As more details slowly leak out about the Tucson shooting, it’s becoming ever more clear that those who advocate more armed citizens as a countermeasure to that kind of violence have a childish, comic-book fantasy about what happens in surprise shootings. A review of the video shows that the shooter engaged everyone at a distance of about three feet with a semi-automatic weapon. He also wore earplugs to better concentrate on his task. The notion that some semi-trained weekend range shooter could whip out his pistol and do anything effective amidst this kind of close quarters shooting is worth a laugh, not endless hours of serious media coverage.
If you need more evidence just how difficult it is to stop a determined shooter who has the element of surprise, the testimony of one of two cops shot in the hallway of an apartment building serves as a good example. Both were, obviously, trained and carrying firearms, both were shot at close range, and neither was able to respond effectively — the shooter escaped untouched.
The only effective action that was taken in the Tucson shootings was one person serving as a shield for another. There were three cases of husbands doing this for their wives, and today we learned that Judge Roll apparently laid on top of Ron Barber after Barber was shot, and Roll was shot in the back while shielding Barber. That’s the only kind of real hero that anyone is going to be in this kind of situation, and the chances are awfully high that you’ll be a dead one.
SiubhanDuinne
I think “childish, comic book fantasy” pretty well sums up their entire world view.
JRon
I had a vivid dream where I was saving people from a shooter. It was awesome.
I was 9.
stuckinred
O Donnell got all up in Trent Franks ass last night as this moron obviously tried to link abortion with the shootings.
Maude
Someone sitting in a chair, at a distance, always thinks that a situation is simple and easy. They think, hey, I could do that and win the day.
Too much fantasy land type thinking going on. Thinking was the only word I could come up with at this time of day.
sammie
I tried a jury case before Judge Roll 16 years ago. He was a good judge and a really decent human being. It does not surprise me in the least to hear of his actions to shield Mr. Barber. RIP, Judge Roll.
Chris
“Do you know what the definition of a hero is? It’s someone who gets other people killed. You can look it up later.”
– Zoe Washburne
ericblair
I always thought this concept got amazingly little attention, mainly because it kinda blows away the whole reason for packing heat at the Piggly Wiggly. You’ve got your pistol in your purse or under your jacket, thinking about whether you have to take your car in for an oil change and how you probably need to pick up dinner tonight, and all of a sudden something that may be a gunshot rings out from some direction at some unknown target.
And you do what exactly? If you’re the target you’re probably dead or wounded already. If you’re not the target you probably have no idea what is happening, who is a criminal, who’s another armed bystander, who’s an undercover cop running an operation, and who is the innocent kid in a hoodie who’s just as confused as yourself. The only hope is that you’ll spend so much time standing there stunned and then fishing your weapon out of your pants it will all be over before you shoot Bob the assistant manager in the thigh.
4tehlulz
Why are you trying to distract us from the real victim, Sarah Palin, with tales of so-called heroes that were “shot”?
This blood libel is worse than the Holocaust of 2008.
WereBear
It was incredible how some people; no time to think, mind you, first thought of protecting others.
But sad, too.
Alwhite
But it would be so easy if everyone was packing heat. imagine 12-20 people all shooting at the armed man (or at least shooting at someone they see with a gun). I’m sure at least one of them would have hit the original shooter.
John M
I agree with this. This highlights the main reason I don’t own a gun. Even well-trained police officers and members of the military don’t often react well when they first are placed in the position of having to use their guns. The idea that I am going to be able to react appropriately in the middle of the night when an intruder breaks into my house, or in a split second at the grocery store, strikes me as absurd.
guster
“There were three cases of husbands doing this for their wives.”
Maybe it’s sexist, but that’s the only kind of hero I’d ever aspire to be.
electricgrendel
And keep in mind that the bystander with a concealed gun, Joe Zamudio, was largely trumpeted by conservatives but actually almost shot another innocent bystander.
Remember- guns don’t kill people. That’s why we’re all in horror of the mass stabbing in Tucson.
Comrade Misfit
Ambushers always have an advantage. That’s pretty much self-evident.
Having a gun gives one a chance. That does not mean that one will always prevail.
Nick
Did anyone watch NCIS: Los Angeles last night? Linda Hunt’s character had a great line, something to the effect of “In the old days, heroes were heralded. Stories were told. Songs were sung. Statues were build. Now its hard to honor their sacrifices when much of the country is preoccupied with dancing celebrities”
JCT
This “life is a video game” stuff is endlessly ridiculous. I’m currently on a business trip in Tucson and I must say I find it a bit unsettling to see guys in the local drugstore with guns on their hip.
@ericblair — I completely agree. People just don’t realize what an immediate reaction time really means when you are going about your daily business.
If you can, try to find a pic of the memorial at the Medical Center — it’s profoundly moving.
YellowDog
A friend of mine, a retired police lieutenant, laughs at the notion that armed citizens are a deterrent. He likes to tell the story about another lieutenant who answered a call and arrived just as the shooting began. The lieutenant chased one of suspects, who turned and started firing. At close range, the lieutenant emptied his clip and missed. Fortunately, the suspect wasn’t any better. The lesson, as my friend likes to say, is that paper targets don’t shoot back and even an experienced officer can be rattled under fire. Armed citizens are likely to shoot the wrong people, or be shot by police who can’t stop to check for concealed gun permits.
Wag
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
With guns.
That have extended magazines that allow you to keep killing more and mrs and more and more and more and more people until someone gets to be a hero and wrestle the gun from your hands.
ET
We all know that the weekend warriors have this fantasy going on about how they can rush in and save the day but until an incident happens and the “hero” fail spectacularly then we can’t point to an example of what will happen. They will continue with this fantasy.
mistermix
@Comrade Misfit: I agree with your statement, but the chance having a gun gives you is very, very small, and is probably not justified by the risk of accidentally shooting an innocent bystander.
Bill ORLY
A salient point… Most cops are NOT “well-trained” when it comes to shooting. Many cops shoot fewer than 500 rounds/year (enough to qualify) and that’s it. I’ve seen enough police officers at the range to understand that a badge does not automatically confer situational awareness, nor infallible aim.
I’m not arguing that the goober with the Glock jammed in his waistband is any better, but granting this aura on someone because he wears a badge is misguided at best.
Gin & Tonic
I don’t get why this isn’t getting more play. The shooting happened in Arizona, possibly the most heavily armed state in the union, certainly in the top 5, with “open carry.” If a citizenry packing heat is the answer to random gun violence, why was it not the answer this time? How much *more* armed do we need to be than Tucson is?
niknik
“Yes but, yes but, yes but, if we have tighter gun laws, it won’t matter since only law-abiding citizens abide by laws and only criminals will have guns then, so we might as well not have any gun laws whatsoever, ’cause then we’d be safer that way.”
Or something. And since only thieves steal, maybe we should see about doing away with laws that protect personal property altogether…
someguy
I agree. Laying down and getting shot to death is the only way to go.
Well, except for the three senior citizens who tackled the guy and stopped him.
ericblair
@Gin & Tonic:
It doesn’t get more play because it’s ideologically inconvenient. The Fort Hood shooter killed 13 people and wounded 30 over 10 minutes in the largest Army base in the Western world. That particular train of thought didn’t get any traction then either.
Bill ORLY
@Gin & Tonic: Because (and this is a key point) the incident was over in something like 19 seconds. No sane persons argue that armed citizens can stop/prevent ALL violent encounters.
The flip side of this argument is that having armed people present at an event like this would always result in an OK Corral-style shootout. I haven’t heard of this happening, despite belief that everyone carrying a pistol is going to just start blasting away at the first sign of danger.
@ericblair: An inconvenient fact in your argument is that despite being a military base, personnel are forbidden from carrying loaded weapons unless at a range under the supervision of a range office (with limited exceptions, like MPs and sentries). Just because Army = Guns in many minds doesn’t make it so.
Hypnos
Probably already mentioned somewhere else, but:
From 1986 to 1996 Australia had 13 mass shootings.
In 1996 guns were heavily regulated.
From 1996 to 2006 Australia had 0 mass shootings.
Crime continued declining undeterred.
Bobby Thomson
Not to mention, as Lord Saletan informs us, the one would-be Roy Rogers who ran to the scene packing heat nearly shot the wrong guy.
Calouste
And of course there is the Maurice Clemmons case. Guy goes into a coffee shop with four armed police officers in bullet proof vests sitting there. That didn’t deter him. He then shot two of them before they could even reach for their weapons, and shot the other two as they reacted. All four officers died. One of the police officers managed to shoot Clemmons, although not fatally.
chopper
wait, you mean the movies and video games are a pack of lies? that we all don’t have, deep inside, secret special-forces ninja powers just waiting to be tested?
you can all go to hell.
Ripley
You people are so easily fooled. Like sheep… or pandas!
Look, I had a weapon on me the day of the AZ shooting. When the time came for action, I protected I don’t know how many people from that madman. I didn’t shoot any innocent bystanders or create a situation of confusion; I stood there with a steely glint in my eye and did what had to be done, and probably saved untold lives. The only reason I didn’t take the shooter down is I was 1,400 miles away, in the heart of the Midwest.
OPEN CARRY WORKS!
daveNYC
This.
I’m not entirely sure just how much more armed one could get than Arizona. It’s not even like the shooting occured in one of the few areas in the state where there are meaningful gun restrictions (I believe they limit the ability to pack heat in certain buildings). Are they going to argue that this could have been prevented if people could have carried Uzis and hand grenades? (Totally ignoring the fact that the shooter would have had access to the same stuff.)
gwangung
@Bill ORLY:
My view is being armed is helpful when you can stop and think on what’s going on. In your home and you know the other person is a bad guy? Yeah, perfect time. In a chaotic, unexpected situation? Um, no….
ericblair
@Bill ORLY:
Yes, thank you, I’ve spent enough years working on Army bases and more than enough time TDY in lovely cosmopolitan Killeen, TX to know that. The point is we never got to that level of niceties in the argument: the argument never happened.
This also may bring up the question about why the Department of the Army isn’t really keen on having even trained and organized personnel being armed on post without specific duties requiring it. Hell, try bringing great-granddaddy’s ceremonial saber on post and see how far you get.
Bill ORLY
@gwangung: Valid point. You (or others) make the assumption that people carry in order to leap into the fray and be a hero. In the Tucson case, the guy coming out of Safeway DID stop, assess the situation, and determine that he could not suss out what was really going on. Does this not provide evidence that the system worked?
Bobby Thomson
If by “stop, assess the situation, and determine that he could not suss out what was really going on,” you mean, “slam into the wall the guy who had just disarmed the shooter, deciding at the last moment not to pull his own gun out of his pocket,” and by “the system” you mean “stochastic noise,” then yeah.
Roger Moore
@Comrade Misfit:
It gives you several chances, and the most likely of those chances is that you’ll make a bad situation worse.
quaint irene
I’m always amazed at this kind of ‘Lone Ranger’ fantasy these nimrods have. It pops up after every kind of tragic shooting. Same nonsense was blown around after the Colin Ferguson, Long Island railroad shooting. That during that horrific pandemonium someone could have stood up and shot the gun out of his hand.
Bill ORLY
@ericblair: Absolutely agreed, but it is specious to say “Well, the Army has tons of guns and nobody stopped that crazy guy what shot up the base…”
Both sides of this argument are capable of introducing red herring points, and trying to make a real-world scenario into a black-and-white, absolutist thought exercise. I don’t see how this helps the debate any.
MBunge
I really think gun control folks need to find a better starting point for their argument than “Just let yourself get shot! It’s better for everybody!” I know the next step in the discussion is getting rid of guns entirely, but you’re never going to get to that next step if you begin by telling people they’re better off as lambs waiting for slaughter.
Mike
artem1s
@Gin & Tonic:
How much more armed do we need to be than Tucson is?
please don’t ask that question. they will take you seriously and show you just how much more they CAN arm themselves.
valdemar
Arguing with Americans about guns is like arguing with us Brits about the monarchy. ‘Yes, we know it’s bad for society in lots of ways, but nobody’s going to change it in my lifetime.’
Mind you, since Prince Philip hasn’t actually shot a peasant since 1967, I think we have the more civilized form of collective idiocy.
MBunge
@Roger Moore:It gives you several chances, and the most likely of those chances is that you’ll make a bad situation worse.
And how many times has that ever happened? How many times has a shooting rampage like Tucson been made worse by a bystander with a gun trying to fight back?
Mike
artem1s
@Ripley:
I didn’t even NEED to carry. I just used my Sparkly Eyes Technique!
youtube.com/watch?v=erkpm6QggrU
Erik Vanderhoff
Now, I’m a gun-owner, and I advocate for shall-issue concealed carry. That said, when I do so, I also advocate for mandatory in-depth firearms training (and I DO NOT mean the NRA handgun safety course, which is a great primer and absolutely does not qualify you to do more than hold the damn thing). While my state is not shall-issue, and my county won’t issue to anyone who is not a judge or DA, I’ve spent a lot of money on training (cops are, contrary to popular opinion, not all that well-trained) and part of my professional work is in crisis response.
Even then, I totally agree with what mistermix says above. The best defense in a situation like this is to be farther away from the shooter and have the presence of mind to get the fuck down.
ericblair
@Bill ORLY:
True, but that’s not my point. These arguments don’t even start in the media, much less get to the level of arguing specific situations and tradeoffs. It is not an Acceptable Topic for Discussion, period. Why?
Boxer
What is with the blatantly false statement in this post? The only useful thing that happened was NOT people sacrificing themselvse to save others.
The most useful thing anyone did was tackle the shooter and disarm him.
I feel like mistermix is trolling us by giving such a completely false closer.
bob h
President Hu absorbed some diplomatic chiding from Obama about civil rights today. I just wish he had responded by saying that democracies that allow themselves to be subverted by vitriol, hatred, and violence do not represent a model for the rest of the world, and really don’t have the standing to criticize others.
Aaron Worthing
> The notion that some semi-trained weekend range shooter could whip out his pistol and do anything effective amidst this kind of close quarters shooting is worth a laugh, not endless hours of serious media coverage.
Now, why did you go and kill that innocent straw man?
most people take it as a given that he would have gotten the first shot off. and probably the second, or the third. but he got off something like 30 shots, and that gives a third person with a gun time to intervene. duh.
Kryptik
@stuckinred:
Wow, Trent Franks. What an asshole. Sarah Palin, the model of human decency? God, no wonder Republicans are screwed up, if she’s their model of human decency.
Geeno
@MBunge: In a fast-food robbery in 2009, the robber had gotten the money and was turning to leave when a customer decided to pull his weapon. Then, and only then, did shooting start.
gwangung
@Bill ORLY: I think my comment is best aimed at those who DO hold the fantasy of being a hero, which is where this thread started. And because the situation in Tucson was chaotic, the correct decision was, indeed, not to use a gun.
Mike in NC
Back when the wingnut hero Ollie North made a run for the US Senate from Virginia, he staged a TV and newspaper photo-op in DC to “prove” how strict gun control didn’t do anything to reduce crime. He even had some loon with him who wanted a law passed requiring people to carry firearms.
Needless to say, nobody brought up how guns were rampant in Washington neighborhoods because they we so easy to come by just over the borders in MD and VA.
Arclite
@guster:
Not only husbands and wives, but mothers and daughters, too.
AnotherBruce
@Erik Vanderhoff: But how much do you advocate for the right of every fucking lunatic out there to have unrestricted access to firearms capable of firing 30+ rounds in a matter of seconds?
I’m not picking on you, but I think the real question is why do we allow anybody who is capable of breathing whatever firearms they want? More guns are making this nation a more dangerous place, that’s indisputable.
Tonal Crow
@SiubhanDuinne:
It does. Imagine if there had been, say, two more armed people in the crowd, both, say, 15 feet from Loughner. AP1 draws and shoots, misses Loughner but nearly nails one of Giffords’s staffers. AP2 thinks AP1 is Loughner’s confederate, shoots at him, but hits a nearby toddler. AP1 returns fire, winging AP2 and killing another bystander. And so on. And much worse if there are more than two armed people.
I’d like to know what kind of hallucinogen turns a person into a Republican.
John - A Motley Moose
After all of the talk about Ayn Rand, I’m surprised someone didn’t point out that acts like Judge Roll’s are purely altruistic and totally anathema to Rand’s philosophy.
DougW
@Comrade Misfit: Statistically having a gun almost never give you an edge over the assaulter. Also, owning a gun makes you statistically far more likely to be responsible for the death of a family member or your self. The NRA begs to differ, but then they are from a very alternate reality than the rest of us.
Arclite
@DougW: You know I thought that too, but when I went to do the research I couldn’t find the studies. Do you have links?
Boxer
@Tonal Crow:
Please give one example of such a thing happening. Ever.
Seriously, I don’t think guns are the answer to everything like so many claim, but making up “what-if?” worst case scenarios with zero basis in historical fact makes you sound very ignorant.
salvador dalai llama
Okay, Boxer. Let me give you a different example.
I was in church in 2008, watching my daughter in a play. A man comes in with a shotgun and starts shooting people. (This was the TVUUC shooting–look it up on wikipedia.) He got off three shots and had to reload–thankfully, he wasn’t really shotgun-savvy or he would’ve had a couple more shells in the magazine. Greg McKendry, our usher, stood up and took one shot. That’s what saved my life, and my wife’s, and son’s, and mother’s, probably. Others weren’t so lucky.
The shooter was then set upon, first by a retired history professor, then a local shopowner and a veteran of the Iraq war. Guess what? None of them had guns. The shooter wouldn’t have been taken down any faster if we had been the most pistol-packing Unitarians on the planet.
I agree that having a bunch of people with guns won’t inevitably turn into a scene from a Quentin Tarantino movie. But, as people have observed, in a stressful situation, accuracy is not always good; in a tense, crowded, and chaotic situation, more lead flying around is not the optimum answer.
Boxer
@salvador dalai llama:
That would seem to back up my argument?
I definitely think that the argument that we need ever more armed people walking around is foolish, particularly because the more people you end up arming, the higher the chances are that those who are armed don’t really care at all about firearms training or accuracy. See: Police.
But this habit of imagining some sort of armed 3 stooges sketch when it has never happened outside of war is just as stupid as the guy at the water cooler saying that if only he’d been at a shooting location with his gun, nothing bad would’ve happened, because he would have dropped the bad guy in .2 seconds.