“How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

I get that question whenever I object to more “gun control” as a response to the latest tragedy.  I have long held, and continue to hold, the position that more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners is not the answer to mass murder.  It doesn’t work.  It just leaves the law abiding helpless in the face of criminal violence.

First, let’s dispense with that “end”. I hate to tell you this, but you can’t end them.  “Gun control” certainly cannot.  France’s strict gun control did not prevent Charlie Hebdo nor the 2015 Paris attacks.  India’s draconian gun laws did not prevent Mumbai.  Norway’s gun laws did not stop the spree shooter there.  And so on.

“Ending” is an unachievable target.  No matter what you do, somebody, somewhere, who intends to harm others–particularly if the’re looking at going out in a blaze of “glory” (with “infamy” serving for their purpose)–will find a way to do it.  When you use it as a justification for restrictions on the law abiding there is no end to that.  No restrictions will ever be enough.  So it will always be an excuse for more restrictions.  And if at any point anyone objects, you can do then as you do now and say “Don’t you care about the victims of gun crime?”

Sorry if you don’t like that, but the truth hurts sometimes.

So, can’t end them, not entirely, but you can improve the situation.  In fact, you can improve it a lot.

“Ah, hah!” you say. “Gun control, right?”

Nope.  In fact, gun control is a large part of the problem.  The vast, vast majority of mass shootings of the “spree killer” type (which is what most people think of when you say “mass shooting” and is different in causes and dynamics than the “domestic murder-suicide” types and the “gang war” types, both of which require different approaches to reduce) happen in gun free zones.  The El Paso shooter, in his manifesto (of which only his rant on immigration got widespread publication in the media; for some reason they didn’t bother to mention his rant on the environment and his rant on business) said:

Remember: it is not cowardly to pick low hanging fruit. AKA (sic) Don’t attack heavily guarded areas to fulfll (sic) your super soldier COD [Call of Duty first person shooter video game] fantasy. Attack low security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.

More than 90 percent of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.  Numbers vary depending on source (which can vary in how they’re counted) but the figures I’ve seen range from 92 to 97 percent.  Yes, even the Fort Hood massacre, on an Army base, and the Norfolk Navy Yard shooting, Navy base, were “gun free zones” for this purpose–the military forbade personnel from being armed unless they were doing so as part of their duties–Stateside that meant Military Police on duty.

These shootings tend to stop once the shooter encounters armed resistance.  Indeed, as I have noted before, FBI studies covering 2000 to 2017 had 33 cases of spree killers where armed citizens were present.  In 25 of them, the armed citizen totally stopped the attack.  In an additional 6 the armed citizens reduced the number of casualties.  That’s 94% of the time the situation is made better by armed citizens being present.  And what about the claim that people “getting caught in the crossfire” would make the situation worse?  Those same reports also give the number of innocents killed by the armed citizens in those incidents.  It’s a surprising number, all told.  That number?

Zero.

So, with that information in hand, here’s my approach to dealing with mass shootings:

  1. End “gun free zones.” The idea that forbidding law abiding American Citizens from being armed for their own protection somehow makes them safer is as ridiculous in specific locations as it is in general.  As we’ve seen, it only makes those places attractive targets for those who don’t care that it’s illegal.  If they’re going to break laws on murder breaking laws forbidding them to carry weapons at the place they plan to commit the murder isn’t going to stop them.  It’s ridiculous.  It’s patently absurd.
  2. End this practice of “may issue” on state licenses to carry firearms.  Making the exercise of a Constitutional right dependent on the often arbitrary decision of government officials is a violation of basic human rights (the right to life is meaningless without the right to defend that life and the right to defend that life is meaningless without the right to effective means to defend that life). “May issue” which is generally worded as needing to show “good cause” generally works out in practice to issue only to those who are politically connected in the local power structure.  It’s wrong.  Stop it.
    If you must have licensing (the Constitution and the Second Amendment should be all the license required but I recognize that’s not politically achievable at this time) then it needs to be “shall issue.” The State has to show good-cause to deny, not the other way around.
  3. Nationwide reciprocity.  The Constitution requires States to give “full faith and credit” to the “Public acts, records, and judicial proceedings” of the other States.  Marriages in one state are valid in every other.  Drivers licenses issued in one state are valid in every other.  And so, carry licenses issued in one state should be valid in every other.  Again, the Constitution and the Second Amendment should be the only license required but, again, that’s not politically achievable for the foreseeable future.

Boom.  Done.  Mass shooting spree killer problem dealt with.  There are no longer soft targets for them to attack and if they decide to try anyway, the odds are good that someone will be present and in a position to deal with it.

Now, some folk will say we need to do more.  Well, okay, I can give you more.

  1. Establish a fund to provide cash rewards to those who engage and stop a spree killer. Let’s show, clearly and unequivocally, of the “put your money where your mouth is” variaty, that we as a society approve of people protecting themselves and those around them from those attempting to do them harm.
  2. We want more people skilled and able to deal with threats so make marksmanship and CQB electives in highs school and college (“any institution that accepts federal funds must…” if the other side can use that, so can we).  These classes to be taught by military personnel. (Frankly, I do not trust professional “educators” to do so, not with the indoctrination they get at the typical school of education.)  Oh, and if that state requires training for a carry license (And while I’m a fan of training, I’m not a fan of mandating it–it’s a freedom thing) then make that class also available as an elective in High School and college.
    1. I’ll bend on the “not mandatory” in having gun safety and safe gun handling be a required course in elementary or middle school at the latest.  Again, taught by military because I simply do not trust professional educators on the subject.
  3. Implement the “Some Asshole Initiative.” The reason these guys look for soft targets, look to rack up the high body counts in the first place, is that they’re looking for their moment of fame (infamy).  Stop.  Making.  These.  Assholes.  Famous.
    Unfortunately, there really isn’t any way to implement this “top down” without violating freedom so all I can really suggest here is a bottom up approach.  People need to stop naming these people in their own communications and express their displeasure to the media when they put their pictures out, name them, and basically making them famous.  Eventually, maybe, they’ll get the message that providing a forum and publicity to the spree killers is not good business.
    Hey, I can hope.

There, while nothing can completely eliminate tragedies in this imperfect world, this can at least trim them back so they’re not “trendy.” And they would do far more to reduce the incidence than any “gun control” ever can.

That’s the nice thing about being philosophically in favor of freedom is that it’s almost always also pragmatically better.  And the few exceptions we can usually deal with so long as we guard against going beyond those exceptions rather than using them as an excuse for yet more “exceptions.”

As for me, make mine freedom.

 

Advertisements

69 thoughts on ““How do you propose to end mass shootings then?””

  1. If you ban carry in an area you control, you should have strict liability for any attacks in that area. Period. End of story. Some nutcase does a knife attack in a gun-free zone — it’s all on whoever declared it gun-free.

    Like

    1. We need to make sure every man woman and child has some sort of fire arm on them when they enter a cinema or mall so as not to make it a gun free zone. Any slight suspicion bang bang bang first and ask questions later if still alive. We can’t take chances.

      Like

      1. Well, you sure beat up that straw man but good.

        Nobody has suggested any such thing nor is it a reasonable interpretation of or logical conclusion to, anything anyone has suggested.

        But I’m sure it felt good knocking down that straw man with sarcasm as sharp as a bowling ball.

        Like

    2. But if that burden falls to “government”, then it’s _our_ money paying. Limit the ability to “ban” to privately-owned property, and I’m aboard. (And yes, I know that in reality there is no such thing as “privately-owned property”, but I’m using it in the common sheep vernacular.

      Like

      1. There are some places where it there are legitimate reasons for government to provide, and control, security–prisons, courts, a few others–it is legitimate to assign responsibility where they are claiming such authority. But a large part of that responsibility needs to be personal–make the individual who makes the decisions over that authority personally liable for failures of it, not just a matter of the government pays any settlements but it comes out of the individuals assets and/or future earnings.

        Thomas Sowell (one of my favorite thinkers and philosophers–whose thought goes far beyond his official degrees in economics–of the present day) is won’t to say that it is a grave mistake to give decision making authority to those who suffer no consequences for being wrong. Thus, we need to make the individuals who hold the decision power responsible for the results of those decisions.

        Like

  2. Everything you thought you knew about the Columbine shooters is probably wrong. The reporting in the press did not educate us – this begs the question “Why aren’t there professional standards for the press?”

    Read this book by the mother of one of the shooters:

    Title: A Mother’s Reckoning : Living in the Aftermath of Tragedy
    Author: Sue Klebold

    Like

  3. Well said.
    Clear thinking and logical.
    But the anti-gun zealots aren’t listening because they are too busy dancing in the blood.

    Like

      1. I saw several reports shortly after the shooting claiming that particular WalMart was posted “no guns”. A quick search turns up a Fox and Friends article with that: https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-friends-host-blames-gun-free-zones-deaths-el-paso-mass-shooting

        Of Fox and Friends and the NYTimes, I don’t particularly trust either source, mind you. So will consider it an open question for now. If it wasn’t, then it’s one of a small handful of exceptions when it comes to spree shooters.

        Like

        1. Thank you. I’ve been researching the gun-free designation for El Paso and have not seen any definitive commentary either. Many people assert that it is gun-free because the mall next door is. Then Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action seems to be the source for it not being gun-free.

          Like

          1. That mall is about a thousand feet away, not next door. MANY news reports mentioned that it was, and it seems that everyone believed them. The property where Walmart is located is owned by Walmart, not the mall, also… If one looks at Google Maps, they can figure it out pretty easily. But I’ve never seen a Walmart that’s gun free. Every one that I’ve seen abides by state laws for open and concealed carry. If it’s legal, it’s legal.

            Like

        2. In Texas, a store must post two signs if they don’t handgun carriers there. They are the 30.06 and 30.07 signs. One for concealed carry and the other for open carry. Letters must be inch high and in Spanish also.
          Just posting “no guns” won’t do it. Neither will posting gun picture with a red slashed circle.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. People also claimed that Fort Hood and the Norfolk Navy Shipyard were not “gun free zones” and this was cited as evidence that having armed people present was of no benefit. However, per military policy at the time, anyone not armed for their specific duty (generally military police on duty) were forbidden the carrying of arms on post.

        That did not stop people from making the claim–even after the truth was pointed out to them.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Some of the early reports I saw (one noted uptopic) said that it was a gun free zone. Apparently, from what I’ve been able to gather, the Walmart wasn’t, but the adjacent mall was. This would have had the effect of disarming everyone who combined shopping at the two venues since people would be legally required to follow the most restrictive rules unless there’s someplace in between where they can disarm and rearm.

          As an aside, I was also kind of surprised to find out how few, relatively speaking, people in Texas have their concealed carry permit. About one license for every 28 people. For comparison, as of 2015 (last year before the lists of licensees went private due to media “outing” lists of license holders) in Indiana that fraction was one in ten. Indiana has nearly three times as many folk, per capita, licensed to carry handguns as does Texas.

          Like

          1. They aren’t “adjacent”. They’re about a thousand feet apart. Walmart owns the property that Walmart is on. There is no association, just that this is the Walmart by Cielo Vista Mall. I guess that’s enough to get people to believe that they’re connected. But no, they don’t have anything to do with each other.

            Like

  4. Regarding that “I don’t support gun control” thing, isn’t that what item 5 is all about? 😉

    (Yes, I know that’s not what the gun grabbers mean by “gun control”. That’s just one of a multitude of gun-related issues on which they’re completely wrong. 😛 )

    More seriously, out of curiosity why do you link to an imgur copy of the Wonderella strip for the Some Asshole Initiative, instead of the actual comic page?

    http://nonadventures.com/2015/06/20/the-some-of-all-fears/

    Like

      1. Previously I did notice that the actual strip doesn’t seem to be easy to find via internet searches… which is why I have it bookmarked. 😉

        Like

  5. First, let’s dispense with that “end”. I hate to tell you this, but you can’t end them.
    This. So much this.
    The problem with so much of progressivism is its belief that they can fix all that is wrong in the world and bring about some perfect society. Humanity is not infinitely malleable, nor is it perfectable (in mind or body).

    So much mischief is predicated on achieving that perfection.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Stateside that meant Military Police on duty.
    Or rent-a-cops. Not to disparage them, but many military facilities contract out the common portions of their security.

    End “gun free zones.”
    Including in court buildings? That seems to be a sticking point for many.

    Establish a fund to provide cash rewards
    OK, time for my Peelian rant….
    One of the fundamental problems with our current arrangement is a pervasive belief (even among conservatives and libertarians) that gov’t is somehow separate from us as the citizens. Especially the police force. Robert Peel helped build the first civilian police force in London a couple hundred years ago, and he set down a bunch of principles for such an endeavor. The 7th, in part, reads:
    …the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

    The individual citizen has a duty to ensuring law and order in his own community. To that end, we constitute police forces. Much like a full-time professional military, their focus on the job makes them a bit better at it, and allows them to focus on those things while the rest of the citizenry bakes the bread, builds the guns, etc.

    One of the societal shifts that helped destroy the idea of the citizenry enforcing the law was the doing away with “posses”. Progressives inverted the idea that a posse was the citizenry doing its job part-time, as necessary, into a mob of vigilantes. (I won’t rant on the stigma that word has acquired over the last century.) (Also, the infamy with which many view bounty hunters.) Whether intentional or not (or merely used by some, despite intention) it separates the citizen from his duty and his power to regulate the community in which he lives.

    Bringing back the idea “that we as a society approve of people protecting themselves and those around them” would go a long way toward mitigating these acts.

    Again, taught by military
    What? Not the DEA? I mean, what could go wrong?
    (I’d include the local militia in that. After all, they should have an incentive to do it well.)

    On number 6, I would add, that we need to put these folks on the fast track to the death penalty when they survive the encounter. And, a societal shift back away from lionizing bad guys would help, too.

    it’s almost always also pragmatically better
    And, when it’s not, it’s almost always because the people themselves refuse to accept responsibility and exercise their duties with vigilance. To paraphrase Adams, we need a moral, educated, and zealous (about their freedoms) populace to keep a republic.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Good points. I have a minor quibble that (IMHO) even the authors of the ConcealedCarry study would admit is reasonable.
    You cite them as finding 33 mass shootings where armed civilians were present; outcomes were improved 94% of the time.
    A point they make in their study is that no one knows how many other mass shootings involved a concealed carrier who chose not to get involved. Clearly, there would be plenty of good reasons not to. If, for example, someone had to choose between stalking the El PAso shooter through the aisles of WalMart or shepherding his wife and kids to safety, well, maybe not a tough call.
    In any case, the 94% figure is inevitably an over-estimate. It is based on situations where, for tactical or other reasons, an armed citizen stepped in rather than retreated.
    Still impressive, of course. It would be impressive even if dialed back.

    Like

    1. It was actually a series of three FBI studies. ConcealedCarry was just a convenient source that compiled the combined results.

      Most spree shootings, the vast majority, happen in “Gun Free zones” so no one can be legally carrying. And that would include the El Paso shooting. Yes, Texas and all (which State’s pro-gun rep is overblown–they’re only now catching up to Indiana although I’ll admit they’re ahead in a couple of areas such as Campus Carry–I’m waiting Indiana) but the WalMart was posted. And sometimes we have cases like the Gabby Giffords shooting where someone was armed but never had a clear shot and so joined in the dogpile on the shooter and thus would be one of the remaining few where having an armed citizen present didn’t affect the outcome. So I suspect the number might not be as undercounted as you might think.

      To underscore, however, the key issues remain that:
      – Having armed citizens present does help in a significant number of cases
      Not one innocent has been killed by “friendly fire” from a legally armed citizen at such an event.
      – The fact that spree killers keep choosing, by overwhelming majority, “gun free zones” for their sprees points to the benefit of simple deterrence–that someone might well be armed at places acts as a “spree killer repellent.”

      Like

      1. I really can’t imagine where it ends up being a good idea to go hunting for the shooter if you’re not right there already and saw it happen. The reason that civilians with guns have fewer/no cases of “shoot the wrong person” compared to police is exactly that. They don’t have any confusion over who the bad guy is or what happened because they were witness to it.

        But that doesn’t stop people who are anti-gun complaining that someone with a carry license and gun didn’t run all the way across campus to find the active shooter and therefore a “good guy with a gun” is pointless.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. The guy at the mall? He was at the mall, not the Walmart. They are NOT the same place, by the way. Sure, good on him, but there wasn’t a shooting at the mall, It was at the Walmart, about a thousand feet away.

        Like

  8. Regarding Norway et al : when their spree-killing right-wing ideologues start approaching 1 attack per month, THEN you can claim gun control doesn’t work. Let alone ~1 per day in Dumbfuckistan.
    Hell, in 30 years, in the UK, I can count on one hand the number of such attacks.
    1996, a fuckwit walked into a school in Dunblane, and killed a couple dozen kids and teachers.
    As a nation, we said “this must NOT happen again!” so we tightened gun laws. It’s never happened since (touch wood).
    How many schools in last 30 years in Dumbfuckistan? This is what happens when politicians worship lobbyist money instead of doing the job they’re supposed to : PROTECTING lives.

    Like

    1. How many knife and bombing attacks have happened in the last 30 years in Gun Control Paradise? (Please note I resisted making any disparaging comments regarding the author of previous remark or the apparent home of said person).

      Liked by 1 person

    2. And how many happened before the ban? Making policy based on one exceptional incident is itself foolishness. In the UK, how many grooming gangs are there?

      Funny thing about these examples posted about gun control “working”, they never want to talk about what the violent crime rate was before the gun restrictions were passed. It seems that in every case. Every. Single. One. The violent crime rate was lower than that in the US before the restrictions were passed and either remained unchanged, went up (most common result), or at best continued an already existing downward trend (Australia being the example of that).

      Examples of a place that 1) started with high violent crime 2) passed strict “gun control” and 3) ended up with low violent crime are never presented. One must presume that there is a reason for this.

      And in the US, the homicide rate, as well as rates of other violent crimes, has gone down since it’s high in the early 90’s. We’ve been hovering near hundred year lows for nearly the last decade. All this while more and more people have been allowed to carry more and more guns in more and more places than ever before. More States have gone “shall issue” (they must issue carry licenses unless they can show cause–felony convictions, history of violent mental illness, etc.) on licenses to carry concealed handguns in public. Indeed, 13 States (I believe that’s the current count) have gone “Constitutional Carry”–no license required at all to carry in public. Restrictions on where people can carry have been reduced.

      The anti-gun folk keep claiming that such reductions in restrictions will lead to increases in violence and “blood running in the streets!” Only it hasn’t happened. Yes, a lot of people think that crime and violence is on the rise. But when you look at actual Department of Justice statistics it simply isn’t true.

      Protecting people? In the US, estimates of people using guns to protect themselves from criminals range from 300,000 per year to up to 3 million. In the majority of these cases the gun is never fired. Simply presenting is enough to cause the attacker to back off. Note, even at the low end guns are used more often to protect people from crime than they are used in the commission of crimes.

      Allowing people to be armed for their own defense is protecting people. The police cannot be everywhere. And since criminals get to choose when and where they attack, and not being completely irrational they largely choose to attack where the police are not. Thus, one cannot rely on the police for protection from crime. Indeed, the courts recognize this in multiple cases affirming that the police have no legal responsibility to protect individuals. At best they have a mild deterrent effect–the thought of being caught and punished might convince some few not to commit crimes for which they can be later caught and punished.

      And, really, relying on government for protection? Quis custodes ipsos custodes? It would take 7500 years for criminal homicides in the US at current rates to equal the number of people slaughtered by their own governments in the 20th century. 7500 years. Do you have any idea how long 7500 years is? 7500 years ago, folk were just learning that growing crops rather than relying on what happened to be around made for a more reliable food source. 7500 years ago folk were just starting to learn that copper could be used for some tools in place of stone and wood (Bronze was still far in the future).

      The longest any government anywhere has retained continuity was (depending on how you count it) either Rome or Ancient Egypt, both lasting from first beginnings to final downfall just over two thousand years. We’re talking a span nearly four times as long in order for criminal homicides to catch up with governments slaughtering their own people. I’m not talking about casualties–military or civilian–killed in wars, but just people slaughtered by their own governments.

      7500 years. Do you have the hubris to claim such gifted foresight as to say that never, not any time in the next 7500 years, will there be a need to violently resist a government gone rogue? History is devoid of any precedent on which to base any such claim. It can be nothing but pure faith.

      It has been said that if you have arms in the possession of the public you will have tragedies. As true as that might be, the flip side is that if you don’t you will have genocides.

      I prefer my problems “retail” rather than “wholesale.”

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Also “lobbyist money”? Seriously? You know that the NRA isn’t even in the top fifty of donors to political campaigns, right? I know the media tells you differently but, here’s the thing, the media lies with disturbing regularity. I have yet to see something reported in the media on some subject which I know well (or events at which I was present) where they get it right. Never. I have no reason to believe they are any more accurate on subject with which I am not personally familiar.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. I bet you were very careful to read all of David’s comment (ha!). There’s something in there that I’ve never seen a gun control zealot ever able to address. The stats are far too inconvenient for the agenda: guns are used MORE often to SAVE lives (as in- self defense) than they are used for criminal activity. So every time someone is killed in a highly gun controled area- every time a woman is raped and was unable to defend herself because gun control laws made it impossible for her to defend herself- EVERY time you can blame gun control activists.

      I dare you to look up the numbers on mass shootings in “gun free zones.” Gun control politicians have a LOT of blood on their hands.

      Liked by 2 people

    5. I figured out the PER CAPITA incidence for mass killings in Norway once, and you know, I love my ancestral homeland but you folks have got nothing at all to brag about in this regard. So no, you don’t get to make this claim or this argument. Sorry. (Or not sorry, whatever.)

      Particularly when your mass shooter was so *deliberately* unopposed until he got done killing everyone.

      Being able to look at that and continue to say that this was the best outcome and you’re proud of it?

      That’s sick.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Reading through these thoughts of grand delusion and denial make me happy that I live no where near your sess pool of a country.

    Like

    1. And that thought makes me happier than you could possibly imagine. See how that works? You don’t want to be here and I don’t want you to be here. Win-win.

      BTW, the word is “cesspool”: “an underground container for the temporary storage of liquid waste and sewage.” Get it right.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I quoted a dictionary definition for cesspool. Oh, and thanks to a discussion elsewhere I just looked up this interesting tidbit. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population) America is such an awful “sess [sic] pool” that we have more immigrants than the next four countries combined.

          Australia is #8 in that list. America is so bad that nearly six times as many people come here as go to Australia.

          Like

          1. And how many countries exist out there where people will risk taking a long, dangerous trek across a desert, or sail on a rickety boat made out of garbage and other scraps (which isn’t much less likely to sink along the way than to make it) just to get to it?

            I think that’s far more telling about how people think of the US than some random internet person calling a country with which they seem to have no personal experience a “sess pool” [sic].

            Like

    1. The folk dedicated to grabbing guns (perhaps explained by their constant confusion of guns and penii?) are not the target. There are people out there, a lot of people, who haven’t settled irrevocably into one “side” or another. After all there is some time between when someone is born (more than 10,000 every day) and when they decide conclusively what position they favor on any topic.

      So, I extend my voice to try to reach those people. It’s a small voice, in a large sea, but it’s mine and I do what I can.

      Like

  10. The way to end the political nonsense on guns is simple. Make them follow the same laws we have to. If they want us disarmed they must be disarmed (including those guarding them). If they go to a gun free zone the same rules apply. Of course this will never occur because 1. they know that guns under their control do protect them. 2. Their lives are important and ours are not (in their minds).

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Every mass shooting, every single one, ends when the shooter is either met with credible force or is in fear of the arrival of such force. That force can consist of law enforcement, armed citizens, or an aggressive attack from unarmed citizens.
    American law enforcement has studied all such occurrences and formed active shooter policies based on the conclusion that immediate confrontation of the shooter always saves lives.
    There is a saying amongst the gun crowd, when seconds count the police are mere minutes away.
    Simple truth, 911 call response times can vary from just a few minutes to hours depending on the jurisdiction. Large tracts of rural land, sometimes hundreds of square miles, might have only one or two deputies on duty. In major metropolitan areas the police might well all be involves in some major event and unavailable for at least a handful of minutes.
    Simple reality dictates that the people on site at a crime scene are by definition their own first responders. As such they can huddle defenseless or respond to an attack with whatever they have. It would seem only reasonable that they have the means at hand to offer a credible defense given that such a response has historically been the most effective solution.

    Like

    1. I am loathe to use absolutes like “every” because there’s generally some exception people will use in an effort to score points. Still, once armed resistance shows up, it definitely complicates the spree killer’s problem even if he’s not inclined to surrender or suicide. And that complication means that he’s spending time and attention on something other than creating more casualties.

      Like

    1. I neither endorsed nor opposed any specific legislation in this post. I simply present what I think are some ideas that would greatly help the situation.

      I don’t think you are claiming I did, but I just wanted to make that clear.

      Like

    1. I don’t filter for content (although I did decide not to clear duplicate posts awaiting moderation). I do, however, have the blog set up so that comments by first-timers wait until I can look at them. Once that first comment has been approved (and unless it’s obviously spam it’s pretty much automatic as soon as I get to it) then further comments are not moderated. I don’t edit people’s comments (like some places do).

      This “moderate first timers” is fairly common on blogs I frequent.

      I do ask that people keep it civil. If things start going round and round in circles, and degenerating into people just repeating themselves in slightly different wording, I may ask folk to drop it.

      Abuse can get a person blocked. Failure to “drop it” when I say it’s getting repetitive and ask for a drop it can get the offender blocked.

      Debate is encouraged (and, frankly, I’m too small potatoes for there to be much). Haranguing is not.

      Like

  12. Maybe this will be posted?
    “3 – Nationwide reciprocity. ”
    Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Constitutional – Is a Trojan Horse..
    The bill is a dastardly trick and a Trojan horse for institutionalizing licenses, permits, national ID cards, etc. And the end game of all those licenses, permits, national ID cards and such is eventual confiscation of all arms.
    Here is the 2014 edition: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1908/text
    Also, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    Like

    1. video on arms, here it is: Publius Huldah Powerful Speech: All Federal Gun Control Is Unlawful – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn6UJbDm2-c
      State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of hell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the free sample of heroin.

      Like

  13. Yes, I regret that I can not find a definitive report on that — nor does it matter in the bigger picture. Neither do the sneering comments about why ‘a good guy with a gun’ did not stop the shooting.

    Like

Leave a Reply to imnohbody Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s