6 ms·

Even if we assume that such crazy shooting attacks could be frequent, it's still not obvious what should we do about them. Should we ban the weapons or should

Even if we assume that such crazy shooting attacks could be frequent, it's still not obvious what should we do about them. Should we ban the weapons or should we allow carry weapons, so law-abiding citizens could protect themselves? After all, that movie theater was in a gun-free zone.

bergie 14y ago
The traditional wisdom is that carrying a gun for safety doesn't help in such sudden events, as the "bad guys" are generally more prepared, have the initiative, etc. This is obviously different for instance in a war, where both parties are more-or-less prepared to use a gun at any given time. Now, I've had military training (somewhat mandatory in my country), and do own a gun. But that is because I find target practice and hunting trips interesting, not because I would find any safety application to owning one. For instance, I went motorcycling through Caucasus right after the revolution in Georgia. This was a time when gas station attendants carried Kalashnikovs and people customarily brought guns to bar, but still I would have never considered taking any weapons there, as those would have only escalated any problem situation in a bad way. And obviously in the end there were no problems. Nice and hospitable people there, and a beautiful country to visit :-)
- yread 14y ago
  Interesting discussion/analysis over here http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/If-members-of-the-Aurora-CO-Dark-Knight-Rises-shooting-audience-were-armed-would-there-have-been-more-carnage-or-less-carnage http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/I...
- _delirium 14y ago
  In particular in crowded events: one worry is that civilians playing hero will just end up shooting more innocent people, as they try to shoot at this guy in a crowded theatre and hit someone else.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Shooters of this sort being confronted by citizens who carry guns has happened several times in the past, and in no cases I'm aware of has anything even remotely similar to this super hypothetical come to pass.
    - _delirium 14y ago
      In more general incidents, the numbers I can find suggest that about 2% of armed-citizen-response-to-crime shootings shoot an innocent person. Mostly it seems actually pro-gun advocates quote this, as 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. For high-profile ones, the only example of a quasi-successful confrontation I can think of only through sheer luck avoided an innocent person being shot: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur...
      - learc83 14y ago
        > 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. That's not very surprising. Many police officers only practice with their weapons once a year when it's time to qualify. The average concealed carry permit holder shoots for fun, thus practices often.
        Symmetry 14y ago
        Also, an armed citizen if far more likely to suffer consequences if they shoot the wrong person by mistake. And the training they get is going to be much more "Don't shoot unless you're really sure" rather than "shoot first to protect yourself".
        easp 14y ago
        And I would expect thee preparedness of the average concealed carry permit holder to decline if we do more to reshape the US around the notion that an armed society is a polite society.
      - 14y ago
brazzy 14y ago
I shudder to think what would happen if the "concealed carry for everyone!" folks got their way and you had an incident in a cluttered setting with lots of people. All it takes is one bang and someone screaming, and you have 50 scared people shooting at each other.
- learc83 14y ago
  Quick google search shows me that in my state (Georgia), about 6% of the population are licensed to carry concealed weapons. So far I've yet to read a single news story about a group of scared permit holders shooting at each other. If you look at the crime statistics for permit holders, and the number of permits revoked you'll find that concealed carry holders are extremely unlikely to engage in the kind of behavior you assume.
  - demallien 14y ago
    Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. With 6% having licenses, how many have been able to stop a mass shooting? Is there a correlation between low mass shooting rates and concealed carry laws?
    - learc83 14y ago
      >Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. The average number of people killed in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian ccw holder is much lower than those killed in a mass shooting involving police simply because of response time. If an armed civilian is present and is able to stop it, it's usually done before the gunman kills more than a few people, and not end up on the news because of the lack of a 10+ person death toll. That's not to say an armed civilian could stop a mass shooting in all cases, just that when they do it happens faster. Additionally, most mass shootings take place in locations where ccw permit holders are banned from having guns. High schools, colleges, churches, the theater in Colorado. In fact almost every single mass shooting in recent memory has taken place in a gun free zone, and in many states there are very few places left that are gun free zones. During the Texas Belltower sniper mass shooting, civilians returning fire saved many lives because they pinned down the sniper and prevented him from acquiring targets.
shoo 14y ago
Here's one example of what can be done, from Australia: Gun laws in Australia were tightened in 1996 and again in 2002. There's an informative overview on wikipedia which might be worth a read [1]. It doesn't sound like there is much evidence for a significant drop in firearm related homicides due to the change in laws. However, a few studies argue that there has been a drop in firearm related suicides, although some also argue that the drop in firearm suicides began before the gun control legislation was put in place. The drop in firearm related suicides apparently wasn't just a transfer into other methods of suicide either, which is positive, regardless of what led to it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
EvilTerran 14y ago
It was dark. It was crowded. The guy set off a smoke grenade. Everyone was panicking. Firing a gun in those conditions, you could hit anyone -- by sheer force of numbers, you'd be far more likely to wound a hapless bystander than the shooter. Especially as he was wearing body armour. As such, I hold that the death toll would have been considerably higher if some of the cinema-goers had been packing heat and decided to shoot back. There's no way this incident is a valid argument for more guns.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- nollidge 14y ago
  Further, let's imagine there were 2 "good guys" in that theater with guns. Good Guy #1 shoots at the lone "bad guy". Good Guy #2, with heightened adrenaline and compromised senses, thinks GG #1 is another bad guy and shoots at them. GG #1, if they weren't hit, now is being shot at by someone else. Now add more good guys with guns to this scenario. There's no way the whole thing would've worked out better with more armed people.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    Two to five "goodguys" exchanging fire is still a vastly better outcome than the one that occurred.
    - kevinh 14y ago
      That's an unverifiable statement and it would depend heavily on the shooters involved. It's as much conjecture as if I were to say that each bullet fired from each shooter's gun would only hit people without weapons.
      - Symmetry 14y ago
        Huh? I'm not sure how you can construct a plausible scenario where you're actually worse off with five armed citizens in the theater. Even if they each manage to accidentally shoot two additional people besides each other and even if the madman is half finished before one manages to take him down you still have many fewer people ending up getting shot.
dctoedt 14y ago
Shameless plug for an essay I posted yesterday, but I'd also like to get reactions from HN denizens: What if moviegoers, out of a sense of civic duty, had rushed the shooter, together, despite the obvious risk, because "that's what we do" for each other? [1] [1] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-moviegoers-had-rushed-the-shooter-together.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-m...

bergie 14y ago

The traditional wisdom is that carrying a gun for safety doesn't help in such sudden events, as the "bad guys" are generally more prepared, have the initiative, etc. This is obviously different for instance in a war, where both parties are more-or-less prepared to use a gun at any given time. Now, I've had military training (somewhat mandatory in my country), and do own a gun. But that is because I find target practice and hunting trips interesting, not because I would find any safety application to owning one. For instance, I went motorcycling through Caucasus right after the revolution in Georgia. This was a time when gas station attendants carried Kalashnikovs and people customarily brought guns to bar, but still I would have never considered taking any weapons there, as those would have only escalated any problem situation in a bad way. And obviously in the end there were no problems. Nice and hospitable people there, and a beautiful country to visit :-)

yread 14y ago
Interesting discussion/analysis over here http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/If-members-of-the-Aurora-CO-Dark-Knight-Rises-shooting-audience-were-armed-would-there-have-been-more-carnage-or-less-carnage http://www.quora.com/Aurora-Colorado-Shooting-July-20-2012/I...
_delirium 14y ago
In particular in crowded events: one worry is that civilians playing hero will just end up shooting more innocent people, as they try to shoot at this guy in a crowded theatre and hit someone else.
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Shooters of this sort being confronted by citizens who carry guns has happened several times in the past, and in no cases I'm aware of has anything even remotely similar to this super hypothetical come to pass.
  - _delirium 14y ago
    In more general incidents, the numbers I can find suggest that about 2% of armed-citizen-response-to-crime shootings shoot an innocent person. Mostly it seems actually pro-gun advocates quote this, as 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. For high-profile ones, the only example of a quasi-successful confrontation I can think of only through sheer luck avoided an innocent person being shot: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur...
    - learc83 14y ago
      > 2% is supposed to be a lower figure than the police's error rate. That's not very surprising. Many police officers only practice with their weapons once a year when it's time to qualify. The average concealed carry permit holder shoots for fun, thus practices often.
      - Symmetry 14y ago
        Also, an armed citizen if far more likely to suffer consequences if they shoot the wrong person by mistake. And the training they get is going to be much more "Don't shoot unless you're really sure" rather than "shoot first to protect yourself".
      - easp 14y ago
        And I would expect thee preparedness of the average concealed carry permit holder to decline if we do more to reshape the US around the notion that an armed society is a polite society.
    - 14y ago

brazzy 14y ago

I shudder to think what would happen if the "concealed carry for everyone!" folks got their way and you had an incident in a cluttered setting with lots of people. All it takes is one bang and someone screaming, and you have 50 scared people shooting at each other.

learc83 14y ago
Quick google search shows me that in my state (Georgia), about 6% of the population are licensed to carry concealed weapons. So far I've yet to read a single news story about a group of scared permit holders shooting at each other. If you look at the crime statistics for permit holders, and the number of permits revoked you'll find that concealed carry holders are extremely unlikely to engage in the kind of behavior you assume.
- demallien 14y ago
  Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. With 6% having licenses, how many have been able to stop a mass shooting? Is there a correlation between low mass shooting rates and concealed carry laws?
  - learc83 14y ago
    >Sure, but you could turn that argument around the other way. The average number of people killed in a mass shooting stopped by a civilian ccw holder is much lower than those killed in a mass shooting involving police simply because of response time. If an armed civilian is present and is able to stop it, it's usually done before the gunman kills more than a few people, and not end up on the news because of the lack of a 10+ person death toll. That's not to say an armed civilian could stop a mass shooting in all cases, just that when they do it happens faster. Additionally, most mass shootings take place in locations where ccw permit holders are banned from having guns. High schools, colleges, churches, the theater in Colorado. In fact almost every single mass shooting in recent memory has taken place in a gun free zone, and in many states there are very few places left that are gun free zones. During the Texas Belltower sniper mass shooting, civilians returning fire saved many lives because they pinned down the sniper and prevented him from acquiring targets.

shoo 14y ago

Here's one example of what can be done, from Australia: Gun laws in Australia were tightened in 1996 and again in 2002. There's an informative overview on wikipedia which might be worth a read [1]. It doesn't sound like there is much evidence for a significant drop in firearm related homicides due to the change in laws. However, a few studies argue that there has been a drop in firearm related suicides, although some also argue that the drop in firearm suicides began before the gun control legislation was put in place. The drop in firearm related suicides apparently wasn't just a transfer into other methods of suicide either, which is positive, regardless of what led to it. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

EvilTerran 14y ago

It was dark. It was crowded. The guy set off a smoke grenade. Everyone was panicking. Firing a gun in those conditions, you could hit anyone -- by sheer force of numbers, you'd be far more likely to wound a hapless bystander than the shooter. Especially as he was wearing body armour. As such, I hold that the death toll would have been considerably higher if some of the cinema-goers had been packing heat and decided to shoot back. There's no way this incident is a valid argument for more guns.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
nollidge 14y ago
Further, let's imagine there were 2 "good guys" in that theater with guns. Good Guy #1 shoots at the lone "bad guy". Good Guy #2, with heightened adrenaline and compromised senses, thinks GG #1 is another bad guy and shoots at them. GG #1, if they weren't hit, now is being shot at by someone else. Now add more good guys with guns to this scenario. There's no way the whole thing would've worked out better with more armed people.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  Two to five "goodguys" exchanging fire is still a vastly better outcome than the one that occurred.
  - kevinh 14y ago
    That's an unverifiable statement and it would depend heavily on the shooters involved. It's as much conjecture as if I were to say that each bullet fired from each shooter's gun would only hit people without weapons.
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      Huh? I'm not sure how you can construct a plausible scenario where you're actually worse off with five armed citizens in the theater. Even if they each manage to accidentally shoot two additional people besides each other and even if the madman is half finished before one manages to take him down you still have many fewer people ending up getting shot.

dctoedt 14y ago

Shameless plug for an essay I posted yesterday, but I'd also like to get reactions from HN denizens: What if moviegoers, out of a sense of civic duty, had rushed the shooter, together, despite the obvious risk, because "that's what we do" for each other? [1] [1] http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-moviegoers-had-rushed-the-shooter-together.html http://www.questioningchristian.com/2012/07/what-if-aurora-m...