Valuable insights into the psychodynamics of responses to "Gun Violence"

[goon]

Small flaw in the good professor's logic. He stated that armed citizens can only reduce the casualty count, and cannot prevent the shooting altogether. But if the good folks at this church in SC had been known to be proud carriers of arms, the shooter would never have entered that church in the first place. In other words gun free zones should either be eliminated or secured by armed guards.

It's hard to say what a twisted individual like that might do. Armed people or not, he may have still entered the church with the idea of going out in a blaze of glory while starting the "race war" he wanted so much. It doesn't look like rational thinking was his strong point, so the possibility of armed resistance might not have mattered at all.

And you still hit this: elderly church ladies are elderly church ladies. They are not infantrymen. The youngest person in that church service was a 26 year old man, but everyone else was in their 40's to their 80's. An attacker would identify a young capable person as a potential threat and probably shoot him first. You can't reasonably just draw and shoot someone first in an Bible study because they look suspicious, and after the "outsider" sat through the service with you, would your guard still be up?

Someone being armed may have reduced the number of deaths and I wish those victims had that chance, but it's not realistic to expect that in some cases.

 

[Ed N.]

Goon wrote:

I also don't think having large numbers of armed people in every church service (or in schools or at the mall or wherever) is "the answer." The idea of a bloody shootout in a church is horrific. It's wrong. I don't want that.

I seriously doubt that 50 armed people in a church service are going to divide up 25-25 and start popping away at each other. Your "bloody shootout" scenario ain't likely to happen.

My church, in a rural part of Florida, runs ~250 people on a typical Sunday. We have several LEOs who attend and are armed, I know for a certainty that several of our pastors carry, and we have quite a few farmers and ranchers who I am sure carry, plus a few folks like myself. Add it all up and I'd be very surprised if there weren't at least 30 to 40 armed people in attendance on any given Sunday morning.

If a nut-case stood up and started murdering people, he'd likely have several 9mm and .38 size holes in him pretty quickly courtesy of folks sitting nearby, and it'd be all over. No protracted "bloody shootout."

Remember that the good guys still outnumber the bad guys dramatically. Having many armed good guys just increases the chances that someone will be in an advantageous position to stop the attacker. A scene reminiscent of the Okay Corral has very low odds of occurring.

 

[goon]

I seriously doubt that 50 armed people in a church service are going to divide up 25-25 and start popping away at each other. Your "bloody shootout" scenario ain't likely to happen.

That's not what I meant.

One bad guy white supremacist starts shooting and kills a few people, then gets stopped by a couple people with CCW's.
That's still a bloody shootout.

No one wants that.
What I want even less is for the bad guy to be the only one who can shoot.

Either situation is not ideal. I'll take the one that's less bad.

 

[JRH6856]

One bad guy white supremacist starts shooting and kills a few people, then gets stopped by a couple people with CCW's.
That's still a bloody shootout.

No one wants that.

I would argue that no one wants that outside of a church, either. I would rather bloody shootouts did not occur anywhere. But they do and we have no control over where they occur. Which, I think, is your real point. Setting it in church is a red herring.

 

[Wisco]

Violence, in any matter of least to worst, is part of the human condition, and cannot be ignored. The DADs would teach how to approach and negate that violence. The MOTHERS recoil at the very hideousness of any amount of violence, and teach accordingly.

My two awesome lesbian moms raised me well enough to "approach and negate violence." Seems your statement is wrong.

 

[orionengnr]

Even a bunch of CCW carriers scattered throughout the population isn't going to solve all the problems. Occasionally one of those CCW carriers is also going to do something bad.

I have seen zero evidence to support that. I've never heard of a CCW holder shooting up anything but paper.

 

[jgh4445]

What do you do? You're in church or a resturant or some other public place. In comes a guy . He has a gun. He raises his gun and points at someone across the room. You are armed. At what point do you shoot? If you shoot before he shoots someone else, then now he's not a killer and you may be seen as one. If you wait for him to shoot someone then did you allow him to shoot someone before you acted? The "bad guys" family will attest to the fact that he was a choirboy in everyday life and was probably there to show someone the rifle he had because they wanted to buy it. If you waited and the guy shoots someone, you'll probably get sued by that persons family for hesitating. Sounds far fetched huh? Stranger things have happened.

 

[JRH6856]

I have seen zero evidence to support that. I've never heard of a CCW holder shooting up anything but paper.

I read of a recent case where one CCW holder shot another in self-defense so it suggests at least one of them was doing something wrong. I'll try to find it but I don't remember where I saw it so it may take a while. Things like that do seem to be a rare occurance, but still, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Probablility says it has to happen sometime.

 

[Deaf Smith]

My two awesome lesbian moms raised me well enough to "approach and negate violence." Seems your statement is wrong.

How do you know you can negotiate violence?

Deaf

 

[barnbwt]

There's also that "two" moms, part, which is huge. Most women raising kids without a father around are not in that boat, so your fortunate example is not the norm. I'd go so far as to say it is an outlier, to be honest (your experience, not your result). Teaching of the protective instinct may have more to do with close proximity to two folks dedicated to mutual support than gender, it may not.

But an awful large fraction of folks who learn to tussle learn it from males, though. An awful large fraction of folks who tussle for ill learned it from males that were not their parents. For folks who never learn to tussle, the thought could easily never cross their minds until the one bad encounter from someone who did.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"I've never heard of a CCW holder shooting up anything but paper"
Then lets issue CCW permits to everyone and solve the crime problem once and for all. Permit-holders --or rather, people smart and diligent enough to navigate a permitting process-- tend to be much more law abiding than the general population. That's it. They still commit crimes, just less frequently, and since they constitute a small portion of the population to start with, those crimes a quite rare.

"Even a bunch of CCW carriers scattered throughout the population isn't going to solve all the problems. Occasionally one of those CCW carriers is also going to do something bad."
Anyone looking for a 'final solution' to mortal violence needs their head examined. Not possible, nevah happened. My counter would be that it doesn't matter that a CCW infrequently goes 'rogue,' because non CCW'ers already infrequently 'go rogue.' Our best guess at prediction suggests their appearance is literally random. What changes when there are CCWers present in frequency, however, is the force disparity between those executing a sustained attack and their victims.

Bullet back of the head? Nothing you or anyone can really do to prevent that; even if you had eyes back there, you have to blink eventually, and the cops will never be fast enough. But the more victims a killer desires, the longer the event will last by necessity. People in these attacks have the time to find hiding spots, throw their bodies pointlessly over the (even more) weak, and try a bum-rush during a reload. To think the presence of arms in their hands would do anything but boost their advantage over the attacker(s) is ridiculous.

It's a very binary game theory problem (actually, it's such a simple idea it mocks game theory), wherein one team possesses the means to win and the other either does or does not. For team two to win, in any permutation, they must possess the means to.

TCB

 

[danez71]

There's also that "two" moms, part, which is huge.

Anything to support this or is it just an uninformed opinion?

 

[Wisco]

How do you know you can negotiate violence?

Deaf

I know I can negotiate violence because I have done so repeatedly, not that I feel your question is very polite.

 

[barnbwt]

"Anything to support this or is it just an uninformed opinion?"
Maybe should ask Wisco? I surmise that the very practical fiscal and stability benefits of a two-parent/two-earner household probably holds for same sex variants, moral considerations aside. Single parent households have a demonstrably harder time at...everything.

TCB

 

[goon]

I would argue that no one wants that outside of a church, either. I would rather bloody shootouts did not occur anywhere. But they do and we have no control over where they occur. Which, I think, is your real point. Setting it in church is a red herring.

True.
But the debate lately has been centered on a church. As though gun control supporters believe that being on holy ground will somehow protect them if I will just agree that a church should be off-limits.

Well a church should be off-limits.
But it isn't.
And as you say, neither is a convenience store, or a movie theater, or anywhere else.

And again, as bad as a bloody shootout is, a bloody shootout is still vastly superior to a horrendous mass execution where the bad guy just goes down the line murdering elderly ladies and ministers (or movie patrons, or children).

I read of a recent case where one CCW holder shot another in self-defense so it suggests at least one of them was doing something wrong. I'll try to find it but I don't remember where I saw it so it may take a while. Things like that do seem to be a rare occurance, but still, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Probablility says it has to happen sometime.

Yep -It is inevitable that a bad guy will occasionally get a CCW permit.
Or maybe a good guy will make a bad decision while carrying.
That's not a reason to restrict everyone's rights - I'm just acknowledging that it's probably reality.

 

[USAF_Vet]

That's not what I meant.

One bad guy white supremacist starts shooting and kills a few people, then gets stopped by a couple people with CCW's.
That's still a bloody shootout.

No one wants that.
What I want even less is for the bad guy to be the only one who can shoot.

Either situation is not ideal. I'll take the one that's less bad.

I agree, neither is ideal.
I'd rather have a bloody shootout than a one sided massacre.

Posted by Goon: The youngest person in that church service was a 26 year old man, but everyone else was in their 40's to their 80's.

Age has what to do with it? By my estimate, the average poster on THR is in that 40-80 year old demographic. How many of them carry a gun?

Culture plays a bigger part than age. I've been asked by a lot of my black, hispanic and asian colleagues, coworkers and friends why I felt the need to carry a gun, to the point of the absurd (why do you have a CPL, you gonna shoot up the place?) As if I would go through the time and expense to lawfully carry a gun to commit a heinous crime. The concept of lawful carry of a weapon is foreign to them as curry goat for lunch is to the average American suburbanite. The victims of the Charleston church shooting were probably part of a culture that doesn't understand carrying a gun lawfully for lawful purposes.

 

[steelerdude99]

...

But even then, elderly church ladies are often not going to be gunfighters. They're old church ladies. Even a bunch of CCW carriers scattered throughout the population isn't going to solve all the problems. Occasionally one of those CCW carriers is also going to do something bad. But it's better than the alternative of ONLY the bad guys carrying guns.

A few years ago, I saw this story and saved it for reference. The story posted at the link below shows how rare it is for concealed carry holders "to go bad". From the link's text, "There are several sources that show that people with CCW permits are far more law abiding than the general population."

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html

chuck

 

[barnbwt]

"Why do you have a CPL, you gonna shoot up the place?"
"Would you ask if you really thought that?"

For a lot of folks, violent attack is literally the only use for a gun (esp pistol) they have yet wrapped their minds around. It'd be like asking if you're gonna take your Subaru STI off road because it has 4 wheel drive, not knowing it can be a benefit for racing.

TCB

 

[Snejdarek]

Depends on what you call "over the counter" A lifetime purchaser identification card (FPIC) is required for purchase of rifles and shotguns, as well as for purchases of handgun ammunition. A permit to purchase a handgun, valid for 90 days is required for each handgun purchase. Only one handgun can be purchased within a 30 day period.

Once you own a gun, all you can do with it is take it to the range (unless you have a permit to carry a handgun). You can transport it from place of purchase to home. Home to a Certified Shooting Range. Going hunting but must have a valid hunting license. You just can’t have it in your vehicle. Again the law says you must have a FPIC or NJ Carry Permit to even transport firearms in NJ.

New Jersey calls its permit a "permit to carry a handgun" and is a "may-issue" state for firearm carry, either openly or concealed. Permit applicants must "specify in detail the urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." As a result of this tough standard, New Jersey is effectively a "no issue" state unless one is a retired law enforcement officer. Armed security officers and armored car drivers typically get restricted permits limited to carry while on duty only. A letter of need from the security company is required.

Open carry is allowed only with a permit to carry a handgun and is generally not practiced except by security officers and others who carry firearms on duty.

OK, I stand corrected. Czech Republic is miles ahead of NJ as regards gun rights. Thank you for the information. Are there other parts of US that are as bad as NJ? Is California and DC similar to NJ or a bit less restrictive?

 

[JRH6856]

OK, I stand corrected. Czech Republic is miles ahead of NJ as regards gun rights. Thank you for the information. Are there other parts of US that are as bad as NJ? Is California and DC similar to NJ or a bit less restrictive?

IMO, California, DC, New York City, Maryland, all are similar though there are differences in the details. Bottom line is that you need to have the right connections to circumvent the restrictions.

Wikipedia has a fairly accurate summary

 

[goon]

A few years ago, I saw this story and saved it for reference. The story posted at the link below shows how rare it is for concealed carry holders "to go bad". From the link's text, "There are several sources that show that people with CCW permits are far more law abiding than the general population."

No doubt that statistically CCW holders are more law abiding than the general population - you have to be pretty clean to get a permit.

All I'm saying is that occasionally something is going to go wrong. Like any system, it's not going to be perfect. I acknowledge that slight risk when it comes up in a discussion, then move on. FWIW, not having a permit doesn't stop any bad guy from carrying either.