There simply aren’t enough people carrying guns, as a percentage of the population, for it to be an effective deterrent to crime. If everyone was packing like in a wild west movie, then I’d expect far, far fewer incidences of the types of crimes that runner pat mentioned, i.e., holdups, muggings and carjackings (and abductions and rapes, for that matter). But everyone at Giffords’ event could have been armed and just as many people would likely have been killed, and maybe more in the event the bystander had greater confidence in his marksmanship than was justified.
Yeah, you’re right. The inner city is the closest thing we have to the Wild West today (everyone packing), and it’s pretty much like the Garden of Eden. At least there aren’t many political murders.
Really? Has there been a school shooter that wasn’t actually a student at the school in question? It would seem to me familiarity and the fact that school is such a large part of their lives and likely a source of much of their angst would be a much larger factor in them choosing the location than the fact the other students are unarmed.
Oh, please. The inner city would be closest to the Wild West only if the only people who carried guns then were horse theives, cattle rustlers and moonshiners. The inner city is more analogous to big city crime during prohibition than it is to the Wild West.
Cite?
I think you are misrepresenting matters. I’ve heard it as “if someone had had a gun, fewer people would have been killed.”
Let’s not forget that there were armed people there.
Your driver’s ed teacher was on drugs, or was simply trying to scare you with an outrageous number. Estimates for average reaction time run from 3/4th of a second up to a max of about 2 seconds.
Do you drive regularly? Because this is clearly false to anybody who drives with any regularity. Does it really take you almost ten seconds to realise a light is changing and you need to slow down? Really?
I like to pretend my reaction time is sixty seconds. That way by the time I have to make a decision, the light’s already changed back to green.
Of course, I’m also half a mile past the intersection, so it’s moot.
My apologies for using “gun nuts.” That was an ill-considered and completely unnecessary choice of wording on my part.
While the 10 seconds looks too long to me, I do not think the poster is referring to traffic lights, but to brake lights. When people first see brake lights, they do little, not expecting that it will lead to needing a full stop. By the time the driver realizes that it is not just a minor slowdown, but a serious incident and slams on the brakes, several seconds can have elapsed. But 10?
I’m always amused at this assertion, (or Heinlein’s claim that an armed society is a polite society).
The Wild West was called the Wild West for a reason and as soon as the people living in it could organize effective local governments, among the first things they did was crack down on the carrying of weapons. The number of incidents involving gunplay decreased as the number of people carrying guns decreased. Had muggings and robberies really been deterred by an armed populace, it would seem that there should not have been the move to get guns off the streets.
There were a very few incidents of armed towns defending themselves–nearly all of them popularized because of their rarity–e.g., the 1876 Northfield, MN raid, (two good guys and two bad guys dead), the 1892 Dalton Gang attack on Coffeyville, KS, (one good guy and four bad guys dead), and a few such events happened in the East, as well, but the weapons tended to be hunting rifles or shotguns taken from homes rather than sidearms carried by the citizens.
I’m somewhat more interested in the justification for keeping high capacity magazines legal for public sale.
It seems the assailant had on him at least two magazines that carried 30-plus rounds (some stories report 31 rounds, others 33). It also appears he was tackled while changing magazines.
Could someone remind me why it is a good idea for these things to be sold to the public?
I’m not exactly a gun-rights activist, but the premise of this thread is ridiculous. One data point doesn’t prove or disprove any theory.
It seems to me nearly all firearm violence is similar in nature. It follows then that carrying a gun for self defense is pretty pointless.
Well, to start with, he dropped one of them taking it out of his pocket, and on the other one, the spring apparently failed. That’s when someone grabbed his gun. These huge (cheap) magazines are not well made, and they’re bulky as heck. This is why guns don’t come with them. As a result, his using them stopped him from killing many other people because he was a fuckup.
That doesn’t really answer the question of why high capacity magazines are a good thing. You seem to be implying that it was a good thing that he used a poorly made, high capacity magazine, since it failed and allowed the assailant to fire “only” 15 or 20 shots (again, I see different accounts).
My point is, that with the 10 round capacity clips that were sold in the 1990s, he would have been able to get off perhaps half of the shots that he did. And, since I’m not clear on why having high capacity clips is important to anyone not intent on doing a lot of damage (other than they may be kewl, though it seems that the gun experts I hear from tend to call them poorly made or impractical for normal self-defense), I’m at a loss for why these should be available to the public.
Since there are presumably also reliable high-capacity magazines available, I don’t see how it addresses the question at all.
With a well made clip he could probably have reloaded. He fumbled the first reload, probably because it was hard to get out of his pocket, being so large and all. So that’s a specific reason, because fuckups buy them to make their metaphorical dicks bigger and then don’t know how to use them.
Note that my tongue is slightly in cheek here. Do you know how fast you can reload a pistol with a good clip? Really darn fast. So fast that you may not even be aware you reloaded. See the recent NYPD shooting of that guy at a club. 20+ shots fired and the cop didn’t even notice he reloaded.
Yes, they are REALLY LOUD. I suppose you’ve always had ear protection on? Shots fired from a 9mm at point blank range without protection can be deafening.
Hollywood does us no favors by letting us think reasonable conversations can be had in the middle of gun fights. Creative license, of course, but expectations are altered.
This makes a lot of sense. I’ve got a CHL, and I doubt I’d feel safe shooting in this situation. The instructor from my last renewal class brought this up. In a situation with a lot of strangers and innocent bystanders, you probably don’t want to be pulling a gun. There’s a huge risk you’ll end up exacerbating the problem.
Between the noise, panic, and confusion, physically restraining the shooter is going to be a better idea.
Are there cases where a bystander could potentially use a handgun to good effect when some yahoo decides to go on a spree? Sure.
I don’t think this was one of them. The guy obviously didn’t care who he hit, so he could fire quickly. But if you’re trying to play hero, you’ve got innocent people all starting to panic, your own adrenaline will be causing your hands to shake, and you’ve somehow got to ignore the loud noises and people being hit, all while calmly taking careful aim and avoiding a shot on an innocent bystander. It’s not as easy as people make it out to be.
There are cops who screw these situations up, and they’re presumably continually trained for it.