[finboy]

As was the mall in Utah that had a shooter recently.

FOXNews.com - Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall's Gun-Free-Zone Status - Opinion

In the Utah case it seems that the off-duty cop violated the "gun-free" signs when he carried into the mall. Is he behind bars yet?

I heard from someone this morning that the Omaha's kook's mom warned the cops, but I haven't seen that confirmed. Not surprising if true.

[peeb]

The outcome of this would have been very different if everyone in the mall had been carrying RPG-7s.

[Cold Warrior]

Any attack plan would involve targeting the most defenseless place. It's possible this loser took that into consideration.

[ebuddy]

Problem is... you draw your gun to address the nefarious gunman, cops storm in and haven't a clue which gunman you are. I'm not sure the no-gun policy in the mall would've done any good. It was over in a matter of two minutes.

I think about all the times I bummed around that mall with my friends as a kid. The most heinous act we committed was stealing money out of the footlockers and now the area makes its way into criminal history. Incredibly sad.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Problem is... you draw your gun to address the nefarious gunman, cops storm in and haven't a clue which gunman you are. I'm not sure the no-gun policy in the mall would've done any good. It was over in a matter of two minutes.

But I think the question is, if there wasn't a gun-free policy, would some nut be as tempted to try and shoot people in the first place, having no idea who is able to fight back.

The most eye-opening thing in the (surprisingly poorly-written) linked article, I think is this:

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But I think the question is, if there wasn't a gun-free policy, would some nut be as tempted to try and shoot people in the first place, having no idea who is able to fight back.

Usually what these "nuts" are up to is some kind of spectacular suicide. So it doesn't particularly matter that someone might be able to fight back.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Usually what these "nuts" are up to is some kind of spectacular suicide. So it doesn't particularly matter that someone might be able to fight back.

Sure it does, because if their "suicide" is another person with a gun blowing their brains out, it happens sooner, rather than later, with fewer innocent people dead in the meantime.

[BRussell]

Anyone wanna bet that the vast, vast majority of people are killed or injured with guns outside of gun-free zones, and not inside them?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Anyone wanna bet that the vast, vast majority of people are killed or injured with guns outside of gun-free zones, and not inside them?

The vast majority of people killed by guns are in free-fire zones.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But I think the question is, if there wasn't a gun-free policy, would some nut be as tempted to try and shoot people in the first place, having no idea who is able to fight back.

Probably, yeah. I don't think he expected to be able to mow down everyone with no resistance.

[Big Mac]

I think he expected to do just that and succeeded in killing a number of people until the cops arrived and offed himself. And I really doubt the police response time was 2 minutes after the first shot.

[Chongo]

If you recall, after Florida passed it's CCW law, the thugs started targeting people coming out of the airports in rental cars because they knew they would not be armed.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The outcome of this would have been very different if everyone in the mall had been carrying RPG-7s.

Hell yes. There will never be peace in this world until each and every lawful citizen gets to launch a thermo-nuclear war.

[Tiresias]

It's the Second Amendment in action. Good one, America.

[Shaddim]

If the 2nd Amendment were properly in action, the kid would have been dead before he fired a 3rd or 4th shot. Likely, however, he wouldn't have tried it at all.

Unless it's government property I ignore gun-free zone limitations, or I simply don't patronize that establishment.

[Chongo]

Any business that declares itself a "gun free zone" becomes legally responsible for your safety. Does this mall have security guards?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Any business that declares itself a "gun free zone" becomes legally responsible for your safety.

Is this statement true?

greg

[peeb]

No, it's not.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Is this statement true?

greg

In many states, yes it is.

[Chongo]

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for HB4564
Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Gun-free Zone Criminal Conduct Liability Act. Provides that any person, organization, or entity or any agency of government, including any unit of local government, that creates a gun-free zone is liable for all costs, attorney's fees, and treble damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in the gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. Defines "gun-free zone". Effective immediately.

[Shaddim]

I did go to a mall today, which is quite rare for me. Looking around, I saw no postings that it was a "gun-free" zone and I was toting a .45 in a shoulder holster. I did tell one of the security officers that I was armed and showed him my permit, and he thanked me for being conscientious and asked me to keep an eye out for anything suspicious. Really nice guy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

That seems like such a crazy concept to me.

Now that I think about it, I have any of these crazy shooting sprees ever been ended by some random Joe with a handgun popping out of the woodwork and picking them off? Or have they all been targeted at schools or malls or other places where that's unlikely to happen?

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That seems like such a crazy concept to me.

Now that I think about it, I have any of these crazy shooting sprees ever been ended by some random Joe with a handgun popping out of the woodwork and picking them off? Or have they all been targeted at schools or malls or other places where that's unlikely to happen?

They've been concentrated in places with relatively large crowds of disorganized people, which is a set that largely coincides with "places some random Joe probably won't return fire," but I'm not sure that's the primary factor they're considering.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah. I mean, most of these people are intent on dying. Whether someone else out there has a gun and could shoot at them probably isn't much of a factor; maybe it's even one that's welcomed.

greg

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yeah. I mean, most of these people are intent on dying. Whether someone else out there has a gun and could shoot at them probably isn't much of a factor; maybe it's even one that's welcomed.

greg

Yes, but your argument defeats itself because a person in such a state of mind is not going to be stopped by the law in accomplishing their goal. It's already illegal to kill people. It was already illegal to carry a gun in that particular location. They do it anyway. If guns are illegal and they still want to go out in a blaze of 'glory' they'll just swerve into oncoming traffic at 100 mph, or build some pipe bombs and go out suicide-bomber style, or just obtain a gun illegally and do exactly the same thing.

How on Earth do you expect that further legislation could possibly have prevented this occurrence?

Edit: Er, not actually sure that it's your argument or that you support it, but my point still stands given the argument in general whoever is asserting it.

[OldManMac]

The actual facts are that we'll never know what was going on in this kid's head, and that every situation is different, with different motivations and different response possibilities. Michigan, for example, is a "shall issue" state, where one can't legally carry a concealed weapon into any "entertainment venue" that holds 2500 or more people, which include parks, malls with theatres, etc. That isn't going to stop some deranged individual who's bent on taking out a few of his fellow citizens. We're sitting here discussing this, with some rational hindsight, when any situation like this almost always involves an irrational person.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, but your argument defeats itself because a person in such a state of mind is not going to be stopped by the law in accomplishing their goal. It's already illegal to kill people. It was already illegal to carry a gun in that particular location. They do it anyway. If guns are illegal and they still want to go out in a blaze of 'glory' they'll just swerve into oncoming traffic at 100 mph, or build some pipe bombs and go out suicide-bomber style, or just obtain a gun illegally and do exactly the same thing.

How on Earth do you expect that further legislation could possibly have prevented this occurrence?

Edit: Er, not actually sure that it's your argument or that you support it, but my point still stands given the argument in general whoever is asserting it.

The argument I hear being asserted is that we need more guns, and more people with guns, and more places with people with guns.

I haven't heard anyone talk about the media. It seems to me that the primary cause of these types of events is the media coverage. This guy apparently said "I'm going to be famous now." If we didn't have moronic 24-hr news that lives for stories like this, we wouldn't have nearly as many people doing it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That seems like such a crazy concept to me.

Now that I think about it, I have any of these crazy shooting sprees ever been ended by some random Joe with a handgun popping out of the woodwork and picking them off?

Yes, all the time. Several are even mentioned in the article in the very first post: Utah mall shooting: stopped by an off duty cop who broke the "gun free zone" law and was carrying. Memphis street shooting: stopped by two people who were carrying guns- before anyone was harmed.

Many school shootings are stopped by other students with guns, or teachers with guns. Look up Appalachian Law School VA shooting (two students with guns stopped the attacker), Pearl, MS shooting (principal stopped the shooter with a gun). Both cases without killing the shooter.

In Edinboro, PA, a student started shooting at a graduation dance held in a local restaurant, but was forced to drop the gun by the restaurant owner with a shotgun. Again, shooter not killed (nor any more innocent people).

People with guns stop other people with guns from committing crimes or continuing killing sprees all the time- it's just not widely reported.

[Shaddim]

I don't think the kid in the Omaha mall would have followed through with the shooting if he knew most of the shoppers were armed. You don't become "famous" if someone draws down on you while you're fiddling with a rifle.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't think the kid in the Omaha mall would have followed through with the shooting if he knew most of the shoppers were armed. You don't become "famous" if someone draws down on you while you're fiddling with a rifle.

And therein lies the problem; you're guessing as to what he was thinking.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And therein lies the problem; you're guessing as to what he was thinking.

Well, in his suicide note he did write, "I've been a piece of s--- all my life, and now I'll be famous". But it is hard to guess what he was thinking during the attacks. I imagine it's difficult to be rational when you're that imbalanced.

I have to say though, I wouldn't try to disarm him if he had the rifle out of his coat. I would be shooting to kill.

[- - e r i k - -]

And in a mall full of people with the pressure of a mad gunman on the loose I'm sure you'll be a steady marksman.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't think the kid in the Omaha mall would have followed through with the shooting if he knew most of the shoppers were armed. You don't become "famous" if someone draws down on you while you're fiddling with a rifle.

Of course you do. You kill a bunch of people, someone shoots you, and you become "famous." That's exactly the narrative that most of these mass killings follows.

Here's what I don't get from this argument that we'll all be safer if we flood the world with guns:

1. The occurrence of these mass murders is very infrequent (despite the media coverage).
2. Not all mass murders could be stopped or prevented by law-abiding citizens with guns.
3. As the number of law-abiding citizens with guns increases, the likelihood of various accidents, mistaken shootings, and the like will occur. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of the guns used in these mass murders were purchased by someone, like a parent of one of these kids, with the initial intent of protection.

So you increase the chance that you'll stop a mass murder, but you also increase the risk of other deaths and injuries. Which probability is larger, I don't know, but I'd at least like to see some recognition that this type of comparison is necessary when you start saying we'll all be safer with more guns.

I also wonder if the idea that everyone is armed and ready to shoot people that get out of line really contributes to a sense of, um, peacefulness in a community.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Of course you do. You kill a bunch of people, someone shoots you, and you become "famous." That's exactly the narrative that most of these mass killings follows.

Here's what I don't get from this argument that we'll all be safer if we flood the world with guns:

1. The occurrence of these mass murders is very infrequent (despite the media coverage).
2. Not all mass murders could be stopped or prevented by law-abiding citizens with guns.
3. As the number of law-abiding citizens with guns increases, the likelihood of various accidents, mistaken shootings, and the like will occur. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of the guns used in these mass murders were purchased by someone, like a parent of one of these kids, with the initial intent of protection.

So you increase the chance that you'll stop a mass murder, but you also increase the risk of other deaths and injuries. Which probability is larger, I don't know, but I'd at least like to see some recognition that this type of comparison is necessary when you start saying we'll all be safer with more guns.

I also wonder if the idea that everyone is armed and ready to shoot people that get out of line really contributes to a sense of, um, peacefulness in a community.

Interview with John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Man opens fire, kills 2 at New Life Church in Colorado Springs : Local News : The Rocky Mountain News
COLORADO SPRINGS — A gunman opened fire at a Colorado Springs church today, killing two people and injuring three others before he was shot and killed by a church security officer.

[iLikebeer]

gun free zones don't matter unless there are metal detectors. i live in arizona, which is a gun happy state. if people usually wear guns, they have them unless being checked. i've even seen people wear guns into gunfree zones with metal detectors ( when you have a high volume of people at a low security venue, just wave your cell phone and you're good)

this isn't a gun rights politicizable event, if a patron of the mall that day had been a gun carrier, things would've possibly been different. there wasn't one. respect the dead and move along.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by iLikebeer 

gun free zones don't matter unless there are metal detectors. i live in arizona, which is a gun happy state. if people usually wear guns, they have them unless being checked. i've even seen people wear guns into gun free zones with metal detectors ( when you have a high volume of people at a low security venue, just wave your cell phone and you're good)

this isn't a gun rights politicizable event, if a patron of the mall that day had been a gun carrier, things would've possibly been different. there wasn't one. respect the dead and move along.

YouTube - Chris Rock - No Sex in the Champagne Room *Unsensored*

Don't go to partys with metal detectors.(ie gun free zones) Sure, it feels safe inside, but what about all those N*s wiggin' outside with guns? They know you ain't got one!
Chris Rock

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Interview with John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime

Two points:

1. The fact that John Lott and his research have been completely discredited has been acknowledged by even the strongest of gun advocates like Gleen Reynolds.

2. Even putting that aside, you didn't address my comment, which was that even IF citizens with guns can prevent some crimes, there are also costs associated with the widespread presence of guns.

[iLikebeer]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Two points:

1. The fact that John Lott and his research have been completely discredited has been acknowledged by even the strongest of gun advocates like Gleen Reynolds.

2. Even putting that aside, you didn't address my comment, which was that even IF citizens with guns can prevent some crimes, there are also costs associated with the widespread presence of guns.

i agree completely, except i don't. gun owners that carry are, in my experience, responsible. they aren't the ones you have to worry about, the figurative pandora's box has been opened since before we broke away from the limeys. gun control is silly, which is imo debatable, but either side using this for political gains sickens me. i expect it from politicians, but regular people arguing such a tragedy is wrong. go to google and find a donation site for the families instead of posting an argument if you're so concerned.
Yes, especially you pro-gun people, including the thread starter.
: nm, i read the thread title, skimmed it, saw a few bad posts and assumed it was another NN thread. good discussion here, my bad.

[Sherman Homan]

In case anyone wants to actually read that Instapundit article, it seems to me that it doesn't really discredit Lott at all:

"I've been slow to believe charges of dishonesty aimed at John Lott. First, I don't understand the underlying statistics well enough, and second, Lott has been the target of many vicious smears and lies, which tends to make me reflexively doubt the latest charges by his many antigun critics."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Two points:

1. The fact that John Lott and his research have been completely discredited has been acknowledged by even the strongest of gun advocates like Gleen Reynolds.

2. Even putting that aside, you didn't address my comment, which was that even IF citizens with guns can prevent some crimes, there are also costs associated with the widespread presence of guns.

W.H.O stats
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779147.html You are more likely to die in an auto crash than be shot.

Mortality rates for the US
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0110390.html

Top 5 1900-2003
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan 

In case anyone wants to actually read that Instapundit article, it seems to me that it doesn't really discredit Lott at all:

"I've been slow to believe charges of dishonesty aimed at John Lott. First, I don't understand the underlying statistics well enough, and second, Lott has been the target of many vicious smears and lies, which tends to make me reflexively doubt the latest charges by his many antigun critics."

Um, that's the set up, which indicates that he has been reluctant to believe the criticisms, but he then goes on to say "Nonetheless, the question of coding errors in some of Lott's research, discussed earlier on InstaPundit here and here, continues to stand." If you look into it at all, it's very apparent that the guy is dishonest and that his research does not hold up. Other researchers have tried to replicate his findings and they can't.

For a decent summary, look here.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

W.H.O stats
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779147.html You are more likely to die in an auto crash than be shot.

No doubt. And that means we don't need to arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves from getting shot, right?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

No doubt. And that means we don't need to arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves from getting shot, right?

The police are are reactive, not proactive, and should not be depended upon for your safety. They are there to clean up after the fact.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Of course you do. You kill a bunch of people, someone shoots you, and you become "famous." That's exactly the narrative that most of these mass killings follows.

Sounds good, but it's actually not true. Do you know the name of the Appalachian Law School shooter? How about the Pearl, MS shooter? Did you even hear about the Memphis street shooting on the news? How "famous" is the Edinboro, PA shooter?

In those, and other cases, the shooters are still alive and doing prison time. They STOPPED shooting and surrendered once someone else drew a gun on them.

So the whole "they just do it to be shot in a spectacular way by someone else" argument doesn't actually stand up to the facts- apparently people do tend to surrender once they're staring down a barrel held on them by one of their intended victims.

In fact, I find it pretty interesting- in all the cases lately where it's been civilians with guns stopping shooters, the shooters end up surrendering, and alive. In all the cases involving cops, off-duty cops, and just the other day in Colorado, a security guard with police training, the shooters end up dead.

I'm not really sure what that says, but it's certainly not accurate to say that civilians who carry guns are the trigger-happy ones just itching to shoot anyone over something trivial.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sounds good, but it's actually not true. Do you know the name of the Appalachian Law School shooter? How about the Pearl, MS shooter? Did you even hear about the Memphis street shooting on the news? How "famous" is the Edinboro, PA shooter?

In those, and other cases, the shooters are still alive and doing prison time. They STOPPED shooting and surrendered once someone else drew a gun on them.

So the whole "they just do it to be shot in a spectacular way by someone else" argument doesn't actually stand up to the facts- apparently people do tend to surrender once they're staring down a barrel held on them by one of their intended victims.

In fact, I find it pretty interesting- in all the cases lately where it's been civilians with guns stopping shooters, the shooters end up surrendering, and alive. In all the cases involving cops, off-duty cops, and just the other day in Colorado, a security guard with police training, the shooters end up dead.

I'm not really sure what that says, but it's certainly not accurate to say that civilians who carry guns are the trigger-happy ones just itching to shoot anyone over something trivial.

Bloodbaths were predicted when the first shall issue CCW laws were enacted. they never happened.

[peeb]

Nice cross post forum-spamming.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Sounds good, but it's actually not true. Do you know the name of the Appalachian Law School shooter? How about the Pearl, MS shooter? Did you even hear about the Memphis street shooting on the news? How "famous" is the Edinboro, PA shooter?

In those, and other cases, the shooters are still alive and doing prison time. They STOPPED shooting and surrendered once someone else drew a gun on them.

So the whole "they just do it to be shot in a spectacular way by someone else" argument doesn't actually stand up to the facts- apparently people do tend to surrender once they're staring down a barrel held on them by one of their intended victims.

This is something I've studied quite a bit, and I am familiar with most of the cases. Very often these guys don't end up dying, even in many of the famous ones, but in almost all cases that's their intention. Usually if they're too scared to do it themselves, and they're not shot, they later say that they wanted to die. The contrast is between the serial killer, who is a psychopath and wants to keep killing for continued personal/sexual gratification, and the mass murderer, who is a depressed and angry "victim" (in their own mind) and just wants to die and take out a bunch of others, people who they see as having caused their problems. I'm sure not every single case fits that, but it's common enough to be a pattern.

In fact, I find it pretty interesting- in all the cases lately where it's been civilians with guns stopping shooters, the shooters end up surrendering, and alive. In all the cases involving cops, off-duty cops, and just the other day in Colorado, a security guard with police training, the shooters end up dead.

Hmmm. Why is that?

I'm not really sure what that says, but it's certainly not accurate to say that civilians who carry guns are the trigger-happy ones just itching to shoot anyone over something trivial.

Well I certainly didn't say that, I just doubt it matters whether they kill themselves, a cop kills them, or some random person does it.

But I don't know. Perhaps they'd rather be killed by the police, and when it's a civilian, it's such a surprise, and it kind of ruins their plans. Or perhaps cops find it easier to kill the perpetrator, and civilians are more likely to give them a chance. It would be interesting to take a more quantitative look at this and see if there really is the pattern you suggest. I have a database of these things, so I could check it out - maybe we could write an article together and get it published in "Gun Nuts Quarterly."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

This is something I've studied quite a bit, and I am familiar with most of the cases. Very often these guys don't end up dying, even in many of the famous ones, but in almost all cases that's their intention.

Personally, it's not that I care all that much about the killers dying or not, it's that the "argument" we're often given by the anti-gun side is that these killers just want to commit suicide, and therefore, another person with a gun on the scene doesn't matter, because they'll just go right on shooting, not caring if someone else tries to kill them- since dying is their plan to begin with. The reality seems to be, that's not true. It seems that even a person who claims he "just wanted to die" stops shooting when actually confronted by another person with a gun.

I mean, I know it's hard to believe. It's almost as if some people really aren't that gung-ho about dying themselves, and maybe (just maybe) are more focused on a body count. Dying themselves, is perhaps the last part of whatever plan, and maybe something they'd want AFTER the highest possible body count, or even (brace yourself) not really something they even rationally thought much about, vs. just killing a whole bunch of people. Radical stuff, I'm sure.

Well I certainly didn't say that, I just doubt it matters whether they kill themselves, a cop kills them, or some random person does it.

I guess you missed people trying to argue that armed citizens kill each other over parking spaces and all that. In the shooting cases I pointed out, armed citizens didn't even kill another person who themselves is pointing a gun and killing people! Let alone are they just out to kill other people over something trivial. So many of these anti-gun arguments just don't seem to pan out.

As for it not mattering if the person is killed by themselves, a cop, or some random person- which do you think is more likely to happen first? The person will just kill themselves after not killing anyone else, or keeping the body count as low as possible? Why? For what reason? The cops will arrive and kill the person before the body count can become larger? Why is that on anyone's "most plausible" list? That a random citizen who's armed and in the crowd being shot at will kill or stop the person before the death toll can get higher? Seems that's happened a lot, even recently.

But I don't know. Perhaps they'd rather be killed by the police, and when it's a civilian, it's such a surprise, and it kind of ruins their plans.

Ya think?

Or perhaps cops find it easier to kill the perpetrator, and civilians are more likely to give them a chance.

Maybe so. So why all the FUD over armed citizens, and the pretense that everyone is so trigger happy?

It would be interesting to take a more quantitative look at this and see if there really is the pattern you suggest. I have a database of these things, so I could check it out - maybe we could write an article together and get it published in "Gun Nuts Quarterly."

It'd be interesting if you looked into how many cases there have been where an armed citizen trying to stop a shooter has just panicked and fired wildly, and killed a bunch of people other than the shooter. Since it's floated all the time that this is the kind of thing that will happen unless we ban guns- then hey, it must happen all the time.

And I was kinda thinking our article would do better in a publication where its readership could use the most education, like the "Anti-Gun Weakly"!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Nice cross post forum-spamming.

I learned from the best

[peeb]

Learned to spam forums with crappy graphics? I don't know anyone better at that than you.