Political terrorism has been an European problem for a long time - you might say, for always. Random killings are not. You, on the other hand, have both.
It's incidents like this that have led other US states to have more-permissive rules about who can get concealed-carry licenses - because survivors said to their state government, basically, "I know how to shoot, I would have had time to shoot and a clear shot, but I wasn't permitted to carry a firearm." (It seems like it's more a mirror of what the person already thought, though, in terms of "what should be done now?" - if gun laws in CA are too restrictive in someone's mind, that person will probably think this is a call for them to be less restrictive, and if they're not restrictive enough to someone else, that other person will probably think it's a call for them to be more restrictive.)
Suuuurrrrrre. Everyone's a Captain America, after the fact. What I would like to know is how many victims of random shootings did in fact have guns on them. I'm willing to bet they're a very large number, but goodness me, the issue doesn't seem to be investigated for some reason.
I've been a soldier and I've practised with rifles. I know that unless you have the reflexes of a superhero, surprise is deadly. You will die, even if you have a loaded Uzi. That is why soldiers practise never, if possible, to be surprised. Watch the way British soldiers walk through unfriendly areas of Belfast, walking slowly, gun in hand, making a complete 360 degree turn on themselves every few steps; and still from time to time one of them got killed. If your friends think they can react fast and coolly enough under fire, they are living on the Moon. And even supposing you were lucky enough to have the time to react, you would be as apt to hit a tree - or a third person - as your enemy. Nobody hits dead on target unless they had had the chance to aim first; and your enemy had it, while you have not. Please, don't listen to ridiculous fantasies like that.
In many of these shootings, there WERE indeed people who were armed nearby...but did not shoot the attacker for fear of either hitting a bystander, or didn't get a chance to draw and fire, etc. Or in the case of four Seattle policemen, were ambushed. Plus, any police officer knows that an assailant armed with a knife can stab you before you can draw and fire if he is within 20 feet.
The bulk of successful firearm defense scenarios seem to have been defensive in nature wherein the armed individual was in his home, as opposed to random street violence. Guns are wildcards at best and applicable in specific scenarios, not magical talismans of security.
I don't carry concealed, even though I live in a state that'd permit it, and if I'd been there, my reaction would have been to do exactly what one of the survivors did: go into the bathroom, keep the light off, and lock the door. (Actually, that would have been my reaction even if I were carrying.)
I mean, yes, if I'm walking alone and somebody surprises me, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm carrying; that's just as true if I'm the first victim of a mass shooting. On the other hand, I do really think that a mass shooting could be cut short by civilian intervention - Suzanna Hupp could have shot the Luby's gunman while he was reloading, for example. That's exactly the point she made to the Texas legislature - that she had her handgun in her truck (because it was legal to transport it), but she didn't have it with her (because it was illegal to carry it in public), and if she'd had it to do over again, she would have broken the law.
In this particular case, I don't think knowing that some salon customers might have been armed would have deterred the suspect, since he was wearing body armor anyway... and if all he'd done was go in, shoot one person, and leave, it wouldn't have mattered if everyone in the building had been carrying. It still doesn't make the thought "maybe CA should seriously consider that their restrictive-for-the-US firearms laws are not helpful" a ridiculous fantasy. There is good evidence that in the US people like me, who do not carry, are protected to some extent by criminals' uncertainty whether this skinny, non-muscular woman is carrying or not, since some women with the same build are.
Could, could, could. And President Kennedy could have survived if he'd dodged. Please, I beg you on my knees, cheyinka - if you will not listen to me, listen to ihultl. While I was a soldier decades ago and only for a year, he is, as I understand, one now, and in places like Afghanistan. He knows what he is talking about. You just retail, unconsciously, gun-owner's fantasies, fostered by those who sell the guns.
I value a soldier's experience for explaining what would be necessary to survive as a soldier, but I think there is something very different between the skills a police officer would need to safely/effectively patrol an area - and the particular dangers of doing so - and what a private citizen would need to be able to do to successfully react to a mass shooting, and that both of those are very different from what a soldier would need.
That said, I absolutely agree with ihuitl that most successful defensive firearm use - probably the vast majority of defensive firearm use - takes place in the defender's home, and that only the tiniest fraction of successful defensive firearm use involves random street violence.
That still doesn't change that I think reactions to incidents like this are mirrors of what the people reacting already thought - Suzanna Hupp was convinced, by the Luby's massacre, that Texas needed to issue concealed-carry licenses unless there was a reason not to do so, but someone else might have been convinced that that would have made things worse. I see incidents like this and think "California's gun laws are not helping anything by being so restrictive", other people will see it as "California's gun laws would have helped if they were more restrictive," and the best predictor of who will think what is what that person thought last week or last month.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fpb
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 05:05 pm (UTC)The Utoeya Island shootings killed eighty-five people (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14259356) despite the strict regulation of Norwegian firearms by the Firearms Weapons Act (http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19610609-001.html).
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 06:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 07:05 pm (UTC)I've been a soldier and I've practised with rifles. I know that unless you have the reflexes of a superhero, surprise is deadly. You will die, even if you have a loaded Uzi. That is why soldiers practise never, if possible, to be surprised. Watch the way British soldiers walk through unfriendly areas of Belfast, walking slowly, gun in hand, making a complete 360 degree turn on themselves every few steps; and still from time to time one of them got killed. If your friends think they can react fast and coolly enough under fire, they are living on the Moon. And even supposing you were lucky enough to have the time to react, you would be as apt to hit a tree - or a third person - as your enemy. Nobody hits dead on target unless they had had the chance to aim first; and your enemy had it, while you have not. Please, don't listen to ridiculous fantasies like that.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 07:44 pm (UTC)The bulk of successful firearm defense scenarios seem to have been defensive in nature wherein the armed individual was in his home, as opposed to random street violence. Guns are wildcards at best and applicable in specific scenarios, not magical talismans of security.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 07:55 pm (UTC)I mean, yes, if I'm walking alone and somebody surprises me, it doesn't matter whether or not I'm carrying; that's just as true if I'm the first victim of a mass shooting. On the other hand, I do really think that a mass shooting could be cut short by civilian intervention - Suzanna Hupp could have shot the Luby's gunman while he was reloading, for example. That's exactly the point she made to the Texas legislature - that she had her handgun in her truck (because it was legal to transport it), but she didn't have it with her (because it was illegal to carry it in public), and if she'd had it to do over again, she would have broken the law.
In this particular case, I don't think knowing that some salon customers might have been armed would have deterred the suspect, since he was wearing body armor anyway... and if all he'd done was go in, shoot one person, and leave, it wouldn't have mattered if everyone in the building had been carrying. It still doesn't make the thought "maybe CA should seriously consider that their restrictive-for-the-US firearms laws are not helpful" a ridiculous fantasy. There is good evidence that in the US people like me, who do not carry, are protected to some extent by criminals' uncertainty whether this skinny, non-muscular woman is carrying or not, since some women with the same build are.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 08:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-10-13 09:41 pm (UTC)That said, I absolutely agree with
That still doesn't change that I think reactions to incidents like this are mirrors of what the people reacting already thought - Suzanna Hupp was convinced, by the Luby's massacre, that Texas needed to issue concealed-carry licenses unless there was a reason not to do so, but someone else might have been convinced that that would have made things worse. I see incidents like this and think "California's gun laws are not helping anything by being so restrictive", other people will see it as "California's gun laws would have helped if they were more restrictive," and the best predictor of who will think what is what that person thought last week or last month.