And did they succeed before he harmed innocent people first?
Unarmed, innocent people.
Not before he killed them and took their guns.
Not all of them were unarmed, as I understand it. And the armed ones didn’t stop the shooter until 11 people lay dead. At a Naval Yard. Hardly a gun free zone, right?
He also had a shooting incident in 2004 in Seattle, WA, where he shot out the tires of a car during a “rage-induced blackout.” For which he was not convicted, though he was charged for malicious mischief by Seattle PD. This crime is either a Class B, C felony, or gross misdemeanor depending on how much damage was done.
I am guessing, but any of those would serve to prohibit the acquisition of a Texas CHL, assuming his carry permit was from Texas. As it looks like he wasn’t even indicted, the discussion is moot, but it may be that if Seattle had followed through on this nut in 2004, he wouldn’t have been able to get either a carry permit or legally buy the shotgun he seems to have used to have killed his first victims.
Let’s see. This weekend two trained NYC Cops fired three shots at a wild man in Times Square. They missed him all three times, but managed to wound two bystanders.
http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/la-na-nn-new-york-shooting-20130914,0,2892844.story
A couple of years ago NYC anti-terror cops, (highly trained!!!) in front of the Empire State Building, shot and killed a murderer with a gun. They fired 16 shots. Unfortunately, they also wounded 9 innocent bystanders in the process.
In 56 mass shootings between January 2009 and January 2013, (48 months) there was not a single instance of a shooter choosing his venue due to it being a gun free zone.
Of the 24 incidents in public spaces, at least 11 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 13 of the shootings(23%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called ―
gun-free zones.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2013/02/document-drop-mass-shootings-2009-2013
So even highly trained good guys aren’t all that effective and shooters pick their venues for reasons of their own not related to the presence of other gun totters.
Your typical Barney Fife (the George Zimmerman type) will make far more mistakes (as did George) than a trained cop. If I’m near someone like that, for my own safety, I’ll move away.
I don’t recall anyone claiming they could prevent an armed assailant from taking action, only that an armed respondant (be they law enforcement or other suitably armed civilian) could stop them.
Which you wouold know if you weren’t a fucking cocksucking douchebag.
:mad: This is the kind of thing that happens when people confuse the sport with the equipment! Why, look at what Jack the Ripper was able to achieve with a simple knife! Does no one care for grace or style or form any more?! Is there no art for art’s sake among serial killers?! It’s all about fucking body-count these days!
Are you under the impression that most people in there are allowed to be armed?
George was a fine shot. One in the pumper.
Are you under the impression that no one there is allowed to be armed?
Other than the MP, or security, they are not. Just like other gun free zones.
Knorf was implying with italics and “Hardly a gun free zone” that it wasn’t a gun free zone.
A few thoughts of note:
- It seems clear to me this shooter should not have had legal access to guns. We need tougher enforcement of the existing regulations and/or beefing-up of laws designed to prevent firearms ownership by persons with demonstrated poor judgement.
- One of the persistent issues with the idea of using guns in self-defense is that a defensive gun user, especially a trained soldier in their home turf, is going to have to take a second or two to evaluate the appropriate response to a threat–the bad guy by definition does not have that hesitation to worry about.
- Regarding police and military gun training, it’s probably going to be not very effective in the typical case of a mass shooter. Police just do not practice that much with their guns, they have other training to take and other things to do–for example, this article claims that NYPD only shoot 150 rounds a year in the course of a two-day training (New York Police Recruits Need More Gun Training in Real-Life Scenarios, Critics Say - The New York Times)–I wouldn’t personally carry a pistol around until I were shooting AT LEAST 600 rounds in my intensive training weekend, plus refreshers. As for soldiers, they tend (even in this day and age, according to my buddies in the Marines) to practice shooting at targets who are dressed in the wrong uniform, and target discrimination isn’t systematically taught to them.
Sure, at a range of two inches!
Of course not. But quite a lot of people there, including early reports of several victims, were in fact armed.
The very common claim is that knowledge of people being armed in a public situation is itself a strong deterrent against would-be shooters, and furthermore supposedly an essential factor in preventing large numbers of casualties in a public shooting spree.
What we have in this situation at the Navy Yard is a man who probably should not have been allowed to own a gun in the first place, walking into a situation with numerous armed and well-trained people, taking out at least a couple armed and well-trained people, and slaughtering a large number of other people who were unarmed.
By the way, no one is claiming that armaments are not helpful to stop a shooter. The argument is whether a lot of people carrying arms is in fact an effective deterrent in preventing public shootings, and whether a lot of people carrying arms is likely to prevent a massacre. The example in this instance, which involved a lot of people who were openly armed and, furthermore, well-trained, is negative with regard to both questions.
I have no idea how I personally insulted you in such as way as to justify this response, unless you just think profanity and insults are effective debate tools, which they are not.
You’re not getting the part about 12 people being dead, are you? :rolleyes:
How do you plan to explain that to your colleagues on the Freedom! Second Amendment! Shall-issue! side? That demonstrated poor judgment (and in whose opinion?) trumps all of that?
You’re for that, great. You know the mentality opposing it, great. How does that mentality get overcome?
So you also agree the “good guy with a gun” stuff is crap. Great. How do we stop your colleagues from spouting it? How does that mentality get overcome?
Actually firing is the very last step in the situation, though. Stopping the armed person starts well before that.
I admit to being mildly surprised when an image search revealed that Aaron Alexis was African-American. Guess they can’t blame this one on white Americans and their guns.
He did have a CCW, so no one can say they are less prone to armed mayhem.