Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE

I was just about to start a thread on that, logan… also of note, nobody died. Meanwhile, there have been over 3700 gun fatalities since Newtown, according to "The Gun Report:April 26," Joe Nocera, NYT. Including a 6 year old shot by a 4 year old friend, neighbors who got in a gunfight, policemen, firemen, innocent bystanders, store clerks, customers, churchgoers....

Interestingly, most mass shootings (NEIS*), are stopped by unarmed bystanders.

*NEIS - not ending in suicide.

that would be because most folks don't carry guns ... if most folks carried guns then the statement would be " ... stopped by armed bystanders"

if i understand the NRA's position, which, from my perspective, moves around quite a bit but includes at least one of the following
1. that is an acceptable number of gun related deaths ... it would be acceptable no matter what number of deaths were the result of gun violence ... J Scalia's amendment to the Constitution trumps all those deaths
2. none of the proposed legislation would reduce gun violence, therefore none should be enacted
3. arm everyone as a deterrent (that may only work when one possesses nuclear devices)
4. miscellaneous irrational arguments which support #1

In the NM church incident, how did the bystander get the knifer in a bear hug if he was unarmed?

As far as I can judge there are inherent trade offs no matter what policy you have.

Take the case of Chicago.
It has a high murder rate and also strong gun control.
So you could argue that gun control does not work and that citizen need guns to protect themselves

Otoh, thugs there tend not to carry weapons because it is an easy arrest for the police
They have weapons available as needed
But tend not to carry at other times

So, will the situation there be improved if all gun regs are removed and these guys can carry anything they want any time?
Will citizens be safer if both they and the criminals carry guns all the time?

You cannot say individuals have no right of self defense.
Otoh pervasive gun carry may actually decrease citizen and Leo safety.

As it is, criminals selectively arm themselves when they intend to commit a crime
Kill an opposing gang member or do a robbery

I do not see that these guys would be less dangerous if they carried guns all the time.
Nor do I see them as afraid of potentially armed citizens around them.
I will not feel safe walking into their neighborhood ... Not safe without a gun, but also not safer with a gun.

Pervasive gun carry does not make me feel protected from violent thugs who seem to have a macho indifference to fear

IMO pervasive gun carry just makes it more difficult for Leo to do their job... When everyone has a gun, it seems to me to be more difficult to know who are the bad guys. And IMO pervasive gun carry would creat a situation where a Leo would be forced to shoot sooner and more often. This dynamic already happens when Leo's confront people with realistic fake guns. Leo's are trained to start shooting almost the instant the see a suspicious person with a weapon. If you have an incident where lots of people have grabbed their guns, some innocent people will almost certainly get shot. Especially if they are black

That's what think anyway

logan:

I apologize belatedly for my crack about bandwidth. Just the other day, in this thread I was twice in a row subjected to instances of some sort of antic posts that were complete non sequiturs, and I thought that you were doing the same thing. I cannot imagine how I would have made the leap from Worcestershire sauce to Worcester police without your explanation.

Sorry, dude.

TEd

By the way, IMO there is some parallel between considerations involved in having your children vaccinated and public carry of firearms.

Any given parent can logically say that his child will be individually better off not to be vaccinated.... there is a risk to any vaccination no matter how small, and if everyone else is getting vaccinated, there is essentially minimal risk to remain unvaccinated since the child is still protected by "herd immunity" But if a large number of people make the same decision, suddenly herd immunity is gone and the risks for everyone is much larger.

Sam with choosing to arm yourself in public. Individually, it can make sense. You are more secure and ideally you make people around you safer as well. On the other hand, if everyone is carrying a weapon, then the public safety calculation changes. With so many guns around, the potentials for all sorts of emotional and or accidental gun related injuries skyrocket. If one person in a crowd is armed, he might act to protect many people. If everyone is armed, there is no added saftey from crime, but lots of added risk of being shot by someone who you inadvertently offended and/or is having a bad day. Or you could be a innocent bystander who is shot when two other people have an argument and pull out their weapons to settle the matter.

I think a near consensus is forming, Slipped, that the honorable and socially responsible thing for this citizen to have done would have been to either 1) put his gun away and bear-hug the guy into surrendering, or even better 2) give the knife-wielding fellow his gun and then bear-hug him into surrendering. He would then be looked upon more favorably regardless of the outcome.

Like my second ex-wife would say, "That's the kinda boolshit that flops on the floor when ya try ta think!"

Fer the record, nonsensus ain't the same thang as consensus.