Friday, December 21, 2012

GIVE OR TAKE?

Please only read this post if the world is still here. If the world has come to an end, please do not read this post.

In recent posts I have advocated having at least one person in every school armed with a gun and trained to use the weapon in the right way in the right circumstance.

My comments have met with ridicule, disdain, fear and sarcasm.

When you read a news report about mass killings, did it ever occur to you that there may have been instances in the past where mass killings were attempted and thwarted by someone who was armed that were not reported in the MainStream media?

Why didn't they report these instances on the front page instead of burying them on page 4 or not reporting them at all?

Could it be that successful defense against mass killings is not news? Perhaps there were not enough people killed to warrant mention, particularly not on the front page or as a lead story on the evening news.

When the killer is successful, it makes the front page and, as in the case of the Newtown massacre, stays there until the public's nerves are raw.

The resulting clamor for "more gun control" is deafening.

It turns out that most mass killings have occurred in "gun-free" zones, such as public schools, theaters and malls. Even in "concealed-carry" states where these atrocities have occurred they have taken place in "gun-free" zones within the "concealed-carry" state.

It also turns out that the perpetrators of these deeds were not law abiding citizens, meaning that more laws wouldn't have deterred them one iota.

Neither would banning so-called assault weapons or the ammunition they use.

Mentally deranged shooters might be unstable, but they are not stupid. They know how to get weapons when they want them.

Although they have gone largely de-emphasized, there are multiple examples of people who have intended to shoot great numbers of others who have been stopped by someone who was armed and well trained.

Not counting the shooter, here are some examples of how it has played out:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. 

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (police arrive too late. Six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (Police too late to help. 32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (Police arrive too late.12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (Police too late to help. Five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (Police too late to help. Five killed, including four little girls).   (Source)  

If you live in a "concealed carry" state, you are less likely to be shot by a crazed gunman in a mall, theater, school or other public place, unless you are in a "gun-free" zone.  

To which conclusion does that lead you? Do you conclude that the government should take guns away from citizens or that government should control guns more fervently?  Or do you conclude that an armed and trained citizenry makes for a safer America? 

Your answer is a strong indicator of your ability to think logically about this emotionally highly charged issue.

24 comments:

hardassamI said...

Obama, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer and the rest of the socialist left will do their best to not only get assault weapons banned but all firearms. Kinda puts those weapons in the hands of criminals and or nuts like the one who just committed that horrific tragedy

Joe said...

h: They keep moving toward total confiscation.

MO: Please tell my how this comment relates to the post. Otherwise it will be deleted.

Fredd said...

Joe: Wayne LaPierre of the NRA said it best today: 'the only way to stop bad guys with guns is with good guys with guns.'

Truer words were never spoken.

PS: Just delete MO's spam and be done with it, give it no more thought. Besides, MO being the spammer that he is, will not be back to read your inquiry, such is the nature of spammers.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, joe, joe ... we waited for this?

Let's tabulate:

You present six cases.
In two of them an off duty cop was involved. Does anybody suggest disarming the police? Tangential to the topic at hand.

In two cases the gunman was fleeing when stopped by an armed individual. Fine but that didn't prevent the killings.

In one case (Appalachian Law) it is not apparent that a firearm was critical. The man who stopped the shooter was unarmed.

In one (1) case a concealed carry saved lives.

Now you contrast this to the number of stolen firearms used in crimes, the number used in murder/suicides and you don't have anything conclusive here, Joe.

You promised a blockbuster, Joe but this isn't it.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, I think theaters are great carry zones. If there's gunfire a bunch of cowboys firing in the dark at random movement is sure to keep casualties low.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, who is going to pay to have these personnel in schools?

I propose a stiff tax on firearms and ammunition.

Craig said...

Joe, you convinced me. Since we can't do anything to restrict sale of AR 15's, they're no different than hunting rifles, for Pete's sake. We can't stop James Holmes from buying 6,000 rounds of ammo on the internet. We can't stop the 40% of gun purchases that occur with no back ground check. We can't so why try?

Let's give Wayne's plan a whirl. There are about 100,000 public schools in the U.S. Most in cities that are already strapped and have cut cops. So we need 100,000 cops to stand at the entry of every school. Private and parochial schools are on their own. Private is better.

How should we pay for this? Maybe a hefty tax on the sale of guns and ammo. Let's run it by Wayne.

Craig said...

I propose a stiff tax on firearms and ammunition.

Hah. I was writing when you posted this. What do they say about great minds?

Xavier Onassis said...

461rmentsonLet's put this in simpler terms that anyone, even a conservative, can understand.

Let's say you're a teacher at an elementary school and you've just taken your class outside for recess.

If a kid on the playground throws a rock and hits another kid in the head, you don't solve that problem by making sure all of the kids start carrying rocks.

Unless you're an idiot.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Why stop at schools? Let's have armed guards at pre-schools where there are unprotected 3 and 4 years olds. How about the maternity wards in hospitals? Other vulnerable facilities: nursing homes for the elderly, half-way houses for mentally challenged adults, rehab facilities for folks overcoming their addictions. How about grocery stores? Always full of adults and children. We've already seen massacres at colleges, army bases, theaters, malls, grammar schools. Who know where the next will occur.

So lets put armed guards everywhere. That makes more sense than addressing our gun-soaked culture.

We have the most firearms in circulation than any other western democracy in the world and the highest number of firearm deaths than any other western democracy in the world. But let's ignore that fact and put armed guards everywhere.

And then tax the crap out of every man, woman, and child to keep us safe and the NRA and its puppetmasters, the firearms industry, rich and happy.

Ducky's here said...

Let's see how Joe wants to fund them, Craig.

Ducky's here said...

All terrific suggestions, Shaw.

I'm sure Joe appreciates your post.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

Joe, Shaw may really be on to something.
How often have you been aggravated by an inconsiderate shopper with too many items in the express lane?

Imagine how a Mossberg autoload under the conveyor would make this incivility a thing of the past.

Ducky's here said...

Joe, I wouldn't normally comment further but since your examples come from Ann Coulter they must be carefully checked since Ann is known to spread the manure.

I was checked the two incidents of off duty police shooting.

1. In the San Antonio incident the shooter had already fired at a squad car and uniformed officers were on the scene.

2. In the Santee California incident -- "Two off-duty police officers who were visiting the school were alerted to the shooting; however, they were at different ends of the school. One of them approached the bathroom and called for backup."
Backup arrived, they entered the rest room and found the suspect who didn't resist.

So neither shooter was stopped by someone on the scene.

So in most of the cases (m)Ann is lying. You really have to be careful when she is used as a source.

Craig said...

you don't solve that problem by making sure all of the kids start carrying rocks

No, no. Just the ones with training and some experience in Combat Rock.

From the only commenter that matters.

Joe said...

People! People! Nobody suggested arming the kids, and nobody suggested arming the teachers and nobody suggested that AR-15s are just hunting rifles.

SK: It stops wherever society has decided that mass shootings have not taken place and are not likely to. So far, schools, theaters and restaruants are not the safe havens they should be.

Ducky: We'll pay for it by placing an extra heavy tax on leftist, liberal progresives...say 87.3% of their net income.

Ducky's here said...

So far, schools, theaters and restaruants(sic) are not the safe havens they should be.

------

Joe, Shaw and I live in Massachusetts.
There has not been a random mall, restaurant, theater or school shooting as far back as I can remember.

Leticia said...

You mentioned one of my counties and to this day, I remember every detail and the fear we all felt and the horror.

They did bump up security after that, but I believe every school should have more than one armed person or have the entire staff trained and licensed to carry firearms.

Craig said...

I believe every school should have more than one armed person or have the entire staff trained and licensed to carry firearms.

Yea, and the kids should wear school uniforms made of Kevlar. Just spit ballin' here but I'm on board.

Joe said...

MO, RR and GF: While I appreciate your opinions, and may well agree with RR and GE, they are so far off topic as to warrant removal.

I do this withou malace, but for the purpose of keeping the conversation on track.

The post was about gun control and the Second Amendment.

Feel free to come back to comment on that issue.

Joe said...

Ducky: "So neither shooter was stopped by someone on the scene."

The police were not on the scene when they shot or restrained the perp?

How'd they do that?

Is that what's known as "the long arm of the law?"

"...off duty cop was involved."

Policemen, in most jurisdictions, are required to be citizens.

"...it is not apparent..."

Don't you just LOVE that phrase? It lets liberals off the hook of certainty. Same with "may," "could," or "might."

"...fleeing when stopped by an armed individual. Fine but that didn't prevent the killings."

Had the armed individual been on the scene, he/she would have been able to stop the perp.

I like the quote Fredd used, "The only way to stop bad guys with guns is with good guys with guns."

Disagree? Well, tell me, Ducky, what WOULD you do if confronted by a melevant, gun-wielding miscreant, explain to him the error of his ways? Ask him to calm down? Tell him it's not good to harm innocent people?

"...who is going to pay to have these personnel in schools?"

Most schools already have someone there to "keep order." If he's confronted, he's armed with the dreaded can of Mace.

I say after a good psychological investigation, train him, arm him and let him do his job. He's already being paid.

"...contrast this to the number of stolen firearms used in crimes, the number used in murder/suicides and you don't have anything conclusive here,..."

I think you meant "compare."

Compare the number of guns stolen, owned or otherwise obtained that are used in a mass shooting and you will find a very, very small percentage of the total gun "population."

There are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US.
About 85 have been used in mass shootings since 1982.

Law abiding, psychologically sound, well meaning citizens don't shoot innocents with guns.

Ducky's here said...

Well Joe, you got me. I should have made it clear that I meant present when the initial shots were fired.
So this damages your (Coulter's) contention that the presence of an armed individual on the scene limited the killing.

I take your sophistry as admission you realize Coulter's article was utter nonsense and you have not made your case effectively.


@Joe -- Disagree? Well, tell me, Ducky, what WOULD you do if confronted by a melevant(sic, spelling problems, Joe?), gun-wielding miscreant, explain to him the error of his ways? Ask him to calm down? Tell him it's not good to harm innocent people?
-------
I would probably give in to his demands in a robbery situation (hasn't happened to me). In a shooting rage I wouldn't pretend that my accuracy would be better than the police who are only about 40% in panic situations.

@Joe -- Compare the number of guns stolen, owned or otherwise obtained that are used in a mass shooting and you will find a very, very small percentage of the total gun "population."
-------------
I said nothing about mass shootings. I said crimes. You also completely ignore domestic shooting.
Now given that you have NOT established ownership or carry as a deterrent I think the number of innocents shot should be given serious consideration.
We do know that a firearm in the home, if used, is most likely to be stolen and used in a crime or used to shoot someone familiar.

By the way, "contrast" is reasonable usage since the number of shootings stopped by people carrying is so much lower than the number caused by domestic incidents that it presents two completely different situations.

Joe said...

Ducky: "I said nothing about mass shootings. I said crimes."

Yeah. Funny thing.

The post was about mass shootings.

"...a firearm in the home, if used, is most likely to be stolen and used in a crime or used to shoot someone familiar."

Twist the post to suit your agenda. Kule.