’s license which was used to enter my information into the computer and run a security check on me. After everything checked out I was given a large tag (kinda like what you get at a convention saying “high, my name is Fred” I was required to wear at all times on school grounds.
To me this is the classic example of making honest peeps jump through hoops while as you point out there probably is some type of way to subvert the jumping through hoops. As the old ditty goes if guns are outlawed only outlaws would have guns.
ragebot — I envy you your astronomy location. The beach at St. George Island afforded me a superb view of the Sombrero Galaxy, and the only view I ever had of Omega Centauri. In eastern Massachusetts, we only have to find a somewhat secluded beach to get a partial view of the milky way, but we must drive for at least a long day to do better—or freeze in Maine.
I got interested in astronomy 40 years ago, when I lived at 6,000 feet in central Idaho, and on many nights could spot two moons of Jupiter with my bare eyeball. Forest fires and population explosion compromise those Idaho views now.
Don’t you justify gun control laws by stating that we should not reject a law because there are ways around it?
My advocacy is strongly on the side of gun control laws which cannot be easily evaded.
A very insightful comment. It took me long enough, I had to read all the way to the end, but I finally found a comment that was interesting and not just a repetition. Well done!
Why didn’t Professor Volokh include this private gun carrier in his count? It happened in Houston earlier this year, so must have been discussed at NRA Convention this weekend, right?
This is the predictable, inevitable—acceptable?—collateral damage of a society that has decided to equate people carrying a firearm everywhere, to freedom. So, some percentage of heated arguments—significantly more than would happen without concealed-carry and stand-your-ground laws—will end in gunfire.
After all, The roots of the Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of nine-year-old girls.
So is your argument that police shouldn’t be armed, either? It’s not like police always shoot the right people. There was the 14yo girl shot in a dressing room earlier this year, or Philando Castille, or Justine Ruszczyk Damond.
Heck, wasn’t there, in the not too distant past, an off-duty federal officer who tried to shoot a man because of a dispute, but his gun jammed? I seem to recall a QI case about that.
Oh, and the difference here is that those private citizens will almost certainly receive severe consequences for their actions, but police officers rarely do.
No, my argument is America’s gun culture promotes, if nothing else, far more instances of potential gun-as-a-social-interaction use than in our worldwide peer societies.
The issue is related to former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s social theory of Defining Deviancy Down. That is, general acceptance of unfavorable influences in society inevitably results in a general coarsening of that society. Another name is the ‘social contagion’ effect.
This coarsening is exhibited through an impact on the social contract—that set of mostly unwritten rules and norms people display in their common interactions with others.
When enough people, through social contagion, decide that it is necessary to always carry a firearm in public (against the evidence that for nearly all people, personal safety in public today is less at risk than it has been in all of U.S. history), society has been coarsened. That is, societal trust is lessened, paranoia is increased.
The expectation of gun violence combined with the presence of more guns in more places, predictably increases gun violence.
And no, for nearly everyone, we are not safer for it.
(against the evidence that for nearly all people, personal safety in public today is less at risk than it has been in all of U.S. history)
I wonder if you can figure out how you’re contradicting yourself here.
I wonder if you can figure out there’s no contradiction, unless the particular social contagion of “…it is necessary to always carry a firearm in public” has already reached its peak.
Still in its early stages, it hasn’t. Only when when the feedback loop closes and changes the vicious circle of…
“The expectation of gun violence combined with the presence of more guns in more places, predictably increases gun violence”
…to a vicious spiral, will it no longer be true that for nearly all people, personal safety in public today is less at risk than it has been in all of U.S. history.
That’s despite the best efforts of the NRA and certain fearful, emotionally obsessive gun enthusiasts who want it to be true, because it would give them an excuse to do something they’ve always wanted to do anyway.
It’s ironic you mention 9 year old girls, as the kidnapping of a 9 year old girl was the inciting incident in the movie RRR, that culminated in guns being distributed en mass to Indians to resist their opppressors who did the kidnapping, and who had made it illegal for them to have guns. A fictionalized story of a real period of oppression in history.
That tree of liberty you mock, is not fictional.
No, it’s metaphorical. Your point?
“This is the predictable, inevitable—acceptable?—collateral damage of a society that has decided to equate people carrying a firearm everywhere, to freedom”
The predictable, inevitable—acceptable?—collateral damage of a society where people are NOT armed is more robberies, rapes, and murders. You seem to ahve no problem with that, which marks you as a really sick and evil human being.
Welcome to the real world: Every single policy is carried out by flawed human beings, which means that every single policy will carry costs.
To attack a policy because is has costs is to show yourself as an utterly dishonest creature.
What a worthwhile human being does is weigh the costs of the different choices. You refuse to do that, because any honest weighing would show your policies to be the worst ones
So, your final defense, is, Is Not! Is Not! And if you won’t take my word for that, you’re a “really sick and evil human being” [and an] “utterly dishonest creature!”
Your contention seems to be that all of our global peer societies without our level of guns in circulation, have substantially higher levels of robberies, rapes and murders…and that proves your thesis that it’s because they’ve made the choice to not have enough of their people always armed?
No, I don’t take your word on that. Our peer societies’ levels of mental health issues, alienated teen-age boys, social media access, violent video games, bullying, and crime differ greatly neither from us nor among each other.
But we are outliers in two things: number of guns in circulation, and gun violence. There is a reason for this, as much as you try to drive every thought of it from your brain.
But I don’t think that makes you “…a really sick and evil human being,” and you’re probably not lying, because you likely do believe what you say. No, you’re just sadly confused by confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, and a world that’s beyond your understanding.
Gee Zeus, they go on don’t they. It is better to have a tool at hand and not need it than to need it urgently and not have it.
I am a Septuagenarian grandfather everyday armed since 1996 with no issue. Is today the day? Church, concert, auction supporting the concert, …
Septuagenarian Grandfather you say? Earlier this month, in my local paper:
So, “Is today the day? Church, concert…” grocery shopping?
Can we please now have a discussion about whether this shooter was on any psychoactive drugs or medications? What was his family situation? Was there a father at home? What other social institutions had already interacted with this child?
They seem to be at least relevant questions. I don’t know why the only thing we ever talk about is guns guns guns.
So, we outlaw guns except for law enforcement. Then what? The only people armed will be the cops and the criminals. Law enforcement will be out-numbered and out-gunned. The only person in your neighborhood with a gun will be the criminal. Now, he is in control of your community. He can take what property he wants and you can’t stop him. He can rape, pillage, and murder at a whim. What are you going to do? Call the cops? They are busy trying to protect themselves and the politicians. They aren’t going to have time for you.
Since most people are not now armed, and have no interest in becoming armed, we have a long-standing experiment to test your thesis. How’s it working out?
Since most people are not now armed, and have no interest in becoming armed, we have a long-standing experiment to test your thesis.
It’s not necessary for “most people” to be armed for a deterrent effect, or for an effective armed resistance against a shooter in a public space. All that’s needed is “some” people to be armed, and for the bad guys to not know who is and who isn’t.
How many do you need to count as “some”?
“Since most people are not now armed, and have no interest in becoming armed, we have a long-standing experiment to test your thesis. How’s it working out?”
1: Somewhere between 30% and 50% of American households are armed
2: This means that on any given street with 10+ residences, you have a near 100% chance that at least one of the residences contains armed people
The experimental results are in, BTW: In the US most home burglaries are when there’s no-one there, because the criminals are afraid of running in to armed homeowners.
In the UK, there’s a much higher percentage of “occupied home” burglaries, because the criminals expect that they’re bigger, strong, and better at fighting than the people at home, so aren’t afraid to run in to them
Look at the restrictions on firearms in Europe and then remember the unarmed French cop who was blown away by a fully automatic AK during the Charlie Hebdo incident. Those shooters also had grenades.
Can we really effectively stop people who are willing to deliberately plan to violate laws against murder, just by adding more laws against gun possession or carrying?
You’re half way there to the correct question. You should be asking, how do we prevent these people from thinking they need to comit murder in the first place.
Start with reducing school bullying. That’s the biggest cause. Then work on mental health. Both are related.
And can we really expect ordinary citizens to stop would-be murderers?
Why wouldn’t we? Is anyone under the impression that these psychotic scumbags are all Navy Seals or something? While there have been rare instances of well-trained mass killers, the vast majority of been just average dumbasses with no more (or usually less) training in CQB than the average schmoe punching holes in paper at the local firing range.
Yeah. The fact that trained cops felt that a single 18 year old was strategically better than they were is damning.
Seems like West VA. government, and West Virginians have a lot more common sense not to mention legislative judgement than do many others.
When seconds count, the police are only 75 minutes away from deciding whether to help you.
Reminds me of Killeen, TX chiropractor, Susanna Hupp, who left her pistol in the car when she went into Luby’s Cafeteria to dine with her parents. She was afraid she might be prosecuted for having a weapon concealed in her purse. Along came a madman who killed 20+ innocent people, including her mother and father. If she’d had that pistol she could have wasted crazed killer George Hennard and saved precious human lives.
In principle, perhaps he might still have been stopped by (say) a law requiring background checks, which would likely have stopped law-abiding sellers from selling him the gun; but it’s not clear whether someone with his criminal record would have much been stymied by that, as opposed to just buying a gun on the black market.
I suppose he could have gone to the store on the corner with the big sign that says “Black Market Guns”, but maybe it wouldn’t be as easy as finding a store that sells them legally and does background checks.
Um, it’s my general understanding that high school kids have absolutely NO problem finding people willing to sell them illegal drugs.
So, do explain why it would be more difficult from them to find someone willing to sell them illegal guns?
I’ll wait, because this should be amusing
Um, it’s my general understanding that high school kids have absolutely NO problem finding people willing to sell them illegal drugs.
That’s the problem with your thinking. It is your “general understanding”, but is it true? And to whatever extent it might not be a “problem” for a high school kid to score some weed, what about heroin or crystal meth?
Do you have any knowledge of where to get illegal drugs? Or illegal guns? I don’t. I would think that ATF agents would be looking online in the same places I might try and search for that information, so I doubt it would be easy to Google.
I am arguing against the talking point that suggests that every person that would be barred from getting a gun legally would, in fact, find a way to get one anyway. You would think that at least in some cases, obstacles and deterrent would work and keep that person from getting a gun.
Well, except that the sheer number of guns that exist in private hands in the U.S. means that it seems inevitable for more guns to be in the hands of people willing to sell them illegally. That kind of undercuts the argument to make it easy to get guns, don’t you think?
What happens when there’s a bad guy with a gun, ANd a good guy (lady) with one?
Bad guy dies, no one else does:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/kevindowneyjr/2022/05/28/hero-woman-stops-graduation-party-mass-shooting-with-a-gun-n1601763
According to Charleston police, Dennis Butler, 27, was speeding his car through an apartment complex last Wednesday night. People approached him and asked him to stop as there were kids playing nearby. He left and returned shortly thereafter around 10:45 p.m. with an “AR-15 style” rifle and opened up on “dozens” of people celebrating at a graduation party.
A woman at the party with a legally concealed pistol returned fire and ventilated Butler numerous times before he was able to hit a single reveler.
“Instead of running from the threat, she engaged with the threat and saved several lives last night,” said Charleston Police Lieutenant Tony Hazelett, as WOWK reported. “She was lawfully carrying a firearm and stopped a threat. There was a graduation party and a party with kids so obviously someone just graduated high school and we could have had a casualty shooting.”
That is reality: the safest places in America are ones where lots of law abiding citizens are armed.
Lol. You think that image would be currently allowed in schools?
Can’t say I’m surprised at the sudden leftist position that all women may as well be wearing bikinis. Although if you said that about a woman who wore jeans and a tank top to your workplace, you’d get fired. Especially if you sent out that picture, and made the comments about minorities.
Hope you guys enjoy being part of pro-burqa contingent.
I notice you didn’t similarly chide the person who cited giffords research.
SL cites the Gifford research. So, your hypothetical happened in this particular thread.
“Some self awareness and respect for those you’re debating with, please.”
This coming from you, the queen of ad hominem? That’s funny
Here’s the thing, when I decide to respond to one of you bozos posting BS “research”, what I do is a quick search for articles debunking yours. And I find them, and use them.
The data Lott is using is all publicly available. If there’s something wrong (as in “invalid”, not “hurts your feelings”) with his research, which was published in 2019, you should have NO difficulty finding it, and providing a link
So, is the situation that you KNOW your position is BS, so didn’t even bother to look for a counter?
Or did you look and not find anything?
Some incidents that would have become mass shootings, but are quickly stopped, i.e. fewer than 4 deaths, apparently are not counted as stopping a mass shooting, making the statistics look worse.
Too successful. Rats!
Well that’s only common sense. There are far more guns in circulation than cops. If there were no restrictions on where one could carry, the statistical likelihood someone was armed when a crazy person cut loose would be much higher.
So, we know that you believe your position must be total sh!t, since otherwise you wouldn’t engage in the logical fallacy of ad hominem, and instead you’d present data to show they’re wrong.
I’m curious, did you search for any rebuttal, and not find one?
Or are you so convinced that your side is garbage that you didn’t even bother with the search?
It’s not a threat so much as a recognition of reality. Call it an informed prediction.
Once more you attack the messenger and not the message.