The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Good Samaritan With A Gun In Indiana Serves To Refute Four Common Gun Control Myths
On Monday, a good samaritan with a gun averted a catastrophe at an Indiana mall. Douglas Sapirman, a 20-year old man brought more than 100 rounds of ammunition and three rifles: a Sig Sauer M400 rifle he bought in March 2022; an M&P15 rifle that was found in the mall bathroom and bought in March 2021; and a Glock 33 pistol discovered on his body. In the span of a few minutes, Sapirman fired 24 rounds, killed three people, and injured two others.
But Elisjsha Dicken, a 22-year old man, was shopping at the mall with this girlfriend. And he was carrying a concealed pistol. The New York Times describes his heroics:
Chief Jim Ison of the Greenwood Police Department called the bystander's actions "nothing short of heroic," identifying him as Elisjsha Dicken of Seymour, Ind.
He engaged the gunman from quite a distance with a handgun, was very proficient in that, very tactically sound, and, as he moved to close in on the suspect, he was also motioning for people to exit behind him," Chief Ison said at a news conference where he described surveillance video footage of the shooting. . . .
All the victims were shot by Mr. Sapirman, who fired 24 rounds, Chief Ison said. Mr. Dicken fired 10 rounds, killing the gunman as he tried to retreat to a mall bathroom where he had spent an hour apparently preparing for the attack. . . . .
Over the past two years, the relatives told the police, the gunman had frequently practiced shooting at a range in Greenwood, which is roughly 15 miles south of Indianapolis. . . .
When the police arrived, they handcuffed Mr. Dicken and took him to a station for questioning, where security camera footage confirmed his description of the events. Chief Ison said that the police could not determine whether Mr. Dicken had a gun permit, but that he was carrying his Glock 9-millimeter handgun legally under the state's constitutional carry law.
"This young man, Greenwood's good Samaritan, acted within seconds, stopping the shooter and saving countless lives," Mayor Mark Myers said on Monday.
This amazing story is simply one data point, but it serves to refute four myths about gun control.
First, a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Recently, Eugene catalogued other similar instances of defensive gun use.
Second, constitutional carry ensures that good samaritans can carry, even if they do not satisfy onerous carry regimes. I imagine that if this incident happened in New York, the good samaritan would be indicted for illegal possession of a firearm.
Third, a common argument in favor of "high capacity" magazine bans is that defensive gun use never needs more than a few bullets. Here, the good samaritan used ten bullets, and he could have needed even more. In California, for example, magazines are limited to ten rounds. Had the good samaritan needed one more bullet to drop the assailant, he would have been out of luck in California.
Fourth, it is commonly argued that a person armed with a handgun cannot take down a person armed with larger rifles. This incident proves that myth is wrong.
It is difficult to generalize from a single incident, but the situation in Indiana serves to push back against many of the common gun control myths.
Update: I didn't realize that Indiana's constitutional carry went into effect on July 1, 2022. Had this event happened a month earlier, the good samaritan may have been in violation of the state's carry law. The NY Times has some more details:
Mike Wright, manager of the Luca Pizza di Roma in the mall's food court, remembers taking shelter when the firing started and then emerging when it stopped to see the bystander behind a low-slung wall with his handgun trained on the assailant he had shot to death.
"He stood there maybe 25 or 30 feet from the body and held that pistol pointed at him until law enforcement arrived," Mr. Wright remembered on Tuesday. "The good Samaritan guy seemed poised and under control. He appeared to be very disciplined." Jim Ison, the local police chief, went further, saying that his engagement with the gunman, who had killed three people, was "nothing short of heroic."
But along with the horror, drama and acclaim came a roaring and rekindled controversy in a country united in revulsion over its ceaseless plague of gun violence, yet bitterly divided over a loosening of gun restrictions like the Indiana law, passed this year, that allowed the bystander, Elisjsha Dicken, 22, to carry his 9-millimeter handgun in the first place. . . .
Chief Ison said the police found no indication that Mr. Dicken had a permit for the handgun. But the chief said he was carrying it legally under the new law. In a brief interview, Mr. Dicken's lawyer, Guy A. Relford, described his client as an "all-American Indiana boy," and declined to provide any specific information about him or the mall encounter.
Update 2: The Greenwood Police now report that the Good Samaritan acted quickly. In the span of 15 seconds (not 2 minutes), he fired 10 rounds, eight of which hit the assailant. And his first shot hit the assailant from 40 yards!
#BreakingNews Greenwood police revise timeline--now say Armed Citizen Eli Dicken neutralized mall shooter in a mere 15 seconds--not 2 minutes as previously stated.#GreenwoodParkMall @WTHRcom pic.twitter.com/4sV7VA1drp
— annemariewthr (@AnneMarieWTHR) July 19, 2022
That is some top-level accuracy.
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
It is difficult to generalize from a single incident,
But that doesn't stop Josh, who is going to go right ahead.
We can certainly determine Mr. Sapirman prevented this from becoming a much larger mass casualty event. So much for "Gun Free Zones".
". . . prevented this from becoming a much larger mass casualty event."
Oh, then THAT makes everything OK.
Hey everybody! Only three dead instead of 11!!!
How about we try to prevent any mass casualty event.
Got a suggestion that fits within the constitution or are you just going to complain?
In this case the law didn’t prevent the bad event but a bad law could have resulted in it being worse.
Yes, I have suggestions (mandatory training, red flag laws, etc.) but you guys don't give a shit about that.
The burden is on you to show how your policy positions would have prevented this. The ones you cited in your rebuttal here almost certainly wouldn't have. So, please, enlighten us how your policies will prevent all mass casualty events.
"When the police arrived, they handcuffed Mr. Dicken and took him to a station for questioning, where security camera footage confirmed his description of the events. Chief Ison said that the police could not determine whether Mr. Dicken had a gun permit, but that he was carrying his Glock 9-millimeter handgun legally under the state's constitutional carry law."
This subject is covered for an hour in gun safety class. Use your gun you are going to jail, you are going to be sued, and legally involved for years, no matter how justified.
The vile scumbag lawyer profession wants you to call the worthless police, the agents of the worthless prosecutor. This profession must be crushed to save our nation from rampant crime. The scumbags need home visits.
Research about gun safety measures has weak or inconclusive results.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html
Interesting framing.
The gun safety proponents must show how their "policies will prevent all mass casualty events." [emphasis mine.]
However, the guns-for-everyone proponents don't have to similarly prove that "good guys with a gun" similarly "prevent all mass casualty events."
Apedad suggested mandatory training. Clearly, this is a pro-gun position that ensures a "good guy with a gun" is more likely to be useful and less likely to hit bystanders. Luckily, in the OP's anecdotal case, the "good guy with a gun" spent 10 rounds before he stopped the assailant and none of his missed rounds hit bystanders. If he had, Blackman would have likely not bothered to bring this up at all because "good guy with a gun" shooting little old ladies at a mall by accident is a bad look.
Yeah, we don't give a shit about your suggestions as to how to violate a constitutional right. Strange, that.
I'll repeat Bevis' question: Got a suggestion that fits within the constitution?
You hear that, apedad?
Disaffected, bigoted, autistic, right-wing assholes -- the type of misfits who congregate at a white, male, bigot-friendly blog to rail and flail and mutter and sputter as America progresses against their ugly, unpopular, old-timey preferences -- aren't interested in your arguments.
Bitter/Klingers "1" Bad guys "0"
You and Prof. Blackman think alike.
Have you considered applying for a faculty position at a shit-level law school?
Why, are you leaving yours?
Rev. What law school did you attend? Your comments are really good. People should apply to it to learn great legal analysis? Stop being modest. We are impressed by you.
Delicious how youre seething, loser.
You are combining the insult of "bigoted" with "autistic". Can you please be insulting without using a term describing people born with challenging attributes due to no fault of their own? Thank you.
You object to accurate adjectives?
No. It's not accurate. It's a developmental disorder that has nothing to do with your political beliefs, and is not something those who have it were in anyway responsible for. So using it to insult someone is just cruel. And in this case, almost certainly inaccurate.
1. It is accurate. Just ask.
2. It may explain, at least in part, some of the strikingly and consistently antisocial, awkward, disaffected behavior and thinking.
3. Do you similarly object to observations that certain groups of people tend to be incels, loners, misfits, etc.?
You are combining the insult of "bigoted" with "autistic". Can you please be insulting without using a term describing people born with challenging attributes due to no fault of their own? Thank you.
I agree. Queenie is a cruel person mocking handicapped people.
We asked him for a suggestion, which to you somehow means we’re not interested in his arguments. That makes sense to you?
Art, your hatred has broken your brain.
Hatred and envy. Painful to be all grown up and adrift, and realize you have accomplished nothing of value.
Slack-jawed. You forgot slack-jawed, Rev.
Prof. Volokh has expressly censored that term at his blog, at least when used by a non-conservative to describe conservatives.
Which is his right. His playground, his rules. Hypocritical, partisan censors have rights, too.
Rev. Volokh is not censoring posts on Reason. Move on from your long ago trauma and triggers.
You are wrong. Just ask him.
Brett - the better question whether the suggestion will actually work, (irrespective of the constitution)
Then if the answer to that question is yes, then see if it constitutionally valid under 2A.
Unfortunately, the answer to the first question will rarely be yes, therefore no reason to see if the suggestion is valid under 2A since the suggestion proposed by the progressives would not work in the first place.
Indiana has a red flag law, which did nothing to prevent this shooting. Also, I fail to see how requiring the would be mass shooter to take firearms training would prevent him from committing a mass shooting.
"mandatory training"
So the gunman can be better at killing?
Who guys? I don’t own a gun. My thing is that all of our civil rights should be protected and defended.
Should wanting to, say, practice the religion you choose require training?
"Should wanting to, say, practice the religion you choose require training?"
Well, certainly the religion that Rev Arthur espouses will require extensive training. Unfortunately his temple in Georgia was damaged by hoarders and wreckers, then leveled by inbreds, and soon to be replaced by a Dollar General.
"Should wanting to, say, practice the religion you choose require training?"
Yes, you need to be trained not to use taxpayer dollars for religious purposes, as the text of the constitution requires, and SCOTUS used to enforce.
Criminals are criminals by definition because they don't obey laws. How exactly do you propose to ensure enforcement of your new petty bureaucratic laws even while they disobey the old-fashioned laws against murder?
Do you even think, bro? Can yee nae comprehend the paradox?
Looks like the good Samaritan was pretty well trained, even though there is no requirement in Indiana.
Mandatory training? What good would that have done in this case? Improved Sapirman's accuracy so he could have killed even more people more quickly?
Reduced the number of rounds needed to stop Sapirman and reduce the risk of one of those 10 rounds hitting an innocent bystander. An ineffective "good guy with a gun" is just a wildcard playing Rambo at the expense of everyone else. Training would fix that.
You've been watching too many action films. Killing an active shooter while engaging him from a distance with only 10 bullets is remarkable. Not hitting any other bystander in the process even more so.
Trained LEOs hit their targets only 30% of the time, when the target does not fire back. When they do fire back, as in this case, their accuracy is below 20%.
Get yourself educated about guns from knowledgeable sources, not TV.
Yes, I have suggestions (mandatory training, red flag laws, etc.)
It takes a very special brand of stupidity to suggest "solutions" to a problem when at least one of the "solutions" was already in effect and did nothing to stop the problem in question, and the other ("mandatory training") has absolutely nothing to do preventing the problem in question.
It’s not stupidity. He simply doesn’t care that his "solutions" are nonsense.
They just say their lines and congratulate themselves for their emotive performances. Then the show is over.
You’re criticizing it as if it were real thinking instead of a performance.
There are 700 million guns in circulation in the US, not to mention the ease of access to cheap 3d printers. You can't stuff that genie back into the bottle. No law you can conceive of is going to change those facts. The way it is is the way it's going to be for a long, long time because you can't legislate away the numbers and you can't legislate away evil or crazy.
The best we can hope for is there are an increasing number of people such as this who chose to accept the responsibility or arm themselves in public, and have the willingness to confront evil.
Did those stop anyone, ever?
mandatory training, red flag laws, etc.
Can we require the same standards for voting? I would really like to train voters before they voted. Same with red flag laws. Comments on social media arguing against constitutional provisions, should not be allowed to vote.
To add to Untermensch's argument, not only would your policy positions have had very little likelihood of stopping any mass casualty event, they are also typically authoritarian and ripe for abuse. But you don't give a shit about that, facts, individual rights mean nothing compared to your disdain for the out-group.
Got a meritorious defense for the constitutional status quo? (By which I mean only reading the 2d half of the 2d amendment.)
I get that the 2A is an article of conservative faith... but WHY? And what is the cost?
You don't need to remind us that leftists and hoplophobes don't know how to read.
"By which I mean only reading the 2d half of the 2d amendment."
No, I don't. I'm rather pissed off that they're ignoring the preamble, which makes clear that it is, as Miller held, a right to military arms.
No, a right to arms as part of a well-regulated militia. Meaning, military members can take their weapons home.
Also "military arms" is probably a lot broader than just a fully automatic M-16.
The militia is not military.
"I get that the 2A is an article of conservative faith... but WHY?"
You're right man. We should only support those rights that are consistent with our political beliefs. Tolerating the rights of others is so wussified. Especially when it's those yucky people who think differently than me.
Uh... right to privacy? Right to an abortion? Right to marry the single adult of your choice? Right to contraception? Right to have sex with the adult of your choice?
Tell us more about tolerating the rights of others...
Right to privacy from the group that mandates faxes, celebrates the prosecution of Edward Snowden, and cheers on the NDAA and the Patriot Act (when Team Blue is in charge).
"I get that the 2A is an article of conservative faith... but WHY? And what is the cost?"
Just for giggles I'll give you a straight answer.
1) "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Doesn't this imply that good men have an obligation to be capable of doing something?
2) A constitutional right that's both highly explicit AND much disliked by the government serves as an excellent measure of the devotion of that government to the rule of law. If we can't trust you to uphold the 2nd amendment, and at least try to formally repeal it rather than violate it, we know that we can't trust you at all.
3) The purpose of the amendment is so that, in utter extremity, we can overthrow a government turned tyrannical. Why would a government that doesn't mean to be tyrannical object to the people being capable of that? What do they have planned, that they don't dare not disarm us first.
4) Who is the master here, and who is the servant? I think the people are the master, and the government the servant, and the servant can't disarm the master. The government needs to learn its place!
The right so highly explicit that it wasn't even recognized until 2008.
That's a pretty gross misreading of our history. For about 150 years, the right was clearly understood as individual and absolute. In the 1930s (if memory serves), the Supreme Court invented a restriction in Miller that then got wildly misinterpreted by the lower courts over the next 50 years. The Supreme Court finally stepped in in the 2000s to partially correct the lower courts. Yes, there was a period of decades where the individual right was not clearly recognized - but historically, that was the aberration.
As Justice Thomas pointed out in Dobbs, it was certainly recognized in the 1850s. Justice Tanney identified the individual right to 'keep and carry' in Dred Scot. Quit trying to weasel your way to a defense of the indefensible.
It was certainly recognized during the Reconstruction era, when the Radical Republicans in Congress were so outraged by, among other things, the attempt by Southern states to deny it to freedmen that they proposed the 14th amendment.
Because disarmed populations have a bad habit of being victims of genocide.
How about taking advantage of Article V of the Constitution?
Like they did for Roe v. Wade!
Funny how your preferred solution increases the likelihood of there being more casualties. Almost like you want the dead bodies to push your preferred bans.
Well, Illinois, which is a very restricitive state (though not the most), has been trying, and recently failed miserably. That's another inconvenient data point for you.
How about we try to prevent any mass casualty event.
That means stopping the person.
re: "How about we try to prevent any mass casualty event."
Sure. And do you want your free pony to be a unicorn or a pegasus?
Come back when you have a serious proposal about specifically how you will change human nature.
There's more than a single incident. I seem to remember a woman taking out a shooter who was armed with a rifle, in West Virginia a little while back. There have been other examples, but, often you don't hear about them because they don't fit the anti-gun agenda.
The problem is that you can't prove a negative. There's no way to tell how many times someone who was about to do something, changed their minds when they saw that somebody was armed.
One that sticks with me is the woman who's ex-husband started harassing her. She went to the Police and was told that there was nothing they could do. So she went to a lawyer and got a PFA. That turned out to be useless. She finally bought a gun, got training and a permit. She carried the gun on her except when she was at work, then it was locked in the glovebox of her car. One day she was giving a ride to a coworker when the glovebox popped open and the coworker saw the gun. When they got to work the coworker being the good little anti-gun drone, turned her into HR. She was threatened with loss of her job if she brought the gun to work again. Somehow her ex found out that she wasn't carrying the gun any more. One evening he ran her off the road, shot and killed her.
Some years ago, a woman in Colorado (a former, but not current cop), took out a rifle-armed shooter with a handgun.
There was a similar incident at the Clackamas Mall in Oregon in 2012. The killer used an AR-15, took 17 shots, killing 2 and wounding 1, and then ran away when confronted by a citizen with a handgun. In that case the armed citizen did not even take a shot because the line of fire was not clear. Just the presence of armed resistance was enough to stop the shooter.
If you never heard about it, well, reporters don't find similar incidents only because they don't look for them.
This is the West Virginia story you were thinking of:
https://wchstv.com/news/local/victim-hospitalized-in-charleston-shooting
Single instances can certainly serve as "existence proofs", even if they don't provide any basis for statistical generalizations.
Somehow, I don't think existence proofs are what Josh is after.
Rights-hating leftists insist this kind of incident doesn't occur, so they should pay attention to it.
Somehow, I don't think
That's either due to a choice or an inability - or some combination of the two - on your part.
There is no way that blackman and his ilk wouldn't do this, and will forever hold this incident as clear refutation of gun control "myths".
But in blackman's first paragraph, he outlines all of the purchases made by the assassin over the past couple of years, some of which may have be made while he was a teenager.
Gun control may have prevented those purchases, so there would have been even less than the 4 deaths that happened in this incident.
But, now more than ever, that sort of gun control could never happen, and even if it could, the nation is already armed to the teeth.
So, I'm glad that the 22 year old took out the assassin. Given where the country finds itself now in terms of weapon prevalence, arming more "samaritans" may be the best answer to mass shootings. But this requires assuming that the heavily armed nature of the populous is a necessary condition. It is the actual condition, but not a necessary one.
This "samaritan" case may refute some types of gun control given the heavily armed nature of out society, but it does not refute gun control in general. However, it does (sort of) have the same effect, because all of the existing guns aren't going anywhere.
A good day at the mall may now just be four deaths instead of dozens. I suppose we can take this as some sort of victory. But a better state of affairs would be a day at the mall might be for either possibility to be unthinkable.
A lot of background gunplay is our currently reality. Given this reality, some of that gunplay has to be defensive.
So if someone who wanted a firearm to commit mass murder couldn’t get a firearm legally, they’d just give up the idea? Sorta like since it’s almost impossible to legally get a gun in D.C., Chicago, or Baltimore, there are never any firearms homicides there.
Jerry B. — How about if they could not get a firearm they thought suitable for mass murder?
Jerry B. — How about if they could not get a firearm they thought suitable for mass murder?
Your idiocy knows no bounds. Virtually any firearm is "suitable for mass murder". Not only that, there are many other non-firearm items that are well (even better) suited to mass murder and have been used for that very purpose.
"many other non-firearm items that are well (even better) suited to mass murder and have been used for that very purpose"
Gasoline and fertilizer in OK City for instance.
Motor vehicles also
Jet aircraft too of course
And in the case of the Happy Land social club, $1.00 worth (at the time) of gasoline and a match was all it took to murder 87 people.
Even in your most extreme example that is a complete impossibility considering anyone can drop less on a 3d printer than they would for the actual gun and download freely available plans for almost any weapon conceivable. Technology has far outpaced any legislative solution.
Currentsitguy — This I have to see. You say:
1. There is a 3d printer available for less than the price of an AR-style rifle;
2. That plans exist and are generally available to use that printer to make an AR-style rifle;
3. That nothing can be done about that;
4. That the rifle thus made will be a fully functional semi-automatic chambered for 5.56 ammunition;
5. And that the gun will function reliably.
I am guessing you have confirmed none of that personally. Am I right? If not, tell us how many rounds you have put through your AR-style printing masterpiece.
And how are you going to make that impossible? By passing a law making such firearms illegal? And how is that law going to be more effective than, say, the law against possession of opioids (which still kill more people than guns do) without a prescription?
Most firearms used for mass murder are handguns.
When you are refuting absolute arguments (something can "never" happen), then one example is a valid refutation.
Not only will he go right ahead, but this entire comment section is all in! All aboard the Single Incident Proves My Point Train!!! Woo Woooooo!
Here is a list of such incidents. https://crimeresearch.org/2022/07/uber-driver-in-chicago-stops-mass-public-shooting/
Impressive. Dem raises an issue of critical thinking, the Exception Fallacy. A lawyer would never do that. The lawyer is allergic to critical thinking.
Well, it doesn't stop you either - so you have no room to complain.
Who is "Victor Gomez"?
The article says who he is.
Not really.
Came here to ask the same thing.
Gomez was one of the victims. Appears to have been mistakenly substituted for the name of the good Samaritan. Fixed now.
Are you indicating yet another unacknowledged change by one of the Conspirators in a post?
Do right-wingers reject academic integrity and publication standards?
Academic integrity and publication standards are racist.
Here's something else to refute gun control myths, particularly as pertains to mass shootings
https://kfor.com/news/disturbing-video-man-goes-on-killing-spree-with-bow-and-arrow-and-knives/
Norway Man kills 5 injures 11 others with a bow an knives.
The standard that has been used in the US for what is a mass shooting is 4 or more casualties.
Here we have a mass shooting with no gun involved.
A single one. Not one a day, just one ever.
Norway has never had a mass killing before?
Not since the Vikings ruled.
Anders Breyvik begs to differ
Culture is much easier to maintain, in a homogeneous society.
The melting pot, that is the US, is a different creature.
That's McBullshit. What even is your point? We need access to guns because we're a melting pot and want nothing more than to shoot each other? That's way too honest for a right-winger (even if still bullshit).
You have no idea about the cultures across the nation. Rural American has gun concentrations, orders of magnitudes greater than Chicago or Baltimore. Why are shootings few and far between?
It's not the access to guns. Men have walk in gun safes, in their machine sheds, another in the house, They reload their own ammo. 10's of thousands of rounds. Same percentage of teenage boys, but a lot of them learned to handle guns at a young age and get their 1st rifle around 10.
This is not an access to guns problem, its an erosion of society.
A healthy culture as a respect for the sanctity of life, but if we kill babies by the millions, shooting people to vent your angst, is not much of a rationalization.
You make assumptions about rural America that alas, are not true.
In 2019, suicide and homicide were the second and third leading causes, respectively, of death among individuals aged 12 to 26 years in US rural areas. Approximately 84% of homicides and 55% of suicides in this population involve a firearm.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790618
A person w/o a narrative to push would include the same data from urban centers. That person would wonder why the study did not include the leading cause of death for young people in rural areas. A person w/o a narrative might have used a study with a sample size larger than 2002, and from a sociopolitically neutral source. A source not funded by groups w/ 'gun violence' in their name.
iowatwo made an absolute claim: 'shootings [are] few and far between.'
Comparative data would actually not have refuted his point.
Oh ok lol it's just some weird anti-abortion fever dream. So not McBullshit as much as bull honkey.
Weird that you think homogenous cultures don't have abortion but ok! You do you.
One is enough to prove you can have mass shootings even without guns.
Even if you could magically make all the guns in the world disappear, that would solve exactly nothing.
You may want to be careful with those strawmen. In this weather that's a fire risk like no tomorrow.
And you clearly have no idea what a strawman argument is.
The strawman is that anyone thinks murders would go to zero with gun control.
The asinine statement is that if we could make all the guns disappear it would solve nothing. It would solve gun violence. Give me bows and arrows anyday.
“the entirety of law enforcement and its training, preparation, and response shares systemic responsibility for many missed opportunities on that tragic day,”
From the interim report on the Uvalde shooting
https://www.scribd.com/document/583110639/Robb-Elementary-Investigative-Committee-Report#from_embed
To be clear, "kills 5, injures 11" is only about a 50/50 proposition to make my local news if it took place out of state.
In Norway, that was a massive and shocking story.
The whole country of Norway has less people in it than Wyoming, our least populous state. So that does kind of make sense. "In Norway" is about the same as "In Wyoming", and somewhat more local than "In Brooklyn" if you live in NYC.
Not that it matters, but Norway has 10 times as many inhabitants as Wyoming.
Seems Brett lost about 5 million people.
Well, shucks, I missed a decimal place. Alright, "In Norway" is about the same as "In Minnesota". NYC stands.
Notice that the average Chicago weekend doesn't count as a "Mass Shooting", even when well into double digits. If the gangs switch to AR15's, that may change for the media vultures.
Rhetorically, we can declare gun control a failure based on this incident.
It’s as good an argument as gun controllers usually make. If they wanted to be taken seriously, they might try to put more thought into it. Instead they want to put on a performance.
We need common-sense bow-and-arrow control.
Mass arson murders are also common in America.
If people communicating myths don't care about reality, does refuting the myths help at all? The same people who say this never happens will continue saying it.
They get lots of opportunities to observe events and correct their understanding so it matches reality. But reality is never as emotionally satisfying as the stories they tell themselves.
Who says it never happens?
https://giffords.org/blog/2020/10/the-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth/
"they handcuffed Mr. Dicken and took him to a station for questioning"
Did they have probable cause to do this?
"Suspicion of making the Po-Po look bad"
I think they did. He admitted shooting the other person. He was released when the camera footage confirmed his description of the events.
Yeah, but having shot another person isn't probable cause that he committed a *crime*. Can you (or the police) really maintain with a straight face that there was probable cause to believe that he did *not* reasonably believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to avert an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to himself or others?
No, you're confusing the level of cause to suspect somebody enough to take them into custody, with the level that would be sufficient to prosecute him. They certainly had enough cause to hold onto him until they could gather a bit more information.
I mean, it is. (Probable cause is a lax standard.)
How can you maintain that there was probable cause to believe that the civilian who took down an active shooter was *not* exercising self-defense or defense of others (i.e., that he *didn't* commit a crime)?
Do we arrest every cop who takes down an active shooter? Why not? Because we don't have probable cause to believe that his exercise of deadly force was a crime.
Some of the other comments are suggesting that when the cops arrived, they couldn't tell that he had, in fact, taken down the active shooter. OK, then, I'll give you that.
" Did they have probable cause to do this? "
Among Ohio's many faults as it continues to be left behind by America's advanced, successful states is that is seems to license some extremely shitty lawyers.
Sounds like Jerry Sandusky has an Ohio (State) problem
Does Prof. Volokh pay you for each attempt to associate me with Jerry Sandusky?
Is this the real "Reverend" Arthur/Jerry??? you didn't say "Bitter" or "Klinger",
Frank
What does Ohio have to do with an incident that happened in Indiana?
Its a reference to my location.
Apparently bigoted lawyers from Pennsyltucky don't ask questions.
I'm guessing yes, Bob from Ohio = Cops had probable cause
Cops get a report of a shooting; there is a young male on-site with a gun when they arrive. People laying around dead. My thought is, yeah, the young male with gun at the site of a shooting will be detained and questioned (just to rule him out, which the police did in this instance), just as a matter of common sense.
"My thought is, yeah, the young male with gun at the site of a shooting will be detained and questioned (just to rule him out, which the police did in this instance), just as a matter of common sense."
And they ruled him out relatively quickly, with no actual charges being filed against him.
By way of comparison, look what happened to the bodega clerk in NYC who defended himself with a knife.
He was shooting a gun in a mall and they had no idea who he was. Shooting like he did certainly serves as probable cause despite fact that he was protecting others. In the confusion that may not have been clear at first.
Yeah, absolutely had probable cause, until they saw the videos.
At least they didn't cap him on their arrival. Other guys not so lucky:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/26/us/arvada-colorado-police-shot-good-samaritan/index.html
It's kind of important to take the gun and put it down on the ground, and step away from it, once you've taken down the bad guy.
Not sure that's the best idea when there are people presumably still
milling about.
If you wish, hold the gun, get shot by the police.
It's your funeral.
Lots of optimists here—only 3 dead! That’s like a glass half full!
Wait, we're supposed to just skip past how the attacker got his hands on all of this in the first place? You people are deranged.
Umm Living in a free country?????
Well, you want us to just skip past the fact that virtually everybody who "gets their hands on all this" never does anything wrong with it.
If somebody drives a car through a crowd, do you go on a tear about the evils of car dealerships? No, you're not that stupid. Why are you stupid enough to do the same thing here?
The more guns and ammo you have, the more patriotic you are! Don't you know anything? This gunman was one of the most patriotic of all Americans.
What we need are Blue Flag laws so that we know where all the un-Americans live who don't own any guns. That way we can harass them, rob them, and keep them from voting.
Old-timey America was all dueling and gunfights. According to the Supreme Court, we should always revert back to our History and Tradition. Make America Violent Again!
Not a huge proponent of civil rights, are you?
Gun absolutists -- who tend to be gullible, roundly bigoted, poorly educated, antisocial hayseeds -- are among my favorite culture war casualties.
They're even more insufferable than First Amendment absolutists.
Fortunately, the culture war's victors will put them all in their proper places as time continues to sift these points in modern America.
But don’t worry, Rev. None are as insufferable as you.
This blog is an inversion -- the disaffected misfits figure they're the normal ones here, and the mainstreamers like me are the reviled outliers.
Reminds me of a Ron Paul rally I attended a number of years back, which culminated in hundreds of hopeless, marginalized losers chanting 'we WILL win this election' -- and, I sensed, actually believing it.
Did you say "mainstreamer" or "mainliner"?
If you think you are a mainstreamer you must be spending time in Hunter's crack house.
Are you a parody? And do you the Rabbi one, too? Or is one of you trying to parody the other? Even if you're not a parody, I enjoy reading you as a parody, because you're friggin' hilarious.
I wanted to add that you might want to add some new material. You have become rather repetitive.
Wow, your inferiority complex is worse than I thought.
By your own admission, you frequent places and virtual places (like this blog) populated by those you perceive as misfits and inferiors.
You are the inverse of Groucho Marx's famous quip about not joining a club that would have him as a member. You only seem to want to join a club whose members you don't want to join.
Try psychiatric drugs. They work wonders nowadays.
Huge fan of civil rights actually. I just haven't figured out where in the penumbra of the second amendment is the right to armed self-defense. Let alone the right to amass a personal arsenal.
The Supreme Court will in the not-too-distant future realize that Heller was Egregiously Wrong and overturn it. Josh's research is even laying the groundwork.
why else would you be bearing arms?
Militia practice.
well that's my problem, I'm a Conscience Objector.
"I'm a Conscience Objector" who is still trying to learn how to spell conscientious.
Meant it the way I spelled it.
Of course you did.
Basic English grammar isn't your strong suit, is it?
3) Militia Practice: Will take place Saturday July 16 ~ the same day as the potluck ~ at 7 PM, and also Thursday July 28 at 6PM.
If you can’t defend yourself and you can’t buy whatever you want, then exactly does the right mean?
You aren’t a huge fan of civil rights. If you’re only in favor of the rights you like you’re not a civil rights advocate. You’re a hypocrite.
I’m not a gun guy but I still think that those that want guns should have that right protected.
You should be able to own something suitable for a militia. That might even be one AK-47. But it might also be registered to you (the militia is well-regulated after all) and you might be required to keep it locked up when not in use. That, to me, seems like the clear meaning of the text, especially with Josh's research in mind.
"AK-47"
AK-47s are select fire weapons [look up what that means] , hardly anyone owns them because you need a special expensive federal license. Good that you advocate ownership of actual combat weapons.
Combat, not self-defense, seems to be the point of the second amendment, no? I would turn Heller 180 degrees and say no federal license restrictions on AK-47s, but also no combat-worthless handguns and hunting rifles.
Sidearms (particularly handguns) are incredibly common in military contexts. Are the world's militaries so ignorant that they require people to wear useless weapons?
And exactly what do you think distinguishes a hunting rifle from other rifles?
A derringer would be a combat-worthless handgun. A .22 rimfire is arguably a combat-worthless hunting rifle.
At least you're honest that you do not want people to be able to defend themselves.
Defend themselves from tyranny? Yes. Defense against the scary neighborhood black person? No.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=hr3Iruof&id=AB8091368477495DA09F6E897660DC15178C6B1F&thid=OIP.hr3Iruof5WZLLKncMAh1hgHaEK&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fstatic01.nyt.com%2fimages%2f2020%2f06%2f29%2fus%2fpolitics%2f29vid-st-louis%2f29vid-st-louis-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.86bdc8aeea1fe5664b2ca9dc30087586%3frik%3dH2uMFxXcYHaJbg%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1688&expw=3000&q=white+guns+protest&simid=608028676430644303&FORM=IRPRST&ck=C56D7643A18610134DE7BF1B32665CE2&selectedIndex=2&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
Ah, now play the race card. You are aware aren't you that several Black groups spoke in support of Bruen?
You need to deal with the fact that these idiots have become the face of the second amendment in America. And they're clearly in it for the race war.
I assure you I won't discriminate on the bases of race, creed, religious afflation, or sexual identity when I shoot someone who breaks into my home.
Basis. Damn different keyboard.
Gun laws lock up black guys at a disproportionately high rate. Stricter gun laws means more black kids with a dad in jail.
What, is there a huge outbreak of people shooting their black neighbors? Oh, you mean it never happens.
The biggest shooters of black neighbors are young black men shooting blacks in their neighborhoods. For the most part, those guys don’t concern themselves with the legality of the gun they’re carrying.
You’re not a real deep thinker.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-guns-protesters-plead-guilty-2021-06-17/
not sure if anyone's told you, but you're not in charge.
" But it might also be registered to you (the militia is well-regulated after all)"
The militia is well regulated, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
"penumbra of the second amendment is the right to armed self-defense"
Its not a "penumbra" but right there, "keep and bear arms".
"personal arsenal"
2 rifles and a handgun isn't much of an arsenal.
I realize scary looking guns frighten you but 95%+ of all guns are never used to hurt people.
To "bear arms" didn't include self-defense at the time of the founding. That's the thrust of Josh and others' originalist research that casts doubt (to say the least) on Heller's historical foundations.
Bearing arms always included self defense.
No, actually it did include self defense. They established that while the military meaning was dominant, it was by no means exclusive.
That's like saying a "soldier" includes anyone acting in self-defense, because although the military meaning is dominant, it's by no means exclusive. You can have toy soldiers, foot soldiers for Christ, and spined soldier bugs, so therefore "soldier" can take any meaning that future generations desire.
Get a really potent batch of weed or are you off your meds?
I'm just not into Living Constitutionalism the way that Brett is.
"To "bear arms" didn't include self-defense at the time of the founding. "
That statement is patently absurd.
https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2086&context=hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly
My examination of two corpora of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English and American texts that only recently came online shows that the plain, ordinary, natural, and original meaning of bear arms in the eighteenth century was ‘carrying weapons in war,’ or in other forms of group offense, defense, or rebellion. Non-military uses of bear arms in reference to hunting or personal self-defense are not just rare, they are almost nonexistent.
News Flash!
The SC took a look at this and called bullshit on that argument.
What about the natural right of self-defense, acknowledged in the many English precedents cited in Heller? And its implicit incorporation in the 9th Amendment?
The issues presented to SCOTUS by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen all involved the 2nd Amendment and thus required attention to it only. I am not aware of them being compelled to consider the 9th Amendment - though the natural right was certainly considered in those opinions.
It boggles the mind to think that, in 1789, the people were expected to refrain from use of their firearms except when in militia service, when Indians, bears, and other vicious threats (including criminals) abounded.
The SC took a look at this and called bullshit on that argument.
Oh? When did that happen? Bruen didn't take up this argument, it just referred to Heller. And Heller predates this research.
It won't be long before a future court finds Heller and all that came after to be Egregiously Wrong.
Randal- See VC blog above about lies. And, read the decision.
I've read it. Have you? Point me to where it "took a look at this and called bullshit."
You lose. In Heller, the Supreme Court accepted the history provided them by Eugene Volokh, David Koppel, etc. And they did show the obvious, that self defense was historically part of the right to keep and bear arms. Let me also note that the same founding fathers who drafted the Declaration of Independence, with its right to “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” were involved in passing the Bill of Rights (and became our 1st 3 Presidents). You can pretend all that you want that the right of self defense is somehow new found, but that was a long established extremely fundamental historical right was key to the Decision by the Supreme Court in Heller.
Heller relied on flawed history. If you say you're going to rely on history, and then it turns out that the history you relied on was wrong, well... goodbye precedent.
This is one of many reasons that the new "History and Tradition" framework for Constitutional interpretation is doomed. The Justices might as well sit around and do Tarot readings to decide cases.
Anyway, as I said before, I agree with a right to self-defense sourced from English common law. I just don't think the right springs forth from the second amendment.
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.
Where in the First Amendment's penumbras is the right to post stupid comments on the Internet?
I just haven't figured out where in the penumbra of the second amendment is the right to armed self-defense.
Then you're one of the dumbest SOBs on the planet.
Ill try to explain it to you Randal, the 2nd amendment is a preexisting right that is protected from infringement in the constitution. The English Declaration of Right specifically stated "the Subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and as allowed by law." So "defence" is clearly part that right, although of course the English right was held against the King, not Parliament, but the 2nd amendment is held against Congress and the entire government.
That wasn't something Scalia just made up in Heller and Stevens concedes in his dissent that the Declaration of Right was pre-existing, but he quibbles "This grant does not establish a general right of all persons, or even all Protestants, to possess weapons." But of course the 1st amendment already granted religious freedom, the 2nd hardly was intended to re-impose it, and the "suitable to their condition" restriction was surely removed by the 14th amendment, just like any restrictions on voting by non property owners.
You're assuming that "for their defence" should be read as "for their self- defence". The more natural reading is as common "defence" against invaders, marauders, etc.
For the record, I buy that there's an implicit, unenumerated right to self-defense protected by the constitution. But I don't think it "emanates" from the second amendment, and so I don't think that it necessarily connects to the right to bear arms. Certainly it might make good policy, but armed self-defense is not a Constitutional guarantee.
If somebody wanted to limit the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms, they could have written that restriction in -- like they did in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments. They didn't.
This is a sort of silly statement. Everyone agrees the second amendment is limited. The debate is just about what those limits are.
It's about 8% as silly as you.
What is?
You're assuming that "for their defence" should be read as "for their self- defence". The more natural reading is as common "defence" against invaders, marauders, etc.
To assert that "common defence" is more naturally implied by "their defence" than is "self defence" when referring to the rights of a subgroup of the citizenry requires either some pretty tortured reasoning or an unfamiliarity with the language...or both.
You must be quite dense to have written that sentence. The "rights of a subgroup" -- i.e. a collective -- referred to as "their defence" -- again, in terms of the collective -- being read as implying a collective is, in your words, "pretty tortured?" You've obviously never been tortured. It's not like being playfully tickled.
The reference to Protestants reads to me as a way to deny weapons to disfavored groups. The Protestants are in charge of the "defence," since they're the only ones who can be trusted.
You must be quite dense to have written that sentence. The "rights of a subgroup" -- i.e. a collective -- referred to as "their defence" -- again, in terms of the collective -- being read as implying a collective is, in your words, "pretty tortured?" You've obviously never been tortured. It's not like being playfully tickled.
Ah, that explains why...
- "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"
- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"
- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
...all refer to collective rights of a group ("the people") and not the the rights of individual members of that group.
You really do have the IQ of a door knob.
I see the problem. You think we're talking about the Constitution. If you were capable of reading / thought, you would know that we're talking about the English Declaration of Rights.
And even if you were literate, you'd still be wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right, no doubt, even under the English Declaration of Rights. But that doesn't say anything about the purpose of the right. It's not to rob banks. It is to facilitate militias (in the case of the Constitution) or the common "defence" (in the case of the English Declaration of Rights). See Miller for more information on how that works.
I see the problem. You think we're talking about the Constitution. If you were capable of reading / thought, you would know that we're talking about the English Declaration of Rights.
No, you mouth-breathing window-licker...we're talking about interpretation of the English language, despite your sad attempt at dodging that. The statements of rights in question - all of them - refer to the rights of the individual members of the groups mentioned, including in the case of the right of Protestants to be armed for "their defence".
Who's sadly attempting a dodge? Oh, it's you. I pre-responded to your individual vs. collective rights point in the second paragraph of my post, but of course, you don't have the mental capacity and/or attention span to comprehend more than one idea at a time.
That you're stupid enough to not understand the difference between an individual right and some benefit to the state that might result from protection of that right renders this a pointless exchange.
The reference to Protestants reads to me as a way to deny weapons to disfavored groups.
If you weren't an idiot then it would have read to you as a way to deny weapons to the members of disfavored groups.
“ The reference to Protestants reads to me as a way to deny weapons to disfavored groups. The Protestants are in charge of the "defence," since they're the only ones who can be trusted.”
Protestants in England were 95% of the population, and Catholics were not allowed to hold office.
The constitution already dealt with religious tests for office holders. But the constitution in 1791 probably did allow restricting arms for disfavored groups, Indians and Blacks, but they fixed that with the 14th amendment, so there is no longer any rationale for restricting anyone’s rights.
Yes, that all tracks.
If what we are talking about is history you can prove by using recognized historical sources and methods—as opposed to history you just assert unsystematically without any constraints—then Randal is much closer to right than his critics.
As Randal recognizes, and his critics seem not even to suspect, it is perfectly possible that the founding era included various interpretations of rights to armed self-defense, protected by various state constitutions and laws, without reliance on anything in the federal constitution.
Read actual history from original sources, and you will be hard pressed to come to any other conclusion. The record has been ransacked on this question, and no one has ever come up with a single citation to the contrary—something to say that armed self-defense was an explicit federal guarantee. That is why no citation like that appears in Heller.
You are not an historian either. Stop pretending you know anything about it. Take some pictures or something.
You can read!?
You seem to be of the school that claims that the 2nd only protects the right to be armed in a militia (with weapons of war), but you have to realize the prefatory clause doesn't limit the scope of the 2nd, it explains the 1st Congress reasoning and authority for making it a federal guarantee.
Unlike today's Congresses the first Congress was mindful about not overstepping it's scope of authority as in the 10th prohibiting them from exercising "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution". So they reference Congress Article 1 power to "arm the militia" while prohibiting both Congress and the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Bingo—the purpose of the 2A was to protect the RKBA in DC and federal territories.
Because it would have astonished the people and Congress in 1791 to think that Congress had the power to interfere with the RKBA anywhere else.
Kazinski — You do not seem to be able to read and understand what I write. I am talking about history, and how you can reference it while avoiding mistakes about what happened.
Your summary sounds like conjecture to me. Got any historical citations to show it happened that way? If they exist, what is your explanation for why they were not included in Heller?
Well you got a point there Stephen, I usually have a lot of trouble comprehending most of what you write.
Yup, Kazinski. It was long ago observed that it is hard to make a man understand something when his paycheck depends on not understanding it. You join a lot of others here by taking that a step farther. You don't even demand money in exchange for your misunderstandings. You do it for free, to flatter your priors.
I'm of the school that the purpose of the individual right to keep and bear arms is to facilitate militias. We wouldn't worry about laws that infringe your right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of participating in drug cartels. We should worry about laws that infringe your right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of participating in militias, although Scalia explicitly disclaimed that purpose in Heller, amazingly enough.
As Stephen Lathrop mentioned above, this interpretation aligns well with your concern about state vs. federal interests. Laws and rights relating to self-defense fit within the scope of the States' police powers. It's reasonable to think that the federal Constitution isn't trying to address issues around armed self-defense, leaving that to the States. The federal Constitution is concerned with armed militias, armies, etc. which transcend the States' police powers.
Also, this is a bizarre new attitude of the MAGA right, that civil rights exist to be abused.
You're not taking full advantage of free speech unless you're publicly advocating for violence against liberals and then taking umbrage when you get called on it.
You're not taking full advantage of freedom of religion unless you're demonstratively worshipping loudly in public and then taking umbrage when you get called on it.
You're not taking full advantage of your right to keep and bear arms unless you have a warehouse of weapons and you carry at least one everywhere you go, brandishing it as much as possible and then taking umbrage when you get called on it.
I am a huge civil rights advocate, but I don't think this is what they're for. They exist so that you can go about your life without being second-guessed by the government. They aren't there for obnoxious exploitation and grievance stoking. Not saying you can't use them that way, but it makes you a yuge asshole. Go ahead and take umbrage, I know that's what you're yearning for anyway.
"Also, this is a bizarre new attitude of the MAGA right, that civil rights exist to be abused."
I have no idea what fevered corner of your imagination that came out of, but the toxins are obviously rotting your brain.
Where do you think Truth Social came from?
Trump's determination to make a copy of Twitter that HE could censor, rather than one without censorship? I took one look at the TOS, laughed, and forgot about it.
Civil rights exist in spite of the fact that they are abused.
All civil rights directly or indirectly enable crimes to be committed. Either you’re for civil rights despite the costs or you’re a totalitarian.
Actually, no. Duelling was largely Southern and antebellum. See my book Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform (1999). The Wild West was relatively free of violence except among young men with too much alcohol. See Roger D. McGrath's Gunfighters, Highwaymen & Vigilantes (1987).
2 rifles and a handgun is not "deranged". He could only use one at a time anyway.
Multiple HANDGUN purchases w/in a certain time period must be reported. See https://www.atf.gov/firearms/reporting-multiple-firearms-sales
This requirement didn't apply here.
Plus, if the purchases are from different FFL licensees, none of the sellers are going to know about the other purchases.
Why would you buy from an FFL? with all that nosy paperwork?
You want new.
100 rounds of ammo is barely pocket change from Saturday night.
3 guns, 2 clips per gun. 20 for the hand gun, 80 for the rifles. That is minimum for any person that is serious about being prepared.
You’re clearly not very bright so this is more generally directed:
The setting and context in which the three firearms and 100 rounds were discovered is “they were found on his person and in other places at a shopping mall after the now-dead owner of the three firearms and 100 rounds shot up the shopping mall.”
AP propagandizes that armed civilians rarely prevent mass shootings. On the other hand, how often do LEOs prevent mass shootings?
Tbf, there's a reasonable case that the US would be better off if LEOs were disarmed together with everyone else.
then who would protect the criminals and politicians [superfluous redundancy]? personally, I think the US would be better off if LEOs were disarmed, but not everyone else.
That's similar to a plank of the platform of Abbie Hoffman's Youth International Party (the Yippies): disarmament of America, starting with the police.
Tbf, there's a reasonable case that the US would be better off if LEOs were disarmed together with everyone else.
And by "reasonable" you mean "childishly simple-minded and utterly divorced from reality".
Utterly divorced from reality other than that I literally described the situation in the country where I live. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-do-not-carry-guns.html
Utterly divorced from reality other than that I literally described the situation in the country where I live.
You described the hypothetical situation of disarming police and everyone else in a country that is NOT the one you live in...one with vastly different demographics, population densities, socio-economic subgroups, etc, etc.
Try again.
He lives in Holland. Their police are armed (https://www.statewatch.org/media/documents/analyses/no-213-holland-police-firearms.pdf). He's not even competent enough to lie.
For the record, I live in London, UK.
There are armed police in the UK, you simply pretend they don't exist. As you deal w/ everything you dislike, it seems.
There are some. I didn't say otherwise. There's an army too, before you bring that up. They even have nukes.
Of course you said otherwise. After you wrote "there's a reasonable case that the US would be better off if LEOs were disarmed", you followed that up saying that that situation (LEO's disarmed) wrote that this "literally described the situation in the country where I live."
As I wrote above, you can't even lie competently.
Sure you do. I'm not going to doxx you, but anyone with the motivation can find your blog and fiverr services.
And as pointed out, London police are most certainly armed:
https://www.politics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Armed-Polic.jpg
That might work in a homogeneous population. A population that has centuries of shared singular,culture.
And why is that, exactly?
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Aren't you the same guy who argues in zoning threads that races living apart from one another is natural and protected freedom of association?
I've never heard before such a concise statement of the mindset of a cult member.
So guys who use knives and baseball bats are safe?
*mass shooting event occurs in which a dozen children are killed*
We of course cannot assume from a single incident, or 10 incidents, that limiting the availability of guns would have done anything ...
*concealed carry holder shoots a mass killer who by the way still managed to kill 3 people before getting successfully taken down*
YOU SEE GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK
I think there are legitimate pro-gun argument, but I am beyond tired of clear bad faith and logically inconsistent arguments being used to justify this shit. I am willing to accept the possibility of greater violence if one can show, as the 2nd amendment appears to, it is necessary for a free society.
But if your argument is that any step to counter that violence is automatically a path to tyranny or that its all a massive coincidence the continous firefights that do not occur in any other country on a regular basis, I'm sorry, your either being willfully blind to realty or outright lying. It's becoming ridiculous.
I’m not a gun owner, but most steps thrown out there to “counter that violence” are clear violations of civil rights. Whatever the reason the 2A says what it says doesn’t matter. It says what it says.
That’s why after a big shooting there’s a huge rigamarole over DO SOMETHING consisting of vague platitudes like “common sense gun control” but nothing ever really happens. It’s not the NRA. It’s not a lack of desire among the proponents. It’s the second amendment limiting what can be done beyond what’s already in place.
You're right. The obvious "something" to do is to repeal the 2nd amendment. But until that happens, it must be obeyed.
Relay your message to some of the states and circuit courts.
Tbf, just because the 2nd amendment has to be obeyed doesn't mean that the political branches can't interpret it as narrowly as possible.
Well that's what many are doing and they will be back in court because of it.
How exactly would that remove an Inherent Right that preexisted the Constitution? I mean it isn't as if the Constitution or the Bill of Rights granted a single thing, so it follows that the repeal of a section could take anything away.
so it follows that the repeal of a section could take anything away.
I have a right to keep and bear arms.
ONLY because the Constitution, STOPS the govt from infringing on the right. So yes, repealing the 2cnd frees the govt to regulate to their hearts content.
There's a lot that can be done gun-control-wise before we run up against the second amendment, even accepting Heller and its descendants.
The NRA and all you gun nuts like to hide behind the second amendment as if it's absolute. It's very limited, as even Heller and Bruen acknowledge. It doesn't mean that anyone can own any weapon they want and do whatever they want with it.
For example, we could ban concealed carry, require a license for open carry, require training, ban assault rifles, large magazines, and all that, limit people to owning just one gun, require it to be registered, ban weapons from almost any building, require guns in vehicles to be locked up, fine or even charge people for negligently storing / losing a gun, publish a public list of gun owners, deny licenses to all kinds of "shady" people, tax guns and ammo hugely, and even require periodic inspections of the gun owner's compliance with the above, all without running afoul of the second amendment as outlined in Bruen and Heller.
Similar case in St. Charles MO this weekend, except it was a bad guy with a knife, https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/customer-shot-killed-armed-robber-st-charles-quiktrip-stlouis-missouri/63-bc66b748-2d2d-4c8b-9d5e-d3c431c574f8
Myths, Prof. Blackman?
A myth is a childish fairy tale of the type favored by victims of adult-onset superstition. Silly stories recounting fictional events claimed to have occurred thousands of years ago, consumed by gullible children of all ages. At the older end of the continuum, those clinging to these stories tend to be roundly bigoted, poorly educated, economically inadequate residents of desolate rural and southern backwaters, many of whom are disaffected, antisocial, obsolete gun nuts.
That's a myth. And you should enjoy your myths, and clinging to the past, because you are going to hate modern America's future.
Now . . . don't you have some race-targeting voter suppression to attend to, or some important responsibilities in the crusade to make gay Americans' lives a bit more difficult, or a big project to somehow defend Donald Trump (without acknowledging your fealty to Trump)?
When the ACLU defended the KKK's right to march in Skokie were they expressing fealty to the positions of the KKK?
How is that relevant to what is (or is not) a myth?
Or to Prof. Blackman's devoted to a bigoted, superstition-laced, backward agenda?
Or to the issue of whether Prof. Blackman reflexively defends Donald Trump (because Trump panders to winguts)?
My comment was only directed to your last line:
"or a big project to somehow defend Donald Trump (without acknowledging your fealty to Trump)?"
While I agree with the overarching point, I think also that it's important to be careful. A person with a pistol "can" stop a person with a rifle, but the odds are against it. Especially if the bad guy is wearing body armor. A head shot from 50 feet is on a moving target is extraordinarily difficult.
A person "can" also survive a fall from 6 kilometers without a parachute. It's been done. Is it likely? no.
I really don't recommend people seek to engage targets. If you have the shot, from a stable platform, take it. Keep in mind when the adrenaline dumps you will jerk the trigger. But don't necessarily go looking for it.
Bravery is rarely individually rational, but we shouldn't discourage it.
if people intend to be brave, they should seek out the kind of training that will even the odds, and make sure they practice regularly.
like the coward cops at Uvalde had??
As did this guy we're discussing!
You're discounting the deterrent effect of returned fire.
"I think also that it's important to be careful."
"steadied himself against a pole and fired ten rounds at the gunman from about 40 yards away." local tv article
No expert but it seems the good guy used cover to get the tactical advantage against a gunman in the open.
That is the real take away here: It takes above average skills and training.
Forty yards with a pistol! No complaints about him needing ten rounds. And amazingly steady hands given the circumstances.
A person with a pistol "can" stop a person with a rifle, but the odds are against it.
If you think "the odds" are determined exclusively by the tools involved then you need to do some more thinking about the matter.
It's not the size of the man in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the man.
Among quite a few other factors.
I actually don’t think the odds are against it. If the guy with the rifle is a seasoned combat veteran, then yeah.
Most of these guys are just goofballs expecting no opposition. They don’t have a plan for when someone shoots back.
Criminals are rarely masterminds.
We dont know about this guy yet. But past shooters were very insecure, and would have folded with almost any opposition. A person shooting at him would cause him to flee, as this shooter was doing after the 1st shot hit him.
"The Good Samaritan With A Gun In Indiana Serves To Refute Four Common Gun Control Myths"
I doubt the distinction between rebut and refute is much of a concern at a law school ranked higher than five or six (of 200) American law schools.
Does South Texas College Of Law Houston sell "We're Number 192" hoodies at the college bookstore?
Carry on, downscale, superstitious, obsolete clingers.
Arthur, you're good with having a gun in the home for home defense. I mean, we've exchanged views on that.
So....in this instance, was it Ok (to you) that Dicken carried a gun?
I do not believe Dicken had a right to carry that gun into a mall.
I believe the efforts of gun absolutists (and their allies) will imperil the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.
Damn that clinger for saving innocent people. Right?
The people saved were Indianans so they’re probably not on your list of people that should be allowed to live anyway. Had it not been for Dicken there’d be a few less clingers in the world which would be better. Hell, some of them might have been people of religion so we’d certainly have preferred that they be shot.
I agree with everything else you said, however citizens of Indiana are called Hoosiers, not Indianans.
You are free to believe what you want, but Indiana law says differently. You do believe in the law, don't you?
More precisely, under Indiana law, a "No Firearms Permitted" notice on private property [other than those specifically noted in the law, such as airports], does not make it illegal to carry on that property. However, the owner of that property may ask the carrier to leave, and have him removed if he refuses. [I use "him/he" for convenience, although I recognize that there are a significant number of females who carry]
Cool Indiana story. Here's one cooler:
STATES RANKED BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
(includes territories; 52 ranked)
COLLEGE DEGREE
Indiana 44 (one ahead of Alabama)
ADVANCED DEGREE
Indiana 42 (between Idaho and Iowa)
INTERNET ASSHOLE
Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland 1 (ahead of none, leader of many)
Jerry Sandusky's outraged people think he's (Reverend) Arthur L. Kirtland
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog Of Poorly Educated, Bigoted Gun Absolutists!
and don't forget (the very wrong) Reverend Jerry Sandusky!
Arthur, you may well be right = I believe the efforts of gun absolutists (and their allies) will imperil the right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.
When the opportunity presents itself, I'll ask you what is a 'reasonable' firearm. Meaning, I don't think we want people carrying around bazookas in the backpacks, but I would like to understand what you feel is a reasonable firearm.
Thanks for the straightforward reply.
A rocket-propelled grenade launcher or extraordinarily high-powered rifle seems inapt; a reasonable shotgun (no poison-coated or radioactive ammunition) or pistol (nothing that fires dozens of rounds in less time than it takes a a south earner to say “well”) seems appropriate.
I would welcome observations from experts and persuasive advocates if my conclusions in this context were to become anything more than informal judgment.
Southerner, south earner . . . what’s the difference?
That was pretty funny actually = Southerner versus south earner.
I understand that a .30-06 rifle is generally considered high-powered, but is is "extraordinarily high-powered"?
These aren't myths; they are strawmen that you have created.
There is actual data on these points.
https://www.activeattackdata.org/allattacks.html
So a good guy with a gun shoots a bad guy with the gun in roughly 5% of these mass shootings.
I wonder how many of those shootings happen in Gun Free Zones where only the good guys are disarmed?
Keep in mind that, if the good guy shoots the bad guy early enough in the shooting, it never gets counted as a "mass shooting".
The linked study is active shooter events, not mass shootings. It includes incidents with 0 victims.
5% (or 1 in 20 to put it another way) is a lot of lives saved.....
Guess that doesn't matter though if MSNBC you on "guns" as the Two Minutes Hate this week.
These aren't myths; they are strawmen that you have created.
You're either a piss-poor liar or you have your head lodged so far up your own backside you have no idea what arguments your own camp routinely spouts.
So a good guy with a gun shoots a bad guy with the gun in roughly 5% of these mass shootings.
That's as a percentage of all incidents, including those that took place where there were no armed good guys on the scene because they were prohibited by law or policy from being armed. But of course that only matters if you're interested in making an honest point.
A good start. Once we bring back firearms training in schools and promote ownership we can bring those numbers up.
Let’s get that number up to 10% by arming more good guys.
If Gun Free Zones worked, why aren't they working?
Criminals can't read?
Every school in America is a gun free zone. Doesn't seem to help, right?
Maybe we need to just make the signs bigger or call them something like "Double Gun Free Zones" just to really get across the point.
Could make the problem worse if they interpreted it as a double negative...
I don't know if that is true. I believe the federal attempt to do this was overturned returning the issue to local or state governments.
You're probably thinking of United States v. Lopez, which led to the Gun Free School Zones Act making it a federal crime to possess a gun in a school zone only if the gun moved in interstate or foreign commerce. That's almost all guns, of course, and that logic was essentially discarded a decade later in Gonzales v. Riach, which held that actual interstate commerce isn't required if a prohibition is part of an overarching regulatory scheme.
You seem to be pretty up on this issue.
Have there been any recent challenges to the Gun Free School Zones Act on the basis of the 10th Amendment? It seems to me that this is an excessive interference into local conditions that the States have much-better competence to address.
For example, in my travel to the closest town (where I do certain shopping, have a P.O. Box, and attend church), I have to pass immediately adjacent to the local K-12 grounds. To do otherwise would convert an 8-mile trip into a 24 -mile trip (there being no paved side roads to avoid the school grounds).
Now I have a CPL so I'm OK. But for a person who does not, even if they complied w/ Michigan law and stored the firearm in the trunk and w/ ammunition separate, they are apparently in violation. How is that not a substantial burden and infringement?
I don't know if it has been challenged on that basis. In light of Bruen, the GFSZA is probably unconstitutional beyond the immediate surrounds of a school. I don't know whether courts would strike it down entirely or only invalidate it "as applied" to people at some distance from school grounds. Some will certainly try to justify it under the "sensitive areas" dicta.
There is no single state that does not enforce a "gun free zone" in pretty much every K-12 setting (with only very small exceptions for say a parent WITH a permit who is ONLY picking up a kid and might be sitting in the parking lot). There is no state in this Union, again with very few exceptions where highly trained professionals might be carrying, that allow students, faculty, or staff to carry firearms on the premises.
Ohio as of July 1 permits teachers and staff to carry in school.
School boards can opt out.
What a great idea that is! Until, of course, something goes terribly wrong when the so-called good guys end up shooting themselves and little kids.
What a great idea that is! Until, of course, something goes terribly wrong when the so-called good guys end up shooting themselves and little kids.
We've heard that same prediction from clueless dolts like you following EVERY single piece of legislation that increases/expands carry rights, and in EVERY single case it has failed to come true. And yet, clueless dolts like you keep making the same prediction in spite of being proven wrong over and over and over and...
Ohio seems to be racing to catch Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Kentucky.
any of which preferable to your current accommodations at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
There is no single state that does not enforce a "gun free zone" in pretty much every K-12 setting (with only very small exceptions for say a parent WITH a permit who is ONLY picking up a kid and might be sitting in the parking lot). There is no state in this Union, again with very few exceptions where highly trained professionals might be carrying, that allow students, faculty, or staff to carry firearms on the premises.
As usual you have no idea what you're babbling about. In addition to the example that Bob pointed out, in Texas local school districts are allowed by law to have any number of faculty members (teachers or other staff) they choose carry on campus. In New Hampshire there is no general ban on carrying firearms in public schools, except for students. There are other states where some degree of carry by the general public and/or school staff are permitted as well.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-safety-guns-in-schools.aspx
If Ron Goldberg had a gun Nicole Simpson (might be "Nicole Goldberg" now, be pretty cheesy move not to marry the guy who saved your alive) and umm, Ron Goldberg might still be alive, and Orenthal James Simpson pushing up daisies....
Same with Enis Cosby.
Uh, two of our greatest warriors were shot while armed at a gun range by a suicidal nut. Suicidal nuts want to die and the existence of guns around them doesn’t stop the carnage…it can mitigate it like in Sulfur Springs, TX the mass shooter only killed 26 and had a hero with a gun not shot him he may have killed millions of Americans.
Alert "Reverend" Jerry Sandusky, looks like the Bitter/Klingers have spread to Ear-Ron....https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/bride-is-shot-dead-at-her-wedding-during-celebratory-gunfire/ss-AAZIsh9?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=edc6a3ba7ccb4253ba9321de22224d72
A bit obsessed with Jerry Sandusky, aren't you? Were the two of you locker room buddies?
no, your mom was, how is that old bitch anyway?
Uncle Remus caught the "Vid'"????
This'll put a crimp in their Kangaroo Court....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jan-6-committee-chair-bennie-thompson-tests-positive-for-covid-19/ar-AAZKtNV
Frank
Mass shootings will stop when we start to recognize that these are violent suicides by mentally ill people. The media attention encourages them. They want to commit suicide in a blaze of glory . It's unfortunate that the media and the gun prohibitionists has are just as addicted to the attention as the shooters
I saw a report that the guy was a Bernie Bros. Those Bernie Bros really like to shoot up places. Maybe we should ban them instead of the guns they use, right?
We already know that suicides come in clusters, that one suicide inspires the next. The media doesn't like to report celebrity suicides since there is astatistically measurable increase in general population suicides afterwards.
That's why Mass shooters come in clusters,
The media is just as complicit as the NRA in these surges of mass shootings since their entire business model is to blast these events as far as possible and to make celebrities of the killer.
Dems need fodder to keep the Useful Idiots busy. Abortion isn't causing enough performative rage so more must be manufactured.
Mass shootings only happen the week or two before the NRA annual convention. That is of course patently untrue, but if all you did was watch the corporate media that would be your causation conclusion because they manage to find a "good" one almost every year just before that time. Do you think there is a NYT reporter that has a day circled on his calendar that is about a week before the convention with a note to find a "mass shooting" story to hype?
First comment:
"It is difficult to generalize from a single incident,
But that doesn't stop Josh, who is going to go right ahead."
Just last week though we were all scolded about abortion rights precisely for the exact same reason. How many 10 year old girls do you think get raped and pregnant in this country every year? The answer (I hope to dear God) is probably like one or none. But, the media managed to find that ONE and use them as a political toy.
So as long as it is a left wing issue that equals GOOD.
Analogous situation not for left wing issue, that equals BAD.
just don't report the rapist was an Ill-legal (once again, Trump proved right) but don't worry, have a feeling we'll hear more about the ill-legal alien rapist who forced a 10 year old to cross state lines....
This is being used as anecdata. I don't know many for gun control that claim events such as the OP never happen.
The other is being used as a counterexample because anti-abortion folks absolutely did claim such things would never happen. And indeed weren't happening even as it was openly happening as they denied it.
"The other is being used as a counterexample because anti-abortion folks absolutely did claim such things would never happen."
And was the 10-year-old forced to give birth? No.
Not for lack of GOP monsterously trying.
That’s some storytelling.
She was either forced to give birth or not. Reality: she was not.
Never mind the risk the doctor took assuring that, and who made it risky.
Just when I thought this comment section needed a little gaslighting, just like on cue there steps in Sarc to light the lamppost for all of us.
Still not backing you accusations up with argument I see.
Don't want any "Conspirator" to release classified information (unless it's a big Surpreme Decision) but, in general, how many Automatic Weapon carrying SS agents is Somnolent Joe guarded by??? Do they still carry Uzi's or upgraded to an H&K subgun? Beretta?? SigSaur? hopefully not a Colt.
Glocks, with sear conversion to full auto that they purchased in the 'hood.
They'd need arms like The Hulk to hold that steady.
Do conservatives, and/or lawyers, have some sort if initiation ritual that weeds out the numerate? Otherwise it's hard to make sense out of this article or most of the comments.
Yes, all the innumerates seem to become leftists instead.
Reading comprehension. What's that about?
"A good guy with a gun didn't prevent it, only limited the damage, therefore it's a bad half measure and we shouldn't have concealed carry"
Isn't limiting the damage the entire rationale behind an assault weapons ban? "It wouldn't prevent mass shootings entirely, Killers could still use alternative guns, but it's still a step in the right direction because it limits casualties!"
"it limits casualties!"
Does it? No "assault weapons" used at Columbine or at Virginia Tech or by Dylan Roof, plenty of dead.
Once we ban "assault weapons" and shooters just switch to handguns or shot guns or just regular rifles, then what?
Remember when that shady guy, who was most likely a big Democrat, rained what could have been actual automatic fire down (blamed on "bump stock" but other think was actual machine gun fire) on a crowd of country music concert-goers in Las Vegas and we heard almost zero about that. Yeah.....
Joe41 2 — The comparison is less than compelling.
The good-guy choice necessarily involves increase in arms prevalence, with attendant collateral risk.
The assault weapons ban reduces arms prevalence, and lessens collateral risk.
On balance, if it delivered only equal prevention against mass shootings, the assault weapons ban would be far preferable overall.
Who's going to turn their "Assault Weapons" in? the "Bad Guys"?? probably not, because Duh, they're "Bad Guys"
and the Good-Guys mostly won't because, just because we're "Good Guys" doesn't mean we give up our rights because some Politician says so. And anyway, I don't own any "Assault Weapons" just Semi-Automatics with useful things like flash hiders, pistol grips and ability to accept large capacity magazines (why would anyone choose a Low capacity magazine?)
Frank "Guns? what Guns?"
We know he fired ten rounds, right? Did all ten of them hit the other guy? If not, where did the other rounds go?
Same place the rounds the SWAT team that killed the Uvalde shooters rounds went, Walls.
The county coroner says eight of them went into the perp: https://mobile.twitter.com/wrtv/status/1549478272156712962
It's impressive work for getting a solid shot in less than 15 seconds: https://mobile.twitter.com/AnneMarieWTHR/status/1549484122497843200
I can't get over the people calling for the gut to be arrested for carrying a gun in a gun free zone.
I wonder how many people would have been killed if he didn't have a gun.
I also wonder how long the cops would have waited to engage the shooter if he wasn't already shot.
Gun control proponents would probably consider all of the innocent public deaths a necessary evil. After all, if there had been a higher body count, this horrible situation would be another example that gun control proponents would cite when arguing for more gun control.
Now, this story will be minimized and ignored by the major media. We can't let inconvenient facts get in the way of their agenda.
Imagine how much happier liberals on this board and elsewhere would be had that guy not had a gun.
They would be so thrilled.
Imagine how much happier liberals on this board and elsewhere would be had that guy not had a gun.
You're right. I'm sure liberals on this board and elsewhere would be much happier had the 20-year old with "...more than 100 rounds of ammunition and three rifles: a Sig Sauer M400 rifle he bought in March 2022; an M&P15 rifle that was found in the mall bathroom and bought in March 2021; and a Glock 33 pistol" had not had any guns.
They'd certainly give the event more coverage. As it is, this particular mass shooting will be memory-holed in two days.
Sure, that’s what would make us happy.
Asshole.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I've always read this to mean that public ownership of weapons is a necessary precondition for a free state to be able to have a well regulated militia.
The first Congress was very supportive of the militia providing their own guns because otherwise it was Congress' responsibility to provide them. Besides it was traditional.
The modern meme of 'good samaritan' has drifted far from the original story of, "When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him". Wonder how many preacher-men now evoke Rambo as the good samaritan.
The whole "good Samaritan" is an unfortunate use of that term.
band., much better for liberals if the shooter had been allowed to rack up a higher body count before being stopped. So tolerant, stunning and brave if you to demand more dead bodies to crawl up on.
The individual who put an early stop to the murder's spree could have simply fled the scene and saved his own skin. Instead he risked his own life by engaging the shooter in order to save the lives of strangers. That seems to me to be a pretty good deed.
and all without any "Training" like the cowards at Uvalde had (call for backup that won't get there for an hour, huddle around talking on your cell phone, hassle any parents who show up and offer to help)
I think you missed the point of the parable... it is about mercy.
Which is more merciful, shooting a killer, or running away?
The Myth That the US Leads the World in Mass Shootings
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the-world-in-mass-shootings/
In London, you just get stabbed and beat to death.
In France, they run you over with a car.
In other parts of the world they hack you death with a machete.
If you think banning guns is going to make human violence disappear then you are either completely insane, just plain ignorant, or an actual moron.
In France, they run you over with a car.
Or in Wisconsin. But we don't talk about that because the weapon used and the races of the perp and victims don't fit the approved narratives.
Like the "10 year old girl raped by a (uncomfortable confirmation of President Trump characterization deleted)
Yeah that was sure some "SUV" that killed a lot of people. Must of been one of those new fangled "driverless" cars because the media just kept on referring to the perp as "SUV".
You can tell they aren't serious because they only focus on "gun violence," not crime, or violence in general.
Gun nuts will push ceaselessly -- pressing every advantage, clinging to every inch of territory -- until the predictable, inevitable mainstream/majority backlash crushes their aspirations with a severity that might overrun many sensible gun-related policies and rights.
Gun nuts have hitched their political wagon to the doomed side of the culture war.
Thanks for that, guys.
you're welcome "Jerry"
Did you and your friend Jerry have a nice time hanging out together in the shower rooms at Penn State? Seems to have left you with great memories.
No, didn't have the "Pleasure" obviously you have.
Gun [Abortion] nuts will push ceaselessly -- pressing every advantage, clinging to every inch of territory -- until the predictable, inevitable mainstream/majority backlash crushes their aspirations with a severity that might overrun many sensible gun-related [abortion-related] policies and rights.
Gun [Abortion] nuts have hitched their political wagon to the doomed side of the culture war.
Thanks for that, guys.
Your welcome dohtard.
I expect a reasonable accommodation on abortion to develop. Time will sift that, over time, because the American majority seems established and the anti-abortion absolutists will continue to fade in modern America, especially in the educated, advanced, successful states.
...and which states would those be?
The ranking of states by college and advanced degrees is a handy source of the relevant information. Aim a Google-compatible device at “states ranked by educational attainment.” Every American should be — or try to become — familiar with that important information..
The "good guy with a gun" argument simplified:
"We've made it so easy to obtain guns in America that it is inevitable that nuts that want to kill dozens of people at once are going to get them. Therefore, we need make guns even easier to get and carry in public places so that someone else with a gun will be there to stop the nuts."
Good thing countries with extreme weapon control laws, like Japan, never have anyone shot.
I suppose if "never" having guns used to kill innocent people is your standard of whether heavily restricting firearms is effective at reducing gun violence, then I suppose there would never be country that would qualify.
The "good guy with a gun" argument simplified
And by "simplified" you mean "paraphrased by the simple-minded for an audience of his intellectual peers".
JasonT20, alas, it has been announced that the first victim killed in Indiana was carrying a gun, which was found on his body.
JasonT20, alas, it has been announced that the first victim killed in Indiana was carrying a gun, which was found on his body.
Meaning...what?
Meaning, having a gun didn't stop the nut from killing him. Making it harder for nuts to get guns in the first place, on the other hand, might be more effective at that.
Meaning, guns don't make you bullet proof, which nobody thought in the first place.
"Making it harder for nuts to get guns in the first place, on the other hand, might be more effective at that."
Keep in mind, getting guns in the first place is a civil right, and we're simply going to refuse to treat it as though it weren't. So whatever you're doing to "make it harder for nuts to get guns" has to have very minimal impact on non-nuts, which is almost everybody.
And keep in mind that meth, for example, is already illegal, without even any legal market to hide behind, and people get THAT. So you're not actually going to stop the nuts from getting guns in the first place. You'll just inconvenience them.
Which raises the question of just how much you can justify infringing the civil rights of the many, to merely inconvenience a few criminals.
No, you don't get to jump between policy/effect arguments and rights arguments.
One has nothing to do with the other.
Pick a lane.
You can say this is a right, so the deaths are a consequence of liberty.
But you can't use that to refute an argument that widespread gun possession is causing deaths.
That could also be wrong, but you need to meet the argument where it lives.
Sarcastro, ever the optimist…
Meaning, having a gun didn't stop the nut from killing him.
Given that nobody argued that it would have, and that has nothing at all to do with the issue, especially seeing as how, being the first one shot, that victim was simply unlucky and didn't have an opportunity to defend himself and others after the shooting started....I don't know what you're babbling about here. The fact is that once the shooting did start, a legally armed non-LEO citizen stopped the shooter and cut short his killing spree, saving who-knows how many lives.
The fact is that once the shooting did start, a legally armed non-LEO citizen stopped the shooter and cut short his killing spree, saving who-knows how many lives.
And preventing the shooter from getting guns would saved even more lives. That's what I'm babbling about. I'm wondering if you really missed that point, or just don't want to engage with it.
And preventing the shooter from getting guns would saved even more lives. That's what I'm babbling about. I'm wondering if you really missed that point, or just don't want to engage with it.
You've made no "point" with which to engage. All you've offered is a factless red herring that has nothing at all to do with the subject of the sub-thread, which was Lathrop pointing out that the first victim was carrying himself, as though that was evidence for...something (that neither one of you has had the balls or brains to identify).
You conveniently express no way in which the shooter could have been denied guns without eviscerating 2A.
Even if you eviscerate the 2d Amendment, those guns aren't going to disappear any more than alcohol disappeared during Prohibition. (And guns aren't consumed when you use them. Moreover, as the assassination of Shinzo Abe proves, it isn't that hard to manufacture new homebrew guns.)
And your point is …?
It'll probably fall on deaf ears, but in the vein hope that it might make someone see the light...
It'll probably fall on deaf ears, but in the vein hope that it might make someone see the light...
I think the "light" you're seeing is an artifact of the concussions you must be suffering prior to your posting sprees.
You might want to think about what "other security" means in that sentence.
Are you telling me there is no law enforcement in the US?
If you think that quote applies to the US, you must believe there is no law enforcement here. But there is, even though Democrats are trying to change that.
Blackman's premise is nonsensical. We know of 3 gunmen in the food court. The mass shooter, the guy who stopped him, and the guy who was the first victim, found dead with his gun on his corpse.
How many more were there? If Blackman wants to sell the notion that armed bystanders and their happenstance interventions really work, he has to know much more than he does. This could easily be another incident like Uvalde, to show that many potential armed intervenors were in fact worthless bystanders.
By your logic, a police officer getting shot means they don't have any reason to be armed.
"How many more were there?"
Do you mean, how many more concealed carry holders were also in that mall?
Unknowable as a fact, but last statistics I read were 11% of Indiana residents had CCW licenses.
And since GFZ signs here are owner policy and not law, some percentage of CCW holders ignore those signs.
This could easily be another incident like Uvalde, to show that many potential armed intervenors were in fact worthless bystanders
Yes, because paralysis by multiple official government agencies due to command failures is a brilliant basis on which to extrapolate about the actions of individual private citizens.
Your skull is as empty as intergalactic space.
Well for once I have to agree with naysayers, having a bystander engage a mass shooter at 40 yards is probably not very typical.
But damn, I guess American Exceptualism is still a thing in Indiana.
More a thing in Indiana than a college degree, let alone an advanced degree.
Of course, lots of things are in that category.
Two updates? Prof. Blackman is all over this one, like Prof. Volokh on a chance to publish a vile racial slur with plausible deniability!
If a shot from that pistol had killed a bystander, though, Prof. Blackman would have clammed up like Prof. Volokh in a discussion about the conduct of disgraced former federal judge Alex Kosinski.
Nothing but cherry-picked, predictable, partisan polemics at this white, male, right- wing blog whose academic veneer has become vanishingly thin.
Carry on, clingers.
Either I mistyped or autocorrect got me on that one.
“Code Double-G, everybody, we found one! Re-date everything and submit for publishing now! Go! Go!”
"...were in fact worthless bystanders."
They were crime victims. Equating them as worthless is disgusting.
Unfortunately, some people require that kind of denialism for their world view to remain consistent.
Congrats, you hit on part of why Blackman's argument sucks.
By the way, did anyone actually read the story of the good Samaritan? Because I don't think Jesus's point was that we should carry machine guns to gun down our fellow man.
Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"
He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
What do you think mercy involves in this kind of situation? Running off and leaving the gunman to continue his rampage?
It's that invoking the good Samaritan at all bespeaks a pretty odd understanding of that story.
Because protecting people who are actively being attacked, and preventing them from being mortally wounded, is radically different from helping them after their attacker has (or attackers have) left?
What do you think mercy involves in this kind of situation?
It seems like you two only think mercy applies to a murderer, and not to the intended victims.
No, I don't think deadly force has the quality of mercy.
Force can be good, but not a merciful thing.
You seem to be conflating all virtues into one mega-virtue. That's childish nonsense.
No, I don't think deadly force has the quality of mercy.
Force can be good, but not a merciful thing.
You seem to be conflating all virtues into one mega-virtue. That's childish nonsense.
What's are childish is your simple-minded characterizations. The virtue here is not the use of deadly force, but the risking of one's own life to save others.
It's that invoking the good Samaritan at all bespeaks a pretty odd understanding of that story.
You mean, a story about the virtue of putting yourself out for the good of your fellow man?
Because I don't think Jesus's point was that we should carry machine guns to gun down our fellow man.
I suppose it's possible for you to sound like even more of an idiot than you already do, but I'm hard-pressed to imagine how.
So we should give a sigh of relief that the Samaritan didn't show up a few minutes before with his handgun, and use it on the robbers, killing or otherwise neutralizing them before they had a chance to beat the man and leave him half dead?
Man with knife kills gun wielding assailant, rebutting the myth that bad guys with guns can only be stopped by good guys with guns.
mad_kalak — As policy, the good guy with a gun is a proven failure. It is astonishing to me that Blackman thinks this is worth trying while Uvalde is still being investigated‚ with its sharpening focus on just how useless hundreds of armed good guys turned out to be.
Doesn't mean the good guy theory can never work. It just means the results from one incident after another have shown that to rely on armed good guys is almost never reliable. We see all too clearly that most of them time (even this time!) armed good guys do not prevent mass murder. Experience has shown it is the wrong approach to the problem of hazards created when too many people go armed in public.
I don't think the pro-gun advocates are even serious with this kind of advocacy. I think they welcome an occasional instance to show gun carrying is not always pointlessly hazardous, useless, or destructive. But does this incident even do that? Anyone who is actually celebrating this would-be mass murder shows a warped perspective about public gun use.
As policy, the good guy with a gun is a proven failure.
1) "Good guy with a gun" is not a "policy".
2) It is not even remotely proven to be a failure in any way, no matter what the voices in your head claim.
Anyone who is actually celebrating this would-be mass murder shows a warped perspective about public gun use.
Nobody is celebrating any would-be mass murder, you moron. Those of us who aren't completely insane are pretty happy that someone was able to put an end to the incident before it became worse though.
while Uvalde is still being investigated‚ with its sharpening focus on just how useless hundreds of armed good guys turned out to be.
Stevie, Baby. Those were not good guys. Those were servants of the vile toxic prosecutor, the cops. Worthless government workers.
with its sharpening focus on just how useless hundreds of armed good guys turned out to be
You have the argument backwards. Leftist claim all you need to do is call 911. Let the trained professionals, take care of the bad guys.
Uvalde proved 400 professionals froze because leadership could only think of George Floyd, and the prison time in front of a police officer doing his job.
Police are under no obligation to risk their life, to save another. Like always, depending on the govt, is a fools game.
it is the wrong approach to the problem of hazards created when too many people go armed in public.
Fallaciously begging the question. It could be just as validly be argued that your imagined hazard is created when not enough people go armed in public.
“the entirety of law enforcement and its training, preparation, and response shares systemic responsibility for many missed opportunities on that tragic day,”
From the interim report on the Uvalde shooting
What a wonderful argument for gun control!
Like always, depending on the govt, is a fools game.
The government was helpless to prevent planes from crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. A few unarmed civilians were able to prevent a 4th plane attack as soon as they understood what was at stake.
Assuming you are sincere, and believe there is in fact a controversy, why not seek evidence to resolve it? Would you join with me to insist on public policy to track arms-related incidents systematically nationwide, and to record and collate the details using standard formats which applied alike everywhere? I am guessing you would not, but go ahead and surprise me.