how to stop killing sprees: armed citizens

In July, I wrote a piece about spree killings that applies pretty much word for word to Friday's horrific atrocity in Connecticut. The only thing I would change is that Obama is likely to be a little less circumspect about gun control now that he will never face the electorate again. 

To those who say that Connecticut is a shall-issue state (in practice), it is also a state where schools are "gun free zones." We just saw the practical results of that policy.

Also please link to the remarkable essay by John Orth that I referenced in my article below. It is perhaps the single best thing ever written about the situation facing gun owners in Canada.

"The left will no doubt agitate for more gun control in wake of the horrific spree killing in Denver. This will, of course, do no good. Jamaica is an island nation with some of the toughest gun laws in the world and yet, the gun violence there is sky high.

The problem with spree killings is that the killer’s goals aren’t personal or monetary – he just wants to kill as many people as he can. Without personal motivations, he can’t be bargained or reasoned with. And since he picks the time and place of the atrocity, you can bet no police will be around. Other than attacking the root causes that create spree killers in the first place (see Monday’s post), the only solution is to encourage law-abiding citizens to be armed so they can put a stop to these situations when they do happen.

The obvious question is that, with shall-issue concealed carry laws in effect in most states, including Colorado, why didn’t they prevent the Batman massacre in Denver? Don’t let the media narrative fool you. Preemption by concealed carry holders occurs all the time. The media just doesn’t report it when it does happen. They report it when it doesn’t, and then they blame the gun owners.

And from the perspective of defeating gun control, propagation of shall-issue concealed carry laws has been the one issue that has turned the tide of popular sentiment against gun control in the States. In the 1990’s, gun control was popular. Every Democrat wanted to ban handguns. These days, nobody admits this. Even President Obama will only further the gun control agenda surreptitiously. What happened to change the mood of America? What happened was that when concealed carry went mainstream, people saw guns as practical tools not just playthings for hobbyists. As a result, support for firearms ownership spread from hobbyists to everyday people.

From the perspective of Canadian gun rights, there is a truly remarkable essay by John Orth (that I wrote about here), describing the dilemma Canadian gun owners face and its solution. It has not garnered nearly enough attention by Canadian gun owners. A few excerpts:

Canadian gun owners are slowly digging our own graves with our timid, apologetic approach to gun rights. Most Canadian gun owners, and most Canadian pro-gun organizations, have utilized a sporting purposes only argument in support of civilian gun ownership. Self defence has become a taboo topic. This reticence is a huge blunder. By failing to actively promote handgun ownership for self defence, we leave ourselves tongue-tied at the most critical juncture in the gun control debate: the aftermath of a mass murder.

The march towards civilian disarmament has followed the same pattern in nearly every English speaking nation. Pro-gun and anti-gun forces generally battle to a draw until there is a mass murder involving firearms. After a massacre has taken place, outraged citizens will grasp at any solution, regardless of how limited its chance of success. It is at these times the gun grabbers have scored their greatest victories. 

As Orth correctly points out, when we use the sporting purposes justification to justify our gun ownership, society is faced with the following binary choice with regard to guns in the aftermath of a mass killing: hobby vs. safety. Unsurprisingly, safety wins. But when guns are presented as a solution to the problem, the trade-offs change. But read the whole article. It’s worth it."

 

 

 

Comments

[Thucydides]

Sadly, there is no legal remedy against madness.

Canadians should be reminded constantly and forcefully that handguns have been restricted since the 1930's, yet gun crime continues to plague cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Gun control does not work, yet every time a tragedy happens people take the opportunity to push failed (ineffective)and flawed plans like the gun control registry.

Watch for it

[Bill]

Once again it take an absolute horrible incident to hopefully wake up this society about the issue of gun control. Guns should be banned……from all criminals and the mentally ill, period no exceptions. Alternatively, every law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Just think for a second; if one of the teachers or adult staff members was carrying a legally concealed weapon, this piece of criminal crap would have not had a chance as an armed teacher could have returned fire in self-defence and the lives if the children would have been saved. Just think about those horrible mass shootings in movie theatres and food courts and if say 5 people out of the crowd of law abiding citizens carried guns…..well as soon as the bad guy even pulled out the gun, yet alone start shooting, five law abiding citizens could take aim, fire and kill the bad guy in self-defence. There wouldn’t be any crime whatsoever. The criminals would be sacred shi*less. An Armed society is a polite society.

[Mary T]

.infowars.com/im-going-to-kill-myself-on-friday-and-it-will-make-the-news/

Was this a warning of things to come. It is so sad that when we see someone who is acting weird, and could be dangerous, and we report it we are told, can't do nothing until he/she does something.

[robins111]

Sorry to disagree Bill, but I see this as a perfect example of the failure of wishful thinking that Gun Free Zone, are somehow going to work

What probably would have worked, is having some of the staff armed, and prepared to use the firearms.

[don morris]

I've owned and used guns all my life,learned from my Dad at age five.

I know hundreds,maybe thousands,of gun owners and hunters,and of that group, would trust maybe half of them with concealed carry.

Too many macho sh*theads with hot tempers are members of the gun fraternity,whether we like to admit it or not.

I'd rather see well-trained,armed guards in the schools,than try to force C-C on a bunch of teachers, most of whom are of the "ban all guns in the hands of civilians" types, NDP supporters, most of them.

In a perfect world,the theory of CC would work very well,but in our society,I have serious doubts. This isn't Israel or Switzerland.

[WiseGuy]

I spoke with a typical Canadian who was upset about this latest shooting and wanted to ban guns. I didn't want to get into a big dustup with this person because he is a client, but I made sure to point out that, had the second amendment been in effect on Sept 11 2001, there would likely be nearly 3000 people still alive today.

It's amazing how few average people have ever heard this argument in favour of an armed population.

Oh yes. It shuts them up every time.

[WiseGuy]

Another thing.

With all the talk of how if somebody had seen a change in behaviour or seen some sort of warning signs, another atrocity could have been prevented, I am reminded how we totally ignore all serious warning signs (let alone the more typical, subtle ones).

Omar Khader has recently been delivered to Canada from Guantanamo Bay, and I can only hope remains in prison (lord knows the press won't let me know when he is out). It is terrifying how so many Canadians are completely unwilling to see any warning signs that Khader could kill again.

Hopelessly looking for future murderers is no solution. An armed public is.

[monkey]

I ask you to then look at the stats. The Murder rate is 4.2 in the US, while only 1.6 in Canada and in almost every Western European country save Belgium and Finland it is even lower than Canada and even in Finland which is the highest (and BTW has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe) it is only 2.1. There is no developed country who even has half the murder rate the US has. Sure people still commit murders, but had baseball bats or knives been used, I suspect the death toll would have been much lower. In Britain only 5% of murders are committed with firearms. I don't have a problem with owning rifles for hunting provided the person goes through an extensive criminal background check and goes through extensive training, but I do not support guns being freely available. Even John Howard in Australia who as a staunch conservative so the stupidity of American gun laws. I realize the US cannot change theirs and don't expect them too, but I stand dead set against right to bear arms finding its way north of the border. I want to live in a safe and free country and an armed society is a paranoid type I nor most Canadians don't want to live in. Besides I have traveled to many US cities including some of the more violent ones and never once have I felt I needed a gun for protection. Yes deaths are tragic, but the chances of being murdered in Canada are far lower than being killed in a car accident so I am not so paranoid I feel I need a gun. Add to the fact in the case of the Aurora shooting had one of the moviegoers been armed and started firing there likely would have been more not less deaths. In a crowded, panicked, and choatic theatre it would be pretty difficult to hit the perpretrator. I should also note in Canada, the Prairies were gun ownership is highest have the highest murder rate while Quebec where it is lowest has the lowest murder rate in Canada.

[WiseGuy]

Monkey- The U.S. murder rate peaked in 1991 at 9.8 and has declined since to 4.2. This coincides with the ongoing liberalization of gun laws in the states, in particular concealed carry permits. If we can just convince the remaining holdouts (schools, post offices and movie theatres) to respect the Second Amendment, maybe we can get the murder rate down near zero.

As far as other nation's murder rates go, perhaps we could look at Venezuela, where strict gun control (including a fresh new ban on private ownership of firearms)has failed to decrease their murder rate from 48!

Or we could look at Switzerland where they have no measurable murder rate. As far as I know, they are the only country in the world where personal firearms ownership is encouraged by the government, and is in fact mandatory for a considerable portion of the population. Maybe they know something we don't.

[monkey]

Pretty much every developed country including here in Canada has seen similar declines in murder rates and most others have toughened not loosened gun laws. As for Venezuela that is a red herring as it is a developing country. Of the developed countries which is the proper comparison, there are none that come close to the US. Canada, pretty much all of Europe save Russia, the Far East, Australia and New Zealand all have substantially lower murder rates. Even the balkans, Middle East, North Africa, China, and India which are much poorer countries have lower murder rates. Our murder rate peaked at 2.5 and dropped to 1.6 and ironically the drop coincided with the bringing in of tougher not looser gun laws. As for bringing the murder rate to zero by ending gun free zones what utter nonsense. Anybody who has every been in a shooting will tell you chaos ensues and more than likely an innocent bystander would get struck many more not less deaths. Most who commit massacres are suicidal anyways so they don't care if they get killed. Finally there is the substituiton effect too. In the US 60% of murders are committed with guns while in Britain it is only 5%. Using a knife, you can only kill someone when standing a couple feet away and you have to kill each one individually never mind the chances of surviving an attack is much better. Yes you will get some murders but not as many. In fact the US has more murders than all of the developed countries combined together while some US cities have more murders than all of Canada or Britain.

[WiseGuy]

So different countries have different situations. This is why your cherry picked statistics are worthless. If a country does not fit your pattern (Russia, Venezuela, or Switzerland) you just choose to exclude them. In the US we can look on a state by state basis to see that liberalizing gun laws directly affect murder and crime rates for the good in those states that adopt them. It is the best set up you can get to test the theory, comparing apples to apples, and the theory checks out.

That's why nearly every jurisdiction in the US is doing it!

Also, when you say that eliminating gun free zones will not lead to near zero murder rates, what do you base this on? At least I can give you an example where it is already working. Give me an example where strict gun laws have reduced the murder rate to "unmeasurable" status. Just one.

Your description of a mass shoot out sounds more like a movie than real life. In real life the suicidal shooter knows the jig is up as soon as a good guy shooter shows up. His next shot is then used on himself because the last thing he wants is to get caught alive and go to prison. This is exactly what happened in an Oregon mall two days after the Sandy Hook shooting
http://www.examiner.com/article/oregon-mall-shooter-may-have-been-stopped-by-armed-citizen
The sooner the good guy shows up, the fewer murders there will be. Simple logic. Wouldn't you want a policeman to show up right away? What's wrong with a deputy, or a spontaneously formed militia?

Of course if there are no gun-free-zones, the shooter will have no place to start his shooting and will have to settle for starting out by shooting himself first. Win win.