In response to:

Gridlock and Gun Control

Ron4594 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 1:03 PM
In today's shooting, the police, as usual, were minutes away, when they were needed there. One armed civilian could have stopped it sooner.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 1:45 PM
One armed civilian could have potentially caused more damage as well. I understand the conservative argument that we shouldn't have to rely on the police to protect our lives and the lives of our families. And that certainly rings true in rural settings, where police forces are less comprehensive and the risk of injuring an innocent bystander out on your own farm in the middle of the night is small. But the notion of untrained, armed vigilantes pulling out guns in crowds to "protect" people starts to seem like making a dangerous situation more dangerous. Police have rigorous training with respect to taking down an armed suspect, which includes rules about when to engage the suspect with a firearm.
CardSenseJimmyBond Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 1:53 PM
And those rules often as not have elements of butt-covering, political corectness and liability eschewing...
CardSenseJimmyBond Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 1:53 PM
And those rules often as not have elements of butt-covering, political corectness and liability eschewing...
wtmoore1 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:01 PM
Undoubtedly. I don't disagree that rules of procedure sometimes override common sense, like that incident a while ago where the firefighters showed up at a pond and didn't save someone from drowning in like 6 feet of water because they didn't have persons on scene with the proper "training," so they basically stood around and watched that girl die. Horrifying, no doubt. But I guess my point would be that they also have training on when to confront an armed suspect and when to simply contain the suspect to mitigate the potential for more injury. I just don't think in a situation where a suspect is firing into a crowd, the way to make it safer is to introduce untrained armed citizen vigilantes into the mix. Bullets don't have eyes.
CardSenseJimmyBond Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:07 PM
There are a lot of military veterans with pretty fair judgment out there too who could handle some hairy situations. Don't think we're all "untrained vigilantes".
Luscious Lars Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:18 PM
Ah yes, the old "untrained vigilante" argument. It's a bogus one. Many people who chose to carry are former military, as TexasTundra states. Those folks know how to handle a firearm. Besides, it's not too difficult to figure out who the bad guy is when you can see him shooting into a crowd. When the police show up, the bad guy may have taken up concealed position. The cops have to find him and isolate him so he doesn't do further damage. That's a lot of what their training involves.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:30 PM
I'm sure there are many military veterans with the training necessary to act with prudence in such a situation, but I'm more concerned with the average person carrying a gun in that situation with minimal training. I fully believe that most of those people have taken CCW classes, and done a significant amount of target practice, and other things that make them somewhat safe and a good shot. But those people, and even military veterans to some extent, are not trained on how to deescalate the situation without resorting to more violence.
Craigskeet Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:31 PM
Citizens who carry concealed or openly are required to attend defensive firearms classes, and research shows that such legal carriers are VERY aware of the "collateral damage" potential. Dr. John Lott of the University of Chicago conducted county-by-county research years ago, never refuted by anti-gun advocates, that showed an inverse relationship across the entire U. S. between CCW rates and gun crime. That is, the more civilians carried guns, the lower the gun crime rate.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:31 PM
Don't get me wrong, if I was in that Aurora movie theater, I would much rather be next to my roommate packing a pistol, who is a Marine with two combat tours under his belt, than not. But I don't really think that that is the choice we are generally making. More often the choice is being in the theater with one person indiscriminately firing or more than one person indiscriminately firing. That's also an easy choice.

I think the ultimate solution is for me to just stand next to TexasTundra for the rest of my life. But just so you know, I'm not a coyote.
259DPA Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:36 PM
"One armed civilian could have potentially caused more damage as well." With all due respect, I just don't consider that a good reason for an armed citizen NOT intervening. The citizien MIGHT have caused more damage, but the criminal DEFINITELY will cause more damage if not eliminated ASAP. It appears to me that liberals tend to worry more about DOING something, as opposed to conservatives who worry about what will happen if the DON'T DO SOMETHING. In Boiling Springs, S.C., (2012) an armed citizen stopped a deranged man with a shotgun who kicked open a door. Two armed students in 2002 captured a gunman at the Allalachian School of Law. Many more examples, too little space.

wtmoore1 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 2:51 PM
I've actually seen that U of Chi study, and there isn't any data available (at least included in the study and made publicly available) that shows the rates in the decades leading up to the passage of the CCW laws in each state. Meaning, their conclusion, that the more civilians carried guns, the lower the gun crime rate, could easily be replaced with the hypothesis that communities with higher gun violence rates are less likely to pass a CCW law because their neighbors have shown themselves to be irresponsible with guns already. Correlation doesn't equal causation. And I live in MO where we have a CCW license, and the class isn't exactly rigorous. I certainly don't want gun owners thinking they are "trained" after taking only that class.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 3:17 PM
For every instance an armed citizen who is not law enforcement stopped a potential suspect, there are countless instances of kids accidentally shooting themselves or a friend with his or her parent's firearm and other accidents.

I don't worry about doing "something" so much as I don't think that more guns is the answer. The answer is to regulate high capacity weapons so as to minimize the damage the assailant will "definitely" do, and let those trained to do so take action. It seems backwards to loosen gun regulations so criminals can do more damage in a shorter amount of time which makes more guns seem necessary.
Jay Wye Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 6:21 PM
you proglodytes keep on making those claims,but it simply HAS NOT HAPPENED in real life.
There's NO evidence to support that claim,it's just wild imaginings.
Ordinary citizen Bernard Goetz,on a NYC subway traincar(a tight space),managed to shoot FOUR young thugs (armed with screwdrivers)who tried to rob him,and didn't hit a single bystander. NYC doesn't have much in the way of gun ranges where people can go practice,and handguns aren't allowed there anyways. So it's reasonably safe to say that Goetz was NOT "well-trained",yet didn't "spray bullets" or harm any innocents. Clearly self-defense is not as tricky as some people would have us believe.

Jay Wye Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 6:24 PM
guns are used FAR more for legitimate self-defense than for wrongdoing.
most such DGUs are not reported,since they did not involve any shooting.
they still are valid DGUs.
When speaking with swing voters (yes, there really are some truly moderate people left), I often encounter a fierce animus against the gridlock in Washington. They typically blame both political parties for the inability of our leaders to resolve the issues of the day. I reply by informing them that we have entered a period of little compromise. Among the reasons for this environment is Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, and what they’ve caused is not necessarily a bad thing.

To put this in context, I don’t own a gun and I’m not a member of the NRA (although...