If you do the maths, if the "good person with a gun" stops 5% of mass shootings that would be something like 25 per year. Assuming the average mass shooting kills one person and injures 5 (excluding the shooter) and the "good person" stops any deaths or injuries that would be saving about 25 lives and 125 injuries.
That's offset by the George Zimmerman's, where the "good person" turns into the active shooter. And, also offset by potential scenarios where one "good person" gets their gun out because there's an active shooter, and so does a second "good person" (or a cop) and mistakes first good person for the shooter ...
But, if we set aside the offsets and just have 150 deaths and injuries averted by the "good person with a gun". How does that compare to, say, reducing the number of mass shootings by 10%* through moderate gun control legislation so that it's impossible to legally own an AR-15 type weapon? Oh look, that would actually save 300 deaths and injuries (possibly more because mass shootings with that sort of weapon tend to have higher numbers of casualties). If the aim is to reduce the number of people killed by guns then preventing potential active shooters getting a gun in the first place is far more effective than having more people with guns to respond once the shooting starts.
* a conservative off the cuff figure - I don't know how many shootings wouldn't have happened if the perpetrator had to go through more checks before buying a gun.
We can go on about the Biblical interpretation all day. The world sees a Good Samaritan as any one who goes out of their way to help. So someone shooting a mass shooter can in some peoples eyes be a Good Samaritan by them.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
I'm sure had the outcome been Zimmerman's death, Martin would be claiming self defence for his actions too. He would argue he was in fear of being shot by Zimmerman and was trying to force him to drop the weapon. That's your problem once lethal weapons are in the equation - both parties can find themselves entirely convinced they're acting lethally in self defence.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
But that's the thing - you can't ignore "the rights and wrongs of what led up to that point", unless you assume that Zimmerman would have acted in exactly the same way if he was unarmed. If you think (as I do) that he was emboldened to confront Martin directly by the fact that he had a handgun, then the whole confrontation happened because Zimmerman thought he was "a good guy with a gun".
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
I'm sure had the outcome been Zimmerman's death, Martin would be claiming self defence for his actions too. He would argue he was in fear of being shot by Zimmerman and was trying to force him to drop the weapon. That's your problem once lethal weapons are in the equation - both parties can find themselves entirely convinced they're acting lethally in self defence.
I completely agree, and my previous post should in no way be taken as a justification of Zimmerman's actions. The problem is, as you say, that lethal weapons and quasi-legalised vigilante actions are part of the equation.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
I'm sure had the outcome been Zimmerman's death, Martin would be claiming self defence for his actions too. He would argue he was in fear of being shot by Zimmerman and was trying to force him to drop the weapon. That's your problem once lethal weapons are in the equation - both parties can find themselves entirely convinced they're acting lethally in self defence.
I completely agree, and my previous post should in no way be taken as a justification of Zimmerman's actions. The problem is, as you say, that lethal weapons and quasi-legalised vigilante actions are part of the equation.
It's also reached the point where, if you find yourself armed in a confrontation in parts of the US (and you're white) the thing that will put you in the least legal jeopardy is shooting the other party dead and claiming self-defence.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
But that's the thing - you can't ignore "the rights and wrongs of what led up to that point", unless you assume that Zimmerman would have acted in exactly the same way if he was unarmed. If you think (as I do) that he was emboldened to confront Martin directly by the fact that he had a handgun, then the whole confrontation happened because Zimmerman thought he was "a good guy with a gun".
Yes. And if Martin had actually had any felonious intent then, by the standards of the society in which they were operating, Zimmerman would have been the good guy. Instead, he was a paranoid neighborhood watcher who picked the wrong person to watch, and Martin was an overconfident teen who decided to "teach him a lesson" rather than going about his business.
Both men made bad decisions, and Martin died. That makes Zimmerman's bad decisions criminally culpable IMO, but in a society where lethal weaponry and stand your ground laws aren't a thing Zimmerman would either never have followed Martin in the first place, or would have been the one paying for those decisions through the currency of physical harm. The problem is the laws themselves. Or so it seems to me.
All that said, my initial comment was purely intended to rebut any suggestion that Zimmerman shooting Martin was completely unprovoked. Zimmerman was in the wrong, but if Martin hadn't decided to "teach him a lesson" then he would likely still be alive today.
Tony Earls and his wife were robbed by an armed robber, who fired a gun at them. Earls mistakenly thought that a passing vehicle that stopped and was backing up was associated with the robber, and shot at it, killing 9 year old Arlene Alvarez who was a passenger in the car. The car had nothing to do with the robber.
Earls thought he was a good guy with a gun. He thought he was defending himself and his wife against an armed robber. But what he did was kill a 9 year old girl.
I completely agree, and my previous post should in no way be taken as a justification of Zimmerman's actions.
If you're not trying to justify Zimmerman's actions, why claim all of Zimmerman's actions are irrelevant and not worth regarding?
Because "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea" is a massively inaccurate and misleading summary of what actually happened.
The George Zimmerman defense - "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea".
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
But that's the thing - you can't ignore "the rights and wrongs of what led up to that point", unless you assume that Zimmerman would have acted in exactly the same way if he was unarmed. If you think (as I do) that he was emboldened to confront Martin directly by the fact that he had a handgun, then the whole confrontation happened because Zimmerman thought he was "a good guy with a gun".
Yes. And if Martin had actually had any felonious intent then, by the standards of the society in which they were operating, Zimmerman would have been the good guy. Instead, he was a paranoid neighborhood watcher who picked the wrong person to watch, and Martin was an overconfident teen who decided to "teach him a lesson" rather than going about his business.
As I recall he tried going about his business (in fact running away from the crazy guy stalking him) but Zimmerman kept pursuing him. The "teach him a lesson" bit seems to be entirely supposition.
but in a society where lethal weaponry and stand your ground laws aren't a thing Zimmerman would either never have followed Martin in the first place, or would have been the one paying for those decisions through the currency of physical harm. The problem is the laws themselves. Or so it seems to me.
Yeah - that's the point. There are some cases where the "good guy with a gun" is clearly in the right, and clearly was of net benefit. But there are very many more cases where the "good guy with a gun" is wrong. And proponents of "good guy with gun" have to own those cases as well.
From the point of view of policy, the degree to which Zimmerman was justified or unjustified doesn't really matter - what matters is that he thought he was "the good guy with a gun", and someone ended up dead.
Similarly, it doesn't matter that the court found that Tony Earls had no case to answer over the shooting of Arlene Alvarez. He thought he was doing the right thing, and a little girl is dead. "Good guy with gun" proponents have to own this outcome too.
I was kind off hoping there wasn't ... because that plays into the "good person with gun" bullshit that some idiots spout to justify reducing controls on access to guns.
...
It's fair enough for the gun ownership lobby to take credit for the actions of Elisjsha Dicken - the young man who shot the Indiana mall shooter - but they have to take ownership of people like George Zimmerman as well.
I was kind off hoping there wasn't ... because that plays into the "good person with gun" bullshit that some idiots spout to justify reducing controls on access to guns.
...
It's fair enough for the gun ownership lobby to take credit for the actions of Elisjsha Dicken - the young man who shot the Indiana mall shooter - but they have to take ownership of people like George Zimmerman as well.
And all mass shooters. In fact all gun deaths.
Well, sure - but their argument is that mass shooters are criminals, and you can't stop criminals getting guns, because criminals break the law (they are not prepared to entertain enough of a gun ban to actually make a difference to the general availability of guns), but "good guys with guns" are a magic panacaea.
My point is that even if you restrict the domain to self-identified "good guys with guns", then you're not actually winning, if you do the count properly.
And, that there are no small number of people who would have been considered a "good guy with a gun" except that they used it to mow down a classroom of kids or a mall of shoppers. They can't be allowed to get away with narrowing the definition of "good guy" to retrospectively exclude those who weren't, or even just had a bad day.
And, that there are no small number of people who would have been considered a "good guy with a gun" except that they used it to mow down a classroom of kids or a mall of shoppers. They can't be allowed to get away with narrowing the definition of "good guy" to retrospectively exclude those who weren't, or even just had a bad day.
The cases aren't quite the same. The idea of "good guy with a gun" is that "good guys" should go armed everywhere, so that they can take down a shooter if necessary.
Mass shooters - the sort that mow down shopping malls and classrooms - don't just snap because the grocery store is out of their brand of detergent, or because Johnny from seventh grade maliciously persists in refusing to multiply fractions correctly, and start blasting away with the gun in their waistband: they come to the mall, or the school, or wherever, with a rifle or three intending to commit a mass shooting.
Whereas the George Zimmermans and Tony Earls of the world are exactly "good guys with guns". They're carrying their handguns, because that's what "good guys" are supposed to do, and they're using their handguns to react to threats, just like "good guys" are supposed to do.
Even if you engage with the debate on their terms - assuming that there's nothing to be done about the general prevalence of guns (and so the probability of mass shootings) - then self-identified "good guys with guns" are not a net benefit, despite the existence of some cases where they do help.
But, the whole problem is with what metric do you use to identify a "good guy" from a "bad guy"? When someone walks into a store to buy a gun and says it's for self-defence, what measure do you use to determine that the gun will only be used for that (and, the extensive courses at the gun range etc to know how to use it safely)? I can't think of any measure at that point that's going to be able to identify good from bad at that point in time - much less predict whether they'll still be good or bad a year later. And, as that wouldn't be possible with the resources potentially available to a gun store to ask the buyer to come back in a week after there's been an extensive background check what chance for ordinary people in the mall seeing someone carrying a gun to make that judgement of whether this person is or isn't an imminent threat to their safety?
But, the whole problem is with what metric do you use to identify a "good guy" from a "bad guy"?
That's certainly a problem - but it is not the whole problem.
Even if you have some magic way of determining who the "good guys" are, and who will remain a "good guy", then the numbers do not appear to be in the "good guys'" favour. So even if you solve, by some magic method, the thing that you describe as "the whole problem", you're still left with the problem that "good guys" trying to do "good things" with their guns still end up killing a bunch of people.
I agree with you that the best background checks in the world aren't going to be 100% efficient at identifying "good guys" - but even if you assume some kind of magic, the evidence does not support widespread gun carrying by "good guys" as a solution to the problem of gun violence.
One point entirely missed in the discussion about the Indiana shooter: the man who killed him responded within 15 seconds after the shooter began firing. In those 15 seconds three people were killed and two were wounded. All of which supports the need to get assault weapons off the street.
A book magazine I subscribe to had a longish extract from, "Gunfight - My battle against the industry that radicalised America", by Ryan Busse.
Some readers comments were, "One of the few insiders to speak publily, and critically, about the insular cultire of gun companies", "A facinating, clear-eyed account of the gun industry's slide into extemism", and, " Reveals the firearms industry to be the dark enabler of anti government conspiracies and radicalisation".
It looks to be well written and very scary. I am wondering if any US shipmates are aware of the book and have read it.
If you went through Lutheran Confirmation, you likely learned it this way:
Thou shalt not kill. What does this mean?
–Answer: We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need (in every need and danger of life and body).
So there is apparently a Tik-Tok inspired "Orbeez challenge" that involves firing Orbeez gel-beads (they're basically water-loaded beads made of the hyperabsorbent gel that nappies are made with) at people from air rifles. This is described as a "prank" - generally by the sort of bullying arsehole that make quiet kids' lives at high school completely miserable.
The story seems to be that an 18-year-old idiot just attacked a random stranger with such an air rifle; the stranger (an off-duty firearms instructor with the corrections service), and the stranger returned fire with his handgun, killing the 18-year-old. Then, it appears, he just went home, went to bed, and showed up to work the next morning as though nothing had happened.
Both men appear to be exceptionally stupid. Both seem to be infected with gun idiocy. One is now dead, and the other may be facing a long time inside a facility operated by his current employer.
So there is apparently a Tik-Tok inspired "Orbeez challenge" that involves firing Orbeez gel-beads (they're basically water-loaded beads made of the hyperabsorbent gel that nappies are made with) at people from air rifles. This is described as a "prank" - generally by the sort of bullying arsehole that make quiet kids' lives at high school completely miserable.
The story seems to be that an 18-year-old idiot just attacked a random stranger with such an air rifle; the stranger (an off-duty firearms instructor with the corrections service), and the stranger returned fire with his handgun, killing the 18-year-old. Then, it appears, he just went home, went to bed, and showed up to work the next morning as though nothing had happened.
Both men appear to be exceptionally stupid. Both seem to be infected with gun idiocy. One is now dead, and the other may be facing a long time inside a facility operated by his current employer.
@Leorning Cniht characterising a Black teenager with a water pistol as a 'man with an air rifle' is an interesting choice of words, as is deliberately removing race from the equation. As is neglecting to mention that the 'random stranger' is a cop. Extra-judicial murders by the police especially against Black men and boys is quite hard to prevent when people insist on misreporting them.
Said beads burst non-painfully on impact and are basically tiny water balloons. Teenagers playing with what are functionally water balloons in hot weather is not difficult to understand nor does it make them 'bullying arseholes'. And I'm someone who hates pranks and irresponsible tiktok trends. Looking at pictures of the 'gun', it looks like a water pistol or nerf gun - it doesn't even look like an air rifle. Describing someone 'returning fire' with an actual gun in response to a water pistol makes no sense unless you want to somehow equate a teenager's water pistol with a cop's firearm.
@Leorning Cniht characterising a Black teenager with a water pistol as a 'man with an air rifle' is an interesting choice of words, as is deliberately removing race from the equation. As is neglecting to mention that the 'random stranger' is a cop.
Read again. The guy with the gun is a firearms instructor for the corrections facility. I say so right in my post. He's Black too, if you think it matters. But as far as the teenagers were concerned, he was a random stranger. There's no indication that he was known to the teenagers, or that they knew what his job was. The dead man was 18, which makes him a teenager, and also a man, and a legal adult. The water bead gun he had is legally classified as an air rifle in New York, and is illegal to own or use there.
Said beads burst non-painfully on impact and are basically tiny water balloons. Teenagers playing with what are functionally water balloons in hot weather is not difficult to understand nor does it make them 'bullying arseholes'.
Playing with water balloons (or even these bead guns) among a mutually consenting group is one thing. Attacking third parties with them is quite another, and puts you firmly in "bullying arsehole" territory. Consent isn't really that hard to understand, is it?
And I'll note in passing that the shooting occurred at about 1.30am. That's not really prime "playing with water balloons" time. Generally speaking, people engaging in consensual water fights do so when the sun's out.
1.30am rather more closely resembles prime "teenagers driving around being dicks" time.
Describing someone 'returning fire' with an actual gun in response to a water pistol makes no sense unless you want to somehow equate a teenager's water pistol with a cop's firearm.
Obviously I'm not equating a water pellet gun to a handgun: only one of those things is likely to kill you. I'm not defending the shooter - we'll find out in due course whether he claims to have thought he was under serious attack, or got annoyed at a group of annoying kids and fired his gun at them, or what.
This is also far from the first case of serious violence happening as a consequence of some idiot or idiots attacking strangers with these water pellet guns. And in a place like the US, where real guns are prevalent, going around firing any kind of projectile at strangers seems like an exceptionally foolish thing to do.
(And the shooter being a firearms instructor is relevant here - his job is quite literally training "good guys with guns", and yet he still managed to kill some idiot with a water bead gun. Proponents of the "good guy with gun" theory have to own him, too.)
To me, the problem was not the shooting, but the instructor left the scene without appearing to report it to the authorities. Some of those air guns do look like the real thing. And, being that it was night, even if it was all white, one may not be able to see the color of the faux weapon. Simply put, the instructor was fired on, and he returned fire as he was trained to do himself.
To me, the problem was not the shooting, but the instructor left the scene without appearing to report it to the authorities. Some of those air guns do look like the real thing. And, being that it was night, even if it was all white, one may not be able to see the color of the faux weapon. Simply put, the instructor was fired on, and he returned fire as he was trained to do himself.
Nevertheless, it should not have happened.
Oh, there's a whole pile of problems with this incident - I don't think we can identify any one thing as "the problem". But certainly discharging your weapon, then just going home and going to bed, is a problem.
Wow. No mass shootings for three months! I like this one. '"My heart is heavy, because we don't have answers as to why this tragedy occurred," Chief Patterson said'. Was a gun involved?
Wow. No mass shootings for three months! I like this one. '"My heart is heavy, because we don't have answers as to why this tragedy occurred," Chief Patterson said'. Was a gun involved?
Since you know that a gun was involved, surely you can figure out that she meant “we don’t have answers as to why this teenager had or used a gun.”
No, it's "no mass shootings that got reported in the UK for three months". According to Wikipedia there have been 15 mass shootings in October so far ... so, still running at an average of one mass shooting a day.
Wow. No mass shootings for three months! I like this one. '"My heart is heavy, because we don't have answers as to why this tragedy occurred," Chief Patterson said'. Was a gun involved?
Since you know that a gun was involved, surely you can figure out that she meant “we don’t have answers as to why this teenager had or used a gun.”
Ohhhhh. So that's the problem. Simple. The devil made him do it.
And really @Alan Cresswell ?! Fancy that. I thought there'd been a miracle.
Wow. No mass shootings for three months! I like this one. '"My heart is heavy, because we don't have answers as to why this tragedy occurred," Chief Patterson said'. Was a gun involved?
Since you know that a gun was involved, surely you can figure out that she meant “we don’t have answers as to why this teenager had or used a gun.”
Ohhhhh. So that's the problem. Simple. The devil made him do it.
That’s not what I said and you damn well know it.
But you’re predictable. You can always be counted on to play the asshole—the arrogant, know-it-all, ignorant, childish asshole.
This shooting happened in the city where I’ve lived for over 35 years. It has directly affected people I know. I thought of posting in this thread when it happened, but I decided not to. I didn’t, because I knew that would just invite you to spread your condescending crap. And here you are, right on cue, once again playing the asshole. Your lack of any concern for anyone on the Ship other than yourself is beyond tiresome.
Fuck off, Martin. And when you’re done fucking off, fuck of again.
Wow. No mass shootings for three months! I like this one. '"My heart is heavy, because we don't have answers as to why this tragedy occurred," Chief Patterson said'. Was a gun involved?
Since you know that a gun was involved, surely you can figure out that she meant “we don’t have answers as to why this teenager had or used a gun.”
Ohhhhh. So that's the problem. Simple. The devil made him do it.
That’s not what I said and you damn well know it.
But you’re predictable. You can always be counted on to play the asshole—the arrogant, know-it-all, ignorant, childish asshole.
This shooting happened in the city where I’ve lived for over 35 years. It has directly affected people I know. I thought of posting in this thread when it happened, but I decided not to. I didn’t, because I knew that would just invite you to spread your condescending crap. And here you are, right on cue, once again playing the asshole. Your lack of any concern for anyone on the Ship other than yourself is beyond tiresome.
Fuck off, Martin. And when you’re done fucking off, fuck of again.
Fuck you Nick and your empty projection from up your colon. Ever heard of this thing called irony?
Wow. No mass shootings for three months! I like this one. '"My heart is heavy, because we don't have answers as to why this tragedy occurred," Chief Patterson said'. Was a gun involved?
Since you know that a gun was involved, surely you can figure out that she meant “we don’t have answers as to why this teenager had or used a gun.”
Ohhhhh. So that's the problem. Simple. The devil made him do it.
That’s not what I said and you damn well know it.
But you’re predictable. You can always be counted on to play the asshole—the arrogant, know-it-all, ignorant, childish asshole.
This shooting happened in the city where I’ve lived for over 35 years. It has directly affected people I know. I thought of posting in this thread when it happened, but I decided not to. I didn’t, because I knew that would just invite you to spread your condescending crap. And here you are, right on cue, once again playing the asshole. Your lack of any concern for anyone on the Ship other than yourself is beyond tiresome.
Fuck off, Martin. And when you’re done fucking off, fuck of again.
Fuck you Nick and your empty projection from up your colon. Ever heard of this thing called irony?
Maybe save it for things that aren't going to directly involve shipmates in traumatic events? Oh, and either own your insults or don't post them at all, not this cowardly bullshit of writing them with a line through them.
How do you know he's not directly affected? Or, that someone else reading your crap isn't? Or, maybe there's someone here directly affected by the 100ish mass shootings that happened in the last 3 months that you had claimed hadn't happened?
And, how "directly" affected counts as directly affected? I'd reckon that if there was a mass shooting in this town the chances of me personally knowing someone present, or a family member or close friend of someone there. I'll certainly know people who will re-assess decisions about whether to go outside, who will be scared of there being a repeat shooting ... unless you're a hermit in a town and never interact with others and make friends in a town it doesn't take many connections before you know someone present at in incident, and that affects you quite directly. "Directly affected" is an entire community, not just those shot or killed and their immediate family.
How do you know he's not directly affected? Or, that someone else reading your crap isn't? Or, maybe there's someone here directly affected by the 100ish mass shootings that happened in the last 3 months that you had claimed hadn't happened?
And, how "directly" affected counts as directly affected? I'd reckon that if there was a mass shooting in this town the chances of me personally knowing someone present, or a family member or close friend of someone there. I'll certainly know people who will re-assess decisions about whether to go outside, who will be scared of there being a repeat shooting ... unless you're a hermit in a town and never interact with others and make friends in a town it doesn't take many connections before you know someone present at in incident, and that affects you quite directly. "Directly affected" is an entire community, not just those shot or killed and their immediate family.
How does people he knows being directly affected make him directly affected Alan?
Because he's a human being. If a friend of yours lost someone dear to them in a shooting, are you really saying that wouldn't affect you?
How could any half sane person? We've been here before. Friends of friends, or more likely two degrees of separation. And I was obviously mocking the moronic police chief. Whom I'm sure will have said the victims were in his thoughts and prayers. I imagine only mass shootings with double digit victims will get reported soon. This one had 7, presumably 8 counting the 'suspect'. The sick kid with the gun who shot everyone and got shot doing it.
And I was obviously mocking the moronic police chief. Whom I'm sure will have said the victims were in his thoughts and prayers.
Yes, it was obvious you were mocking the police chief. And it was obvious to me, as one much more familiar with the situation and with many of the people involved than you seem to be or have any reason to be, that your mockery of her (not him) was crass and unwarranted. Your mockery was a mirror, reflecting your own ignorance and arrogance as you arrogated to yourself yet again the right to pass judgement on and dismiss the feelings and lived experiences of others, in the apparent certainty that your understanding surpasses theirs. It was just another another example of the callous disregard and disrespect for others too often conveyed by your posts.
He's read American novels and watched American movies. Plainly he's an expert.
What Ruth said. After all, a graduate degree in English lit and 30 years' college lecturing experience in that topic make me an expert in current British politics (NOT).
How was that fucking arse-clown able to get a weapon given his history?
How do all the hand-wringers waffling about the "integrity" of anti-gay views sleep at night when the fruits of these views are here for all to see? I am so fucking done with enabling and pandering to homophobes, no matter how much pretzel logic and how many Bible quotes they hide behind.
Comments
That's offset by the George Zimmerman's, where the "good person" turns into the active shooter. And, also offset by potential scenarios where one "good person" gets their gun out because there's an active shooter, and so does a second "good person" (or a cop) and mistakes first good person for the shooter ...
But, if we set aside the offsets and just have 150 deaths and injuries averted by the "good person with a gun". How does that compare to, say, reducing the number of mass shootings by 10%* through moderate gun control legislation so that it's impossible to legally own an AR-15 type weapon? Oh look, that would actually save 300 deaths and injuries (possibly more because mass shootings with that sort of weapon tend to have higher numbers of casualties). If the aim is to reduce the number of people killed by guns then preventing potential active shooters getting a gun in the first place is far more effective than having more people with guns to respond once the shooting starts.
* a conservative off the cuff figure - I don't know how many shootings wouldn't have happened if the perpetrator had to go through more checks before buying a gun.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of what led up to the point, Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin until the latter was physically attacking him and had him on the ground.
I'm sure had the outcome been Zimmerman's death, Martin would be claiming self defence for his actions too. He would argue he was in fear of being shot by Zimmerman and was trying to force him to drop the weapon. That's your problem once lethal weapons are in the equation - both parties can find themselves entirely convinced they're acting lethally in self defence.
But that's the thing - you can't ignore "the rights and wrongs of what led up to that point", unless you assume that Zimmerman would have acted in exactly the same way if he was unarmed. If you think (as I do) that he was emboldened to confront Martin directly by the fact that he had a handgun, then the whole confrontation happened because Zimmerman thought he was "a good guy with a gun".
I completely agree, and my previous post should in no way be taken as a justification of Zimmerman's actions. The problem is, as you say, that lethal weapons and quasi-legalised vigilante actions are part of the equation.
It's also reached the point where, if you find yourself armed in a confrontation in parts of the US (and you're white) the thing that will put you in the least legal jeopardy is shooting the other party dead and claiming self-defence.
Yes. And if Martin had actually had any felonious intent then, by the standards of the society in which they were operating, Zimmerman would have been the good guy. Instead, he was a paranoid neighborhood watcher who picked the wrong person to watch, and Martin was an overconfident teen who decided to "teach him a lesson" rather than going about his business.
Both men made bad decisions, and Martin died. That makes Zimmerman's bad decisions criminally culpable IMO, but in a society where lethal weaponry and stand your ground laws aren't a thing Zimmerman would either never have followed Martin in the first place, or would have been the one paying for those decisions through the currency of physical harm. The problem is the laws themselves. Or so it seems to me.
All that said, my initial comment was purely intended to rebut any suggestion that Zimmerman shooting Martin was completely unprovoked. Zimmerman was in the wrong, but if Martin hadn't decided to "teach him a lesson" then he would likely still be alive today.
If you're not trying to justify Zimmerman's actions, why claim all of Zimmerman's actions are irrelevant and not worth regarding?
https://abc13.com/robbery-victim-tony-earls-no-billed-arlene-alvarez-death/12061282/
Tony Earls and his wife were robbed by an armed robber, who fired a gun at them. Earls mistakenly thought that a passing vehicle that stopped and was backing up was associated with the robber, and shot at it, killing 9 year old Arlene Alvarez who was a passenger in the car. The car had nothing to do with the robber.
Earls thought he was a good guy with a gun. He thought he was defending himself and his wife against an armed robber. But what he did was kill a 9 year old girl.
Because "I thought Trayvon Martin was going to shoot me with his bottle of iced tea" is a massively inaccurate and misleading summary of what actually happened.
As I recall he tried going about his business (in fact running away from the crazy guy stalking him) but Zimmerman kept pursuing him. The "teach him a lesson" bit seems to be entirely supposition.
I thought it was based on the record of a phone call he was having at the time? Been a while since I've read through the evidence though.
I don't think there is a record of that conversation, only the somewhat varied account of the friend he was on the phone to at the time.
Yeah - that's the point. There are some cases where the "good guy with a gun" is clearly in the right, and clearly was of net benefit. But there are very many more cases where the "good guy with a gun" is wrong. And proponents of "good guy with gun" have to own those cases as well.
From the point of view of policy, the degree to which Zimmerman was justified or unjustified doesn't really matter - what matters is that he thought he was "the good guy with a gun", and someone ended up dead.
Similarly, it doesn't matter that the court found that Tony Earls had no case to answer over the shooting of Arlene Alvarez. He thought he was doing the right thing, and a little girl is dead. "Good guy with gun" proponents have to own this outcome too.
And all mass shooters. In fact all gun deaths.
Well, sure - but their argument is that mass shooters are criminals, and you can't stop criminals getting guns, because criminals break the law (they are not prepared to entertain enough of a gun ban to actually make a difference to the general availability of guns), but "good guys with guns" are a magic panacaea.
My point is that even if you restrict the domain to self-identified "good guys with guns", then you're not actually winning, if you do the count properly.
The cases aren't quite the same. The idea of "good guy with a gun" is that "good guys" should go armed everywhere, so that they can take down a shooter if necessary.
Mass shooters - the sort that mow down shopping malls and classrooms - don't just snap because the grocery store is out of their brand of detergent, or because Johnny from seventh grade maliciously persists in refusing to multiply fractions correctly, and start blasting away with the gun in their waistband: they come to the mall, or the school, or wherever, with a rifle or three intending to commit a mass shooting.
Whereas the George Zimmermans and Tony Earls of the world are exactly "good guys with guns". They're carrying their handguns, because that's what "good guys" are supposed to do, and they're using their handguns to react to threats, just like "good guys" are supposed to do.
Even if you engage with the debate on their terms - assuming that there's nothing to be done about the general prevalence of guns (and so the probability of mass shootings) - then self-identified "good guys with guns" are not a net benefit, despite the existence of some cases where they do help.
That's certainly a problem - but it is not the whole problem.
Even if you have some magic way of determining who the "good guys" are, and who will remain a "good guy", then the numbers do not appear to be in the "good guys'" favour. So even if you solve, by some magic method, the thing that you describe as "the whole problem", you're still left with the problem that "good guys" trying to do "good things" with their guns still end up killing a bunch of people.
I agree with you that the best background checks in the world aren't going to be 100% efficient at identifying "good guys" - but even if you assume some kind of magic, the evidence does not support widespread gun carrying by "good guys" as a solution to the problem of gun violence.
Some readers comments were, "One of the few insiders to speak publily, and critically, about the insular cultire of gun companies", "A facinating, clear-eyed account of the gun industry's slide into extemism", and, " Reveals the firearms industry to be the dark enabler of anti government conspiracies and radicalisation".
It looks to be well written and very scary. I am wondering if any US shipmates are aware of the book and have read it.
While I agree with (what I think is) the general sentiment, that's a ridiculously oversimplified statement.
--Luther's Small Catachism
The story seems to be that an 18-year-old idiot just attacked a random stranger with such an air rifle; the stranger (an off-duty firearms instructor with the corrections service), and the stranger returned fire with his handgun, killing the 18-year-old. Then, it appears, he just went home, went to bed, and showed up to work the next morning as though nothing had happened.
Both men appear to be exceptionally stupid. Both seem to be infected with gun idiocy. One is now dead, and the other may be facing a long time inside a facility operated by his current employer.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-correction-officer-arrested-murder-bronx-firearms-trainer-20220722-vklrv2qrsbdgpnwlcbo5wo4d44-story.html
I hate everything about this, but three words come to mind: play stupid games....
Said beads burst non-painfully on impact and are basically tiny water balloons. Teenagers playing with what are functionally water balloons in hot weather is not difficult to understand nor does it make them 'bullying arseholes'. And I'm someone who hates pranks and irresponsible tiktok trends. Looking at pictures of the 'gun', it looks like a water pistol or nerf gun - it doesn't even look like an air rifle. Describing someone 'returning fire' with an actual gun in response to a water pistol makes no sense unless you want to somehow equate a teenager's water pistol with a cop's firearm.
Read again. The guy with the gun is a firearms instructor for the corrections facility. I say so right in my post. He's Black too, if you think it matters. But as far as the teenagers were concerned, he was a random stranger. There's no indication that he was known to the teenagers, or that they knew what his job was. The dead man was 18, which makes him a teenager, and also a man, and a legal adult. The water bead gun he had is legally classified as an air rifle in New York, and is illegal to own or use there.
Playing with water balloons (or even these bead guns) among a mutually consenting group is one thing. Attacking third parties with them is quite another, and puts you firmly in "bullying arsehole" territory. Consent isn't really that hard to understand, is it?
And I'll note in passing that the shooting occurred at about 1.30am. That's not really prime "playing with water balloons" time. Generally speaking, people engaging in consensual water fights do so when the sun's out.
1.30am rather more closely resembles prime "teenagers driving around being dicks" time.
Obviously I'm not equating a water pellet gun to a handgun: only one of those things is likely to kill you. I'm not defending the shooter - we'll find out in due course whether he claims to have thought he was under serious attack, or got annoyed at a group of annoying kids and fired his gun at them, or what.
This is also far from the first case of serious violence happening as a consequence of some idiot or idiots attacking strangers with these water pellet guns. And in a place like the US, where real guns are prevalent, going around firing any kind of projectile at strangers seems like an exceptionally foolish thing to do.
Nevertheless, it should not have happened.
Oh, there's a whole pile of problems with this incident - I don't think we can identify any one thing as "the problem". But certainly discharging your weapon, then just going home and going to bed, is a problem.
Ohhhhh. So that's the problem. Simple. The devil made him do it.
And really @Alan Cresswell ?! Fancy that. I thought there'd been a miracle.
But you’re predictable. You can always be counted on to play the asshole—the arrogant, know-it-all, ignorant, childish asshole.
This shooting happened in the city where I’ve lived for over 35 years. It has directly affected people I know. I thought of posting in this thread when it happened, but I decided not to. I didn’t, because I knew that would just invite you to spread your condescending crap. And here you are, right on cue, once again playing the asshole. Your lack of any concern for anyone on the Ship other than yourself is beyond tiresome.
Fuck off, Martin. And when you’re done fucking off, fuck of again.
Fuck you Nick and your empty projection from up your colon. Ever heard of this thing called irony?
Maybe save it for things that aren't going to directly involve shipmates in traumatic events? Oh, and either own your insults or don't post them at all, not this cowardly bullshit of writing them with a line through them.
And, how "directly" affected counts as directly affected? I'd reckon that if there was a mass shooting in this town the chances of me personally knowing someone present, or a family member or close friend of someone there. I'll certainly know people who will re-assess decisions about whether to go outside, who will be scared of there being a repeat shooting ... unless you're a hermit in a town and never interact with others and make friends in a town it doesn't take many connections before you know someone present at in incident, and that affects you quite directly. "Directly affected" is an entire community, not just those shot or killed and their immediate family.
How does people he knows being directly affected make him directly affected Alan?
How could any half sane person? We've been here before. Friends of friends, or more likely two degrees of separation. And I was obviously mocking the moronic police chief. Whom I'm sure will have said the victims were in his thoughts and prayers. I imagine only mass shootings with double digit victims will get reported soon. This one had 7, presumably 8 counting the 'suspect'. The sick kid with the gun who shot everyone and got shot doing it.
What Ruth said. After all, a graduate degree in English lit and 30 years' college lecturing experience in that topic make me an expert in current British politics (NOT).
I have 2 thoughts:
How was that fucking arse-clown able to get a weapon given his history?
How do all the hand-wringers waffling about the "integrity" of anti-gay views sleep at night when the fruits of these views are here for all to see? I am so fucking done with enabling and pandering to homophobes, no matter how much pretzel logic and how many Bible quotes they hide behind.