Just a simple little diagram, might help someone

[RyanM]

Okay, we hear the "crossfire" argument all the time. "More guns means more bullets flying, and more people die!" Idiotic. So if you have access to a whiteboard, or piece of paper or something next time you hear that, sketch up something like this.

Which scenario is safest for bystanders?

 

[bcp]

The red guy with 8 rocks on 8 strings is going to get more tangled than the red gun with one rock on 8 strings, but when he swings it around and throws it, it will be more effective.

Please explain your diagram. Who is the good guy? Who is the bad guy? Does a red line represent a shot from the red guy or a shot at the red guy?

Bruce

 

[emerson]

Look's like the diagram is meant to show a shooter engaging multiple targets (pictures 1), and then the shooter engaging one target (picture 2).

Presumably, the "bad guy" would not shoot randomly at individuals (picture 1), but would instead be focused on stopping a threat (picture 2), and thus preserve innocent life.

 

[bensdad]

Good illustration. It makes its point. I'm not sure those "dots" are going to be static once the action starts.

 

[WayneConrad]

I gotta admit, I haven't heard the crossfire argument, and I'm too dense to glean it from the quote. Does anyone know what it is?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Schools & Malls

In the discussion of VDZs (victim disarmament zones), also known as GFZs (gun-free zones), there are people who propose allowing those with permits (where needed) to carry, rather than having to leave their weapon in the car or a locker.

The argument against this is that "more guns means more bullets flying around and people will get hurt in the cross-fire."

There are a number of possible scenarios for engaging a bad guy in a crowded classroom, depending on how many students (or mall shoppers) are carrying and therefore capable of returning fire.

The argument that a CCW returning fire is more dangerous than allowing the bad guy to pick his targets at will is the issue addressed above.

 

[Dismantler]

Well, this is something that I tried to cover in the gas station robbery thread. The posters considered only the robber and themselves to have guns. I threw in the possibility of an armed clerk.

In a mall shooting, if there are multiple CCW's around, there may be mistakes made between the good and bad guys. Call it friendly fire casualties. Unfortunately, CCW's do not have badges that we can pull out from under shirts and hang center of chest to identify us as good guys.

If there is a mall shooting and I run to engage the shooter, a CCW 15 seconds behind me sees me shooting. What does he think? He thinks that Dismantler is the BG and I am taken out.

 

[WayneConrad]

Thanks for the explanation.

Without a legend, I don't understand the diagrams at all.

Telling the good guy from the bad guy, for law enforcement, is not a problem, since the police arrive later to count the bodies. The way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys will have their sidearms holstered and the bad guys will be on the ground.

Police chiefs have great imaginations, don't they? Something about the office of police chief takes away all the street smarts a cop ever had and turns him into a real politician.

 

[Jeff White]

Friendly Fire Isn't

Fratricide is a very real danger even among police officers who have badges to display. The responding citizens and police officers are going to focus on the weapon in the hands of someone. Check the statistics of how many people are shot in the hands and forearms in gunfights. Responders are very likely to base their decision to shoot on the presence of a weapon, they likely won't notice a badge dangling on a chain around someone's neck.

RyanM,

Your theory is flawed in that not everyone who is armed will know who the badguy is and in that this isn't a static problem to be solved on the square range. It will be dynamic and everyone will be moving.

I have nothing against people being allowed to carry their weapons everywhere. I do have a lot of problems with people thinking that this situation is an easy tactical problem to solve. Instead of drawing pictures on a whiteboard, why don't you get some pellet pistols, a bottle of helium, one red balloon, 12 blue balloons, a ball of twine, some stakes, a roll of butcher paper and a half dozen of your shooting buddies dressed in heavy clothes with full face protection.

Now inflate the balloons and tie 6 ft or so of string to them with a stake on the opposite end. Head out to the range (any safe place to shoot the pellet pistols will do) stake the red balloon down, then stake the blue balloons down around it in the best approximation of how people would be in a mall seeting you can come up with. Stake out the butcher paper behind your targets so you can see where the misses go.

Now arm your self and your friends with the pellet pistols. Tell your friends that they are armed citizens/off duty police officers in the mall and they hear shots fired and are to head to the sound of gunfire and stop the threat as quickly as possible when given the signal to start. Tell them the badguy is the red balloon. (this is greatly simplified, a more realistic test would be to use all blue balloons and place a small white dot on the bad guy balloon). Spread them out so they will come at the target array from varying angles. The closest start point needs to be 50 yards away and the farthest 200 yards, this will simulate the run from all parts of the mall to the sound of the guns.

Give the start signal. Then report back on the number of rounds fired, the number of innocents hit and the number of misses that penetrated the butcher paper which simulates the thin walls between stores.

I think that you'll find that the results aren't as cut and dried perfect as your diagram shows. The balloons will be moving the breeze and your responders will have elevated heart rates and breathing from their fast movement to where they could engage the badguy.

This little exercise does nothing to simulate the fratricide danger. If your interested, I'll give you an airsoft exercise that will simulate that.

Jeff

 

[Robert Hairless]

The argument that a CCW returning fire is more dangerous than allowing the bad guy to pick his targets at will is the issue addressed above.

There certainly are potential problems that might result from allowing people to defend themselves in such situations. Those problems might be fairly easy to resolve by allowing the victims to vote as soon as such a situation begins.

"Everyone here who would prefer to be killed intentionally by the bad guy instead of taking the risk of being shot accidentally by someone trying to stop him, please raise your hand."

They get to go first. The others would just have to see how the situation played itself out.

According to the current rules of those situations, the only people who get a voice are the bad guy and the people who would prefer to die at his hands rather than risk being hurt by allowing anyone else to try stopping him.

Now that's just not fair, is it?

From time to time in these discussions I've suggested that the police might spend less energy explaining why concealed weapons permit holders shouldn't be allowed to defend their lives and invest some of that energy in working with concealed weapons permit holders to help make them more effective in doing so. I realize that my suggestion might spoil the game and just isn't as much fun as the current versions of King of the Mountain.

I have wondered, though, how it is that when two or more cops draw their guns on an armed bad guy they sometimes manage to get all the cops out alive and unharmed. If the cops get a magic pouch to hang around their necks in such situations maybe they could spare some of the contents for use by ordinary people. If they have some way to coordinate with each other, though, maybe they could help train concealed weapons permit holders instead of advising them to wait for the cops to arrive and save them.

 

[RyanM]

I think that you'll find that the results aren't as cut and dried perfect as your diagram shows. The balloons will be moving the breeze and your responders will have elevated heart rates and breathing from their fast movement to where they could engage the badguy.

I'm not saying the results are "cut and dried perfect." But I am saying that one person, even a half dozen people, shooting at one guy, even shooting at each other accidentally, will almost certainly result in fewer innocent casualties than letting the guy run amok.

Better test scenario. Get about 100 people together. Give one some kind of airsoft and 300 rounds of ammo, and the rest are unarmed. Let the one armed guy shoot everyone to his heart's content, while they try to run and hide. Either for 15 minutes, or until he runs out of ammo, whichever happens first. Count casualties.

Then run it again, one guy with a gun and 300 rounds, but this time arm two or three bystanders with airsoft pistols and a reload or two. They are, of course, not required to engage. Don't let anyone know who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. Now how many innocent casualties, including from friendly fire?

 

[Dismantler]

I still think that I'd be the first armed citizen to be shot by mistake.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Without a legend, I don't understand the diagrams at all.

Seemed pretty clear to me.
1) Badguy (red dot) simply starts slaughtering folks at will
2) Goodguy keeps badguy busy while the sheep stampede away.

Then run it again, one guy with a gun and 300 rounds, but this time arm two or three bystanders with airsoft pistols and a reload or two. They are, of course, not required to engage. Don't let anyone know who's a good guy and who's a bad guy. Now how many innocent casualties, including from friendly fire?

A friend of mine tried this in an indoor paintball place once. First they ran a "self defense" scenario a few times.
Two of the six "good guys" were armed plus the "shooter". They ran the scenario a few times and the "shooter" usually only managed to get one or two "victims" before being taken out. There was also a "friendly fire" hit but it was ruled "non fatal".

Then they ran the "gun free zone" scenario where folks could run and dodge and whatever but were unarmed. On the first round two of the six "victims" made it out alive. On the second run NOBODY made it out. Nobody wanted to play "victim" after that so they went back to playing regular paintball.

 

[WayneConrad]

I still think that I'd be the first armed citizen to be shot by mistake.

How, when the police are so rarely (ever?) there in time for the festivities?

ZeSpectre, thanks for the legend. It was not clear without that. Why aren't the black dots in the second diagram running away? Stupid dots.

 

[Robert Hairless]

I still think that I'd be the first armed citizen to be shot by mistake.

See that? There's no problem so difficult that it can't be solved by a willing volunteer.

Are you available most days?

 

[Jeff White]

A CCW Permit allows one to protect himself. There is no public safety benefit

You will not ever justify the elimination of gun free zones in places like malls and schools with arguments that to allow CCW there would increase public safety. That is not the purpose of a CCW permit. Those people who get up each morning and strap on their gun before they head out into the world to conduct their daily business and smugly think that everyone around them is safer because they are there with their gun, probably shouldn't be carrying a gun. Teeth of the Tiger was a work of fiction. And some of the poorest Clancey ever wrote.

The most likely result of multiple armed citizens responding to an active shooter scenario is going to be confusion and fratricide resulting in additional casualties.

If the shooter starts his spree right in front of you, and you have a good ID and your skills are up to it, then by all means engage and stop the incident if you can. It's when you get to the point of running to the sound of the guns where you get into the very hazy gray zone. Fratricide is a very real danger for uniformed police and military forces in a fluid, confused situation like that.

In this day and age where it seems like everyone age 11 and up has a cell phone, it's quite likely that 911 will be swamped with phone calls, responding officers will get information saying there are multiple shooters as bystanders see you present your weapon, so now the police likely have your description attached to that of the real shooter. Other similarly minded armed citizens are likely to see you with your weapon, assume you are the shooter and shoot you. I know that most people would like to be able to respond and end an active shooter situation if they could. But think for a minute about the reality of what you are dealing with. You are heading in a general direction of the sound of a gunshot with no description of what the shooter looks like, no idea of what he's armed with and no clear idea of where he's at. You know that the police and other first responders are enroute and that they may not have any more information then you do, or the information they have about the shooter now fits your description. Other armed citizens may also be looking to end the situation and may mistake you for the shooter or you may mistake them for the shooter.

If you feel you have to take action, assist in evacuating those people around you, use your weapon to defend yourself and them if necessary, but charging blindly into a situation you know nothing about is foolhardy. Think of how the media is going to portray a shootout between two armed citizens each one thinking they are stopping the situation. Think about how many victim disarmament zones that's going to create.

Jeff

 

[Dismantler]

Thank you Jeff. That is what I was trying to say in post #7. If I run to the sound of gunfire and there is another armed citizen doing the same, he may mistake me for the BG. Especially if he cannot see the BG. The armed citizen sees me shooting, mistakes me for the BG, and my wife ends up with the life insurance money, a new car, and a cabana boy. Hey, wait a minute! I don't really like this scenario!

 

[TexasRifleman]

You will not ever justify the elimination of gun free zones in places like malls and schools with arguments that to allow CCW there would increase public safety. That is not the purpose of a CCW permit. Those people who get up each morning and strap on their gun before they head out into the world to conduct their daily business and smugly think that everyone around them is safer because they are there with their gun, probably shouldn't be carrying a gun.

That completely flies in the face of the very argument used to gain CCW in most of the states.

In fact, there IS a public safety benefit to having CCWs. It is NOT the fact that the permit holders are out there to save the day it's the simple fact that the bad guys, when faced with increasing odds that their intended victim might be armed, reconsider.

That fact is borne out over and over in the crime statistics of nearly all the states with CCW permits.

The same argument works to get rid of "gun free zones". If there is evidence that bad guys will reconsider their actions if they fear an armed response then there is most certainly a public safety benefit.

It's mental, not tactical.

 

[ZeSpectre]

You will not ever justify the elimination of gun free zones in places like malls and schools with arguments that to allow CCW there would increase public safety. That is not the purpose of a CCW permit. Those people who get up each morning and strap on their gun before they head out into the world to conduct their daily business and smugly think that everyone around them is safer because they are there with their gun, probably shouldn't be carrying a gun. Teeth of the Tiger was a work of fiction. And some of the poorest Clancey ever wrote.

The most likely result of multiple armed citizens responding to an active shooter scenario is going to be confusion and fratricide resulting in additional casualties.

Jeff, we've been 'round on this before.
Now, as then, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree since I believe, and have seen evidence, that an increased percentage of armed, responsible, folks does cause concern to criminals who then move on to easier pickings in easier areas.

When enough people increase their personal safety it has a net effect on the environment in which they live.

 

[Jeff White]

TexasRifleman said;

In fact, there IS a public safety benefit to having CCWs. It is NOT the fact that the permit holders are out there to save the day it's the simple fact that the bad guys, when faced with increasing odds that their intended victim might be armed, reconsider.

Untrue. Crime is a result of a lot of complex social/economic factors. The biggest one seems to be the number of males in a society between 14 and 28. Tennessee has a higher crime rate then Wisconsin even though the population is about the same. Tennessee has had concealed carry for years, there is no concealed carry in Wisconsin. When you can explain that, I'll start believing that there is a public safety benefit to CCW. The current studies are showing that gun laws of all types are crime neutral. That is they have little or no effect on the crime rate.

That fact is borne out over and over in the crime statistics of nearly all the states with CCW permits.

Show me. I'll counter with the latest UCR data. There is an old thread in either general or legal where I posted that data. A search over there should bring it up.

The same argument works to get rid of "gun free zones". If there is evidence that bad guys will reconsider their actions if they fear an armed response then there is most certainly a public safety benefit.

If you can find any evidence of that then show me, convince me. Just because an emotional argument makes the gun culture think it must be that way doesn't make it so. Mass shootings have happened in courthouses where an armed response was just about guaranteed.

It's mental, not tactical.

Thats right it is mental and emotional, these shooters intend to die fighting their ultimate battle. That's why gun free zone or not, they are going to continue to happen. No mass killer as we know them from the incidents in the last decade or so is going to not carry out his final act because he might get killed in the process. In fact, getting killed in the process is part of the plan. The latest information on the psychological makeup of these shooters is that they see themselves as making the ultimate last stand. In their twisted minds they are heroic figures fighting to the death against the society that has harmed, ignored, damaged or somehow wronged them. Their death by suicide is the last act of defiance to the oppressive (in their minds) society. These mass shootings happen in venues where there are a lot of people or where the people who they see as having wronged them are.

You can't effectively defend against someone willing to die in the attempted action. None of these nut cases is going to care one bit if there are CCW holders around. They intend to die at the end anyway.

Jeff

 

[hiccups]

Now, as then, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree since I believe, and have seen evidence, that an increased percentage of armed, responsible, folks does cause concern to criminals who then move on to easier pickings in easier areas.

Why do armed armed drug dealers rob each other all the time?

 

[WayneConrad]

In this day and age where it seems like everyone age 11 and up has a cell phone, it's quite likely that 911 will be swamped with phone calls, responding officers will get information saying there are multiple shooters as bystanders see you present your weapon, so now the police likely have your description attached to that of the real shooter. Other similarly minded armed citizens are likely to see you with your weapon, assume you are the shooter and shoot you. I know that most people would like to be able to respond and end an active shooter situation if they could. But think for a minute about the reality of what you are dealing with. You are heading in a general direction of the sound of a gunshot with no description of what the shooter looks like, no idea of what he's armed with and no clear idea of where he's at. You know that the police and other first responders are enroute and that they may not have any more information then you do, or the information they have about the shooter now fits your description. Other armed citizens may also be looking to end the situation and may mistake you for the shooter or you may mistake them for the shooter.

Jeff, As you know, I'm rather dismissive of the police being the ones that will be a threat to my life, they being rather late to the scene, usually--not through any fault of their own, but just because cities are big, and we are fortunate to be able to live in a society where we don't need that many police. But you've raised a more compelling point, and that is other CCW holders. At present point, there aren't many. In gun friendly Arizona, for example, only about 2% of the population hold CCW permits--and that doesn't mean they are all carrying. That's only one out of 50. Of course, that does mean you can expect one or two CCW holders in a crowded mall to be within hearing range of a shooting, doesn't it, which makes the scenario you are worried about something to be given thought.

I wonder, though, are you giving the other CCW holders much credit? If I did go running towards gunfire and saw two men firing at each other, and it was not apparent to me who was the good guy and who was the bad guy, what makes you think I, or any other CCW holder, would just pick one at random and fire away? The process of getting a CCW selects for people with more smarts, usually, than that (dummies are too lazy to be bothered). Sure, the good guy could get blasted. It happens to undercover cops, too. You pay your money and then you take your chances. I think it's a valid concern, and worth putting some thought into, but not the boogie monster it's being made out to be.

 

[BHPshooter]

Why aren't the black dots in the second diagram running away? Stupid dots.

May I present this shooting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXiA9kCKkUI
Pay particular attention, as the scene unfolds, to the lady and her young child. Notice how she freezes, right there, as the CCWer plugs the thug.

Wes

 

[coylh]

You can't effectively defend against someone willing to die in the attempted action. None of these nut cases is going to care one bit if there are CCW holders around. They intend to die at the end anyway.

Agreed, but I think our goal is to make them die sooner rather than later. When I read the news, the nutjobs shoot people until they run out of bullets or realize that they're about to receive effective return fire, then shoot themselves.

I've also noticed that these guys have the good sense to bring rifles and shotguns. This makes them easier to identify, as CCWers will only be armed with handguns (in a public place like a mall).

Do we have anything else in our favor?

 

[Blackbeard]

One problem with your diagram is that the lines stop at the dots. You need dots out to a scale half mile and lines continuing out to the edge of the board. And, as Jeff pointed out, you need moving dots.