Armed citizens stopping mass shootings - Who to believe?

[DaVinci 0]

tkhayes

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

And pretty much every year, far more are shot and killed unintentionally that would have EVER been killed in any mass shooting.

You are trading poison for poison.

News flash, more kids are killed riding a bike than by cancer as well.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Selective quoting (aka cherry picking) there, chief.

Nope, the report says that defensive gun uses are AT LEAST as common as offensive gun uses by criminals.

“the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”.... Uh that is a CRIMINAL offensive use.

All your other points just show that the true number of DGU's are unknown, but the report states that they are AT LEAST as common as criminal offensive uses.

"National Crime Victimization survey produced by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests that there are roughly 100,000 instances of defensive gun use per year. " - From you.... That number is STILL MORE than murders by gun in the US.

So you just proved the point using your own numbers.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If you actually bothered to read the motherjones report, you would have seen that they used the FBI definition of a mass murder, which is a minimum of four killed in a single incident at a single location.

And if the shooter was stopped by a citizen then it would not be taken into account.

So your data set is off *by design*.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

So your data set is off *by design*.

It's not my data set. I didn't write the article, nor did I post it. I simply responded to someone who misunderstood or misinterpreted it to derive an erroneous conclusion.

However, it seems to me that if such incidents were routinely ended by armed citizens (as opposed to law enforcement, although they are also armed and are citizens) there is no a priori reason why there shouldn't be some incidents where the body count got beyond 4 before they were able to intervene. What are the odds that our armed citizen will be present when the first shot is fired every single time?

The buzzfeed article lists nine incidents that were ended by "armed citizens with private firearms". Curiously, five of these involve off-duty police officers, police officers working security, police officers taking a class as part of their ongoing training, and in one case a retired army ranger. Of the four remaining cases, even the buzzfeed article says "details are murky" for half of them; a different motherjones article examined those cases (and others) and showed that the gunman had run out of ammo or had stopped shooting and walked out to the parking lot and appeared to be surrendering. (That's not say it doesn't take huge balls to step into a situation where you don't know if the gunman is ready to give up or not.)

My point is not to argue that people should not have the right to arm themselves. It is not even to argue that it is impossible for an untrained civilian to get lucky and stop such an incident. But the record suggests that active shooters are almost always stopped by trained law enforcement, or (more commonly) kill themselves when they have achieved whatever delusional goals they had in mind. It is hard to outdraw someone who already has their gun out and is shooting. There have been several cases of civilians who tried, and found themselves dead or wounded for their trouble. Dealing with an active shooter is a very difficult task, one military personnel and certain law enforcement personnel invest a lot of time in training for. It's a totally different situation that some gang banger who wants to relieve you of your cell phone and wallet. The criminal is generally smart enough (if only barely) to figure out that the risk of getting shot is not worth the return, they prefer victims who meekly hand over the goods. Someone who is simply out to kill as many people as possible, and who expects to be killed in return, is much more dangerous. Perhaps some civilians also undergo training to deal with active shooters, at their own expense, but no-one that I know has done that. A day or two a month at the local shooting range does not prepare anyone to deal with a heavily armed and mobile gunman across the mall at a shopping center, or down the hall in a school, especially if panicked people are running around and getting in the way. It's unrealistic to expect citizens with handguns, and no training for the situation, to be able to intervene. It's disingenuous to suggest that arming even a large percentage of the population, without also training them, will do anything to reduce the frequency or severity of mass shooting incidents.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[kallend 1,673]

DaVinci

"National Crime Victimization survey produced by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics suggests that there are roughly 100,000 instances of defensive gun use per year. " - From you.... That number is STILL MORE than murders by gun in the US.

So you just proved the point using your own numbers.

WRONG. You can't equate a murder with a "defensive gun use" that might just involve scaring off some graffitti artists or kids acting up.

If your argument were correct (which it isn't) then similar developed nations with few guns would have non-murder crime rates way higher than the USA. And they don't.

The only real crime outlier among developed nations is the USA's murder rate, about 75% of which are with guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,673]

DaVinci

***http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

And pretty much every year, far more are shot and killed unintentionally that would have EVER been killed in any mass shooting.

You are trading poison for poison.

News flash, more kids are killed riding a bike than by cancer as well.

News Flash: The US homicide rate is about 4x higher than any other western industrialized nation. 75% with firearms.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

Perhaps some civilians also undergo training to deal with active shooters, at their own expense, but no-one that I know has done that. A day or two a month at the local shooting range does not prepare anyone to deal with a heavily armed and mobile gunman across the mall at a shopping center, or down the hall in a school, especially if panicked people are running around and getting in the way. It's unrealistic to expect citizens with handguns, and no training for the situation, to be able to intervene.

this is more training that your typical LEO would do. Less than SWAT types, far more than first responders.

but before you wonder too much about the rarity of those 9 incidents, or that most shouldn't count for whatever reason, you would want to start by counting how many of the incidents occurred in a location where a citizen could legally carry. That removes a pretty large number, thus lowering that denominator.

[tkhayes 145]

except that the CDC does not really have any data about guns, only bits and pieces. Mostly because the gun lobby rallies to defund and make illegal such research.

Make it known to all.....I am ALL FOR THE RESEARCH. Let's open it up. Let's fund it. Let the CDC (or whomever or whatever agency) do the numbers on gun violence, data, shootings, ownership etc. Let's let the chips fall wherever they may statistically, and I will drop my case if the numbers add up in favor of everyone being allowed to carry guns as a public safety policy.

But I expect the numbers are not actually there.

I await your letter to Congress stating your support for funding the research by the CDC. i am all for it.

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

The old tired "blood in the streets" claim.... Never mind that it never happens.

But it will if we have enough people carrying. I'm thinking of the incident a few days ago where two guys with carry permits killed each other in a road rage incident. look for shit like that to happen more often and for mass killings to be just another fact of life.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[tkhayes 145]

yes and the accidental death rate for children all around is far worse for the USA than other civilized countries. Just like gun violence, its something to be proud of and relish.....[bat-shit crazy]

[rhaig 0]

they have data previously collected and cited by folks who wanted guns taken away from the general public and from people who wanted to know how often guns were used for defense. Upon actual analysis, it doesn't fall in your favor, so you poo-poo the data.

Fine... sure... go ahead. It's your opinion and it stinks just like every other asshole.

--
Rob

[jgoose71 0]

Tink1717

NO winners here. I can't see an upside to gunfights in the streets, schools and public places. Nor is there any solution that either the NRA or the SCOTUS will accept. It seems to me that we're just going to have to accept mass killings as a way of life here.

Nobody likes the idea of gunfights in the streets or schools. Me personally, I like the idea of lining up kindergarteners against a wall for a mass execution less.

It's kind of a "lesser of 2 evils" kind of thing. If there is a chance to stop a shooter, then go for it, rather than let him continue on his killing spree unchecked. That was one thing the police took away from the Columbine indecent.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 18]

Tink1717

Quote

The old tired "blood in the streets" claim.... Never mind that it never happens.

But it will if we have enough people carrying. I'm thinking of the incident a few days ago where two guys with carry permits killed each other in a road rage incident. look for shit like that to happen more often and for mass killings to be just another fact of life.

this is the same scary claim made with TX and FL went to shall issue conceal carry

FL was to become the gunshine state and TX was returning to the old shoot outs at the OK coral

Didnt happen

Will not happen

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I simply responded to someone who misunderstood or misinterpreted it to derive an erroneous conclusion.

However, it seems to me that if such incidents were routinely ended by armed citizens (as opposed to law enforcement, although they are also armed and are citizens) there is no a priori reason why there shouldn't be some incidents where the body count got beyond 4 before they were able to intervene.

You are jumping to a conclusion based on lack of data. The fact is the lack of data could be from several reasons, you are assuming the one that fits your personal feelings.

Quote

What are the odds that our armed citizen will be present when the first shot is fired every single time?

What are the odds that the only stories that DON'T fit the mother jones criteria are the same?

As for your exact question... What are the odds a cop will be there?

Quote

The buzzfeed article lists nine incidents that were ended by "armed citizens with private firearms". Curiously, five of these involve off-duty police officers, police officers working security, police officers taking a class as part of their ongoing training, and in one case a retired army ranger

And with the current laws, it is much more likely that an off duty cop will be armed than a regular citizen.... ESPECIALLY in places where guns are not allowed for regular citizens.

Quote

My point is not to argue that people should not have the right to arm themselves. It is not even to argue that it is impossible for an untrained civilian to get lucky and stop such an incident. But the record suggests that active shooters are almost always stopped by trained law enforcement

And that is most likely because in most cases mass shootings happen in places where only LEO's are allowed to carry. Schools? Cops = yes, civilians = no. Places of employment... Well my company does not let me carry while at work (even if LEO), I'd bet most places are the same.

And you are ignoring the fact that just because someone carries a weapon - That does not make them responsible to try and stop a mass shooter. They are only allowed to defend themselves. COPS are supposed to try and stop a mass shooter, and they normally don't try without at least a 3 man team (until recently when the ROE changed based on the data that a mass shooter normally stops and either surrenders of kill himself at the first sign of armed resistance).

Quote

It is hard to outdraw someone who already has their gun out and is shooting.

Not if you are not the direct target or have cover.... and either is better than just sitting there and getting shot.

Quote

Dealing with an active shooter is a very difficult task, one military personnel and certain law enforcement personnel invest a lot of time in training for

I am ex military and until the recent ammo shortage fired about 1,000 rounds per month at ranges like IPDA, USPSA, and in training classes and with my ex military buddies for fun.

Do you think police shoot 1,000 rounds per month?

Quote

The criminal is generally smart enough (if only barely) to figure out that the risk of getting shot is not worth the return, they prefer victims who meekly hand over the goods.

Well there is a great reason to allow civilian carry!

Quote

Perhaps some civilians also undergo training to deal with active shooters, at their own expense, but no-one that I know has done that.

You should hang out with more people who like to shoot other than at a box range.

Quote

It's unrealistic to expect citizens with handguns, and no training for the situation, to be able to intervene

It is even more unrealistic to expect the police to be everywhere. It is also unrealistic to expect a civilian to fight for his life with his bare hands against an armed shooter.... But that is what you seem to want to make everyone do....

Quote

It's disingenuous to suggest that arming even a large percentage of the population, without also training them, will do anything to reduce the frequency or severity of mass shooting incidents.

It's disingenuous to suggest that not arming them will do anything either... Other than make them easier to kill.

The fact is that armed civilians HAVE stopped shooters. And the CDC just released a report saying that DGU's are AT LEAST as common as criminal uses.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

WRONG. You can't equate a murder with a "defensive gun use" that might just involve scaring off some graffitti artists or kids acting up.

Sure you can... you just don't like it because it beats your argument into the ground. And these are not MY numbers, nor my claim... It is from the CDC.

Quote

If your argument were correct (which it isn't) then similar developed nations with few guns would have non-murder crime rates way higher than the USA. And they don't.

I like how you ignore the vast majority of factors such as cultural factors.... Not very honest, but it is all you can do.

Quote

The only real crime outlier among developed nations is the USA's murder rate, about 75% of which are with guns.

Yes, and the CDC has said that AT LEAST as many DGU's happen... Don't like it, contact the CDC.

Quote

News Flash: The US homicide rate is about 4x higher than any other western industrialized nation. 75% with firearms.

News flash: People without bikes don't happen to die bike riding.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

But it will if we have enough people carrying.

You just made the same BS claim you made earlier.... Making it twice does not make it any more true.

People like you claimed that blood would run in the streets when CHL was allowed... It didn't

People like you claimed that blood would run in the streets when more guns were available... It didn't (in fact gun crimes have gone DOWN).

People like you claimed blood would run in the streets when VA allowed bar carry... It didn't.

So your argument is old and tired... And proven false.

Quote

I'm thinking of the incident a few days ago where two guys with carry permits killed each other in a road rage incident.

One example does not make an argument.

Quote

look for shit like that to happen more often and for mass killings to be just another fact of life.

Now you have made the same BS claim three times..... It is still not supported by data.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

yes and the accidental death rate for children all around is far worse for the USA than other civilized countries. Just like gun violence, its something to be proud of and relish.....[bat-shit crazy]

Then why don't I see you trying to ban pools? Why don't I see you trying to ban bikes?

Because you only dislike one thing and you don't care that your data is faulty... Your emotions control your argument.

The CDC reported that guns do not increase violence. The CDC showed that DGU's are AT LEAST as common as criminal uses.

You want to remove the lawful uses and only allow the criminal ones....[bat-shit crazy]

[GeorgiaDon 340]

It's pretty obvious your feelings on the matter are interfering with your ability to read, causing you to leap to conclusions that have no logical connection to the words you are responding to. I never suggested that citizens be disarmed, or prevented from defending themselves. Although I enjoy a good debate, I greatly dislike having words put in my mouth for the sake of a straw-man argument.

Also, how can it make any sense that defensive gun use incidents outnumber criminal gun uses? Doesn't that have to mean that some so-called defensive uses are in response to something other than a criminal threat? In fact, since a lot of criminal acts are not met with a defensive response involving guns, your assertion suggests that people are frequently using guns for "defense" when no actual threat exists. How can an action be "defensive" if there is no actual threat to defend against?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It's pretty obvious your feelings on the matter are interfering with your ability to read

Ah yes, when out of facts and logic.... start the personal attacks.

Quote

Also, how can it make any sense that defensive gun use incidents outnumber criminal gun uses? Doesn't that have to mean that some so-called defensive uses are in response to something other than a criminal threat?

If an attacker pulls a knife on me and I pull a gun in defense, that is an example of a DGU that was not also a criminal GUN use. Simple elementary logic.

[tkhayes 145]

Then why don't I see you trying to ban pools? Why don't I see you trying to ban bikes?

because pools and bikes are not weapons and they serve other purposes than to kill people.

And every year, we raise the standards for and build better pools and bikes to help with the death rate by pool or bike. We do no such thing for guns.

And a handgun, unlike a bike, is meant to kill people. That is what it was designed for and pretty much its sole purpose. Especially when you carry it around with you for the expressed purpose of 'defense'. You have every intention to use it as needed to take a life.

[email]However, I have not asked for a ban on anything. If you bother to read my posts.

The CDC report does not say that guns increase violence. nor does it explicitly state that it DECREASES violence either. And the same study showed an INCREASE in suicide by gun.

But it fails to show how many guns are in the hands of whom, how many people are shot by their own guns, how many defensive guns uses could have been 'defended' via any other means or a host of other possible questions.

I realize that the gun data did not back up the case for a gun ban, but again, i am not asking fro a gun ban, nor have I ever asked for a gun ban.

But once again, if the gun data is so overwhelmingly in favor of everyone carrying a gun all the time in the interests of public safety, then why does the NRA constantly block any attempt to gather gun data by the CDC, the ATF or the FBI?

I would think they would RELISH that data. yummy!

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Ah yes, when out of facts and logic.... start the personal attacks.

Oh, that's what you were doing!

Quote

If an attacker pulls a knife on me and I pull a gun in defense, that is an example of a DGU that was not also a criminal GUN use.

I can see that as an example.

I'll have to find/read the original CDC article.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[tkhayes 145]

A burglar comes into your house and you pull out your gun, turn on a light and he runs like hell. You chalk one up for a defensive use of a gun to prevent a crime.

A burglar comes into my house and I turn on a light and he runs like hell. I chalk one up for a defensive use of a light bulb to prevent a crime.

Not every defensive use of a gun required(s) the use of a gun. It was handy and you used it. great for you, but to state that therefore guns are good, when other things may have worked just as well (i.e. owning a dog) is not terribly noteworthy.

If you ask a gun-owner for a solution to a problem like that, their solution will likely include the use of a gun.

If I ask a neurosurgeon about my bad back, I will get a neurosurgeon's opinion. Same goes for an Orthopedic surgeon and a Physical Therapist. different solutions for the same problem.

Let's find the data whereby a gun was the ONLY solution for the problem. Then I am all ears.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Oh, that's what you were doing!

No sir.. thats what you were doing with this: "It's pretty obvious your feelings on the matter are interfering with your ability to read"

And it is pathetic.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

because pools and bikes are not weapons and they serve other purposes than to kill people.

My firearms serve many other reasons that to kill people... In fact, none of my weapons has ever..... Well OK, I have some historical pieces that might have been used in war.... But none of them have been used to kill ANYTHING since I have owned them and yet I have shot thousands of rounds through them.

So your very premise is flawed.

Quote

And every year, we raise the standards for and build better pools and bikes to help with the death rate by pool or bike. We do no such thing for guns.

False, we have standards for firearms... In fact Bush even banned some inexpensive firearms deemed unsafe. Again, you fail.

Quote

And a handgun, unlike a bike, is meant to kill people. That is what it was designed for and pretty much its sole purpose.

Then all of mine must be defective.... You fail again.

Quote

The CDC report does not say that guns increase violence. nor does it explicitly state that it DECREASES violence either.

If it did not INCREASE, then your whole premise is again proven to be false.

Quote

And the same study showed an INCREASE in suicide by gun

BY GUN.... Sure, but not an increase in *suicide*. Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US... Just not by gun. Canada's suicide rate stayed the same, yes by GUN it went down, but poisoning and hanging went up to cover the drop.

Typically, you want to talk about gun numbers... It seems you don't care if a guy is murdered by club (more than long guns per the FBI) knife (more than long guns per the FBI), or by a good old regular beat down (yep, more than guns per the FBI).

Quote

I realize that the gun data did not back up the case for a gun ban

Yet the data also says that less than 400 people a year are killed by long guns of ALL types and you claim to want a ban on AR's (Which is a very small subset of long gun).

Quote

But once again, if the gun data is so overwhelmingly in favor of everyone carrying a gun all the time in the interests of public safety, then why does the NRA constantly block any attempt to gather gun data by the CDC, the ATF or the FBI?

They don't do anything to stop the ATF or the FBI.... That is just you making things up. The NRA did try to prevent the CDC and there are a few reasons for that:

1. The CDC is centers for DISEASE control. Guns are not a disease.

2. The CDC had a clear agenda in the past.
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (Quoted in William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)

So when the CDC had put out some very clearly anti gun propaganda..... They had their funding pulled for being political and not scientific.

Quote

I would think they would RELISH that data. yummy!

And they are loving the recent CDC report. The one that said more guns does not equal more gun violence. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years.” and “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,”

And that citizens that used a firearm in SD were hurt less.
“consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

And that guns are used in SD at least as often as criminals try to use them. "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals"

Accidents have declined as well. “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

So violent crimes are down, accidents are also down... And Defensive gun uses are at least as common as attacks and studies show that defensive gun uses tend to protect the innocent better than any other method.

I fail to see any of that as a bad thing.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

DaVinci

Quote

Oh, that's what you were doing!

No sir.. thats what you were doing with this: "It's pretty obvious your feelings on the matter are interfering with your ability to read"

And it is pathetic.

Fine. Be like that if you want.

In your earlier response to me (to which I was responding) you said:
"It is also unrealistic to expect a civilian to fight for his life with his bare hands against an armed shooter.... But that is what you seem to want to make everyone do.... "
and also
"It's disingenuous to suggest that not arming them will do anything either... Other than make them easier to kill. "

Please point out to me exactly where I said anything about disarming anybody, or where I said I expected anybody to fight for their life with their bare hands. I have always been explicit that I do not question people's right to be armed for their own defense. In fact, I said:

"My point is not to argue that people should not have the right to arm themselves. "

So you have made shit up whole cloth when you say I want people to defend themselves with their bare hands. You have put words in my mouth when you say that I suggest disarming anyone. You want a straw man to argue against, and when you don't get the argument you expect to hear, well then you just make it up.

Pathetic indeed.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)