Carlson: Security Measures, Not Gun Bans, Will Prevent Mass Shootings

(Alexandra Wimley/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via AP)

“Not every school, strip mall or place of worship can afford armed security, but they should still have a security plan in place that will include, if a nightmare bursts through their doors, a lethal response from a trained employee or employees.

“As for deterring mass killers from entering your premises? Post signage that people in the building are prepared and trained to keep the employees, worshippers or students inside safe. If someone wants to inflict mass casualties, what location are they more likely to target — a school or church that’s a ‘gun free zone’ or one advertising its armed security? Remember, mass shooters may be crazy, but most of them aren’t stupid.” – John Carlson, Crosscut, How We Can Prevent Mass Shootings Without Banning Guns

comments

  1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    Ya think? Please, that strategy would _never_ work. We just need more “unarmed victim” signs. 😡

  2. avatar Rick Taylor says:

    Post signage???

    1. avatar Sian says:

      There hasn’t been a single mass shooting at a location that has posted signage declaring that employees are armed and ready to defend themselves and their customers.

      1. avatar DJ says:

        There have been many mass shooters that specifically targeted law enforcement. They want to die; the possibility of return fire is not a deterrent, they welcome it.

        1. avatar Frank says:

          There have been many mass shooters that specifically targeted law enforcement.

          WRONG. it almost never happens
          Everytown says there are about 300 mass shootings a year and it looks like one or two where that is the case, so that is not “many” it is a trivial number.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The term “mass shooting” is problematic for gun owners. The “official” definition is subject to noticeable variance, but the common perception is pretty well universal – 10, 20, 30+ killed or injured. “Mass shootings” only bring up images of wide swaths of dead and injured. Most people would not really consider three people shot as a “mass shooting”, nor are they likely to overreact. Even at the range, I hear discussion of “mass shooting”, and ask the meaning of the term. Not once has anyone defined the term as less than ten people involved.

          Recommend that whenever POTG use “mass shooting”, we annotate the term with *, and supply the FBI definition (“four or more slain in a single event, single location”).

        3. avatar UpInArms says:

          This past August, NPR – that’s National Public Radio, a true bastion of the conservative viewpoint – reviewed the circumstances of what were claimed to be 230-some “mass shootings”. They called the relevant parties and authorities concerned and checked the facts. They found only 11 actually qualified as mass shootings.

          Not a good number by any means, but certainly illustrative of the distortions coming from the anti-gun lobby – as if we didn’t already have enough examples.

    2. avatar That Deaf SOB says:

      I fear that some insane shooters would consider that place a challenge. A real-life video game they can play against and maybe beat.

      No, I do not think posting such signs is a good idea. Let the response be a surprise, rather than a planned for event.

  3. avatar DaveL says:

    As I’ve said before, if you want someone to stop shooting at you, you shoot back. Millions of infantrymen over hundreds of years can’t all be wrong.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Yes. The recent spree killer chose the bar, a place he know well, because he was pretty confident that he wouldn’t encounter armed resistance. But, what if there had been a couple of armed patrons in the bar?

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        This is what puzzles me. The news report said four off-duty police officers were in the bar. But no one was armed. Don’t they usually carry off-duty?

        1. avatar Gary says:

          The “progressive” gun laws here in the state of California, with it’s newly elected “Führer” Gavin Newsom, does not allow carrying a weapon in a facility where alcohol is primarily served. Even law enforcement.

          Another note, the bouncer at the club, had a Concealed Weapons Permit (CCW), but the club would not allow him to carry it. He was the first shot, as he confronted the shooter. WHO, knew, NO ONE was allowed to carry at the bar.

          Let’s have some more “gun free zones” spelled out. Ninety eight plus (98+%) of mass shootings occur in a Gun Free Zone.

        2. avatar Scott T says:

          Absolutely not if they’re drinking alcohol.

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          You certainly may in Iowa, until you hit .08% BAC. Other states should acknowledge that the ballistics of that SUV you’ll drive home from the club in far surpass that of even an AR 15 (or Glock, in this case) with 5 30 round mags.

  4. avatar johnny go lightly says:

    What a week….breaking news that Justice Ginsberg fell in court this morning. Broke 3 ribs and is hospitalized. Can you imagine if Trump gets 3rd SCOTUS Justice pick ?

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      HA! Maybe we should try to imply the 25th Amendment also affects sitting members of the Judicial System. Actually, that should’ve been done 150 years ago…

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        150 years? Is that how long Ginsberg has been on the Supreme Court?😀

        1. avatar Drop Safe says:

          No, she’s been there longer. I think she wrote the concurring opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘Tests showed the justice fractured three ribs on her left side. The justice broke two ribs in a fall in 2012. She has had two prior bouts with cancer and had a stent implanted to open a blocked artery in 2014.’ – Fox News

      Kind of hard NOT imagining Trump getting a 3rd pick. If he gets reelected he’ll get 2 or 3 more.

  5. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Concealed carriers are part of the “security” measures and we must keep pressing that concept.

    The biggest problem I see is all the Gomers out here who have permits to carry but never do, nor do they do any practice or training for when the red flag raises. As much as we preach this, it seems a carry permit still is primarily some sort of badge of honor to the person who has one. If not, I’d think we’d see far more citzen intervention during these events. Gun owners seem to be as clueless as the rest of the Sheeple if they haven’t figured this out by now.

    Do I ever want to find myself in a scenario such as this? No. Do I ever want to take another human life? No. How will I react if confronted by something like this? I don’t know, but I do know that I’ll be armed anywhere I feel I can “get away with it”. In that sense, we all should consider ourselves to be “first responders” and see it as a responsibility to the honor of our right to carry, even if a permit in and of itself is not really a “right”. How tragic to have been able to make a positive difference but unable because one is unarmed through their own self-imposition.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      I agree. I have a few CCW buddies who get “lazy”. I tell them not carrying, when you can, is like not wearing you seat belt or taking the fire extingisher out of the truck or house. I’m sure, like most folks, if I am carrying, my level of SA goes way up.

    2. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @Craig

      I’ve been told by LEO down here that they would actually prefer civilian response to be the first thing, for one reason: They can’t get there fast enough. The incident will be over by the time their cars pull up. Citizens ARE the best and fastest responders.

      That said, the responsibility of becoming a good citizen carrier is entirely on us, financially, practice wise and otherwise – our own training fees, range time, ammo, insurance. It’s not cheap to become a citizen carrier at the level of training and experience you would need to become a good candidate to respond in an active shooter situation. And you HAVE to be properly trained so that when the cops show up they don’t mistake you for the bad guy. From my own experience coming into shooting just a few years ago and doing that process, you need 2 to 5 years of good steady training, lots of practice, force on force courses, and mentorship and instruction.

      I think the costs and time dedication of what you really need to be able to do and know in order to respond keep most people from pursuing it.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Elaine D.
        You forget to include voting for people who support civil rights. And recruiting people you can vote for.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Elaine D.,

        I am going to call shenanigans on your suggestion that everyone needs between two and five years of training.

        I have had all of two formal training classes — both involved about two hours and 200 rounds shooting handguns for self-defense at static targets. Thus, my total formal training time is four hours and my total rounds fired in formal training are about 400. According to your thinking, I should not be very good at defending myself or those around me if someone attacks me/us. Well, I set up a “shoot, don’t shoot” course with human analog targets and engaged them from a starting distance of about 25 feet. I had to engage the designated “bad guy/s” and not hit “bystanders” while moving and shooting. I shot about 120 rounds and my worst hit rate was 13 out of 15 shots on target. I only shot a bystander two times and both hits were grazing shots. As far as I can tell, that means I would be an incredible asset if a spree killer shows up in my location.

        Perhaps I am a fluke. Or not. Maybe a lot of people don’t need a gazillion hours of training to be remarkably competent when an attack occurs. Either way, I would much rather have minimally trained concealed carriers onsite than no armed defenders during an attack. How could minimally trained concealed carriers possibly make the outcome worse than waiting several minutes for police to arrive?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not productive to argue “training”. The vast majority of self-defense use of a gun are attributed to people why are not “gun guys”. The are mostly people who bought a gun, loaded it and put it in a drawer for “emergencies”. All that “scoot and shoot”, tacticool and other formal training wasn’t needed to solve the problem.

          There is a group of people who think years of formal training should be required before someone is allowed to have a gun outside the training facility. We know who they are.

          As to the utility of training, if certain people had their way, and every gun owner was required to have “training”, the result wouldn’t be a reduction in those scary mass shootings, but an increase in death and injury visited by a well-trained psychopath.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          I agree Sam I Am. Hence the last sentence of my comment above

        3. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @uncommon sense

          Your statement about “only” hitting two bystanders, in what I assume was not a true force on force type encounter, is why I think people need training. The whole point of training is that you perform well enough under stress to not hit an innocent person.

          YMMV.

        4. avatar Drop Safe says:

          I totally agree with Sam I Am, the majority of legal successful firearms (outside professional, LE, licensed security, military) defensive uses were done not by people with extensive firearms training, not even minimal training nor by people who regularly visited the range. The majority rarely visit the range and barely have more than the minimal required to carry the firearm, if they even have a carry permit. I am not against training but most successful and legal defensive uses outside professionals barely had any if at all.

        5. avatar Frank says:

          Your statement about “only” hitting two bystanders, in what I assume was not a true force on force type encounter, is why I think people need training. The whole point of training is that you perform well enough under stress to not hit an innocent person.

          Um police shooting data show the opposite, the more force on force training a cop has, for example combat service or military police training, the more likely they are to be in a bad shooting. About 1% of NYPD officers have had specific force-on-force training program at Quantico, and three of the last four of bad shootings in NY hitting two or more bystanders where by officers who went though that program! he 1% most trained cops responsible for 75% of the really bad bad shootings.

      3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “There is a group of people who think years of formal training should be required . . .” And not surprisingly I strongly suspect a large number of these folks just happen to be in the business of firearms training.

      4. avatar Frank says:

        And you HAVE to be properly trained so that when the cops show up they don’t mistake you for the bad guy. From my own experience coming into shooting just a few years ago and doing that process, you need 2 to 5 years of good steady training, lots of practice, force on force courses, and mentorship and instruction.

        I hate to keep responding with actual DATA, but the daa all show you are wrong. there are two to three million crimes prevented by gun owners each year, the vast majority of whom have no formal training..

        As far as years of training, the data also show the more trained a cop is the more likely they are to be involved in BAD shootings. the highest level of bad shootings? Police who have come from MP training! The most trained NYPD cops, in fact a pair of NYPD cops that had just completed a two month session at Quantico shot ELEVEN bystanders when two cops confronted a single armed individual on a NYC street.

        As far as carry insurance, for most people n most states it is a mistake and you are much better off spending the money to shield your assets and have umbrella policies that will also cover you from much more likely suits such as a person who had a beer at your home slipping on the steps or killing someone with their car. Insurance neither reduces your risk nor does it result in less bad shootings

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Frank

          We are not talking about (or at least I am not talking about) being LEO or military. Keep in mind that most LEO ARE former military. I’m talking about being a civilian without previous military or LE experience who finds themselves in an active shooter situation.

          Problem #1: You hit an innocent person? Guess what. You just made yourself potentially Active Shooter #2. In a chaotic situation, neither the people in the scene nor LE has any way to know that you are not another assailant. You are likely to be dealt with as Active Shooter #2 if you hit someone who is not the bad guy, because you are not dressed in any kind of identifying markers. I don’t know about you but I’m thinking being classed as Active Shooter #2 is unlikely to work out well.

          Problem #2: You do not, as a civilian, have the same legal protections as LE and military. At the least, you should be carrying insurance that you have to pay for yourself. But who knows how far that coverage would actually help you if you hit an innocent in the situation.

          Problem #3: You can complicate an already messy situation that can make it harder for LE.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In a chaotic situation, neither the people in the scene nor LE has any way to know that you are not another assailant.”

          This has absolutely no relationship to whether you hit a bystander or not. Presenting a firearm amidst an active shooting event presents the same risk for the defender, whether a shot is fired or not.

          All in all, you make a great case for not becoming involved in a shooting event where you are not directly threatened (which actually negates the need for “training”). Protect your own; protect yourself (which is actually one and the same). Always have an escape path, shoot only if there is no alternative.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “As far as carry insurance, for most people n most states it is a mistake and you are much better off spending the money to shield your assets and have umbrella policies that will also cover you from much more likely suits such as a person who had a beer at your home slipping on the steps or killing someone with their car. Insurance neither reduces your risk nor does it result in less bad shootings.”

          Am presuming your last sentence refers to self-defense insurance. Personal liability insurance is a good thing to have, but it is payable only after you spent the money to prove you are not at fault (reimbursement, not support). “Carry” insurance may or may not provide immediate financial assistance with attorney and trial fees. If you find “carry” insurance that provided benefits immediately (regardless of the outcome of a shooting incident), it probably is not prudent to rely solely on reimbursement insurance (of any kind).

          “Carry” insurance is not designed to eliminate risk, but to assist in defending yourself. Not all personal liability insurance will cover you at all if you cannot prove your innocence. If considering insurance related to gun ownership/use, it may be more prudent to have both.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The biggest problem I see is all the Gomers out here who have permits to carry but never do, nor do they do any practice or training for when the red flag raises.”

      Reality check – 15 million alleged CCW holders in the country. Where are they at any given moment? How many are home at any given time, unable to be out and about where an armed attack is happening? How many are clustered in general areas, while an armed attack is happening somewhere else?

      Even if all 15 million holders were on the street, all day, everyday, carrying a firearm, there are 15 million to the whatever power places that an attack can happen. Even 15 million armed sheep dogs cannot be everywhere at once.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        True. But you can be assured that they are not clustered around a bar in a college town in southern California where CCWs are rarer than hen’s teeth.

        1. avatar LazrBeam says:

          From one account that I read nobody (patrons or staff) was armed in the bar YET there were six off duty LEO’s from two different agencies in that bar. I don’t know of any off duty cops where I live who aren’t packing. If the account about the LEO’s is accurate they coulda put a stop to the carnage mucho fasto. Hell, most everybody I know is legally CCW (and not a bunch of gang bangers). Our PD encourages a us to be prepared to be our own first responders. It’s the old “when seconds count the police are only minutes away”.

      2. avatar Craig in IA says:

        RE: Sam’s 15 million CCW holders figure and demographics-
        I’m not inferring there will always be one present, but with 40+ states having shall-issue carry now for 7 years or so, I’d think it would become more commonplace for an armed “civilian” to figure into the solution now, once in a while. If you think even 5% of American permit holders are carrying most of the time you’re delusional. On the other hand, it would be correct to assume that 100% of the gangbangers and crazies going armed with intent to commit general mayhem are armed, all of the time.

        I’m not looking for a “body count” of dead felons/would-be glory seekers, just noting that statistically, concealed carry should also have a bearing on these senseless mass shootings as it has on some areas of personal assault. And of course I know the MSM isn’t going to go far in reporting positively on it. BFD. I still contend that if a permitted person isn’t going to carry on a regular basis, having the permit is senseless. If stats would bear out my premise- that most permit holders do not carry, it would be easy for the gun-banner crowd to argue successfully that we really don’t need shall-issue any longer.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Noting that even if all the CCW holders were armed whenever not asleep, there would not be enough to make much of a mark against attackers. Thus, lamenting that few CCW holders actually carry very much is sorta not illuminating. If all CCW holders carrying all the time don’t make much of a shield, not much value in being disappointed at so few actually carrying. If 15 million holders aren’t “getting the job done”, maybe 50 million would (maybe that number would actually act as a deterrent to people thinking an armed attack on someone else is cheap entertainment).

        2. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Sam- you can attempt to take this exercise as far as you wish but it might be intelligent to then offer some suggestions as to a solution, which you rarely do. Mine is for those with permits to carry, everywhere they are able or can get away with it and not look at the permit as some badge to show their buddies while watching the players take a knee every Sunday afternoon.

          Of course there can’t be an armed citizen everywhere, all the time, and neither I, nor anyone else of any intelligence is even suggesting that. Is that some excuse for permit holders not carrying every day?

          In addition to the cops (that also can’t be present, everywhere and at all times), only 5% of all permit holders also being in the same area (or not) would/should still be more good guys/gals/things with guns than LEO alone, or only in the hands of the whacked out shooter. As per nightclubs, bars, etc.: you probably “can’t” carry in your state but I can and I do. Even in the IA State Capital.

          Good people with firearms, acting as the “first responders” is, IMO, the only solution. Even if that only save my life and not yours, its my best effort.

          Your solution? Not your ongoing argument; a suggetion to attempt to resolve the issue at hand, which is ending (or shortening) the effectiveness of someone bent on murdering large numbers of humans.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “problem” isn’t that insufficient numbers of CCW holders don’t carry all the time. The problem is there are too few CCW holders, period.

          My solution? Already presented – 50 million advertised CCW holders (including a large group who will not actually carry 24/7). Two effects: advertising has effect (else why spend zillions promoting products and events); 50 million CCW holders ups the likelihood that an attacker has a high probability of encountering a target who is armed – deterrence.

          My point is/was that there is no value in lamenting that 15 million CCW holders don’t carry 24/7. So, let’s play this out….

          Lament: most CCW holders don’t carry often enough, wah, that’s crappy and sorta somehow irresponsible.

          Promotion: We need to promote CCW in every place guns are sold, guns are used, guns are discussed. We need to do smart things to drastically enlarge the gun-carrying populace. We need to engage every pro-constitution forum, promoting CCW. Same for every outlet that deals with guns. Flood the media with advertisements and data demonstrating CCW increases safety (responding to events is not a winner). On every gun forum, lodge comments about the need for increasing the number of CCW holders.

          Lament, or promote?

          BTW, my commentary is not a complaint, but a caution. There’s a difference.

        4. avatar Craig in IA says:

          I’m hardly lamenting, just stating a fact. I proposed, based on my experience is that the vast majority of permit holders do not carry on a regular basis. (I’ll leave it to you to try to determine proof, but I know that from the inner circle of avid gun owners I am around on a regular basis, I’m often the only one in the room packing. Some are even retired cops.) The law of averages would/could/will eventually catch up if more people were carrying regularly, even if the weapons were never actually displayed. Gary Kleck, among others have presented studies showing that either the mere presence of a gun, or even the notion by others that someone is carrying are deterrents to armed assaults, going all the way back to Florida’s initial shall issue campaign. That most events of the PArkland/Thousand Oaks shootings happen where guns are forbotten tend to prove this.

          Again, more good persons carrying will make a difference. Ongoing “debate” here only burns up bandwidth and lends irself only to theory and hypothesis.

          I’m also not certain how you’ve determined I’m not promoting carrying, I think you merely like the argument for the sake of it.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The 15 million CCW holders is a figure that is appearing in more and more venues related to gun use. The 50 million is a number projection that seems likely to dramatically increase the number of CCW holders actually carrying a firearm routinely. If your assumption that too many CCW holders don’t carry all the time is correct, then multiplying the number who do carry by ~3.35 should result in a significant number of CCW holders carrying.

          Your original comment seems predicated on the idea that if all the CCW holders (however many that is) carried all the time, there would be fewer attacks, or maybe just fewer deaths in a mass shooting* . My response is essentially, even if all the CCW carriers amounted to 15 million, since not all carry all the time, the change in outcomes is so statistically insignificant as to not warrant comment at all. But if you want to pursue the problem of lack of daily carry, then let’s make serious efforts to raise the number of carriers to a much larger number, and take advantage of a possible increase in the number of good guys with guns. Raising the number of carriers 3-fold is more likely to have impact than re-plowing the current field of holders.

          BTW – if carrying on a conversation is a waste of bandwidth, why waste any bandwidth on throwaway comments? Maybe I misapprehend that this blog is about analyzing and discussing all things gun-related. Maybe is it just a place to confirm our slogans, and reinforce our opinions about ourselves. That would be a true waste of bandwidth.

          *four or more shot in a single incident, in a single place

      3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I doubt many of us are bar (or club) flies though. I haven’t been in bar/club in two or three years and don’t have any intention of doing so in the foreseeable future.

      4. avatar Mad Max says:

        Besides the difficulty (sometimes impossiblity) of obtaining a permit to carry in some municipalities, the restrictions on where a permittee can carry limits the deterrent effect provided by armed citizens.

        I believe that, if the bar where the shooting took place last night was located in Texas, it would have had a 51% sign at the entrance.

        I find it odd that Pennsylvania has less restrictions on permittees than Texas.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          When I lived in Texas, the permit system was new. At the time, it was explained that a person had to identify on the ticket, the gun intended for carry. That meant that to carry more than one at a time, or even swap-out carried guns, each gun had to be identified, requiring separate backgrounds. If true (I did not pursue the matter at the time) I can see why many Texans just didn’t want to go through the hassle.

          The history of carried guns in Texas may be a factor. Apparently, the last ever old west gunfight in the street happened near the original White Elephant Saloon, in Fort Worth (the saloon relocated to North Fort Worth in the ’70s) in 1877, a sorta lawman called-out a sorta bad guy. The bad guy won the argument. Handed-down stories (including the tale about the famous picture of the Hole In the Wall Gang – Cassidy, Sundance, etc.) tied the shootout to an end to public carry of guns in Fort Worth. Years later, there was an assumed reluctance to resurrect the foul legacy of guns and Texas.

  6. avatar Shire-man says:

    Signage. lol. In before “please don’t kill me” wristbands are handed out.

  7. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    No sign will stop crazy.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      No- but they will definitely bring them in…

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Well those Beretta signs with the red circle with the line through them certainly don’t.

      You’re probably right when it comes to people who have no intentions of coming out of it alive, but a ‘Premises protected by S&W’ sign would likely discourage anyone who intends to walk out alive.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        “Well those Beretta signs with the red circle with the line through them certainly don’t.” Well, as you know, being from IA, it does not prevent me from entering the business. There’s only a problem if I am somehow seen or known to be armed, and then after that, only if I am asked to leave and I don’t go. We did things pretty well here.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I think on the first day I got my carry permit I had an epiphany the minute I walked through the door of a business armed. Anybody could do this, with or without a permit.

          Iowa has a few sucky gun laws, but short of constitutional carry I think the it’s one of the best states in the country for carry. I think I’d rather pay for the permit than have to question whether this restaurant makes more than 50% of it’s revenue from alcohol or wonder if I missed a sign and could get busted.

        2. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

          Not to burst your bubble, but that is the law here in Commiefornia also. Whether it stays that way over the next couple of years, however…..

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Minor detail, but IA is shall issue and you can not only walk into that bar armed but drink until your BAC is 0.08%.

  8. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    This is kinda a Japanese Kamikaze, Palestinian suicide bomber scenario. You can’t completely stop violent people who are determined to kill themselves and take as many people out with them as possible, not with signs, not with gates and are driven by some duty or fantasy or belief.

    The best you can do is be armed and armored if possible, and respond with violence quickly. But the real issue is ideological. A violent crime where the criminal is trying to get something and get out safely, maybe a home invader, burglar, bank robber, they are taking a risk but not planning on dying, and expecting a reward or gain that makes the action worth it to them. But these people who have given up on life or want to just inflict vengeance on their “enemies”, that is a different scenario.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @Theunspoken

      Yep. A lot of these mass shooters seem to go into the scenario planning not to survive it themselves. Exactly the same as a suicide bomber.

      But, I’ve also been told by LEO that they choose gun free zones on purpose and that really their only advantage is surprise. If people respond and fight back in ANY way, that makes a difference, even if it’s throwing glasses or shoes at their head. They are cowards who expect zero resistance. Sadly this is often exactly what they get.

      1. avatar Bill Sadusk says:

        And for all the talk on gun banning, I never see or hear anyone in government or media talking about the need to figure out why we have all these shootings. Some people like to blame it one thing – racism/capitalism/feminism, etc. It is absurd how many of these we have where people just go in and shoot up some place.
        Banning guns won’t help to eradicate these kinds of crimes; we need to better understand why they are happening. There have always been angry/anti-Semitic/crazy high school kids/ fill in the blank, type of people, but they didn’t go in and commit the acts that they do now.

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Bill

          Well, the root causes of violence are hard to fix. Poverty. Poor mental health. Lack of community and family to act as mediating agents. Social isolation. Substance abuse. Cultural factors such as ongoing exposure to violent video games, TV shows, films for kids.

          I grew up without TV and never watch it. I was at BF’s house the other night and he had the TV on to some basic mainstream channel. In about 25 minutes I counted no less than 15 displays of guns in ads for shows and movies.

          I’m Vietnamese American and visit Saigon to see my relatives. Saigon is a city of about 8 million people. But everywhere you go you feel safe. People don’t harass or taunt or get aggressive with one another, it’s not the culture. Family and community and respectful behavior is highly valued in the culture.

          The roots are deep.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Elaine D.,

          People [in Saigon] don’t harass or taunt or get aggressive with one another, it’s not the culture. Family and community and respectful behavior is highly valued in the culture.

          And there you have it. Healthy family and culture that seriously respects fellow human beings is the most important ingredient — by far and away — to preventing human predators.

          Laws to disarm the populace are EXTREMELY ineffective at reducing the carnage of human predators.

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          “Saigon is a city of about 8 million people. But everywhere you go you feel safe.” I also assume the gendarmes in Saigon don’t coddle the criminals, have an ACLU to protect their rights, provide them a taxpayer-funded lawyer, etc., etc. I’ve had a number of college students from various parts of China over the past 20-some years in my studio. They all smirk at out system of “justice” in the US, and it’s often difficult to get them to smirk at anything.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Visited Taiwan, once. Felt safe even in the alleys (where some of the best food was available). However…..

          I noted that there were three layers of law enforcement on most street corners: city police, state police, military. I’m sure their charter was more than just crime control.

          But I felt safe.

        5. avatar Frank says:

          I also assume the gendarmes in Saigon don’t coddle the criminals, have an ACLU to protect their rights,

          in Vietnam they can hold you a month with no charges and no lawyer. stop and frisks is allowed everywhere and anywhere. No probable cause or reasonable suspicion is requires. None either to search your car. you don’t need a judge to swear out a warrant, a police sergeant will do. You have no right to a jury trail. conviction rate is above 95%.

          The US is constant compared not just to developing coutnries, but developed democracies that have profoundly higher certainty of apprehension and conviction for crime

  9. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    That plan prevents nothing. At best, it just shifts the problem elsewhere. Besides, even in an armed locale, you can’t shoot back until the shooting starts. So there will still be casualties even where carrying is allowed or even encouraged.

    Ohhhh….but the body count will be lower since the shooter will be stopped sooner. Perhaps. Then again, some spree shooters really just have a few targets in mind in the first place. Exes want to take out their ex and possibly the new boyfriend. The disgruntled want ro take out their boss and maybe a hated coworker. Everyone else is just killed usually because they were in the way of entry or exit. Not every spree killer is going for the body count record. So shortening their spree doesn’t make as much sense, as it was self-limiting.

    You should still carry, of course, because it’s a great countermeasure to protect yourself and possibly those immediately around you. That and that it’s your right is enough for me. Predicating public safety policies on a lone good guy with a gun, however, is a stretch. Even where good guys have taken out or disrupted a spree shooter, sometimes the body count is still high. There just are no guarantees.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Even where good guys have taken out or disrupted a spree shooter, sometimes the body count is still high. There just are no guarantees.”

      True, but….

      Would it not be truly satisfying if one day WaPo reported: “Government studies show that 50 million law abiding citizens possess a concealed carry license. Armed attacks against persons and schools fail to exceed 15 for the third year running.”

  10. avatar 2A American says:

    Elaine D
    I bet you don’t have to mix of cultures, and religion in Vietnam like we do here, not a great comparison.
    there are a lot of great places here in the states that I feel completely safe. There are a lot of places you couldn’t pay me to visit.

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @2A

      Actually, you do. Keep in mind that VN was colonized and invaded multiple times, there have been French, Japanese, Chinese, American and Australian/European influences over the years. Vietnamese culture IS a hodgepodge.

      But I think the experience of having their society fall apart and having to completely start over from the ground up made them realize that it was important to work together and let grievances go. That wasn’t even that long ago – in the late 70s and 80s. I’m amazed at the level of forgiveness people have for those who were on the other side or sides during the war. They chose to come together and rebuild after a major collapse that left everyone struggling. As such, the cultural values are much more forgiving and inclusive than what I see here in the US. I hope that we don’t have to come to that point in order to realize we’re valuable to each other.

  11. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    If I was still living in California I might consider carrying a Taurus Judge revolver. Unfortunately that weapon is outlawed in California because of its racist gun control history.

    100 years ago the .410 caliber was the favorite of many criminal gangs in California Mexicans and Chinese. So the state banned them. They also banned Mexicans from having guns in California.

    See Clayton Cramer, “Racist gun control history of California”.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      I already knew California was a racist state. But I don’t know all the details. Stuff they left out of the California history books.

      The Racist Origins of California’s Concealed Weapon Permit Law
      by Clayton E. Cramer
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2599851

    2. avatar SoBe says:

      But gun control laws have always had a racist origin. To be informed one must read up on the law and court decisions, not just the local news. To quote the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT in YOUNG V. STATE OF HAWAII No. 12-17808 D.C. No.1:12-cv-00336-HG-BMK, “The Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), …, Chief Justice Taney—disgracefully—dismissed Dred Scott’s suit for freedom …, Chief Justice Taney wrote, would have ‘entitled [blacks]…’and thus granted them the rights he felt only whites could enjoy, ‘…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.'”

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        The Clayton E Cramer website has become one of my favorite websites. He provides original documents for everyone.

  12. avatar GW says:

    Lot of talking and ideas here, but if deadly shootings with multiple fatalities keep happening this frequently, the first steps taken will be some form of gun control. You can’t require citizens to carry weapons if they are not inclined, nor do you get to blame them for not doing so. Easy access to weapons has been, and always will be THE problem. I’m a gun owner, and I value my 2A rights, but I see gun control coming and I think most of you do too. As with a lot of things in life, it’s always the few who spoil it for the many…

  13. avatar Craig in IA says:

    “The 15 million CCW holders is a figure that is appearing in more and more venues related to gun use.” State from where, please, someone attempting to be so precise should not offer Wikipedia-type stats. (I can tell you how many there are in IA as per the 2017 figures.)

    “Your original comment seems predicated on the idea that if all the CCW holders (however many that is) carried all the time, there would be fewer attacks, or maybe just fewer deaths in a mass shooting*” No, not at all, you’re just interpreting what you want to see, at least for the first clause. (You could’ve started with that comment and perhaps saved pages of text, not that you’d want to.)

    In plain English: I believe there would/could/may be more direct non-LEO intervention in such assaults on random people once an attack has begun if all permit holders would carry all of the time, especially if other states would adopt Iowa’s carry regs. Then, after a period of higher “civilian” intervention, a new perception may develop, especially among those who’d like their 15 minutes of glory, that there is the possibility if not probability of encountering an armed person now in more locations. This has been one of the stated bonuses of concealed carry pointed out long ago by John Lott, among others: Even if no one is packing- a person intending to do harm will likely go elsewhere if he/she/it evens considers a possibility of encountering an armed person of any type. Florida studies have given creedance to this theory a couple of times decades back, once by training and arming young women against assailants in a community where a high incidence of rape was occuring, and again when FL became essentially the first shall-issue state outside of those that already provided for relaxed carry and self-protection outside of the home.

    As I see it, the only option to reduce mass, random attacks is to have more armed people at most locations. An LEO answer is financially out of the question, not only on the streets, but also in schools and the majority of “gun-free zones”.

    Or we can all just surrender the majority of our Constitutional and civil rights, turn in our guns and then wait perhaps 50 years for the street supply to finally dry up, being attacked at will by the element. Put ourselves at the mercy of our government, like perhaps 75% of the rest of the world does. Seems to work out fine for some but it’s a bitch if you’re not there.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      We agree that there could be some deterrent effect, even direct effect of CCW holders carrying 24/7. The differences are two: 1) the current number of holders is too few to have much of an effect beyond, say, one hundred yards distance from the carrier (meaning, a carrier cannot engage if an attack is happening beyond the range of recognition); 2) the number of CCW holders, carrying 24/7, that might be an effective influence (only if publicly advertised so as to inform the populace who contemplates armed attacks) – my guess is 50 million CCW holders carrying 24/7.

      I think it is useless to lament the lack of carriers until the number of CCW holders is increased to the point the populace cannot ignore the numbers and the potential danger to armed attackers. Better to promote, through all our outlets; encourage people to act, not be critical that they do not.

      BTW, pick whatever number you like regarding the tally of current CCW holders, it will be less than 50 million, by a wide margin.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        Again, I’m not lamenting the lack of able people to regularly carry their firearms, that has nothing to do with anything as far as I’m concerned. I’m stating an easily-proven statistic that most people who have the means do not and will not exercise it. The same can be said for the millions (about 100 by present NRA stats) of Americans who own firearms, and particularly for all those who ran out after obama was immaculated and after Parkland to hoard away firearms and ammunition. Most will never, if rarely use them. The primary purpose for the majority was to try to flip them later at a big profit, especially the ammo hoarders. I work about 30 gun shows per year and this is what the people dragging all the boxes out were admitting when pressed.

        The latest stat I’ve seen floating around now on CCW holders is 17 million, but no source was provided for it, either. We won’t hit 50 million permit holders, and more permit holders will only insure more people who are able will not be exercising their “right”.

        The number itself is useless, but the perception of it is. The MSM nor many governmental agencies will never laud “civilian” intervention to curtail a random act of violence but the knowledge that normal people around many states are now carrying has had an affect on violent crimes against individuals, again as put forth by Gary Kleck, John Lott and others. The same will happen in other venues if intervention begins. A good place to start would be in the churches. (It would be suicide to try an attack in mine, for example.) As mentioned previously, other states adopting Iowa’s guidelines for private businesses and eating/drinking establishments would also be a step in the right direction. The last place we’ll ever see it legally will be in public schools, where it is most needed.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          The only valid link is your first one- July 2017, which is about 17 months old by now. I’d believe this stat coming from Lott’s organization more than one from CBS, emphasis on BS. The 17 million I quoted is probably close now.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email