For a couple of decades, at least, the pro-gun folks have been arguing that if pretty much anyone could pack a weapon in public, massacres like yesterday’s would be a rarity, because Joe Citizen would pull out his gun and shoot the crazy person before the crazy person shot very many people.
ISTM that that theory didn’t hold up particularly well in practice yesterday.
You can argue that people should be able to carry guns wherever they want to, either because that’s what the Second Amendment really means, or because it’s a natural right, or whatever, regardless of whether it’s a good idea from a strictly utilitarian sense. I’m not gonna touch that one here; that’s not what this thread is about.
This OP notes that yesterday’s massacre didn’t exactly support the utilitarian argument for unrestricted carry, and now that a fair number of states have removed many restrictions on carrying firearms since the mid-1990s, wonders what’s the track record: have there been instances that have flown under my radar where someone has interrupted an attempted mass shooting with a bullet of their own, or by making it easier less exceptional for all people to be carrying, have we made it easier for crazies to carry, without any compensatory benefit?
Even with unrestricted carry, few will take advantage. Most handguns that are bought for defense are home guns.
Carrying can be a royal PITA.
Holsters, belts and in some cases new pants to accommodate the gear. Then you need concealing garments for all weathers, hopefully something that doesn’t scream I’M CARRYING!!!.
Few who do carry will be able to take a relatively long shot on a shooter. Most people who carry are thinking close range situations.
I haven’t seen any tapes of the shooting but at close range and just spraying bullets around without aiming, pretty much anyone could get off 3-5 shots per second. The magazine(15-20 rounds) would be empty before a carrying citizen can draw, locate the target, line up the shot and get that first round off.
Seriously? Open/Concealed carry are supposed to stop every single crime, otherwise the premise of allowing them is invalid?
Not only that, but a guy opening fire from a crowd is not all that great a situation for a citizen with a concealed weapon, where there’s a very high chance of injuring someone else. You’d probably be talking about the wildly irresponsible evil concealed carry permit holder if someone had tried to intervene.
And not only THAT, but if someone had gone to a democratic political rally with a gun strapped onto his hip, you’d have undoubtedly criticized him for that too, right? Because he’d be implicitly implying political violence.
The shooting was at an event for a Democratic congresswoman, meaning it was attended by a bunch of liberal pussies. If it had been at a conservative congressman’s event, Loughner would have been shot as soon as he showed up.
Human beings have the reaction time of human beings. Real life ain’t hollywood. Not too long ago up in Washington State (I believe outskirts of Seattle, could be wrong) a guy walked into a coffee shop where cops hung out in the morning. He pulled out a firearm and killed (or maybe shot) around 4 of them, then walked back out. That’s one guy with a gun taking out several police officers who actually keep their weapons holstered for easy access.
The simple fact is, if you aren’t expecting trouble, you aren’t going to be ready for it. The United States being an extremely safe country by any standards of history, most people won’t be ready for trouble.
We are as yet unaware of the motivation and intended targets, if any, of the shooter. On the surface, he may well have been shooting at random into a crowd.
On the other hand, any peace officer, federal agent or responsible gun owner on the scene had only one target and a large crowd of people to avoid shooting. This hypothetical peace officer, federal agent or responsible gun owner is at a massive disadvantage.
I also don’t think there’s much point in trying to define the overall politics of a crowd at a Safeway on a Saturday - there may have been a Democratic congresswoman there to meet people, but needing groceries on a Saturday is hardly restricted to right or left political leanings.
He killed four. I believe he killed two outright, killed the third when he was getting out of his chair, and there was a struggle with the 4th that lead to the 4th officer being killed and the suspect shot.
I’ve not seen a timeline for how long it took between the first shots being fired and the subduing of the suspect, but even in Arizona there’s only a small percentage of people that carry, and someone unarmed simply got there first.
Yes, because there isn’t a single liberal in the entire country who owns a gun. :rolleyes:
Apparently, Rep. Giffords is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment.
But the point still remains that that little girl should have been packin’. I blame the schools for ignoring the Rs: reading, 'riting, and riflemanship.
I stand corrected; I hadn’t read that bit of breaking news yet.
The rest of my point remains, however; after the Congresswoman, he was shooting indiscriminately. An officer or gun owner trying to save the situation would have the disadvantage of trying to shoot the gunman without hitting any innocent bystanders.
He doesn’t have a premise; he has a question. You answered, which was nice. Then you decided to deride him and call him ridiculous, presumably because you look down on people who don’t know the answer to his question?
Oh please, it was a rhetorical question meant to imply the things I said. Just because someone puts a question mark at the end of a thread title doesn’t mean they aren’t making an argument. “ISTM that that theory didn’t hold up particularly well in practice yesterday.” is not a question, and clearly pushing an agenda.
Look at the situation from the two different points of view. let’s say there were 24 people around the congresswoman.
From the shooter’s point of view there are 25 targets. IOW fish in a barrel.
From an armed individual’s POV, 1 target 24 bystanders. Not very good odds at all. Life is not Hollywood.