As more details slowly leak out about the Tucson shooting, it’s becoming ever more clear that those who advocate more armed citizens as a countermeasure to that kind of violence have a childish, comic-book fantasy about what happens in surprise shootings. A review of the video shows that the shooter engaged everyone at a distance of about three feet with a semi-automatic weapon. He also wore earplugs to better concentrate on his task. The notion that some semi-trained weekend range shooter could whip out his pistol and do anything effective amidst this kind of close quarters shooting is worth a laugh, not endless hours of serious media coverage.
If you're 20-30 feet away, and you have a guy shooting people around him at point blank range, hitting the gunman without seriously harming or killing any of the other victims in the immediate area is extremely difficult, if not impossible. Life does not have a "disable friendly fire" option, folks. There's a reason cops don't shoot into crowds to try to hit a gunman in real life, despite movies and TV shows.
Anyone who would be trained well enough to make an accurate shot like that , one that could have disabled or dropped Loughner while he was firing, would also be trained well enough to know the consequences of missing him, and just how difficult it would be to hit him when he was surrounded by people like that.
Loughner planned his attack very well and if he had been able to reload successfully a lot more people would have been killed rather than hurt. Remember, Loughner fired at point blank range and still only managed to kill 6 of 20. What are the odds a passing cop would have been able to drop him in that situation, let alone a civilian with a handgun, without hurting anyone?
More people with guns in the crowd wouldn't have lowered the body count, and in all likelihood would have raised it.
Posts
9 comments:
"More people with guns in the crowd wouldn't have lowered the body count, and in all likelihood would have raised it."
On the contrary, more responsible citizens carrying at the event would have certainly gone a long way to discourage Mr. Loughner. The way the video described Loughner's attack made it very clear this was pre-meditated and planned out. If there were enough people at this event taking advantage of Arizona's open carry law it's entirely possible Loughner would have turned right around and gone home.
It's entirely possible, and in fact, very probable, that it wouldn't. Guy was committed to violence, and seeing people with guns isn't going to change that, in the same way that suicide bombers haven't stopped just because there are armed checkpoints. It's a silly argument, based on nothing.
Arizona has plenty of gun owners and some were present at the event. One who heard the shots and ran toward them, reaching for his pistol, nearly shot one of the people who had already subdued Loughner before someone called him off.
Yeah, see...
"One who heard the shots and ran toward them, reaching for his pistol, nearly shot one of the people who had already subdued Loughner before someone called him off."
This right here.
To those in the "more carrying will discourage shooters" crowd, several points:
1 - AZ is already one of the most, if not THE most, permissive open carry (and now concealed carry) state in the US, and the shooter didn't decide to pick another target or go to another state.
2 - If there is a discouragement factor, it will simply be to force the shooter to pick another target, another time or place, or wait for a target of opportunity. Crazy is irrational, they're going to go apeshit somehow - just pick the path of least resistance.
And 3) the idea that more guns equals less violence is just plain stupid. Say it aloud. "More guns equals less violence." If that does not sound self-contradictory, then you are deluded, pure and simple.
I uphold the 2nd Amendment far more than your average moderate-liberal. I own guns, and regularly fire them. But I believe in the "well regulated" part as much as the "keep and bear arms" part of the 2nd Amendment. If you're going to operate a machine capable of projecting deadly force then you damn well better prove you're fit. In most states, it's harder to get a drivers license than own a gun.
But there are some very vocal and politically organized people in the US with serious Wild West fetishes, and so we have the current total disregard for the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment.
Insanity.
(IMO, it should be far harder to acquire either a gun or a drivers' license. We have way too many idiots operating both guns and autos.)
Its use of the words "well regulated" also explain why the opening clause of the Second Amendment seems to be invisible to RW ideologues. Their brains are so structurally incapable of processing the concept that regulation is a good thing that they truly cannot see the words written right there on the paper.
It's like something out of Oliver Sacks. The Man Who Mistook His Wife for the Second Amendment.
Such hate speech! Zandar, you can't tell honest gun-totin' rednecks that they can't save the nation with their pe^H^guns!
It's pretty telling that a handful of conservative commenters repeatedly run rings around you jokers on a daily basis.
It's fascinating.
That's the most creative execution of pure, unsubstantiated contradiction I've read all week. Grats, anonymous troll. You win the Room 12A Award.
Post a Comment