A recent commenter, in attempting to justify opposing the idea that civilians might cause unintended casualties in a place like the Aurora, Colorado theatre, asserted that it simply wasn't possible that all 9 by-stander victims were shot by police. He made this assertion since of 16 rounds fired, 12 (actually it was 10) hit the suspect, leaving too few to hit bystanders. As he said, it was a "modern miracle."
The official report..
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57500574/all-9-empire-state-building-shooting-injuries-by-police/?tag=stack
Says...All 9 by-standers were injured by police fire. This doesn't mean the police shot badly, it means bullets go through people, they bounce off things, and sometimes they then hit others.
The point is, guns aren't a cure-all, they aren't cool things to be drawn and fired in some b-movie kind of shoot-out. They are powerful weapons which often penetrate far beyond the intended point. Carrying a gun may make you feel safer, it may help assuage needs for power or fear, but actually FIRING a weapon in the heat of the moment should be something ALL of us look at as the last resort, an act of terrible counter-violence with very likely unintended consequences. Howdy Doody, The Rifleman, Paladin, Roy Rogers, and Gene Autry aren't reality. People shot don't just fall down, they often aren't even stopped immediately, and the bullets don't always hit the target, they also often hit things you never wanted. Pretending that's not the case justifies (in certain people's minds) not holding people accoutable for (grossly) irresponsible conduct and ugly machismo leading to the deaths of people they never intended.
Having 9 people injured by ricochette or bullet fragments from six misses (or portions of bullets which hit the suspect and then carried through to hit others) is no miracle. The real miracle is when someone is not hurt. Which is after all the goal we Christians strive for.
You are correct, but what those figures don't tell is that only 2 or 3 bullets actually hit anyone.
ReplyDeleteWhat we also don't know is the order of those people being hit - for example, AFTER the police had a clear line of fire, did someone mistakenly run across that? We don't know yet.
More to the point, we pay police to take these chances with their lives and safety, we train them AND WE INSURE THEM, knowing that people responding in a crisis might make a mistake.
None of us want to be held to a standard of perfection. All of us make mistakes. The difference between vigilante shootings and law enforcement is that we do more to minimize their mistakes AND to ensure that they make as few as possible AND to compensate victims when a mistake happens AND to review every shooting with professionals doing the evaluation.
Civilian shooters can claim none of those.
It is too soon to know if the police made a mistake or not, or how those wounded came to be shot -- or wounded but NOT shot as appears to be the case for the majority of the injured.
A recent case where the NYCPD shot a man threatening people with a knife resulted in NO wounded. So clearly their system seems to be pretty effective overall.
9 bystanders hurt, 2-3 by whole bullets, 6-7 by ricochets. That's what Rule #4 is about: know your backstop. That's why children learn not to shoot at flat rocks and water. Sometimes it's unavoidable, of course, and conditions change between shots, as Dog Gone correctly points out. That's why it's so important to remember the rule and apply to every single shot. Good reminder to all of us.
ReplyDeleteWe have preliminary information.
ReplyDeleteLets wait for further analysis until we know more.
The one thing that no one seems to remark on, but which startled me from the one angle of video that has been available was that one of the two cops at one point looked awfully close to being in the line of fire of the other, and appeared to have to back out of that line of fire a bit.
Joe - while I agree with your sentiments expressed, the point was and is, people get hurt when bullets start flying. There is no magic "fall down" gun. You claimed it was "a modern day miracle" that 16 bullets wounded or killed 10 people when 10 of the 16 bullets hit the suspect. It was nothing of the sort. Your point was that the line of comment by DG was in error, in part because it wasn't possible that 9 people were shot by the police with only 16 bullets when 10 (though you said 12) bullets struck the suspect. My point, being somewhat of an expert on penetration capabilities of rounds, is that it in fact WAS possible, MORE than possible.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, the point was, the point which you declined to acknowledge, was that your crtique' of DG's comments were wrong, on this score, and overall. You've not acknowledged the flaw in the NRA's thinking here - that flaw being that they don't feel having laws which hold people accountable to be AT LEAST AS SAFE AS POLICE, are a good idea. We do. As this csse proves, even THAT standard is fraught with peril.
Joe, ultimately, the point here is, we've addressed your complaints, time and again. For example (in another thread) when I debunked your comment saying that DG was criticizing "all lawful gun owners" when she crticized the NRA, because in fact the vast majority of gun owners aren't members of the NRA (moreover she was criticizing its leadership) - you failed to answer the basic question (again). I'll give you THAT question AND the other couple which have been at the heart of this.
ReplyDeletePlease address each
1. What standards are you willing to enforce to try to keep firearms away from the mentally unstable, those with restraining orders where there is a history of violence, and violent felons, from acquiring firearms?
2. What standards of conduct are you willing to allow to be enforced upon gun carrying citizens if they chose to employ those firearms? More directly, why would you oppose holding them to the same standards as police?
3. Last, and equally important, do you support protecting other rigthts, like the right to vote? If not, why not?
Joe, I would agree with Pen.
ReplyDeleteYou have repeatedly misquoted me, for example claiming that the only basis I have for asserting that we don't have voter fraud is the convictions of felon voters.
That is incorrect; rather I have the results of investigations, and serious studies that use verifiable information -- somewhere upwards of 18 of them I've read cover to cover so far.
That consistent finding is far more signficant than just the convictions number. The fact that EVERY STATE that has campaigned for and passed voter ID has asserted it was to address a problem with voter fraud. And EVERY ONE OF THOSE STATES has subsequently gone into court, claiming when pressed to make a sworn statement of fact, where there was a penalty for lying (unlike those campaigns) that there was NO VOTER FRAUD, not past, not current, and not expected in the future and that voter ID was not in fact intended to address a problem of voter fraud.
Then we have Coleman and his attorneys stating and out of court there was no voter fraud in that election. Yet you still try to represnt me as using only felon convictions for a basis of my claim there is no voter fraud, while you have NO PROOF whatsoever of any remotely significant problem.
The same kinds of misrepresentations continue relating to firearms incidents, both Aurora, Co and other subsequent shootings.
As Pen noted, we DO try to address your points. YOU aren't addressing ours.
I would be very sorry to see you leave; I'd much rather try to address points to your satisfaction, but I would also like you to address OURS as well, which you haven't been doing.
I'm still waiting for you to agree to see that the results of an inquiry to each attorney who investigated any questionable vote in 2008 is fairly published where it has been challenged. You have been too silent on that point. Are you afraid of being proven wrong?
But at least you are more civil and reasonable than our problem harasser K-rod. I'm working on another post about our blog harassment status, but it has to accomodate the apples all coming ripe at the same time this year. I'm literally working my fingers to the bone doing my annual 'domestic goddess' chores getting fruit and veg processed. I am not looking forward, for example, to baking apple pies for the freezer on Thurs. if it hits 100F!!!!!!!!!!! So, the best alternative is to try to get some chores done sooner than later. Please be patient with this annual drain on my time and energy, if I'm a bit slower to respond! I haven't figured out how to fit more than 24 hours in a day yet, but I figure I'll make a fortune if I can perfect that.
I don't know enough yet to know if the NYCPD made any mistakes, or were perfectly in compliance with their guidelines for shooting or refraining from shooting.
ReplyDeleteWe will know that as this unfolds.
What I do know is that there were significant differences between that and the Aurora, Co shooting.
It was daylight, not dark; visibility was good, not compromised by an irritant gas.
The shooter was clearly visible to them, unlike James Holmes.
Those are very significant differences, but perhaps the most striking difference that is evident from the closed circuit camera footage we've seen so far is that while people might go the wrong way, they COULD get away from the area of the shooter.
In the Colorado theater, every seat was full, and people were crammed in together like a proverbial can of sardeens. If you look at the difference in evasion patterns on the street and sidewalk, people could disperse. In a crowded movie theater, the seating funnels people into even greater congestion in the aisles, as everyone who has ever filed out of a theater or sporting event has experienced.
I would argue to you Joe that while yes, the same rules of knowing what is behind and to the sides of a target are when you fire, they would be very different in an open area where people had at least some significant room to maneuver to get away, which in the Aurora Co theater they did not, making it far more likely that to fire at the shooter would harm others.
The NYPD has ongoing efforts NOT to shoot innocent bystanders; a recent shooting of a knife wielding assailant in a relatively crowded area didn't hit anyone. So clearly they not only have guidelines for avoiding that safety issue, those rules and training are working well, if not perfectly.
As anti-terrorist squad cops, I don't know what non-lethal force these officers were equipped with; no doubt that too will come out.
But the recent information that the shooter had lost his apartment because he subleased, and the manager was making improvements suggests he intended to be killed, given he turned in his keys before leaving without any explanation, even though he had some time to go before he had to be out of there.
This is another significant difference from James Holmes, who was apparently trying to protect himself from being wounded or killed.
I would argue to you that the differences between the two events make them unsuitable for comparison. Perhaps we could find a better alternative incident to do that, which would make for better analysis?
If you have any suggestions, I'm open to exploring them. Otherwise, because of the seminal differences between the two events, I disagree that I have been inconsistent.
What you call 'smooching' the NYPD, I call applauding the efforts to deal with a difficult and dangerous situation by two LEOs who are on a challenging detail that addresses terrorists most of the time -- whatever mistakes they may have made, shouldn't we give them credit for doing their best on those difficult assignments to protect others?
Pen & Dog- How are you two. I don't mean to interject, but I would like to add my perspective.
ReplyDeletePen may not be aware, but I am pro gun, and doing volunteer work for Carry/Illinois. But I am not a member, and never have been, of the NRA.
I've recently been doing a writing campaign for conceal/carry in Illinois. I thought I had a good idea and would like to share. Let me know what you think.
I too, would like to see a better system of purchasing. Mentally unstable "Legal" gun purchasers are just as dangerous as Gang Bangers. But working within the parameters of the law, this is what I came up with for Conceal/Carry in Illinois.
1-Mandatory gun registration for sales and purchases.
2-Mandatory classes on shooting, safety, combat situations. These classes can be taught by local County police departments for a fee.
3-Psychology screening.
All the costs for these would be incurred by the licensee.
I would applaud all of those suggestions, and yes, it would make me much happier with carry.
ReplyDeleteExpand 1. to include background checks, ALL transfers, including gifts or inheritance, and mandatory background checks on all sales/transfers, etc. Ditto mandatory reporting of thefts/ firearms missing.
Expand 2. to include continuing education at certain intervals; if our Laci has to do continuing legal education for example to be a lawyer, or a doctor has to renew their board certification, or law enforcement has to do so as well to remain current, so should REASONABLE refresher courses be required for carry, rather than a one size doesn't even bother to fit, one time only. This should include some sort of moving shooting.
3. expand it to include drug testing for all first time licensees, and random drug testing for renewals
Add 4. - an eye exam as part of original licensing, with a renewal license exam comparable to what is done with a drivers license. If you can't see, you can't respond properly in evaluating safety decisions
One of my issues with 4, and which relates to an aging population generally are the physical deficiencies of aging, including Alzheimers. My first experience with that disease was with my mother's aunt, my Great Aunt Florence. We noticed it first when her driving became impaired, but as she experienced the later ravages of that illness, not only was preventing her from driving a concern, on a couple of occasions she took my then-late great Uncle's firearms out and brandished them at people. At this point, she was believing that when she watched the news at night, the people climbed out of her television set into her living room, etc. She was physically very fit, could become combative with surprising physical strength, but her brain was pudding. Many of those who have those kinds of illnesses are far less obvious and the onset is very subtle, but leads to absentmindedness which is a concern for safety and security of weapons, for example, but also the occasional completely erratic outbursts or incidents. Given the number of, if you will pardon the expression, old white flabby and crabby pro-gunners.........we need something that addresses deterioration of old people with guns as some kind of safety and suitability evaluation. It is one more way in which LEOs are subject to standards relating to carry that the private/civilian population is not, and it is a very sensitive and difficult one.
That doesn't change that something needs to be in place if we are having people carrying lethal weapons that addresses their capacity and capabilities as those things change... and not for the better.
DG- Thanks for your input.
ReplyDelete1-I would be Acceptive, but how do you perform a check on someone if you are a private seller?
2-Wonderful idea that I didn't think to include. Not to mention, you have to renew your drivers license. I could definitely agree with that, and will suggest it.
3-I disagree because of one reason. In my opinion, if Marijuana was legal. The violent crime rate would be cut in half. That may just be wishful thinking.
4-I can agree, I would add that if you are to old and blind to drive, then you are to old and blind to conceal/carry. I think that a suitable evaluation for older Americans to Conceal/Carry can be addressed by psych evals. Remember, no one is forced to carry a firearm, it would be an elective.
Sorry to hear about your Great Aunt.
I suggest you look at how they handle it with private sellers in those states, like Colorado, which ALREADY require background checks on ALL sales at gun shows, not just FFL sales.
ReplyDeleteNo need to re-invent the wheel.
I would also suggest you check out how Maryland handles non-FFL checks.
2. by 'moving shooting', I mean the shooter, not just the target, btw. I would outline to you that while it only requires the strength of a 3 year old to pull a trigger, as we see far too often in child firearms incidents, it requires a good deal more physical strength and control to direct that fire accurately. That strength, control and stability again is declining/deteriorating in an aging population. Think arthritis, etc. here in terms of a greater issue of physical capacity than just vision that is at issue when comparing the pros and cons of person carry in contrast to LEO carry.
3. I agree that Marijuana could be made safer than it is now, if we chose to make it legal. There are two separate effective chemicals that are active in Marijuana in terms of brain effect; one is positive, and the other is not. The proportions of those chemicals varies tremendously by variety / subspecies of the plant. Marijuana does alter response and perception, therefore its use is significant for carrying the same way it is significant like alcohol when driving, in this case legal or not. But weed isn't the only significant drug that should be a concern, obviously; and drug use is often not obvious or visible to the naked eye. Above and beyond that any such testing should include testing for alcohol abuse, as at least one study has found that gun owners were more likely to be binge drinkers and to drive under the influence, and for alcohol to be a very significant factor in suicides. I don't have a study at my finger tips although there are probably are some, but it makes sense that would apply equally to not just suicides but the murder suicides with firearms that are a too-common problem.
4. Dementia, particularly with impairment like Alzheimer's, is often intermittent, not constant, and is not easy to diagnose. Sorry but no, psych evals are NOT likely to address that problem. Psych evals COULD potentially address a problem that more commonly occurs at the other end of the age spectrum (late teens, males more often than females), which is the problem of schizophrenia like that which we know affected Jared Loughner,(and which may in Norway have affected Anders Breivik - one shrink said yes, the other no), and Ian Stawicki in Seattle earlier this year.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/01/news/la-ol-stawicki-seattle-guns-20120601
The devil in the details is what kind of psych evals? The most likely one I can think of is MMPI, but that or any other psych test that is objective and consistent for each person being tested will be challenged in court - the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) is one of the oldest, most tested and reviewed psych evals there is --and IT has still been challenged in court.
Also on 4 - hearing in terms of what you are able to perceive and respond to, in a situation where a cc permittee might use their weapon, is potentially as significant and important as eye sight. (Think of responding to law enforcement directives for example.)
Yeah, no one is forced to carry a firearm, and no one is forced to drive a car either. However once older people have driven a car for a number of years, they OFTEN don't give up doing so easily. My concern is NOT about 'forcing' anyone to carry, my concern is that as we increasingly have older people carrying they won't be willing NOT to carry when they aren't capable any longer.
I suggest you review what people go through with trying to stop incompetent elderly drivers from having a car and/or drivers license.
Read this Forbes article, and as you read, substitute gun and carry permit for car and drivers license. Personally, I think they are being generous when they say many older drivers give up their cars and driving voluntarily. I only know of one person in my own acquaintance who has dealt with aging parents or other family members who got the elder to give up their car and keys voluntarily, even after having accidents.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/carolynrosenblatt/2012/08/15/dangerous-older-drivers-a-car-is-a-lethal-weapon/2/
And when the article touches on legal measures to stop a dangerous senior from driving....what it doesn't say is more significant that those few sentences it does provide.
I've actually had two relatives with alzheimer's - one on each side of the family. The second, an elderly maiden aunt, was in some ways harder. No guns, but didn't have anyone who could stop her driving, unlike Great Aunt Florence. In one single incident she first smashed her car into the garage door of my cousin when leaving after a visit, and then swerved wildly off the driveway area when she threw her car into reverse, nearly running over a small child on a tricycle, a good 15-20 feet into the front yard from the edge of the driveway.
Her response to being confronted about her erratic driving was that the kid shouldn't be in the front yard, and that 'dinging' (it was much worse than dinging) the garage door didn't mean she was a bad driver, her car had just 'rolled' forward a little (yeah, if by rolled you mean she punched the gas pedal).
It cost us $7,000 in legal expenses to have her license and car taken away, to have a guardian appointed for her, and to have her declared a vulnerable adult who was no longer competent, and put into a care facility after getting an emergency intervention by county services before a holiday weekend. That intervention, and a court hearing, were required to force her to undergo a medical exam that diagnosed the Alzheimer's in her case.
So you will excuse me if I am a bit skeptical that under your arrangement, simply failing a drivers eye test or a psych eval is sufficient to detect something that isn't easily diagnosed until middling well along in its progression.
And while we're at it, lets add 5. be required to carry insurance or post a bond, in the event a cc permittee makes a mistake. Law enforcement has that, why shouldn't a private citizen who has a cc have to prove they are financially responsible by insurance or bond for compensating anyone if the do mess up? As part of that would be secure storage required for ALL firearms, owned and kept at home, OR carried.
This might actually offer the BEST and easist/strongest means of having a safety valve in permitting ccs. If insurance is required, and if insurers can set standards for insurability (and they will insist on it, I guarantee it) including both mental competency and physical evaluations, for example, by an MD, you'd have potentially the whole package - drug screening (both legal prescription meds which might impair as well as non-prescription abuse), mental health screening, physical health screening. They're well trained to be the deliverer of 'you can't' kinds of news with geriatric or other patients, AND they have the credentials in court to make it stick if challenged.
Clearly, whatever you would do needs to be based on quantitative and qualitative objective standards, but that also has to address changing capacity over time with some period of review/renewal.
I think you should also make it a requirment that if someone shoots in public with a CC, the incident has to be reviewed by the appropriate law enforcement jurisdiction, same as LEO's.
Why shouldn't we hold a civilian accountable in the same way we hold LEOs?
DOG- Again, very good ideas. I especially love number five being added. I'm starting to get pissed that I didn't think of it... :)
ReplyDeleteI had already thought of CC shooters being held to the same investigative standards as our officers.
Thank you for the wonderful input, and I will be sure to include it in my writings.
For a psych evaluation, check out the MMPI (which we originated and update right here in Minneosta...one of my significant others worked on it, in an exceedingly low level capacity, EXCEEDINGLY low level, while doing things relating to his masters and PhD in Psych; he's now a prof in the subject at a college on the Atlantic seaboard. In the course of his interest, since we were cohabiting, I heard more at the time than I would have otherwise ever wanted to know (and I do mean EVER HAVE WANTED TO KNOW).
ReplyDeleteThe nice thing about the MMPI is that it is so useful for so many things, but particularly the fact that this is used for people getting security clearances should appeal to the demographic that is interested in cc.
Another nice bit -- many insurance companies cover the cost of both the test and the interpretation of the results under regular health insurance policies' mental health care provisions. So other than a possible deductible or co-pay, if this was the way you wanted to go for what you term 'psych eval', you MIGHT be able to use this to manage those costs.
Hope this is helpful!