In Light of the Recent Shootings....

[Sam1911]

Let me put this another way:

If we want to draw lessons from mass shooting events, they need to be practical lessons or we're being fools. If we want to look at the Vegas concert shooting and deduce how we could have survived that we have basically one clear answer*:

1) Don't be there. That's it. The only thing anyone in that crowd could do to resist death was not to be there in the first place.

Now then. All that's left is to decide whether the benefit you'd derive from going to an event outweigh the odds of death if you do attend.

And, I guess, to decide if the benefit you'd derive from attending is greater than ALL of the odds you'll be killed due to your attendance there, which include things like traffic accidents on the way to the show, being trampled in a crowd surge, fire, gang or common criminal violence, weather related fatality, and various other death vectors all of which would be (individually and collectively) way WAY WAY more likely than being shot by a mass shooter.

Truth is, most of us will go to a concert, or a parade, or a festival, or museum, or a theater, a mall, etc., etc., because those are worthy and good things to do with our lives, which enrich us, and make memories for ourselves and our families which will last forever. And we'll swallow the pill of some statistical odds of tragedy befalling us while there. Mass shootings do not make that pill one microgram larger.

But our fear and inability to relate to numbers make that pill seem harder to swallow.



* -- I actually believe there might be other lessons having to do with planning out seating or using available hard cover, but those are very low chance shot-in-the-dark kinds of "lessons" which don't really help anyone very much. Of course, they're still massively more useful than a plan to return to our cars, retrieve a rifle, return to the scene and engage the bad guy with rifle fire.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not necessarily true.... I will always want more and better gear against a threat, but skill and will beats gear 99% of the time.
https://www.policeone.com/active-sh...S-inspired-Draw-the-Prophet-terrorist-attack/

And sometimes, the guy is in a window 30+ stories up, what do you want me to tell you?
Okay, you think it's more than 1% of the time; roger, got it, I understand.... Would you like to tell us what percentage it is then, since you have been so heartily offended at my estimate of 1%?
Is it 2%?
Is it 98%?
What is it, and how did you arrive at your magic number?

Skill beats gear 98 or 99% of the time? I don't know that I would say this is the case when it comes to mass shootings. Most of the shooters commit suicide before capture, something like 60% of the time when confronted by police or armed people, and often they are not wounded when they commit suicide. So we are looking at something like 40% of the mass shootings where shooters were stopped.

Being more skilled is no doubt advantageous and I would rather have it than not, but you have to consider that skill really really isn't the overwhelming factor putting an end to these shooters. Most of the time, Garland being more of the exception than the norm, when police respond to an active shooter, they don't just have skill, but superior numbers, flanking capabilities, and often times superior gear. In the NUMEROUS mass shootings stopped or heavily influenced by non-police (often victims), many are untrained and use weapons of convenience such as themselves (fighting, tackling, disarming, particularly in numerous school shootings), blunt force objects (e.g., a folding chair at the Gifford's shooting, also tackling and multiple people fighting Loughner). In the few cases I can think of when responders used firearms who were not police officers, some did have training (e.g., Mark Wilson in Tyler [KIA] who was a firearms instructor and had owned a gun range, Nick Meli [pointed his pistol but did not fire at gunman with jammed rifle] was an armed security guard, and Stephen Willeford [used an AR15 to shoot Devin Kelley, then armed with only a pistol, from a distance of 20 yards) was a NRA firearms instructor. Mark Wilson lost his life to superior weapons, though the shooter then fled after being engaged by Wilson, but the shooter had also already been in a gunfight with deputies before Wilson arrived on scene. Nick Meli's incident is rather ambiguous as he didn't actually shoot and so skill isn't an issue. Willeford responded with what turned out to be superior gear by the time he engaged Kelley.

One of my favorite mass shooting stops was NOT based on skill, but on dumb luck. Sylvia Seegrist was shooting up a mall in Pennsylvania. John Laufer, who worked in the mall at the time, saw her going around dressed in fatigues and shooting and thought it was a Halloween prank and he didn't think it was funny. He walked right up to Seegrist and took the rifle from her as she tried to shoot him. He then took her into custody until police arrived. It was only after he had her disarmed and in custody that he came to realize that she wasn't a prankster.

Skill is great, but far from definitive. Keep in mind that 21 year veteran Lt. Brian Murphy, prior member of his department's tactical team, went one-on-one with Wade Page both armed with pistols, Murphy in a ballistic vest (superior gear) and Murphy ended up shot 15 times. Page was put down by a tactical team designated shooter, one of several responders, who no doubt had superior skill, but also had superior gear including the AR15 he used to down Page who subsequently ended his own life.

Klebold or Harris was engaged by a cop at Columbine. No win there for superior skill as the engagement did not really stop or slow down the shooters who basically finished out there plan as best they could before committing suicide.

Nathan Desai was taken down by Houston cops, who had superior gear, numbers and had him flanked. Yes, they were more skilled, no doubt, but they didn't engage him on any sort of equal basis, LOL.

Again, having skill is better than not having skill, but when it comes to mass shootings, the skilled people are often absent or ambiguously effective. When they are most effective is when they have the benefit of not only skill, but often with good or superior gear, superior numbers, and superior positioning. You simply can't reduce the equation down to "skill over gear."

 

[freyasman]

Skill beats gear 98 or 99% of the time? I don't know that I would say this is the case when it comes to mass shootings. Most of the shooters commit suicide before capture, something like 60% of the time when confronted by police or armed people, and often they are not wounded when they commit suicide. So we are looking at something like 40% of the mass shootings where shooters were stopped.

Being more skilled is no doubt advantageous and I would rather have it than not, but you have to consider that skill really really isn't the overwhelming factor putting an end to these shooters. Most of the time, Garland being more of the exception than the norm, when police respond to an active shooter, they don't just have skill, but superior numbers, flanking capabilities, and often times superior gear. In the NUMEROUS mass shootings stopped or heavily influenced by non-police (often victims), many are untrained and use weapons of convenience such as themselves (fighting, tackling, disarming, particularly in numerous school shootings), blunt force objects (e.g., a folding chair at the Gifford's shooting, also tackling and multiple people fighting Loughner). In the few cases I can think of when responders used firearms who were not police officers, some did have training (e.g., Mark Wilson in Tyler [KIA] who was a firearms instructor and had owned a gun range, Nick Meli [pointed his pistol but did not fire at gunman with jammed rifle] was an armed security guard, and Stephen Willeford [used an AR15 to shoot Devin Kelley, then armed with only a pistol, from a distance of 20 yards) was a NRA firearms instructor. Mark Wilson lost his life to superior weapons, though the shooter then fled after being engaged by Wilson, but the shooter had also already been in a gunfight with deputies before Wilson arrived on scene. Nick Meli's incident is rather ambiguous as he didn't actually shoot and so skill isn't an issue. Willeford responded with what turned out to be superior gear by the time he engaged Kelley.

One of my favorite mass shooting stops was NOT based on skill, but on dumb luck. Sylvia Seegrist was shooting up a mall in Pennsylvania. John Laufer, who worked in the mall at the time, saw her going around dressed in fatigues and shooting and thought it was a Halloween prank and he didn't think it was funny. He walked right up to Seegrist and took the rifle from her as she tried to shoot him. He then took her into custody until police arrived. It was only after he had her disarmed and in custody that he came to realize that she wasn't a prankster.

Skill is great, but far from definitive. Keep in mind that 21 year veteran Lt. Brian Murphy, prior member of his department's tactical team, went one-on-one with Wade Page both armed with pistols, Murphy in a ballistic vest (superior gear) and Murphy ended up shot 15 times. Page was put down by a tactical team designated shooter, one of several responders, who no doubt had superior skill, but also had superior gear including the AR15 he used to down Page who subsequently ended his own life.

Klebold or Harris was engaged by a cop at Columbine. No win there for superior skill as the engagement did not really stop or slow down the shooters who basically finished out there plan as best they could before committing suicide.

Nathan Desai was taken down by Houston cops, who had superior gear, numbers and had him flanked. Yes, they were more skilled, no doubt, but they didn't engage him on any sort of equal basis, LOL.

Again, having skill is better than not having skill, but when it comes to mass shootings, the skilled people are often absent or ambiguously effective. When they are most effective is when they have the benefit of not only skill, but often with good or superior gear, superior numbers, and superior positioning. You simply can't reduce the equation down to "skill over gear."

I don't disagree, but you can have the best gear in the world, and if you are lacking in either skill or will, you aren't going to do well. And there are many, many examples of determination and good shooting winning over long odds. (Though if I have a choice, I'll do everything I can to even up those odds, or even stack the deck in my favor).

 

[Elkins45]

And sometimes, the guy is in a window 30+ stories up, what do you want me to tell you?
Okay, you think it's more than 1% of the time; roger, got it, I understand.... Would you like to tell us what percentage it is then, since you have been so heartily offended at my estimate of 1%?
Is it 2%?
Is it 98%?
What is it, and how did you arrive at your magic number?

If you think I was “highly offended” then you need to work on your language skills.

For most of my working life I was a public school teacher. All of my skills would have meant exactly doodly squat if some nut job had decided to burst in and start hosing down my classroom.

99% is your number, seemingly based on a sample size of one. You defend it.

Bottom line is this: any post in the spirit of “If I woulda been there...” is just fantasy.

 

[freyasman]

If you think I was “highly offended” then you need to work on your language skills.

For most of my working life I was a public school teacher. All of my skills would have meant exactly doodly squat if some nut job had decided to burst in and start hosing down my classroom.

99% is your number, seemingly based on a sample size of one. You defend it.

Bottom line is this: any post in the spirit of “If I woulda been there...” is just fantasy.

"Heartily", not "highly"..... re-read teach.

For a big part of my working life, I fought counter-insurgency wars.... the guys we were up against couldn't come close to our level of technology, and yet they still managed to give a good account of themselves, more often than not.

Skill and will is more important than gear, IMO.... and nothing you have said has changed that opinion.

Nobody said anything about "If I woulda been there..." fantasies except for you, and I get the feeling, you never have "been there".

 

[Elkins45]

"Heartily", not "highly"..... re-read teach.

I’ll blame that one on autocorrect.

For a big part of my working life, I fought counter-insurgency wars.... the guys we were up against couldn't come close to our level of technology, and yet they still managed to give a good account of themselves, more often than not.

Skill and will is more important than gear, IMO.... and nothing you have said has changed that opinion.

I’m not disagreeing with you on that point except to say that in many of these situations it doesn’t matter. The skill and the will of people facing that Las Vegas stage or sitting in those Texas pews was irrelevant. When your first indication of trouble is a bullet in the back of the head there’s not a lot left to do.

Nobody said anything about "If I woulda been there..." fantasies except for you, and I get thefeeling, you never have "beenthere".

Half this thread has been about running back to get a rifle.

 

[freyasman]

I’ll blame that one on autocorrect.



I’m not disagreeing with you on that point except to say that in many of these situations it doesn’t matter. The skill and the will of people facing that Las Vegas stage or sitting in those Texas pews was irrelevant. When your first indication of trouble is a bullet in the back of the head there’s not a lot left to do.



Half this thread has been about running back to get a rifle.

And I don't think that rifle is going to be very useful, emergencies are "come as you are" events. I had a conversation about this very thing about 2 years ago with another Army retiree when we were both attending an NRA instructor course; he carries his AK in the back of his truck. I told him that if I can make it to my truck, then I'm leaving, not pulling the rifle out and going back into a situation. He said, "Come on, guys like us are not going to just leave.... you know you're going to go hunt the guy down." I agreed that that would be something I might want to do, but common sense says get out of there. Besides, about the time you pull the rifle, the first LEOs are going to be arriving, and they are going to shoot you dead, and then waste a bunch of time thinking they got the active shooter while he is still in the mall, or movie theater, or whatever, killing folks.... better to just drive away.

 

[Varminterror]

I lost track, at what point did this veer into carrying a long gun in your car?

Um... right from the beginning. See my post on page 3, it's an accumulation of quotes from posters on pages 1-3 suggesting they either want to or already do carry a rifle, larger handgun, or extra ammo in their vehicle.

 

[Sam1911]

And I don't think that rifle is going to be very useful, emergencies are "come as you are" events.

I would agree, 100%. What can I, and will I have with me in any given situation? What can I do with it in the seconds (or in very unusual circumstances, maybe minutes) I have to act? What are my priorities?

He said, "Come on, guys like us are not going to just leave.... you know you're going to go hunt the guy down." I agreed that that would be something I might want to do, but common sense says get out of there.

Indeed. The problem with such thinking is it is always so shallow. It works by picking out a known event, putting ourselves in that specific scene, and then writing a narrative that gives our hero perfect and complete knowledge, tools, skills, and opportunity to react. Only from the perspective of the author of this screen play can we believe we'd have those things -- and only from that perspective (or one of hubris and/or naivete) would we be able to assume that the convoluted story line of us re-entering the scene with our rifle would produce a net positive effect.

I think there are people who do soberly realize these things, grasp the level of confusion and uncertainty in such a scene, comprehend how many things are very likely to go tragically wrong with such a plan, and who have a realistic grasp of what they should be doing in a situation like this -- and who choose to carry a trunk rifle (or heavier handgun, or whatever) in their vehicle.

But going back to what I said before several times, I think they do because they really really WANT to. Not because they expect to ever reach for those in a violent crisis situation.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I see no problem with carrying a rifle in the trunk as long as it doesn't cause any harm or particular inconvenience. There are rare instances when having a gun in the vehicle did give need (albeit slow) access to a weapon that was needed, but these are few and far between. I am not a big fan of the off-cited mantra that the only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to your rifle that you never should have left anyway. If I am using my pistol to fight my way back to my vehicle, I am probably just going to go ahead and drive away.

I think about it like this.
How often are you in a position where you need a gun?
How often when you need a gun do you need a rifle?
How often are you in a position where you need a rifle that you have on in the trunk of your car that is parked somewhere outside, or where you can get out of your car, and that you can then have the time to go and retreive the gun and then use it in problem resolution?

The % likelihood declines quite a bit with each step.

People reportedly pulled rifles from their vehicles (and homes) in order to engage Charles Whitman.
In 1976, a Texas hunter retrieved his deer rifle from his vehicle (that he was driving in) to shoot a gunman that killed a state trooper and did so from 150 yards. http://www.odmp.org/officer/8242-patrolman-sammy-charles-long
Of course, people like to point out how Joel Myrick used a pistol retrieved from his vehicle to stop Luke Woodham, but this is one of those cases of too little too late. Woodham was attempting to flee in his car by the time Myrick had his gun. If it wasn't for another student blocking Woodham with another vehicle, Myrick would have never been able to capture Woodham.

Unfortunately, usually when you read in the news of people retrieving weapons (including rifles) from their vehicles, it is usually to illegally commit some violent act (robbery, murder, etc.) or to illegally bring resolution to some form of conflict.

 

[BSA1]

Lost in this discussion is carrying a higher capacity more powerful handgun. Instead the discussion is how absurd it is to have a long gun in your vehicle. The arguments against it is the low chances of ever needing it and being able to get to it and simply having a long gun in your vehicle makes you over paranoid and out of touch with reality.

Until the mass shooting at the Gay Nightclub I thought there was no need for a civilian to use suppressive firepower when attack. Like others still do I believed my 5 shot .38 snubby was enough to get me to get me out of trouble as my plan is too retreat.

What we are seeing time and time again is how long it takes for the Police to get organized before confronting the shooter. My God it took LVPD about 10 minutes to get to the floor where the shooters was (and they already had officers in the building) and a hour before they entered the hotel room. (Anybody notice how the press briefings have stopped since questions are being asked about the slow response times?)

Bottom line is you are still on your own and can be for a long period of time. And it doesn't even have to involve a "mass shooter."

 

[JeffG]

[QUOTE="Bottom line is you are still on your own and can be for a long period of time. And it doesn't even have to involve a "mass shooter."[/QUOTE]

That is the core issue.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

My God it took LVPD about 10 minutes to get to the floor where the shooters was (and they already had officers in the building) and a hour before they entered the hotel room. (Anybody notice how the press briefings have stopped since questions are being asked about the slow response times?)

Well, that isn't why the press briefings stopped, LOL. They gave briefings for what, 6 days? There isn't much reason to have press briefings about an event that is long over, shooter dead, etc. The press briefings for the DC sniper case stopped very quickly as well as did the Sutherland Church shooting. So don't act like this is some sort of conspiracy or cover-up and so they stopped the press briefings. What else was that that the press needed to be briefed about in a briefing that was so pressing that it could not be covered in a press release?

Most police departments in major metropolitan areas consider response times for the most critical "priority one" calls in 10 minutes to be pretty good and outstanding within 8 minutes. Those are averages. Some are much faster because officers are in the immediate area. Some are much longer.

[QUOTE="Bottom line is you are still on your own and can be for a long period of time. And it doesn't even have to involve a "mass shooter."

That is the core issue.[/QUOTE]

Looking around the internet, you can find where active shooter cases are reported to average something like 12-15 minutes time. That is an average. A 2014 FBI study noted something critical about the timing.
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/10-lessons-learned-from-the-new-fbi-study-on-active-shooters

In 64 incidents where the duration of the incident could be ascertained, 44 (69.0%) of 64 incidents ended in 5 minutes or less, with 23 ending in 2 minutes or less.”

So in a lot of cases, the events will be over fairly quick, though it may seem like an eternity. Some are going to actually go on for a very long time.

 

[Sam1911]

simply having a long gun in your vehicle makes you over paranoid and out of touch with reality.

I'm not sure anyone said THAT. I certainly have not. (You or anyone else may indeed be paranoid and out of touch -- I've no idea -- but carrying a rifle in your vehicle doesn't make you/them so.)

I've said that:
A) there's lots of reasons one might want to carry a rifle (or more powerful handgun) in their car and that "just want to" is a perfectly legitimate reason.

B) we are not under a higher level of threat from mass shooters or terrorists than we ever were before and that threat level is not, practically speaking, increasing. (Because "effectively zero" times whatever multiplier is still "effectively zero.")

C) We are not behaving dangerously or irresponsibly if we choose NOT to respond to these high-profile, extremely low quantity, shootings by changing our preparedness and/or gear we carry.

D) When folks consider keeping a more capable firearm stored in their vehicle "in case of" some very serious threat they expect they may someday face, they need to think beyond simply having that item and determine how that weapon would be accessed and employed, what kinds of situations could it be accessed and employed in, what situations (exactly) SHOULD it be accessed and employed in. Planning and training involves a whole lot more than simply storing gear somewhere. "Could I," "Would I," and "Should I?", should trump the old saw about "it's better to have it and not need it..." which is a very, very hollow and empty shell of a plan.

E) If we think of ourselves as practical, thoughtful, aware people who behave rationally, we need to keep our responses to all of the risks in our lives roughly proportional to their actual chances of affecting us. Spiking a significant reaction to a risk vector that lies way, way out on the end of the "tail" of the curve, along with lethal swing-set accidents and death via. latex party balloons, is not a rational response.

 

[Varminterror]

Lost in this discussion is carrying a higher capacity more powerful handgun.

That might be true for some folks, but there's plenty of us who have punched that ticket - you and I both included on the first page.

I've "varied what I carried" according to my environmental exposure for years, but before about 2yrs ago, I MIGHT have let myself be lazy and carry my LCP somewhere which my G19 would have been much more responsible, or I might have not taken my pistol along if I were flying for a 1 night turn-around business trip. A couple years ago, however, my son was getting old enough such we started doing more and more "high density" public events, and I committed to ALWAYS carrying something responsibly considered for the threat profile. Driving a couple miles into town, hitting the gas station for milk, and returning? LCP. Going into town with my wife for Christmas shopping at the mall? G19 or P224. Fishing Tanana River in AK? It's a 12ga pump gun and my 5.5" Ruger SRH.

If you vary your exposure, then vary your carry.

For me it was on 2/25/16 and 3/11/16.

The gay nightclub shooting in June, 2016 also convinced me that there is a need for civilian use of suppressive fire. We are seeing time and time again (Vegas the latest one) of how long it takes for the police to organize and respond to a mass shooter.

J-Frame revolvers are no longer primary carry for self-defense. They are now "niche" guns used for when going fishing and varmint control on the ranch.

SIG P239 is now secondary carry mostly for when concealed carry is required for going into businesses that ban open carry.

Primary carry is Beretta 92FS with 124 gr. XTP ammunition. Just acquired some 17 round magazines and am evaluating whether to carry them instead of standard 15 round ones. Also considering changing to Hornady Critical Duty 135 gr. FlexLock as vehicles and (also it appears with the church shooter body armor) is becoming the weapon of choice.

The Beretta is a large frame, high capacity, heavy handgun. As Kansas is Open Carry State concealment is not a concern for me. I carry it in the same holster and in the same position year round. It just happens to be concealed when I am wearing a coat or a hoodie.

 

[freyasman]

Lost in this discussion is carrying a higher capacity more powerful handgun. Instead the discussion is how absurd it is to have a long gun in your vehicle. The arguments against it is the low chances of ever needing it and being able to get to it and simply having a long gun in your vehicle makes you over paranoid and out of touch with reality.

Until the mass shooting at the Gay Nightclub I thought there was no need for a civilian to use suppressive firepower when attack. Like others still do I believed my 5 shot .38 snubby was enough to get me to get me out of trouble as my plan is too retreat.

What we are seeing time and time again is how long it takes for the Police to get organized before confronting the shooter. My God it took LVPD about 10 minutes to get to the floor where the shooters was (and they already had officers in the building) and a hour before they entered the hotel room. (Anybody notice how the press briefings have stopped since questions are being asked about the slow response times?)

Bottom line is you are still on your own and can be for a long period of time. And it doesn't even have to involve a "mass shooter."

I agree that we veered off into the weeds a bit. As to carrying a more capable pistol, I personally am already carrying a Glock 32 and 2 spare 15rd mags.... don't think I can bump it up much higher.

 

[BSA1]

B) we are not under a higher level of threat from mass shooters or terrorists than we ever were before and that threat level is not, practically speaking, increasing. (Because "effectively zero" times whatever multiplier is still "effectively zero.")

I don’t know what time period you are using to say “we are not under a higher level of threat from mass shooters or terrorists than we ever were before” but I strongly disagree with you.

In regards to your statement that “threat level is not, practically speaking, increasing” threats are being made weekly, sometimes several times a week, from ISIS, other terrorist groups, Iran and North Korea.

C) We are not behaving dangerously or irresponsibly if we choose NOT to respond to these high-profile, extremely low quantity, shootings by changing our preparedness and/or gear we carry.

You pay your money and take your chances on the ride.

E) If we think of ourselves as practical, thoughtful, aware people who behave rationally, we need to keep our responses to all of the risks in our lives roughly proportional to their actual chances of affecting us. Spiking a significant reaction to a risk vector that lies way, way out on the end of the "tail" of the curve, along with lethal swing-set accidents and death via. latex party balloons, is not a rational response.

What is practical, thoughtful and rational about evil?

 

[Sam1911]

E) If we think of ourselves as practical, thoughtful, aware people who behave rationally, we need to keep our responses to all of the risks in our lives roughly proportional to their actual chances of affecting us. Spiking a significant reaction to a risk vector that lies way, way out on the end of the "tail" of the curve, along with lethal swing-set accidents and death via. latex party balloons, is not a rational response.

What is practical, thoughtful and rational about evil?

Oh my. Where to begin with this? So many things wrong with this as a response that I'm almost baffled trying to organize the answers. Well, here goes:

1) First off, who told you that evil (whatever manifestations of human behavior we find abhorrent enough to call that) are not rational, or thoughtful, or practical?

Rational: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." People do "evil" things all the time for perfectly rational and thoughtful, and quite practical reasons. The great majority of times someone steals or robs or embezzles, that's a rational decision. There may be flaws in the logic and there may be areas where the risks are not properly calculated, but this IS rational behavior. "I want something, and this is an easier way to get it than working 9-5, and I'll probably get away with it. If I don't get away with it, oh well, I can live with the consequences." Murders often are quite logical as well. Terrorism is VERY rational. It is a strategy. A type of guerrilla warfare designed to create a huge and self-damaging reaction in a powerful enemy, with very minimal investment. It works EXTREMELY well.

In fact, some of the greatest EVILs of all time have been some of the most rational.

Many of these home grown mass shooters seem less rational from our perspectives, but the correct way to say this would be that they were delusional. Their rational choices were fooled by their minds feeding them bad information. But I don't know that this can be said of all of them.

2) Did you READ the quote you reposted? I didn't say anything about EVIL. I said, "WE need to keep our responses ...roughly proportional to their actual chances of affecting us." That speaks to OUR behavior. OUR choices. Not to anything that other people might do.

Whatever evil things may happen, we are discussing how WE will respond. Whether these evil events are rational or irrational doesn't matter. We can still measure their frequency, make observations about them as a set, calculate their commonality in relation to our population size, and determine a relative level of personal risk. From these things we can choose RATIONALLY, how to respond.

A simple reading of your pithy reply could only lead one to assume you mean that since evil isn't rational (in your hasty apprising) our responses to it should ... apparently... be irrational as well?

Now, I might suggest that the numbers say keeping a rifle in your trunk because of terrorism isn't much more effective, in practical terms, than a completely irrational response would be (say, wearing bunny ears crafted from tinfoil, and only speaking in Klingon), but I'm trying here to evaluate the utility of RATIONAL response to the phenomena.

 

[Sam1911]

B) we are not under a higher level of threat from mass shooters or terrorists than we ever were before and that threat level is not, practically speaking, increasing. (Because "effectively zero" times whatever multiplier is still "effectively zero.")

I don’t know what time period you are using to say “we are not under a higher level of threat from mass shooters or terrorists than we ever were before” but I strongly disagree with you.

Well, take a look at this:
The Lie that Mass Shootings are More Frequent

Then, contemplate very carefully my statement about "0 times whatever is still 0." And think about all the points I've made in this thread: how you have a something like 1 in 17 MILLION chance of being killed by any kind of mass shooter, or a 1 in 400+ Million chance of being killed by a terrorist. Even if there were ten, a hundred, or even a thousand times more of those killings each year than there really are, your chances of being so killed would not really rise above "effectively zero."

In regards to your statement that “threat level is not, practically speaking, increasing” threats are being made weekly, sometimes several times a week, from ISIS, other terrorist groups, Iran and North Korea.

Sorry about the terminology hangup. There are "threats" and threats. Groups around the world make "threats" all the time. That's not the same thing as the physical THREAT to us. One is words. The other is a calculable real effect. So we need to separate those things in our dialogue. The fact that Kim Jong Un makes "threats" about missiles and starting WWIII really doesn't have any personal effect on any of us -- and certainly none whatsoever in terms of whether we'd need to have a rifle or second handgun stashed in the car. (Which is what we're discussing here.)

Similarly, Iran poses a threat to peace in the middle east, and theoretically a nuclear weapon threat which could be employed against the US or some other western powers if negotiations go so very badly over the next decade that they feel like a suicidal effort is their last best hope for ... whatever. Again, not a "grab my rifle outta my car" sort of threat.

Finally, despite what Isis or other terrorist groups SAY, they've only been able to pull off a known quantity of attacks in a specific set of places. And here on US soil those represent a very VERY VERY small number of deaths. We've already discussed those deaths extensively, and put them into their proper context in our population. Statistically insignificant. Far below statistical significance, in fact. Even IF they could make good on every "threat" they proclaim -- which they cannot -- the number of American deaths would not rise to a quantity which would require a physical response from the average American citizen, like putting a rifle in his/her trunk.

 

[BSA1]

I spent 20 years working in the Big House on a daily bases with the most violent, dangerous criminals in my State so I understand the rational, logic and thoughtful processes of most criminal types.

The point you are failing to grasp is you are applying YOUR standards to someone that doesn't have the SAME moral values, thought processes and logic and furthermore doesn't care about what your standards are. In fact you are considered too be weak and a good choice to be victimized.

I personally know individuals who will kill you in moment at the first chance they have without any remorse and hesitation simply because they want too. The causes for criminal behavior is highly debated but it doesn't not matter one bit on the street in the real world.

The key difference is you are a obviously well educated academic professional whereas my college field study was done among evil people who have done and will do if given the chance evil acts. Since very, very, very few crimes are reported in the media and those that are lacking in critical and often false information I am suggesting that your data base is too small for a accurate risk assessment.

Of course you can counter argue that my information is too small of a sample from just working with violent offenders on a daily bases for 23 years.

Anyway just my thoughts from someone on the front line.

 

[Sam1911]

I spent 20 years working in the Big House on a daily bases with the most violent, dangerous criminals in my State so I understand the rational, logic and thoughtful processes of most criminal types.

And then you ask me, "What is practical, thoughtful and rational about evil?"

The point you are failing to grasp is you are applying YOUR standards to someone that doesn't have the SAME moral values, thought processes and logic and furthermore doesn't care about what your standards are. In fact you are considered too be weak and a good choice to be victimized.

Good heavens. This is COMPLETELY irrelevant to any of the points I've made. I don't understand why we're having a disconnect in our discussion here, but let's lay this out clearly:

I'm not applying MY standards to ANYONE who perpetrates criminality or evil. I've never suggested any such thing. In fact, it's 100% outside of the discussion here. A complete, utter non sequitur.

What a criminal thinks, or what a terrorist decides to do has NOTHING to do with rates of violence, and understanding levels of risk present in society and whether or not to change habits in response to them.

If I tell you there is a 1:17,000,000 chance you'll be killed by a mass shooter, that has NOTHING to do with any one criminal or whether some offender locked away in a prison (or at large on the street) thinks I'd be a good choice of victim. You're bringing up irrelevant points.

Even if I wanted to try and make the tortured link between statistical likelihoods and whatever your prison inmates have told you about their personal experiences: When we're talking about mass shootings and terrorist attacks, there is NO such victim selection process at work. The Vegas shooter could hardly even SEE the individual targets of his attack, let alone select them based on his perceptions of their "weakness." Ditto the truck attacker in NYC, mentioned before.

Bringing up irrelevancies reads like a smokescreen, kicked up to cover a bad argument.

The key difference is you are a obviously well educated academic professional whereas my college field study was done among evil people who have done and will do if given the chance evil acts. Since very, very, very few crimes are reported in the media and those that are lacking in critical and often false information I am suggesting that your data base is too small for a accurate risk assessment.

Jeez, man. I've pulled numbers of mass shootings and terrorist attacks right out of government reports. I've explained the numbers. I've granted HIGH levels of overage just to make sure I wasn't falsely reporting statistics based on too narrow a view. I've pointed out that the numbers on "mass shooters" count ANY event where FOUR people were shot. Which is way fewer victims than most of us would refer to as a "Mass Shooting."

My position isn't argued on specific numbers. My conclusions are driven by the orders of magnitude involved. Vague notions of misreporting of crime data don't negate analysis which is framed in terms of orders of magnitude, unless you're contending that there are thousands, hundreds of thousands, or MILLIONS of mass shootings or terrorist attacks which aren't being reported.

I doubt you'd say that.

Of course you can counter argue that my information is too small of a sample from just working with violent offenders on a daily bases for 23 years.

Not too small. Just utterly irrelevant because it doesn't even come close to touching on the type of events we're discussing here. How many terrorists do you have locked up in your prison? How many mass shooters? And what can their statements say about the rates of that sort of attack in our society? Very little.

------------

Lastly, there is a very great deal of useful information to be gleaned from discussing crime and victim selection with habitual criminals. That's well-trodden ground at this point with plenty of scholarly works on the subject, but your own observations would be interesting, nonetheless. But that's a completely different conversation than the one we've had here. That's a discussion about common violent crime in society. The sort of thing any one of us might actually face once or twice in our lifetimes. The sort of thing that, for many of us, justifies going through the personal hassle of carrying a concealed sidearm.

It is also EXTREMELY unlikely to present much data which would suggest the need for a rifle stored in a car trunk somewhere.

 

[entropy]

In fact, some of the greatest EVILs of all time have been some of the most rational.

More semantically correct would be to say "Some of the greatest evils of all time have been some of the most logical"
The logical mind deduces that since overpopulation is approaching critical mass on this planet, massive depopulation is in order. The rational mind finds implemeneting this abhorrent. Maybe all the recent mass murderers are just trying to do their part to reduce the population.

 

[Varminterror]

I spent 20 years working in the Big House on a daily bases with the most violent, dangerous criminals in my State so I understand the rational, logic and thoughtful processes of most criminal types.

The point you are failing to grasp is you are applying YOUR standards to someone that doesn't have the SAME moral values, thought processes and logic and furthermore doesn't care about what your standards are. In fact you are considered too be weak and a good choice to be victimized.

I personally know individuals who will kill you in moment at the first chance they have without any remorse and hesitation simply because they want too. The causes for criminal behavior is highly debated but it doesn't not matter one bit on the street in the real world.

The key difference is you are a obviously well educated academic professional whereas my college field study was done among evil people who have done and will do if given the chance evil acts. Since very, very, very few crimes are reported in the media and those that are lacking in critical and often false information I am suggesting that your data base is too small for a accurate risk assessment.

Of course you can counter argue that my information is too small of a sample from just working with violent offenders on a daily bases for 23 years.

Anyway just my thoughts from someone on the front line.

You have to admit, even at the end of a worn out thread, you're really grasping with this one - 12pgs arguing that mass shooters are more common, now reverting to "evidence" of evil in the world by saying evil people live in prisons... The debate, from both sides, has been relatively civil and frankly has remained remarkably cogent, but this one is completely non-sequitur, nothing more than a strawman. Nobody is arguing the fact evil is or is not present in the world, or the US, but anecdotal evidence of the presence of evil isn't evidence of increased threat of mass shooters, spree killers, or terrorist threat, NOR is it evidence of applicability of a vehicle-kept rifle, larger handgun, or extra ammunition.

Recognizing the evil you work around daily, how many of those folks were spree killers? In a thought exercise, how many of their crimes could have been stopped by a guy with a rifle in his trunk? Since you mentioned your location houses the worst criminals in your "State," and you're from Kansas, odds are you're at El Dorado - at least if I'm to believe the CO's I train with who work there, since they reiterate their claim to house "all" of the most violent STATE offenders, pretty much any time I talk to one of them. I trained in the past with some of the HCF & WCF crew, and grew up with guys who work or have worked at Elsworth. Regardless of which particular prison you're working, ANYONE can access the inmate records online through KASPER, so a person so interested could spend time looking, statistically, at how many of those evil people with whom you personally work could have been thwarted by a "trunk rifle." Without so much interest myself, but a general understanding of why people get sent to prison, I'll bet it's statistically, or even ACTUALLY zero. If it is EDFC, as I mentioned, I train with a couple guys who work there too, I know things have been pretty hectic of late, including a handful of violent riots over the last 6-8mos, so I can appreciate your "awareness of evil" is quite likely cranked to 11 right now, but it's still not evidence of increased threats of spree killers and mass shooters in the US, nor is it any supporting evidence to bolster the argument for a rifle in your vehicle.

Evil exists - there's no arguing the point, and your personal experience is not in any way some particularly unique or astute revelation of evil - Finding evil in a storehouse for evil isn't surprising. However, the fact remains, the evil we're exposed to as American citizens is not well defended by a rifle in our truck, and spending time, energy, and money preparing in that way is robbing you of the opportunity to spend it on more productive options against more realistic threats.

 

[Sam1911]

More semantically correct would be to say "Some of the greatest evils of all time have been some of the most logical"

I'm not sure that I see any reason to discount rational as an appropriate word here. Especially considering that the definition of rationality includes its dependence upon logic.

The rational mind finds implemeneting this abhorrent.

Some rational minds would. But we're on shifting sands with this sort of a lexical argument. Most likely a behavioral scientist would simply say that the behavior either conforms to the dominant social aesthetic or it does not.

Taking it way out into the weeds probably, for the sake of example, there have been many societies where the rational person would execute undesirable or flawed offspring at birth. There still are some such segments of societies, today, actually. A family that did not do their duty and remove undesirable persons preemptively from society, would be seen as the irrational ones.

We in modern American society now look at that and say a rational person would consider those things abhorrent -- of course! It is apparently self-evident. But rationality is subject to the dominant zeitgeist.

 

[Sam1911]

The key difference is you are a obviously well educated academic professional

Thanks for the compliment, but nope. I'm just an average working man.