20 People Shot Dead on Virginia Tech Campus

[Mephisto]

You have a point there.




Just awful.

There is a thread about the video and the videomaker here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79764

 

[Ian Osborne]

This is something weird that happens to skeptics in gun control threads: they seem to forget all about the correlation/causation fallacy.

...unless it suits their agenda, of course.

 

[Meadmaker]

There was an incident in Albuquerque NM where a citizen with a concealed-carry permit shot and killed a man who accosted a woman in a Wal-Mart parking lot with a knife in an apparent kidnapping attempt. It was later determined that the man was responsible for several rape/assaults in the area. It's also difficult (as you might imagine) to find a non-biased source for most of these stories, but it did run in Albuquerque newspapers approximately a little over a year ago.

That incident is relevant to the current situation, but only marginally so. It's an example of a private citizen preventing a crime against a stranger, and that is worth mentioning. However, a lot of people are saying that an armed citizen could have stopped this massacre in progress, thus saving lives.

If that's so, why has it never happened? There have been multiple murders in the past in the United States. There have been random rampages like this one, or more methodical plannned killings. There are a fair number of citizens with concealed carry permits. Surely, just by random chance, it seems as if guns and murderers would find themselves in the same spot. And yet, no lives have ever been saved in these situations by the actions of alert citizens who had concealed weapons.

I think the "if only someone had had a gun" scenarios just aren't very realistic.

 

[BPSCG]

I don't know if this has been said in the thread already, but if everybody has a gun and starts shooting back at the lone guman, who is going to tell the crazy guy appart from the firing crowd? The more likely outcome is a much bigger blood bath in my opinion.

This argument has already been made, and disposed of. In Virginia, it is generally perfectly legal for civilians to openly walk around with guns, in broad daylight. And yet, apparently, very few people do so; outside of a firing range, I have never seen a civilian with a handgun in public. I suppose it's possible that everyone except me either has a concealed-carry permit or is just packing illegally, but I doubt it.

A lot of people want to have nothing to do with guns and won't carry one, period. You've met some of them right here. A lot more people own guns but generally have little reason and less desire to carry them around. The scenario you envision - a room full of armed people shooting wildly - is just not plausible.

 

[MortFurd]

That incident is relevant to the current situation, but only marginally so. It's an example of a private citizen preventing a crime against a stranger, and that is worth mentioning. However, a lot of people are saying that an armed citizen could have stopped this massacre in progress, thus saving lives.

If that's so, why has it never happened? There have been multiple murders in the past in the United States. There have been random rampages like this one, or more methodical plannned killings. There are a fair number of citizens with concealed carry permits. Surely, just by random chance, it seems as if guns and murderers would find themselves in the same spot. And yet, no lives have ever been saved in these situations by the actions of alert citizens who had concealed weapons.

I think the "if only someone had had a gun" scenarios just aren't very realistic.

Biggest reason being that there aren't that many armed, law abiding citizens wandering around. The laws make it too difficult and society makes it too unpopular for people to amble around with a pistol on their belt.

 

[robinson]

And yet, no lives have ever been saved in these situations by the actions of alert citizens who had concealed weapons.

Wrong. Many lives have been saved.

I think the "if only someone had had a gun" scenarios just aren't very realistic.

They happen all the time.

Has there ever been an incident in which someone committed one murder, and it appeared he would commit another, but he was prevented from doing so when a private citizen with a firearm incapacititated[sic] the murderer?

Yes.

 

[Meadmaker]

A lot of people want to have nothing to do with guns and won't carry one, period. You've met some of them right here. A lot more people own guns but generally have little reason and less desire to carry them around. The scenario you envision, a room full of people, all armed, shooting wildly, is just not plausible.

True, but neither is the "concerned armed citizen takes out wild gunmen" scenario plausible, and for exactly the same reason.

 

[Mephisto]

That incident is relevant to the current situation, but only marginally so. It's an example of a private citizen preventing a crime against a stranger, and that is worth mentioning. However, a lot of people are saying that an armed citizen could have stopped this massacre in progress, thus saving lives.

If that's so, why has it never happened? There have been multiple murders in the past in the United States. There have been random rampages like this one, or more methodical plannned killings. There are a fair number of citizens with concealed carry permits. Surely, just by random chance, it seems as if guns and murderers would find themselves in the same spot. And yet, no lives have ever been saved in these situations by the actions of alert citizens who had concealed weapons.

I think the "if only someone had had a gun" scenarios just aren't very realistic.

I think the number of people who legally carry concealed weapons is far less than most would imagine. They are often armed because of their work, and likely wouldn't encounter the circumstances that would enable them to use their weapon. It's also not likely that a jeweler transporting his wares or an armed District Attorney would wllingly confront an attacker holding hostages.

Although I'm an avid gun owner, I wouldn't hesitate to say that with the proper martial arts training a private citizen could have done a fairly adequate job of defending himself (and others) with something as innocent as a pocketknife. Of course, the first hurtle to overcome is putting oneself in mortal danger, but as I said before, it's better than simply waiting your turn.

There was another incident (the recent shooting in a shopping mall) where an off-duty police officer effectively engaged and contained a gunman until more police units could arrive.

The chances of an armed citizen stopping an incident like this is pretty miniscule as are the chances that he'll be in the right (or wrong) place at the right time.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wrong. Many lives have been saved.



They happen all the time.



Yes.

Well then it should be easy to come up with examples.

 

[Meadmaker]

There was another incident (the recent shooting in a shopping mall) where an off-duty police officer effectively contained a gunman until more police units could arrive.

Every example I could think of that was vaguely similar also involved an off duty police officer.

 

[richardm]

Has there ever been an incident in which someone committed one murder, and it appeared he would commit another, but he was prevented from doing so when a private citizen with a firearm incapacititated the murderer?

Joel Myrick's actions at another school have been mentioned in this forum before. Basically he fetched a gun out of his car and "persuaded" the killer to stop. Does an assistant principal count as a private citizen?

Edited to add: I guess it may have stuck in my mind because there aren't that many examples. Whether that's down to problems of reporting or not, who knows?

 

[robinson]

Well then it should be easy to come up with examples.

Yes, it is. Of course, this topic isn't about that. But hell, lets ignore that, and make it into a Gun topic instead. Then we can forget all about dead students and stuff, and fight over other stuff.

 

[Mephisto]

Every example I could think of that was vaguely similar also involved an off duty police officer.

Off-duty police officers also have an advantage in that they are trained for confrontations such as this. One other advantage is that they also carry a badge and might also be recognized by officers responding to the violence.

I can't imagine the threat an average citizen would put himself in after neutralizing an armed threat after a violent assault. Even if you are the good samaritan, just imagine how close to death you would be standing over two or more bloody bodies with a firearm in your hand when the police show up.

 

[Pardalis]

This argument has already been made, and disposed of. In Virginia, it is generally perfectly legal for civilians to openly walk around with guns, in broad daylight. And yet, apparently, very few people do so; outside of a firing range, I have never seen a civilian with a handgun in public. I suppose it's possible that everyone except me either has a concealed-carry permit or is just packing illegally, but I doubt it.

A lot of people want to have nothing to do with guns and won't carry one, period. You've met some of them right here. A lot more people own guns but generally have little reason and less desire to carry them around. The scenario you envision, a room full of people, all armed, shooting wildly, is just not plausible.

I understand your point. The "firing crowd" might have been an exaggeration. But wouldn't having more than one person firing a gun make the police's job even trickier? How are they going to tell them appart, which is the bad guy? How are the other people going to tell which one is which?

 

[BPSCG]

True, but neither is the "concerned armed citizen takes out wild gunmen" scenario plausible, and for exactly the same reason

I'll concede that that scenario is rare - brave NRA member takes down guy shooting up local shopping mall. But "convenience store owner shoots holdup man" is a staple of your 5:00 pm "Eyewitless News" broadcast. And how many crimes never happen in the first place when the would-be perpetrators discover their mark has a gun?* There was a story out of Katrina about a guy sitting on his front porch in the aftermath, running a generator, when a couple of toughs walked up to his house and told him they were taking his generator. He said he thought they were mistaken, and they left, agreeing that he and his shotgun had made a convincing argument in his favor.

* I realize that that rhetorical question is completely unanswerable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're right, but apparently the law enforcement specialist was critiquing their actions and had some evidence that this was happening before an entry was attempted. Still, I think a strong reasessment of tactics is required here, especially if you consider that breeching the building and confronting the attacker should be the singlemost important concern to save innocent lives.

But this would often be a bad choice. If they where thinking hostage standoff and not spree killer, then the choice was a much more correct one.

So encouraging the first officers at the sceen to engage the gunman is often a bad idea.

Any tactic will have situations it is poorly suited to, and this was such a situation. So you need to look at the most common kinds of situation and have your tactics for that, and hope that if it is a different situation it will be quickly identified and have a change in responce.

 

[tkingdoll]

But "convenience store owner shoots holdup man" is a staple of your 5:00 pm "Eyewitless News" broadcast. And how many crimes never happen in the first place when the would-be perpetrators discover their mark has a gun?* There was a story out of Katrina about a guy sitting on his front porch in the aftermath, running a generator, when a couple of toughs walked up to his house and told him they were taking his generator. He said he thought they were mistaken, and they left, agreeing that he and his shotgun had made a convincing argument in his favor.

* I realize that that rhetorical question is completely unanswerable.

If you can prove that handguns prevent more crimes than they cause then you have a good argument for ownership.

 

[BPSCG]

How are they going to tell them appart, which is the bad guy?

Easy; he's the one lying on the floor with the bullet in his back. The good guy is the one who everyone is thanking and hugging.

How are the other people going to tell which one is which?

Um, the bad guy is the one who's already shot three or four people? And the good guy is the one who shot him? Really, how hard can it be to figure out?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Off-duty police officers also have an advantage in that they are trained for confrontations such as this. One other advantage is that they also carry a badge and might also be recognized by officers responding to the violence.

I can't imagine the threat an average citizen would put himself in after neutralizing an armed threat after a violent assault. Even if you are the good samaritan, just imagine how close to death you would be standing over two or more bloody bodies with a firearm in your hand when the police show up.

And yet there was also the incident where the undercover officer was killed by a uniformed officer by missunderstanding.

 

[Dave1001]

Easy; he's the one lying on the floor with the bullet in his back. The good guy is the one who everyone is thanking and hugging.
Um, the bad guy is the one who's already shot three or four people? And the good guy is the one who shot him? Really, how hard can it be to figure out?

That's an empirical question, not a rhetorical one.