PDA

View Full Version : Myth of the Hero Gunslinger


ipser
01-20-2011, 8:40 PM
To many gun owners, the question of whether to arm even more people in a country that already has upwards of 300 million guns is as calcified as a Sonoran Desert petroglyph. Itís written in stone, among the fiercest of firearms advocates, that more guns equals fewer deaths.

But before the Tucson tragedy fades into tired talking points, itís worth dissecting the crime scene once more to see how this idea fared in actual battle.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/myth-of-the-hero-gunslinger/

gadjeep
01-20-2011, 9:00 PM
commented.

thanks for the link.

Phouty
01-20-2011, 9:02 PM
The author of that piece, Mr. Timothy Egan just sounds like a Michael Moore. We all know WHO Michael Moore is! Surely, everyone is entitled to have his/her opinion. Surely enough, some of the gun owners would be for more gun control. But they do not represent even the tiniest percentage of opinions of gun enthusiasts in this country.
The article supposedly written by the "gun enthusiast" is just another attempt by the antis to peddle their rotten agenda across the entire society! This is very old propaganda trick!
Remember Jane Fonda i 'Nam? I still do!

cbn620
01-20-2011, 9:22 PM
I agree that there are probably going to be very few lone hero gunslingers in an active shooter / mass shooting type event. So yeah, that's in general a myth. But in robberies, attempted murders, attempted rapes, and probably hundreds of other crimes, we do see "hero gunslingers." (In fact we see more of these cases than we do violent gun crime.) The truth is, in an active shooter type situation, even the police will have difficulty saving lives. When even one deranged person is dead-set on causing as much carnage as possible with a gun, people are going to die. That's why we need to figure out why these people want to do this in the first place.

So guns and mass shootings. Where do I stand on this issue? I don't think more people carrying guns is necessarily the solution to stopping mass shootings, but it is important and necessary for general self defense, and it can't hurt in any case. Putting restrictions on people carrying guns cannot solve the problem anymore than giving everyone a gun to carry, in fact it solves it substantially less at best. And the trade-off is that the people in this country will be less free to defend themselves. That means the justifiable self defense uses of guns in our statistics will turn to unjustifiable homicides by criminals against innocent people who couldn't defend themselves. It's a matter of pure utilitarianism.

FastFinger
01-20-2011, 10:20 PM
But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.
Since we're playing make believe...
But suppose, he got to the scene a few seconds of earlier, he had fired at the mad man and killed Jared Lee Loughner? “I was very prepared,” Zamudio could say.

NightOwl
01-21-2011, 5:41 AM
Other studies have found that states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest.


It's a shame that this sort of statistic often gets thrown out there out of context. Subtract things like gang on gang shootings, and take into account assaults, stabbings, etc, then we'll start approaching something like a useful number.

I wonder how the violent crime rates are in places where the gun ownership/carry rates are the lowest? :rolleyes:

SanPedroShooter
01-21-2011, 5:45 AM
Is comparing Hawaii, an island way out in the pacific, to Louisiana really a fair comparison?

woodsman
01-21-2011, 6:04 AM
Reading articles such as this tend to make my blood boil.

The United States of America is not Denmark, Sweden, Ireland, Australia, Germany or any other.

The ignorance of comments of domestic origin or otherwise, suggesting that since they find themsleves incapable or untrustworthy with a firearm must mean that the rest of us are incapable or untrustworthy, is pathetic.

ipser
01-21-2011, 6:18 AM
Three things caught my eye: 1) the unscientific nature of the analysis (drawing a conclusion from one incident as if it stood alone), 2) the comparsion of gun deaths rather than murders which adds suicides but leaves out murder by knife, etc., and 3) the author's determination to establish his credibility by having lived among gun owners as if there was anything unusual about liberals in Austin.

Still, as cbn620 noted, preventing lunatic murderers is probably not the best argument for concealed carry. It won't deter and it's hard to imagine a bystander intervening in time.

warbird
01-21-2011, 6:30 AM
Most people like this have their conculsions fall apart when their methodology is examined and the faults are exposed. They write their articles to appeal to the masses and to invoke emotional responses from those same masses. They know their premise, their survey methodology, and conclusions are faulty but they do not care so long as they can panic the public into supporting their point. The real enemy here is the media that supports this kind of falsehood.

Paladin
01-21-2011, 6:48 AM
I haven't read the NYT article yet (will do this weekend), but if he's saying that CCWing doesn't save lives, ck out my sig line for PLENTY of examples to the contrary. Since each post is limited in total number of characters and I've run into that limit w/my list of Gunslinger Heroes, I can't add more examples and missed two in the past month. . . .

Re. "guns kill" statistics: Always look to see if they separate out BGs/thugs/gangstas shooting each other over drug deals, etc. If they don't, those stats should really be titled, "criminals kill."

OleCuss
01-21-2011, 8:02 AM
I didn't have a big problem with that opinion piece. I say that as some with a CCW and whose handgun is only about two feet from me right now.

I have a really hard time modeling out a situation where I'm in a crowd and some Bad Guy starts shooting - and I should shoot them. The risk/benefit ratio just isn't very good when what is behind the target is a whole bunch of innocents. Further confusion results when 15 non-uniformed or organized people pull out their own handgun and start firing - really difficult to figure out who the bad guy is and shoot him/her rather than another CCW'er who is trying to stop the bad guy.

I've thought for quite some time that if there were a way to secure my pistol somewhere just before entering a crowd and just as I left one - I'd actually be a little happier. As it is, I've mentally checked off the idea of trying to stop a shooter in a crowd by shooting them - it'd take very unusual circumstances for me to try that one.

In a crowd I think it is better for everyone to tackle or otherwise bludgeon the shooter.

Now remember that what I'm talking about is a crowd. This is not a collection of people who are rather widely dispersed (as you might find even in a "crowded" shopping mall. There are a lot more opportunities to do the right thing with a firearm in those situations.

Firearms are essential tools in whose use all good men and women should be trained - and which most should be carrying. But sometimes we should use our original equipment arms rather than our firearms.

Some day I hope to see a really good analysis of what Loughner did. I really suspect he really wasn't a very good shot but when you're in the middle of a crowd and pulling a trigger you don't have to be a good shot to hit something every time you pull the trigger. That's actually something of the problem - if you properly identify the BG and shoot and overpenetrate some innocent will be shot. If you miss high or low or to the side - good chance an innocent will be shot. Charge the BG (preferably from behind) and flatten him/her.

FWIW from someone who is admittedly neither a firearms expert nor a self-defense expert or (for that matter a security expert).

If someone can clear up any misconceptions for me, feel free.

Wherryj
01-21-2011, 8:04 AM
Three things caught my eye: 1) the unscientific nature of the analysis (drawing a conclusion from one incident as if it stood alone), 2) the comparsion of gun deaths rather than murders which adds suicides but leaves out murder by knife, etc., and 3) the author's determination to establish his credibility by having lived among gun owners as if there was anything unusual about liberals in Austin.

Still, as cbn620 noted, preventing lunatic murderers is probably not the best argument for concealed carry. It won't deter and it's hard to imagine a bystander intervening in time.

I do find it interesting, however, that this guy uses the point of 1) "It is rather unlikely statistically that CCW would prevent a mass murder like this". without pointing out that 2) It is rather less likely that someone will need to protect themselves against such an incident rather than an armed assault for exaxmple.

There are many cases where an armed citizen successfully protected themselves and others. These cases tend to be ignored by the media, however.

The author seems to be "proving" his "myth" by saying that an incredibly rare incident hasn't been prevented by CCW, thus common incidents can't? The fortunate relative rarity of such evens almost guarantees that we won't see a CCWer making an impact for quite some time.

pitchbaby
01-21-2011, 8:20 AM
Found a link to this article in the comments... who would have thought the Huffington Post would be a source for a common sense look at gun laws?!?!?!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-baum/after-tucson-stricter-gun_b_811696.html

Desert Dude
01-21-2011, 9:03 AM
The author of that piece, Mr. Timothy Egan just sounds like a Michael Moore. We all know WHO Michael Moore is! Surely, everyone is entitled to have his/her opinion. Surely enough, some of the gun owners would be for more gun control. But they do not represent even the tiniest percentage of opinions of gun enthusiasts in this country.
The article supposedly written by the "gun enthusiast" is just another attempt by the antis to peddle their rotten agenda across the entire society! This is very old propaganda trick!
Remember Jane Fonda i 'Nam? I still do!

"Vietnam vets are not fonda Jane" bumper sticker on my truck.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-21-2011, 10:37 AM
Found a link to this article in the comments... who would have thought the Huffington Post would be a source for a common sense look at gun laws?!?!?!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-baum/after-tucson-stricter-gun_b_811696.html


The fear is that Dems will actually take his advice. Fortunately, it's not a big fear.


The Raisuli

ipser
01-21-2011, 12:27 PM
The author seems to be "proving" his "myth" by saying that an incredibly rare incident hasn't been prevented by CCW, thus common incidents can't? The fortunate relative rarity of such evens almost guarantees that we won't see a CCWer making an impact for quite some time.

You hit the nail on the head here. I can't recall ever hearing an advocate of concealed carry argue that it will prevent lunatics from murdering politicians but that is exactly the test that the author sets up.

By contrast, the Secret Service is supposed to prevent presidential assination but they were not disbanded after the JFK assisination.

Dan Baum's article in the Huff Post was surprisingly lucid because he asks the right question: even if you are going to decide gun policy by this single incident, what law would have prevented it? Even if all guns were confiscated, he could probably have attacked her, and many others, with a big knife.

Nick Justice
01-21-2011, 12:55 PM
It's just another example of trying to use one incident to impeach and discredit. "Since CCW or LOC didn't help here, it won't work anywhere, at any time". Been happening for years. The flipside of the First Amendment is that we can dismiss and ignore such articles. But we need to respond to them.

Wherryj
01-21-2011, 1:18 PM
You hit the nail on the head here. I can't recall ever hearing an advocate of concealed carry argue that it will prevent lunatics from murdering politicians but that is exactly the test that the author sets up.

By contrast, the Secret Service is supposed to prevent presidential assination but they were not disbanded after the JFK assisination.

Dan Baum's article in the Huff Post was surprisingly lucid because he asks the right question: even if you are going to decide gun policy by this single incident, what law would have prevented it? Even if all guns were confiscated, he could probably have attacked her, and many others, with a big knife.

The strange thing is that the Secret Service hasn't been disbanded as there hasn't been a President shot since Reagan. Doesn't that make these events so rare as to not be worth worrying about? At least that is the logic that I've been seeing since the AZ tragedy.

Write Winger
01-21-2011, 3:12 PM
Should ALL citizens be armed? No. Only the ones who can handle the responsibility; as liberty dictates. Just as not everyone should be voting, especially those who read the ballot for the first time in the voting booth.

Dammit that pisses me off...

ADH
01-21-2011, 4:40 PM
Incidentally, below is the methodology used for the study that he cites. I took it directly from link he posted. If he's going to use this as an indictment of the idea of CCW as a crime deterrent, I would like to see CCW status, "prohibited persons" status, carry condition, and many other variables accounted for in this study. If they are in there, it's not immediately apparent. I am not a statistician or op-ed writer, but I know lazy and dishonest when I see it.


Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a personís possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the studyís controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting.

scarville
02-08-2011, 12:36 PM
Is comparing Hawaii, an island way out in the pacific, to Louisiana really a fair comparison?
Reading the article I can see a number of common errors. Right off the top of my head, I see he emphasizes "gun death rates" not overall murder and non-negligent homicides. This lets him claim Hawaii as the lowest when in fact overall it is actually number eight

1 NEW HAMPSHIRE 0.8
2 IOWA 1.1
3 VERMONT 1.1
4 UTAH 1.3
5 IDAHO 1.4
6 MINNESOTA 1.4
7 NORTH DAKOTA 1.5
8 HAWAII 1.7

The same misleading numbers let him claim that Arizona is "in the top ten" when it is actually number 18

1 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 24.0
2 PUERTO RICO 22.5
3 LOUISIANA 11.8
4 NEW MEXICO 8.7
5 MARYLAND 7.7
6 TENNESSEE 7.3
7 ALABAMA 6.9
8 MISSISSIPPI 6.4
9 MISSOURI 6.4
10 MICHIGAN 6.3
11 SOUTH CAROLINA 6.3
12 ARKANSAS 6.2
13 OKLAHOMA 6.2
14 ILLINOIS 6.0
15 NEVADA 5.9
16 GEORGIA 5.8
17 FLORIDA 5.5
18 ARIZONA 5.4

Bottom line is he is an example of how "liars can figure".

Rates taken from "Table 5: Crime in the United States by State, 2009"
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_05.html

Swiss
02-08-2011, 12:37 PM
Here are links to two rebuttals of the Penn study:

The Volokh Conspiracy
ďGuns Did Not Protect Those Who Possessed Them from Being Shot in an Assault.Ē
http://volokh.com/2009/10/05/guns-did-not-protect-those-who-possessed-them-from-being-shot-in-an-assault/

Skating on Stilts
"Can this study possibly be as stupid as it sounds?"
http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2009/10/can-this-study-possibly-be-as-stupid-as-it-sounds.html

Werewolf1021
02-08-2011, 1:06 PM
From the end of the article: "Thatís insane,Ē Jenkins told me. ďOn Mondays I give a lecture to 120 people. I canít imagine students coming into class with firearms. If something happened, it would be mayhem.Ē

I have to laugh, mainly because I know at least five people who CC legally on college campuses. Haven't heard of any "mayhem" yet.

Sometimes I wonder if people actually use logic anymore rather than unbound emotion. :(

rojocorsa
02-08-2011, 1:39 PM
I personally believe that the point of CCW is for self defense.

If I am in a crowded place when some whacko pulls his ****, I would most likely GTFO and not play hero. I am not trained the same way an LEO is when it comes to reacting to an active shooter event. This is why I say I would GTFO. I don't have a wife or kids, but if I did, then this would make even more sense. The only time I would shoot would be if the guy happened to be there in front of me and/or there was no other option.


Having said that, if I were trained to take out whackos, I would.

I know the above sounds selfish, but there are consequences one would have to deal with if things went completely wrong. Someone that carries a gun for protection needs to be more pro-active about covering theirass.

I hope my post makes some sense.

Werewolf1021
02-08-2011, 1:56 PM
From the comments (no longer being accepted :rolleyes: )


jdavis
Charleston, South Carolina
January 21st, 2011
10:41 am
"Well reasoned article backed up by factual evidence. The problem is the gun nuts don't care about facts. People's lives are based a a wide variety of myths (even people who don't know what a myth is). When those myths are erroneous the facts don't change the perceptions that those people have."

:smilielol5: :smilielol5::rofl2: :rofl2: :icon_bs:

Kukuforguns
02-08-2011, 3:25 PM
Some day I hope to see a really good analysis of what Loughner did. I really suspect he really wasn't a very good shot but when you're in the middle of a crowd and pulling a trigger you don't have to be a good shot to hit something every time you pull the trigger. That's actually something of the problem - if you properly identify the BG and shoot and overpenetrate some innocent will be shot. If you miss high or low or to the side - good chance an innocent will be shot. Charge the BG (preferably from behind) and flatten him/her.
Preface, the shooter did something reprehensible and should not be glorified. But the evidence I have seen indicates that the shooter was not unskilled. One of the shooter's associates recalled target shooting with Loughner. Using news sources I have collected the following information regarding the victims:
Name______________ No. of Wounds__________ Wound Locations
Pamela Simon _______2______________________ Collarbone, Hip
George Morris _______ 2______________________ Lung, ???
Randy Gardner_______1______________________ Right Foot
James Eric Fuller_____2______________________ Knee, Back
Bill Badger__________1______________________ Head
Ronald Barber_______2______________________ Leg, Cheek
Susan Hileman_______3______________________ ???, ???, ???
Mary Reed__________ 3______________________ Back, Arm, Arm
Kenneth Dorushka____ 1______________________ ???
Kenneth Veeder______ 1______________________ Leg
James Tucker________ ???____________________ ???
Gabrielle Giffords____ 1______________________ Head
Mavanell Stoddard____ 3______________________ Leg, Leg, Leg
Christina-Taylor Green_1______________________ Chest
Dorothy "Dot" Morris__???____________________ ???
Gabe Zimmerman_____???____________________ ???
John Roll____________ ???____________________ ???
Phyllis Schneck_______???____________________ ???
Dorwan Stoddard______1______________________ Head

Even if the victims with unknown number of injuries were each shot only once, that results in total of 29 hits. If the shooter was using a 33 round magazine and had 1 round in the chamber, he had a total of 34 rounds, or an 85% hit percentage. Many police shootings do not have anywhere near this level of hit percentage. However, as you note, Loughner was in a crowded environment and did not need to be careful who he shot. Nevertheless, a hit ratio of at least 85% is scary.

Researching this information reinforced for me how wrong the NY Times author is. There were any number of heroes that day: people who tackled the shooter, people who threw themselves in the line of fire to safe loved ones, people who pushed strangers out of the line of fire, people who entered the scene knowing the danger in order to help complete strangers. Researching this information also reinforced how many lives the shooter destroyed -- the idea of holding on to your spouse and watching that loved one die in your arms has reduced me to tears.

This incident demonstrates that Americans are learning how to deal with the reality of mass-shooters. On 9/11, the passengers on the fourth jet attacked the hijackers, to prevent the hijackers from using the jet as a weapon. The appropriate way to respond to mass-shooters is to attack the shooter in whatever manner is available.

scarville
02-08-2011, 8:04 PM
I know the above sounds selfish, but there are consequences one would have to deal with if things went completely wrong. Someone that carries a gun for protection needs to be more pro-active about covering theirass.
Not selfish at all. It's realistic. It's pretty darned good bet that a majortiy of the folks you might protect by caulking the shooter would happily see you locked away forever just for carrying gun. Why would even consider protecting people who would do that to you?

gunsmith
02-08-2011, 9:07 PM
of course the NY Times closed off comments, they also probably edited out factual replies from gunnies

Hopalong
02-09-2011, 6:18 AM
Spin.

Spent a fair amount of time talking about something that didn't happen.

Unexplained variables, and taken out of context.

For example, 'the more guns, the more accidents"

Same could be said about cars.

You think there are more traffic accidents in LA or Bismark, SD.?

Plenty of articles written using statistics and coming to a different conclusion.

DannyInSoCal
02-09-2011, 6:51 AM
It's really pretty simple.

While debating this event with a few Anti's - I asked them one question:

If your son/daughter was lined up next in the shooters eyes while he was reloading - Would you rather have a "gun nut" step in front of them and take the bad guy down - Or would you rather let them die?

BluNorthern
02-09-2011, 7:18 AM
From one of the comments......"For decades the gun lobby has promoted policies that kill people in droves, while leaving guns unharmed".
What the hell does that mean!? Where is the evidence to even begin to give credence to such an absurd statement? None...zero.

yellowfin
02-09-2011, 7:40 AM
It's really pretty simple.

While debating this event with a few Anti's - I asked them one question:

If your son/daughter was lined up next in the shooters eyes while he was reloading - Would you rather have a "gun nut" step in front of them and take the bad guy down - Or would you rather let them die?
1. They'll lie.
2. They'll change the subject.
3. They'd rather someone die than their fragile world view be challenged...at least before it actually happens that's what they think they'd prefer.

This is what we get for allowing the anti gun ideological theorem (along with various other pseudo-intellectual alternative worldview precepts) to be held as an equally valid, equally honest possibility rather than confronting and addressing it for what it is. It's dividing by zero.