| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 do armed civilians stop rampages?Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. Five cases commonly cited as a rationale for arming Americans don't stand up to scrutiny. By Mark Follman | Wed Dec. 19, 2012 3:01 AM PST In the wake of the unthinkable massacre in Connecticut, pro-gun ideologues are once again calling for ordinary citizens to arm themselves as a solution to mass shootings. If only the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary School had possessed a M-4 assault rifle [1] she could've stopped the killer, they say [2]. This latest twist on a long-running argument isn't just absurd on its face; there is no evidence to support it. As I reported recently in our in-depth investigation, not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way [3]. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to intervene in shooting rampages are rare—and are successful even more rarely. (Two people who tried it in recent years were gravely wounded or killed [3].) And law enforcement overwhelmingly hates the idea [4]. Those pesky facts haven't stopped the "arm America more! [5]" crowd from pressing the argument with alleged examples of successful armed interventions. The problem is, the few examples they keep using—in which they depict plain old folks acting heroically and with definitive results—fall apart under scrutiny. Here are five of them and why they don't work: Appalachian School of Law shooting in Grundy, Virginia Gun rights die-hards [6] frequently [7] credit [8] the end of a rampage at the law school in 2002 to armed "students" who intervened. They conveniently ignore that those students also happened to be current and former law enforcement officers [9], and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammunition by the time they got to him. An ambiguous case from 1998, in which the shooter may well have already been done shooting [16]: After killing a teacher and wounding three others, the 14-year-old perpetrator left the dance venue. The owner of the venue followed him outside with a shotgun, confronting and subduing him in a nearby field until police arrived. The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who himself recently argued [17] for more guns as an answer to gun violence, told me this week [18] that one police source he talked to about this case said that it was "not clear at all" whether the kid had intended to do any further shooting after he'd left the building. High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over [19]: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived. New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colorado In 2007 a gunman killed two people and wounded three others before being shot himself; the pro-gun crowd likes to refer to the woman who took him out in the parking lot as a "church member. [6]" Never mind that she was a security officer [20] for the church and a former cop, and that the church had put its security team on high alert earlier that day due to another church shooting nearby. Bar shooting in Winnemucca, Nevada In 2008, a gunman who killed two and wounded two others was taken out by another patron in the bar [21], who was carrying with a valid permit. But this was no regular Joe with a concealed handgun: The vigilante, who was not charged after authorities determined he'd committed a justifiable homicide, was a US Marine [22]. And what about cases in which citizens try to use their guns and things go terribly wrong? There are at least two examples of ill-fated attempts that you won't see mentioned by those arguing for your kid's teacher to start stashing a loaded Glock in her classroom: Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown [23], wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital. Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead [24] by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. Such actions in chaotic situations don't just put the well-intentioned citizen at risk, of course. According to Robert McMenomy, an assistant special agent in charge in the San Francisco division of the FBI, they increase the danger for innocent bystanders. (Exhibit A: the gun-wielding guy who came really close to shooting an innocent person [25] as the Tucson massacre unfolded.) They also make it more difficult for law enforcement officers to do their jobs. "In a scenario like that," McMenomy told me in a recent conversation, "they wouldn't know who was good or who was bad, and it would divert them from the real threat." Source URL: www.motherjones.com Links: [1] media.defenseindustrydaily.com [2] www.huffingtonpost.com [3] www.motherjones.com [4] www.motherjones.com [5] thinkprogress.org [6] dailyanarchist.com [7] johnrlott.tripod.com [8] michaelsiegel.net [9] www.cse.unsw.edu.au [10] www.motherjones.com [11] www.motherjones.com [12] www.motherjones.com [13] www.motherjones.com [14] www.motherjones.com [15] www.motherjones.com [16] articles.philly.com [17] www.theatlantic.com [18] twitter.com [19] www.people.com [20] www.thedenverchannel.com [21] www.kolotv.com [22] elkodaily.com [23] www.komonews.com [24] en.wikipedia.org [25] www.slate.com www.motherjones.com |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens |
||||||
|
Nice try, but... 2) The monthly NRA publication lists multiple examples (6-10) of crimes being stopped each issue. For you to site only a few instances it could easily lead one to conclude that you are cherry-picking your examples. 3) Most importantly, if you found yourself in a situation in which you were confronted with an armed gunman wouldn't you rather have a gun? And, even if you would prefer to be unarmed, do you have the right to make that decision for other law-abiding citizens? |
||||||
|
pecosbill |
||||||
|
CL |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
DOVE? |
||||||
|
bc ... |
||||||
|
you don't understand chaz |
||||||
|
BC.... |
||||||
|
bc ... |
||||||
|
chaz if you were |
||||||
|
bc ... |
||||||
|
chaz |
||||||
|
chaz |
||||||
|
bc ... |
||||||
|
"...yes there must be compromise because eliminating all weapons from the hands of the public is impossible.." chaz Both 'arguing' different issues. |
||||||
|
gunowners.org And the Oregon Mall shooting was actually really stopped by an armed citizen, but you didn't hear about it on CNN www.examiner.com www.youtube.com You see armed citizens don't have to actually shoot anyone with their weapons to be effective. As long as the presence of the weapon is effective at stopping what is going on. Which is the EXACT reason that cops do not wait outside of a school any longer - they engage the shooter. Why? Because engaging, having a presence, stops the shooter and captures their attention. Where are the stat on a robbery stopped because the private citizen pulled a gun and the thugs ran off? You won't find it because it doesn't exist and not because these situations do not happen - no one is asking these questions. I used my gun once to get a gun out of my backyard. He was up to no good and left post-haste when I drew down on him and asked him to leave. You might be surprised . . . he left. No one got shot. How'd that happen? Do you guys think? |
||||||
|
Even if a ban is successful in making access to one type of weapon more difficult what is keeping an individual from substituting an equally devastating weapon? Would any lives have been saved at Sandy Hook if the killer had chosen a shotgun instead of an assault rifle? If you listen to people that work for such bans it becomes clear the reason they work so hard to change the law is because it makes them feel better. It is essentially a form of therapy. It meets their emotional needs without really solving the problem which has no easy answer. |
||||||
|
mrconservative64 25-Dec-12, 11:41 |
It's not a question of arming the public... |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
thubery Every day there are hundreds to thousands who die because of cancer, heart attack, other illnesses, accident. We have the best scientists working on cures and preventions to these, but so far they still exist. Every day we have some needless death due to weapons. We have scientists, social workers, politicians, business leaders, churches, educators all trying to solve the problem, but as yet, we have no solutions. There is NO one particular solution. If there is ever "a" solution found, it will be a combination of changes to society and culture that makes it unthinkable for anybody to consider extreme violence. To imagine what some of those changes might be, think about why somebody would consider it now in the first place. Then apply a fix to that problem. |
||||||
|
Stinky ... |
||||||
|
softaire |
||||||
|
Softy ... |
||||||
|
www.myfoxphilly.com |
||||||
|
dmaestro 28-Dec-12, 06:57 |
Canned NRA propaganda is easily refuted. The NRA is allied with the gun sales industry and its profits. Death and violence is good business for them nationally and internationally. Reduction in either is bad for business and NRA funding. Follow the money. |
||||||
|
Is it coincidence that the western nation with the laxest gun laws has the highest rate of gun violence and spree-killing? Omg wait, I'm a gun owner in favour of tighter restrictions. Shock! How can this be?!? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
