This is a tragedy, of course. But it also exposes the fantasy is that guns provide "protection." Every time there's a shooting, like in a movie theater in Aurora, or a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, or a strip mall in Tucson, some gun-hawking numbskull insists that lives would have been saved if only more people carried concealed weapons. The shootings on Friday show exactly what would happen if more people were carrying guns: more innocent bloodshed. Or, as the NRA apparently believes, acceptable collateral damage.
The police are trained in the use of weapons in pressure situations. In this case the shooter was standing on the street in broad daylight with a gun (unlike the darkened smoke-filled theater in Colorado). Yet the cops hit nine other people on the street. And the shooter did not even fire at the police:
[Police Commissioner Raymond] Kelly added: “As far as shots being fired yesterday, we had a witness that said that Johnson fired at the police. But the final count of the shells, it appears that that is not the case.”Why were so many innocent people hit in the crossfire? (Well, since the guy didn't fire at police, I guess it wasn't really crossfire.) Most rounds fired from pistols miss their target. Pistols are inaccurate even at relatively short range and accuracy is further reduced in pressure situations. Bullets often pass through their targets and hit others. Ricochets can give bullets multiple chances to hit innocent victims.
Which means it's almost certain that if others actually did have concealed weapons and brought them out, there would have been many more dead and wounded. There's no way to tell crazed gunmen from pistol-packing vigilantes after the shooting starts: untrained vigilantes would be even more likely than the police to hit unintended targets. And then the cops, who may have had no idea who the original aggressor was, would start shooting at them. And then the vigilantes would return fire at the cops. And then you have a big pile of corpses in front of the Empire State Building. And the original shooter may simply escape in all the confusion, smoke and blood.
Now, I'm guessing that this happened because mass shootings are in the forefront of everyone's mind. The cops, hearing gunshots in a crowded place, automatically assumed this guy was nutso and trying to take out as many people as possible. But it looks like Johnson wanted only to kill his lone archnemesis. The police apparently used maximum force to stop him as soon as possible, assuming that he was about to start shooting everyone around him.
I'm not going to criticize the cops here because there's still not enough information to know exactly what happened, and what information they had at the time, or exactly what Johnson might have said or done. Eyewitnesses at the scene may have given the cops bad information. We don't know yet, and we may never know.
But the main point is that more guns in this situation could have made a bad situation into a total bloodbath. For that reason, cities like New York, Washington and Chicago should be able to make their own laws about who can have and use guns. Gun laws that make perfect sense in rural Texas and Montana make no sense whatsoever in crowded cities like New York. If you don't like big city gun laws, don't go to big cities.
We should register each gun sale with at least as much rigor as we register voters. And make gun owners take personal responsibility for what happens to the guns they buy.
It's perfectly reasonable for a Texas rancher to carry a pistol, but a gun owned by a New York housewife will almost never protect her. It will far more likely be used to commit suicide, shoot her or her estranged husband during a domestic spat, kill one of her children when they find it loaded and play with it, or be stolen while she's at work and used to rob a liquor store, or kill a cop.
Police in big cities have long fought against liberal concealed carry laws. That's because they know how unreliable guns are as protection, and they don't want to shoot the wrong guy in a already dangerous situation.
Or get shot in the back by some vigilante who thinks he's the second coming of Clint Eastwood.
28 comments:
I've said it before, I guess it needs saying again. N should not try to speak authoritatively about subjects he is ignorant about.
N proclaims that cops are trained and therefore if they miss their target and hit bystanders then of course armed civilians would do worse and hit even more bystanders. A modicum of knowledge of the subject would make it clear to N that the average police officers level of firearms training and skill is woefully lacking and that the average person with a concealed carry permit practices more and shots better.
If N had aquired this little but of knowledge prior to blathering so authoritatively on the subject he might have realized his entire premise was faulty and shutup before making himself look the fool.
But it also exposes the fantasy is that guns provide "protection."
No, it exposes the fantasy that cops can protect you from maniacs. But then I realized it was a Nikto post and stopped reading.
Nothing is more convincing to people than a wilfully ignorant hoplophobe peddling long-discredited studies and myths that are easily repudiated. Since Nikto has never shown anything more than a viscerally emotional approach to the issue without any attempt to educate himself, let alone respond to commenters, he is the poster-child of why the hysterical and odiously untruthful Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center have marginalized themselves almost to insignificance. Way to go, Nikto.
Before I make the comment I am about to make, I'd like express that I am very happy with the current gun laws. In fact, I'd have no problem with loosening a few leftover ones that are pesky to people in certain states. So, no more restrictions and even less restrictions would be fine by me. Violence continues to trend downward despite what you might see on the news so clearly there is no correlation nor causation with a looser gun laws and violence.
That all being said, I'd like to see some examples of when having a gun prevented a shooting spree. Further, I'd like to see evidence of someone who stopped one while it was going on. Kevin put up a post right after the Batman shooting that talked about bringing a gun into a movie to protect his grandson. From whom exactly? If violence continues to go down, there is obviously no need for this.
And even if he (or anyone else) was in one of these shootings, Nikto is correct to note that they would very likely not be able to stop the shooter or protect themselves or others. Just because you own guns doesn't mean that you are properly trained. I'll grant the fact that the police aren't much help either but they are trained and it's vain to think that you know more than they do just because you are a guns rights activist.
Recent Examples:
One example
Another
By the way, google is your friend and you should be looking this up yourself if you are actually curious.
Nikto is correct to note that they would very likely not be able to stop the shooter or protect themselves or others.
Not necessarily correct, lots of examples of exactly the opposite. Not one noted example I can find that supports that viewpoint. It may have happened statistically but I personally haven't heard or read anything like that happening.
Just because you own guns doesn't mean that you are properly trained.
True. Also true that many can't shoot well. Those generally aren't ones that would carry either. Some are not good shooters and do carry and in those cases, you may have a point.
I'll grant the fact that the police aren't much help either but they are trained.
Tell that to the 9 people the police shot in front of Empire state building. Good training - not!
Relying on others to come to your aid in time and expecting them to be competent is taking a pretty big gamble. If you want to take responsibility for your life, get trained and carry. If not, don't take it on. That simple.
but they are trained and it's vain to think that you know more than they do just because you are a guns rights activist.
You know this how?
How much training is required by your local police department? Do you know or are you just assuming things right out of your ass?
If you do know, or bother to look it up - how do you think that compares to others? A gun rights activist, recreational shooter, average daily CCW carrier?
Well, here a CCW permit holder saved a cop in trouble.
Considering that ~1/3 of cops killed are shot with their own pistol, I think by Nikto logic, cops should have their guns taken away. Certainly many big city departments have incredibly poor level of training, and when they shoot, they empty their magazines, reload, and shoot some. That they haven't killed or injured more passerby or each other is just sheer luck.
Maybe not a mass killing, but it's not unknown for these kinds of thugs to herd everyone toward the back where they can "get rid of witnesses". That did happen to a manager at a sporting goods store she worked at. After being bound, their throats were cut. She managed to get loose, somehow call 911, and was the only survivor. She carries concealed everywhere now. As does my brother, who was mugged in St. Paul walking home from the lab late one night. He handed them what they wanted, but it wasn't enough and they wanted some more fun. So they beat him to a pulp and left him unconscious with a concussion on a sidewalk in Minnesota January well below zero. You bet he carries now.
Shooting spree in TX stopped by armed citizens.
And an even better example from Virginia.
How about these?
Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics
Well , all of you gave me the same example which is fine (one of the links didn't work, btw, but I found it myself). The other examples were interesting, especially the link to the Daily Anarchist, GD (side note: I thought you weren't an anarchist:))
That said, they all seem like outliers to me. Remember, I don't have an ulterior motive here. I think our current gun laws are fine and would be completely amenable to looser laws. Here is where Nikto and I part ways because the facts show that violence continues to decline despite the relaxed gun laws.
My issue is with the perceived need for a gun. If violence continues to drop and having one doesn't necessarily mean that you will deter these sorts of shootings or even stop them while they are transpiring, why do you need to have one?
All mass shootings are outliers.....
So even if a civilian with a gun had no impact whatsoever upon them - protection from the much more common type of violence is still a pretty good reason to have one.
And even with violence rates dropping - you only get one chance to save your life. I've always had fire extinguishers in my home and car. I've yet to have a fire in either. Does this mean I have no need for them?
I'm not an anarchist Mark, but I'm also not a regular practitioner of the genetic fallacy.
Well, I'm glad you aren't an anarchist, GD and I'm happy to be wrong. It's not a genetic fallacy, btw, to account for bias in a source.
All mass shootings are outliersm, indeed, which is why I don't get the need for a gun in a potential "mass shooting" situation. I can certainly see the need for protection in more common situations but even then, violence is dropping.
It would be interesting to put the stats for fires in homes next to the chances of being a victim of a violent crime.
Mark, your last comment reminds me of hand-wringing reports on national news about how high American incarceration rates are, even though crime is dropping. As if there's no possible connection between those two facts. Of course there are other factors, but their line of "reasoning" is somehow ... familiar.
I wonder how the fuck Nikto can equate self-defense with vigilantism. Seriously, what the fuck? I suppose the Sikh elder who grappled with and stabbed the shooter in Wisconsin was a "vigilante"? If not, why not? Or does Nikto not really know the meaning of the word? Either way, it's stupid and offensive.
Incarceration rates may be high but for what crime? Drugs? Likely.
It's not a genetic fallacy, btw, to account for bias in a source.
Genetic fallacy....The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit.
Appeal to motive....challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
Ad hominem circumstantial...constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source)
Really??????
Yes, but certainly also a lot of burglars, and violent criminals that aren't out on the streets committing crimes. That does tend to help depress crime rates. Not that I'm a fan of our graduate-level crime schools we call prisons.
I don't get the need for a gun in a potential "mass shooting" situation. I can certainly see the need for protection in more common situations but even then, violence is dropping.
If you are carrying the gun for defense, it's like having that fire extinguisher.
It's always there. I may not need it for the common kitchen fire that I expected most likely when I bought it. Maybe I end up using it for a rather outlying scenario such as a fire caused by space aliens landing on my roof.
I don't get what you don't get about it. Are you referencing someone in particular saying that people need to carry a gun to protect against mass shooting events? Or are you reading those sorts of comments from people who are replying to someone else saying that guns could not have solved a mass shooting event? That makes a difference you know.
I guess I'm thinking about all the gun rights advocates that lament people not having guns in situations like VT or the Giffords shooting. I don't think it wouldn't have solved anything and possibly could have made it worse because of the lack of training. That does NOT mean that I want tougher gun laws as Nikto seems to be espousing.
In one on one situations, though, having a gun is a great idea...especially if you are a woman alone.
Well your making two different points there.
Making it worse due to the lack of training is arguable. Would you think a police officer on the scene of either would have made it worse?
Lamenting armed people not being present in those situations - again, do you think a police officer on the scene would have solved anything?
Obviously, it depends on the police officer. There have been plenty of circumstances when they have made it worse. I think, though, that someone with training is always better than someone without training. And those with training have a higher chance of mitigating problems.
That being said, I don't think your average citizen should rely on the police to defend themselves in their homes or elsewhere.
OK, it depends on the training then?
So, would you think a civilian with more training than an average police officer make it worse? Would it potentially solve anything?
Of course. I guess I'm wondering how a civilian would have more training than your average police officer.
And, again, it depends on the situation. I still contend that there's very little anyone can do (training or not) in many of these mass shooting situations. Perhaps the problem could be looked at from before the incident even occurs...say with the prescription drugs people take?
I'm wondering how a civilian would have more training than your average police officer.
Because your average police officer doesn't have that much training. Because your average police officer isn't a gun enthusiast and therefore practice is a chore and doing it on their own time is almost unheard of.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/08/29/rand-study-on-nypd-firearms-training/
Here's a link to a link to a link. :)
I did it that way because the comments in the first link are informative. The conclusions in the second link reference the study in the third. That may answer your question.
Because obtaining such training as a civilian is neither hard nor expensive.
Here's a list of over 300 firearms training facilities nationwide.
http://www.martialfirearmstraining.com/
it depends on the situation
I agree. There is no one size fits all - always 'do this in case of this' type of answer. My fire extinguisher doesn't help me do much more than put out a fire. My pistol doesn't solve all problems either. But in both cases it's much better to have the option to use it if you need it.
prescription drugs people take
We'd have to show that those drugs are a contributing factor in a statistically significant portion of such cases though wouldn't we?
Yes, we would and they aren't. And that's why we just have to put up with these spree killings everyone once in awhile.
Regarding training, I'd say it depends on the police department. The New York police department is notoriously awful in a number of areas so your link doesn't surprise me at all. Is there a study that looks at a number of different police departments? Did I miss it in your link?
No you didn't miss a link.
Each state has it's own standards. Each individual agency has it's own budget.
I could look up a few examples, if you would like. But as someone who has personal experience in the field I would stand by the average police officer has a level of training and skills that can be and is often exceeded by the average gun enthusiast.
Nah, you really don't have to if you don't want to...
In your experience, what sort of training (other than with the weapon itself) do you go through that would prepare you for such a situation? Obviously, you go through a lot more considering your job but what would I go through if I got a conceal and carry?
You mean other than firearms training to actually hit what you are shooting at?
Well, there are several different areas.
Within the gunfight skillset itself you could do force on force training - think set piece paintball scenarios to make the student think through different options in different situations.
Shoot, no shoot training teaches the student to assess what constitutes a threat and how to react accordingly.
Shoot and move training, shooting while wounded, shooting while on the ground or in unfamiliar postures, low light shooting - these are all closer to the gun shooting aspect.
Further away would be legal training on the justifiable use of force, and it's legal and psychological aftermath.
Those are all classes I have personally attended. Civilian classes, full of civilians by the way.
Such training is also taught to some police officers - sometimes.
What you would go through - well, that depends.
Each state has it's own minimum standard. Some states have none, others require some sort of safety class that essentially means you know enough not to shoot yourself in the foot. Others have a competency requirement that would be much similar to a police qualification test.
In practice many people who go through the expense and time to get said permit often take it a step or a few further and attend some further types of training as I noted above.
If it weren't for the bystander with a gun, this woman would be dead.
Amazingly, he and the cops didn't get in a gunfight when they showed up, either. The way Nikto talks, you'd think that's happened many, many times.
Post a Comment