A good guy with a gun

[TheDrake]

So the most recent shooter (title won't stand for long) killed himself so I guess he got stopped by a good guy with a gun. To some the only solution to this problem is to arm the drunks in the nightclub, which makes a lot of sense. Even if there were several such people, how long would it take one to know anything was happening? And then to shoot the right guy, and not one of the other good guys waving pistols around looking for the bad guy. Please, someone try to walk me through this reasoning and how it would apply here.

[yossarian22c]

In the rare case where it happens, I think the mall shooting in Indiana is the best case scenario for "good guy with a gun." That is the ideal situation for armed bystander stopping a mass shooting before that many people get shot. Helps if there aren't lots of armed bystanders. Second best is the Texas church shooting a couple years back where the neighbor got the gunman after he killed lots of people.

So if you want to know what the "everyone should carry a gun always" crowd thinks will consistently happen, look at the Indiana shooting. But that is the absolute best case scenario. And it could go much worse if 2 bystanders pulled out guns and started shooting at the first shooter only to have 2 more bystanders come by 30 seconds later and start shooting at them. The fog of war would be high with lots of armed bystanders and no uniforms to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Best case with lots of armed people is that anyone who doesn't see the initial shots runs away with the crowd. And the gun crowd thinks that people who carry are always rational, have great aim, and will have good situational awareness. Since police who are trained don't meet that criteria, I think its safe to assume the average citizen won't be better.

But this ignores all the additional road rage shootings, bar shootings, and other arguments in everyday places that instead of escalating to a shove or a punch become deadly. Lots of people walking around ready to kill means long term more people getting killed.

[Seriati]

Actually the best case scenario is that an armed potential victim pulls a firearm out and the potential assailant backs off and no one dies.  The studies looking at defense gun usage are not perfect, but have generally found that defensive use is at least as common as offensive use and most of the studies have found that defensive use is more common than offensive use by a multiple. 

When it comes to the mass shooters that make the news, they're virtually only ever stopped by someone with a gun.  Either the police, a bystander or frequently themselves when they commit suicide.

I don't personally believe that people should be both drinking in a bar and armed.  But declaring them no gun zones without taking the steps necessary to ensure that guns are not present is an objectively terrible result.

As to the idea that more and more bystanders will become involved, do you have even a single such example?  It sounds like an ivory tower argument to me.  It's not a video game world and I can't put faith in an argument that seemingly depends on responsible citizens jumping into a shoot out between two other people without any knowledge of what's happening.  The good guy with a gun situations are overwhelming people responding to the actual instigator, generally with first hand knowledge of what's happening.  If anyone were to come along later and act as you seem to fear it would almost certainly be the police.  They've been known on occasion to do exactly what you suggest and shoot or kill the citizen that stopped an attack or subdued an attacker, but even there we have no good way to determine how often that occurs.

[Tom]

most of the studies have found that defensive use is more common than offensive use by a multiple

One problem here is that gun nuts are more than a little delusionally self-righteous and lie about how often they've scared someone into backing down. And because defensive use is almost never criminally reported, we don't know what percentage of reported defensive use is in fact self-aggrandizing fiction. That makes the whole discussion kind of a useless exercise.

[yossarian22c]

As to the idea that more and more bystanders will become involved, do you have even a single such example?  It sounds like an ivory tower argument to me.  It's not a video game world and I can't put faith in an argument that seemingly depends on responsible citizens jumping into a shoot out between two other people without any knowledge of what's happening.  The good guy with a gun situations are overwhelming people responding to the actual instigator, generally with first hand knowledge of what's happening.  If anyone were to come along later and act as you seem to fear it would almost certainly be the police.  They've been known on occasion to do exactly what you suggest and shoot or kill the citizen that stopped an attack or subdued an attacker, but even there we have no good way to determine how often that occurs.

This doesn't happen currently. But many people on the right advocate for a more armed citizenry. Right now a very small percentage of people carry regularly. If that number were 20-30% of people were always armed a lot of these situations would be very different. Now we have 1-5% of people would be conceal carrying in a random public setting. So if there are a couple hundred people around someone is probably armed, depending on the place. If that number were 10x as many people armed do you think these outcomes would change? One person carrying when a mass shooting starts, good thing, two people probably a good thing, ten people armed, probably a bad thing.

[TheDrake]

On May 7, 2019, two teenagers opened fire at STEM School Highland Ranch in Colorado, killing one and injuring seven. An eighth student was unintentionally shot by an armed security guard with a concealed carry permit. The campus security guard said he fired two rounds after seeing a muzzle come around the corner, but the gun belonged to a sheriff’s deputy. The school did not know the security guard was armed. John McDonald, head of security at Jeffco Public Schools, told the Denver Post that untrained armed individuals can make a bad situation worse and “There’s no way for anybody in uniform to know who a good guy or a bad guy is” when they see a person with a gun.

https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/wrong-person/

[Lloyd Perna]

One problem here is that gun nuts are more than a little delusionally self-righteous and lie about how often they've scared someone into backing down.

I assume you have facts to back this up, right?

[Lloyd Perna]

I don't personally believe that people should be both drinking in a bar and armed.  But declaring them no gun zones without taking the steps necessary to ensure that guns are not present is an objectively terrible result.

I propose that any public place that bans guns should have a duty to ensure they are not brought into the location.  Metal Detectors at the entrance etc.  If a shooting happens at that location they should be liable.

[msquared]

Only if they shooter does not shoot his way in.

[NobleHunter]

Good ol' American freedom: searches at the entrance to every public space. 2nd Amendment uber alles.

[Wayward Son]

One problem here is that gun nuts are more than a little delusionally self-righteous and lie about how often they've scared someone into backing down.

I assume you have facts to back this up, right?

He doesn't need to prove his facts if the original statement--"The studies looking at defense gun usage are not perfect, but have generally found that defensive use is at least as common as offensive use and most of the studies have found that defensive use is more common than offensive use by a multiple"--consists of flawed methodology, such as not taking into account that those who supplied the data may have been lying.  Generally bad studies generally come to generally unsupported conclusions, which generally don't need to be disproved to be ignored.

Consider this criticism of John Lott, who you endorsed on another thread:

In the beginning of 1999, Otis Dudley Duncan, who is regarded as one of history’s most important quantitative sociologists, wrote the first of a number of letters to Lott. He was especially skeptical of a sentence in Lott’s book that stated, “If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack.” Lott had not specified which surveys, but, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published around the time of the book, he attributed the figure to polls by The Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates. The number, he wrote, was a percentage of the “at least 760,000, and possibly as many as 3.6 million, defensive uses of guns per year.”

Duncan determined that Lott’s assertion was simply wrong. In May, Duncan informed Lott that he was writing an article about what he would call the “rogue number,” and later that month sent him a draft. One sentence summarized his assessment: “The ‘98 percent’ is either a figment of Lott’s imagination or an artifact of careless computation or proofreading.”

Tallies of defensive gun use are inherently problematic. They depend on surveys that rely on a respondent’s memory and perception of threat, as well as one’s willingness to tell the truth, all of which can be influenced by politics, world view, and other biases. The Department of Justice attempts to track defensive gun uses through a twice-yearly survey that tries to mitigate some of the issues. For instance, participants only answer questions about self-defense if they first state that they were a victim of a certain crime, such as burglary or larceny. As a result, the government finds that there are around 70,000 defensive gun uses per year, making them much rarer events.

The government’s figures seemed to undermine Lott’s argument. If Americans were rarely using a firearm to protect themselves from criminal acts, how could more guns equal less crime? And if Lott’s surveys really did present a more accurate picture, why were such incidents so seldom documented? Lott said that “brandishing” addressed both questions. “The media understandably play up graphic gun attacks by outlaws,” he explained in The American Enterprise. “They can’t easily show us the vastly more common cases — numbering in the hundreds of thousands to millions each year — where law-abiding citizens brandish a gun and cause criminals to flee.”

After Lott received a draft of Duncan’s article, he sent him a letter. He now said that the brandishing number was based not on the polling data but “upon survey evidence that I have put together involving a large nationwide telephone survey conducted over a three month period during 1997.” ...

 “The survey that I oversaw interviewed 2,424 people from across the United States,” he said. “I had planned on including a discussion of it in my book, but did not do so because an unfortunate computer crash lost my hard disk right before the final draft of the book had to be turned in.” ...  Lott told Lindgren that the calls for the survey were made by University of Chicago undergraduates, who volunteered for the work and used their own phones. Lott did not have phone records, but the students could confirm whether the survey was conducted in the first place. When Lindgren asked for the students’ names, however, Lott said that he did not remember. ...

Lindgren also harbored grave doubts about the math. Lott’s figures, Lindgren noted in a report, implied that 25 or 26 survey respondents had reported defensive gun uses. Lott had said that of the 2 percent of respondents who had fired their weapons, three-quarters dispatched warning shots, while only a quarter attempted to hit another person. “If these figures were accurate,” Lindgren explained, “only ½ of a person (2% of 25 people) reported firing a gun — and that ½ of a person breaks down further into 3/8ths of a person firing warning shots and 1/8th of a person firing at someone.” Lott said that he had “always acknowledged” that the samples were small.

And yet Lott's conclusions are taken as God's truth by many NRA members.

So before asking if Tom has facts to back up his claims, perhaps you should show your facts to back up your claims first.

[Lloyd Perna]

What claims did I make?

[Lloyd Perna]

Only if they shooter does not shoot his way in.

Agreed,  The owner has fulfilled their duty in that case.

[Lloyd Perna]

Good ol' American freedom: searches at the entrance to every public space. 2nd Amendment uber alles.

You'd rather they just post a no guns allowed sign giving their patrons a false sense of security while simultaneously making them more vulnerable to a shooter.

[Wayward Son]

What claims did I make?

I was thinking of this claim on the US has annually over 41 million murders and traffic citations thread: "John Lott has over 200 articles on the subject - but because his findings are generally supportive of gun ownership, he is a target of politically-inspired gun control groups who claim his research is "faulty.""

But mainly it is the implied claim that Seriati's original statement was factual and proven.  Because who asks for the facts backing up the claim that unicorns don't exist?

[Lloyd Perna]

Where did I imply that? 

[NobleHunter]

You'd rather they just post a no guns allowed sign giving their patrons a false sense of security while simultaneously making them more vulnerable to a shooter.

I note your willingness to surrender freedom in favour of security.

And people are safer in the absence of guns than in the presence of guns.

[Lloyd Perna]

Putting a sign on the door does nothing to create an absence of guns.

[NobleHunter]

Are you suggesting law abiding citizen would carry guns into spaces where they aren't permitted? Or that non-law abiding citizens are sufficiently common that they can assume to be present in any given space?

[Lloyd Perna]

Are you suggesting law abiding citizen would carry guns into spaces where they aren't permitted? Or that non-law abiding citizens are sufficiently common that they can assume to be present in any given space?

I'm saying a sign might stop many law abiding citizens but almost no non-law abiding citizens.  And it certainly wont stop anyone with the intent to go in there and use a gun.

When you go into a coffee shop that has a no guns allowed sign, do you feel safer?

[yossarian22c]

Are you suggesting law abiding citizen would carry guns into spaces where they aren't permitted? Or that non-law abiding citizens are sufficiently common that they can assume to be present in any given space?

I'm saying a sign might stop many law abiding citizens but almost no non-law abiding citizens.  And it certainly wont stop anyone with the intent to go in there and use a gun.

When you go into a coffee shop that has a no guns allowed sign, do you feel safer?

Safer than I would in a bar with everyone armed and loaded (pun intended).

[Fenring]

It seems to me the debate rests on presuppositions about basic social realities that can't exist in the same universe. Either the populace is generally armed and everyone knows it, or they aren't, or at least not enough for an assailant to assume those around him are armed. Data points from any other countries that are well-armed would be sparse and probably not relevant to the U.S. In the absence of data points about parallel universes it seems that both sides of the argument are essentially relegated to armchair theory. On the face of it, I have to say it sounds logical to suppose that if any would-be shooter knew for sure he would be facing a sea of armed opponents, this would be discouraging. One confounding issue is to what extent a shooter is on some level already suicidal and wouldn't care about the probability of getting out alive and just wants to initiate a conflict. I can also see the armchair case that too many armed people makes a society a fearful and unpleasant one, and that incidents of gun violence could escalate into confusion. Could it be that the issue simply boils down to taste rather than fact?

[Tom]

When you go into a coffee shop that has a no guns allowed sign, do you feel safer?

Given a choice between a coffee shop with a "no guns allowed" sign and another with a "firearms required" sign, I have to admit that I would feel much safer in the former.

[NobleHunter]

I'm saying a sign might stop many law abiding citizens but almost no non-law abiding citizens.  And it certainly wont stop anyone with the intent to go in there and use a gun.

When you go into a coffee shop that has a no guns allowed sign, do you feel safer?

I'm Canadian, we don't need a sign. I would feel very unsafe in a coffee shop where everyone is armed.

[Wayward Son]

The issue is not so much about keeping us safe from criminals as it is keeping us safe from stupid people.

Someone intent on going into a place and shooting a lot of people probably consider any place, whether it is a Gun Free area or not, to be filled with unarmed people, since just about everyplace is.  The only places he might avoid are the ones where he knows everyone is armed, like a shooting range or a police station.  Where almost everyone is expected to be armed.

What is more concerning to me is someone who is armed for his own protection who suddenly gets mad, or is drunk, or is having a bad day, and on the spur of the moment, without thinking, decides to shoot someone.  This is a scenario which I believe is far, far more likely than a mass shooter deciding to show up. 

After all, how many people here have seen someone someone suddenly get mad and turn violent?  Now how many have seen a mass shooting? (And I don't mean on TV.)

When it comes to probability, a good, law-abiding citizen suddenly getting mad and doing something stupid is a far more likely occurrence than a homicidal idiot showing up to kill people.  Which means that a gun-free zone is safer than one that is not.  Because stupid people are more likely to obey the rule than not, since they never had any intention of murdering anyone with their gun--until they do.

[TheDrake]

I do agree that just having a sign doesn't solve much for a motivated mass killer. It probably does save lives when someone who is a relatively reasonable gun owner leaves the gun at home. Then gets into a fight with somebody which doesn't become lethal. To most 2A advocates it is a travesty that that person wasn't able to shoot the unarmed guy threatening him. When the better answer is to avoid fights, which responsible concealed carry permit holders generally know.

The sign also doesn't stand alone when it is combined with other ways to make gun ownership and concealed carry difficult to accomplish, even if the difficulty is just a waiting period.

[rightleft22]

guns - the same level of consciousness that created the problem won't be the consciousness that solves it.
It ought to be clear by now that the discourse about guns isn't going anywhere. We keep using the same arguments and think that will convince others change to change minds about guns is pissing in the wind.  Something happen and all the media (main stream and non) outlets pull out the old arguments and nothing. this last round everyone just phoning it in. We have arrived at apathy and now its just a game we play to stupid to realize we lost before we began. 

I can't envision the USA ever changing its relationships to guns but maybe thier is hope with its relationship to violence?  Kidding so not happening.

[TheDrake]

While the number of undecideds is limited it is not non-existent. Sometimes it's not about changing minds anyway, it's about amusing ones self but observing the human capacity for grasping at any possible argument to support the thing they want. Kind of like appreciating Chris Angel in one of his masochistic stunts.

[rightleft22]

While the number of undecideds is limited it is not non-existent. Sometimes it's not about changing minds anyway, it's about amusing ones self but observing the human capacity for grasping at any possible argument to support the thing they want. Kind of like appreciating Chris Angel in one of his masochistic stunts.

I would agree the issue is mostly entertainment now. I for one am not amused and change the channel. I don't like guns and I was in the military. That's what changed my mind on the subject. Owning a weapons ought to be a privilege that one earns and can lose not a right. The founding fathers got it wrong, they weren't gods   
But that is neither here nor there when it comes to why people kill other people.

[Lloyd Perna]

The sign also doesn't stand alone when it is combined with other ways to make gun ownership and concealed carry difficult to accomplish, even if the difficulty is just a waiting period.

Whoa there, you said the quiet part out loud.

Why would we want to make a constitutional right difficult?  Would you want to make Voting difficult for instance?

[msquared]

The Republican sure do.

[Lloyd Perna]

The Republican sure do.

Yes, they want to make it harder to vote illegally.   There are already reasonable (and some would say unreasonable) requirements that must be met to own and carry a firearm.   Would you agree to require the same things from voters?  Like maybe proving you are who you say you are by showing an id?  I'm sure you would disagree with requiring a waiting period, or a background check.

[Tom]

If we're REALLY going to go down this (profoundly stupid) path, I would argue that one evil man with an vote (legal or otherwise) is a considerably less significant and immediate danger than one evil man with a gun (legal or otherwise).

[msquared]

Or making mail in voting illegal, or early voting, or giving water to those who are waiting in line to vote, or removing voting locations or allowing voting on Sunday.

[Lloyd Perna]

Or making mail in voting illegal, or early voting, or giving water to those who are waiting in line to vote, or removing voting locations or allowing voting on Sunday.

Mail in voting is inherently insecure, at least the way we are doing it now.  There is no way to know the vote was cast by the person whos name is on the ballot.

I have no problem with early voting as long as the same level of ballot security or greater as day of voting.

As to the water, I assume you are referring to the Georgia law?  If so, Poll workers can make available self service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector in line to vote.   Giving things directly to voters in line to vote is rife for abuse.  The people distributing the water will certainly be electioneering in the process.

Removing voting locations that are underutilized should not be controversial.

Where is early voting on Sunday illegal?

[TheDrake]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

[Tom]

Removing voting locations that are underutilized should not be controversial.

What about removing some of the most heavily utilized voting locations in the state, as has happened in Wisconsin?

[Lloyd Perna]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

I live in Mass.  Until last year, My town police chief could refuse to issue me a license without limitations for any reason.  If you live in Boston proper it was almost impossible to get a concealed license.

[Lloyd Perna]

Removing voting locations that are underutilized should not be controversial.

What about removing some of the most heavily utilized voting locations in the state, as has happened in Wisconsin?

Google isn't giving me any results about Wisconsin removing voting locations at all,  what exactly happened there?

[Lloyd Perna]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

So there shouldn't be a problem requiring a State Issued ID to vote then, right?

[rightleft22]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

So there shouldn't be a problem requiring a State Issued ID to vote then, right?

I'd have no problem with that as long as access to getting such Id is easily available to everyone

[yossarian22c]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

So there shouldn't be a problem requiring a State Issued ID to vote then, right?

Is there any problem with a fully gun registry then? Register to vote. Register your gun?

[TheDrake]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

I live in Mass.  Until last year, My town police chief could refuse to issue me a license without limitations for any reason.  If you live in Boston proper it was almost impossible to get a concealed license.

Perfect. As a result, and controls in nearby states, the northeast has the lowest rates of gun violence. 3.7 vs 12.4 in Texas and a whopping 22.9 in Alabama. Yeehaw!

[yossarian22c]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

So there shouldn't be a problem requiring a State Issued ID to vote then, right?

Is there any problem with a fully gun registry then? Register to vote. Register your gun?

And since we're really worried about fraudulent voting and illegal gun use. Let's have ballistics on file with the FBI for every pistol and rifle sold.

[Wayward Son]

Why would we want to make a constitutional right difficult?

Because this particular constitutional right allowed one person to murder 58 people and injure 867 in the course of a few minutes.  

Did you forget that, or do you just don't care how many people have to die for your convenience?? 

[msquared]

So for mail in voting, I guess all militlary serving over seas no longer get to vote. All people who are not able to get out due to disabilities are no longer able to vote and college students away at school no longer get to vote?

How about the laws that some of the RINO MAGA Trumpist want where paper ballots only (even in states where there are already paper ballots) and all ballots must be counted the day of the election?

[TheDrake]

Since we're not concerned about the inconvenience of in person voting, it seems clear that all voting can just get done in the county seat. That will usually be the inner city, the people in the suburbs should have no problem standing in a 5 hour line with all the poor people and paying for parking if voting is really important to them. Of course, none of them can be armed as voting centers are gun free zones. And since we've established that it is the responsibility of the location to ensure that no guns enter, the voter in question will be subjected to search.

[Lloyd Perna]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

So there shouldn't be a problem requiring a State Issued ID to vote then, right?

I'd have no problem with that as long as access to getting such Id is easily available to everyone

Thats great, because getting access to a State Issued Id IS easily available to everyone. 

[Tom]

You said that with a straight face, but I know you're too smart to actually mean it.

[Lloyd Perna]

Responsible gun ownership shouldn't be onerous. Just about the same as getting a driver's license. Massachusetts is a good model. A one day safety course is required. Those laws are constitutional, they've been treated repeatedly.

So there shouldn't be a problem requiring a State Issued ID to vote then, right?

Is there any problem with a fully gun registry then? Register to vote. Register your gun?

I personally am not opposed to a gun registry.  I do, however understand the distrust a lot of 2nd Amendment proponents have around that issue.  It's very clear that the Left wants it so they can come seize weapon they declare illegal.