| Author | Message | ||
     joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 110 Registered: 8-2001  |
From amNew York: Dave Kopel, of Colorado's Independence Institute, responding to Chuck Schumer's call for reinstating the assault weapons ban after Sunday's shooting rampage in a NY mall: "While it is often easy to kill a bunch of unarmed people, it's much more difficult when some of the potential victims are shooting back". This makes me wonder: where are people, I mean potential victims, going to keep all their assault weapons the next time they go mall-shopping. I mean, most mall-ers carry bags and coats, push kids, etc. and strollers just aren't large enough to carry two GAP bags, one Banana Republic bag, and an AK-47. Not to mention the fact that my five-year-old can't eat his Mrs. Fields cookie and load his own AK-47 at the same time. What ever are we to do? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 702 Registered: 5-2004  |
I read this this morning, and two thoughts cross my mind. 1-Has this guy never been to a city or a mall? 2-This has got to be one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard. I'm not an anti-gun nut. I'm in favor of regulation, but not banning all guns. But to say that some of the victims shouldhave been able to shoot back at this guy is nuts. First, given how much training police have in firearms, even THEY don't tend to shoot at people in crowded malls. Too many innocents could get hurt. Also, let's say the police arrive and they see five people in a shootout. How are they supposed to determine who is the criminal? given thay discharging a weapon in public is a crime in most jurisdictions, I guess they'd all be criminals. Do you want to be the one misidentified as the psycho by the police? Finally, given that this type of person is typically suidical, having a populace that is armed and unafraid to use it is not a deterrent. | ||
| Debby Citizen Username: Debby Post Number: 1674 Registered: 5-2001 |
That's why Short Hills has valet parking. Maybe the others will catch on. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 703 Registered: 5-2004 |
I thought Short Hills had valet parking because  | ||
| Valentine Michael Smith Citizen Username: Umbert Post Number: 61 Registered: 3-2004  |
I'm with Chris Rock on this one. Everyone should have a gun. Everyone. But, bullets should cost $5,000 each. | ||
| Bobkat Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7599 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually I have a paratroop model AK-47 with a folding stock. It fits nicely in my LL Bean backpack with plenty of room for a couple of spare magazines. | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 326 Registered: 7-2003 |
You guys are all wimps. What we need is a populace armed with General Electric GAU-87 30mm chain guns. Those babies spit out 30 rounds per second of either armor piercing or incendiary ammunition. The next time some idiot opens up in a mall with a gun, we can all mow each other down to our heart's content. And there will be no one left to complain about gun control or lack thereof.  | ||
| Ily Citizen Username: Ily Post Number: 150 Registered: 7-2004  |
I bought my car from a guy named Kenny G. Not THEE Kenny G. Anyway, told me this story about taking a walk in his neighborhood in PA. A guy in a pick-up was loading his truck with stuff from a neighbor's house. He asked another neighbor if he heard that Mrs. X was moving. No. Seems strange. They decided the best thing to do was to wait by the guy's truck and ask him what he was up to... with their shotguns. The guy came out carrying a TV. Without saying a word, the guy deposited the TV in the back, put his hand thru the truck window, producing a hand gun. They shot him dead on the spot. Mrs. X was gagged and tied to a chair inside the house. "While it is often easy to kill a bunch of unarmed people, it's much more difficult when some of the potential victims are shooting back". Guy's got a point. Here's another story in the news recently: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/store.shooting.ap/ "Finally, given that this type of person is typically suidical, having a populace that is armed and unafraid to use it is not a deterrent." I disagree. Death is one heck of a deterrent. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1079 Registered: 8-2003  |
can't they call 911 in PA before they start shooting people?  | ||
| notehead Supporter Username: Notehead Post Number: 2048 Registered: 5-2001  |
Ily, check that quote again. He's saying that, if a guy wants to die anyway, he won't care if other people might kill him. I like your story about the thief with the TV, but, as someone pointed out earlier, if a policeman (or another gun-toting civilian) came along and saw the guys with the shotguns and the guy with the TV, what would prevent HIM from shooting the wrong guy? | ||
| Ily Citizen Username: Ily Post Number: 151 Registered: 7-2004 |
I asked him the same question. He said that he lives in a rural area and that the guy would be long gone before the police arrived. The story I linked to, and at the mall shooting, shots were already fired. The police couldn't have helped the store owners or that Nat'l Guard guy at the mall. | ||
| Sgt. Pepper Citizen Username: Jjkatz Post Number: 686 Registered: 12-2003  |
I love the ideas some NRA-types put out. I've heard it suggested that they hand out pistols to everyone boarding an airplane so that any potential hijackers would be outgunned. I've heard them say that the solution to school shootings is to teach kids to drop and roll, and that every office should have at least one employee who is packing. Sounds like a lovely way to go through life. What a bunch of nutjobs. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 704 Registered: 5-2004 |
Ily - First, I doubt that's a true story. The guy walked by the two guys standing by his truck with shotguns and, ingoring them, reached into the truck to get a handgun? Even if it were true, it's unrelated to what we're talking about. Second, knowing that you will eventually be killed will not deter a suicidal person from attempting to take as many people with him as possible. And you seem to completely miss the point about the dangers of having a gun fight in a crowded place. Finally, the article you refer to talks about a country store. Hardly on the scale of a large shopping mall. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1579 Registered: 1-2003  |
Second, knowing that you will eventually be killed will not deter a suicidal person from attempting to take as many people with him as possible. No, but having someone armed nearby could certainly limit the number of people he takes with him. I am misunderstanding your point, Are you saying its more or less dangerous to have someone shooting at people in a mall with no one shooting back to stop him? Or that its more dangerous to have people shooting at the guy who's trying to kill as many people as possible? And Sgt. Pepper... Archie Bunker is the one that suggested handing out guns to everyone on a plane, not the NRA. | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 111 Registered: 8-2001 |
If everyone in the mall had guns to protect against the miniscule chance that a crazy lunatic would start shooting up the place, there'd be a lot more gun violence going on than if those people didn't have guns in the first place. Restated, if my neighbors -- known and unknown -- are all armed, I think there's more chance I'll get shot by one of them than by a random crazy shooter. The best way to have a safer society is to have everyone armed to the teeth? I don't think so. That's like a caveman approach. You can't foster security by propogating fear. More on this in "Bowling for Columbine." | ||
| Ily Citizen Username: Ily Post Number: 152 Registered: 7-2004 |
I think Kenny was telling the truth. There were other details like getting having to explain himself to the police and a judge. Nevertheless... A suicidal person will take less lives if their life is ended. It might not deter him from showing up, but if he were shot, it would deter him from continued violence. I see your point about a gunfight in a crowded place. It seems to me that a gunfight in a crowded mall would be insane. However, if you had proper training, and you had a clear, opportunistic shot, i.e. he starts shooting 5 feet from you with his back to you, it would be good to stop him. Your point suggests that opportunities like this never happen. I can think of two that you've probably seen on the news. First, a nutcase was firing a machine gun at the Whitehouse, and second, a guy was shooting his lawyer outside a NY court house. Both gunmen were stopped by bystanders who just happened to be nearby. Those bystanders were unarmed. Me, I'd prefer to be armed when going after a lunatic with a gun. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 707 Registered: 5-2004 |
My point is that it is not less dangerous having people shooting back at the psycho, because you have more bullets being fired, and from more directions. I would not argue that it is absolutely more dangerous, since it is always desirable to stop the psycho sooner rather than later. There is this belief that everyone who carries a gun will be an expert marksman, and if everyone had a gun, they could have all shot this guy and stopped the mayhem immeidately. In reality, I would bet that more people would have been injured, since there would have been even more bullets flying around. Even cops (who are trained to react in stressful situations) don't hit their targets 100% of the time. I can just imagine a dozen well-intentioned people trying to shoot at the shooter, and hitting each other accidentally. With all the shooting this guy did, he only wounded two people. Imagine if several times the number of bullets were flying. Perhaps he wouldn't have injured anyone. And perhaps the other shooters would have hit more people. I don't want to sound like a rabid anti-gun person. I'm not. I just want to be sure that the consequences of an highly armed populace are understood. This kind of person would not have been deterred knowing that others would be armed, willing, and able to shoot him. In fact, if he were suicidal, he might count on it. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 708 Registered: 5-2004 |
Can we please not use a Michael Moore movie as source for "facts?" | ||
| joeltfk Citizen Username: Joeltfk Post Number: 112 Registered: 8-2001 |
"Can we please not use a Michael Moore movie as source for "facts?" I will if others promise not to use the Bush Administration's "facts" in the same way. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 709 Registered: 5-2004 |
Ily, I don't see how my "point suggests that opportunities like this never happen." Of course they do. But you're assuming that everyone who owns a gun will be trained to recognize those kinds of opportunities. I just don't have that much faith in my fellow man. Sorry. We require training for driving a car, but not for owning or carrying a gun. And we will never be able to have training required as a prerequisite. Therefore there is no way to know if the person who tried to take out the shooter knows what he's doing, or is a Dirty Harry wannabe. I don't disagree with your comment that you'd rather be armed when going after a nut with a gun. Ironically, in both cases you cite, no one was injured. Not that it really matters, because people could have been hurt. I just wonder whether the likelihood of a bystander getting hurt is higher or lower if more guns are being fired. I really don't have an answer, and though I've seen studies from other countries, there is definitely a uniquely American set of issues that those studies don't take into account. |
