Trib Live
We need to trust soldiers to carry weapons on bases. That would provide another line of defense against any attacks and not leave our soldiers as sitting ducks.
That's how John Lott concluded his op-ed. As usual, when lamenting the practice of gun-free zones and blaming them for mass shootings, John is conveniently overlooking a few things.
When Jared Loughner did his thing in Tuscon a few years ago, his venue was not a gun free zone. Being Arizona which enjoys Constitutional Carry, there were armed citizens all over the place but not one of them was able to intervene in time. In addition, several of the other highly publicized mass shootings took place where armed guards were on the scene. So, the presence of armed good guys has proven to be an ineffective response to mass shootings.
Another rather humorous and ironical aspect of his argument is that many times gun-rights folks, and probably John himself, insist that mass shootings are extremely rare. Now all of a sudden, we need to arm soldiers on bases and eliminate gun free zones to combat them.
The biggest problem with his proposal is that most of the mass shooters are lawful gun owners. It stands to reason that if lawful gun owners are committing mass shootings every once in a while, if we arm more of them, there will be more shootings.
"So, the presence of armed good guys has proven to be an ineffective response to mass shootings."
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with you Mike, One has but to look at the shootings at Santa Monica College and Arapahoe High School to see the utility of an armed response to these events. And yes, even though the shooter took his own life, it still counts. He did so in response to an armed deputy responding to the shooting.
Sure, sometimes they work, other times they don't. Armed good guys have to be in exactly the right place at the right time.
DeleteHe's in the middle of killing, fully armed and the sight of an armed deputy made him kill himself? I can't imagine what was going on in his sick mind, but I think he never intended to come out alive, he just wanted to kill a few people before he died. Suicide by cop seems just as plausible, an extreme case to be sure. Do you think these mass killers expect to get away?
DeleteArmed good guys have to be in exactly the right place at the right time.
DeleteThe more armed good guys there are, the more likely that is.
Regardless. now that you acknowledge that "sometimes they work," you by extension also acknowledge the existence of counterexamples to your claim that "the presence of armed good guys has proven to be an ineffective response to mass shootings."
I, after all, could cite hundreds of cases in which motorists and passengers wearing seat belts were nevertheless killed in car accidents. Doing so, however would do nothing to prove that seat belts are ineffective in making automobile accidents more survivable.
MikeB, So logically, wouldn't having more armed good guys in more places dramatically increase their odds of being in the right place at the right time? The problem with relying on law enforcement is that they can only respond after something has either occurred or already well under way. We can look at the scenario as a road trip and have the shooter start the trip. the sooner we pull him over and detour the trip, by either making them surrender with the threat of lethal force or heaven forbid application of lethal force isnt that a better way to do it?
DeleteMikeZ
The whole thing boils down to the fact that guns do more harm than good, especially when the requirements for gun ownership and concealed carry are so low. The more armed good guys there are the better the chances of one being in the right place at the right time, but it also increases the chances of one of them turning out to be another Loughner or Cho or Holmes or Lanza.
Delete. . . but it also increases the chances of one of them turning out to be another Loughner or Cho or Holmes or Lanza.
DeleteYou're not seriously arguing that any of those sick freaks would have been deterred by the illegality of carrying a firearm, are you?
Obviously, at least two of them weren't.
DeleteKurt, how could we know such a thing?
DeleteSimon, please explain.
Kurt, how could we know such a thing?
DeleteOh, I don't know--perhaps by realizing that anyone willing to violate the laws against mass murder is going to be even less concerned about breaking any laws against carrying a firearm?
In fact, come to think of it, did any of them have a carry permit? I know Loughner wouldn't have needed one, even if he were more worried about carrying illegally than about slaughtering the innocents, but the others?
Actually, I think that's the point Simon is making.
Mike, what I was getting at is that you cited Loughner, Cho, Holmes, and Lanza. Kurt responded by asking if you were arguing that these guys would have been deterred from their shooting sprees if it had been illegal for them to carry a firearm.
DeleteAt least two of them, Cho and Lanza, took their guns to schools where it was illegal for anyone to carry their gun(s). If that gun free zone law didn't stop them, why would we think that a law banning carry would do the trick?
As Kurt said, all of these guys are mass murderers. They go in planning to take as many people with them as possible. It's ludicrous to think that they'll be deterred by a law against carry or a gun free zone sign.
A comprehensive gun control program would severely diminish gun availability to people like this. Proper gun control would work. Some of the tragedies would be avoided. But, rather than prevent unnecessary deaths, you guys will fight tooth and nail to not be inconvenienced in your own gun ownership.
DeleteSimon says: "Kurt responded by asking if you were arguing that these guys would have been deterred from their shooting sprees if it had been illegal for them to carry a firearm."
DeleteThat was another example of the way Kurt uses supposedly simple questions to malign and disparage his opponents. Only a total idiot would believe that criminals will obey the laws. Nobody thinks that. You guys know this, but in an attempt to make gun control folks look like idiots, you keep pretending that's what we think and you ask those pretend questions in all seriousness.
It's about gun availability. That's the main goal of gun control, to make guns less available to unfit people.
Now, there is another advantage to the gun free zone policy. Very often, previously law-abiding people suddenly become unhinged. This often happens at the workplace. Right up until their crisis, they would have obeyed the law and would have been unarmed in the critical moment of their breakdown.
But, let me repeat. Nobody thinks criminals will obey the laws. That's why most gun control laws are aimed at the law-abiding. As the source of almost all the guns used in crime. the law-abiding gun owners are the key to preventing gun flow to the criminals.
Then why did you bring up Loughner, Cho, Holmes, and Lanza? None of them legally had their guns with them and then snapped and started shooting.
DeleteIn fact, I can't think of a single mass shooting that happened that way--yet you suggest that limiting carry is needed to prevent some portion of mass shootings which happen this way.
As for your bringing up gun availability--that's a discussion for another time and place--you're throwing it out here as a red herring. We were discussing the propriety of gun free zones and whether they helped the situation or made a bunch of sitting ducks. You're just trying to derail that conversation because we didn't roll over when you brought up those mass shooters as proof for your argument.
"Then why did you bring up Loughner, Cho, Holmes, and Lanza? None of them legally had their guns with them and then snapped and started shooting."
DeleteAre you kidding? Loughner lived in AZ where it was perfectly legal to carry his gun to that rally.
And I find it really convenient that you can think of a single mass shooting that happened the way I described. Besides Loughner, there have been several at work places that happened exactly like that. Look it up.
Loughner went there with the intent to shoot up the rally. He was not legally carrying when he just suddenly snapped and started shooting.
DeleteStop making things up to try to prove your point.
Delete"Loughner went there with the intent to shoot up the rally."
DeleteSimon brings up an interesting point Mike. Here's a question, have there been any mass shootings in which someone who normally carries just went off? My recollection is that pretty much all of them involved to extensive prior planning. For example, Loughner purchased the handgun he used a month prior to the shooting.
"Loughner went there with the intent to shoot up the rally. He was not legally carrying when he just suddenly snapped and started shooting."
DeleteLoughner was legally carrying that day, unless you think he was disqualified because of his bad intentions PRIOR to having committed his famous crime.
ss, check some of the lists of mass shootings. You'll find some work place incidents that happened just like I said.
Mike, you asked me to back you up that there aren't enough mass shootings to show statistically significant, and here you are drawing conclusions from a subset of mass shootings. But please tell, which ones are you thinking of? You would need cases where someone regularly carried to work, and one day "lost it". If the only day they brought a gun to work is the day they went on a shooting spree, that would fit with what they were saying- that they planned to shoot up the place.
DeleteExactly, TS.
DeleteMike, it's not a matter of it having been legal for Loughner to carry the gun. As you have admitted before, he probably would have carried the gun there even if it was illegal to. The point about his intent is not that it magically made his carry illegal, but that he went there intending to shoot the place up. He didn't just snap en route or while at the rally, so he doesn't prove your point.
TS, I often draw conclusions from subsets that are too small. You're the one who doesn't like that kind of thing.
DeleteSimon says, "it's not a matter of it having been legal for Loughner to carry the gun." But shortly before that he said, "He was not legally carrying when he just suddenly snapped and started shooting."
You sound confused, man. You didn't like it when I reminded you that Loughner, like many of the mass shooters, was a legal and lawful gun owner right up until the incident. Obviously you take this personally or feel it reflects badly on the rest of you legal and lawful gun owners - you're right, it does.
. . . feel it reflects badly on the rest of you legal and lawful gun owners - you're right, it does.
DeleteIn precisely the same manner that Senator Yee's alleged misdeeds reflect on the rest of you legal and lawful "gun control" advocates.
Then why are you criticizing John Lott for that?
DeleteMike,
DeleteAllow me to clarify--in this sentence: "He was not legally carrying when he just suddenly snapped and started shooting." my emphasis was intended to be on the "Just suddenly snapped" part.
My point was that he wasn't just any other carrier going down the road legally, who suddenly went nuts and decided to shoot the politician who was nearby, so the carry law is irrelevant to what happened.
I find it hard to believe that you couldn't understand that this is what I was getting at, but now that I've cleared it up, maybe you can respond on topic.
As for your comments to TS, it's pretty funny when you criticize Lott for using too small a sample, and then proudly crow about your own habit of doing the same.
Finally, back to your comment about Loughner reflecting on me in any way, I am responsible for my actions. And as Kurt shows, you don't want to go down this road of vicarious responsibility.
". . . feel it reflects badly on the rest of you legal and lawful gun owners - you're right, it does.
DeleteIn precisely the same manner that Senator Yee's alleged misdeeds reflect on the rest of you legal and lawful "gun control" advocates."
Kurt, that's quite a departure from your previous glib and insulting response to my saying gun misuse on the part of the few reflects badly on the rest of you. Suddenly you're admitting it does, as long as I accept some of the taint from Yee's misdeeds?
Man, you're getting as capricious as Greg.
Loughner's intentions going to that rally are not the point. Neither is the idea that a gun ban would have stopped him. But just like laws against murder or theft do not stop murder and theft from happening in all cases, we don't want to do away with those laws. Strict laws do prevent some people from acting badly and they allow us to punish the criminals afterwards who break those laws.
DeleteThe permission to carry a concealed carry weapon should require much higher qualifications that those for gun ownership. Constitutional carry lowers the bar instead or raising it.
Kurt, that's quite a departure from your previous glib and insulting response to my saying gun misuse on the part of the few reflects badly on the rest of you. Suddenly you're admitting it does, as long as I accept some of the taint from Yee's misdeeds?
DeleteSo you don't recognize even obvious irony, Mikeb?
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Constitutional carry lowers the bar instead or raising it.
Yes, it lowers the bar to the maximum height permitted by the Constitution.
"Then why are you criticizing John Lott for that?"
DeleteHe's an economist, you're a math guru. You guys can't do that shit. I'm just a gun control blogger.
He's an economist, you're a math guru. You guys can't do that shit. I'm just a gun control blogger.
DeleteMikeb demonstrates that he's qualified to be wrong. Now that's funny.
And now you've shifted the discussion to how high the bar should be for carry rather than defending your claims that Loughner showed a problem with Constitutional Carry.
DeleteI'm getting fucking tired of your turning this into a pain-in-the-ass bickering session.
DeleteI never said the Arizona law about constitutional carry was the reason Loughner did what he did. What I say is that Loughner and guys like him are the reason why constitutional carry is a bad idea.
You're still upset that I kicked your ass in the discussion about whether or not Loughner was a lawful gun owner that day. You made the idiotic statement that he was not because of his intentions, and you can't man up and admit it.
"The biggest problem with his proposal is that most of the mass shooters are lawful gun owners. It stands to reason that if lawful gun owners are committing mass shootings every once in a while, if we arm more of them, there will be more shootings."
ReplyDeleteThis would seem to contradict what has become a general contention that the numbers of gun owners are declining. If they truly were declining, as the oft cited survey contends over a period of many years, then wouldn't mass shootings also decline, much like violent crime has also been declining over a long period?
Even after you remove all of the faulty data which has somehow been included in some recent studies of school shootings, yes, they are increasing. The question is why are they increasing when overall violent crime is going in the opposite direction?
I personally believe that the numbers of gun owners are increasing, as I proved using the data available in Illinois. Whether its growing faster than nationwide population growth like it is in Illinois is unknown, and really unimportant in light of what has become a fairly accepted standard that gun ownership is an individual right protected by the Constitution.
The tunnel vision brought on by the belief that gun control is the solution to these events will continue to hamper and delay the discovery of the root cause.
So, if you're right about the overall gun owners increasing, and if you're right about the mass shootings increasing, might they not be related?
DeleteThen how do you explain the contradiction in the long term decline in violent crime? If the increase in gun ownership is somehow related to the increase in mass shootings, arguably the most extreme of violent crime, then how is it that less extreme violent crime is steadily dropping?
DeleteIt would suggest there is no relation, much less any causation. But whenever anyone tries to suggest something besides gun legislation they are ridiculed.
"Then how do you explain the contradiction in the long term decline in violent crime?"
DeleteMaybe because many of the dangerous criminals are in jail, with long sentences. Our jails are overflowing. These recent mass shooters seem to be young without much of a violent past history.
"These recent mass shooters seem to be young without much of a violent past history."
DeleteAnon, if it were a case of these crimes being committed by young criminals with no violent past history, then wouldn't there also be a similar rise in crime committed by these new young criminals who decide to commit crimes that are a bit less extreme and have a better chance of survival? What is it that makes them jump right to the most extreme of crimes? One that in fact even surviving to appear in court is very rare?
The supposed decrease in violent crime is only significant if you pick a very high starting point, as you guys love to do. By picking a different starting point, the change is pretty small.
DeleteMikeb, the murder rate, for example, has fallen by more than half since the early 90s.
Delete"What is it that makes them jump right to the most extreme of crimes?"
DeleteGood question. Have any answers?
The actions of an obviously insane person is hard to predict and doesn't fall into any "profile" method. I would say it's a mental health issue, and most pro gun people won't accept a mental health evaluation as a prerequisite to a gun purchase. Although in some of these mass killing cases the shooter wasn't using a gun he bought, but a gun he obtained illegally.
Enter the discussion of laws (like safe storage and others) to keep guns away from those who should not have them.
I believe a gun purchase should include mental health evaluations, or at least a mental health background check along with a criminal background check. Insurance should also be required as required for car ownership.
I understand that involves another layer of bureaucratic red tape, but I don't think if unfairly infringes on the second amendment right. nor is it impossible to perform.
"By picking a different starting point, the change is pretty small."
DeleteThe point isn't how much or little the violent crime rate is falling. The point is that its falling while the number of mass shootings is increasing. This would suggest that there is some other factor besides gun ownership increasing which is causing this increase.
Only if you accept the same requirements on voting and speech. Actually, I'd oppose those violations as well.
Delete"Mikeb, the murder rate, for example, has fallen by more than half since the early 90s."
DeleteThat's Greg sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating what the gun-rights fanatics all love to repeat and repeat.
I repeat: "The supposed decrease in violent crime is only significant if you pick a very high starting point, as you guys love to do. By picking a different starting point, the change is pretty small."
Mikeb, the trend over the last more than two decades has been clear: downward. We're back down to levels that we haven't seen since the early sixties. You're neglecting to explain how there was a huge rise in murder rates during the period of lots of gun control and how the rate fell once gun control subsided.
DeleteI repeat:
DeleteYou certainly do.
"The supposed decrease in violent crime . . .
Um . . . what do you mean by "supposed decrease"? Does anyone claim that there has been no such decrease?
. . . is only significant . . .
So much for "if it saves one life." If that decrease in violence were instead an increase, would it still be not "significant"? Would it be only "insignificant" people being killed?
. . . if you pick a very high starting point . . .
And what makes a different starting point any more legitimate? Remember saying this, Mikeb?
I don't know, but I think it makes sense that Missouri showed the best results and was chosen for the study for that reason. So?
Good question--"So?" That question applies at least as well to the choice of a starting point that best illustrates the precipitously plummeting violence crime rate--coincident with a vast increase in the number of privately owned firearms.
. . . as you guys love to do. By picking a different starting point, the change is pretty small.
It may be "pretty small," but it's still there, and still illustrating the hilarious fallacy of "More Guns=More Violent Crime."
Got any new arguments, Mikeb? This one ain't working.
I don't deny the decrease. I deny how significant it is unless you select just the right starting point. And I say it's happening despite the guns that are available, not because of them as John Lott says.
DeleteMikeb, why do you keep trotting out that nonsense that there were a bunch of armed people at the Tucson shooting? The only armed good guy was too far away to do anything about the incident. We've discussed this time and again, but you keep falling back on that false belief.
ReplyDeleteLott is correct that mass shootings are rare. But they do happen, and gun-free zones only encourage the attacker. Besides, disarming our military personnel shows the attitude that you gun control freaks have. If you can't trust our military, whom can you trust? That's exactly the matter. You don't trust anyone to have a gun. You won't be honest and admit that you want total disarmament because you know that telling the truth will drive citizens away from your evil, so you lie. Of course, the truth is that we already know what you're up to.
And no, mass shooters are not "lawful" gun owners. You cling to that belief because you can't stand the idea of gun owners, period. As I said, though, we're on to you. Your demands for tyranny fall flat in this country that you hate. Give up, Mikeb. You've lost.
Greg, most of the infamous mass shooters over the last few years were lawful gun owners just like you right up until the moment of their infamy. You can take a small amount of credit for this, you and all the other gun rights fanatics who fight so hard for lax gun laws and maximum gun availability.
DeleteWhat are you talking about, Mikeb? What "lax gun laws"? U.S. gun laws have become draconian in the extreme, an assertion that only a "hyper-contentious gun-control fanatic" would dispute.
DeleteGun laws have nothing to do with mass shootings. You just admitted that the people involved had no criminal record. Your gun control wouldn't stop the shootings.
DeleteOf course it would, Greg. My kind of gun control would disarm guys like our infamous news makers. You don't think they'd be in the good 50% do you?
DeleteI don't accept your nonsense 50%, but more than that, if we'd take dangerous acts more seriously, a lot of these mass shooters would have been put under supervision long before their big days without having to violate the rights of millions of Americans in the process.
DeleteStill going on with your misapplication of statistics to make up carriers in the crowd in Tuscon, I see.
ReplyDeleteTransparently making things up to support your argument shows just how weak it is.
As for the military bases, it seems like a ridiculous inversion to have a base full of soldiers who are trained and paid to bear arms in the service of the nation, and who must be disarmed while on base. Even if they aren't carrying for their own protection, it would seem to make sense for them to be armed simply for the protection of the base--the current arrangement strikes me as similar to a police department or agency like the FBI that had armed guards at all entrances, and armed guards outside the holding area, but made everyone else lock their guns up at the security station on the way in. All a terrorist or criminal has to do is breach a level of security, and then they can run amok until that first level catches up to them or they run into the next level.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that my church has greater depth of protection than we allow on bases.
Firstly, this is in response to the Fort Hood shooting and the civilian shooting at the Navy Yard at Naval Station Norfolk. I'm not suggesting that none of you are aware of that, it just seems odd that not even Mike mentions it.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, it was a Department of the Army directive that controlled the carrying of firearms on military bases. It was not done by executive order or congressional action.
a. The authorization to carry firearms will be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or Department of the Army (DA) assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried.
b. DA personnel regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties will be armed.
c. DA personnel are authorized to carry firearms while engaged in security duties, protecting personnel and vital Government assets, or guarding prisoners.
Thirdly, the is just political theater from the dickheads, if that is not obvious.
Most importantly, y'all are just missing the beauty of being in a gun-free zone. My local VA Hospital and its associated federal properties are an official guns and weapons free zone. I love seeing that sign!
Do you seriously believe that a gun-free zone sign does anything to protect anyone?
DeleteMike, if you read Lott's writings, he actually mentions the Tucson case as one of the two times that a mass public shooting has taken place where guns are allowed. His point through is that virtually every time a mass shooting occurs it takes place where guns are banned and he argues that this is much too frequent to be random.
ReplyDeleteHere is one of his posts on the topic:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/02/mayors-against-illegal-guns-supposed.html
The attacks keep occurring in those tiny areas within right-to-carry states were people aren't able to defend themselves. Mike, how do you respond to Lott's point.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/
Anonymous, this "much too frequent to be random" thing is something that TS should take a look at. He supposedly demolished my post about racism in the Florida Courts by pointing out that the sample was too small. Wouldn't the same thing apply here, except, in this case we do have one example in Loughner of a mass shooter getting away with multiple murder in a non-gun-free zone. That's better than Florida where there has been zero whites executed for killing blacks.
DeleteNot a peep out of TS. I guess he wouldn't want to criticize the illustrious John Lott for having made the mistake of taking a too small sample and concluding such a strong position from it. John is a famous economist, TS is just a math guru.
DeleteI've been busy, and haven't read this until now.
DeleteYou're right that I don't feel there are enough mass shootings to provide meaningful data on statistical patterns.
Thanks for that.
DeleteHey, Mikeb, did you see the beautiful news? State Senator Leeland Yee of California, gun control advocate, was arrested by the FBI on charges of arms trafficking. My gods, that's delicious.
ReplyDeleteWow! Isn't that a delicious bit of irony! Last I heard of him he was decrying bullet buttons.
Delete