Yosemite Sam walks into the Wal Mart Men's Room....or at least, something very like the gun carriers doing so....
Not too long ago I wrote about the correlation between a state being red and the number of Wal Marts it had, along with the pattern of people having far lower levels of education, and being obese. In short, it tracks perfectly with the NRA tendency for their gun nuts to be old, white, flabby and crabby, conservative and not well educated.
And along with their obsessions with carrying guns at Wal Marts is the reported incidences of stupid accidents -- like guys shooting toilets out from under their own asses in men's rooms because their gun fell out while they were relieving themselves, and discharged. The gun carriers span the spectrum from open carry to legal concealed carry to illegal carry, and a wider variety of demographics than the NRA members -- and they are all dangerous, they all put others at risk without a legitimate reason to carry.
There was another shooting at a Wal Mart this week in Dallas, there was one last month in Elizabeth, North Carolina. :
Next time a gun nut wonders why we don't believe they are safe, this is why - this and all the other incidents like it; this and all the other incidents where someone gets shot, intentionally or accidentally.
From CBS Dallas;
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - A woman and two young children were wounded on Monday night after a gun accidentally discharged inside of a Walmart store in northeast Dallas. The incident happened at about 9:20 p.m. in the 9300 block of Forest Lane.
Canady left the store and then fled when police tried to question him about the incident. He was later arrested and will face a felony charge of injury to a child, as well as misdemeanor charges of assault and evading arrest. The pistol has been taken in as evidence as an investigation continues.
Not too long ago I wrote about the correlation between a state being red and the number of Wal Marts it had, along with the pattern of people having far lower levels of education, and being obese. In short, it tracks perfectly with the NRA tendency for their gun nuts to be old, white, flabby and crabby, conservative and not well educated.
And along with their obsessions with carrying guns at Wal Marts is the reported incidences of stupid accidents -- like guys shooting toilets out from under their own asses in men's rooms because their gun fell out while they were relieving themselves, and discharged. The gun carriers span the spectrum from open carry to legal concealed carry to illegal carry, and a wider variety of demographics than the NRA members -- and they are all dangerous, they all put others at risk without a legitimate reason to carry.
There was another shooting at a Wal Mart this week in Dallas, there was one last month in Elizabeth, North Carolina. :
George Reichle was seated in the men’s room stall next to Felty June 29 when to the surprise of them both, Felty’s .38-caliber pistol discharged a single round through the stall door and into the bathroom ceiling. Reichle wasn’t hurt, but the near-miss has angered him enough to publicly criticize Walmart for its reckless policy of allowing Felty and other customers to bring concealed weapons into the store.
Of course, changing the policy won’t be easy. Commonsense almost always loses out when it’s up against the often insane way gun rights are worshipped in this country. Simply suggesting that someone leave a dangerous weapon at home or in their car before entering a crowded store is considered by Second Amendment zealots to be tantamount to government storm troopers breaking into your house and confiscating your guns.If you do a google search of gun discharges, Wal Mart, there is a shocking number. Here's another one, the most recent -- but then the week isn't over yet. There's time for another one any minute, given WallyWorld's are open 24 hours, and welcome people carrying guns. And it is not like WalMart is the only place that gun guys put people in danger.
Sadly, many concealed weapon permit holders apparently are not above seeing the occasional customer shot to death if it means protecting their right to walk Walmart’s aisles with their handguns hidden at the ready. There are in fact dozens of websites where gun owners are constantly on the look out for any breach of their right to bear arms in Walmart stores, and there’s even one site that asked members how many of them performed their first “concealed carry walk” at Walmart. According to the poll, 18 of 43 respondents said they “proudly” did.
Next time a gun nut wonders why we don't believe they are safe, this is why - this and all the other incidents like it; this and all the other incidents where someone gets shot, intentionally or accidentally.
From CBS Dallas;
DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) - A woman and two young children were wounded on Monday night after a gun accidentally discharged inside of a Walmart store in northeast Dallas. The incident happened at about 9:20 p.m. in the 9300 block of Forest Lane.
According to police, a man identified as 23-year-old Todd Canady — who does have a concealed handgun license — went into the Walmart store to purchase groceries. But he had trouble pulling out his wallet at the check-out line. He accidentally dropped and fired his pistol instead. The bullet first grazed Canady in the back of his leg before ricocheting off of the ground.
Debris struck two children and a woman’s ankle as they were standing in line. They were not seriously hurt.
Todd Canady (credit: Dallas County Sheriff’s Department)
Is it only permittee shootings or is it all accidental shootings, that you seek to end?
ReplyDeleteYou're famous for your fact checking. Do you have any facts comparing the number of accidental shootings caused by concealed carry permittees versus police officers?
?
I don't think we have very accurate data on all kinds of shootings; that we do not lies squarely at the feet of the NRA which has tried to obstruct accurate data gathering.
ReplyDeleteWhy would it be useful to compare LEO accidental shootings with CC shootings? Are we not just as much at risk from EVERY accidental shooting?
Clearly what would seem to be the pertinent fact is that without firearms present, we don't have those accidental shootings, and that the greater the number of firearms the greater the exposure to both accidents and failures of judgment.
My main interest is on preventing firearms from being in the hands of prohibited people. We don't do a very good job of that now. I think it is something on which we all SHOULD be able to agree, but the pro-gunners obstruct regulation they should support.
But since over on Mitch's blog - and here - I was critical of you for advocating shooting in a situation that could not possibly be safe, given the usually accepted rules of firearms safety, let me make you an offer here as well.
If you would be willing, I'd like to see you make an argument for a movie patron safely shooting James Holmes without putting himself or herself at unwarranted risk or endangering anyone else.
I would argue to you Joe that there are relatively few cases where someone uses their firearm correctly, and that we were better off before the shoot first laws that have increased homicides and injuries, and that the prior castle doctrine was quite adequate.
Btw - one of the thresholds you will have to clear is why it is that other countries that have successful strict gun control have so few incidence of gun violence.
But here is your opportunity if you feel I was unfair or inaccurate in any way.
I'm sitting in the theatre with my wife and three grandkids. We're about 20 rows back, just left of the aisle, watching the show. The shooter comes in the emergency exit down front, tosses his grenades, and starts shooting. I can see the muzzle flashes. I can hear the screams of the wounded. As he works his way up the aisle, shooting right and left, I push those closest to me to the floor and crouch in my row, pistol in hand. When the shooter gets to the end of my row and swings his rifle at my family, I . . .
ReplyDelete. . . what? Say to myself "Gee, I might miss this guy and hit somebody behind him, I guess I'd better not shoot." The shooter fires a shot, killing my grand-daughter. It's dark, smoky, noisy, and scary. He's standing there wearing cop equipment and carrying an assault rifle. I am pointing my pistol at him, ready to shoot, when I realize: "Wow, I don't have a good backstop, I might hit somebody else; I better not shoot." He fires again, killing my wife.
Under those circumstances, I cannot safely fire without the possible risk of endangering anyone else. But I'd pull the trigger anyway.
Your point was that there are NO circumstances under which ANYBODY should pull the trigger, not civilian, not cop, not nobody, because my shot would not be completely and totally safe. I quite agree, and would take the shot anyway, because the Iron Rules of Gun Safety do NOT over-ride my right to defend myself and my family from a madman.
.
JD wrote:
ReplyDelete"As he works his way up the aisle, shooting right and left, I push those closest to me to the floor and crouch in my row, pistol in hand. When the shooter gets to the end of my row and swings his rifle at my family, I . "
and when in all of this did you put on your gas mask? Since the gas from his canisters was reported as having been widely distributed throughout the theater, AND was heavier than air AND the people crouching on the floor or ducking behind the seats all reported gagging, their eyes burning making it hard for them to see, etc........just when did you pull out your gas mask so you could breathe to do this?
No, the odds are that given he was wearing BALLISTIC protection, as reported by the official law enforcement in their description of the event, AND given that the room was dark and filled with gas fumes, I don't think you could possibly have seen the gunman clearly enough to get off a useful much less accurate shot.
How safe is it if YOU are the one who shoots your wife or grand kid? If they're gagging and choking from the burning pepper gas, how do you know that one of them won't get up, struggling to breathe, as you fire?
How about the person across the aisle or a row further up who then shoots at you, unclear if you are with or against the shooter, killing you, wounding your wife, and causing the rest of your family and the people around you to bleed to death?
And lets not forget the problems you create for law enforcement when they arrive; the frist was within 90 seconds of the first shot. How do you identify law enforcement and how does law enforcement identify you?
I'm still waiting for your source on the vest the shooter was wearing.
The rules of gun safety EMPHATICALLY apply to this situation; you are delusional AND UNSAFE if you think otherwise; my point was not that there was no situation that someone should pull the trigger, it was that there was no situation in that approximately 2 minutes that it took for the shooter to fire off some 65+ rounds that you would not have made EVERYTHING that occurred worse exponentially, without having a reasonable chance of stopping James Holmes.
Not that I believe you could have seen him necessarily anyway.
So YES YOU SHOULD NOT IN THAT SITUATION, have fired a gun. It's not just my opinion, it is the opinion of street cops who assessed the sitution, men who have been in shootouts in adverse conditions, who have more training than you do and who are certainly going to be better shots than you are. AND who would be more likely to actually be wearing bullet proof protection.
If you want to be safe in these situation, out fit yourself and your family with ballistic protection. Leave your damned firearm at home if you aren't willing to acknowledge and follow the rules of firearm safety because you are a deluded menace.
The rules of safety DO override your demented right to defend yourself, because it makes you as big a threat to your family and to everyone else, the other theater patrons, employees, law enforcement, with NO reasonable chance in hell you will stop the madman.
THAT is why the gun rules exist; that was precisely the kind of training I took and what I was taught in combat pistol training, which included shooting at moving targets in variable light situations, including mostly dark.
Pen knows what he is talking about. The fact that few bullets hit their target when fired by professional trained personnel matters.
The reason places like these theaters forbid idiot cowboys from bringing their firearms in is because of people like you who lack the judgment to be safe with them. You are as big a danger as James Holmes, however well intentioned.
OOOoooh, and I left out the best part -- after you shoot innocent people, including blowing the head off of your granddaughter as she pops up for a breath of air because of the gas, accidentally getting between you and Holmes, and after the autopsies on all the other people you hit and either injured or killed are completed, those people or their surviving relatives sue you for every dime you have, leaving your spouse destitute, and you get put in jail for manslaughter and reckless endangerment.
ReplyDeleteI'll let Laci expand on why you shouldn't ignore gun safety, from his considerable combat experience, including in Northern Ireland, to supplement Pen's military training.
And before you tell us how you give your family members directions about staying down, and telling them what you're going to do -- remember this is a scenario where it was unclear at first if the shooter was real or a publicity stunt, it was during a particularly loud part of the movie, and over the shooting people could not make themselves heard and understood even when right next to each other, until Holmes stopped shooting - briefly - and then again only after he left.
ReplyDeleteYou form a scenario for your shooting that leaves out any inconvenient realities about the shooting. Gun safety, and in particular restraint training is not because following the rules of gun safety is obsessive; first rule in a situation like that - don't make it worse, don't fuck it up even worse. Gun safety rules are not optional; they are more, not less important in situations where people are shooting at other people.
How is it you don't know that?
Sorry for the delay in responding, we have the grankids over for the weekend.
ReplyDeleteThe shooter wore an 'assault vest' which uninformed reporters thought meant 'bulletproof vest' but is actually just a cloth vest with large pockets. It affords the wearer no protection whatsoever. Source:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Retailer-who-sold-to-Holmes-getting-backlash-3730881.php
Doesn't it seem odd to you that the shooter would be wearing a helmet, gas mask, throat protection, hand and wrist protection, and leg protection that was all apparently 'ballistic', as in bullet protection, but would not be wearing that kind of protection on his torso?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it possible, given the quantity of packages that were delivered just to his school address, on top of what was delivered to his home address, that he may have purchased more than one vest, and was wearing greater protection than an assault vest -- given the official statements of the police?
The news reports I saw were equally divided between smoke and tear gas, which might also be uninformed reporter speculation.
ReplyDeleteThe visibility was good enough for people to see the attacker and flee him, some being shot in the back as they went for the exits. No witness reported being unable to identify the shooter after the killing started.
My scenario is horrible but not hypothetical. One-third of the dead in that theatre were those same flabby white males you deplore, who died taking bullets protecting their women. They had the time to assess the situation, identify the threat, and take the only defensive action available to them - die for their loved ones.
ReplyDeleteGo back to where the scenario ends. I've got two people in my own row dead at the hands of the man standing in the aisle at the end of my row, wearing a cloth vest and pointing a rifle at me. I should NOT shoot? I should just sit there and die?
It may be that you are correct. It may be that the Rules of Gun Safety and the Law of Minnesota require me to sit quietly until it's my turn to be murdered. That's your position and it's certainly the position of the DFL and Governor Dayton. If that's the case, I'm with Bumble: the law is an ass.
ReplyDeleteI checked out your link. So, they sold the shooter a vest. They do not appear to be claiming they sold him the other equipment, nor do they claim he was wearing that vest when he was (allegedly) involved in the Aurora shooting.
ReplyDeleteYou mention 'uninformed reporters'. I didn't quote 'uninformed reporters', I quoted the police in their formal press conferences, referring specifically to ballistic protection, including body protection, where they clarify that by ballistic they mean bullet resistant or bullet proof, depending on the type of bullets fired. This has been stated in MULTIPLE press sessions by the cops, not some 'uninformed reporters', and is a point of information that has not changed at all since the shooting occurred.
The police have the best idea at the moment of what James Holmes was wearing, and your source only claims to have sold him some gear, but not necessarily what he was using during the shooting. At this point, the police version, given the additional items he had, is far more credible than your retailer sold him something so he must have been weaaring it claim.
One of the topics that has not so far been explored in the media is that Holmes must have had at least some minimal opportunity to train or try out his weapons before the shooting. I find it more logical that he would use the assault vest with its pockets for spare magazines in that situation than the assertion he was protecting other parts of his body but not his torso during the theater shooting.
So.....have you got something more definitive than a purchase to support your claim about what the shooter was wearing? Because again, as with the causality claim, you haven't made your point successfully.
I'm not aware of any official statements that said it was bulletproof. I'm aware only that it was a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, which is a glorified pheasant hunting vest with square pockets for magazines instead of cylindrical pockets for birdshot. Do you have a law enforcement source who says it was a bulletproof vest, not a reporter's interpretation of what the cop said?
ReplyDeleteLooks like we're on-line simultaneously, cool. No, I haven't seen the interview saying it was ballistic protection, I'd appreciate the link.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear on your position: if Holmes was wearing ballistic protection, shooting him with my snubnose .38 would have had no effect; therefore, since the best result of a lucky hit would be no effect and the worst result of a miss would be killing an innocent bystander, I should not shoot, I should wait to die. Is that correct?
Taking grandkids to the indoor park. Catch you later.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems I have with civilians having, advocating and using deadly force is their poor distinctions on important information, their lack of clear reasoning, and their willingness to try to justify shootings that should not occur.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that James Holmes was wearing a vest he purchased in not a 'fact'; it appears to be an unwarranted assumption based on a claim of a purchase.
George Zimmerman believed every back male over the age of 12 was a criminal. He made claims that Trayvon Martin was up to no good, in the process of committing a crime, when he was walking home from a convenience store. He claimed he was drunk or high, when he was not any such thing; no subsequent toxicology report supports that description.
In other words, George Zimmerman made a racially prejudiced and INACCURATE report to police, who were not prepared to take his word for those things, and he then, against police advice pursued the unarmed teenager whom he should have left alone to mind his own business.
Pursuing him directly resulted in the confrontation that followed; Zimmerman is the person responsible for that confrontation, and his account of it is not very credible, notably his claims of what was said.
The shooting of Trayvon Martin was entirely avoidable had 1. Zimmerman been accurate; 2. Zimmerman cooperated with police; and 3. Zimmerman not had a firearm that he used in a completely avoidable shooting in a confrontation he himself provoked.
I see some bad drawing of conclusions by you Mr Doakes, based on poor observation of information, and on bad reasoning.
While I admire the motives of both George Zimmerman and yourself, in wanting to guarantee both the safety of your family and to oppose criminals committing crimes, I am even less persuaded by your explanations and other writing than I was before that you are any good at making those decision -- in which you seem to share the faults of George Zimmermn.
My objection to a large number of people having easy access to firearms, and to openly or concealed carry of them in public is that I don't see any reason to trust your judgment about when it is appropriate to use them or that you will correctly observe what is taking place around you.
Your very selective reading of the circumstances in the theater argue that you have a similarly selective and subjective rather than objective view of people and events to the failures of George Zimmerman which resulted in an avoidable killing of an innocent and unarmed teenager.
You draw poor conclusions sir. I hold to my point that those who carry and who are over-eager to protect themselves and others are too prone to shoot to be safe to the rest of the public. That those same permittees have stupid accidents in walmart and other public places where they carry, on a regular basis, is onl more evidence that those who carry are not good judges of when to shoot and when to refrain from shooting, without any justifiable benefit to counterbalance those risks.
If you take a look at the number of people in shoot first law states who shoot unarmed people, who shoot people leaving the scene rather than posing an immediate threat, and who appear to be emboldened to pick fights and engage in confrontations BECAUSE the are carrying weapons, that pattern clearly shows an increase in avoidable and unnecessary shootings, deaths and injuries.
There is NO indication more guns results in less crime ANYWHERE. Fewer guns and more restrictive ownership with less carry in public DOES result in less gun violence, and particularly in fewer firearms in the hands of criminals.
OK, a Christian Science Monitor report which was a day old when I saw it states he WAS wearing a bullet proof vest:
ReplyDeletewww.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0727/Colorado-shooting-bombshell-Defense-says-suspect-was-psychiatric-patient-video
CSM TRIES to be accurate.
But, even if the shooter wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest, he had thrown tear gas into the theatre.
Joe, I don't know if you have any experience with tear gas, but that would probably preclude any shooter firing back, unless they also happened to have been wearing, or quickly put on, a gas mask at the time. Google CS gas to see more than enough videos of the effect on humans.
Otherwise, the shooter would be too incapacitated to return fire.
I don't care how well trained the person would be, they would not be able to return fire unless they had been prepared to face the tear gas.
As for pulling the trigger without being aware of your target, you are putting others' lives in danger.
But,from your statement, you have made it clear that you don't care if you miss the shooter and hit a family member.
That statement, in and of itself, tells me that you are not responsible enough to carry a firearm.
BTW, there would also be legal liability, both civil and criminal, for your harming or killing an innocent bystander.
ReplyDeleteCould you afford that?
Or Maybe US law has said that human life isn't sacred after birth.
Just because James Holmes bought a vest doesn't mean he was wearing that assault vest in the theater. It means only that it was one of the many things he bought; there were more than 50 deliveries each, to his home and to his school address; we don't know if he might also have used in addition to those, a po box etc. for additional purchases.
ReplyDeleteWe don't in point of fact have ANY information that he wore the vest you identified EVER. Buying is not wearing. You need to show us soeone definitive who is in a position to know -- like law enforcement - that the hunting vest was what he was wearing. You haven't done that, but you've shown a real problem with your leaps to false conclusions on too little information, and that you will double down on that.
I would refer you to my frequent criticism of Mitch, for not multisourcing your information in an attempt to maximize factual from incorrect information.
Here is one of the earlier police briefings by the chief of police of Aurora Colorado; the description of the ballistic equipment is made at approximately 4:30 into the video. Variations on this same claims about the BALLISTIC equipment by the police chief occur in multiple news briefings. I have yet to see a retraction, nor can I find any claim that just because a hunting vest was sold it was worn in the shooting - other than by you.
ReplyDeleteNor am I persuaded tht you could tell the difference in the theater conditions between such a hunting vest and a ballistic vest.
For some reason, the reply function isn't working properly, so my apologies that these replies are not following the correct comment to which they respond.
ReplyDeleteDoakes:"Let's be clear on your position: if Holmes was wearing ballistic protection, shooting him with my snubnose .38 would have had no effect; therefore, since the best result of a lucky hit would be no effect and the worst result of a miss would be killing an innocent bystander, I should not shoot, I should wait to die. Is that correct?
It is NOT correct. While yes, it is my position that you would have had close to zero chance of stopping the shooter, by in turn shooting at him, AND that you would have added to the casualties, possibly significantly, it is NOT my position that the only effective alternative was to wait and die.
Quite the opposite. My argument to you is two fold; 1. using a gun would have been worse, not better, for the situation for multiple reasons; 2. that having or relying on a firearm as the only or preferred solution gets in the way of considering and responding with other solutions that would not endanger others AND would have had a better chances of success in stopping the shooter.
Ask yourself these questions - if your solution failed to stop the shooter (as was likely), would it have made YOUR situation worse, the situation faced by law enforcement worse, and the situation for other victims in the theater worse?
I would argue all of the above would be worse.
If you shot at James Holmes and did not KILL him or convincingly disable him, given that he was singling out for shooting those who tried to evade his gunfire by leaving the theater, it is logical that he would focus greater violence on you and your family for having attempted to thwart his violence. It is a reasonable speculation that he would have identified you from muzzle fire of YOUR weapon, and shot you and your family around or near you.
As I have discussed with Laci in private conversations, I was a bit surprised that given the circumstances no one tried to take the guy down, especially from behind. As a bipedal individual, his center of gravity is high; he would be vulnerable to being tackled or knocked down from behind, especially at ankle or knee level. His ability to move was presumably at least somewhat impaired by his gear, if he was unused to wearing it in all situations. In a theater, either the aisles are slanted or there are stairs, meaning he would be off balance periodically as he moved towards the back of the theater because of moving at an angle. I don't know why someone didn't obstruct him by throwing a jacket or coat over his head, to make it easier for others to take him down -- even throwing a full bucket of popcorn at his head would have momentarily distracted him making an attack on him easier and safer.
This wasn't a big muscle bound guy. He didn't have super powers, he had limitations and liabilities to what he was doing despite his having tried to control the circumstances in the theater.
NONE of those things would have endangered anyone else, and arguably would have had a better chance of success.
Link didn't come through above: here is just ONE of multiples saying the same thing over a period of days on different occasions.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/colorado-shooting-news-conference_n_1690270.html
D wrote:Joe DoakesJuly 29, 2012 9:26 AM
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any official statements that said it was bulletproof. I'm aware only that it was a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, which is a glorified pheasant hunting vest with square pockets for magazines instead of cylindrical pockets for birdshot. Do you have a law enforcement source who says it was a bulletproof vest, not a reporter's interpretation of what the cop said?
Do you have any official statement anywhere that says the hunting vest is what Holmes was wearing? I can't find one; I can't even find such a claim by the retailer who sold him the hunting vest. I can't in fact find any confirmation of the retailer's statement - which could be made to get attention and more sales - that such a sale and delivery took place.
Whatcha got to prove your claim? So far you pretty much have nothing.
We're bogging in details. For purposes of this discuss, I'll concede the ballistic armor and go you one better: change my scenario to assume the shooter had the exact same equipment a top line SWAT team uses, and that tear gas was watering my eyes and making me cough. With my granddaughter and wife dead with me next before he gets to my grandson, my situation was:
ReplyDelete1. There is no legal or moral right to self-defense so I had to die (neither of us assert that, I hope).
2. There is a moral right to defend my life but no legal right. Society decided when and where I can defend my life, and to what extent. Resistance is not only useless, it's illegal.
3. There is a legal right to defend my life but no moral right to defend it at the expense of an innocent life. Taking a risk of an immoral act is as bad as commiting the act so I had no moral right to defend myself; instead, I had a moral duty to die.
4. There is a legal right to defend my life and a moral right to risk others but doing so may subject me to financial liability. Running up debts I can't pay is immoral so instead, I had a moral obligation to die.
5. I have a legal and moral right to defend my life if it can be done gently, without risking others or provoking the killer; otherwise, I have no legal or moral right to defend my life and instead have a legal and moral duty to die.
The problem I have with your philosophy is there is no hope, it always ends with the innocent dying.
.
Just played the interview at the link you provided. Thanks - I had not seen that one. Let's go with my revised scenario - exact same equipment as SWAT - does the shooter's care in preparing the kill zone override my Constitutional rights and compel the conclusion that I have a duty to die?
ReplyDeleteMr. Doakes, that link is one of at least 6 or 8 different sessions by the police and the correct information, which you casually dismissed as ill-informed reporting, was correctly in nearly every account of the shootings in Colorado.
ReplyDeleteYou not only have from what I've seen of your writings on Mitch's blog consistently been factually inaccurate, you reason badly.
Let's go with the exact scenario of what happened.
There is no legitimate basis for you or anyone else to shoot more people on top of those shot by the bad guy in this incident, or for another theater person to shoot your or your family by mistake, particularly not when it adds to the confusion and makes the job of law enforcement more difficult. All that does is gratify your desire to do something, no matter how stupid.
The stupidity of firing in that situation has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional rights - which by the way only exist in YOUR HOME, not in a public theater -- nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with 'a duty to die'.
NOWHERE have I said the alternatives are shoot the bastard or DIE. YOU keep making a false set of choices.
The choices are do something useful that has a better chance of success, without a high risk of injuring or killing other people - who are not, however much you try to ignore this point, any more expendable than you or you fmaily, or do something stupid that makes the situation worse.
I HAVE NOT ANYWHERE ARGUED TO DO NOTHING, I've argued against doing something STUPID, WRONG, BAD that makes things worse.
Firing a gun is not the only alternative in this situation, or in other situations with a gunman randomly shooting into a crowd of people, regardless of how the shooter took care in preparing the kill zone, as you put it.
ReplyDeleteThere are lots of examples of people overcoming a gunman like this, notably the 61 year old Patricia Maisch and the 74 year old U.S. army colnel who had himself been wounded in the shooting, who subdued Jared Loughner when he paused in the shooting to reload / unjam his weapon.
There were multiple occurrences where the shooter in Colorado had to pause either to unjam or reload that were similar. No one took the lead that Maish or Col. Badger did - but they could have. Subduing Holmes was not impossible for anyone with the presence of mind to do so.
The Loughner shooting is not the only case where one or more people subdue a shooter. He was protected from bullets - not from other forms of attack.
You consistently frame arguments incorrectly, creating a false dichotomy - in this case shoot or die as the only alternatives, when that is not the case at all.
So the question is -- are you this stupid that you are incapable of beginning from an accurate premise, and are you incapable of actual thought other than these bizarre and false alternatives?
IF someone else had a gun, shot at the shooter despite pretty much ZERO chance of that working, and your grandkids had been killed as a result, your wife put into a long term coma/vegetative state, and you wounded so seriously you were a paraplegic ------- would your reaction be, well, heck, he meant well; you wouldn't expect the guy with the gun in the theater to let the shooter's care in preparing the kill zone override his Constitutional rights that he doesn't actually have in the theater, just because he missed AND didn't stop the shooter. He meant well, even if he did all that to me and my family?
OR would you object to those additional injuries and killings of you and yours as wrong and bad and pointless?
THINK Mr. Doakes. Use your head for something other than setting your hat on; if you REALLY think this poorly, if your judgment is so badly flawed, you should not own a gun, much less carry it anywhere outside your own home, because you are incapable of properly deciding when and how to use it, if you cannot come up with better comments than these.
My co-bloggers, both male, are intelligent men whom I admire for their integrity. They are both also military men, with experience in hand to hand combat. I dont' have militar training, but neither do I ever willingly just give in to circumstances. I trust my ability to think my way out of dangerous circumstances, and I am not afraid to act any more than my two co-bloggers.
Your assertions personify everything that is wrong with the pro-gunners and the gun culture - chronic factual inaccuracy, and completely false arguments. Shame on you.
Check your facts BEFORE you make assumptions, use more than one source. Then think better than you have so far, and reason more honestly and argue with more integrity than the false offerings you have made here.
Okay, let's say you're right. In this specific situation - ballistic armor, tear gas, assault rifle - shooting at the shooter would be worse than useless.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall seeing this fact situation before. He seems to be the far edge of the bell curve of mass shooters. If I concede that in this extreme situation, I had no business shooting, would you concede that in a less extreme situation, I would have business shooting?
How can one agree that you or someone else should shoot someone? These are human lives we are talking about. You had better have a darned good reason to shoot someone. What would be a less extreme situation? Are you looking for a venue for a shooting? When people are trained in CCW classes, according to what some of the gun rights advocates tell me, you are trained not to shoot and to leave a situation unless it is impossible or you life is clearly at risk. Even police officers have a hard time hitting a person with a bullet during chaotic emergencies. As to the far edge of the bell curve? Really? What about Cho at Virginia Tech? What about Jared Loughner at Tucson? What about the Columbine shooters? What about all of the school shooters? They walk around appearing "normal" but people know they are a little weird or a little quiet or reclusive. That is likely within the realm of normal. 'Normal" law abiding gun owners shoot people every day in America. You don't have to be crazy to shoot someone. Just paranoid, angry or depressed.
ReplyDeleteBecause CCW holders actually go to the range more often than cops. Cops usually learn basic marksmanship in the academy, nothing more. BTW, "normal law abiding gun owners" don't go around shooting people every day. Most murderers and their victims have long criminal records including felony convictions.
DeleteGEJ, welcome to penigma, although this is an older post.
DeleteThere is absolutely NOTHING which supports your contention that CCW holders go to a range more often than LEOs. It is a complete fabrication on your part. Further, there is absolutely NO continuing proficiency requirement whatsoever for CCW holders. More than that, there isn't even a requirement they have their vision tested, the way that a driver's license renewal requires -- so there is absolutely NO serious qualifications for CCWs at all. In some states, like AZ, there isn't any requirement to carry.
As to your contention that most murderers and their victims have long records, that is equally a fantasy pulled out of thin air on your part, not supported by any facts anywhere of any kind. It's propaganda, delusion, folly.
The frequency of murder suicides in this country, more than three a week, demonstrate that is incorrect, as do the majority of the records of those who have been responsible for mass shootings.
If you think you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it here; however, I'm quite confident I've got far more than enough to prove you wrong.
We operate here on fact, not pro-gun fiction.