Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I agree with most of it, except with one of his points that expanding right to carry wouldn't stop the killers, because people would "respond frantically" and wouldn't help. If all adults would carry -- and naturally would be well trained -- they would respond calmly and would at the very least reduce the bodycount by shooting the killer.
1 posted on 12/20/2012 7:41:17 AM PST by Innovative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Innovative
I agree with your point — but deterrence is also something to consider. Crazy people are not dumb — often quite the opposite. If they know — really know — that the people around them are likely to have concealed weapons, then the idea of going berserk in a public area becomes MUCH less appealing.

In that scenario, the good folks with CCW never have to use them either frantically or cooly, because the problem just doesn't arise.

2 posted on 12/20/2012 7:45:26 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Republicans have made themselves useless, toothless, and clueless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
Example of what would happen if all the "good guys" were armed:


3 posted on 12/20/2012 7:46:46 AM PST by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

Or could potentially reduce the amount of innocent victims by taking out the bad guy.

4 posted on 12/20/2012 7:47:58 AM PST by bgill (We've passed the point of no return. Welcome to Al Amerika.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

And more importantly..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg


6 posted on 12/20/2012 7:55:20 AM PST by TribalPrincess2U (0bama's agenda¬óDivide and conquer. FREEDOM OR FREE STUFF- YOU GET ONE CHOICE, CHOOSE WISELY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

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................


7 posted on 12/20/2012 7:56:08 AM PST by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
I agree with most of it, except with one of his points that expanding right to carry wouldn't stop the killers, because people would "respond frantically" and wouldn't help. If all adults would carry -- and naturally would be well trained -- they would respond calmly and would at the very least reduce the bodycount by shooting the killer.

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.

9 posted on 12/20/2012 7:57:37 AM PST by Tenacious 1 (The Click-&-Paste Media exists & works in Utopia, riding unicorns & sniffing pixy dust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

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.


12 posted on 12/20/2012 7:58:24 AM PST by A_perfect_lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

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?


17 posted on 12/20/2012 8:04:41 AM PST by bolobaby (Hostess closes? Atlas just shrugged in yo' faces, union beyotches!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

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


18 posted on 12/20/2012 8:06:27 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

Myth 11: More Gun-free zones would mean fewer mass killings. Indeed, ubiquitous gun-free zones would practically eliminate them.


19 posted on 12/20/2012 8:06:40 AM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

In the recent Mall shooting there were reports of a man with a CCW who chose NOT to shoot because innocent bystanders behind the man would have been shot. I agree with most of this article, but feel James Alan Fox underestimates the average CCW citizen. Yes, most might panic - but some won’t... and my guess is most will fall on the side of being too careful ... not the other way.


21 posted on 12/20/2012 8:10:19 AM PST by GOPJ (Detroit should be renamed 'Michael Mooresville'...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
Science and medicine can not predict who will commit violence, mass violence even less so.

Gun prohibition doesn't work and mental health access will also make no difference.

The only practical and effective method to deter and stop mass murder is to have armed people everywhere. The only way to do this is to ban "gun-free zones". Second, as a sop to our trial lawyer pals, lets create a basis for suit against the perpetrators of "gun-free zones." These people are provable negligent in protecting the public on their premises.

Governments and private owners ought to be able to be sued.

22 posted on 12/20/2012 8:10:59 AM PST by Jabba the Nutt (.Are they stupid, malicious or evil?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

The author seems to see some benefit in somehow forcing the bad guy to use small mags, making him reload more often.

But with a few hundred million normal size mags, why would a mass shooter feel obligated to buy new small ones?


23 posted on 12/20/2012 8:12:58 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
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.

BS! Complete BS! I trained for weeks with tactical instructors on several pistol and rifle platforms. I learned the experience and the feelings associated with that sort of stressful situation. Absolutely NOTHING can prepare you for when you have to use your training, but that training kicks in instantly and you become robotic in your movements and purpose.

I've used a pistol to prevent a violent encounter, and I never pulled the trigger. The assailants fled as the police came screaming down the street, but my training kept me and my friends from becoming victims to those who wished to do us harm. Having been a concealed carrier may have saved several lives that night. We'll never know, but I have no qualms about doing it again if the situation warranted it.

25 posted on 12/20/2012 8:23:37 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire

Sounds like they're more afraid of a law-abiding citizen defending people than a crazed gunman aiming for them.

27 posted on 12/20/2012 8:32:31 AM PST by Brett66 (Where government advances, and it advances relentlessly , freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
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.

The only incidents I can recall of sudden wild shootouts with innocent victims, involve LEOs not CCW citizens.

28 posted on 12/20/2012 8:33:29 AM PST by Chipper (You can't kill an Obamazombie by destroying the brain...they didn't have one to begin with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
Libs are more concerned by innocents being hit by stray bullets from the good guys than the intentional damage being done by the bad guy.
Yet, the good guys do care about bystanders while the bad guy don't care at all.
I'm not saying that the risk to bystanders is zero but libs can't seem to distinguish between a small risk and an immediate serious problem that has to be dealt with.

36 posted on 12/20/2012 9:38:34 AM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative

Myth 11: Mass school killings have only occurred in “Gun Free Zones” mandated by the Federal “Gun Free Zone” law.

Oh, wait - that one is true.

Maybe we should try an experiment - eliminate the gun free school zones for 2 years, and compare results.


37 posted on 12/20/2012 9:53:36 AM PST by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
The writer thinks the way most libs think: a common citizen would be virtually frozen and helpless in a confrontation with a violent person. Remember when 9/11 happened and many people began urging the arming of pilots. I knew several people who pooh-poohed that thought contemptuously declaring that terrorists would simply walk up and take the gun away from the pilots. These people actually laughed as they were saying those words as if the thought of an average person defending themselves with a firearm was too outlandish to be believed.

My own belief, which has been confirmed thousands of times, is that many average citizens who have never fired a gun in anger, would respond quite ably if some demented freak was attacking them, family members, or just innocent citizens at large.

40 posted on 12/20/2012 12:49:01 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Innovative
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.

The point of training is to enable a person to react in a calm manner during a highly tense, emotional moment. I am CPR certified. Certainly, nothing was more frightening than seeing my son suddenly unable to breathe. Rather than panic, my training took over and I successfully applied the Heimlich maneuver to dislodge the obstruction and restore his breathing.

So far, I have never shot anything more threatening than paper or plastic people. I don't think I would indiscriminately shoot in all directions in a situation of imminent danger.

41 posted on 12/20/2012 5:55:36 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson