3% of all active shootings were stopped by armed civilians. Let me clarify as well, that’s not in 3% of cases where an armed civilian attempted to stop an active shooter the armed civilian was successful. That’s in all active shootings, 3% were stopped by an armed civilian. So, no, it’s not that rare. http://downtrend.com/71superb/huffington-post-good-guys-with-guns-stopping-bad-guys-is-nonsense
In the case of Lanza I have to imagine that the guns would have either recognized him as well as his mom, since it’s not as if his mom is going to lock him out of them (or maybe she would, I don’t know). But even if he wasn’t able to use those, he’d have just gotten his own and used those. Though I still agree, smart guns sound like a good idea because they can prevent accidental shootings by toddlers, and cases where the bad guy and the defender scuffle for the gun.
Jym626, I don’t think we have a disagreement about the nature of suicide. To be sure, most suicides are suffering from depression and have been contemplating taking their own life; suicide doesn’t usually happen out of the clear blue sky. But we also know that typically the time between “OK, now I’m going to do it,” and the actual attempt, is typically short, on the order of minutes rather than hours or days.
If someone has the impulse to commit suicide, but there is no ready method at hand, the impulse might pass before they can execute. But if they all they have to do is grab a gun, they can do it.
This argument requires the implicit belief that the life of the person trying to defend himself is not worth defending, and neither is the life of the bystander, as the net result of this approach ensures that both are killed without even trying to defend life.
CF,
There are many, sadly, who go out and buy a rope and a ladder and find a tree. Or those who find a bridge, or rent a room in a hotel and jump (these are all real examples). There are those who try to overdose (some succeed, some don’t). The gun IS the most lethal, and the fastest. Just clarifying, and maybe it’s semantics but IMO it is an important distinction, that the plan to kill oneself is rarely impulsive.
We can move on.
Outside the if-I-were-king-of-the-world preferences uttered on a discussion forum, talking about repeal of the 2nd Amendment is a strawman.
Is the President arguing for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment?
Are any of the legislators that have argued for more restrictions on gun purchases suggested that it be done by repealing the 2nd Amendment?
Are any candidates for national office proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Anyone?
The main proposals I’ve heard about that keep getting stymied by the lobbyists for gun sellers don’t come anywhere near to repealing the 2nd Amendment. Making guns harder to purchase in general and restricting the sale of some types of guns does not equate to repealing the 2nd Amendment.
Expand background checks to include most sales including gun shows. Pass the background check and you get your gun.
Close the three-day loophole for completing a background check that allowed Dylan Roof to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal conviction. Pass the background check whether it takes two days or a week to check records and you get your gun.
Some increased inconvenience in purchasing a gun is not the same as not being able to purchase a gun.
Banning the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips also does not repeal the 2nd Amendment. (It apparently didn't in 1994.) The civilian population has plenty of other handgun and rifle options to meet its hunting and self protection needs. Gun enthusiasts who like to shoot AK-47s could be accommodated under a ban by allowing licensed shooting ranges to store assault weapons and ammunition for hobbyists to use.
Imo, the inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) of schoolchildren and other American citizens most certainly do trump the so-called constitutional right to an assault weapon with high-capacity magazine. Adam Lanza’s mother should not have had the right or ability to buy and keep an assault rifle in her home with her mentally disturbed son.
Nobody in the real world of real legislation is talking about banning the sale of all guns or confiscating anyone’s weapons.
Adding to the above the 1 million+ each year times a crime (not just an active shooting) is stopped or averted by an armed civilian means that defense via gun by a civilian is only not a rarity, but is also an essential element to lowering the number of potential victims and actual crimes committed.
Again, people seem to want to gloss over the fact even the beloved CDC acknowledges that guns in the hands of armed civilians are effective in reducing crime by some 50%. That is correct - as many successful defenses with guns occur each year as there are successful crimes with guns.
Talking about bystanders will not make the fact go away that the crime rate would be much higher, and there would be lots more real victims if not for armed civilians who successfully defend themselves with guns.
“Not that rare”, Vlad? Really? I suggest you read your own cited article again. First, the study did not deal with “all active shootings”. I went back to the original study linked by your article, and they studied a total of 160 active shootings. If you translate the study’s percentages into numbers, here’s what you’ve got:
90 - shooter stopped or killed himself
42 - Law enforcement shot the shooter
21 - Shooter was disarmed or restrained by unarmed civilians
5 - armed civilians stopped the shooter
So your “3% stopped by armed civilians” is a total of 5 people out of 160. And then the article noted that of that 5, 4 of them were off-duty security guards. Professionals trained and paid to be armed and stop criminal behavior is not what most of us would lump in with civilians since many of them are or were police, and the fact they were off duty doesn’t change their training. Therefore, if you take out trained professions, you’re talking about 1 - as in ONE - armed civilian who stopped an active shooting. Compare that to the 21 unarmed civilians who stopped an active shooter.
I consider all 5 should count but even if you want to call it only 1, that’s still 1. If you don’t like my description of “Not that rare” fine. We have numbers, my description is unnecessary. Feel free to ignore “Not that rare” you can look at the numbers yourself and decide how you want to describe them.
Vlad, you put a lot of importance on one single person stopping an active shooting. But apparently the thousands of toddler shootings and other mass shootings don’t seem to make a dent. Numbers by any other name?
No, those are important to. If smart guns can help prevent those toddler shootings I fully support the development of the technology and hope those are brought to market. I doubt this smart gun technology will reduce mass shootings but if it does then great.
I’m only coming out against a limit of 1 round per magazine here.
I think the limit discussed was 2. Making shotguns for hunting birds and small game, like 12 & 20 gauges, legal. Keep your hunting weapons if you eat what you hunt. But handguns and assault rifles serve no purpose except to kill other human beings.
I have not heard any calls to repeal or roll back the 2nd amendment. What I did hear is a call for responsible gun owners and hunters who are not beholden to the manufacturing and political arms of the NRA to “take back” the 2nd amendment. I interpret that to mean respecting the intent of it and the right to keep and bear arms without all this knee jerk absolutism around some pragmatic safety measures. Gun owners could organize around a less black and white, all or nothing view of gun ownership. The conversation is being driven by the “door to door seizures” people and preppers who see any safety measures as the thin edge of the wedge.
I’m not a gun nut and am not opposed to sensible gun control but it’s been said in this topic that a loaded gun should only hold 2 bullets (which implies that a magazine should only hold 1). That seems unreasonable to me. And I still haven’t found any sensible gun control measures that would have stopped this.
With things people in this topic have said, you can see why some might worry that some day soon the government is going to come for all their guns.
You don’t need a gun with “a magazine”. Neither a side by side nor an over-under has one… I will concede that deer rifles are probably used for a good purpose – the brown hooved rats would overrun my garden even more than they do today if the population is not held in check. But beyond thise limited types, guns seem to only be meant to harm other human beings, and there is no reason for a civilian to own one.
Make it illegal to sell the guns and ammo. Make it illegal to shoot 'em. Make it illegal to own them, but have a buyback program to get them back. No door to door searches, of course, but penalties if one is found during stops or searches authorized for other reasons.