Good Guy with a Gun’ Was on UCC Campus at Time of Massacre

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/10/02/good-guy-with-a-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/

The issue of whether UCC was a “gun free zone” has become a source of controversy. Gun advocates argue that “gun free zones” encourage gun violence by creating a space where people are unable to defend themselves.

This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.

Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.

[Travis_0004]

1. I dont think anybody is suggesting that he should have raced across campus to save the day

A concealed carry holder is not a police officer and not john rambo. Its not jis job to run across campus to save the day, and he did the right thing by staying where he was.

There have been mass shootings stopped by people with funs, if both people happen to cross each other. Obviously one gun half way across campus wont make a difference.

[paleotn]

4. "There have been mass shootings stopped by people with funs"

....examples please. Otherwise that's just gun humper bullshit.

The last thing we need on college campuses is OK Corral shootouts.

[Orrex]

6. There have sort of been a few cases, but...

It generally turns out that the "good guy" is either an off-duty cop or security guard, or else the "good guy" detains the "bad guy" at gunpoint once the shooting has stopped.

[Hoyt]

14. Often it's an elderly lady, like Loughner. Of course, we have those cowboys who dream

of saving the day. One recently missed the bad guys and shot the store clerk being robbed.

[Orrex]

18. As my wife has wisely pointed out:

It's an embarrassment and a tragedy that we we basic our policies of public safety on the off chance that some random person in a crowd will step forth to protect us from a shooter.

How is it that the purported Greatest Nation On Earth can do no better than to outsource its public safety to anyone who might happen to be carrying a gun nearby?

[cascadiance]

55. There are many examples of private gun possession almost leading to worse outcomes...

Such as Tucson's Loughner situation, where a hero almost shot the wrong person (the person that took away the gun from Loughner), as this person noted here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/friendly_firearms.html

...
The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

...

There's a lot of myths perpetuated that "average" citizens with guns were able to stop shootings in the past, when the facts surrounding these events tell a different story as noted here...

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09/9-ridiculous-things-buzzfeed-mass-shootings

If many average citizens had guns and someone started shooting, how is law enforcement supposed to sort out the "good guys" from the "bad guys" when they come upon such a situation where everyone is shooting each other and even average citizens seeing another "good guy" shooting a "bad guy" aren't sure who the good guys are and the bad guys are and themselves shoot both or the wrong ones and those watching them don't know whether they are one of the bad guys either.

The bottom line is that the more weapons we have in every day society, the more risk we have of these explosive events happening that can get out of control. The more guns are present in a situation, the more likely that these situations will get out of control, when there is more chance that those with guns don't have the wisdom to know when using their guns will just make the situation worse.

[Hoyt]

56. Exactly. There was a recent case where the armed hero-wannabe messed up and shot the clerk

in a store robbery. I don't think some yahoo who carries a gun is likely to improve the outcome in these incidents.

[louis-t]

76. Also the case of the carjacking where the the suspects were already fleeing

and the wannabe hero shot the victim of the carjacking.

[sarisataka]

65. So private gun owners

almost shoot the wrong person but withhold firing rather than shoot the wrong person.

Unlike, say, NYPD-
2 dead, 9 wounded in Empire State Building shootings, police say
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/24/justice/new-york-empire-state/
who accounted for ten of those eleven.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Garland, TX

[Schema Thing]

41. Nope

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. Whatevs

[7962]

13. Here's a good example from a short time ago. You could simply ask without your "gunhumper" BS

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html
Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.
A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.
The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

You must have also forgot about the school shooting stopped by the principal, who went to his car and got his gun. Pearl River Miss. That made big news at the time.

There are several cases if you took the time to look for them.

[Orrex]

17. Not sure that one counts as a mass shooting

Yes, it's good that the shooter was stopped, and certainly the Uber driver prevented innocent bystanders from being wounded or killed, but the point is that "good guys" don't have a great record of stopping mass shootings.

According to the FBI:

The agreeable definition of an "active shooter" by U.S. government agencies is "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.

While a broader definition, according to CNN, is:

a mass shooting is defined as having four or more fatalities, and do not include gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members.

So which definition does the Logan Square incident meet?

You must have also forgot about the school shooting stopped by the principal, who went to his car and got his gun. Pearl River Miss. That made big news at the time.

And you must have forgotten that the spree was already over by the time the principal got his gun, so the principal didn't "stop" anything except maybe to "stop" the gunman from fleeing the scene.

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting Woodham attempting to flee the parking lot after the shooting, shouted for him to stop. After Woodham's mother's car got stuck in the grass, Myrick ordered him out of the car at gunpoint and detained Woodham until police arrived at the scene.

From the Wiki page.

There are several cases if you took the time to look for them.

Please provide these examples, since you appear to know about them already.

[7962]

19. A guy who starts shooting into a crowd of people is likely to start HITTING those people,

thus becoming a "mass shooter". It doesnt take long for a person to fire several rounds. I gave you a good example of an active shooter being stopped and now you try to say it wasnt a mass shooting? It wasnt a mass sooting because the shooter was STOPPED before he could continue shooting!!

As for the other examples, why should I do the work for you? You asked for any proof its ever happened and i gave you a recent one.

[Orrex]

20. But that's not the definition.

You can't lay claim to the term while simultaneously ignoring its definition. Find me a formal definition that says a random shooter firing randomly into a crowd in open air qualifies as a "mass shooter," and then we can discuss it. Otherwise, you're simply reciting from the NRA's propaganda pamphlets.

As for the other examples, why should I do the work for you?

Because you made the claim and then you require others to support it for you. That's intellectually dishonest.

You asked for any proof its ever happened and i gave you a recent one.

And I showed you that it's not a mass shooting, so you haven't actually given any, even as you claim to have done so. Once you have provided evidence of armed "good guys" stopping mass shootings in progress, we can discuss the merits of your claim.

Until then, you're simply reciting from the NRA's propaganda pamphlets.

[7962]

57. A man shooting rapidly into a crowd is GOING to be a mass shooter. You've got no leg to stand on

Thats one of the silliest catch-22 positions i've seen in awhile

[Eleanors38]

63. Heh. So noted.

Even if you waited while the shots were going down, careful to keep a tally, then acted to stop the incident -- too bad, you didn't stop a "mass shooting."

[Orrex]

70. How many were injured other than the gunman?

None? Then he doesn't qualify as an active shooter, according to the FBI.

None? And he was outdoors? Then he doesn't qualify as an active shooter, according to CNN.

By your conveniently nebulous and self-serving definition, firing a gun into the air four times during a party at a skeet club would qualify as a mass shooting. If you have a more useful definition, perhaps you should share it with the FBI; I'm sure that they would benefit from your level-headed analysis.


Since you've demonstrated your fondness for NRA propaganda and for aggressive military campaigns against innocent civilians, you'll forgive me if I declare your posturing to be laughable and morally bankrupt.

You're welcome to reply, but unless you do better than parroting NRA bullshit, don't expect a response.

[sarisataka]

46. Catch 22 denial

You are seeing the perfect set up to deny a mass shooting was stopped by an armed person.

In the case you provided, less than four people died, therefore no mass shooting was stopped.

Yet in a case when four people are killed, the armed person didn't prevent the tragedy, therefore no mass shooting was stopped.

[7962]

59. Yep, I guess they get no credit for reacting quickly.

If only MORE people had been shot, the stats would be HIGHER for those stopping it!!

[Orrex]

72. Take it up with the FBI. I didn't craft the definition.

Perhaps you should re-read that book, because you seem not to understand what a Catch-22 is. Demonstrating how an example does not fit a definition is not a Catch-22.

In the case you provided, less than four people died, therefore no mass shooting was stopped.

If a "good guy" stops someone from committing murder before he does it, then he hasn't committed murder. That's not a catch-22; that's simple reality.

Yet in a case when four people are killed, the armed person didn't prevent the tragedy, therefore no mass shooting was stopped.

Please provide the example in which I have done this. Since you can't, you are following the NRA tactic of Making Shit Up.


Tell you what: I'll let you define and legislate against "mass shootings" if you let me define and legislate against "assault weapons."

[sarisataka]

73. Simply dismissing

Any counter argument as NRA talking points and labeling everyone who dares to not fully accept your view as the final word with NRA tactic/supporter/propaganda is cowardly, dishonest, and

well, unsurprising.

Legislate away- I do not own any firearm that would in any way be defined as an "assault weapon". IMO it would be a better use of time and effort to legislate UBC and social programs that go to the roots of motivation of everyday criminal activity.

[Orrex]

74. No, that's not it.

I'm not "simply dismissing" your taking points; I'm addressing each in turn, then reiterating that each is an NRA talking point.

However, if your idea of a rebuttal is to pile on still more NRA talking points, then I say don't bother. It would be lazy of you and intellectually dishonest to do so.

Legislate away- I do not own any firearm that would in any way be defined as an "assault weapon".

If I'm setting the rules, then I guess we'll see about that.

IMO it would be a better use of time and effort to legislate UBC and social programs that go to the roots of motivation of everyday criminal activity.

That's a longterm solution. Until then, do we sit by and watch these mass shootings occur, helpless to do anything but hope that some "good guy" pops up and is able to stop the carnage?

If we as a nation can do no better than that, then we probably should have all of our guns taken away.

[sarisataka]

77. I guess we'll see about that.

Oh, here take my 3 shot lever action .243 but please, please let me keep my .416 single shot Ruger No. 1

[sarisataka]

49. 12 Times Mass Shootings Were Stopped by Good Guys With Guns

1. Pearl High School



Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.

Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.



2. Parker Middle School



April 24, 1998
A 14-year-old student showed up to his middle school dance carrying a .25-caliber pistol. He opened fire inside the dance, killing one teacher and wounding another as well as two students. The rampage ended when James Strand, owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in, grabbed his personal shotgun and confronted the 14-year-old killer. Strand held the teen at gunpoint for 11 minutes before finally getting him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground and searching him for additional weapons.



3. Appalachian School of Law



Jan. 16, 2002
A 43-year-old former student armed with a .380 handgun killed Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell with point blank shots and went on to kill fellow student Angela Dales as well as wounding three others before being confronted at gunpoint by law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer, after retrieving their personal handguns from their vehicles. The gunman was then apprehended by other students

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

Though I have no doubt there will be some reason each and every one'doesn't count'

[7962]

60. Yes, they wont count because "not enough killed"........

your catch 22 comment is exactly right

[Orrex]

68. I can't view that page from work due to "political advocacy" filters. Go figure.

Before I get started, I note that you're trying the tired old tactic of preemptively declaring my rebuttal to be invalid. That's cowardly, dishonest, and unsurprising. Nevertheless, I persevere:

Oct. 1, 1997
Luke Woodham fatally stabbed his mother at home before opening fire at his high school, killing two students and injuring seven others. The attack was stopped when Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his .45 caliber handgun from his truck and confronted Woodham, detaining him until authorities could arrive.

In other words, Myrick wasn't carrying his gun. It's far from certain that he would have intervened during the shooting even if he had been armed, since he didn't retrieve his weapon until the shooting had stopped.

Myrick’s action stopped Woodham from going across the street to the middle school as he had planned.

That's far from certain. Another account goes like this:

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting Woodham attempting to flee the parking lot after the shooting, shouted for him to stop. After Woodham's mother's car got stuck in the grass, Myrick ordered him out of the car at gunpoint and detained Woodham until police arrived at the scene.

So Woodham fled the scene with no indication of a secondary target area. In short, we see only that a "good guy" with a gun stopped a "bad guy" with a gun from leaving. I'd be interested to read the account that he had planned further shootings. I don't dispute that he may have, but it's not supported by your summary or by the Wiki article.

April 24, 1998
A 14-year-old student showed up to his middle school dance carrying a .25-caliber pistol. He opened fire inside the dance, killing one teacher and wounding another as well as two students. The rampage ended when James Strand, owner of the banquet hall the dance was happening in, grabbed his personal shotgun and confronted the 14-year-old killer. Strand held the teen at gunpoint for 11 minutes before finally getting him to drop the weapon and lie on the ground and searching him for additional weapons.

Whoops. Forgot about that one. We can split hairs over "mass shooting" versus "mass killing," but this incident would seem to qualify. Where did Strand have his shotgun prior to "grabbing" it, though? Was it on his person? No? Then it's not an argument in favor of carrying a firearm.

Jan. 16, 2002
A 43-year-old former student armed with a .380 handgun killed Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell with point blank shots and went on to kill fellow student Angela Dales as well as wounding three others before being confronted at gunpoint by law students Tracy Bridges, a county sheriff’s deputy, and Mikael Gross, a police officer, after retrieving their personal handguns from their vehicles. The gunman was then apprehended by other students.

This incident is an argument in favor of allowing law enforcement officers to keep weapons in their vehicles, which I guess is ok. Maybe you'd like to see armed cops at every school function? It's certainly not an argument in favor of a generally armed citizenry, however, especially since "The gunman was then apprehended by other students" and not by a "good guy" with a gun.



So what was your point, exactly? That a "good guy" with a gun might be willing to invervene when there's a pause in the shooting? In my very first post on the subject I distinguished between a random "good guy" with a gun and a law enforcement officer, yet your third example considers them one and the same. Why?

Since you didn't assemble that list on your own, and indeed since it's poorly suited to the argument you seem to be trying to make, I have to ask: why are you reciting the NRA's talking points?

[JonathanRackham]

25. Nipping the problem in the bud.

It's not a mass shooting if no one gets shot. Consider how the definition of "mass shooter" came about.

[branford]

27. Here's some examples...

The topic of civilians stopping mass shooting was recently discussed in a blog post from Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/


Do you really believe that insults fit for a children's playground like "gun humper" really make you, or gun control generally, more persuasive?

Since you've been provided with examples, does that now render your post an example of "controller bullshit?"

[jack_krass]

39. Gun humper

Why the need to hurl insults? Does randomly calling people "gun humper" feel good?

Why the he'll are anti gun people so damn hostile?

Will you take back the insults since you've been shown to be wrong?

[Hoyt]

48. Like some yahoo who straps on a gun or two to walk among is not hostile. You gun guys

crack me up. Can't wait for the "my gun in my pants makes me polite." I think even Zman has used that like some gungeoneers.

[7962]

62. Welcome to DU. And get used to it. And I'm not even against gun control!!

I just like to deal with facts. A lot of people here do not care for facts that dont back up their opinions or ideas. Sometimes I dont like the facts, but they are what they are.
Obviously there would be far fewer murders if there were NO guns. But they're already HERE and we'll never be rid of them. So the question is how to keep them away from these idiots who go on sprees.

[Eleanors38]

64. "Gun humper" and "ammosexual" are DU-approved smears. The latter is esp.

Disturbing in that it achieves its negative sexual impact by borrowing from the same negativity suggested by "homosexual."

But it is kosher in DU, among others.

[AllyCat]

5. Could you cite some of those examples?

I've heard there are none. It seems you are suggesting that more armed civilians would have helped.

[branford]

29. See post #27 above. nt

[Eleanors38]

61. Run across campus? But that would mean he was a "wanabe hero." Folks don't like that here.

First the controllers want a CC person off campus, then they wonder where the "good guy with a gun" was.



Concealed carry is for self-defense, not law enforcement. You can be carrying in a cafe and an armed robbery could take place in the same block. There is no expectation that the armed person will know what is happening, run toward the incident, and ascertain the situation. He/she is not a cop, only a citizen taking precautions against personal attack.

[Skittles]

80. because paranoid assholes with weapons are SO reliable

[TexasProgresive]

2. "he quickly retreated into the classroom."

Smart guy, now he is still alive.

[ToxMarz]

9. But he's not a good guy with a gun, just a guy with a gun

[philosslayer]

3. A "Good Guy"?

The campus was a gun-free zone. And yet, he had a gun. How does this make him a "good guy"?

[elehhhhna]

7. Wrong. The campus allowed concealed carry per state law.

[philosslayer]

8. My mistake

[JonathanRackham]

23. With exceptions.

Campus rules prevented carry within building. So technically students store them in cars. Which is a bad idea as well thanks to people who break into cars.

[ileus]

10. Just because you carry a PPD doesn't mean you're a LEO.

While your life saving pistol may directly benefit a targeted classroom if you're there when the shooting starts, it's not a bright idea to start roaming around looking for an active shooter.

In our active shooting training we've been taught to:
1. Run
2. Barricade if you can't run
3. Fight back with bic bananas if you can't run or hide.

Of course they keep us disarmed for safety at the hospital.

[pipoman]

15. Why 62 over 30 years? I keep hearing there have been hundreds this year alone...

[elehhhhna]

35. 45 school shootings so far.

People jack with stats

[pipoman]

36. The 62 over 30 years appears to be cherry picking...

[CapnSteve]

16. It has been clear for a long time: 1) Universal background checks

2) Assault weapons ban, including exotic ammo and large capacity clips.
3) National ballistics data base: every gun.

And, most important of all:

4) Require gun owners and gun manufacturers to carry liability insurance. YOU are responsible for the damage your gun does. Period.

Responsible gun owners are willing to do this. Gun nuts are not.

[Duckhunter935]

21. I guess I am a gun nut

because the only one I agree with is number 1

[hack89]

22. You do know that insurance does not cover criminal acts?

I have insurance and it is dirt cheap precisely because of that reason. No insurance company will put themselves at risk for paying out for a Sandy Hook.

With you on UBCs

[truebluegreen]

24. Is there such a thing as gun insurance to cover non-criminal acts?

[hack89]

26. Sure. The NRA has sold it for years

Mandatory insurance would make the NRA a shit ton of money.

[truebluegreen]

28. Only if the NRA was the only one to offer it.

Pass a law requiring gun-owners' insurance and watch other companies jump in. Raise the cost of owning a gun--higher rates for each additional gun, higher rates for demographically higher-risk, etc--and yes, disallow payouts for criminal usage. If a person can be bankrupted by his gun being mis-used maybe he will be more likely to prevent that mis-use.

In other words, make gun owners "responsible."

I don't have a problem with that.

[hack89]

30. They would be begging for an NRA endorsement

Plus the NRA would simple offer huge premium discounts for members. Their membership would explode, especially if they promised to use their new money to fight the insurance mandate.

[hack89]

31. Insurance companies understand the true risks

There is a reason you pay more for your home insurance for owning a pool or certain dogs but not for owning guns.

They only pay for true accidents. They will not pay for criminal acts or criminal negligence.

[truebluegreen]

34. "They only pay for true accidents. They will not pay for criminal acts or criminal negligence."

That's the point. And if the NRA wants to offer discounted policies, and then--as insurance companies do--ducks and dodges and avoids payouts it's a win-win-win imo. Gun ownership becomes more expensive, NRA damages itself and gun owners become truly "responsible."

The NRA will find something to campaign on even when there is no "there" there ("Obama is coming for your gunz!&quot . The sooner gun owners and the general public see them for the money-grubbing parasites they are, the better.

[hack89]

37. You don't understand basic economics do you?

Gun insurance is dirt cheap now. It will get even cheaper when the pool of insured people grows - the risk is spread over a significantly larger group.

The insurance companies will not have to dodge payouts. The terms are explicitly stated up front. It will just like car insurance.

So tell me how insurance will stop mass shootings, suicides or violent crime?

[Crunchy Frog]

44. Just like car insurance?

You know that if you injure someone while driving drunk, your car insurance will cover their expenses, don't you?

[branford]

47. Car insurance will not pay for intentional criminal conduct.

Damages resulting from driving while under the influence are normally still considered an "accident" or unintentional, and is thus usually covered (at least with respect to others).

However, it you intentionally got drunk for purposes of driving (and obviously very unlikely circumstance), you would be charged with a far worse crime than a basic DUI, and your car insurance might not cover any damages.

The following article might prove helpful.

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/insurance-company-pays-for-illegal-acts.html

[hack89]

52. An accident while drunk is not considered an intentional criminal act

If you deliberately ran over a bunch of people your insurance would not pay.

[Eleanors38]

67. Like the Honda-driving mass-murderer in Austin 2 years back.

[Crunchy Frog]

43. They need to change that.

Or at least change the laws so that you will be liable for any mayhem caused by your gun. If you're a responsible gun owner, you shouldn't have anything to worry about, but it would take out the irresponsible gun owners pretty quickly.

If no insurance company is willing to assume those kinds of risks, then maybe isn't quite as safe as we've all been told.

Do you think that if you simply leave your gun lying around and a bad guy gets hold of it, or you loan it to your drug addict brother, that the resultant victims of your irresponsibility should have to foot their own medical bills? Everybody else should be liable for your own carelessness?

[branford]

50. You don't understand insurance generally, and liability insurance specifically.

actuarial-determined risk, civil and criminal liability, the laws concerning the ownership and transfer of firearms, and basic economics and commerce.

[hack89]

53. You would be liable

The victims could sue and take you to court. Insurance companies are out to make money and will therefore not put themselves in a position of high risk, whether it be not covering homes in flood prone areas or covering criminal acts.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. #1 is an excellent idea (and we just adopted UBCs here in Oregon).

An assault weapon ban, even one that somehow made the millions of such weapons in circulation magically disappear, would barely even make a blip in gun-related homicide. These weapons are sometimes used in the high-profile mass shootings everyone seems to exclusively focus on, but the overwhelming majority of victims are shot with handguns. Fewer people are killed each year with rifles of any type (not just "assault weapons&quot than are killed with blunt instruments. Or with fists and feet...

I'd like to see a ballistics database, too. It would be an enormous and expensive task to assemble it (c. 350 million civilian firearms...), so I'm not sure there will ever be funding for something like this, though.

A lot of gun owners already have such coverage as part of their homeowner's policy. And as others have pointed out, the NRA offers insurance specific to the guns you own. I suspect they make a mint of this, as the kind of person who purchases insurance like that isn't likely to need it. Bit of irony, that...

[branford]

33. It most certainly has Not been clear...

In fact, it's quite the opposite.

Would you kindly provide your data concerning the need and efficacy of universal background checks? It appears that every recent mass shooter in recent years properly applied for and passed a UBC. The only exceptions were the Charlestown shooter who passed only because the government screwed-up the check, and Lanza, who actually would have passed a check (and his mother did indeed pass), but he procured his firearms by killing his own mother.

As to assault weapons bans, the Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice under President Obama found the treasured 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and AWB's generally, to be effectively useless.

Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf


Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies

https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt


Lastly, mandatory firearm insurance is the biggest boondoggle and overt demonstration of ignorance among the suggestions.

I'll just repost my earlier comment on the subject,

Simply, mandatory insurance is a feel-good measure, little more than solution looking for a problem, and would not in any way cause some rift between insurance companies and any part of the gun rights lobby.

First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by legal gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.

Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance" (again, with significant constitutional problems).

Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.

Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.

Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.

Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country. T

Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?

Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.

[librechik]

38. Good response! Clearly we can do nothing. It's the law.

Except watch people die more and more lavishly and efficiently.

Seriously, IMO, if we tried some of these strategies,, I believe we can lower the number of shootings and deaths, maybe a little bit. And in light of the size of the problem, I am willing to fight for that little bit, no matter how angry it makes the Right Wing. And something like 90% of the American public agrees with me.
Of course the problem will not disappear. But as everyone is screaming, DO SOMETHING!!!

[branford]

40. I am not part of the "just do something" brigade,

regardless of whether it concerns firearms or anything else, particularly if the matter concerns constitutional rights.

I also don't care what you "believe" or feel. If you're suggesting a policy that restricts anyone, demonstrate that it is both constitutional and it actually has a significant chance of achieving realistic and reasonable goals. Anything less is pandering, political opportunism, and ultimately counterproductive to the goals you seek to achieve.

My post offered actual evidence that UBC's and AWB's would not have made any difference in these mass shootings and are otherwise basically useless (and in many of the tragedies, there already was both an AWB and background check).

I'm a litigation attorney, and a significant portion of my practice has dealt with insurance coverage and underwriting issues. Mandatory firearm insurance is a hot mess that's generally unconstitutional and would have absolutely no effect on firearm crime or accidents. In fact, most proposals are not really "insurance" at all, but just transparent, and wholly impermissible, punitive taxes, burdens and penalties meant to punish firearm owners who've done nothing wrong.

If you would like to discuss lawful policies meant to address specific concerns with reliable evidence of efficacy, I would be more than happy to engage, and might well very well offer my support.

I don't own any firearms, am certainly not a firearm absolutist, and would compromise on possible legislative and other means to address gun crime. I will not, however, succumb to moral blackmail and agree to policies that are illegal, achieve nothing, and punish the innocent for the malfeasance of a very tiny minority.

[librechik]

42. You sound like a pretty smart guy

I bet you could write better liability laws that wouldn't hamstring us. We need some really good ideas that will kick the blocks out and get things going.

Punishing a tiny minority? I have to pay car insurance every month and I've never had an accident. I don't mind this "punishment" because i know it's not punitive. It's for the common good.

I'm thinking instead about all the tiny people that kill themselves with daddy's unlocked .45. What if he had to pay a couple of hundred dollars in order to own a gun in a home with a child? Over a population of 300 million, such small decisions can make a huge difference.

But let's do nothing instead. It's just too difficult. Soon the weekly child killings will be entertaining, not gut wrenching.

[branford]

45. Read my earlier list of problems with the mandatory firearm insurance proposals.

Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Apart from the legal problems, it will not pay-out for intentional criminal conduct, including suicide, most legal gun owners are already covered for firearms accidents because it's part of basic homeowners and renters policies (basically, the policy already de facto exists), and it's so cheap because of the actuarial data, it would accomplish nothing (and a larger pool of customer would make such insurance even cheaper).

The term "insurance" means something, and as I indicated, and you and others appear to suggest, that's really not what you and others want. You desire an imposition of burdensome fees on gun owners explicitly to discourage firearm ownership, a constitutional right. The court has dealt with policies like this before, and struck down "poll taxes" and "literacy tests."

I appreciate the complement about my potential legal drafting abilities, but I would not be able to upend the entire nature of liability insurance in the USA and most of the rest of the world. Liability policies do not cover intentional criminal acts for obvious reasons, and no insurer would offer such policies. Insurance is also not a general victim compensation fund.

There are 80-100+ million lawful firearms owners in the USA. There are a few thousand firearm accidents per year, the vast majority not fatal, and certainly not all by legal gun owners who would actually purchase insurance. As an actuarial matter, firearm insurance is so cheap because the chance of needing to pay out is virtually non-existent. If the government attempts to circumvent the actuarial risk to make policies more expensive, it's simply no longer insurance. Clever drafting cannot change this undeniable fact.

I don't want to sound depressing, but the biggest obstacle that many may have to acknowledge is that there may be little that can be done in the USA to significantly stem firearm violence when we already have 300+ million firearms in circulation, and a history, culture and populace that values firearms for self-defense, sport and hunting, and strongly supports gun rights, no less the Second Amendment and a legal system that prioritizes due process, equal protection and other rights.

You might be interested in reading the following short blog post by Eugene Volokh at the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/02/guns-and-alcohol/

[Hoyt]

51. Be honest. You are in the do nothing first crowd, enact more lenient gun laws where possible.

[branford]

54. The solution to every problem is not always just passing more laws to "do something."

Hoyt, you complain constantly about the myriad evils of guns and "gun humpers."

Well now, here's your big chance to offer us legislative policy solutions that are clearly constitutional, specifically targeted, and with demonstrated efficacy.

Let's see what you've got... (don't forget to provide statistical and scholarly citations!)

[workinclasszero]

66. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated

Right, how would the swat team know he was the good guy, not the killer?

So much for the good guy with a gun BS!

Not to mention if the good guys aim is off a little, his bullet will kill you just as dead as the bad guys will!

[Eleanors38]

69. Most weapons carriers carry for SD, not to be auxiliary cops. Big difference.

[workinclasszero]

71. Fine. So you admit the "good guy with a gun"

is total BS then, right?

[GGJohn]

75. Why is it BS?

He's a law abiding citizen, isn't he
He was legally carrying a gun wasn't he?
Ergo, he's a good guy with a gun.

[Eleanors38]

78. An armed citizen can and has stopped crimes, but that is not the chief reason...

for carrying a weapon. The chief reason is SD, not effecting social policy. This is the position I have always held. Perhaps in the future someone will be able to measure some deterrent to crime based on concealed carry, but I haven't seen it yet. So much would depend on a violent criminal's perceptions and reports -- a less than trustworthy prospect.

[Orrex]

79. So it's mostly like a steel security blanket then. Okie dokie.

[Eleanors38]

81. Nope. It is self-defense. OK?