View Single Post
Old 12-25-2012, 07:56 AM
Yournamehere Yournamehere is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 912

Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
You are correct; it was indeed errant reporting. However, James Holmes was in fact wearing armor.
Fair enough.

Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
Maybe "useless" is too strong a word, but I have trouble imagining that anyone who doesn't use guns for a living (i.e. a well-trained police officer, federal agent, or soldier) would be able to defeat a well-armed perp with only a handgun. That sounds more like something from a movie than real life. In real life, there are plenty of examples of BGs with assault weapons outgunning scores of police officers who had only handguns (i.e. North Hollywood, though obviously, those were illegally converted full-auto AKs and ARs).

That being said, if I were in a building where a mass killer was loose, I would definitely prefer to have some type of gun than none at all.
Semantically speaking, none of those careers guarantee any of those peoples proficiency with their weapons. I wouldn't even go so far as to say it's more likely that one in any of those professions would be more proficient as there typically seems to be minor qualifications for officers, feds, and from what I know, little to none for military personnel. They can and are usually glad to take outside training, but there are plenty of opportunities for civs to do so too (at a relatively substantial cost, to be fair). And to follow up, yes, I concede there's definitely no combat experience for a civ carrying a gun unless they do have some in their job in one of those careers, but again, the career does not guarantee combat experience or proficiency. I don't think it comes down to previous or current employment, it comes down to the individual, their experience, learning and mindset, wherever it may come from. Plenty of guys outshoot cops, feds and military all the time via tactics, luck, or superior firepower, or any combination of that.

Using North Hollywood as an example, the numerous responding police officers were outgunned with their 9mm pistols, .38 revolvers and shotguns by two men with automatic weapons and body armor, yet with tactics (based on superior numbers, and a whole lot of luck, to be fair) they eventually took them down without sustaining any deaths. Phillips took his own life, but took a bullet to the neck which would have been a death sentence anyway. Yes, he'd lost his primary weapon by that time, but how many of these shootings occur with the gunman having to fix a jam? How many where they have to transition to pistol without a second man covering them or reload? Just as well, Mătăsăreanu was also (luckily, to be fair) shot in his unarmored legs which brought him down. A clean headshot could have killed them as well, and while hard, it's not impossible if you get the drop on your target.

Many of these incidents are also with a lone, crazed gunner with a pistol and not an "assault weapon" to begin with. Just as well, North Hollywood was a gun battle, the shooters knew where the cops were and fired directly at them. A mass shooter is in a target rich environment and unloads at everyone, making getting the drop and fighting back properly a bit easier. If a CCer is skilled and/or lucky, (there's probably more than one) proper tactics can position that hopefully properly trained individual in a spot where they can take them out.

I hate using North Hollywood as an example because it defies all logic when considering mass shootings or gun battles but I think I used it effectively. The main point is that mass shootings are usually one guy, who may or may not have an assault weapon, who usually has minimal or no training with diminished capacity from mental defect or extreme emotional distress and is in a target rich environment, and those elements (especially joined) lend to spraying and praying and lack of focus on objective or surroundings, which give a CCer some kind of edge if utilized properly. It's not the same as two men with machine guns who utilize suppression tactics, and are not there to kill, but to escape. Given all elements, beyond weapons and which is superior, and considering the common mass shooter and (to be fair) a semi-idealized version of a CCer, taking out a mass shooter is more plausible than you'd think.

I understand if you think that I am overestimating the ability of John Q. Carry, but I think you underestimate it as well (and in a way I don't blame you given some of the permit holders I've known). The point is however that there are so many factors in play that considering one like the guns over the whole picture is unreasonable. And "banning" them with laws in the grand scheme of things does not fix the problem, but does dismiss the possibility of a well trained, law abiding gun owner ending or minimizing chaos when it arises.

Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
Mass shooters may retreat when faced with resistance, but off themselves? The whole point of a mass killing is to get the highest possible body count, so I would expect a mass killer to retreat only so that he could survive long enough to kill more people. But simply give up completely and kill himself? I realize that the NRA has cited examples of shootings that were stopped by armed citizens, but is that really the norm?

You're also not taking into account the ways that mass killers might anticipate and try to mitigate this threat, like wearing body armor with trauma plates.

Also, recall that in Columbine, the two shooters exchanged gunfire with the school's security guard, and they didn't off themselves.
Perhaps shooters don't often kill themselves at the first sign of resistance, but that retreat or focus on the CCer is time spent not shooting others, and time for police to arrive. It does change the scenario for the better. And for the record, civs are sometimes permitted to wear body armor too, for what thatís worth. Given the phenomenon that is the mass shooting, this heroic and perhaps futile effort that can be undertaken by a CCer is just part of the real weight thatís carried with the permit and that gun.

Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
If a new AWB were passed (politically impossible, even after Newtown), and ATF could somehow confiscate all of the assault weapons in private hands (physically impossible), it would certainly deprive mass killers of their weapons-of-choice, and it might make these incidents less deadly. It will always be easier to buy an AR-15 and some 100-round drums than to learn how to build a bomb. The question is whether these incidents will become less common.

Also, the fact is that there are too many AWs now in private hands for a ban to ever work. It might make them more expensive or harder to get, but it will never eliminate the threat completely. So from a practical point of view, there is no reason to deprive law-abiding gun owners of their rights. I do, however, believe that we should consider laws to reduce proliferation of AWs in the wrong hands.
Yeah I think we can agree that a ban wonít work as it stands, but we know itís a way for GCAs to get their foot in the door to ban and confiscate all guns they can, even if its just the ones they can find, and taking even one gun in one state or county or city is not cool. The slippery slope is definitely overplayed, but Iíd rather not take any casualties on that front if at all possible. I donít think itís politically impossible for them to make some headway either given the emotional distress caused by Sandy Hook and the hefty number of ignorant voters and citizens out there who still buy into the spooky assault weapon and evil high capacity assault clips.

Iím glad to see the trend of the approval of concealed carry and belief in the right to self protection become more prominent, but it doesnít end with handguns alone. Full capacity magazines and semi auto rifles are still excellent tools for home defense especially considering there are novice shooters who want to make up with quality for quantity, or may need to defend against multiple attackers or home invaders with multiple shots of pistol or rifle rounds which may not actually do anything. Bullets donít magically stop people. Baby Face Nelson was shot 17 times by way of a Tommy gun and drove away from the fight, and thatís an 80 year old example before the days of PCP and crack.

Yes, if I snap my fingers and make every gun ever disappear, even the ones used for evil, so go all the ones used for good as well. The GCAs say they will do what they can if it saves just one life, but a lack of adequate protection, equipment or training costs lives daily. And there will still be knife attacks, axe murders, bombings and vehicular manslaughter or any other kind of murderous acts if people are still crazy and distressed enough to want to kill others so they can finally get the courage to kill themselves, or to get notoriety or whatever motive the particular mass murderer may have. Guns make killing easy, but they wonít make killing significantly harder if theyíre gone away either. You allude to whether or not them being gone will make any difference in the commonality of mass murder, and it will in regard to gun crimes (maybe, depending on how itís enacted) but it comes at the cost of armed self reliance, the right to self defense, and the lives these along with guns save all the time in the hands of civilians.

I do ultimately believe there should be reform of some sort with the way concealed carry permits and perhaps even guns are obtained by individuals, as long as they donít come at a significantly higher monetary cost. Thatís what our lawmakers should consider, not these bans that make no sense and donít work.
Reply With Quote