If we are to believe that the correlation between strict gun control and low rates of gun violence in other industrialized nations really is some sort of incredible coincidence, events in Australia must be taken for nothing short of a miracle. In the 18 years prior to 1996 gun control reforms, that nation saw 13 mass shootings. In the 16 since, they have seen one -- which usually isn't even counted, because the shooter was only able to kill two people before he had to stop to reload (because: gun control) and was apprehended. That wouldn't even count as a mass shooting in the guide to American massacres I linked to earlier. Still, after that incident, Australia reviewed and tightened its gun laws again. Ten years later, there hasn't been another.
Before the gun fetishists start freaking out (as if they hadn't already): it didn't take some sort of total authoritarian prohibition in Australia to achieve this kind of result. It just took common sense gun laws. In fact, there are more guns in Australia now than there were before the 1996 reforms. But, magazine size is limited, weapons designed for war zones can only be owned (in a non-operational state) by collectors and people who own any gun need to be over 18, have a license and keep them stored safely. Exactly what part of that sounds so unreasonable to the average sportsman?
And if you're a gun enthusiast still clinging to the based-on-nothing belief that people will just find other ways of committing gun homicides, here's a little something more from our friends down under:After the introduction of gun laws, a significant downward trend was evident in total homicides, and the ratio of pre‐law to post‐law trends differed statistically from "no effect" (p = 0.01, table 33).). We conclude that the data do not support any homicide method substitution hypothesis.In short: when gun homicides declined, all homicides declined. People did not simply commit them another way.
I actually disagree when they conclude that no method substitution occurs, however. There is some evidence to suggest that people who want to go on a violent rampage do try to find other ways when guns are not available. Of course these people do not, in fact, slyly poison 20 school children when a Glock isn't handy or mix up some kind of crazy Joker laughing gas. When guns aren't handy, they seem to use the next best thing: a knife. We've seen this over and over again in China lately. The major difference is that, even when a knife-wielding maniac is able to reach dozens of victims, often every single victim survives. These events aren't showing up as homicides perhaps because homicide wasn't achieved, because it wasn't as easily achievable. Ever hear that expression about taking a knife to a gunfight? It exists for a reason.
Still, too many Americans -- including our lawmakers -- insist on remaining astonishingly obstinate when it comes to any suggestion of responsible firearm regulations. Instead of common sense solutions, they repeat bizarre myths and offer idiotic distractions. It's as if every time a white suburbanite picks up a gun, half the country suddenly becomes your crazy grandfather, claiming that the same violent films and video games that kids in Australia, Ireland and Britain are watching and playing are somehow compelling only Americans to go on shooting sprees. It's an... unique idea, to say the least. (Let's not even talk about what they're watching in Japan, which has -- through strict gun control efforts -- virtually eliminated gun violence altogether.)
Not that it would matter if these things were somehow magically compelling only Americans to shoot up their local malls. Contrary to popular belief, sometimes the most effective solution is not, actually, attempting to remove every underlying motive or eliminate every contributing factor. Sometimes it's just using the most effective solution at your disposal.
To be clear, I am definitely not saying that our health care system doesn't need a top-to-bottom overhaul. It does. What I am saying is that by far the most effective, proven solution at our disposal is a major, common sense reform of our gun control laws, and that there is no good reason not to do it.
I am ok with you thinking it is sinful. It was not meant to be hurtful, just pointing out that if abortion among other things are ok because it will happen anyway, so why not regulate it, I do not understand why you would not use the same rational about gun control. You will never be able to completely ban guns. It would be more realistic to regulate them, then to ban them.
first bolded: No, all 6 theaters were screening it at midnight.
second bolded: Really? That would be why i found 4 cases.
Do Civilians Armed With Guns Ever Capture, Kill, or Otherwise Stop Mass Shooters?
Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings. Opponents occasionally ask: If that?s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven?t heard even one such example.
Naturally, such examples will be rare, partly because mass shootings are rare, partly because many mass shootings happen in supposedly ?gun-free? zones (such as schools, universities, or private property posted with a no-guns sign) in which gun carrying isn?t allowed, and partly for other reasons. Moreover, at least some examples are contested, because it might be unclear ? as you?ll see below ? whether the shooter had been planning to kill more people when he was stopped. But here are instances that I have seen, not counting killings stopped by people who were off-duty police officers (or police officers from other jurisdictions) at the time of the shooting.
1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn?t find any contemporaneous news articles that so state.
2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun ? possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I?ve seen are unclear ? when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. It?s not clear whether Wurst was planning to kill others, would have gotten into a gun battle with the police, or would have otherwise killed more people had Strand not stopped him.
3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). It?s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.
4. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn?t worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have.
So it appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public. In what fraction of mass shootings would such interventions happen, if gun possession were allowed in the places where the shootings happen? We don?t know. In what fraction would interventions prevent more killings and injuries, as opposed to capturing or killing the murderer after he?s already done? We don?t know. In what fraction would interventions lead to more injuries to bystanders? Again, we don?t know. Finally, always keep in mind that mass shootings in public places should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for much less than 1% of all homicides in the U.S., and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). Still, people have asked for examples of some shootings in which a civilian armed with a gun intervened and brought down the shooter ? so here they are.
eta* found another one.(from the same link)
eta* (same link again.1966, University of Texas. Charles Whitman climbed the 28 story university tower and began shooting people.
Soon citizens on the ground grabbed their rifles and returned fire.
An off duty deputy sheriff and two civilians climbed the tower and ended the rampage
49 were shot before the sniper was killed.
Today the police would have spent hours clearing the area (and maybe arresting those that fired back) and then assemble a hundred men swat team before they decide to drop a bomb on the tower killing the shooter as well as destroying the building.
The death toll would have been much higher
It is interesting but the next story on FR after this one is about a hospital in Birmingham where the shooter wounded three before being shot to death by an armed person. So add this to the list.
Last edited by Sapphire Sunsets; 12-19-2012 at 11:48 AM.
Secondly, I have not seen one single person in this entire debate argue for banning all guns.
Still dont get your argument, which is why I believe you bringing up abortion is simply grandstanding off of a tragedy to bring attention to a conservative talking point. Taking advantage of a tragedy to force attention to your personal agenda is terrible, IMO
I don't really care if armed civilians ever stop mass shooters. Of course if the scenario exists it is logical that it will play out that way a certain percentage of the time. That alone doesnt' justify keeping certain kinds of guns around so civilians can arms themselves. It doesn't because it speaks NOTHING of the state of things if a properly written gun law were in place.
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
See I also work and promote activities that lessen the amount of abortions performed. I would be so happy if there was no need of abortions medically or by election. Truly. I promote sex education in schools. I work to help woman get health care for the reproductive needs etc. I don't promote abstinence as the highest form of birth control because historically it doesn't work etc.
Same with guns. I said my loftiest of goals is no guns. Realistically, I know how unlikely that it is. Does that mean I stop working to reduce guns, the type of guns avail etc?
This is an interesting article. I'm only going to quote some of it.
Preparing for School Attacks
The situation is
very much like fire protection. The probability of a student being killed or
seriously injured by violence is significantly greater than the probability of
being killed or seriously injured by fire. No child has been killed by school
fire in North America in over a quarter of a century, but in the 2004/2005
school year, 48 people were murdered in American schools. These are usually
random acts of violence, or shootings by students as opposed to acts of
terrorism, but the defense against terrorist attacks in our schools, as outlined
in this article, is largely the same as the defense against school
Thus, our children
are dozens of times more likely to be killed by violence than fire, and
thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured by violence as compared
to fire. Yet, in any school you can look around and see fire sprinklers, smoke
alarms, fire exits, and fire extinguishers. If we can spend all that money and
time preparing for fire (and we should, since every life is precious) shouldn't
we spend time and money preparing for the thing that is far more likely to kill
or injure a child?
The most negligent, unprofessional, obscene words
anyone can ever say are: "It will never happen here." When someone asks, "Do you
really think there will be a terrorist act or a school shooting here?" Just
point to the fire exit and say, "Do you really think there will be a fire here?”
No, we don't think there will ever be a fire here. But we would be morally,
criminally negligent if we did not prepare for the possibility. And the same is
far, far truer of school violence."