A Couple of Interesting Articles

[TEA]

In the wake of the Newtown Massacre and President Obama's call for a "national conversation about guns" I have seen a few interesting articles. I thought I'd share two.

I think this one has a very cogent argument for why laws like the '94 AWB don't work:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/


I think this one provides a very interesting look at the evolution of attitudes towards gun control in the US:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

[BadUglyMagic]

Note the use of the terms "gun-rights advocate" and "gun-owners".

This author and other authors published in the Atlantic freely ignore that "gun-control activists" are anti-civil rights activists.

[hungryjoe]

In the wake of the Newtown Massacre and President Obama's call for a "national conversation about guns" I have seen a few interesting articles. I thought I'd share two.

I think this one has a very cogent argument for why laws like the '94 AWB don't work:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/


I think this one provides a very interesting look at the evolution of attitudes towards gun control in the US:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ngle_page=true

From the WordPress blog -

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

Now, he doesn't cite his sources, but any honest cop will tell you that a lot of hurt can come down between the time shooting starts and the law arrives.

A long but good read. Thanks for the link TEA.

[Rivington]

The 14/2.5 numbers come from here:

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31...ge-statistics/

Interestingly, it seems that tackling the shooter works best, or at least most often. ("Armed civilians" stop such rampages too, but less often. Correia either got the numbers secondhand or is fudging.)

Presumably, the size difference between beefy vice principal or football team captain versus armed nerd is the cause.

Anyway, I suppose we can call it "Grappling wins again!"

[MarJoe]

Oh no, rushing the shooter must often getting shot at close range. Two servicemen tried to rush Hasan, didn't work. The Major was taken(shot) down by a armed secureity guard. The shooters pick soft targets locations. Places where no firearms allowed.

[MarJoe]

Anybody hear or have of a single mass shooting at a gun show or a police stration? Joe

[BadUglyMagic]

New Jersey. Not really a mass shooting but close enough:

http://news.yahoo.com/3-cops-shot-nj...opstories.html

[Rivington]

Oh no, rushing the shooter must often getting shot at close range.

According to the source, citizens more often stop rampage shootings with tackles than with guns.

Two servicemen tried to rush Hasan, didn't work. The Major was taken(shot) down by a armed secureity guard.

That's one time it did not work. Connecticut was another. That doesn't mean it never works. Did you read the source?

The shooters pick soft targets locations. Places where no firearms allowed.

Seems that at least some of the shooters target locations where they just know there will be a lot of people, or that they have some personal connection to. Has any shooter explicitly said, say in a note or manifesto, that they targeted Location X because no firearms were allowed?

[DerAuslander]

According to the source, citizens more often stop rampage shootings with tackles than with guns.

Irrelevant statistic is irrelevant.

Would you rather risk closing on someone with a firearm and engaging them empty handed, or seek cover and return fire?

[wetware]

According to the source, citizens more often stop rampage shootings with tackles than with guns.

There's a better than average chance that that's because people aren't allowed to have guns in places where rampage shootings tend to occur.