Gun Fantasies, Pro- and Anti-
The pro-gun fantasy on the right goes roughly like this: if more people carried guns, then events like the Giffords shooting wouldn't happen.
The anti-gun fantasy on the left goes roughly like this: even if someone did have a gun in the right place at the right time, it wouldn't stop an event like the Virginia Tech shooting.
Both are ridiculous.
With regard to events like the Giffords shooting, there were too few people involved and it happened too fast. Even if there were a radical increase in the number of concealed firearms on the streets, the odds are still low that a someone in the immediate vicinity will be armed. Furthermore, it takes only a few seconds to empty even a 30-round magazine; it's unlikely that anyone would be able to take out the shooter in time.
With regard to events like Virginia Tech, in which the shooting is extended over several minutes (10-12 in this case), an armed civilian in one of the classrooms would almost certainly be able to take out the shooter, contrary to the absurd conclusions of, for example, 20/20's anti-firearm propaganda piece "If I Only Had a Gun." (The unstated conclusion of that particular piece of nonsense is, roughly: guns are so complicated and dangerous that, if you are caught in a building with an armed psychokiller, and you have a gun, you are better off throwing it out the window than using it to protect yourself.) The shooter was untrained, and would be surprised and easily taken out by an armed civilian.
Sometimes it's hard for me to tell which side in this debate is more out of touch with reality.
The pro-gun fantasy on the right goes roughly like this: if more people carried guns, then events like the Giffords shooting wouldn't happen.
The anti-gun fantasy on the left goes roughly like this: even if someone did have a gun in the right place at the right time, it wouldn't stop an event like the Virginia Tech shooting.
Both are ridiculous.
With regard to events like the Giffords shooting, there were too few people involved and it happened too fast. Even if there were a radical increase in the number of concealed firearms on the streets, the odds are still low that a someone in the immediate vicinity will be armed. Furthermore, it takes only a few seconds to empty even a 30-round magazine; it's unlikely that anyone would be able to take out the shooter in time.
With regard to events like Virginia Tech, in which the shooting is extended over several minutes (10-12 in this case), an armed civilian in one of the classrooms would almost certainly be able to take out the shooter, contrary to the absurd conclusions of, for example, 20/20's anti-firearm propaganda piece "If I Only Had a Gun." (The unstated conclusion of that particular piece of nonsense is, roughly: guns are so complicated and dangerous that, if you are caught in a building with an armed psychokiller, and you have a gun, you are better off throwing it out the window than using it to protect yourself.) The shooter was untrained, and would be surprised and easily taken out by an armed civilian.
Sometimes it's hard for me to tell which side in this debate is more out of touch with reality.
posted by Winston Smith at
6:10 PM
2 Comments:
apparently there was someone carrying a gun who responded in AZ:
http://www.theagitator.com/2011/01/12/gun-owner-who-showed-restraint-good-judgment-is-apparently-an-argument-against-gun-ownership/
Yep. Folks in gun forums seem inclined to treat this like a "near miss"--a case in which an armed civilian almost made a difference. Meh. About ten years ago a dude went nuts and started gunning people down at work. A woman there had a gun in her purse, and almost--*almost*--got it out before she was shot. Was that a near miss? I'm not wedded to this conclusion, but I guess I'm inclined to treat the AZ case as confirmation of my claim--even though there was a guy with CCW nearby, it didn't help. It all happened too fast.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home