Mass Shooting

[rmgill]

The quantity of defensive gun uses was one of the things that swayed me years ago. The argument is that one doesnt need a gun when we have the cops. Yet the legal liabilities for police who fail to respond to a call for assistance and the number of instances of self defense made it clear that the old saw that you wouldnt need a gun was false.

Edited August 9, 2019 by rmgill

[NickM]

l. Big democratic societies like the US and EU can and have handled a couple percent higher delinquency by small political minorities if they don't allow themselves to be either ignorant or whipped into a frenzy about it. As it is, I neither see Europe turning into a caliphate nor America into a fascist-racist-mysogonist-etc. dictatorship.

 

There's always a shithead politician who sees said delinquents as a voting bloc to be courted & either encourage such shiteaddery or discourages 'police harassment' of said shitheads.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The quantity of defensive gun uses was one of the things that swayed me years ago. The argument is that one doesnt need a gun when we have the cops. Yet the legal liabilities for police who fail to respond to a call for assistance and the number of instances of self defense made it clear that the old saw that you wouldnt need a gun was false.

 

The problem I have is that the Dayton shooting killed 9 people and 27 people wounded, even though he was dead in 30 seconds. Thats nearly one person wounded every second and one killed every 3. In both Dayton and El Paso, it was policeman that did the deed, not some member of the public who had other things to worry about, like evacuating their family.

https://www.vox.com/2019/8/5/20755047/dayton-mass-shooting-timeline-good-guy-with-a-gun-myth

 

Its interesting to remember something I read in Steve Davies 'Red Eagles', where the USAF had their own squadrons of migs. Not so much to show what they could do in combat. They could just as easily do that in a classroom. But they recognized that a pilot, confronted by an aggressor for the first time, gets 'buck fever'. That they are so astonished by what they see, they forget basic things like how to dogfight. In short, they had the skills, but didn't have the psychological makeup to make use of it yet. So if thats true of a pilot who has had millions spent training him, how is a member of the public going to do any better when they have someone shooting at them?

 

People just aren't veterans, who can go from shopping one minute, to rock and roll the next. I believe only veterans or policeman have the ability to make that mental switch like that.

 

I dont think these occasions prove you should NOT have a gun. But equally I dont believe they prove that having a gun does any damn good at all. If you are an ex Marine who spent 6 months in Afghanistan, I could see it. Most people dont have anything like that mindset.

[sunday]

Re Stuart:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/us/oklahoma-city-shooting/index.html

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/04/police-concealed-carry-permit-holder-shots-kills-active-shooter/

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/index.html

 

Islamists blowing themselves up don't reproduce any more than Incels going down in a blaze of infamy.
(...)

You forget polygamy among Islamists, that lead to a high number of incels, sons of third and the like wives and concubines, disinherited, and whose deaths will not curb the population growth very much. Also, the main portion of muslims in Germany are of Turkish origin, who are more Westernized, even if there are some third generation ones that still feel more Turkish than German.

"Merkel's guests" are a bit different, and there are no statistics on them yet.

Edited August 9, 2019 by sunday

[BansheeOne]

This is Germany. There are statistics on everything.

 

Turkish immigrants in the 50s/60s came from a country where women had about six kids each on average, and more in the poor rural regions from which most of those seeking their fortune abroad came. In 2012, total fertility rate of Turkish-descended women here (including naturalized German citizens) was 1.73 compared to 1.41 for overall population. In 2016 it was 1.67 compared to 1.59. The typical driver in dropping fertility rates for them as all others is higher education for women, leading to them getting their own jobs and living more self-determined lifes. It's actually visible in the spread of fertility rates between differently-developed regions within Turkey itself today.

 

 

For Iranians (a mix of older arrivals who mostly fled the 1979 Islamic Revolution and recent hangers-on to the 2015 refugee wave) 2016 TFR was 1.21; for Egyptians, Algerians, Libyans and Tunisians, who for some reason are always counted together, 1.45; Moroccans, 1.89; Iraqis, 1.96; Syrians, 2.10; Afghans, 2.26. The spread is due to several interconnected factors: (female) education and birth rates in the countries of origins, time spent here adapting to local societal norms and again getting better education and thus jobs, and work opportunities overall - asylum seekers with pending, much less denied requests are generally not allowed to work legally. Of course they will spend the time with illegal activities and, for the women, getting babies. The Moroccans are a good example for this.

 

Those numbers are already the result of everything, polygamy (factual if not legal under Western laws) and all. Of course fertility rates are dropping throughout the world, including the Muslim parts except the most undeveloped ones in Central Africa and Afghanistan. For long-settled immigrant communities in the West it's not so much that they're outbreeding the aboriginal population rather than shrinking slightly slower. The problems of their younger generation are not in a gender imbalance like China's one-child policy produced, but the same as for majority society: demographic shift towards older citizens that will need to be paid and cared for by the working population; and whatever damage is inflicted upon them as they grow up, including patriarchalic or violent parenting or no father at all, religious or ethnic superiority complexes or no guiding values at all, being bullied for being different, and so on.

[sunday]

I hope you were not stating there are already long-term statistics on the last, massive wave of refugees.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Re Stuart:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/us/oklahoma-city-shooting/index.html

 

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/05/04/police-concealed-carry-permit-holder-shots-kills-active-shooter/

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/03/us/mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/index.html

 

Islamists blowing themselves up don't reproduce any more than Incels going down in a blaze of infamy.

(...)

 

You forget polygamy among Islamists, that lead to a high number of incels, sons of third and the like wives and concubines, disinherited, and whose deaths will not curb the population growth very much. Also, the main portion of muslims in Germany are of Turkish origin, who are more Westernized, even if there are some third generation ones that still feel more Turkish than German.

 

"Merkel's guests" are a bit different, and there are no statistics on them yet.

 

So thats 3 cases. Has anyone actually done a analysis of how many armed bystanders do the job compared to policemen? I guess what im looking for is a PK of armed shooter to bystander, to unarmed casualty, which is the only comparison that really matters.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

The problem I have is that the Dayton shooting killed 9 people and 27 people wounded, even though he was dead in 30 seconds. Thats nearly one person wounded every second and one killed every 3. In both Dayton and El Paso, it was policeman that did the deed, not some member of the public who had other things to worry about, like evacuating their family.

Look at a larger data set. You have a data set of TWO instances.

 

http://www.lawenforcementservices.biz/Law_Enforcement_Services,_LLC/FIREARMS_TRAINING_files/Shooting%20Statistics.pdf

 

 

So if thats true of a pilot who has had millions spent training him, how is a member of the public going to do any better when they have someone shooting at them?

Because not everyone does the same thing and gets buck fever. More over, when the shooter gets shot at he can get bfuddled by the resistance and change from attacking to retreat. This is borne out by looking at more than what VOX decided to look at.

 

People just aren't veterans, who can go from shopping one minute, to rock and roll the next. I believe only veterans or policeman have the ability to make that mental switch like that.

Why is it that the non-combat veteran status criminals and shooters have 100% perfect aim, nerves of steel and won't ever sway while all of the folks fighting back are inept, weak willed and unable to function under duress?

 

 

I dont think these occasions prove you should NOT have a gun. But equally I dont believe they prove that having a gun does any damn good at all. If you are an ex Marine who spent 6 months in Afghanistan, I could see it. Most people dont have anything like that mindset.

Look at a larger data set and stop reading VOX to figure out gun stuff. They're experts on what to eat with your Avocado Toast and the latest fads in how to hate yourself if you're white. Not guns.

[rmgill]

So thats 3 cases. Has anyone actually done a analysis of how many armed bystanders do the job compared to policemen? I guess what im looking for is a PK of armed shooter to bystander, to unarmed casualty, which is the only comparison that really matters.

The problem is that mass shootings are rare events. So you have to look at what works and the mechanisms where the situation manifested such encounters between armed citizens and a person intent on mass murder. Essentially, you must game out the reactions of the various parties. Given that many of them stopped their attacks when met with more paltry resistance, it stands to reason that armed resistance is going to work better than unarmed resistance.

 

http://www.lawenforcementservices.biz/Law_Enforcement_Services,_LLC/FIREARMS_TRAINING_files/Shooting%20Statistics.pdf

 

Or how about CDC data on the more general subject?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#557fe50a299a

[Mr King]

More left wing titty pinching

 

Does this mean the ghettos be dying of blackness?

 

 

https://archive.is/S49td

[Tim the Tank Nut]

the the best of my recollection Mexico has very serious anti gun laws and in also an unbelievably dangerous place to live or visit.

While I can appreciate the desire of our Leftist betters to emulate Venezuela, Mexico, and China I believe that the Founders that wrote the Constitution of the United States may have had more vision.

At this point I think the Left sees these shootings as the next "Collusion" and they hope to ride it all the way to the White House but historically gun control has not been an election winner in the USA.

[Murph]

the the best of my recollection Mexico has very serious anti gun laws and in also an unbelievably dangerous place to live or visit.

While I can appreciate the desire of our Leftist betters to emulate Venezuela, Mexico, and China I believe that the Founders that wrote the Constitution of the United States may have had more vision.

At this point I think the Left sees these shootings as the next "Collusion" and they hope to ride it all the way to the White House but historically gun control has not been an election winner in the USA.

The guns laws in Mexico are a liberals wet dream, and it is an insanely violent place.

[Colin]

Most of the historical existing US gun laws have a basis in racism, that is to prevent blacks from arming themselves against gangs of KKK and the like. The great thing about the US is that it is a gold mine of reasonably reliable data at the Federal, state and County/city level. There is tons of data available, including the location of almost every homicide in the last couple of decades. They know where and who got killed and often why. The clustering of data points allows anyone who is serious to figure out why there is a cluster of homicides in one area and that will often lead to underlying social issue in that area. However fixing those underlying issue is long , hard and messy and the politician that starts down that road gets all the flak and none of the positive results which may show up a decade later. So they focus on easy stuff like gun control which is a win win, if nothing changes they can say they tried, if they get something they get a win, so there is no risk going down that route for a politician. It does not solve any of the other underlying issues.

 

Now real mass shootings involving a large number of people in a public place is a whole different kettle of fish. The real question is "why are a bunch of young males performing what is basically fame based suicide?" answer that question and you have some hope to solve and reduce the number.

[shep854]

Stuart, what you are referring to in Post #278 is simple surprise, which always takes time to overcome. It can be reduced in a large measure by simply thinking through a possible situation. Actual training also helps; this includes defensive driving or first aid to have skills to deal appropriately.

You make a good point; some sort of mental preparation and training is an essential part of responsible defensive gun carry.

You've probably heard of some sort of Color Code to establish situational awareness. At the lowest level is Condition White, where one is totally oblivious to one's surroundings, whether through distraction or simple self-absorbtion. A higher level, sometimes called Condition Yellow, is when one maintains some degree of awareness of the world around, such as scanning while driving or simply looking around. If a possible problem is noticed, focus and assessment is sharpened. This does not necessarily have to be a threat; it could be something good and beautiful to be enjoyed!

BUT, if one has that mindset of awareness, one will often have time to consider options and respond, rather than simply react.

SADLY, too many people (including gun carriers) live their lives with their heads in the clouds. :/

[Murph]

Most of the historical existing US gun laws have a basis in racism, that is to prevent blacks from arming themselves against gangs of KKK and the like. The great thing about the US is that it is a gold mine of reasonably reliable data at the Federal, state and County/city level. There is tons of data available, including the location of almost every homicide in the last couple of decades. They know where and who got killed and often why. The clustering of data points allows anyone who is serious to figure out why there is a cluster of homicides in one area and that will often lead to underlying social issue in that area. However fixing those underlying issue is long , hard and messy and the politician that starts down that road gets all the flak and none of the positive results which may show up a decade later. So they focus on easy stuff like gun control which is a win win, if nothing changes they can say they tried, if they get something they get a win, so there is no risk going down that route for a politician. It does not solve any of the other underlying issues.

 

Now real mass shootings involving a large number of people in a public place is a whole different kettle of fish. The real question is "why are a bunch of young males performing what is basically fame based suicide?" answer that question and you have some hope to solve and reduce the number.

So true! KKK and Democrats all in for slavery and racism.

[Burncycle360]

Brazil is so bad that there's a meme among those who carry about "off duty Brazilian cops" saving the day.

 

Now real mass shootings involving a large number of people in a public place is a whole different kettle of fish. The real question is "why are a bunch of young males performing what is basically fame based suicide?" answer that question and you have some hope to solve and reduce the number.

It stems from the same phenomenon that causes "Dad Bod" memes to predictably go "Well what about mom bods?" a week later. That #BlackLivesMatter turns into #AllLivesMatter. How "I'm not like those "fuckboys" that girls say they hate, so why am I not more successful in love?" turns into "Ugh, Nice guy syndrome, you're actually worse you incel", and "No Shave November" for guys leading to "well we won't shave either then" for girls.

Any controversial thing that gets said will have a counterpoint (and even a counter-movement) made so predictably that you can set your watch to it. The polarization of western politics, mainstream media, social media and even down to the layperson along with the politicization of issues have gotten so bad that it's almost impossible to have rational discourse anymore, and it really doesn't take all that much -- consider how the perception of public pressure / outrage of SJWs will influence corporate and political policy, and then consider something like 80% of the content on Twitter comes from just ~10% of the users. It literally is all about perception.

Now, there will always be a certain percentage of the population who become intent on doing harm to themselves or others (including en masse) and that's your baseline. That will never, ever go away. That baseline may be a little higher or lower depending on the countries individual balance of liberty and security (ie, 3 per 100,000 or maybe 5 per 100,000), but you'll reach a point of diminishing returns and still not get them all, even in the most authoritarian society. Why the apparent spike above baseline though?

The more polarizing things become over the last 15-20 years, and the more one side is perceived to be gaining ground, then the more desperate the other side (at the roughly equivalent radical level) becomes at a perceived loss of ground -- and the closer they are to the threshold of their tolerance of it. Just like everyone's definition of reasonableness is different, so too is their tolerance to what they perceive to be unreasonable is. For most people, the effect this has is for them to get off the fence and maybe start to comment on social media more, they may even get involved in protests and counter-movements.... but some (especially on the radically opposite end), are so far past their tolerance level that, when combined with the totality of the circumstances (their mental health, experiences, passion for the issue, etc), are just done. They feel like the ostensible measures put in place (voting, getting involved in politics, etc) to change things aren't realistic given the bureaucratic realities, difficulties, or lack of public support, and they're powerless to change what they perceive to be the wrong direction things are moving in. Consider Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet -- if you have an excellent point to make about it, well... so do 81,000 other people and nobody is going to read all of the comments much less yours. Perception of no voice combined with despair at where things seem to be heading. On the bell curve of a society, there will always be some willing to go on some sort of violent spree, and I can only presume it's because they believe that's the only thing that will let them be heard above the din. That goes for radicals of all types, including left and right wing (ie, Antifa types and ethno nationalists / fundamentalists). Guns are simply a convenient tool for them in the US, but that's a conscious trade off our society made in order to have a final line of defense to serve as a deterrent to the rise of a tyrannical authoritarian government, because nobody knows what the geopolitical landscape will be 100 years from now or 1,000 years from now. If you could eliminate the guns, it wouldn't change the brains of these people from hand grenades, and we've seen that you can cause massive amounts of casualties through other means -- so the tradeoff of taking an ineffective swing at these people without doing anything to address the underlying problem, and then telling the vast majority of the law abiding populace that self defense is not "good cause" to have them.... well that's unacceptable, and I say that acknowledging the ramifications of it.


It could be considered a tragedy of the commons, after all the internet age has brought about incredible benefits, but it's not like there was never going to be a dark side when mixed with human nature. Whatever the solution, you're looking at generational level trends, not something you can change relatively overnight in 4 year election cycles.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Burncycle360

[DB]

Excellent post, bc

[Colin]

Funny enough the effect of social media on making society more dangerous is far less than the likely effect of the Hippy/free love/drug movement judging by the Homicide rate since the 1950's.

[DougRichards]

https://www.9news.com.au/world/news-usa-how-off-duty-fireman-stopped-armed-man-in-missouri-walmart-after-el-paso-shooting/7b34cfa0-af62-4bad-8ead-5d985b3c2434

 

Hey, this guy was walking around with a rifle and in body armour, but did not fire a shot or seem to threaten anybody. The off-duty fire fighter was also carrying and appears, on the face of it, to have threatened the guy with the rifle.

 

In the strange world of the USA why isn't the firefighter facing charges and not the other guy who appeared to overtly threaten no one? The guy with his rifle appears to have been exercising his constitutional right to bear arms.

 

Or am I missing something here>?

=================

 

Five days after 22 people were killed at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, panicked shoppers fled a Walmart in Springfield, Missouri, after a man carrying a rifle and wearing body armour walked around the store before being stopped by an off-duty firefighter.

No shots were fired and the man, 20-year-old Dmitriy Andreychenko, was arrested after surrendering yesterday, Springfield police said. No one was injured.

The Springfield News-Leader quoted Lt Mike Lucas as saying that the man arrived on Thursday afternoon (local time) wearing body armour and military-style clothing.

Mr Andreychenko walked inside the Walmart carrying a "tactical rifle" and another gun. Lt Lucas said the man had more than 100 rounds of ammunition.

Lucas said an off-duty firefighter held the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived about three minutes after receiving an initial call.

"Thankfully, there weren't any shots fired. I think it's great that that off-duty fireman was here," Lt Lucas said.

Lt Lucas said Mr Andreychenko would be charged but the exact crimes would be determined later.

Security video from inside the store would be reviewed to determine the man's demeanour and a possible motive, he said.

"His intent obviously was to cause chaos here, and he did that," Lt Lucas added.

The potential charges against Mr Andreychenko will depend on his actions while he was in the store, said Dee Wampler, a longtime Springfield defence lawyer and former Greene County prosecutor.

Carrying an assault rifle in public is not necessarily a crime, Mr Wampler told The News-Leader.

"If he was looking at people in a menacing way or if he was saying something to other customers that was frightening to them – those would be factors" and could result in felony charges, Mr Wampler said.

He also could be charged with a misdemeanour peace disturbance, or a different misdemeanour if he was told to leave the store and didn't, Mr Wampler said.

Springfield is about 266 kilometres south of Kansas City, Missouri.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

So thats 3 cases. Has anyone actually done a analysis of how many armed bystanders do the job compared to policemen? I guess what im looking for is a PK of armed shooter to bystander, to unarmed casualty, which is the only comparison that really matters.

The problem is that mass shootings are rare events. So you have to look at what works and the mechanisms where the situation manifested such encounters between armed citizens and a person intent on mass murder. Essentially, you must game out the reactions of the various parties. Given that many of them stopped their attacks when met with more paltry resistance, it stands to reason that armed resistance is going to work better than unarmed resistance.

 

http://www.lawenforcementservices.biz/Law_Enforcement_Services,_LLC/FIREARMS_TRAINING_files/Shooting%20Statistics.pdf

 

Or how about CDC data on the more general subject?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#557fe50a299a

 

 

Thats very interesting, but what I guess im asking for is the raw data. How many have been shot by how many armed citizens over a given period. Im not saying im right, but Im just pointing out if the armed citizen concept really works, it really needs data to validate it. What you have there are examples, and that's great, what it needs is a study that compares how often it happens to how often it doesnt happen. Something of the kind RAND does for operational analysis. Ive yet to see anything like a thoughtful study of it at this point.

 

Personally I still dont buy it, but Im perfectly willing to be proven wrong, if someone can provide an analysis that proves it.

 

(edit) actually you did provide something like that in the last link, Ill pick that over and tell you what I think.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2018-What-Do-CDC%E2%80%99s-Surveys-Say-About-the-Frequency-of-Defensive-Gun-Uses.pdf

 

I do think if people ARE going to lean on this concept, they need training schemes for people that are going to concealed carry. Perhaps derelict shopping malls, nightclubs. Set them in a situation where they have lots of dummies, and an armed shooter, and train them how to get a good angle and shoot accurately. Maybe even paintballing. Because until you start introducing training to inoculate people to the surprise of finding themselves in that situation and to revert to training, I dont, personally, think its going to work often enough to make a difference.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[DougRichards]

 

 

So thats 3 cases. Has anyone actually done a analysis of how many armed bystanders do the job compared to policemen? I guess what im looking for is a PK of armed shooter to bystander, to unarmed casualty, which is the only comparison that really matters.

The problem is that mass shootings are rare events. So you have to look at what works and the mechanisms where the situation manifested such encounters between armed citizens and a person intent on mass murder. Essentially, you must game out the reactions of the various parties. Given that many of them stopped their attacks when met with more paltry resistance, it stands to reason that armed resistance is going to work better than unarmed resistance.

 

http://www.lawenforcementservices.biz/Law_Enforcement_Services,_LLC/FIREARMS_TRAINING_files/Shooting%20Statistics.pdf

 

Or how about CDC data on the more general subject?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#557fe50a299a

 

 

Thats very interesting, but what I guess im asking for is the raw data. How many have been shot by how many armed citizens over a given period. Im not saying im right, but Im just pointing out if the armed citizen concept really works, it really needs data to validate it. What you have there are examples, and that's great, what it needs is a study that compares how often it happens to how often it doesnt happen. Something of the kind RAND does for operational analysis. Ive yet to see anything like a thoughtful study of it at this point.

 

Personally I still dont buy it, but Im perfectly willing to be proven wrong, if someone can provide an analysis that proves it.

 

(edit) actually you did provide something like that in the last link, Ill pick that over and tell you what I think.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2018-What-Do-CDC%E2%80%99s-Surveys-Say-About-the-Frequency-of-Defensive-Gun-Uses.pdf

 

I do think if people ARE going to lean on this concept, they need training schemes for people that are going to concealed carry. Perhaps derelict shopping malls, nightclubs. Set them in a situation where they have lots of dummies, and an armed shooter, and train them how to get a good angle and shoot accurately. Maybe even paintballing. Because until you start introducing training to inoculate people to the surprise of finding themselves in that situation and to revert to training, I dont, personally, think its going to work often enough to make a difference.

 

 

Have you not seen the movie 'Predator 2'?

[Chris Werb]

The problem with the "we need guns to shoot ourselves out of tyranny" argument is it has very few historical precedents in the last hundred years or so (I cant actually think of any) whilst there are many countries which have shrugged off tyranny with little or no bloodshed. Allowing the general population to arm can actually facilitate militant, antidemocratic groups whose activities can lead directly or indirectly to tyranny.

[DougRichards]

The problem with the "we need guns to shoot ourselves out of tyranny" argument is it has very few historical precedents in the last hundred years or so (I cant actually think of any) whilst there are many countries which have shrugged off tyranny with little or no bloodshed. Allowing the general population to arm can actually facilitate militant, antidemocratic groups whose activities can lead directly or indirectly to tyranny.

 

Like!

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

 

 

So thats 3 cases. Has anyone actually done a analysis of how many armed bystanders do the job compared to policemen? I guess what im looking for is a PK of armed shooter to bystander, to unarmed casualty, which is the only comparison that really matters.

The problem is that mass shootings are rare events. So you have to look at what works and the mechanisms where the situation manifested such encounters between armed citizens and a person intent on mass murder. Essentially, you must game out the reactions of the various parties. Given that many of them stopped their attacks when met with more paltry resistance, it stands to reason that armed resistance is going to work better than unarmed resistance.

 

http://www.lawenforcementservices.biz/Law_Enforcement_Services,_LLC/FIREARMS_TRAINING_files/Shooting%20Statistics.pdf

 

Or how about CDC data on the more general subject?

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#557fe50a299a

 

 

Thats very interesting, but what I guess im asking for is the raw data. How many have been shot by how many armed citizens over a given period. Im not saying im right, but Im just pointing out if the armed citizen concept really works, it really needs data to validate it. What you have there are examples, and that's great, what it needs is a study that compares how often it happens to how often it doesnt happen. Something of the kind RAND does for operational analysis. Ive yet to see anything like a thoughtful study of it at this point.

 

Personally I still dont buy it, but Im perfectly willing to be proven wrong, if someone can provide an analysis that proves it.

 

(edit) actually you did provide something like that in the last link, Ill pick that over and tell you what I think.

https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2018-What-Do-CDC%E2%80%99s-Surveys-Say-About-the-Frequency-of-Defensive-Gun-Uses.pdf

 

I do think if people ARE going to lean on this concept, they need training schemes for people that are going to concealed carry. Perhaps derelict shopping malls, nightclubs. Set them in a situation where they have lots of dummies, and an armed shooter, and train them how to get a good angle and shoot accurately. Maybe even paintballing. Because until you start introducing training to inoculate people to the surprise of finding themselves in that situation and to revert to training, I dont, personally, think its going to work often enough to make a difference.

 

 

Have you not seen the movie 'Predator 2'?

 

 

Yeah, the Alien killed all those that were armed as best I can recall.

[BansheeOne]

I hope you were not stating there are already long-term statistics on the last, massive wave of refugees.

 

Naw, but the respective nationalities have been living here for a long time, and the 2016 microcensus already included the newcomers. I don't see how they would go against the development of any immigrant group over the last 60 years.

 

Excellent post, bc

 

Indeed.