Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Mass shootings today in America

Well, it just isn't a day in America without a couple of mass shootings. Today was no exception. First this one happened in Nevada, with 4 people shot dead, including the shooter. Two National Guard members were among the dead and 8 others were injured at an IHOP restaurant by a gunman with what the article claims is an automatic rifle. Authorities are examining the gun further to determine exactly what kind it is. From the article, " “You go a whole tour in Afghanistan and no one is shot. And you go to IHOP, and several are shot,” said 31-year-old Sgt. First Class Cameron Anderson of Reno, a Nevada Army National Guard member. “It's a shock. I came to work today and had no idea I'd be driving the chaplain here (to the hospital.)”" Some days it seems as if we are at war in America. The U.S. has more gun deaths per 100,000 than civilized countries not at war. Maybe that definition needs to change. A better description would be that America is actually at war which might better explain its' high number of gun deaths. 

And then this mass shooting happened in West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Five people are dead in what appears to be some kind of domestic dispute. According to the story, the shooter used a high powered rifle for the shootings. " The path of violence that Shayne Riggleman cut through three states before committing suicide during a police chase was “one of the most heinous crimes I’ve ever witnessed,” State Police Capt. James Merrill said Tuesday." What gets into people? This man has a criminal record. Where did the guns come from? Why does anyone need assault type rifles? America is awash in guns, many of them similar assault rifles as those used in these shootings. There is easy access to guns in America, whether legal or illegal.

So, by my count, in one day of the gun deaths that have been reported in the news ( or the mass shootings anyway) we have 9 dead and 9 injured if we count the woman the West Virginia shooter ran down with his car as he drove through Pennsylvania. Senseless. Guns are dangerous. How much more proof do we need? Where is common sense?

51 comments:

  1. At that range four joes with pistols can take one guy with an AK. A pity the soldiers were disarmed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, for sure if the "joes" had been armed, they could have saved themselves and others- being taken by surprise with a guy with an assault rifle and all and not expecting to be shot up while sitting in an IHOP. Who does? Having a gun does not necessarily mean you can save yourself or others in the heat of the moment when adrenaline and surprise are the main factors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sure, having a gun doesn't guarantee you will magically never get hurt. But it sure gives you a better chance to fight back than not having a gun.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't agree with that Heather. So far it hasn't proven to be true. In the IHOP shooting, there was apparently someone on the scene with a gun who thought he would be at risk taking on the guy with an assault rifle.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "there was apparently someone on the scene with a gun who thought he would be at risk taking on the guy with an assault rifle"

    And is that man still alive?

    ReplyDelete
  6. From this- http://www.startribune.com/nation/129363448.html?page=1&c=y The shooter charged into the restaurant starting his shooting in the parking lot before he even got inside. He marched to the back of the restaurant before anyone could understand what was happening and killed the guard members one by one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. " "I had my pistol; I wasn't going up against an automatic rifle," Ralph Swagler said. "I'm sorry. I wish I would have shot him in the back now as he was going toward IHOP, but I wasn't clear on the situation."" from this article- http://www.rgj.com/article/20110907/NEWS01/109070361/Gunman-Carson-City-IHOP-shooting-reloaded-least-once?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CLocal%20News

    ReplyDelete
  8. My carry handgun is to defend me and mine -- I'm not the police.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Would you have shot the shooter at the IHOP given the chance and if possible to do?

    ReplyDelete
  10. The US is once again on infinite repeat.

    This is awful, let's do nothing.

    Stop listening to the voices of inaction and do something!

    The law is on your side, guns cannot be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  11. japete asked (and a legitimate question): Would you have shot the shooter at the IHOP given the chance and if possible to do?

    That depends on a lot of things. Do I have a shot? Am I in his line of fire? What weapon is he using, and what is its status? What is my available weapon, it's effective range, etc. What are my surroundings; i.e. if I fire, do I have a clear background? Do I have cover to fire from?

    Given the disparity of weaponry that was at issue here, and taking into account the tactical situation, the above issues, and more, the question is:

    Do I have a a reasonable chance of engaging this goblin successfully; successfully being defined as I live to tell the tale and preventing others from being harmed.

    And I've got only seconds, perhaps fractions of seconds, to answer that question. The police, despite their best efforts, are minutes away, and will be too late.

    If the answer is yes I do have a reasonable chance of success, then yes, I hope I would engage this goblin. I can't really say, however, because I've never been in that situation, and probably will never be. I frankly don't think most of us can answer honestly one way or another; we don't really know unless we've faced that kind of situation. I hope I never have to. I also hope and believe that I am ever there, and if I can take on such a shooter with a reasonable chance of success, I would do so.

    If I didn't believe I could, I would not carry my weapon. I do not criticize in the least the armed person who was there for not engaging; I was not there, and it sounds like in his particular situation he did not believe he had a reasonable chance of success.

    Point is, however, he had that option. You would deny him that.

    To remind you of your common refrain, how many persons in that IHOP that day would have thought they needed a weapon? That they did not "expect" to need a weapon for lunch that day was small comfort when they were facing the business end of a weapon. As you've often heard: one cannot predict when one will need a weapon, and when you need it, you need it RIGHT NOW and you need it BAD.

    Given this instance, and the Ft. Hood shooting, perhaps its time for the military to rethink their policy of forbidding carry by their personnel? If military personnel had been armed, might the outcome have been different? We can't know that for certain of course, but once again - could it have been worse?

    ReplyDelete
  12. What you are really saying then, GMAC, is that you may or may not use that gun. Why do you carry one then if you seem so reluctant to use it in situations like this? I thought this is why you guys claim to need your guns. First you say you would have to assess the situation which would have to be done in mere seconds. Then you say the guard members should have been armed. Wouldn't they have the same problems trying to fire back? They didn't even see the guy coming. They were almost like sitting ducks once the guy started unloading his bullets. It will be interesting to hear if he was carrying a magazine with more than 15 rounds. He reloaded as well so he was able to overwhelm anyone who thought they could defend themselves. More importantly here is that we should be restricing high capacity magazines and we should also restrict access to guns for people like this in any and all ways we can. We should also reconsider a ban on certain types of assault weapons. It would take a while to get them off the streets, but eventually, we may be able to have some sanity in our country regarding guns.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why do you carry one then if you seem so reluctant to use it in situations like this?

    Don't confuse attempting to assess the situation and determine if one can act successfully with unwillingness to use force. And frankly, anyone who's not reluctant to use force is a fool. Cops are, or at least should be, reluctant to use force. I have no desire to use force, and would be reluctant to do so. It's simple: one should use force only when necessary, and only when it can be employed effectively.

    In this instance, Mr. Swagler had no duty to leave his place of business - and his family - to engage this shooter. His priority is his family. He is not a cop. CC holders do not imagine we are cops to ride to the rescue. That is your personal fantasy.


    Then you say the guard members should have been armed. Wouldn't they have the same problems trying to fire back?

    Perhaps. Carrying a weapon is not a magic bullet (pun intended); it does not solve all problems. It is no guarantee of safety (there ARE, of course, no guarantees of safety). But the fact that they might not have had an ability to respond in this situation does not mean they should not have that option. Each situation is different, and all are unpredictible. More importantly - had they been armed, could it have been worse?


    It will be interesting to hear if he was carrying a magazine with more than 15 rounds. He reloaded as well so he was able to overwhelm anyone who thought they could defend themselves.

    Almost certainly yes, but if so, so what? As you noted, reloading is quick and easy. What is special about some sort of magic number? 15? 12? 10? How many victims are acceptable?

    And the fact that he could "overwhelm" anyone who though they could defend themselves with his magazines is an argument for permitting standard capacity magazines for lawful citizens, not banning them. Or perhaps - as has been accused - you prefer your victims effectively disarmed?


    . . . we should also restrict access to guns for people like this in any and all ways we can.

    We already do. How many laws did he break? Do you really think passing one more would make any difference? Gosh - he's setting out to commit mass murder, but surely he wouldn't lie on a form! Really?


    We should also reconsider a ban on certain types of assault weapons.

    "Assault weapon" is a political term, not a military or definitional one. It's meaningless outside the political debate. If (as it seems) he had a full-auto weapon, it is already highly regulated and for most people without a six-figure disposable income effectively banned.

    If you are proposing further bans on any sorts of weapons, military pattern or otherwise, it's a dead end. It will not pass. Nor will I obey any such law, as it is illegitimate. Given the purposes of the 2nd Amendment, frankly, it is exactly such weapons - the so-called "assault weapons" - that are MOST protected.

    Moreover, even adopting the "common use" test that seems to be the test in Heller, an AR-15 and/or an AK-47 passes that test with flying colors. An AR is the most commonly sold rifle in America (thank you, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama), and more AK-pattern rifles have been made worldwide than perhaps any other in history. They are the very definition of "in common use."

    Too easy, japete. Thanks for trying, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I thought this is why you guys claim to need your guns"

    No. That is not, the claim. We carry for the PERSONAL protection of ourselves and our loved ones. You all are on your own.

    Our right to carry does not come with an OBLIGATION to engage when not directly threatened and that right is not contingent on us serving any need for the unarmed citizen.

    You can't make up the idea that "everyone that carries can't wait to get into a gun fight" then chastise people for not living up to your imagined motives for carrying.

    Like someone else said. We are not the police. We WILL call them for you once we are at a safe distance from the fight but we are not firing unless there is no other way to survive.

    Every person there, that was legally ABLE to carry, made a choice to be unarmed that day. That's THEIR choice. Once the shooting started what happened was decided for them because they gave up the ability to have a say in it. They bear the consequences of that choice.

    If I was IN the restaurant and could not escape, then I would engage, If I was across the street, then that is where I would have dialed 911 from.

    It's not about bravery. It's about the simple fact that my family and friend come first and we all know that gunfights don't always go to the good guys. Why should I risk leaving my family without a father to save people that choose to be unarmed when that is why we have police and 911?

    You worry that permit holders are itching for a fight. We are not. We simply have more options to save OUR lives than other people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ok heather stated "But it sure gives you a better chance to fight back than not having a gun." you say you do not agree with that statement. What is your better way to stop this mad man with a rifle while you are unarmed?

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Why do you carry one then if you seem so reluctant to use it in situations like this?"

    Isn't this what you wanted though? I don't think any of us are eager to shoot at someone unless it's necessary and we're sure we can do so with safety. What happened to us going 'shoot first, ask questions later'? I wasn't there at the IHOP, but unless there's other facts to go by I'm going to assume he made the right decision for himself.

    Look what happened with the Loughner shooting too. Zamudio arrived at the scene with his gun still holstered and made the correct decision not to shoot, and the media goes 'he almost shot innocent bystanders!'. He never even drew his weapon, and they made it sound like a bad thing when he had exercised restraint. It's damned if we do, damned if we don't.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You are contradicting yourself GMAC. You guys always tell me that if only teachers could carry guns they could kill or injure a school shooter. My response has always been that their first responsibility is to the students and you argue with me about that. Now you are saying that the man in the IHOP had a responsibility to his family first and not to try to shoot the attacker. Which position is the real one? I don't think it works both ways.

    Secondly, apparently you are willing to become a criminal if an assault weapons ban were passed. That's interesting. Heller also made it clear that there can be reasonable restrictions. Assault weapons is the term typically used. It's only you gun guys who make a distinction. It's in "common use."

    ReplyDelete
  18. Trying to prevent people like him from having these guns in the first place. I already said that in a previous comment. I don't believe that having a gun makes a difference in these kind of shootings. We are SOL if we are in the wrong place at the right time. These mass shootings just do not happen in such great numbers in other countries where people do not have such easy access to guns and the laws are much more strict as to who gets a gun and the process of getting one in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Aren't you making my point, Pyrotech?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry I was assuming you had a way to actually stop the active shooter unarmed that would work better than a firearm. Not having a gun did not work very well to stop him either though.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "These mass shootings just do not happen in such great numbers in other countries where people do not have such easy access to guns and the laws are much more strict as to who gets a gun and the process of getting one in the first place. "

    Really? are you sure on this point, or do you wish to retract or rephrase this.

    I thought you believed Norway had very strict gun control laws. Didn't work there.


    Northern Ireland has had an effective civilian gun ban since 1920. That didnt stop the IRA and others from effectively waging war for 85 years.

    The Soviet Union had a gun ban for 80 years plus, but that didn't stop the Chechnyans from murdering several hundred at a school

    If you are willing to look at killing sprees, and not just gun attacks, China seems to have a mass stabbing a day lately.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Why do you carry one then if you seem so reluctant to use it in situations like this? I thought this is why you guys claim to need your guns."

    Who told you that? I carry to protect my family and myself in that order. Beyond that, no. If I was a half block away and saw you being mugged I would call 911 on my cell phone but my gun would stay in my holster. Why? Because if I pull my weapon I will do so to shoot someone. When I shoot someone, even if it is justified I am going to be arrested, I am going to have my weapon confiscated and I am going to have my case taken before a grand jury. This is going to cost me between 6 and 10 thousand dollars. My family is worth that. You aren't. I ain't John Wayne, he died.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Now you are saying that the man in the IHOP had a responsibility to his family first and not to try to shoot the attacker. Which position is the real one? I don't think it works both ways."

    The man was not in the IHOP. He was in the restaurant he owned across the parking lot. Where did you get the idea he was in the IHOP?

    ReplyDelete
  24. There are 2 ways to handle your personal security.

    #1) Rely on the police

    #2) Rely on yourself.

    In the Ihop, and the Tucson shootings, there is a recurring theme. The people who chose #1, died. The people who chose #2, lived.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Again, Peter, we have gone around and around about this one. Our country has had more mass shootings than any other country. Occasionally another country has a mass shooting but we are noted for them. Gun bans haven't stopped them but they sure as heck have made them much less frequent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Robin- I get the idea that you guys would save the day with your guns because that is what most of you are telling me on this blog. You tell me that if only someone had had a gun in a situation like the one at the Nevada IHOP, they could have taken the shooter down. That is a pervasive thought coming from the gun rights folks. Now you are changing your argument just be argumentative perhaps? Or maybe you don't really think your guns will work in situations like this which is lends a lie to other things you all are telling me here. Sorry, I misspoke about where the man with the gun was. And Brady, the people who relied on themselves didn't have guns. They got down under the tables and some of them crawled out of the restaurant, perhaps saving themselves. But they didn't use guns or need guns to do that. If you can explain to me how someone would have been safer standing up with a gun when the shooter rushed into the restaurant with his gun blazing, go ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The shooter in Nevada had a prior run-in with the law in 2000 when he was taken into protective custody during a mental health commitment. Those are the folks whose names are supposed to be on the prohibited purchaser list. If our states were successful in getting those names to NICS, the shooter would not have been able to purchase his guns from a FFL. Time will tell us more about where the guns came from. It could be that Nevada is one of the states that has not sent those names to NICS or it could be that he got the guns elsewhere- gun show, straw purchase, stolen, from a family member, on the streets?

    ReplyDelete
  28. I get the idea that you guys would save the day with your guns because that is what most of you are telling me on this blog. You tell me that if only someone had had a gun in a situation like the one at the Nevada IHOP, they could have taken the shooter down.

    That's not at all what people here are telling you, or have ever told you. Were someone actually IN the IHOP, able to respond, that may be the case. There was no such person there, as far as we know, and Mr. Swagler certainly had no duty to run into harms way.

    What we have told you, over and over, is that those of us who carry do so to protect ourselves and our families. We have no other responsibilities, and do not imagine ourselves to be police to save the day.

    THAT particular idea is your spin, not ours. It is you, japete, who are full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

    If you can explain to me how someone would have been safer standing up with a gun when the shooter rushed into the restaurant with his gun blazing, go ahead.

    Again, too easy. See my first post.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "You tell me that if only someone had had a gun in a situation like the one at the Nevada IHOP, they could have taken the shooter down. That is a pervasive thought coming from the gun rights folks. Now you are changing your argument just be argumentative perhaps?"

    No, I think that is how you want to interpret what they are saying. If someone had had a gun in the IHOP they could have fought back and might have won. If someone has a gun during any mass shooting they have a chance to shoot back just like Jeanie Assam. I don't recall anyone telling you that having a CHL makes you part of the police auxilary. If I was in IHOP and someone was shooting up the place I would shoot him to save me and mine. If I was across the parking lot like in Carson City, then that is what cell phones are for. I can't speak for anyone but me but I carry to protect me and mine and I think if you look back through my replies to your posts I have said the same thing before.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Quote: "the people who relied on themselves didn't have guns"

    You can't rely on yourself and not have a gun. If you don't have a gun, then you are relying on the police for your personal protection.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The shooter opened fire in the parking lot. That is adequate time for the vigilant to draw sidearms, and four on one in the those quarters is good odds in their favor, even with handgun vs rifle.

    -Stew

    P.S. If soldiers shouldn't be armed, who should be?
    P.P.S. The shooter's 2000 run in with CA may have banned him for 5 years, but the bar for stripping Constitutional rights is and should remain high.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "...If you can explain to me how someone would have been safer standing up with a gun when the shooter rushed into the restaurant with his gun blazing, go ahead."

    Why would you think they would stand up?

    "You tell me that if only someone had had a gun in a situation like the one at the Nevada IHOP, they could have taken the shooter down. That is a pervasive thought coming from the gun rights folks. Now you are changing your argument just be argumentative perhaps?"


    I think you are confusing "if only someone" with "if ANYONE..." The "someone" in question is one of the people being shot at and time and time again, the unarmed are killed by the gunman except my luck.

    People being shot at have a direct threat, and a good reason to shoot back. Bystanders, across the street for instance, SHOULD call 911. They might choose to step in, but that shouldn't be plan A.

    "Or maybe you don't really think your guns will work in situations like this " There are no promises, but, again, we know how being unarmed plays out in these situations 99% of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The shooter in Nevada had a prior run-in with the law in 2000 when he was taken into protective custody during a mental health commitment.

    He was taken into custody in California, which is very good about reporting that sort of thing to the feds. But an observational hold doesn't amount to an adjudication under federal law, so he would not have been prohibited by it. Even as strict as California is, their prohibition on an observational hold is temporary, and would have expired by now.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well, GMC, you are just plain wrong. You guys are always telling me that people need guns in public places to stop shooters. That is clear and that is why you have convinced so many people that we need guns in public places. The police can't get there in time, you say. You want armed people in schools to stare down shooters. That is NOT just to defend yourselves and your family. So I want to know if you have been lying all along or what is going on here? Many many many of you use that rhetoric. To deny it is just ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No 18 Echo. I am not confused. It is your side that is confused. I have not misinterpreted what you guys have been telling me ever since I started this blog. You are loud and clear that someone with a gun would save the day at a shooting like the IHOP shooting. Your semantics are totally absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There are a lot of variables at play here. The goal of a concealed carrier is to make it back home every night. The restaurant owner with a gun made the correct decision to achieve that goal. His statement that he probably should have shot the guy in the back is probably a good idea, honestly. Maybe those guardsmen wouldn't have died. But the restauranteur hesitated because the shooter wasn't a direct threat to him anymore.

    From what I've read, the shooter shot someone in the parking lot first, then walked into IHOP, stood in the middle of the restaurant and fired at one side of the building. Some other accounts mention that emptied a magazine outside before entering the IHOP. Either way, that is plenty of time for an armed diner to hear the shots, draw their gun, and observe a man holding a rifle walking into the center of the dining room.

    The key to reacting in time in a situation like this is not necessarily to have a gun, but to have mentally prepared a reaction so that you don't freeze up. You can observe the freeze up happening in the video of the Florida school board shooting. when that guy pulled his gun, only one person did anything, she hit the deck and crawled away from danger. Everyone else froze. They couldn't believe it was happening. It's a perfectly normal human reaction, which is why police and military train so much to condition their minds to function in such a stressful circumstance.

    We carry guns to address threats to our own lives. The life of every single person in that IHOP was in danger from that gunman, so even one person acting in self defense would have a benefit of saving everyone else's life as well. That's not the same as a concealed carrier swooping in to save the day. Most people would probably have the same reaction as the other restaurant owner, act to protect yourself and your family, and get away at the first opportunity.

    The police have a duty to go confront the mass killer, the concealed carrier only has a duty to protect himself, which has the added effect of protecting everyone else, if they succeed. If you really wish to understand the difference you should attend a concealed carry class, or read In The Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob. Or take a class from Mas. Or Larry Yatch, he lives in Minnesota.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "You want armed people in schools to stare down shooters."

    Not quite, I want myself to be able to be armed in a school, to keep my options open should a lunatic decide to shoot up the place. If the shooter comes into my room, he gets shot. If he doesn't, then I escape or hide as the situation dictates.

    Now, instituting a program like what exists in Israel would be something to consider too. They have people in every school trained how to respond to a mass shooter, and their school shootings dropped precipitously when they implemented that policy. I would certainly feel safe sending my kids to a school like that, but I don't really think it's practical here in america. So I would just like to allow any legal concealed carrier to have their weapon at the school with them.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dave- you are now agreeing with almost everything I have said about the difficulties of being able to confront and shoot someone in a public place who has a gun- " The key to reacting in time in a situation like this is not necessarily to have a gun, but to have mentally prepared a reaction so that you don't freeze up. You can observe the freeze up happening in the video of the Florida school board shooting. when that guy pulled his gun, only one person did anything, she hit the deck and crawled away from danger. Everyone else froze. They couldn't believe it was happening. It's a perfectly normal human reaction, which is why police and military train so much to condition their minds to function in such a stressful circumstance." I have said as much in somewhat different wording over and over again on this blog. But what I get back from people is that you permit holders could save the day. Now you are all telling me that the only reason you carry your guns is to save yourself and your families. So if that means that you don't actually use your gun in situations like this because you admit that might "freeze up" and that the best way to save yourself is to hit the deck and crawl away, your response is no different than someone like me who would not have my gun at the ready. This is one of the more interesting conversations on this blog and I will explore it more later.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "The U.S. has more gun deaths per 100,000 than civilized countries not at war. "

    Not really. We're actually #8 on the list.
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

    All of those countries have STRICTER gun control than we do, and we have far higher rates of gun ownership than those countries do... yet they have higher firearm-related homicide rates.

    This appears to show that there may be OTHER factors more directly related to firearm-related crime than guns and "weak" gun laws?

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  40. "So if that means that you don't actually use your gun in situations like this because you admit that might "freeze up" and that the best way to save yourself is to hit the deck and crawl away, your response is no different than someone like me who would not have my gun at the ready. "

    No, what he's saying is that we want the OPTION to use force. Sometimes crawling away might be the safest method, and sometimes not. There is no hard and fast rule for these kinds of things, it depends on the situation. If you aren't armed, your only option is to cower and try to run, which might work out great if they're not focused on you and there is an exit nearby. Otherwise you're at the attacker's mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'venever seen that website before. The data is different than other official sources. The comparison is per 1000 rather than 100,000 which is the way most other organizations use. I would wonder about Zimbabwe being considered an industrialized country for the purpose of comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I want the option of not having people who shouldn't have guns from getting them so they shoot people up in public places. I want the option of not being surrounded by people with guns everywhere I go.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Like I said in my comment, a person in a restaurant who shoots a mass killer in defense of himself, also ends up protecting everyone else in the room.

    It's better to be able to fight back. That lady at the Florida school board could have easily been shot as she cleared the edge of the desk. If someone at the IHOP had thought of this type of situation beforehand, they would have had plenty of time to have their gun out and shoot the crazy man as soon as he walked in the door. They would be acting with pure self preservation in mind, but they would save the life of everyone in the restaurant, as well as their own, by eliminating the threat.

    Just because it didn't happen in this case, doesn't mean that it could never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Are you serious, Dave? I can't believe you just wrote this. So, your explanation is that someone surely should have expected that on this particular day, a mentally ill guy with several assault rifles was going to walk into the IHOP where that person just happened to be so he should have his gun at the ready. What???? This conversation has now gone over the edge of reason into fantasy world.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Japete: “But what I get back from people is that you permit holders could save the day. Now you are all telling me that the only reason you carry your guns is to save yourself and your families.”

    One problem is you are lumping everyone who disagrees with you together as if they are one monolithic entity. One thing you might want to do is pull quotes from individuals that you feel are being contradictory; otherwise it is not really fair to say “now you are all telling me…” I’ve seen people make that claim before, and I disagree with it- and it appears that most of your readers do as well. Can’t you just say “I agree with you Echo/Robin/GMC/etc… CCW is not for public protection”?

    I have always stated that CCW is for personal protection- it is not for public protection. In no way does carrying a gun for personal protection obligate one to be a hero. But there are heroes everyday, who make choices to put themselves at risk to help even complete strangers. I once ran to a burning car, but pulling a gun and killing a person is a whole different ballgame. Running into a situation with a gun introduces all kinds of liability, not to mention the moral difficulties of taking a life.

    But it could happen, and there are several examples of it happening already, and I applaud their heroism. Regardless, it should never be a reason for implementing shall issue policy, and certainly Swagler not being a hero is no reason against CCW. The bottom line is- those people who were killed, wounded, or shot at had every right to defend themselves with the best means possible- and that is the reason for right to carry laws, not because it is supposed to lessen mass shooting casualties.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Would this be the same as saying that those of us on the gun violence prevention side are all gun banners?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Japete: “Would this be the same as saying that those of us on the gun violence prevention side are all gun banners?”

    Kindof, except I never met someone who speaks up for gun control who doesn’t want to ban something. I would applaud you if you said we can do this without ANY bans, by concentrating on background checks, safety education, etc. You are saying you are not a “gun banner” because you don’t want to ban every single gun, and I believe you. It just isn’t much consolation when I don’t want you to ban the things you freely talk about banning.

    ReplyDelete
  48. And then you assume that restrictions on sales of any gun means the inevitable ban on ALL guns and we are off to the races.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Japete: “And then you assume that restrictions on sales of any gun means the inevitable ban on ALL guns and we are off to the races.”

    I don’t need to assume anything or consider where it will inevitably lead if I oppose the very bans you are advocating. That logic is only for people who are ok with you banning 11 round magazines, and rifles with pistil grips et al. I fight against your bans for what they are. Do I think you would stop after the magazines and “assault weapons” are banned? No. Do I think you want to ban every single gun? No- I don’t think that either.

    ReplyDelete
  50. All I said, was that if a concealed carrier had been at the restaurant that day, in this particular incident, they would have had time to respond, according to what I've read about the time line of events. People who carry concealed weapons legally carry them everywhere they go. (Within the law of course) So if I go to an IHOP to have breakfast, then I have a gun at an IHOP. I also have a gun with me in the car everywhere I drive, when I go to the bank, when I go to the grocery store. It's not because I'm just itching to shoot somebody, it's because crazy men with guns can happen anywhere.

    ReplyDelete