« Mr. Clean | Main | Trash Talk »

July 30, 2012

[Bumped] "There is nothing in law or custom that obligates armed, private citizen to engage an armed criminal."

There are occasions where an armed private citizen can stop potential lethal violenc
e – see the link above. But Aurora was not one of them. If Second Amendment advocates think the massacre doesn’t support greater gun control laws, then they need also to consider that it doesn’t support relaxing carry laws, either. -- Sense of Events: Public killings and armed citizenry

Posted by gerardvanderleun at July 30, 2012 2:00 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

“Obligation“, freakin’ obligation is what this jackwagon thinks rules me and others people’s actions?

Yeah, no one is “obligated” to volunteer for the US military either. Thankfully, obligation hardly rules man’s willingness to do many things that are bigger than himself.

So tell me ‘Sense of Events’, how many of those dead folks relatives, or those injured, are wishing that they had a weapon that night? Yeah, you’re right, probably none.

BTW, your not obligated to write verbal diarrhea either but that didn’t stop you…

Huh?

Posted by: tim at July 27, 2012 10:21 AM

The management supplies links so that, in the event of misunderstanding, curious readers may discover the context before embarrassing themselves.

Posted by: vanderleun at July 27, 2012 10:25 AM

Holmes in particular was capable of burning the place down with everyone in it, body count 500. That was not his object. He had every expectation of becoming as famous as Batman and enjoying the ride. This shooter was no suicide, and he could read the posting on theatre firearm policy.

Posted by: james wilson at July 27, 2012 10:54 AM

G, I didn't call you out, it's why I put 'Sense of Events'.

I know how this place works, I’ve been coming here for…ever.

Posted by: tim at July 27, 2012 11:44 AM

Oh crap! Just think of the satisfaction of seeing the pricks ears fall into his sox. That's not an obligation, that's an urge.

Posted by: Peccable at July 27, 2012 12:05 PM

The management may supply the links but it also bates with the headlines....

The author claims, properly in my view, "Getting a permit and buying a pistol is easy - becoming a fighter in lethal danger is hard. It take the Army months just to get it done to a very basic level."

Law, custom or obligation don't even become part of the equation. For all those want-to-be special forces operators out there who've never heard the sound of bullets whizzing by, try taking on a guy with an automatic rifle or shotgun with an undersized hand gun, in the dark, in the middle of mayhem. Duck, run and pray are far more likely outcomes....

Posted by: Anonymous at July 27, 2012 12:33 PM

It supports mandatory carry laws. If everyone in the theater was required to carry a gun.

and we could tax those that refuse to own one.

Posted by: jpm at July 27, 2012 1:51 PM

Well, tim, the fact is that your comment actually buttreses my argument, not rebuts it.

For you only really say that if a movie goer had had a pistol, he would have had the choice of firing back. That's right - a choice, but no obligation to do so. Thus, we are in agreement.

But go ahead and wallow in your Wyatt Earp-Dirty Harry-Elliott Ness fantasies. And the next time you find yourself equipped with a little 9mm carry pistol, with about an 8-round magazine, in the dark and smoke, facing down a killer firing a military-grade semi-auto rifle, with a 12-gauge shotgun as backup and a pistol as backup for that, just remember you've already been asked, "How did that work out for you?"

That is in fact exactly the right-wing fantasy here - that somehow getting a carry permit makes the holders an ever-ready defender of the general public safety, willing, able and skilled enough (ha!) to immediately spring into lethal combat with a shooter like Holmes.

What bull crap.

The typical permit holder is someone who got a permit not so he could carry at all, but to avoid having to pay the name-check fee each time he wants to buy a gun. The next typical holder is someone who runs out and gets a pistol because of events like Aurora, gets the permit and carries the pistol devotedly - for about three weeks. Then it sits in a drawer and gathers dust. And the owner almost never goes to a range to practice.

The former is making a financial decision that it's cheaper to get a permit than to keep paying fees. And the latter is a joke - if he ever screws up and brings his gun to a public, crowded place like the theater and thinks he's Sgt. Rock when the madman starts shooting, God help us. (I would be grateful for him since he would make a much more likely target than me for a guy like Holmes, so I'd be out the door while Marshal Dillon was getting blasted to ribbons. I'd even go to his funeral, too.)

Four percent of Colorado residents have a carry permit at all. Of that number, a small minority actually go armed routinely. And of them, at most about half actually are skilled and practiced enough to handle a pistol all three of competently, quickly and accurately even on a range. In an actual live-combat, life or death situation? You may as well play the lottery.

BTW, I am a retired Army artillery officer. I qualified expert on rifle and pistol every year. While serving in my alternate specialty, I was a principal staff officer of US Army Criminal Investigation Command. I've never been in a pistol fight, thank God, but rifle fights were illuminating enough.

Posted by: Donald Sensing at July 27, 2012 5:13 PM

Possibly relevant, another direct quotation from the linked article:

"In that assault, the church’s minister had given Jeanne Assam permission to carry her concealed handgun. The gunman killed two people in the parking lot — but when he entered the church, Assam fired 10 shots, severely wounding him."

Right. So in this case, we have a volunteer who has been pre-warned of the assault, and is working under much better conditions, notably lighting and probably range, than at Aurora. Now, this woman (not criticising here, BTW) fired 10 shots. Either the perp looked like a colander afterwards (which wouldn't say wondrous things about Ms. Assam's self-control) or most of her 10 shots missed. Where did the ones that missed end up? And where would they have ended up if she had been at Aurora?

As a matter of fact, I am in favour of the right to bear arms. But rights usually carry obligations, as well; for example, driving a car takes perhaps 30 hours of training, minimum, for the basic skills - and a test. Simply because a car in untrained hands is a misguided missile. And that is for something not actually designed to kill.

Sure, allow carrying firearms (Yes, in the UK as well). The accompanying obligation would be to submit to a detailed background and mental health check, and to be PROPERLY trained (police-style urban assault course including target discrimination tests perhaps, not just plinking paper targets) before being allowed to carry it in public.

Most people wouldn't bother. Feature, not bug. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at July 28, 2012 2:34 AM

Just a quick comment - I agree that the probability is extremely low that a permit holder would have been able to stop the Aurora shooter. But, the policy of the theater (which is certainly well within their rights) reduces that probability to zero. I would argue that, while Aurora doesn't argue for liberalizing carry laws, it does (as do all recent mass murders) argue against the establishment of "gun free zones," in which all the benefits (including deterrence) of an armed citizenry are removed. It's the theater's right to set things up that way, but it doesn't appear to be wise, on balance.

Also (in case Mr. Sensing is reading) I'm not finding any evidence in print that your Wilmington shooting went down the way your friend suggests - there does seem to have been fire returned from the crowd, but the original perpetrators have been charged with the murder of the 16-year-old as well as their apparently intended target. A couple of additional bystanders were wounded, and it's possible one of those bullets may have come from a permit holder, but John Lott's point may wind up standing after all...

Posted by: Kerry Jones at July 28, 2012 7:21 AM

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." Dependent clause, not feature, Fletcher.

Posted by: Ogrrre at July 28, 2012 8:40 AM

I don't understand Sensing's logic. Bottom line is if you were in that theater you would be better off with a gun than without - period. Even if you hadn't practiced in a long time.


So what exactly is the point to the arguments about probabilities and obligations? Should a citizen be allowed to carry a gun? Yes! Would a gun have been useful in that situation? Certainly it would be better than throwing your popcorn at the shooter.


Also whether or not you could be effective against the shooter is a matter of happenstance. Sure standing up and blazing away at him while he faces you from across the theater would suck but if the guy walks past you and you can shoot him in the back easy peasy - I imagine that there were a lot of people in the theater who could have shot him with no additional risk to themselves or others if they had a gun at the time. In the dark theater it would likely have been a matter of who was close enough to the guy and which way he was facing - it would not have been a long range gun battle requiring great marksmanship.

Posted by: Scott at July 28, 2012 10:05 AM

"Bottom line is if you were in that theater you would be better off with a gun than without - period."

Possibly, Scott. But would you have been better off if there had been a couple of dozen others there with guns as well?

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at July 29, 2012 1:16 PM

I'll concede that a pistol and a CCW by themselves don't automatically endow somebody with the combat marksmanship skills of Dick Marcinko. I'd simply note that buying a bunch of new toys a month or two before the shooting probably didn't do it for Jim Holmes, either.

Posted by: Rich Fader at July 29, 2012 1:22 PM

"But would you have been better off if there had been a couple of dozen others there with guns as well?"

The obvious answer is OF COURSE, everyone in the theater would have been better off -especially the unarmed people!

If there had been a "couple of dozen" people with guns in that theater, then Holmes would be dead and the number of people shot would be drastically lower.

I have a hard to understanding why you think it would have been a bad thing if a lot of average people had guns in the theater. Sure its possible that someone could have possibly been hit by a misplaced shot but what actually happened was 13 people died and 50+ were shot - not sure how it could have come out any worse really.

According to your logic somehow a number of people shooting at the homicidal manic would be a bad thing, which somehow would have resulted in a higher body/injury count. Huh?


Posted by: scott at July 29, 2012 5:27 PM

Unless extremely well disciplined most shooters would react with "spray and pray". My experiences have included the "pucker factor" - that fright reaction - and a fear of being hit by friendly fire. In a crowded darkened theater with all the mayhem occuring a CCW good guy would be likely to shoot anyone he saw waving a weapon, which could be other good guys.

We are dissecting this incident in slo-mo and theorizing that, IF the bad guy was walking past me and IF I stuck a gun in his ear and ... but what if he was over on the other side of the room, would I run-jump-crawl over to him? I have been shot at before, and it ain't no fun and my first reaction was always take cover, not charge the guns. Certainly mount a counter attack, but time, time is the dynamic we are not considering. What was the total elapsed time of the incident? Five minutes?

Posted by: chasmatic at July 29, 2012 10:34 PM

...taking on a guy with an automatic rifle or shotgun with an undersized hand gun...

Bad choice for individual carry.

...in the dark...

That's why God made tritium sights.

Posted by: BillT at July 30, 2012 12:26 AM

@ Donald, Fletcher et.al.-How many cops have ever heard the crack of a round, would even recognize it. Combat courses are nice, useful for sharpening skills and try to teach you not to crap your pants.

Even the cops get the pucker factor. Combat vets do too. Most people in that situation will focus on the opponents weapon, shooting at that rather than going for head shots. Center of mass doesn't work on body armor.

Posted by: Peccable at July 30, 2012 5:00 AM

So Donald, as Scott already asked, what exactly is your point? Those people, and others in that position, are better off being unarmed…and dead. Yeah, no thanks.

And who the hell appointed you the arbitrator of who a concealed carry holder is qualified enough to defend themselves against someone who wants to kill?

Talk about typical lib, emotional bullcrap. You’ll decide if I’m willing and able to pull my gun out and fire at a lunatic hell bent on stacking up bodies. Eff you.

Unlike you I don’t pretend to know why the “typical permit holder” has one but to assume it’s because they want one just to make purchasing a handgun easy is overly simplistic. While I can only speak from where I hold my concealed carry, NY, there are three different permits, all making purchasing ease the same. So your wrong, at least here, and I suspect elsewhere.

Your obsession with a statistical analysis of how many permit holders where likely to be in the theater at the time...blah, blah misses the point entirely. But hey, it all ended exactly the way it should’ve according to you.

BTW, qualified expert rifleman & pistol and MOS trained small arms repairmen in the Marine Corps, with thousands and thousands of hours on the range. Not sure what that has to do with anything but it was sure fun measuring dicks. I like how I came out.

Posted by: tim at July 30, 2012 6:24 AM

Mr. Sensing's statements can neither be proved nor disproved because these spree killers always target gun free zones. It's almost as if the possibility of encountering someone who can and will shoot back acts as a deterrent.

Oh, and the appeal to authority ("I am a retired Army artillery officer. I qualified expert on rifle and pistol every year.") is beneath you, sir.

Posted by: butch at July 30, 2012 6:53 AM

The shooter in Aurora may have had some good equipment. He was not a trained shooter. Yet he managed to kill a dozen unarmed people. Most cops have never been fired upon or fired their weapons, yet no one questions their ability to use a weapon under adverse conditions. The Aurora murderer would likely have freaked out the first time a bullet smacked his armor -- if indeed he was wearing armor and not look-like-a-ninja ballistic gear.

I have passed the shooting qualifications for a law enforcement officer. It ain't that hard. Several people who are not as good with a firearm as I am also passed, and I ain't all that good. Yet, when confronted by armed LEO's, the little punk laid down his weapons.

Think about this for a minute. Most punks and thugs are looking for victims, not opponents. The government, the academics, the petty little bureaucrats, the courts, and leftist thinkers in general seem more than willing to supply victims, if not be victims.

Personally, I would have more confidence in one of those boys who stood in front of his girlfriend than most cops. Jesus said something about hirelings versus the Shepherd who loves His flock and which of those you could depend on. A man or woman backed to the wall defending the family is not someone you want to go up against.

Posted by: mushroom at July 30, 2012 6:54 AM

The government, the academics, the petty little bureaucrats, the courts, and leftist thinkers in general seem more than willing to supply victims...

Homeland Security Survival Tip: "...yelling at or subduing the shooter..."
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2012/07/department_of_homeland_securit.html

What. Are. They. Smoking?!?

Posted by: BillT at July 30, 2012 8:37 AM

"Oh, and the appeal to authority ("I am a retired Army artillery officer. I qualified expert on rifle and pistol every year.") is beneath you, sir."

He didn't start out with that, and there was some provocation. Creatures like tim pollute the discussion when they start out flaming, don't you think?

"...it was sure fun measuring dicks. I like how I came out."

You came out like a dick, tim, and that's not what you awarded yourself, I think. Pastor Sensing, while I disagree with him, has more substantial provenance than you do. (That means we can be more certain that he is what he says he is, more than we can be about you.)

And if you really had served in my beloved Corps, show some pride and stop embarrassing us. The gentleman has been advancing his arguments in a calm mature fashion, and it's possible to respond in kind. You started off flaming like some fourteen year old brat.

Posted by: Mike James at July 30, 2012 1:11 PM

The gun blogs and the shooters that write for them all pretty much agree on two things.

1) It's damned hard to hit a guy wearing full body armor when your target is moving, shooting at you and it's the size of sunglasses. You would have one shot and that's about it.

2) "Gun Free Zones" don't apply to them.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 30, 2012 1:16 PM

1 - It is unclear if he was wearing body armor. He was wearing tacticool ninja wear. Given the media's hoplophobia and general ignorance WRT firearms, I take their reports with a large grain of salt. Body armor will not render the wearer invulnerable: kinetic energy is conserved. At best, a center of mass shot will put the shooter on his ass; at worst, it will distract him, slow him down.

2 - Gun free zones don't apply to murderous psychopaths. Again, these spree killers ALWAYS do their work in gun free zone, which disarm the law abiding.

Posted by: butch at July 30, 2012 4:53 PM

Mike James - Tim's "dick measuring" comment was made AFTER Mr. Sensing's appeal to authority. However, Tim's first comment was a bit over the line.

I am tired of those who say that a CCW holder or two would not have made a difference, so we should continue to disarm the sheep. Eff that.

Posted by: butch at July 30, 2012 4:56 PM

Here is my final word on the subject, and now I am moving on to other things. Appreciate the collegial comments.

Click here.

Posted by: Donald Sensing at July 30, 2012 5:06 PM

tim's first comment was not over the line. Don's article is illogical for the reasons that scott and mushroom outlined. Given the duration of the episode, counterfire may well have saved lives and/or reduced injuries. His speculations are countered by the experience of others in mass shooting situations that were definitively able to save lives as the result of fire being returned by the erstwhile victims - at the Appalachian School of Law, the New Life Church and elsewhere.

I think Glenn Reynolds has the right of it "People don't stop killers. People with guns do." It was a bad situation, as life sometimes deals us, and about the best you could hope for is to make it less bad. As butch notes, Don's article doesn't add up to much more than "disarm the sheep." I concur with his sentiment "Eff that."

Posted by: RKV at July 30, 2012 6:00 PM

Butch, my fault, I wasn't very clear about the provocation I had in mind. It was Tim's initial uncalled-for flaming in the first comment at the top of this page at 10:21 am--referring to Pastor Sensing as a "jackwagon" and the arguments he advanced as "verbal diarrhea."

I don't think there was any obligation to lower oneself to respond to the oaf, but I can tell you as someone who was reading Donald Sensing since before the "One Hand Clapping" days, I'm more willing to rely on the authority of Pastor Sensing, as compared to some internet tough guy who, if he actually has served in the USMC, chose a poor way to represent former and active Marines. Donald Sensing is a known quantity, and does not hide behind Internet anonymity. That's much more than can be said for "tim". As I pointed out, much more substantial provenance.

I disagree with the Pastor, but his argument is worth listening to. I interpret it as a gentle reminder to those of us on the pro-2nd Amendment side of the population that there isn't much to be gained from vivid, overdone claims for CCW, with an unspoken caution that it almost verges into being indecent to do so while all the funerals have not yet been conducted.

Pastor Sensing is a Methodist clergyman, which I think is the appeal to authority that matters the most to him, and he engaged in this debate not once brandishing any authority he has as a Christian and a clergyman. He waded into this argument as an American citizen, and didn't drag the Almighty into it at all, which I think demands that much more attention be paid to what he is saying, which I take to be that the Aurora massacre is useless as a means of illuminating the CCW question.

RKV, Scott and Mushroom have argued a different question than what Pastor Sensing ultimately stated as his thesis. They were arguing some of the points made about just how likely it was that CCW carriers would save the day, and spare us having to deal with the detested antis, again. And you are wrong abojut Tim's first comment; it was flat out boorish, and his subsequent comment made him come off as an oaf, a lout, a pillock, and if he really did serve in my beloved Corps, a shitbird.

Posted by: Mike James at July 30, 2012 10:41 PM

“Creatures like tim…”

“You came out like a dick, tim”

“You started off flaming like some fourteen year old brat.”

“…a shitbird.”

“made him come off as an oaf, a lout, a pillock”

Oh yes, you’re so above the boorish, Mr. James.

Nothing like some hypocrisy to fulfill the day.

“…if you really had served in my beloved Corps…”

“…if he actually has served in the USMC…”

“…and if he really did serve in my beloved Corps…”

Yes, what I do is wait for someone to bring up their service, in a unrelated and off topic manner, then I subsequently lie about being in the Corps to make myself look good. Yup. Should I whip out my DD214 or my promotions, my Honorable Discharge? Take a picture of my tattoo or my old uniform…what?

You’re the type of guy who will insult someone (you probably still have no idea) and then wonder why that person takes offense. “What? What did I do, I’m just trying to have a discussion.” In a thinly veiled attempt to make yourself look like so above it all. I say
jackwagon, you say pillock and in turn fancy yourself the intellect, the highbrow. Strange how condescension works, the air of superiority is never acknowledged in the mirror.
To say nothing of your already noted hypocritical tendencies that you think everyone is too dumb to pickup on.

“He waded into this argument as an American citizen, and didn't drag the Almighty into it at all, which I think demands that much more attention be paid to what he is saying…”

Well, if he’s an American citizen…What exactly does that have to do with anything? No wait, I’m an American citizen, allegedly, so therefore what I said deserves more attention. Cool.

I’ll let the “Almighty” comment go, it’s too damn silly to even respond.

Good day, Mr. James.

Semper Fi

Posted by: tim at July 31, 2012 7:04 AM

Mike - no worries. Fortunately, I scrolled up to review comments prior to posting and caught Tim's first comment. One can respectfully disagree with Pastor Sensing without resorting to ad hominem.

Until one of these psychos strikes a non gun free zone, we really won't know.

Posted by: butch at July 31, 2012 7:53 AM

Thanks, that is actually pretty interesting and I'm glad I found this info here.

Posted by: maryland daycare at October 25, 2012 10:27 PM

Good – I should certainly pronounce, impressed with your site. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related information ended up being truly easy to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it at all. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, web site theme . a tones way for your customer to communicate. Nice task..

Posted by: Lamar Epson at June 30, 2013 7:56 AM

Great – I should definitely pronounce, impressed with your web site. I had no trouble navigating through all the tabs as well as related information ended up being truly simple to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it in the least. Reasonably unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, web site theme . a tones way for your client to communicate. Excellent task..

Posted by: Suzi Mcgorry at June 30, 2013 8:14 AM

Hi there, I log on to your blogs daily. Your writing style is witty, keep it up!

Posted by: Grover at June 18, 2016 11:17 PM

Public access to information about registered sexual offenders is intended solely as ... This website is not a comprehensive listing of every person who has ever ...

Posted by: 5 Sex Positions You Need to Try If Your Partner Has a Long Penis at August 11, 2019 12:43 PM

child porn diye kastiklarini götüne sokucam

Posted by: fuck mother at August 13, 2019 9:04 PM

google dns hack ın my sites go to my website bidforthis.com

Posted by: child porno at August 13, 2019 9:49 PM

google dns hack ın my sites go to my website

Posted by: cocuk pornosu at August 21, 2019 11:41 PM

google hack ın my sites go to my website

Posted by: sübyen porno at August 23, 2019 9:50 AM

child porn diye kastiklarini götüne sokucam

Posted by: amcik agazli at August 26, 2019 5:23 PM

hadi sana elveda canimin ici

Posted by: google tourent at August 28, 2019 11:39 AM

aq cosugu saldırıp durma sikerim dalağını

Posted by: es.d at January 1, 2020 6:46 AM

google hack ın my sites go to my website

Posted by: a.zxc at January 8, 2020 10:42 PM

google hack ın my sites go to my website

Posted by: dgvcx at January 11, 2020 5:10 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)