7 responses to “Trench on the Aurora shooting”

1. 

   jadecrowe

   July 21, 2012 at 8:25 pm

   pretty much my thoughts exactly.  and excellent  column by Dave.

   Reply
2. 

   Alyric

   July 21, 2012 at 9:26 pm

    Hey Trench, it’s been a while.

   Just had a few points to make.  The first is to point out that while most of Colorado permits concealed carry, Aurora is one of several locations that forbid it.  You can see the full list here: http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm

   In Aurora, it’s illegal to transport a loaded weapon in a vehicle, carry a concealed weapon, or discharge a firearm outside of a firing range (except for on-duty law enforcement).  If one of the theater-goers had been carrying and fought back, they’d be facing prison right now – even if they’d saved a lot of lives.  (Assuming, of course, the prosecutor chose to file maximum charges.  Under scrutiny, they may have pled the offender out on a less serious charge).

   I do agree that claiming – as a matter of certainty – that the shooting would have been prevented if someone with a CC permit was in the theater is, at best, dishonest.   Even if somebody had been carrying, even if they were very well trained, there are no guarantees in a situation like that. 

   That said, I would like to offer a polite objection to the broad brush you’ve painted a large group of people with (“yahoos with concealed carry permits”), (“…barely have enough education on how to use firearms properly”).  It’s certainly an accurate description of some, but remember that included in that group are retired or off-duty police and military, sport shooters (who, in my limited experience, seem to be more apt in gun safety than many LEOs), and – quite simply – responsible, educated citizens.

   Your concern seems to be that having armed civilians on the scene would, as a matter of course, make the situation worse – but I would argue that this is as fallacious as claiming the opposite.  Again, the possibility certainly exists, but by and large, if the people you’re shooting at are armed, you’re less likely to be able to cause devastation on the scale that Holmes managed. 

   Imagine, for example, if the teachers at Columbine were armed, like in Israel (note that I’m not suggesting America do this, it’s only a thought exercise.  Mandatory military service in Israel all but guarantees a higher level of gun education.).   http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/01/armed-teachers-stop-terrorist-attack-in.html

   Another attempted attack in Colorado a few years ago was stopped by an armed security guard:  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/20/flashback_armed_woman_in_colorado_saves_lives_prevents_mass_shooting

   Honestly, I think my primary objection in these cases is the government (whether federal, state, or – in this case – local) removing your ability to defend yourself in the name of public safety.  I think the perception among some is that permitting carry will turn places into the Wild West.  The only problem is that not even the Wild West was the Wild West – at least not outside of dime-store novels.  But you don’t have to take my word for it. Consider what a hot-button
   issue gun control has been over the last few decades.  If there was a
   rash of irresponsible, trigger happy gun carriers making a mess of
   things, it’s a virtual guarantee we’d have heard about it.

   The biggest problem, of course, is that gun laws only affect those citizens who were planning to obey the law in the first place.  A person doesn’t plan a mass murder, then look at the local laws and realize “oh wait, concealed carry is illegal here – nevermind”.

   I guess my takeaway is that you’re absolutely right – having someone carrying on the scene wouldn’t ensure that a killing spree would be stopped, and could even make things worse.  But if I ever found myself in that circumstance, I’d almost certainly rather have someone shooting back – even if it IS a half-trained yahoo – than have to hope and pray that the police got there in time.  Hell, a half-trained yahoo shooting back might stall the murderer long enough for the police to get there.

   Reply
   1. 

      Trench Reynolds

      July 21, 2012 at 10:05 pm

      First off glad to see you back and hopefully you can stick around. 

      I wasn’t aware that Aurora forbids C&ampC so I apologize for my ignorance on that aspect. 

      You make a valid argument and I’m glad you made it because it reminds me of a point I meant to bring up in my blog post. 

      Law enforcement and military go through years of training in order to have somewhat of an idea on what to do in high pressure situations like that and even then that doesn’t necessarily prepare them for the real thing. Anybody who thinks they would know exactly what to do in a situation like that is lying. 

      I may be painting with a broad brush but after doing research over the years and from my own personal experiences I believe more people than not don’t know how to properly use, handle and store their firearms. 

      Not to mention is that there is a vast difference between protecting yourself with a firearm and trying to protect a theater full of people with one. 

      Reply
      1. 

         Alyric

         July 22, 2012 at 3:29 pm

          Hey again!

         You make an excellent point about police, even with their training, not always being prepared for the real thing.

         I’m not sure if that’s becoming more common, or it’s just being reported more often – here’s a summary of a couple of the more widely publicized cases (it’s from a conservative leaning website, but the facts are well sourced).

         http://pjmedia.com/blog/swat-and-the-second-amendment/?singlepage=true

         From the post:   “The Guerena case is noteworthy in part because Jose Guerena did not fire
         a single round or even take his rifle off safe, yet five police
         officers fired 71 rounds in a blind panic, stopping only when they
         emptied their magazines or their weapons malfunctioned. Their bullets
         not only struck nearby homes, many flew through the Guerena home and
         ended up in places unknown. It is a miracle they did not shoot each
         other. In the Scott case, a single deputy fired an unknown number of
         rounds, but he apparently did not empty his magazine despite also
         perforating the door of the apartment. It is not known how many rounds
         struck Scott or where the other rounds fired came to rest, though
         apparently no one else was hurt.”

         I still believe that the best, quickest response to an attempted massacre is an armed civilian on-site, but to be clear, my personal feeling on the matter is this:  If you’ve got a concealed weapon, and someone starts a shooting rampage wherever you are, GET OUT.  Get yourself and your family (if applicable) to safety.  Your responsibility is NOT to stop the maniac, it’s not to protect the people around you, it’s just to get yourself and the people you care about to safety.  If said maniac has you cornered, is blocking the exit, you or a family member is hurt and can’t escape, or you otherwise can’t get away – THEN AND ONLY THEN – should you pull your weapon and defend yourself. 

         (I allow a little bit of leeway in the above scenario for off duty police and especially military, as they inevitably have more training, and are more likely to be hard-wired to want to protect potential victims).

         Now, I realize that not everybody is going to agree with that or follow those guidelines.  I’m not sure what they teach in concealed carry courses, as I’ve never taken one (don’t own a gun so obviously I don’t carry), but I suspect that a responsible instructor probably suggests a similar course of action.  The reason I support concealed carry is because I believe that a person caught in that kind of extreme situation should only be unarmed by choice – not because of the law.  I don’t think that a person’s first response should be to shoot back, and I certainly don’t want to see civilians turning themselves into reckless vigilantes.  To be fair, most places with concealed carry haven’t had problems with that.

         I do wish, like you, that all gun enthusiasts would put more effort into all aspects of gun education – gun safety, how to act in a crisis, and the legal implications of acting.  Education on the legal implications alone would give most people pause even if the police clear you of wrongdoing, you are almost certainly facing a wrongful death lawsuit. 

         To sum up (again): I believe in concealed carry, and I believe that drawing your weapon should be a last resort.  To that end, anyone who carries should be well-educated in the potential consequences of acting, and anyone who isn’t shouldn’t be carrying.

         Reply
         1. 

            Trench Reynolds

            July 24, 2012 at 7:46 pm

            Think about this though. Say there were C&ampC people in the crowd and had drawn their guns. Then police get there and see several people with guns. What do you think would happen next? Police wouldn’t be able to discern between the gunmen and the concerned citizens and even more bullets fly. 

            Reply
            1. 

               Alyric

               July 26, 2012 at 6:09 pm

                Except these scenarios (police showing up with armed civilians on site) do happen – and with depressing frequency.  I attempted to find (through Google) some story (any story) where police showed up at the scene of an attack and fired on both attacker and defender – I wasn’t able to find any, which says a lot considering the media blackout on defensive gun uses (more on that later).  However, there’s a few things to bear in mind.

               1) Most importantly, once the police show up, any civilians with guns on the scene are no longer needed.  Any responsible gun owner, upon realizing the police have arrived, will stand down and let them handle it. Anyone who doesn’t will – and should – face the consequences.

               2) You begin by pointing out that the police can’t tell the difference between the attacker and the civilian defending himself is – which is absolutely correct – but seem to believe it’s going to result in some sort of Mexican standoff.  As above, the person using his or her gun in defense should disarm immediately and expect to be arrested while the police sort everything out.  In these sorts of public incidents, there’s usually going to be enough eyewitness testimony (and sometimes video recordings) to clear you.  Obviously, if one person willingly disarms, and the other is hostile to police – it makes figuring out the guilty party easier.  If you’re familiar with any stories where someone defending themselves refused to disarm and were hostile toward police, I’d be interested in reading about it.

               3) Many of these situations are defused by the person with concealed carry just pointing a gun at the attacker – no shots are ever fired.

               In fact, public shootings (workplace, school, etc) that are stopped by a civilian on site with a gun are far more common than you’d think – when these stories are reported, though, that little fact is usually ignored. 

               Here’s one story from earlier this year:

               http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/140825843.html?storySection=story

               Here’s the link to an article discussing four such cases:

               http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html

               The entire article is worth a read, but more interesting is the analysis of the first case (the Odighizuwa shooting) by John Lott:

               http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&ampmonth=09

               From the article:

               “Isn’t it remarkable that out of 218 unique news
               stories (from a LexisNexis search) in the week
               after the event, just four mentioned that the
               students who stopped the shooter had guns? Here
               is a typical description of the event from the
               Washington Post: “Three students pounced
               on the gunman and held him until help arrived.”
               New York’s Newsday noted only that the attacker
               was “restrained by students.” Many stories
               mentioned the law-enforcement or military backgrounds
               of these student heroes, but virtually all of
               the media, in discussing how the killer was stopped,
               failed to mention the students’ guns.”

               This is unfortunately a common phenomenon.  Cases where attempted killing sprees are stopped by an armed civilian either never appear in the news cycle, or when they do, the fact that the people who stopped it were armed evaporates.

               I realize that you’re basing your assumption on how most civilians would react based, at least in part, on the sparse reports of people reacting to just these scenarios in very positive manners – so I wanted you to know that those stories are out there, they’re just harder to find – and not because they don’t happen very often.

               In my opinion, the fact that those stories exist is enough justification to continue allowing (and even encouraging) responsible concealed carry, but I realize that not everybody is going to share that opinion!

            2. 

               Trench Reynolds

               July 29, 2012 at 9:49 pm

               But there’s no guarantee that anybody in the theater would have been carrying as much as some of the C&ampC supporters think that they’re in the majority.