Another Vile Incident

[Steve]

Because they could.

Or they couldn't.

Consider an active shooter situation. For the average citizen, approaching a scene where something is going on, they will likely take time to figure out what is going on. It's chaotic. People are screaming. Say I'm armed. By the time I have figured out who the bad guy is and who the good guys are, the situation will have progressed. Suggesting that an armed citizen would have saved some lives is pure, bald *** speculation as grounded in reality as the worst of the YouTube martial artists inventing long, elaborate counters that look great on camera. It's fan fiction.

I think that firearms in a home are a TERRIFIC idea, if they are handled safely. The delineation in a home between the bad guy and the good guys is very clear. But in an active shooter situation such as the one above, I can see where an armed citizen might help. I don't, however, see how you can suggest that an armed citizen would help. Or even that it would be likely to help.

However, every time we see an active shooter situation like the one in this thread (which has little to do with poverty, class, gang violence or any of the other red herrings that come up), it's like clockwork. One side spins it to support gun control. The other side spins it to support essentially a gun free-for-all.

 

[billc]

I don't, however, see how you can suggest that an armed citizen would help. Or even that it would be likely to help.

Hmmmm...ask the people who actually did stop active shooters, by capturing them, or shooting them, before the police arrived. Also, if you are the individual who happens to end up eyeball to eyeball with an active shooter...it might be nice to be able to shoot him before he shoots you...

 

[jks9199]

Or they couldn't.

Consider an active shooter situation. For the average citizen, approaching a scene where something is going on, they will likely take time to figure out what is going on. It's chaotic. People are screaming. Say I'm armed. By the time I have figured out who the bad guy is and who the good guys are, the situation will have progressed. Suggesting that an armed citizen would have saved some lives is pure, bald *** speculation as grounded in reality as the worst of the YouTube martial artists inventing long, elaborate counters that look great on camera. It's fan fiction.

OODA. Observe. Orient. Decide. Act. This takes time. Training and experience can shorten the time, but it takes time. That's without even assessing some of the complexities of a real world violent situation -- like what's behind that target, or the effect of adrenaline on fine motor control.

I think that firearms in a home are a TERRIFIC idea, if they are handled safely. The delineation in a home between the bad guy and the good guys is very clear. But in an active shooter situation such as the one above, I can see where an armed citizen might help. I don't, however, see how you can suggest that an armed citizen would help. Or even that it would be likely to help.

However, every time we see an active shooter situation like the one in this thread (which has little to do with poverty, class, gang violence or any of the other red herrings that come up), it's like clockwork. One side spins it to support gun control. The other side spins it to support essentially a gun free-for-all.

Many, perhaps even most, of these cases have been indictments of the mental health system much more than any gun issues. Simple fact: people who aren't going to play by the rules aren't likely to start playing by the rules just because you add a new law. The real bad guys are going to still be bad guys. Knee jerk gun control legislation (like almost all other knee jerk legislation) will do nothing effective. Nor will entrenched opposition to any legislation at all.

 

[ballen0351]

Or they couldn't.

Consider an active shooter situation. For the average citizen, approaching a scene where something is going on, they will likely take time to figure out what is going on. It's chaotic. People are screaming. Say I'm armed. By the time I have figured out who the bad guy is and who the good guys are, the situation will have progressed. Suggesting that an armed citizen would have saved some lives is pure, bald *** speculation as grounded in reality as the worst of the YouTube martial artists inventing long, elaborate counters that look great on camera. It's fan fiction.

I think that firearms in a home are a TERRIFIC idea, if they are handled safely. The delineation in a home between the bad guy and the good guys is very clear. But in an active shooter situation such as the one above, I can see where an armed citizen might help. I don't, however, see how you can suggest that an armed citizen would help. Or even that it would be likely to help.

However, every time we see an active shooter situation like the one in this thread (which has little to do with poverty, class, gang violence or any of the other red herrings that come up), it's like clockwork. One side spins it to support gun control. The other side spins it to support essentially a gun free-for-all.

Except even with all that armed citizens have stopped mass shootings. Its a fact. In all the confusion it's happened. Doesn't happen every time but it does happen. And its happens more then someone trying to help and shooting the wrong people. So just as you think I'm silly for suggesting it could help I think your equally silly for saying it couldn't.

 

[Steve]

Hmmmm...ask the people who actually did stop active shooters, by capturing them, or shooting them, before the police arrived. Also, if you are the individual who happens to end up eyeball to eyeball with an active shooter...it might be nice to be able to shoot him before he shoots you...

Hmmmmm.... so, you're saying that you know that a person with a gun would have saved the day in Santa Monica? Hmmmm... Hmmmm? HmmMMMmmmmm....

 

[billc]

Welllll...we do know how it turned out when no one but the police had guns, it would be nice to have a do over and arm some people along the nut jobs path and see if it would have been any different...the same for the theater in Colorado, for Columbine, for Sandy Hook...again...all "Gun Free Zones," except for the criminal or mentally deranged individual with the gun...and we actually know, as a matter of fact, how those turned out as well...

 

[billc]

Doesn't happen every time but it does happen.

The biggest reason that it doesn't happen more? The killers choose government mandated gun free zones where the victims will be completely unarmed and defenseless. I always enjoy when it is mentioned that civilians at the scene stop the criminals without guns more often than with guns...completely missing the fact that in a gun free zone, the victims simply don't have guns.

 

[Steve]

OODA. Observe. Orient. Decide. Act. This takes time. Training and experience can shorten the time, but it takes time. That's without even assessing some of the complexities of a real world violent situation -- like what's behind that target, or the effect of adrenaline on fine motor control.

Exactly.


Many, perhaps even most, of these cases have been indictments of the mental health system much more than any gun issues. Simple fact: people who aren't going to play by the rules aren't likely to start playing by the rules just because you add a new law. The real bad guys are going to still be bad guys. Knee jerk gun control legislation (like almost all other knee jerk legislation) will do nothing effective. Nor will entrenched opposition to any legislation at all.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, guys. You're all giving me a goddamn headache. I agree with this. This is not a response to what I said. JKS, where have I endorsed knee jerk legislation of any kind? The only knees jerking around are in this thread, with the knee jerk responses.

In fact, I have stated several times that I think an armed bystander MAY have made a difference. I don't know that I would go so far as to say that it is likely, but of course it is possible. For the reasons you state above, the average armed citizen will likely have NO experience in a crisis like this and will very likely need time to assess the situation in order to act appropriately, armed or not.

 

[James Kovacich]

I believe that these occurances have been at least mostly due to mental health. But a broader unanswered question is why does America have the most mental health catastophies?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[oftheherd1]

Given that we are not issued at birth with our own personal policeman (and never have been in any culture at any time) law enforcement is much more a construct of 'peer pressure' and social norms than it is of the courts and the 'long arm of the law'. More crime is prevented by the public than the police; it has always been that way.

I think it is called peer pressure. A fear of some type of sanction if certain norms are violated.

When you have a society with widespread access to firearms and also a sub-culture wherein lethal violence is an accepted way of resolving issues then you are going to have problems.

What USA sub-culture has lethal violence as an accepted way of resolving issues? As far as I know, I am not a member of such a sub-culture.

The guns cannot be magicked away and even if they could be temporarily removed from the continental USA it would be a matter of hours before more came in (to the hands of criminals) from elsewhere. So the only path towards ameliorating the use of lethal force in a social context is to alter the society.

How you do that is problematic because the States has wed itself to the somewhat nihilistic concept of unregulated capitalism and that inevitably gives you a medieval inequality in outcomes, which in turn leads to those at the bottom, with little hope of legitimately improving their lot, turning to the criminal path. Prosperity and relative equality are important attributes of a safe and peaceful society; debt and outrageous inequity leads to violence.

The cure for violent crime is not in gun legislation, it is in overturning the ludicrous financial system and constraining the freedom of capital with a few moral guidelines.

If by unregulated capitalism you mean big business being able to buy favored laws and regulations from those who vote for laws and regulation, I would tend to agree. But to say overturning our ludicrous financial system (and I'm not agreeing ours in the USA is) is a cure for violent crime is something that needs defense. There will always be people who prefer preying on the fruits of other's work over working themselves. Some of those will be OK, or even prefer, using violence.

Also, what does our economic system have to do with people who have mental problems? How did shootings in San jose, Aurora, or Newtown aid the economic situation of the shooters? Was that a motive for their crimes?

I believe that these occurances have been at least mostly due to mental health. But a broader unanswered question is why does America have the most mental health catastophies?

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2

One mental health related catastrophy is two too many. But I don't know that the USA has the most mental health catastropies. Do you have something to show that is so?

 

[Sukerkin]

Couldn't find a way to respond to that that didn't have spikes in it - so I shall say nothing for a while until I can find a way to word a response that is constructive. Might be a while ...

 

[James Kovacich]

One mental health related catastrophy is two too many. But I don't know that the USA has the most mental health catastropies. Do you have something to show that is so?

Almost all of these mass shooting are occuring in the USA. That is what I am referring to.

 

[oftheherd1]

Almost all of these mass shooting are occuring in the USA. That is what I am referring to.

OK, I see what you mean. I was thinking more along the line that there are a lot of catastropies occurring such as genocide, many of which must be committed by mentally ill people. But I guess I should have kept my thinking more narrow in line with this thread.

 

[oftheherd1]

Couldn't find a way to respond to that that didn't have spikes in it - so I shall say nothing for a while until I can find a way to word a response that is constructive. Might be a while ...

My apologies, I didn't mean to sound confrontational. I don't agree with everything you said, and wanted to ask some questions for your comment. I thought I might better understand what you meant, or you might understand my disagreement.

But if you want to implant spikes, go ahead for my part. I have a thick skin and always expect to be able to take what I give.