Ft. Lauderdale Airport 1-6-17 Another Wackjob Shooting

[tinselwolverine]

... outside of a hollywood movie, how reasonable is it to expect a guy with a CCL to do something about it, other than getting shot themselves or shooting an innocent victim?

Nothing like that ever happens in a Hollywood movie.

The hero who come to the rescue is never a regular civilian with a CCL (even in 48 Hours, the Eddie Murphy character was not a regular civilian nor did he have a CCL).

It's almost always a surly cop who has been reprimanded numerous times for protocol violations and is on the verge of being fired or even prosecuted for having theretofore fucked up the investigation through yet another protocol violation.

Don't you ever watch television or movies?

 

[Michchamp]

Well, from the stories presented, it looks to me that intervention against armed perpetrators of crimes by armed standers by has been met with mixed results.

here's a reasonably balanced WaPo article by a law prof, Gene Volokh (who leans conservative with a lower case "c" or at times libertarian).

he cited 10 examples from '97-'15 although he cautioned that in some examples its not clear if the shooter planned on a mass shooting... most of them also involved don't fit the "well planned mass shooting" type of situation, and involve more spontaneous outbursts of anger or drunkenness.

but again, no one argued it (ie gun owners stopping shootings in progress) didn't happen, just that its not worth using these instances to push for more widespread gun ownership and carry laws.

I agree. and you also have to set these against the cases where armed bystanders intervened and made the situations worse. off the top of my head there are two.
(the two in Houston, one in thumb's links, and this one I mentioned) I am confident there are others.

 

[Michchamp]

Nothing like that ever happens in a Hollywood movie.

The hero who come to the rescue is never a regular civilian with a CCL (even in 48 Hours, the Eddie Murphy character was not a regular civilian nor did he have a CCL).

It's almost always a surly cop who has been reprimanded numerous times for protocol violations and is on the verge of being fired or even prosecuted for having theretofore fucked up the investigation through yet another protocol violation.

Don't you ever watch television or movies?

yes, but only European art house films about feelings and emotions, or the struggles of the working class.

 

[Spartanmack]

a number of news articles from more reputable cites note that in June 2016 ordered the CDC to study the effects of gun violence, but this was never done because the CDC has no funding for such a thing. and they have no funding for such a thing because in the 90's the Republican-controlled congress, at the behest of the NRA - ordered them to stop studying the effects of gun violence because the NRA believed this promoted an "anti-gun" agenda. I can't imagine that if the statistics showed most firearm use was truly defensive, they would feel this way.

Are you sure about this? Because this piece from the NRA would suggest otherwise. First of all, the study I referenced was commissioned in 2013, not 2016 and it was done by executive order where Barack Obama allocated $10mm to do the study. From the NRA piece, as a result of the executive order "...a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC 'to advocate or promote gun control' was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents—and presumably the Obama Administration—thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe."

Of course the findings of the study were not to the liking of the control lobby so they engaged in similar tactics you're trying to pull, which is to say that a study commissioned by the CDC, conducted by people contracted by the CDC isn't actually a CDC report and therefore not as reliable as anecdotal stories from more reliable sources like the Washington Post and Salon. click on the NRA article and it will give you a good summary of the findings of the report. It contradicts just about everything you say and believe about armed citizens' defensive use of firearms.

it looks like Obama ordered a study, no study was done because of the lack of funding and political opposition to it, and then Right Wing & gun nut media sites decided to capitalize on this by making up their own results of the study.

Again, this is clearly factually incorrect.

The idea that most firearm use is defensive seems absurd on its face, given the overwhelming use of firearms in suicides, domesic shootings, and urban gang warfare...

Sorry, but what seems absurd on it's face to you isn't a valid argument and again, the facts contradict this.

and not sure why the politico article is needed. it's clear no one here ever claimed defensive firearm use is a myth. we're all aware of instances where its successful, and obviously security guards, police, armored car drivers, etc wouldnt carry guns it they werent effective at deterring or preventing crimes. No, the point is that guns are not completely effective deterring/preventing crime, and encouraging widespread gun ownership has many negative consequences and outcomes. more guns basically means more shootings, intentional, reckless, or accidental.

This again is simply false. Just google "good guy with a gun and most of the top returns are articles are about exactly that - that the good guy with a gun stopping crime is a myth. And based on the number of times you've written posts about this, it's not unreasonable to assume you believe the same. Actually, it's more accurate to say it's ridiculous for you to say you don't.

 

[Spartanmack]

even in non-ex military shooters... typically the shooter has prepared and planned it.

Are you saying you believe most shooters that don't have military training plan and prepare for the armed civilian scenario? If they do, it's in selecting gun free zones to shoot up. The idea that these shooters are planning and preparing to meet armed resistance from non-police is highly unlikely. How would they even do that? You can't take a class or tactical training on how to carry out a mass shooting, unless you live in North Africa or the Middle East.

not much training and continuing effort goes into getting a CCL or maintaining a license. you need a single class, if that. thank the NRA for it.

This may be true but it's also likely true that not a lot of planning and prep goes into mass shootings other than choosing a site where there is the lowest probability of meeting armed resistance.

my grandpa has one... he's 86 and doesn't ever practice. about 7-8 years ago he took a class, then bought his pistol and got his CCL.

and as noted before, in some of the more notorious cases, Aurora, CO, Sandy Hook elementary, and the FL nightclub, the shooter had an assault rifle and was firing indiscriminately in crowded rooms... outside of a hollywood movie, how reasonable is it to expect a guy with a CCL to do something about it, other than getting shot themselves or shooting an innocent victim?

you still haven't posted your examples.

How many innocent people has your grandpa accidentally shot while intervening in an active shooter situation? How could you miss the point to my Politico article but think your Grandpa's CCL is remotely relevant?

I've posted the studies and the examples a few times now.

 

[Michchamp]

Are you sure about this? Because this piece from the NRA would suggest otherwise. First of all, the study I referenced was commissioned in 2013, not 2016 and it was done by executive order where Barack Obama allocated $10mm to do the study. From the NRA piece, as a result of the executive order "...a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC 'to advocate or promote gun control' was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents?and presumably the Obama Administration?thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe."

Of course the findings of the study were not to the liking of the control lobby so they engaged in similar tactics you're trying to pull, which is to say that a study commissioned by the CDC, conducted by people contracted by the CDC isn't actually a CDC report and therefore not as reliable as anecdotal stories from more reliable sources like the Washington Post and Salon. click on the NRA article and it will give you a good summary of the findings of the report. It contradicts just about everything you say and believe about armed citizens' defensive use of firearms.



Again, this is clearly factually incorrect.



Sorry, but what seems absurd on it's face to you isn't a valid argument and again, the facts contradict this.



This again is simply false. Just google "good guy with a gun and most of the top returns are articles are about exactly that - that the good guy with a gun stopping crime is a myth. And based on the number of times you've written posts about this, it's not unreasonable to assume you believe the same. Actually, it's more accurate to say it's ridiculous for you to say you don't.

Okay, so I can see we're now at the point where we can go i circles indefinitely, so I'm not going to bother responding to most of this, since your not doing anything other than telling me I'm wrong. I made my points, and rest my case.

but one point I'd like to address: where exactly is the CDC report? there isn't one from 2013 or 2016; Obama requested the CDC conduct a report but one was never conducted. there is, as I noted, a BOATLOAD of right wing gun nut sites referring to it (which includes the NRA), but as far as I can tell, the last time the CDC conducted any sort of formal report on firearms deaths was 2000-2002 and was related to effectiveness in laws for preventing firearms deaths/injuries not the nature of defensive/justified shootings. Show me where there is a CDC report showing defensive gun use outweighs criminal use.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Okay, so I can see we're now at the point where we can go i circles indefinitely, so I'm not going to bother responding to most of this, since your not doing anything other than telling me I'm wrong. I made my points, and rest my case.

but one point I'd like to address: where exactly is the CDC report? there isn't one from 2013 or 2016; Obama requested the CDC conduct a report but one was never conducted. there is, as I noted, a BOATLOAD of right wing gun nut sites referring to it (which includes the NRA), but as far as I can tell, the last time the CDC conducted any sort of formal report on firearms deaths was 2000-2002 and was related to effectiveness in laws for preventing firearms deaths/injuries not the nature of defensive/justified shootings. Show me where there is a CDC report showing defensive gun use outweighs criminal use.

It took a bit of digging, but I think i found it.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2

It's big. I'm not sure if I'll get around to digging in or not. I'm curious about the methods and what they could possibly actually measure. It's like Pepper's stats, how do you quantify the impact of things that didn't happen?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm skimming, looking for numbers or plots, but so far, this isn't a report of findings. It a report on what a committee would like researchers to study. The kind of thing the government releases so researchers know what kinds of proposals they want to fund.

This is probably the best summary you will find for research that took place before 2013. It's not a new CDC study. I do think this is the report they are claiming is a CDC report because it contains the quotes they list. That's a quibble though. They paint an incorrect picture of what this is, but that does not impact its validity.

Now did the NRA pick quotes what do a fair job representing the document? That's another question.

 

[Spartanmack]

Okay, so I can see we're now at the point where we can go i circles indefinitely, so I'm not going to bother responding to most of this, since your not doing anything other than telling me I'm wrong. I made my points, and rest my case.

but one point I'd like to address: where exactly is the CDC report? there isn't one from 2013 or 2016; Obama requested the CDC conduct a report but one was never conducted. there is, as I noted, a BOATLOAD of right wing gun nut sites referring to it (which includes the NRA), but as far as I can tell, the last time the CDC conducted any sort of formal report on firearms deaths was 2000-2002 and was related to effectiveness in laws for preventing firearms deaths/injuries not the nature of defensive/justified shootings. Show me where there is a CDC report showing defensive gun use outweighs criminal use.

We're not going in circles and I'm not merely telling you you're wrong - you've made assertions that are demonstrably false and i've shown them to be false. And you've tried to discredit the points I've made that are based on a study by posting links to a bunch of anecdotal stories that show that armed citizens don't always save the day. You haven't presented a study or anything that comes close to actual data.

I've already posted two links that reference the CDC report. Posting it a third time would be going around in circles, but here you go...

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1#iii

 

[Michchamp]

It took a bit of digging, but I think i found it.

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/2

It's big. I'm not sure if I'll get around to digging in or not. I'm curious about the methods and what they could possibly actually measure. It's like Pepper's stats, how do you quantify the impact of things that didn't happen?

yeah. its not a CDC study per se, it looks like it was funded by the CDC, among others but not conducted by CDC staff.

the NRA/Guns and Ammo article claims "But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC?s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama?s plan backfired" but it really doesn't. if you read through their 10 claims, they're all more or less strawmen. sure maybe you could find someone arguing those things on facebook or twitter, but lumping actual gun control advocates (like people who do it for a living), the Brady Center, etc. in with random uninformed people to create these strawmen isn't fair. of course youre less likely to be attacked and can better defend yourself if you have a gun... but that doesn't mean we should allow gun sales without background checks, or allow CCL to practically everyone who wants one, push guns in schools, bars, churches, etc. - ie all things gun control advocates have opposed. Nor does it even mean more people should own guns.

 

[Spartanmack]

yeah. its not a CDC study per se, it looks like it was funded by the CDC, among others but not conducted by CDC staff.

First you said their was no study because congress banned the CDC from doing the study and there was no funding for such a study. Now we see there actually was, the president issued and executive order and allocated funds to the CDC for the study. Now you're trying to say because it was done by a group of academics (professional researchers) hand picked and funded by the CDC, the study isn't ACTUALLY a CDC study. C'mon, you have to see how weak that argument is.

the NRA/Guns and Ammo article claims "But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired" but it really doesn't. if you read through their 10 claims, they're all more or less strawmen. sure maybe you could find someone arguing those things on facebook or twitter, but lumping actual gun control advocates (like people who do it for a living), the Brady Center, etc. in with random uninformed people to create these strawmen isn't fair. of course youre less likely to be attacked and can better defend yourself if you have a gun... but that doesn't mean we should allow gun sales without background checks, or allow CCL to practically everyone who wants one, push guns in schools, bars, churches, etc. - ie all things gun control advocates have opposed. Nor does it even mean more people should own guns.

Talk about strawmen - nobody is advocating getting rid of background checks. And that's hardly an exhaustive list of what the gun control advocates are pushing for. They're pressing for some egregious measures including mandatory confiscation programs. Nobody has argued for or against any of that in this thread. The discussion here is whether or not on balance, armed citizens make active shooter scenarios more dangerous.

Also, it's not true that you're less likely to be attacked if you're carrying a gun, particularly one that is concealed, as we're talking about here. Your odds of being attacked are virtually unchanged by a gun that's not in view.

 

[Gulo Blue]

First you said their was no study because congress banned the CDC from doing the study and there was no funding for such a study. Now we see there actually was, the president issued and executive order and allocated funds to the CDC for the study.

This isn't a CDC study. It's a review of existing literature. It draws from what looks like hundreds of studies, mostly from around 2000-2013, but some going back to the 80s. If funds were allocated in 2013 or 2016 for studies, this isn't the fruit of that spending, this is a statement of the priorities for what will be done with that money. This research predates the lifting of the ban.

It's a good resource, but this article that makes it sound like some political effort backfired is incorrect. It's the start of that effort, not the end. It should be no surprise that the NRA is able to find a parts of a 100 page summary of 100's of papers that it likes. It would be shocking if they couldn't.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Here's a story from today about a civilian who killed someone who was attacking an Arizona State Trooper.

Really doesn't fit the description of someone stopping a potential mass killer in a crowded space, and it's in a place where pretty much every resident of the area is riding around with a loaded weapon; still, the Trooper is probably glad the guy came along.

 

[Michchamp]

Here's a story from today about a civilian who killed someone who was attacking an Arizona State Trooper.

Really doesn't fit the description of someone stopping a potential mass killer in a crowded space, and it's in a place where pretty much every resident of the area is riding around with a loaded weapon; still, the Trooper is probably glad the guy came along.

well, this just proves those idiot libtards who claim guns have never been used for defensive purposes wrong!

 

[tinselwolverine]

well, this just proves those idiot libtards who claim guns have never been used for defensive purposes wrong!

Shit like this probably happens out in the boonies fairly frequently. The assailant wasn't a mass shooter; he probably is a guy with warrants who had been driving the car that rolled and was gonna be in more trouble because his passenger was killed.

Sounds like he attacked the Trooper out of desperation, probably attempting to steal the cop car and flee the area.

Obviously a much easier situation for an armed civilian to control than an attempted mass execution in a crowded space.

So I still see, from the examples, armed civilian intervention as at times situationally effective and at times situationally detrimental.

 

[Michchamp]

tangentially related to this thread title (involving shooting and an airport) the TSA confiscated a record number of guns in carry on luggage this year (almost 3400 guns, 83% of which were loaded).

how dumb/reckless do you have to be to try to bring a gun - or even worse a loaded on - on a plane in your carry on?