Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

At present we have no information that this is the case, indeed there is just as much chance that the dickhead taking a gun to church killed innocent bystanders. 

We have a fair amount of information that this is the case. We know that one person did start shooting at the guy and he went to his car after being shot at. We know that another person went and drove after the suspect at high speeds, and followed him until he drove off the highway into a ditch.

The dickhead in question was across the street from the church and was not present in the church, but heard the commotion and picked up his rifle and started firing when the gunman emerged.

We don't have to ignore facts because they prove to be slightly bad for the narrative we want to spin.  

 

[BigFatCoward]

I stand corrected. 

[Week]

36 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

At present we have no information that this is the case, indeed there is just as much chance that the dickhead taking a gun to church killed innocent bystanders. 

Agree, whether successful or not, I am loathe to praise any vigilante justice. It may have been successful and 'appropriate' here -- yet, the vast majority of day to day life it is fucking dangerous to civilians, law enforcement, and vigilantes themselves. 

Let's not break our arms jerking off the vigilantes here -- that's not a tenable solution to any problem.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Agree, whether successful or not, I am loathe to praise any vigilante justice. It may have been successful and 'appropriate' here -- yet, the vast majority of day to day life it is fucking dangerous to civilians, law enforcement, and vigilantes themselves. 

Let's not break our arms jerking off the vigilantes here -- that's not a tenable solution to any problem.

I don't think anyone here is jerking them off *Looks around for a Mother Cocanuts post*, it's just one of those instances where you have to kind of reluctantly admit that the "good guy with a gun" narrative actually played out the way it's typically presented. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't think anyone here is jerking them off *Looks around for a Mother Cocanuts post*, it's just one of those instances where you have to kind of reluctantly admit that the "good guy with a gun" narrative actually played out the way it's typically presented. 

The good guy with a gun didn't do anything here except guarantee that the shooter wouldn't be questioned by the police.  From the latest accounts he confronted the shooter outside the church after the shooting was over.  Sure it's possible he could have gone on to kill others later somewhere else, but it sounds like he was leaving.

I wouldn't say that's the "good guy with a gun narrative as typically presented".

 

 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't think anyone here is jerking them off *Looks around for a Mother Cocanuts post*, it's just one of those instances where you have to kind of reluctantly admit that the "good guy with a gun" narrative actually played out the way it's typically presented. 

Also, I think it's important to recognize that this is in many ways a 'best case' scenario for vigilante justice and good guy with a gun. There was someone with a gun present at the scene and responded fairly quickly (within 5-10 minutes), and in that time 26 people were killed. More likely would have been killed if this person didn't respond, but they were unable to stop the person from killing 26 people. 

Las Vegas had over 50 people killed and 500 wounded, and there were many people in the crowd and elsewhere with guns. 

[Week]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't think anyone here is jerking them off *Looks around for a Mother Cocanuts post*, it's just one of those instances where you have to kind of reluctantly admit that the "good guy with a gun" narrative actually played out the way it's typically presented. 

I disagree -- 'good guy with a gun' is incredibly dangerous and counterproductive in the overwhelming majority of potentially dangerous situations. 

Assuming the 'good guy' killed the 'bad guy' -- he's still a murderer. I don't care how justified it is -- IMO, extrajudicial murder has no place in an open, democratic society.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Week said:

I disagree -- 'good guy with a gun' is incredibly dangerous and counterproductive in the overwhelming majority of potentially dangerous situations. 

Assuming the 'good guy' killed the 'bad guy' -- he's still a murderer. I don't care how justified it is -- IMO, extrajudicial murder has no place in an open, democratic society.

We don't know if the good guy with a gun killed him. That's unclear, and it looks more and more like he was a suicide.That said, it would not be a murder no matter what. 

What the good guy with a gun did do is engage him, and likely drive him away from doing anything else. Which is precisely what law enforcement is also taught to do. 

[Week]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

We don't know if the good guy with a gun killed him. That's unclear, and it looks more and more like he was a suicide.That said, it would not be a murder no matter what. 

Agree, that's why I said "assuming" -- don't know for sure as of yet.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What the good guy with a gun did do is engage him, and likely drive him away from doing anything else. Which is precisely what law enforcement is also taught to do. 

A: So, can we have gun owners go through the same *cough* rigor as law enforcement to ensure that they engage with a 'bad guy' just as this person allegedly did? 

B: Is that what law enforcement did to *insert list of hundreds of unarmed citizens murdered by police*?

I know you are on the same side of the above issues -- so, I'm a bit surprised that you're making this argument. 

[Darth Richard II]

For fucks sake, I wake up an the top story on cnn is about Disney buying Fox, The fuck.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

A: So, can we have gun owners go through the same *cough* rigor as law enforcement to ensure that they engage with a 'bad guy' just as this person allegedly did? 

I would love that. Totally unconstitutional, but I would love it if everyone was forced to go through rigorous gun handling and safety courses before owning a gun or handling one.

3 minutes ago, Week said:

B: Is that what law enforcement did to *insert list of hundreds of unarmed citizens murdered by police*?

Nope, but that's a very separate issue. Don't conflate authoritarian, racist police violence with gun laws.

3 minutes ago, Week said:

I know you are on the same side of the above issues -- so, I'm a bit surprised that you're making this argument. 

One of the _only_ good uses of an armed citizenry is to stop shooting sprees. Shooting sprees tend to happen with someone who is willing to kill themselves to kill others, cares nothing about the legality of the firearms they get, and rarely has any tells that would indicate that they are going to go off and kill people. Gun control laws aren't particularly effective in countries with these things anyway. Having someone who is going to shoot back does, indeed, save lives in this case, and ignoring it or saying that this is incorrect just makes you appear to be untrustworthy.

That said, stopping shooting sprees is one of the least important things in my view to be done. I am far more concerned with stopping the 30 THOUSAND gun deaths each year. 

[Week]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I would love that. Totally unconstitutional, but I would love it if everyone was forced to go through rigorous gun handling and safety courses before owning a gun or handling one.

Nope, but that's a very separate issue. Don't conflate authoritarian, racist police violence with gun laws.

One of the _only_ good uses of an armed citizenry is to stop shooting sprees. Shooting sprees tend to happen with someone who is willing to kill themselves to kill others, cares nothing about the legality of the firearms they get, and rarely has any tells that would indicate that they are going to go off and kill people. Gun control laws aren't particularly effective in countries with these things anyway. Having someone who is going to shoot back does, indeed, save lives in this case, and ignoring it or saying that this is incorrect just makes you appear to be untrustworthy.

That said, stopping shooting sprees is one of the least important things in my view to be done. I am far more concerned with stopping the 30 THOUSAND gun deaths each year. 

I can buy that -- I don't like it though I agree that, in terms of spending calories, the 30 thousand gun deaths are a bigger problem.

[Suttree]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 Having someone who is going to shoot back does, indeed, save lives in this case, and ignoring it or saying that this is incorrect just makes you appear to be untrustworthy.

It did in this particular instance. Overall?

Quote

For every justifiable gun homicide, there were 34 criminal gun homicides, 78 gun suicides, and two accidental gun deaths....According to the FBI’s report on active shooter events between 2000 and 2013, only about 3 percent were stopped by a civilian with a gun. Unarmed civilians actually stopped more incidents — about 13 percent. Most of the incidents — more than 56 percent — ended on the shooter’s initiative, when the shooter either killed himself or herself, simply stopped shooting, or fled the scene.

 

[Kalbear]

The other other thing is that in the US for whatever reason, culturally we have accepted 'shoot a whole lot of people' is a form of protest. And that isn't going to be solved by more stringent gun control laws either. (most of the 30k gun deaths WOULD be solved by this, which is why I support more stringent gun control laws, but mass shootings won't be). 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Suttree said:

It did in this particular instance. Overall?

 

Yes, I agree 100%. It does in this case, and also has the cost of about 30k gun deaths a year. 

I am not saying that this ratio is worth it. I am saying that it did, indeed, stop more violence most likely. 

[Rippounet]

53 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 it's just one of those instances where you have to kind of reluctantly admit that the "good guy with a gun" narrative actually played out the way it's typically presented. 

Yes and no. The "good guy with a gun" is supposed to show up in time to save people.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Rippounet said:

Yes and no. The "good guy with a gun" is supposed to show up in time to save people.

They did. Just not all of them.

[Cas Stark]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The other other thing is that in the US for whatever reason, culturally we have accepted 'shoot a whole lot of people' is a form of protest. And that isn't going to be solved by more stringent gun control laws either. (most of the 30k gun deaths WOULD be solved by this, which is why I support more stringent gun control laws, but mass shootings won't be). 

2/3 of those deaths are from suicides.  And since there are several countries with higher suicide rates than the U.S. which have much stricter gun laws than the U.S. the data seems unconvincing that we would see much of a reduction in the suicide rate via strict gun control.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes and no. The "good guy with a gun" is supposed to show up in time to save people.

Sure, that narrative is often forwarded in an unrealistic manner. It's a lot like when someone says "where were the cops?" The Hollywood action movie take is not really a realistic expectation. As Kalbear said, in this case it seems pretty likely that the vigilante response saved some lives. It's impossible to say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't in the shooter's plans to drop by his wife's house after not finding her in church.

[Kalbear]

23 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

2/3 of those deaths are from suicides.  And since there are several countries with higher suicide rates than the U.S. which have much stricter gun laws than the U.S. the data seems unconvincing that we would see much of a reduction in the suicide rate via strict gun control.

Not really; suicide rates vary by culture, and there is ample evidence that reducing access to guns in the US reduces the suicide rate. We have this data several times over. It won't eliminate it - but it will almost certainly reduce it. One study indicated that simply having a waiting period of 45 days would reduce suicides by something like 50%.