To Reduce Gun Violence, Arm All Americans

[txradioguy]

So there was another shooting in Texas. At last count, including the perpetrator, there are seven dead and around 20 injured. We don't really know anything much about the perpetrator except that he's been identified as white. Apparently, what prompted the shooting was the perpetrator was stopped by the police, shot his way out, and then raced off, shooting other people until he was finally cornered and shot dead. (Prediction: we'll find out he had a long criminal record and active arrest warrants for major crimes.)

Now because I'm sure some rental commenter is just waiting to start typing, yes I think it's awful that people got shot and killed. On the other hand, five people have been killed and 42 injured in Chicago already this weekend. Just this weekend. And I can't help but wonder why the extremely high murder rates in places like Chicago and Baltimore don't seem to be news stories.

I'll leave that for another rant, however, and point out that when you consider murder rates there is a very very high correlation between really stringent gun laws and really high gun violence.

Or put that another way: research shows that very high gun ownership rates correlate with low gun violence. This is true on a local level, and it's true nationwide where gun ownership has grown dramatically while nationwide gun violence has dropped about 25 percent.

It's also true that beyond a simple statistical observation, most of the specific recommendations or approaches that people have suggested have no effect. The famous assault weapons ban from the Clinton administration showed no particular effect, and when it expired there is no particular effect. When, after the Heller decision, gun ownership in D.C. went up, gun crime went down.

The only thing that we know is effective to reduce gun violence is to increase gun ownership.

Now there is another aspect to this. Anti-gun activists often claim — falsely — that the Second Amendment refers only to the National Guard, to a state militia. But going back to the first years of the Constitution, and right on up to the law today (10 USC 246) the militia is defined as having two parts: The organized militia which is the National Guard, and the unorganized militia, which is defined to be every adult male between 17 and 45, as well as including every female in the National Guard. (Someone should actually bring this to the attention of activist feminists. This law is clearly discriminatory and must be changed so it includes all adult women as well as adult men. But we can save that campaign for later.)

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure a well-regulated — which is to say, well-supplied and well-prepared — militia.

We're falling down on that responsibility. While there are more than 300 million privately owned guns in the United States, there are also millions and millions of members of the militia who are not armed. In certain rogue cities and states, it's legally difficult for members of the militia to be properly armed. And as a result, those rogue cities and states have massive gun violence problems.

This has to stop. I'm proposing that we campaign to reduce gun violence, and to meet our constitutional duty, by requiring that every member of the militia — which, of course,  we'll redefine to eliminate the obvious sexism and make it all adults — must own at least one long gun, one handgun, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition for each, or pay an annual $1,000 tax for failing to do so. As I pointed out the last time I brought this up, the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare makes it clear that it's constitutional to require people to buy a product, so that shouldn't be a problem. And, federal law would override the local laws in rogue cities like Chicago that prevent members of the militia from fulfilling their constitutional duty.

In fact, I might even go so far as suggesting that ownership of a weapon should be a requirement to be allowed to vote. But that might be a bridge too far, at least at first.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/we-must-take-effective-steps-to-reduce-gun-violence/

[roamer_1]

The only thing that we know is effective to reduce gun violence is to increase gun ownership.

That is largely true - Correlated to citizenry and government that respects the law, and each other.

I would submit that gun ownership is relatively high in inner city blighted areas, largely in the hands of the criminal elements that control them, to deleterious effect.

But as a rule, using rural America as the example, high gun ownership is a good and natural part of a peaceful and industrious people.

[txradioguy]

That is largely true - Correlated to citizenry and government that respects the law, and each other.

I would submit that gun ownership is relatively high in inner city blighted areas, largely in the hands of the criminal elements that control them, to deleterious effect.

But as a rule, using rural America as the example, high gun ownership is a good and natural part of a peaceful and industrious people.

And the statistics bear that out.  The highest incidents of gun violence in the U.S. happen in places where gun laws for law abiding citizens are the strictest.

Mass shooters pick gun free zones because they know no one there will have a gun to shoot back at them...El Paso and Odessa were that way as the most recent examples.

[roamer_1]

And the statistics bear that out.  The highest incidents of gun violence in the U.S. happen in places where gun laws for law abiding citizens are the strictest.

Mass shooters pick gun free zones because they know no one there will have a gun to shoot back at them...El Paso and Odessa were that way as the most recent examples.

That's right, of course.

But what liberals see in their fair cities (read sh*tholes) is the gun ownership of the projects and the criminals that use them. Much as @Jazzhead has opined...

That is not incorrect either, though I firmly disagree with their answers to their problems (which involve taking guns away from you and me).

What I mean to put forward is the idea of two separate gun cultures being real (albeit that only one is legitimate), and the focus upon one or the other changes perception.

Me buying a gun off the tailgate of a pickup in the parking lot at Albertson's shows how ubiquitous and part-of-the-furniture it is in daily life out here in the sticks... It ain't a bit different than anything else you might buy off of craigslist. Literally no different than buying a used vacuum cleaner or a set of screwdrivers.

But the timid city dweller sees that same action as criminal and nefarious - because in his perception, those same actions are only done by gangbangers. I think that is why Jazzy is so appalled by it.

It is the difference between those two gun cultures that is on point.
And I can hardly blame the timidity of that city dweller... He gave up his God given right so long ago as to not even know what it means... Generations ago... Along with everything else that makes one free.

There is no liberty in the city.
I see it. You see it. The problem is, getting THEM to see it.

[txradioguy]

That's right, of course.

But what liberals see in their fair cities (read sh*tholes) is the gun ownership of the projects and the criminals that use them. Much as @Jazzhead has opined...

That is not incorrect either, though I firmly disagree with their answers to their problems (which involve taking guns away from you and me).

What I mean to put forward is the idea of two separate gun cultures being real (albeit that only one is legitimate), and the focus upon one or the other changes perception.

Me buying a gun off the tailgate of a pickup in the parking lot at Albertson's shows how ubiquitous and part-of-the-furniture it is in daily life out here in the sticks... It ain't a bit different than anything else you might buy off of craigslist. Literally no different than buying a used vacuum cleaner or a set of screwdrivers.

But the timid city dweller sees that same action as criminal and nefarious - because in his perception, those same actions are only done by gangbangers. I think that is why Jazzy is so appalled by it.

It is the difference between those two gun cultures that is on point.
And I can hardly blame the timidity of that city dweller... He gave up his God given right so long ago as to not even know what it means... Generations ago... Along with everything else that makes one free.

There is no liberty in the city.
I see it. You see it. The problem is, getting THEM to see it.

Excellent points...and I agree completely.

As for getting the Liberal city dwellers to see the difference...that may be a lost cause. Their only answer seems to be try harder with measures that are already proven failures.

[thackney]

...Mass shooters pick gun free zones because they know no one there will have a gun to shoot back at them...El Paso and Odessa were that way as the most recent examples.

Odessa, on the roads?  Gun free zone?

[txradioguy]

Odessa, on the roads?  Gun free zone?

I was referring more to where it ended...as the Cinergy Entertainment Complex.  It's 30.06 compliant.

[thackney]

I was referring more to where it ended...as the Cinergy Entertainment Complex.  It's 30.06 compliant.

But he never went inside.

[txradioguy]

But he never went inside.

Yeah I understand that.  Point is he headed towards a place where whether inside or outside the establishment the likelihood of people having a firearm on them because they can't carry inside was greater than if he'd decided to head towards a Best Buy or a Lowes.

[roamer_1]

As for getting the Liberal city dwellers to see the difference...that may be a lost cause. Their only answer seems to be try harder with measures that are already proven failures.

That's right - They know no better.
 
The only answer is boots on the ground, ready and willing to return fire. That really is the only truth, ever. The efficiency of that may be variable, but is always better than any other option... Simply because there is at least a five minute response time, and usually much more than that to respond otherwise.

It ain't just getting the LEOs there, it is also the time it takes to reconnoiter and secure, assemble force teams, and to develop a strike plan. That's all many minutes more than mere response time.
And by then, in a time where seconds are eternity, it is always too little too late. And always will be, as a matter of fact.

So as a matter of simple math, encouraging gun ownership, CCW, and removing gun free zones PUTS those boots on the ground when calamity strikes, and puts that return fire in place before the fact. And that is just common sense.

There is no other answer, and there never will be. The best and most capable person to protect you is YOU.

[thackney]

Yeah I understand that.  Point is he headed towards a place where whether inside or outside the establishment the likelihood of people having a firearm on them because they can't carry inside was greater than if he'd decided to head towards a Best Buy or a Lowes.

He must have been a heck of a planner to have the police crash his vehicle outside the theater if that was his goal to reach.

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/west-texas-shooting-odessa-midland/index.html

[roamer_1]

Odessa, on the roads?  Gun free zone?

The exception proves the rule. There is no denying that mass shooters tend to target venues that are largley gun free zones in cities with restrictive gun laws.

[thackney]

The exception proves the rule. There is no denying that mass shooters tend to target venues that are largley gun free zones in cities with restrictive gun laws.

Of course, but this was hardly an example of that.  Actually, neither was El Paso Walmart I believe.

[txradioguy]

Of course, but this was hardly an example of that.  Actually, neither was El Paso Walmart I believe.

The El Paso Walmart was in a gun free zone.

According to ABC News, El Paso law enforcement officials advise that, moments before his killing rampage, the shooter cased the Walmart “looking for Mexicans.” While that may be so, it is nevertheless true that, consistent with his “manifesto,” his recon was also calculated to make sure that he would be attacking in a low-security area. In that regard, the Walmart store had no armed security guard, no police presence, and was located in a shopping mall that was a self-proclaimed “gun-free zone.”

https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/

IIRC if a Walmart is leasing it's store area and doesn't own the property outright they have to abide by the rules in the property agreement...which would be the case with the El Paso Walmart and the Cielo Vista Mall.

[thackney]

The El Paso Walmart was in a gun free zone.

https://spectator.org/mass-shootings-in-gun-free-zones/

IIRC if a Walmart is leasing it's store area and doesn't own the property outright they have to abide by the rules in the property agreement...which would be the case with the El Paso Walmart and the Cielo Vista Mall.

Thank you for that.

Cheers!

[txradioguy]

Thank you for that.

Cheers!

No worries.  Took me awhile to find it.  Google isn't exactly putting anything favorable or non anti gun narrative on the top of their searches these days.

[thackney]

No worries.  Took me awhile to find it.  Google isn't exactly putting anything favorable or non anti gun narrative on the top of their searches these days.

And I checked the location to see if owned by Walmart.  I didn't come up on the property owned by Walmart in El Paso County.

Seemed odd to me as they normally allow you to carry around by us.

[Smokin Joe]

Odessa, on the roads?  Gun free zone?

Not many people are in a position to mount an armed response to a shooter in a vehicle speeding in the opposite direction when ambushed. In that sense, victims would be predictably helpless to use any firearm they might have with them to defend themselves.

It isn't technically 'gun free' in a legal sense, but from a functional standpoint, it is.

The same basic disadvantage is present for the lone persons attacked in both situations. A passenger and a warning about the attacker might change that equation.

[thackney]

Not many people are in a position to mount an armed response to a shooter in a vehicle speeding in the opposite direction when ambushed. In that sense, victims would be predictably helpless to use any firearm they might have with them to defend themselves.

It isn't technically 'gun free' in a legal sense, but from a functional standpoint, it is.

The same basic disadvantage is present for the lone persons attacked in both situations. A passenger and a warning about the attacker might change that equation.

We will have to disagree.

[Smokin Joe]

We will have to disagree.

Okay, let me explain why I said what I said, and you are free to disagree if you wish.

Rate of closure of two vehicles traveling in opposite directions toward each other at 60 MPH is roughly 176 ft./second.

At 100 yards, if the gunman fires, and not allowing for the fraction of a second for the bullet to impact the target vehicle, the target has less than two (1.7) seconds to realize they are under attack, identify the threat, and mount a defense.

By that time, the shooter's vehicle has passed.

Even at 30 MPH (both vehicles) with the time to identify and react expanded to 3.4 seconds, not many people would be able to:
1: realize they are under attack.
2: identify the source of the threat.
3: produce their weapon, target the threat, and fire. ---especially while driving.

 With windows up and radio on, few would even hear the shot, and likely would first realize something was wrong when their glass broke or a bullet impacted their vehicle. By then, the attacker's vehicle has passed.
 
Deploying a rifle would take even longer.

Stopping and getting out to fire (at 60 MPH) would take close to 5 seconds, if you are fast, by which time the shooter is motoring along at 88 feet per second, so add your stopping distance (~130 ft. to stop), plus the 440 ft. the shooter has traveled since they passed you and you have to pull a 200 yard+ snap shot on a target moving away. Even with a rifle, that can be a difficult shot.

This isn't Iraq, people here aren't on full alert, especially just driving down the highway. For all practical purposes, they will not be able to mount an armed response to the shooter under the circumstances described.

If you halve the speed (to 30 MPH), you cut reaction and stopping distance and increase time of closure, which makes it slightly more possible, but a handgun shot at a vehicle is tough enough, and if your window is up, you have to shoot through the glass or lose the opportunity to shoot at all. From 100 yards, you have 3.4 seconds to recognize you are under attack, identify the threat, produce your weapon and fire, only enhanced time wise by hitting the brake and keeping yourself in the line of fire as well. After that, the shooter is past you (and you are technically on the offensive). If they are still shooting, you should be legally covered by clauses in most lethal force laws allowing for intervention on behalf of third parties, but you have a diminishing target, and a short sight radius. If you are good you can expect to get off 3-7 shots with a semiauto handgun, at the shooter's back. That assumes the shooter is alone, with no one in the back seat (kid in a car carrier, etc.).


Stopping distance information taken from https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf

Please note the braking times given are not including reaction time.

About the only defense you can mount is to hit the shooter head on, and hope your air bags save you.

[verga]

Okay, let me explain why I said what I said, and you are free to disagree if you wish.

Rate of closure of two vehicles traveling in opposite directions toward each other at 60 MPH is roughly 176 ft./second.

At 100 yards, if the gunman fires, and not allowing for the fraction of a second for the bullet to impact the target vehicle, the target has less than two (1.7) seconds to realize they are under attack, identify the threat, and mount a defense.

By that time, the shooter's vehicle has passed.

Even at 30 MPH (both vehicles) with the time to identify and react expanded to 3.4 seconds, not many people would be able to:
1: realize they are under attack.
2: identify the source of the threat.
3: produce their weapon, target the threat, and fire. ---especially while driving.

 With windows up and radio on, few would even hear the shot, and likely would first realize something was wrong when their glass broke or a bullet impacted their vehicle. By then, the attacker's vehicle has passed.
 
Deploying a rifle would take even longer.

Stopping and getting out to fire (at 60 MPH) would take close to 5 seconds, if you are fast, by which time the shooter is motoring along at 88 feet per second, so add your stopping distance (~130 ft. to stop), plus the 440 ft. the shooter has traveled since they passed you and you have to pull a 200 yard+ snap shot on a target moving away. Even with a rifle, that can be a difficult shot.

This isn't Iraq, people here aren't on full alert, especially just driving down the highway. For all practical purposes, they will not be able to mount an armed response to the shooter under the circumstances described.

If you halve the speed (to 30 MPH), you cut reaction and stopping distance and increase time of closure, which makes it slightly more possible, but a handgun shot at a vehicle is tough enough, and if your window is up, you have to shoot through the glass or lose the opportunity to shoot at all. From 100 yards, you have 3.4 seconds to recognize you are under attack, identify the threat, produce your weapon and fire, only enhanced time wise by hitting the brake and keeping yourself in the line of fire as well. After that, the shooter is past you (and you are technically on the offensive). If they are still shooting, you should be legally covered by clauses in most lethal force laws allowing for intervention on behalf of third parties, but you have a diminishing target, and a short sight radius. If you are good you can expect to get off 3-7 shots with a semiauto handgun, at the shooter's back. That assumes the shooter is alone, with no one in the back seat (kid in a car carrier, etc.).


Stopping distance information taken from https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf

Please note the braking times given are not including reaction time.

About the only defense you can mount is to hit the shooter head on, and hope your air bags save you.

Thank you for this. I checked your math and you are spot on. The only way you would "have a chance" is if you are out side of a vehicle and have a warning that the situation is unfolding. Even then your best bet is to make sure you are under cover, as opposed to merely concealed.  Unless you have had significant training and practice you ability to hit a target moving at 88 feet/sec is almost zero. You also have an increased risk of putting other bystanders in jeopardy from a stray bullet.   

[thackney]

Okay, let me explain why I said what I said, and you are free to disagree if you wish.

Rate of closure of two vehicles traveling in opposite directions toward each other at 60 MPH is roughly 176 ft./second.

At 100 yards, if the gunman fires, and not allowing for the fraction of a second for the bullet to impact the target vehicle, the target has less than two (1.7) seconds to realize they are under attack, identify the threat, and mount a defense.

By that time, the shooter's vehicle has passed.

Even at 30 MPH (both vehicles) with the time to identify and react expanded to 3.4 seconds, not many people would be able to:
1: realize they are under attack.
2: identify the source of the threat.
3: produce their weapon, target the threat, and fire. ---especially while driving.

 With windows up and radio on, few would even hear the shot, and likely would first realize something was wrong when their glass broke or a bullet impacted their vehicle. By then, the attacker's vehicle has passed.
 
Deploying a rifle would take even longer.

Stopping and getting out to fire (at 60 MPH) would take close to 5 seconds, if you are fast, by which time the shooter is motoring along at 88 feet per second, so add your stopping distance (~130 ft. to stop), plus the 440 ft. the shooter has traveled since they passed you and you have to pull a 200 yard+ snap shot on a target moving away. Even with a rifle, that can be a difficult shot.

This isn't Iraq, people here aren't on full alert, especially just driving down the highway. For all practical purposes, they will not be able to mount an armed response to the shooter under the circumstances described.

If you halve the speed (to 30 MPH), you cut reaction and stopping distance and increase time of closure, which makes it slightly more possible, but a handgun shot at a vehicle is tough enough, and if your window is up, you have to shoot through the glass or lose the opportunity to shoot at all. From 100 yards, you have 3.4 seconds to recognize you are under attack, identify the threat, produce your weapon and fire, only enhanced time wise by hitting the brake and keeping yourself in the line of fire as well. After that, the shooter is past you (and you are technically on the offensive). If they are still shooting, you should be legally covered by clauses in most lethal force laws allowing for intervention on behalf of third parties, but you have a diminishing target, and a short sight radius. If you are good you can expect to get off 3-7 shots with a semiauto handgun, at the shooter's back. That assumes the shooter is alone, with no one in the back seat (kid in a car carrier, etc.).


Stopping distance information taken from https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/vehicle_stopping_distance_and_time_upenn.pdf

Please note the braking times given are not including reaction time.

About the only defense you can mount is to hit the shooter head on, and hope your air bags save you.

None of that equates to an area where guns are not allowed.

[Smokin Joe]

None of that equates to an area where guns are not allowed.

We apparently aren't talking about the same thing.

The Midland/Odessa shooter was shooting at people on the highway. Even if you had a pistol sitting on the dash, locked and loaded, with your window down (in West Texas in August? No A/C?), someone shooting at you from a vehicle coming in the opposite direction, toward yours, would have a clear advantage over you, and the probability of your identifying the attack, the specific threat, and being able to return fire would be virtually nil. That was my point, and I did a little math to back that up.

It doesn't address the legality of being in possession of a firearm.
It addresses the time window involved, and the raw ability of most people who, assuming they are armed, even in possible violation of any laws, to mount a defense.

[thackney]

We apparently aren't talking about the same thing.

My comments were in response to:

Mass shooters pick gun free zones because they know no one there will have a gun to shoot back at them...El Paso and Odessa were that way as the most recent examples.

[Smokin Joe]

My comments were in response to:

While my experiences in Texas are limited, when I was in the Midland-Odessa area, no one seemed concerned about having a firearm on the highways. Yes, the shooter was boxed by a theater where there is a no guns policy, but I doubt that was more than a coincidence.
We all have to make the decision, (no 30-06 laws here, just a few areas where weapons are prohibited), a to whether we honor the requests of businesses and such and go in unarmed, don't go in at all, or we take the step to possibly offend someone and get kicked out for being able to defend ourselves. I always have something, even if not a gun, on my person. If caught, I can plead that it is there so much that I didn't realize I had failed to leave it outside.