"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

[kpete]

........we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.



the rest:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

[trumad]

1. Oh---but it makes us safer.

so--- the fiction of being errrr safer outweighs the slaughter of innocent people?

[_ed_]

2. That's a paranoid fantasy of gun nuts

They all want to be John Wayne or Rambo.

[Waltons_Mtn]

7. They don't see the movie Red Dawn as a work of fiction, but more like a training film.

Paranoid fantasies.

[liberal N proud]

118. One they are not afraid to tell you

[Skittles]

167. because they have mainstreamed their delusions

they remind me of the climate change deniers

[liberal N proud]

169. Many times its the same crowd

[LisaLynne]

3. Thank you.

I think it's really important to look at actual facts. I honestly have no preconceived notions of how to fix what is wrong that creates this mass murder shootings, but I think gathering facts is the only way to start.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Now ...

You've gone and done it!

Because of your posting of these facts ... we're all going to be subjected to a bevy of "Good Guy uses gun to kill bad guy" posts and NRA-approved talking points!

I suspect I won't be coming back to this thread ... And I'll be scrolling past a bunch of threads.

[freshwest]

40. +1,000.

[Skittles]

168. YOU KNOW IT 1StrongBlackMan

but the only people buying their crap now are other gun nuts

[reformist2]

5. Considering that 8 MILLION people have concealed weapon permits in the US, sounds like an epic fail.

[Zoeisright]

141. Considering that TEN THOUSAND Americans are killed by guns every year

YOU sound like an epic fail. Jerk.

[reformist2]

146. I have no idea what your point is.

[Robb]

9. How many of these killings took place in such zones?

[Indydem]

11. Most of them.

Virginia Tech -
Columbine -
Aurora Shooting -
Sandy Hook -

All gun free zones with no concealed carry or armed people on scene.

[Robb]

15. 4 is not most of 62.

[Indydem]

19. Care to point me in the direction of this list of 62 so I can provide you with an accurate count?

Because I'm not using talking points, just memory.

[Robb]

29. The link is at the OP.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases.

[Shadowflash]

39. Yeah

If only one of the victims of this shooter was a gun owner, that would have stopped him in his tracks. A gun owner like, say, his very first victim. Now if she had been armed to the teeth, none of this would have ever happened....Oh, wait................

[freshwest]

42. Yep, you got that right. And just how do armed, trained, on the job cops get killed?

Aw, you just took away all the magic!

[RegieRocker]

83. black and white

So cops shouldn't have guns then? What a joke.

[freshwest]

88. Who's B & W? Guns always save, or guns don't always save? Did you read my post?

Where did I say cops shouldn't have guns? That would be a joke, and I don't thihk you're funny.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. I Disagree With You

I also disagree with the jury that 'hid' a similar post above.

[byeya]

131. Virginia Tech had a police force & Columbine had a Resouce Officer

[aandegoons]

10. doesn't seem to happen in congress

and that is a gun free zone.

[Indydem]

13. Really?

Well then I guess if every school had multiple layers of security, and it's own police force...

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Gun free zone is an NRA talking point

Though you can't reply I said I would call your type on them. Our patience is non existent at this point.

[heaven05]

79. well

Last edited Mon Dec 17, 2012, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)

we better offer better wages to police officers so that more will be available to have in schools, some high schools already have them, but all kindergarten, 1st thru 6th grade schools, jr. highs, McDonald's, Applebees ect, all malls, every entrance and have metal detectors and/or xray machines at the door of all these places. Some high schools already have them. That would damn sure stop the slaughter. Just a thought.

[RomneyLies]

14. "Gun Free Zone" = NRA talking point

Just like MOAR GUNZ!!!

We tried it your way and it resulted in 20 corpses of first graders.

Time for radical change.

[Indydem]

16. Except for the fact that it's the name of the legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

[RomneyLies]

20. I don't care how much you train on a range

If you, yes YOU PERSONALLY, have a gun and are in one of these situations, YOU WILL MAKE MATTERS WORSE!

[Indydem]

23. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I do not have a concealed carry permit, and don't really care to have one.

But I assure you that if Dawn Hochspring had a handgun in a biometric safe in her office, she could have done more than lunge at that evil bastard and become another victim.

[RomneyLies]

25. That is FACT, not opinion

Unles you train CONSTANTLY, YOU WILL FAIL!

That is a FACT. Study after study proves it.

Cops train CONSTANTLY to overcome the effects of adrenaline in those situations and even they fail.

If they stop training for even a short period of time, THEY ARE RIGHT BACK TO SQUARE ONE!

So no, you will only make things worse if you are in a situation like this and you are armed.

[DesMoinesDem]

43. You don't know the difference between fact and opinion. That is a fact. nt

[RomneyLies]

45. You are obviously the one who is confused.

Either that, or you deny science.

[DesMoinesDem]

55. Nope, I'm not confused about anything.

I know what fact means, you don't. You can't call something that hasn't happened a fact. Doing so proves that you don't know the definition. It is not a fact that you are going to write a really, really stupid reply to this post. It is likely, but it isn't a fact because it hasn't happened yet.

[RomneyLies]

63. I know what fact means and you have rejected the definition

You're being as silly as a flat earther.

The effects of adrenaline are real and only constant taining can overcome those effects.

It's so real that law enforcement officer and military training are specifically designed to counteract the effects as much as humanly possible while recognizing that no matter what, the law enforcement officers or soldiers will still be nowehre near as accurate or rational as they would without the adrenaline.

Ignore science all you want and say that science is not factual. You only make yourself look ignorant.

[DesMoinesDem]

72. I was right. You did write a really, really stupid reply to my post!

Let's just take a quick look at what Wikipedia says fact means so you can learn something that everyone else learned in grade school or before.

Wikipedia: A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.

You: If you, yes YOU PERSONALLY, have a gun and are in one of these situations, YOU WILL MAKE MATTERS WORSE! That is fact, not opinion.

Has the person you are talking to had a gun in that situation and made matters worse? Nope. So it is not a fact. It is your opinion.

Furthermore, there are countless cases where people, not officers, with varying degrees of training, have been able to stop someone with a gun with their own gun. That is also a fact. It is also a fact that you have not provided any links to any actually studies that say it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone without law enforcement or military training to stop an an armed attacker with their own gun.

[RomneyLies]

73. I cannot talk with somebody who rejects facts

Welcome to ignore.

[DesMoinesDem]

80. You are the one that is denying the definition of fact.

You obviously have no rational argument so you gave up. No link to any study to back up your claims. No admission that calling something that hasn't happened a fact was stupid.

Here's a video for your enjoyment. It should really blow you away because according to you, this is impossible. An old man stops an armed robbery without making matters worse!

[GoneOffShore]

95. You've heard the expression - the exception that proves the rule - right?

One of those cases - Your example is one of those exceptions where everything went right for the old guy with the gun and nothing went right for the robbers.

But that doesn't happen all that often. More often than not the old guy with the gun gets dead.

Take your Rambo - Die Hard - Dirty Harry fantasies elsewhere - they're not playing well here.

[DesMoinesDem]

116. That was never my point.

First of all, that video proves that it is not IMPOSSIBLE for a person to stop an armed attacker, which is what RomneyLies has claimed. It proves that his opinion that you can only make matters worse is not a fact (which was obvious from the start) and that he doesn't know what the word fact means.

Secondly, I want to see your evidence that 'more often than not the old guy with the gun is dead.' Do you have statistics to back it up? Do those statistics take into account the possibility that without a gun they all would be dead? Show me the proof.

[Ineeda]

117. My god....

it seems that you are so determined to be RIGHT that you'll continue a totally pointless argument. Why are we (you, really) doing the 'I know you are but what am I', childish crap instead of actually focusing on real solutions to a real problem? Frankly I don't care which one of you babies is correct - fact/opinion -- who the fuck cares? I care about those twenty tiny corpses. Do you?

[DesMoinesDem]

120. Are you kidding? What a pathetic attack.

I don't care about the dead because I called someone out for claiming his opinion was a fact? Why are you reading this thread if you believe you can't care about the dead and have a different discussion at the same time?

BTW, I am right, and have no problem backing up my argument. If you think it is pointless DON'T READ IT!

[Lightbulb_on]

98. You should go to Vegas or buy on the stock market...

... with your amazing ability of prediction.

The reason that schools and other areas are targeted is because they are soft. These shooters are cowards who attack where they won't encounter resistance.

Even in a case like the Ft. Hood shooting, he attacked in a weapons free zone. Didn't have the cajones to try that on the live fire range.

[TPaine7]

140. BULLSHIT! Cops do not train constantly. Many only train when they have to qualify, perhaps twice

a year. I know multiple cops; you have no idea what you are talking about.

There are cops on here who will tell you the same.

YOUR OPINION IS NOT DATA!

[JDPriestly]

44. Do you know how long it took the killer to complete his massacre?

How many children would have been dead by the time Dawn Hochspring came to her senses, thought of her handgun in her biometric safe and decided to go for it?

In crisis situations, you have to set priorities. Unless you have trained and trained to automatically do the most important thing first, you will be more confused. There will not be enough time to choose what to do. Best to just run and, at best, grab someone to take with you.

Any lay person who has ever actually had to handle an emergency will remember that first moment, how quickly the mind runs through possible reactions and rejects and accepts them.

It's called panic. It's a physical reaction. It's normal. The killer will be the only one prepared, the only one who has gone through the situation he faces in his mind enough times to approach it coolly.

Anyone who has performed professionally knows how difficult it can be just to calm your nerves in a situation of great stress. One person's hands may shake. Another person may, literally, not see straight. Another may simply crumple into a ball. Someone else may cry and scream. That's what real fear does to you. It's just a fact.

It is hubris for gun owners to think that they can be the heroes in situations like Sandy Hook.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. That's not a fact

Ever been under direct fire tough hombre? I have. I talk from experience, by the time she reached the safe she'd be dead. It happened that fast.

[AlbertCat]

82. Ever been under direct fire tough hombre? I have. I talk from experience,

Anecdotal statistics are not facts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. So you think she had the five extra seconds to reach for it,

Open the safe, take gun, get it ready aim and control fire, at the head of course and not center of mass...and of course have a perfect shot.

I think I just wrote a movie scene.

[AlbertCat]

96. VSo you think she had the five extra seconds to reach for it,

What are you going on about???

I merely pointed out that personal experience and anecdotal stories are not facts. Period.




See, when guns are involved, all logic flies out the window.... because gun worship is a cult, a religion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

99. We have exactly one

Shooter, after the fact, who was stopped, after the fact, by a former cop, who happened to be the principal. We also know the gun in question was not an infantry rife.

So you have fun with that fantasy of yours.


The rest of us have somewhere close to zero patience with NRA talking points and fantasy life.

Oh time line, that is over forty years.

[zappaman]

130. "Ever been under direct fire tough hombre? I have."

[freshwest]

48. Provided she was not doing her job and sitting by the safe... And the Giffords shooter

was brought down by an unarmed senior. But don't give up that fantasy in the face of facts.

[haele]

77. Well, if she had a gun in the safe, she still may not have been able to use it.

I trained for security duties (and qualified as a marksman on the old Colt 45 Navy) back during the Cold War, and I learned there are at least two primary factors in a successful defense using a gun.

1 - Time and distance to target. If you have time to draw, and the target is far enough away, you can potentially hit it. If you are surprised, and or the target is close-in (within 5 meters or 15 feet) by the time you are ready to draw; don't draw. Protect your weapon and get away as quickly as you can to give yourself time and distance.

2 - The will to kill. While pulling the trigger may be easy, aiming and pulling that trigger is not easy for many people - even if they would be protecting themselves or loved ones. Our Vietnam Vet trainer told us that most "newbie" soldiers in-country missed their first couple dozen to hundred "enemy" before they got used to the idea of shooting to kill and actually started aiming at body mass. Even when being charged, they would not be aiming, so if they were lucky enough to get a few of the enemy soldiers, it was due to the amount of bullets in the air rather than aim.

These two factors have been proven over and over in the civilian world, too. How many times have we heard about the regular beat police (i.e. - not SWAT) using 50+ rounds to take down one "suspect" - because they weren't really used to the idea of shooting at living, moving bodies and panicked.

And of course, we don't hear about the many un-successful "self-protection" events, when someone was unable to retrieve their firearm or their weapon was used against them because they didn't have the time and distance to draw first and surprise the intruder or the abusive spouse - we just hear of the murder, and perhaps that there were guns in the house.

We do, however, always hear about the man or woman who had enough warning to get their weapon and the drop on the threat. And when that is evaluated, one finds that there is always time and distance between the threat and the person who is able to stand the threat down, even if the weapon is not fired.

So, knowing these two factors, do you think an average, non-prepper/militia type principal would:
-have the time before the gunman burst into her office to evaluate the situation, retreat to her office and get her handgun out of the safe, and,
- then have the will to go through with tracking down and accurately shooting the gunman down like a movie hero before he returned fire?
The reason I'm bringing this up is because the one time I was faced with the choice of standing my ground with my sidearm, I ended up retreating and using my radio instead. I would have been within the law to shoot, as the opponent was threatening - belligerent, drunk and armed - and could have easily killed me and my partner, but I couldn't shoot when I had the chance. Because I didn't see a huge, noisy "moving target", I saw a person who was drunk and angry.
Some gun-nutters may call that cowardice, but I just don't have that much of a casual John Wayne personality towards others, nor had I been inured to pulling a trigger and killing by living with livestock or going out hunting.

Haele

[Mike Daniels]

89. You're right she could have done more if she had possessed a gun.

In all likelihood, she could have rushed out, aimed at center mass as they teach, fired the gun, watch the bullet do nothing to the shooter since he was wearing body armor and then still ended up dead.

[John2]

125. First of all,

I wouldn't carry out a planned attack unless I scoped it out and know all the possibilities. If she had a hand gun, I would take her out first. Especially the adults. They are the most likely ones to provide resistance with whatever weapon they had.

He was well prepared to carry out what he wanted to do. He had two hand guns and a semi-automatic with a number of magazines totaling 30 rounds a piece. If you know anything about the rounds between a semi-automatic and a handgun, the rounds of that semi would make more damage and able to penetrate different types of walls or armour. He probably blew the security system or doors open with that semi-automatic assault gun. If he had spotted her running to wards a safe, he probably would have took her out.

If you do assault a building with crowded people, the element of surprise would be important. It is also very hard to take a target out if that target is continuously moving. And if he did have a bullet proof vest on, it goes to show you that he prepared for a surprise if someone did have a gun. The suspect, was supposedly intelligent also. He also seems to know how to use those weapons and probably knew the type of targets he was attacking, like for example, women and kids, 6-7 years old. So in his mind, they were easy targets and not likely to physically over power him. If she did get a hand gun or got to it, time would have been of the essence , and she would have been lucky to get a shot off because the assailant had three guns on him. Reflexes matter also.

Another thing is, I heard the mother had a male friend who was an ex-cop. If so, that person could have gave them some tips on shooting and self defense. If she was into the things some rumored her to me, then she would go all the way in training for survival techniques also, with a professional. I was in the military a long time and they taught me a lot, any ordinary citizen like that principal wouldn't know. That included assaulting a target. You leave no possibility out.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Does this include police officers? n/t

[RomneyLies]

38. Police Officers train specifically for these sorts of incidents

As do soldiers.

And both groups will still become less accurate and will still develop tunnel vision as is natural in a fight or flight situation.

Adrenaline affects everybody. Training for muscle memory to retain accuracy is critical. Training to keep peripheral vision open during adrenaline rushes is critical. Even heavily trained individuals still screw up in these situations.

And when they cease the training for a short period of time, they go right back to square one and are like any civilian i the situation.

MOAR GUNZ means more carnage and another corpse.

[RegieRocker]

86. Then we all need trainig

and it should be mandated. This should also include mental testing. When it's safe for police to not carry a gun then conceal and carry should be abolished.

[RomneyLies]

87. No, we should BAN conceal carry

and the vast majority of guns currently on the streets.

Problem solved.

[RegieRocker]

104. Nope.

Not even close. Just the opposite.

[RomneyLies]

113. MOAR GUNZ is an NRA lie

It fails, every time.

All more guns gets us is more corpses.

Fuck that shit. BAN CONCEALED CARRY! The violence has only INCREASED since it started going into effect.

[DesMoinesDem]

122. Gun violence has gone done as the number of states allowing CC has gone up.

Another lie from you.

[caseymoz]

126. And crime has been going down everywhere

Regardless of conceal-carry. Obviously, there's a different reason it's going down, so you can't claim it's due to conceal-carry. Though it's true conceal-carry hasn't seemed to halt the decline in crime.

However, if you could show it's going down faster in states with conceal-carry, you might have an argument.

Regardless of conceal-carry, guns do not stop crimes at near the rate progunners think they do, by a factor of about thirty. They definitely seldom thwart them in crimes where the criminal has brandished the gun first. The spree killing in Kirkwood, Missouri started with the shooter taking out an armed cop and grabbing his gun, too.

There's also a new stat that shows the states with the strictest gun laws have the lowest rates of deaths due to gunshots:




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Meanwhile, you're three times as likely to die of a gunshot wound if live with a gun in your house.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-10-31/news/9310310338_1_end-gun-violence-violence-free-society-dr-david-satcher/2

In light of this, it's hard to argue that guns prevent crime or make you safer.

Meanwhile, events in Egypt, Libya, Morocco and, (soon?) Syria tells us you don't have to start with an armed population to successfully oppose a tyranny. Therefore, the Founders of our country were dead wrong. Don't worry, they've been wrong before. See slavery.

I realize that progunners keep their own statistics on this, and those statistics are nearly always fabricated or wrong and passed around unexamined. I'm sorry to tell you, paranoids and the gun industry are in charge the progun movement.

[DesMoinesDem]

148. I never claimed that gun violence wasn't going down everywhere

or that cc was the reason it was down. Why is it that antigunners always create these strawmen to argue with? Can they not have rational discussions without these logical fallacies?

The point of my post was just to point out another one of RomneyLies's lies. Violence has not increased since cc started going into effect like RomneyLies claimed. In fact, the opposite is true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. You have it backwards

Concealed carry, with very few exceptions...and only after extensive training, which has to be repeated at renewal every three years, has to be abolished. Period. Every dick, Tom and Harry don't need it. Judges at times do, there are very specific domestic disputes where you might qualify, or witnesses to a serious crime with the possibility of retaliation.

So no, for the most part, concealed carry and stand your ground need to go.

[RegieRocker]

105. Nope

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Whatever NRA parrot.

More guns are NOT THE SOLUTION.

[RegieRocker]

156. Anti gunner crow

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. Funny, I am a gun owner

But I don't need precious to feel safe. I am sorry fort you, since obviously you do.

[Atypical Liberal]

128. But you said it doesn't matter if you train on a range.

I'd be willing to put my shooting skills up against any police officer.

Yes, adrenaline affects everybody. But I bet I'm better trained and have more experience with firearms than 80% of police officers.

I think people are putting far too much faith and trust in police and none in their fellow citizens. You'd have a police officer in that school and feel safe. Put me in there and you'd think satan arrived.

[RomneyLies]

132. Public ranges are nothing at all like the combat ranges police train on

And you damned well know it but again try to redirect with NRA talking points.

[Atypical Liberal]

135. I've been shooting for 30 years, and I shoot competitively.

I have never yet gone to a competition and not taken at least 3rd place.

I don't care what kind of range you put me on, I can shoot. I'm an expert.

[RomneyLies]

137. I don't care how well you shoot

put you in a live combat situation and you would fold if you have not trained specifically for it.

[Atypical Liberal]

149. I'll take my chances, thanks.

And if I could have been in Sandy Hook and able to stop it, I'd take me over no police officer.

[RomneyLies]

152. I'd take no civilians with guns over adding civilians with guns to the mix

If you think you could take on something like that please, do yourself a favor and get a little tactical training under your belt. It couldn't hurt and you might find the challenge stimulating.

[alp227]

70. A law dormant since 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

[X_Digger]

74. Err.. Disingenuous at best.

Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act with the necessary interstate-commerce "hook" used in other Federal Gun Laws.

[_ed_]

17. Thanks for reposting NRA talking points

"Gun Free Zone" is a bullshit talking point.

[Indydem]

18. It's not a talking point. It's a law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

[_ed_]

21. It's both the name of a law and a right-wing NRA talking point

http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Talk.htm

[jeff47]

22. Do you have an illiteracy problem?

Here, lemme quote the part of the snippet you seem to be unable to read.

And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

That's in the bolded part of the snippet. I would think you might have actually read that before replying. After all, it is only one short paragraph. And the poster thoughtfully pointed you to it by using bold text. And it didn't even require clicking through to the story to find.

[CJCRANE]

24. The Fort Hood shooting was on a military base. It was stopped by military police.nt

[RomneyLies]

8. So we tried MOAR GUNZ and it was na EPIC FAIL!

Why am I unsurprised?

[Doctor_J]

12. The gunsters have a lot of anecdotes and talking points that are BS

"Arm all of the teachers to prevent school massacres". "The 2nd Amendment protects us from tyranny". "You've never been safer than you are now". "If a person is determined to kill, he'll find a way with or without a gun". These are really bizarre.

[Little Star]

31. The excuse I like best is...

But, 'the government may try to kill us so we need to be able to protect ourselves'. That is laughable on it's face. If our government ever wanted to kill us all, it could in many, many ways. No amount of guns could ever stop that from happening. Guns as a weapon against government take over are outdated in todays day and age.

[stevenleser]

114. I had that argument with someone yesterday.

If those in the government and military ever decide that the Constitution is irrelevant and that it/they is/are willing to do whatever to the people to have power, each of us owning an AR-15 would not help.

An AR-15 is not going to protect me from a drone, or a howitzer, or a helicopter gunship, or an fighter plane/bomber, or nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. An out of control government could decide to use WMD against pockets of resistance. Guns will not help us.

I think we have to look at the fall of the Soviet Union. Even an empire that many in the US considered the epitomy of evil simply gave up power in the face of popular will. And guns had nothing to do with it.

[snooper2]

26. Pearl High School shooting, stopped by principal with gun

The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat,[1] he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother's car. Then Myrick demanded "Why did you shoot my kids?" to which Woodham replied, "Life has wronged me, sir."[2]

Minutes before he started the shooting, he gave the following message to a friend[3]:




New Life Church---

COLORADO SPRINGS — Amid deafening cracks of gunfire, smoke-spewing canisters and the flight of thousands of New Life Church members, Jeanne Assam said she suddenly saw the hallways clear and a gunman come through the door.

"I took cover. I identified myself. I engaged him. I took him down," the 42-year-old former law officer and volunteer church security guard said Monday at a news conference in the Colorado Springs police station.

Read more: Guard's hands "didn't even shake" as she shot gunman - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7684728#ixzz2FKLJWoPs
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[X_Digger]

28. No, MJ's catch-22 rules that one out..

If someone stopped the shooter before they reached three shot, it doesn't count (regardless of how many would have been shot otherwise). If three or more were shot, then someone stopped the shooter, well it doesn't count because the shooter wasn't stopped before anyone was shot.

It's cherry picking data.

[snooper2]

33. Yep, and when both sides do it they look foolish and fucking stupid

[jsmirman]

36. No sir. Answer post #34, FULLY or stow it

let's see a fully fleshed out statistical rebuttal.

Otherwise, you've got jack.

[JDPriestly]

56. In the Pearl High School case, it appears that the killer simply decided to leave.

The shooter was not stopped while he was shooting but afterward when he was in his car and no longer well positioned to shoot his rifle.

In the second case, the person who stopped the shooter was an experienced and trained former law enforcement officer. If you watch the Diane Sawyer video that someone posted on DU yesterday, you will learn why law enforcement officers can stop killers but ordinary trained gun owners can't.

[snooper2]

60. Yeah, the killer decided to leave and go to an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

to continue his murdering fetish...

[jsmirman]

65. And... not the point. The point being that he was in a position to be more easily subdued.

[jsmirman]

61. Thanks, kind of expected that was the answer

so... more lousy irrelevant arguments, it would seem.

[TPaine7]

139. I'm sorry but Dianne Sawyer cannot prove a falsehood. "Ordinary trained gun owners have stopped

killers." nt

[jsmirman]

37. The other crazy thing is that your one anecdotal story is incomplete - "Subdued" - how???

Details man!

For, you know, your single anecdote.

Subdued. There are many ways to subdue someone. I've subdued quite a few people.

[snooper2]

84. www.google.com

modern OS usually support running multiple applications at the same time

[jsmirman]

93. Pathetic

I'm sure the NRA will have some distorted set of "answers" for you to get back to us with soon.

I don't subscribe to that newsletter, sorry.

[snooper2]

97. I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the NRA party

LOL...

I'm glad hysterics aren't going to drive the debate on gun ownership and making our society more safe.

[jsmirman]

101. Well, you haven't brought anything convincing to the party, regardless

[whistler162]

76. And Appalachian School doesn't count

'cause the people with firearms where offduty LEO's!

I do love how each exterme end of the gun control issue, pro or anti, are the ones doing the most damage to the whole problem.

[jsmirman]

34. One is a security guard, so doesn't seem to apply - not some random armed citizen

for the rest, by all means, introduce your own list and present what you consider a more fully representative statistic.

Do it.

But not one story. That's an anecdote, not a statistic.

[sarisataka]

41. It is a valid rebuttal

to:

"In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

[jsmirman]

59. Oh dear, I knew that was coming. NO ONE CARES. Apparently it doesn't fit their statistical rule

so NO DICE, la la la, boom, lawyered.

want to play lawyer with me? Really?

I don't just play one on tv.

Stop wasting my time.

Answer the REAL questions I posed.

[sarisataka]

92. So if a person makes an absolute statement

and evidence is provided proving it false, no one cares? Isn't that lying?-- That is what will cause the status quo to remain; each side will throw out their favorite half truths and lies. Any actual constructive legislation will be lucky to make it out of committee.


I haven't read the entire thread- what is your question.

[jsmirman]

100. You're just wrong, and it's because you're trying to be lawyerly and you're doing it wrong

"in not a single case" - they set up the "case" limits of their study - or more accurately, it appears that they use the case limits the FBI uses in its classifications. So by their limits - I mean by the FBI's, not a single one. Not incorrect.

My questions involve showing real, sufficient evidence of a pattern of armed citizens being actually beneficial in these OR similar situations.

And so far all we've got is a weak example, maybe two, if we're being generous.

I'd read the thread.

[sarisataka]

134. OK, I read the article

and I find it to be very self serving. They are extremely selective about which data they wish to consider.

--Armed citizen stops shooter- doesn't count the shooting had 'subsided'. So the armed prep who surrendered was not going to kill anyone else...
--armed citizen stops shooter too early- doesn't count, we need four dead before it is a mass shooting.

They also have factual inaccuracies which makes me question what else they article claims is wrong. The most glaring is describing spree killers as serial killers. Absolutely wrong, virtually no serial killers are spree killers; Jack the Ripper may arguably have been one. Many mass murders are spree killers, including in the CT murders. (I refuse to give the animals the decency of naming them. IMO they are not human enough to deserve names)

To say armed civilians stop these very rarely is accurate, say maybe 5%, I don't have the ability to extensively research it at this time. There have also been cases where armed civilians have not fired due to concerns about bystanders yet we repeatedly hear the claims of it will be just like Dodge City.

Mind you I do not think giving every person in the US is a solution either. Most people would never use it even to save themselves. We must honestly look at all possibilities and solutions to form a lasting solution to the issue of violence in this country. If we choose to focus on gun violence first, that is fine but it is only a partial part of the problem.

[jsmirman]

166. I believe they used the FBI's criteria - not something they made up.

I think your beef with the specifics you mention is with the feebies.

[snooper2]

57. The Mother Jones article is being dishonest, you can have a debate while still using facts at hand-

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10370&page=73


1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting



2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

[JDPriestly]

67. If you read the Mother Jones article, you learn that it adopts the FBI definition of a mass shooting

Generally, there are three terms you'll see to describe a perpetrator of this type of gun violence: mass murderer, spree killer, or serial killer. An FBI crime classification report from 2005 identifies an individual as a mass murderer if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (The baseline of four fatalities is key—more on this just below.)

The primary distinction between a mass murderer and a spree killer is that the latter strikes in multiple locations, though still in a relatively short time frame. A serial killer is distinguished by striking over a longer time frame, in multiple locations, with opportunity for what the FBI report refers to as "cooling-off periods" in between attacks.

How often do mass shootings occur?
In July, in the wake of the movie theater slaughter in Aurora, Colorado, we analyzed and mapped 60 mass shootings from the last 30 years. As we delved into the research, we realized that robust data on this subject was hard to come by, in part due to the lack of clear criteria. We were focused on the question of how many times Aurora-like events—which seemed to be chillingly frequent—had actually happened, and we honed our criteria accordingly:

We excluded crimes involving armed robbery or gang violence;
The event had to have occurred in essentially a single incident, in a public place;
And the killer, in accordance with the FBI report, had to have taken the lives of at least four people.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/what-is-a-mass-shooting

The article to which the OP links links to this explanation of the criteria used in the article to define a mass murderer.

It does not include people who injure several people and only kill three.

Clearly, if the killer is stopped before he succeeds in killing four people, the 2005 FBI criteria would exclude him.

[jsmirman]

68. So, let's break this down - over almost 15 years

you've got a wild, inaccurate, middle schooler; a peaceful apprehension; and a story where your link doesn't show what you say it says. It says that Arroyo was driven off by police.

Again, put together a real statistical presentation of actual data. If the NRA is supplying those yet.

[snooper2]

78. I don't have a bone on either side of this debate...It would help if folks just looked at all the

FACTS...

Do cases like these count?

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx


Does everyone need to be armed? Probably bad idea--

Should the principal of every school be armed? Why not?

Should we ban selling of 100 round magazines...I don't see why not. If you are too fucking lazy to re-load at a gun range you should probably find a new hobby.



Are the hysterics from both sides going to accomplish anything? Nope,

[jsmirman]

109. A combination of stories like that which show a PATTERN of utility to civilian gun ownership

would be relevant.

I'm not being hysterical. I'm being a hardass and demanding reasons why there shouldn't be major changes to our gun laws, and I won't roll over and say "okay, you get your way" to the gun lobby.

My priorities are better screening, mandatory training before being able to possess a gun, driver's license-like testing on gun security and use before being allowed to purchase, no more assault weapons on the market, no more high-capacity mags.

But the other stuff, I want to see REAL arguments on. Mother Jones presented one point of view, I'm not compelled by an opposing view I've seen yet.

And to the stuff in my list of priorities, I've seen nothing at all that is logical in its opposition.

[intaglio]

115. Stabbing spree

not a gun nut.

Another NRA apologist line.

[pscot]

121. I don't believe your claim of impartiality

You seem to be fending off and attempting to defuse criticism until this blows over. Your rationality is the rationality of the gun industry. Let's not go overboard and actually do something that might be effective.

[snooper2]

123. You shouldn't believe anything you read online without doing your own verification

...

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Not prevented...

How many shootings since?

Anecdote is the favorite way for the NRA to spread talking points.

This is an NRA favored story and it is rare as hell...slightly less rare than my unicorn farting in the forest.

Thing have changed and NRA talking points, I am not the only one not tolerating them any longer, you dig?

[mikeysnot]

71. Gun nut logic.

defined.


NRA supplied anecdote number 1.

The shooter was done killing. he was leaving in his car. Joel runs to his truck and gets his gun and stops him from leaving.

He could have saved time and called 911, the police could have done the stopping like they are supposed to do.

Gun in truck did not save lives.

Anecdote number 2

Former law enforcement officer and church safety guard.


The guy was trained and experienced, not some delusional gun nut who dreams of being rambo.

[AlbertCat]

85. Pearl High School shooting, stopped by principal with gun

Well there's ONE! out of how many?

And an ex-police officer.

So should all teachers be required to be ex-police officers. Perhaps anyone who wants a gun should have to be a policeman for 10 years or so... y'know "well regulated militia" and all....

[RegieRocker]

102. Excellent post

You should do more research and post it as original. They do not want guns, it's not about who or how many are killed. They are afraid of them that is all. Police would not carry them if they were not necessary. Police are rarely there at initiation of conflict. To ask them to arrive at a hostile scene without a gun is the same thing they want for all of us. To be at risk and unarmed. Quite the opposite we need to take responsibility for or own, our family and others safety. It's not being done and this is the result of these horrible tragedies. As stated these actions transpire in a very short period of time. The police will almost certainly not be there to intervene. They could not save these innocent individuals.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. But they are usually cut short by *someone* with a gun.

So long as we have easy access to guns like the shooter used, the only effective defense against them is going to be other people with similar kinds of guns.

Whether it's a civilian or an agent of the state doesn't matter much to me.

The real solution here is not to have people that can respond to a shooting but to curtail the shootings in the first place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. More guns is an NRA talking point.

[Atypical Liberal]

127. I don't care who's talking point it is.

The fact is, these shooting sprees are almost always stopped when someone with a gun intervenes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. Yup, in this case the gunman himself.

Another talking point, does Polly want a cracker?

[Atypical Liberal]

144. Sure - after the police show up.

It's not a goddamn talking point. These shooters do their deeds until someone shows up that can stop them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. It is

The extension is that you will be the hero to save the day.

Ergo, we really don't need laws but everybody must conceal carry.

If you have not noticed our patience is a tad short these days.

[Atypical Liberal]

155. No one is suggesting we don't need laws.

But it is ridiculous not to admit what it is that stops these shooters.

SOMEONE WITH A GUN.

If you want to believe that the only people with a gun that can do this are the magical police, fine.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/16/malloy-gunman-shot-self-as-first-responders-closed-in/

People with guns show up, mass shooters give up the game.

[pscot]

143. That would be the police

The idea that armed citizens can save us from other armed citizens is too bogus to merit discussion.

[Atypical Liberal]

145. But the magical police can do it with magical ease!

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. I get it...let's go fully to what you are saying

The end of the logic.

We don't need police either, just extremely well armed citizens.

Sorry, this attitude has to be as socially not acceptable as drunk driving.

[pscot]

153. They're gun drunk

It gets inside their heads. I really think it's a form of mental illness.

[Atypical Liberal]

154. No, obviously we need police

But just as obviously, police can't be everywhere, and are almost never where crimes happen.

I believe people have a right to defend themselves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. So once again

When we all turn 18, we must buy a Glock nine?

You got a right to defend yourself, but the I will engage this person in this shooting and stop them...be the hero, rarely works. And the few examples (NRA talking anecdotes) are rare as hell.

Oh and here is a clue for you. The true nightmare for police officers responding to any active shooter, are civilians clearing leather to engage. As far as they are concerned you are the bad guy. Gets worst, you hit little Susie while trying to hit bad guy, you are liable.

Enough of the insane talk.

Concealed carry, should be licensed, after extensive background checks, with extensive training at a tactical range, and to be renewed every three years.

Oh and I forgot, concealed carry needs to prove actual need for it every three years.

Sorry.

[Atypical Liberal]

159. I've never suggested that everyone has to carry a gun.

When we all turn 18, we must buy a Glock nine?

I have never advocated that everyone has to carry a gun.

Concealed carry, should be licensed, after extensive background checks, with extensive training at a tactical range, and to be renewed every three years.

I'm fine with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. But that is the end result of the logic that more guns are a solution

That's the problem. We need to talk on removing guns from the streets, not adding them.

[Atypical Liberal]

161. Nah.

Saying that people have a right to choose to carry a gun or not is not the same thing as saying everyone should carry a gun.

I agree we need to change things so that we more harshly restrict who can own guns.

But I continue to be annoyed by the distrust of individuals with a gun to stop a shooter like this any worse than a police officer could.

These people stop when defied with force! They are cowards! They shoot down the poor people like the principal and the school psychiatrist who throw nothing but their bodies at them, but when the first person shows up with a gun, they fold. Every damn time.

Given the track record of people with CCW permits, I have no problem with them among us being part of the people at hand that might make the next one fold.

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. Sorry, the ccw stoping anything are mostly

Anecdotes.

[Atypical Liberal]

163. Get rid of them all.

Let each person fight off violence with whatever natural traits they were born with.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. You know, you will find agreement with that position here as well

I am for common sense regulation, that includes very tough standards for ccw holders and provable need to carry.

Sorry if that sounds extreme to you.

No Internet sales

Close gun show loophole.

No extended clips.

Mandatory, when available smart gun technology.

And yes, I agree that infantry weapons do not belong in the streets. So they have less steps in the selector switches to the full military counterparts...they are still infantry riffles. You want one...and we still sell it, universal conscription into the guard. That is what was meant by the founders.

[Atypical Liberal]

165. Yes, fine.

Let the chips fall where they may.

I can no longer defend this position.

[SheilaT]

32. When the shooting in Tucson took place nearly two years ago,

I had a brief conversation with a man who told me he'd been an air marshall in the recent past. Now, you don't want to get me started on my low opinion of air marshalls, but the point is this man was absolutely convinced that if he'd been there he could have stopped the shooter. Really? All of the shots were fired in some incredibly brief period of time, well under a minute. If the shooter had not had to stop to reload -- which would have happened even sooner had he not had an extended magazine for the gun -- he'd have been shooting merrily away for who knows how long. Or if he'd had the foresight to have more than one loaded gun handy, who knows how many more would have been killed or wounded.

The notion that armed civilians will prevent this kind of thing is nonsense.

[IggleDoer]

51. I recall reading that there was a man with a gun (and CC permit) at the Tucson scene.

Amidst the initial confusion, he didn't know exactly where to shoot and fearing the killing of more innocents, he never drew his weapon.

[AlexSatan]

66. Impossible

We regularly hear how CCP carriers will just whip out their guns and fire randomly without thinking.

A responsible CCP carrier doesn't exist, according to many. They are all a bunch of Rambos just looking to shoot someone.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. He was inside the Safeway when the shooting started.

By the time he got outside to the site of the shooting, it was already over.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. It was stopped by an unarmed civilian.

The guy who was actually armed, almost made the wrong decision.

[MrScorpio]

35. It's one of those gun nut fantasies

It's hard to kill because you're trying to disprove one of their closely held beliefs, even if they can't point to a single instance at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. There is ONE

In the seventies, Pearl High school...expect, it already is happening, to see it peppered all over.

The perp had a single shot, it matters. If the perp on Friday had a single shot, the casualty list would have been much lower and adults would have a slight chance of tackling this guy. It all has to do with rate of fire and gun capacity. A six shooter is not comparable, though they try, to an infantry riffle with an extended magazine.

[Marr]

49. *tagging for later

[secondwind]

53. This falls right into their argument about arming the entire populace...

[RomneyLies]

58. We all know what happens when there are MOAR GUNZ!

[Marinedem]

64. Sure.

It has almost nothing to do with the fact that mass shooters choose areas where concealed carry is not allowed and overwhelming majority of the time.

Mass shooters don't pick areas where people can defend themselves. They pick areas where the people are unarmed and unguarded.

[alp227]

75. So what is your solution?

Besides being armed everywhere?

[Marinedem]

110. Bring semiautomatic rifles

Under the NFA.

Simple solution that would virtually eliminate their use in school/unarmed victim coral shooting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. So your solution is everybody gets issued a glock 9mm

On our 18th birthday?

[Marinedem]

112. No.

I guess if I don't say something sensationalist enough for you, you can always put words in my mouth.

Intellectual jiujitsu up in heeyah.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. I am taking this logic all the way to it's logical end.

Sorry if that bothers you.

And you are right, we'd have to buy it...free market and all.

[RockaFowler]

81. More guns do not make us safe

Sorry to everyone who thinks so. This proves it. I think it's worse now than ever before. Sorry to see a graph proving that, though.

[struggle4progress]

91. Wow! 2012 has been a banner year!

An unprecedented number of mass shootings!

82: 1
83: 0
84: 2
85: 0
86: 1
87: 1
88: 1
89: 2
90: 1
91: 3
92: 2
93: 4
94: 1
95: 1
96: 1
97: 2
98: 3
99: 5
00: 1
01: 1
02: 0
03: 1
04: 1
05: 2
06: 3
07: 4
08: 3
09: 4
10: 1
11: 3
12: 7

[progressoid]

106. Thanks kpete

Will read this later.

[DissidentVoice]

107. Personal story

I interviewed a detective police Captain (now retired with 30-odd years of police work under his belt) back in the '90s.

He told me that all too often, people who buy firearms for "home defence" end up using them by mistake on one of their own children trying to sneak in after curfew.

He said he'd lost count of the number of those cases he'd had to investigate over the years.

[Still Blue in PDX]

111. I saw this last night regarding our very own local shooting last week.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Let it be known that I am not a gun owner or pro-gun in any way, shape or form.

[Patiod]

133. This was on FB from my only remaining hardcore Conservative friend

(the only one who hasn't blocked me, not vice-versa)

[Still Blue in PDX]

142. I have too many of those.

I just found out via Facebook that the father of my granddaughter is a Lars Larson quoting, gun toting repuglican. I suspected as much, but now it's undeniable.

My daughter sure can pick 'em. The previous boyfriend was an unemployed prescription drug addict, and I was so happy she was engaged to such a nice guy. I could just cry.

[Jumping John]

129. NOT TRUE AT ALL - "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

Where did they do this research? It is propaganda isn't it?

Look at my research:

~~~~~~

If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, possibly the attack would have ended like the shooting at the mega New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December 2007.

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. At that point, the gunman committed suicide.

http://www.myfalseworld.org/2012/07/concealed-weapons-save-lives.html#.UBIaP2hTJ0w.facebook

2. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun — possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I’ve seen are unclear — when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home.

3. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). It’s not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/16/armed-civilians-really-do-capture-kill-or-otherwise-stop-mass-shooters/

[indepat]

151. Interesting that the casualties have really shot up since junior instituted pre-emptive war

as a national policy in which our vast military arsenal is used pre-emptively and cavalierly to inflict shock and awe and the resulting mass carnage on others as we see fit. Have we, as a nation, become so conditioned and hardened that we collectively cannot process and respond appropriately to all the ramifications of mass slaughter?