What happens when there is a "Good Guy with a Gun"

[Dominus Atheos]

For those that don't know, a meme on the right is that arming teachers is the best solution to school shootings, as seen here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... 99968.html
http://www.nraschoolshield.com/nss_Final_full.pdf
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-a ... n-teachers
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/03/politics/ ... -teachers/

Customer fires at Auburn Hills shoplifting suspects

Auburn Hills — Police responding to a “shots fired” call at a Home Depot store said a customer apparently tried to stop a shoplifter by firing at a fleeing vehicle.

The incident occurred at 2 p.m. at the store on Joslyn, according to a police press release.

A 47- year-old Clarkston woman in the parking lot witnessed one of the store’s loss prevention officers trying to stop a shoplifting suspect getting into a dark colored SUV. The customer — identified as a concealed pistol license holder — reportedly fired shots at the dark-colored SUV as it sped out of the lot.

It’s unknown how many rounds were fired from her 9mm handgun, but police believe she hit and flattened one of the vehicle’s rear tires as it sped off in the direction of Brown Road.

It was not known if anyone was injured in the incident. The customer remained on the scene and was cooperating with police. A report is to be turned over to the county prosecutor for review of possible charges, if any, on the woman.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/l ... /73467882/

Maybe a cheap shot since even most gun rights people would call this person a goddamn idiot, but it shows the likely end result of their favored gun violence solution of "have more people carry guns in everyday life".

[Channel72]

I agree with your sentiment, but I'm wary of using anecdotes like this to prove a political point.

My hypothesis, based on nothing but intuition, is that arming everyone would result in many more incidents like this. But I can't really prove it at the moment.

[Patroklos]

Maybe a cheap shot since even most gun rights people would call this person a goddamn idiot, but it shows the likely end result of their favored gun violence solution of "have more people carry guns in everyday life".

How does it show this? Whats the gun crime rate for concealed carry holders again?

[General Zod]

Let's apply NRA logic to other situations. According to gun rights activists, the best solution to drunk driving is for everyone to drive drunk.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, that's not NRA logic, that's a pitiful strawman.

Because the NRA's reasoning on this issue is heavily influenced by the fact that one gun-carrier can deter another. One drunk driver can't deter another drunk driver. Just plain doesn't work.

Now, the NRA may be wrong about whether or not this would work, but it's not even in the same category of argument as "counter drunk driving with more drunk drivers."

[Channel72]

The problem with anecdotes is that everyone has Google, and everyone can find one that supports their position.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... estaurant/

[General Zod]

Thing is, that's not NRA logic, that's a pitiful strawman.

Because the NRA's reasoning on this issue is heavily influenced by the fact that one gun-carrier can deter another. One drunk driver can't deter another drunk driver. Just plain doesn't work.

Now, the NRA may be wrong about whether or not this would work, but it's not even in the same category of argument as "counter drunk driving with more drunk drivers."

Everybody was carrying guns out in the open in the old west. There's no reason to believe that it's an effective deterrent.

[TheFeniX]

Or, you can look at Texas that actually tracks this kind of shit, usually under deadly conduct discharge firearm. There's one or two idiots who pull this shit a year. Color me unsurprised the general population does it a fuck-load more. Note though, these are convictions. If this lady isn't convicted then.... that's a problem.

Haha, oh man, the "wild west?" People still bring that up? Look it up, even the most wild of the west saw less murders over decades than most cities saw in a year. Many of those same wild west cities had extremely strict gun control laws either way. But what they also had was enforcement.

[Channel72]

Haha, oh man, the "wild west?" People still bring that up? Look it up, even the most wild of the west saw less murders over decades than most cities saw in a year.

Surely that's a function of population size, no?

[Patroklos]

Haha, oh man, the "wild west?" People still bring that up? Look it up, even the most wild of the west saw less murders over decades than most cities saw in a year.

That's not how statistics work

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is actually no consensus among professional historians about what the murder rates were in the Old West. So any argument made regarding them is inherently flawed, because we just don't have the statistical evidence necessary to make strong claims one way or the other.

To quote this article:

Thus, based on a single homicide in 1880, Dodge City, population 996, had a murder rate three times that of Miami, in 1980, which saw 515 murders among a population of 1.57 million. But was Dodge City more violent than Miami?

That said, the West DID have strict gun control laws. In fact, the famous shoot-out of the OK Corral was sparked by an attempt to enforce gun control laws! There was a ban on concealed carry. In Dodge City, there was a ban on OPEN carry.

[Gandalf]

This article puzzles me. I understand why one might draw a gun against someone being violent, but who shoots a fleeing car containing a shoplifter?

I further remain puzzled that she may not be charged for doing so.

There is actually no consensus among professional historians about what the murder rates were in the Old West. So any argument made regarding them is inherently flawed, because we just don't have the statistical evidence necessary to make strong claims one way or the other.

Were Native Americans or other undesireable often counted in murder statistics for that period?

[Napoleon the Clown]

This article puzzles me. I understand why one might draw a gun against someone being violent, but who shoots a fleeing car containing a shoplifter?

Someone that's watched too damn many action movies and lacks the judgement one would expect from a toddler, I imagine. I dunno how intensive the pistol safety training is in Michigan, but they're a shall-issue state.


If anything, this can argue that maintaining a concealed carry permit should require regular renewal and attendance of training.

[B5B7]

Talking about the "wild west", that is also applicable to their handguns - wildly inaccurate, until the late 19th century, and also the expense of bullets could cut down practice gun owners might have. That would have a bearing on shooting incidents in the 1800s.

[Jub]

Talking about the "wild west", that is also applicable to their handguns - wildly inaccurate, until the late 19th century, and also the expense of bullets could cut down practice gun owners might have. That would have a bearing on shooting incidents in the 1800s.

There is also the issue that, by modern standards their bullets were very low power. This is why you hear so many stories about people getting shot and riding off to get the round pulled out and surviving. Unless you hit somebody somewhere vital the rounds just didn't have the power to drop people the way we tend to think they may have.

[Purple]

The problem with deterrence is that it relies on initiative. It only works when both sides have an equal footing, are eying each other and waiting for the other to make a move. And when it comes to crime this simply is not the case. If I want to murder you and I have a gun I'll shoot you. If I suspect you have a gun the only thing that will change is that I'll have to shoot you when your back is turned.

[Jub]

The problem with deterrence is that it relies on initiative. It only works when both sides have an equal footing, are eying each other and waiting for the other to make a move. And when it comes to crime this simply is not the case. If I want to murder you and I have a gun I'll shoot you. If I suspect you have a gun the only thing that will change is that I'll have to shoot you when your back is turned.

This.

If I'm robbing you and you didn't see it coming, it doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. Mine's already going to be in position and ready to shoot. Your best case at that point is to hope I don't shoot or to hope that I miss because I've got the initiative.

[Simon_Jester]

This.

If I'm robbing you and you didn't see it coming, it doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. Mine's already going to be in position and ready to shoot. Your best case at that point is to hope I don't shoot or to hope that I miss because I've got the initiative.

One, not all criminals are hypercompetent ambush predators. They sometimes screw up the whole 'ambush someone and be ready to kill them before they know what's going on' thing.

Two, there are many categories of violence that do not start instantly- there is posturing, menacing, or an exchange of threats. Again, undermining the 'if you're really in danger you'll have a gun pointed at your chest before you know what's happening' argument.

Three, the prospect of an armed victim can still be a deterrent because the criminal does not know what might happen, except that it now includes a non-zero possibility of dying. Whereas when robbing an unarmed victim, the probability of dying is pretty much zero. The criminal might have a great advantage, but the advantage of surprise is not the same as having absolute control of the situation and uncontested power of life and death over the victim.

I imagine there are very few muggers who would carry through a plan to mug someone if you told them that person was carrying a gun, even if they did plan to have the advantage of surprise.

There is also the issue that, by modern standards their bullets were very low power. This is why you hear so many stories about people getting shot and riding off to get the round pulled out and surviving. Unless you hit somebody somewhere vital the rounds just didn't have the power to drop people the way we tend to think they may have.

The converse is that medical science was a lot less advanced, so you were more likely to die of an injury that today you'd almost certainly survive with competent medical care.

Do you have evidence that gunshot wounds were on average less likely to cause death then?

[Purple]

One, not all criminals are hypercompetent ambush predators.

But you can bet that if people started shooting back there would be a rather powerful selection process towards those that are.

Two, there are many categories of violence that do not start instantly- there is posturing, menacing, or an exchange of threats. Again, undermining the 'if you're really in danger you'll have a gun pointed at your chest before you know what's happening' argument.

And neither of those are the kind of shooting that most gun proponents talk about when they talk about defending them self with a gun.

Three, the prospect of an armed victim can still be a deterrent because the criminal does not know what might happen, except that it now includes a non-zero possibility of dying. Whereas when robbing an unarmed victim, the probability of dying is pretty much zero. The criminal might have a great advantage, but the advantage of surprise is not the same as having absolute control of the situation and uncontested power of life and death over the victim.

It pretty much is actually. This said, I would enjoy seeing you trying to seriously going put up an argument that you can still fight back after I unload a magazine in your back.

I imagine there are very few muggers who would carry through a plan to mug someone if you told them that person was carrying a gun, even if they did plan to have the advantage of surprise.

On the flip side those that do go through with it will tend to shoot you in the back and loot your corpse turning what was once a relatively harmless mugging into a case of murder.

[LaCroix]

One, not all criminals are hypercompetent ambush predators.

But you can bet that if people started shooting back there would be a rather powerful selection process towards those that are.

If the majority of people were armed, robbers would be more likely to use the 'drive-by robbery' method - shoot someone in the back, steal his wallet (and gun, if he had one), run. After all, even today, it's not unusual that robbers hit you over the head with something and then rob you instead of all the hassle of a classic hold-up scenario where the victim sees your face.

[Channel72]

The "heroic citizen with a gun" scenario is more applicable to one to many style robberies, i.e. a situation where a criminal holds up an entire convenience store or restaurant (like the anecdote I posted above) - not "one to one" style robberies where a criminal holds up a single person.

Regardless, the "arm everyone" theory of deterrence is utter bullshit. Again, most gun violence happens in inner-cities, and happens between people who know each other and are likely both known to be armed, or at least both known to own guns. In Newark NJ (where I currently am typing this post), there's about one murder every two days.

http://spotcrime.com/nj/newark

... most of them are drive-bys or ambushes between rival criminals, or gunfights between criminals and police. They are not muggings of innocent civilians. Again, actual muggings, convenience store hold ups, etc. are not a significant cause of gun-related crimes. Most gun-related crimes happen between rival criminals, or between criminals and police. So the whole "heroic citizen with a gun" thing is mostly bullshit. It turns out most criminals don't make money by just mugging random people. That's more like what insane people do. Actual criminals make money by selling drugs, selling stolen car parts, jacking parked cars and selling the parts, etc. They do not make money by mugging random civilians, who are likely not even carrying that much cash around these days.

[General Zod]

Three, the prospect of an armed victim can still be a deterrent because the criminal does not know what might happen, except that it now includes a non-zero possibility of dying. Whereas when robbing an unarmed victim, the probability of dying is pretty much zero. The criminal might have a great advantage, but the advantage of surprise is not the same as having absolute control of the situation and uncontested power of life and death over the victim.

Being armed doesn't make you a deterrent if you don't have the willingness to actually use the gun. In those cases it makes you a liability because the criminal might just want to take your gun for themselves and call your bluff.

http://gawker.com/open-carrying-guy-has ... 1644022889

Then there's cases of untrained dipshits trying to "help" who end up shooting the victim.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/texas-g ... runs-away/

Even if you want to ignore all of that, you simply have no idea of knowing where the police will be. Who's to say they can tell the difference between the victim and the perp if they've both got guns pointed at each other?

[Edi]

This.

If I'm robbing you and you didn't see it coming, it doesn't matter if you have a gun or not. Mine's already going to be in position and ready to shoot. Your best case at that point is to hope I don't shoot or to hope that I miss because I've got the initiative.

One, not all criminals are hypercompetent ambush predators. They sometimes screw up the whole 'ambush someone and be ready to kill them before they know what's going on' thing.

The stupid ones do, yes. It is a very dangerous assumption to bank your life on. The goal of a criminal is to get something from you for nothing and they go into a situation prepared to use violence to get what they want. In other words, they are primed to go off instantly if they do not get what they want and against a normal person, that is enough, because by the time they manage to process they are under threat or under attack, they are already in a position where they cannot offer effective resistance. And if the other guy has a gun, knife, crowbar or something like that, has any element of surprise or advantage and the willingness to do violence, ineffective resistance means you will be either dead or severely injured before it's through. You can mitigate this by situational awareness, meaning you pay enough attention to your surroundings to spot trouble before you end up ambushed. Criminals also tend to be very good at spotting people who possess situational awareness and those who don't, and they will always go for the latter. They want maximum gain for minimum risk, not a confrontation where there is a risk of shit going sideways.

Two, there are many categories of violence that do not start instantly- there is posturing, menacing, or an exchange of threats. Again, undermining the 'if you're really in danger you'll have a gun pointed at your chest before you know what's happening' argument.

Learn the difference between territorial and predatory violence. Territorial violence is like this, all raised hackles, growling, barking, postures, trying to make the other guy back down before you need to resort to actual violence. That's the whole point of threat displays.

Predatory violence, such as a mugger, robber, rapist or similar is not interested in this. They are interested in getting what they want from you by force and resistance makes them go off because they're already committed to violence. It just escalates directly several stages.

Three, the prospect of an armed victim can still be a deterrent because the criminal does not know what might happen, except that it now includes a non-zero possibility of dying. Whereas when robbing an unarmed victim, the probability of dying is pretty much zero. The criminal might have a great advantage, but the advantage of surprise is not the same as having absolute control of the situation and uncontested power of life and death over the victim.

What this does is change the calculation on the criminal's part from "I'll threaten him with violence to hand over his money" to "I'll blow his brains out from behind and take his money". The prospect of possible armed resistance if the victim gets forewarning makes such encounters far more dangerous and lethal for armed and unarmed robbery victims alike, because the robber has already decided on a course of action and he doesn't care if you live or die as long ash e gets what he wants.

I imagine there are very few muggers who would carry through a plan to mug someone if you told them that person was carrying a gun, even if they did plan to have the advantage of surprise.

Yeah, but how many of them actually know beforehand? You're dealing with fucking fantasy situations here.

Seriously, try to get at least a passing familiarity with the topic before you begin spouting bullshit about it. This is a good place to start. The primary author is someone who has studied violence and its prevention for decades and who grew up as a street criminal before he got clean. What he writes makes a lot more sense than any of the stuff you're spewing here. Be prepared to spend several days perusing that place if you intend to read it thoroughly.

[Lonestar]

There is also the issue that, by modern standards their bullets were very low power. This is why you hear so many stories about people getting shot and riding off to get the round pulled out and surviving. Unless you hit somebody somewhere vital the rounds just didn't have the power to drop people the way we tend to think they may have.

Holy shit dude. Where do you get your information? Seriously?

No, they were just exposed lead which deformed far more readily than modern jacketed ones and being subsonic they had a tendency to stop on impact as opposed to zip on through for modern rounds. "Stopping power", in so much as it actually counts, is far far far more common with older subsonic rounds.

[Elheru Aran]

Yeah, the older rounds could knock you over a little more reliably and fuck you up fairly well. .45 was the common revolver round at the time, as were any array of rifle rounds ranging from .30 to .58. Average rounds nowadays are more like 9mm (.35, more or less) for pistols and 5.56mm (.21) or 7.62 (.30) for rifles, they make up for the smaller size by being far more speedy, which helps compensate for having less brute-force impact.

Bear in mind also that people tended to wear more layers of clothes-- jacket, vest, shirt, undershirt, as opposed to maybe a shirt and undershirt these days. That would absorb the force of a subsonic cartridge to some degree, but it wouldn't stop them completely. Contributes to less fatalities though. A .45 Peacemaker lead ball will blow through your clothes, but it'll probably stop somewhere in you with a neat wad cut out of your clothing in there too. Modern rounds will penetrate through entirely (usually leaving a nasty exit) and fatality is more assured. With the older rounds (as long as you didn't get your head blown off or an artery torn), either they dig it out of you and you heal up, or you die a few days later from infection.