Posted on 12/20/2012 7:41:06 AM PST by Innovative
Whatever their agenda and the passion behind it, those advocates made certain explicit or implied assumptions about patterns in mass murder and the profile of the assailants. Unfortunately, those assumptions do not always align with the facts.
Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen. Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization.
Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes. Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
In that scenario, the good folks with CCW never have to use them either frantically or cooly, because the problem just doesn't arise.
Or could potentially reduce the amount of innocent victims by taking out the bad guy.
Actually, the recent mall shooter was confronted with a CCW individual who could not shoot because of people behind the perp. The CCW guy maneuvered for a shot, but the perp saw him, retreated, and killed himself rather than risk being taken down.
Training saves lives, especially in the short-or-no-shoot moment.
I don’t know about other states but Ohio’s CCW training requires actual shooting at and *hitting* a target. Several hours worth. I will never forget that day. Early December, outside in a blowing snow.
Besides, my gun has a laser sight................
>>A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.
Or it could be like what actually happened in Oregon, where the shooter saw someone else packing (and never shot one bullet), knew the gig was up, and committed suicide.
I agree with your assessment here. To further support it, I point to Israel. Israel does not have "mass shootings". Bombs, yes. But a potential "mass shooter" does not get off many rounds before return fire starts to air out his innards. I would further postulate that since it is very widely known that the citizen reaction to violence in Israel is swift and lethal, very few attempts are made that do not involve "suicid bombing" style of attacks.
>>A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.
Or it could be like what actually happened in Oregon, where the shooter saw someone else packing (and never shot one bullet), knew the gig was up, and committed suicide.
>>A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.
Or it could be like what actually happened in Oregon, where the shooter saw someone else packing (and never shot one bullet), knew the gig was up, and committed suicide.
I agree too. Trained responders at least have a chance to take someone out the minute they appear, gun in hand, at a school or mall. And as for lockdown drills being traumatic for children, that’s quite a reach. We have done lockdown drills and the kids are just as bored, and roll their eyes just as much as when we do fire drills and earthquake drills.
:: A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire. ::
Corrollary: If cows could fly, no one would go outside.
I love how some people project their own pantie-wetting response to a crisis on others. They have never any training and therefore have no idea what to do, so everyone else will panic, too.
Yep. If several people were carrying weopons when the Sandy Hill shooting started, my money would go on the “under” if the line was set at 28 deaths.
Once the campus realized what was happening, armed citizens retrieved firearms and kept the shooter pinned down until law enforcement arrived. There were zero innocent victims shot by a relatively unorganized group of citizens. There were a number who received superficial injuries from flying glass and debris when the perp was no longer able to put his head above the parapet to shoot anyone on campus and had to content himself with shooting victims already in the tower.
Yeah, it would have been nice if the armed Texas citizens would have been better shots. But a superficial injury by flying glass is still far preferable to a fatal injury by gunfire.
I emailed the author, saying:
You wrote:
“Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.”
On what *facts* do you base that assumption? Right off the top of my head, I can think of two recent shooting cases *where the exact opposite* happened: The Clackamas Mall shooting and the Gabby Giffords shooting.
Did you know that the first armed responder to the Gabby Giffords shooting was a CCW permit holder? He was cool-headed and did not draw when he saw the opportunity to subdue Loughner physically. Name: Joe Zamudio.
At Clackamas Mall, the CCW holder drew, but chose not to fire for fear of wounding innocents. Name: Nick Meli.
On the other hand, I cannot think of ANY cases where a mass shootout occurred because a CCW holder attempted to stop a crime resulting in “countless innocent victims in the crossfire.” Can you name any? It would seem the myth is your hypothetical situation. How can you rightly include something so baseless in a list of myths?
When’s the last time a person shot up a police station or a gun shop? We put armed guards in banks and on armored cars, school kids are far more precious. We should have armed guards in every school ; it would be a good job for retired cops and MPs
Myth 11: More Gun-free zones would mean fewer mass killings. Indeed, ubiquitous gun-free zones would practically eliminate them.
Just like the psycho in Newtown. He heard the sirens and knew the jig was up so he killed himself.
The anti-defense crowd is appallingly stupid.
Why were the police called to the school? Because they are armed and will put an end to it! It’s common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.