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
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.