That’s not what the OP said. He acknowledged that even if open/concealed carry don’t reduce crime at all, there are still other reasons for allowing them. However, there also exists the argument that unrestricted carry reduces deaths by crazy people who go on shooting rampages. He didn’t say that they would have to stop every single crime, either; that’s not what “rarity” means.
Okay, now that you’ve diagnosed that it’s an argument, would you care to address it? The closest you’ve come to doing so in this thread is when you said:
…and that’s an argument against the crime-reducing effectiveness of unrestricted carry.
That means squat. If ones interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it applies only to militia members, supporting it doesn’t mean support for individual rights.
According to On The Issues she supports banning semi-auto pistols and rifles.
I do not classify anyone who supports banning anything a supporter of the 2nd Amendment!
That was extremely crass, but in spite of that it does hit somewhat close to the mark. The Democratic Party supports gun control policies. It therefore stands to reason that people who are active enough in their party that they go to see their Representative at a political event would also support gun control policies and would therefore be disinclined to exercise those rights themselves.
That’s a much more reasonable and credible way of saying what you implied without hurling insults, isn’t it, Pierrot Le Fou? One thing that has been argued because of this is that the tone of political discourse might have been a factor in this shooting, that it inspires violence. Maybe, maybe not. But still, is it that hard to raise the tone a bit and at worst mitigate it as a possibility? It starts with you.
You guys know that a person can fire fifteen or twenty shots REALLY quickly, right?
It’s sad that we’re already getting into partisan idiocy here when the answer is so obvious; nobody shot the guy because nobody had the time. Everything is fine and then HOLY SHIT WHAT’S HAPPENING SOMEONE’S SHOOTING the guy’s tackled it’s over. It was over before anyone nearby with a gun had a chance.
There was an initial report stating that someone had shot him, but evidently that proved to be untrue, along with 90% of the other initial stories our crack reporters and journalist were coming up with.
That said, just because AZ is an open carry state does not mean that any of those present were carrying, or if there was, those people may not have been able to take a safe shot from within a crowd without putting others in danger.
Well, that’s my argument, but the pro-gun folks’ argument has been that unrestricted carry would stop things like this, when similar nuts opened up in restaurants and the like. I have a hard time believing that the very presence of a liberal counterargument is undermining all that.
Again, maybe I’m reading you wrong, but you seem to be saying: the very presence of a liberal counterargument undermines what we gun nuts said was going to work under these circumstances.
If you guys didn’t mean it, fine. I’m good with that.
In defense of the OP, it has not been uncommon in the past few years to hear right wing pundits state that these types of attacks would be reduced if more people carried guns. I’ve never seen that stated as anything other than an article of faith.
Having said that, I think there are very few posters on this board who take that view. Very few, but not zero. Until and unless one of them comes into this thread, I don’t see it getting anywhere.
Increased numbers of gun carrying citizens will not dter this kind of crime and anyone who says it will is a fool.
What it does do is decrease street crime such as holdups/muggings/carjacking. Crimes of opportunity against a random target.
Incredibly unlikely but the “madman in a McDonalds” is a situation where an armed customer could put an early stop to a slaughter.
Actually, I have advocated that in the past, and with certain conditions I still will. But the OP was asking why it didn’t happen, and in this case the conditions made it unlikely with a reasonable (albeit circumstantial) explanation why.
The problem with the question as asked is that it’s a gotcha question. Who wants to be the one stuck in that trap?
The point is that it’s always going to be unlikely in any case like this. it’s a standard meme of gun nuts that “if somebody else had a gun, this would all be avoided,” but the fact is that even if someone else does have a gun, they can’t do jack shit in a case like this except endanger more people and make the jobs of law enforcement that much harder.
Oh, I agree. In this case it apparently happened so quickly that it wouldn’t have mattered in any case. But…
There are two reasonable objections to your statement above.
First, mass murderers/spree killers go for easy marks. That’s why they go for schools or densely populated areas, so they can maximize their casualties before they go out in a blaze of gunfire, typically. If they believe that they will not succeed in their goal, wouldn’t it make sense that they would go elsewhere? The mere suggestion that someone will shoot them dead before they accomplish anything would seemingly be an effective deterrent. That deterrent didn’t exist here, because as mentioned it was a political function for a Democrat, thus making it unlikely that they would be carrying weapons. Easy marks.
Second, let’s take the Virginia Tech shootings as an example. Cho was able to go from room to room with impunity. If someone in another one of the classrooms had been carrying a weapon he would have had a reasonable chance of stopping further killings. That’s no comfort for the people in the initial stages, but in the later stages such measures could very well have worked.
I’m done with this line of discussion unless everybody’s OK with it, as it seems to be skirting the point where it constitutes a hijack and I don’t want to be that guy. I’ll check up on it later and we’ll go from there.
This is a load in the first place and doesn’t address my objections in the second place. The Ft. Hood shooter attacked a military base, so that dispenses with your “easy mark” hypothesis, but more significantly, it doesn’t address the point that firing back in a crowded situation has little chance of success and much chance of creating more casualties.
This is such a load. Even if other people had guns in the classrooms (and I personally don’t give a shit if they do), all that would do is add to the confusion as they would have no way of knowing who the original shooter was, and who the John Waynes were. You’d just have a bunch of amateur, wannabe heroes taking potshots at each other and hitting coeds by accident. You’d also really complicate things for cops arriving on the scene. How are they supposed to know who the bad guy is and who the Travis Bickles are? When they’re all randomly shooting at each other in the hallways, is there really any difference anyway?
Yes and no. This sort of thing happens when a nutcase goes off. Have you ever gone to the range and fired off a bunch of 9mm rounds? They aren’t really loud and the recoil is nothing. I can put 10 rounds in the target within 10 seconds without my bifocals. Thats really slow. Someone 10 years younger than me and not caring what was hit would have a much better hit ratio.
During drivers training classes, I was taught that it takes almost 10 seconds between seeing red lights happening and moving foot for an emergancy stop. People who aren’t living their lives in condition red move slower. I think that most of us who carry aren’t really expecting to need to pull a gun. We really don’t want to. We would rather spend our entire lives with gun only being used to punch holes in paper.
so…long post to say that if I…as a long time CCW holder, if I was there, I’m not sure that I’d have felt safe to shoot. I might have been the woman who jumped him while he was reloading, tho. and no…I wasn’t, but I do give her a lots of thumbs up.
I don’t see where you’re disagreeing with me. I’m saying the same thing. It’s not a situation where people in the crowd can safely return fire even if they do have firearms of their own.