Quote:
|
Really? Are you sure that is a completely honest or finished thought, or simply an emotional idea that wants the world to be a certain way that feels good or allows a specific world perception to be true? Think of the shootings that have turned into mass murders in the last few decades. Where have they occurred? Schools, churches, daycares, office buildings and malls that deny the carry of personal firearms, but no one goes into a police station, gun range, military base, guard armory, or any other facility where it is known and accepted that there are people there with loaded weapons who are willing to use it.
|
Deterrent?
1. Churches - Colorado church recently
2. Malls - Tacoma Mall
3. Police Station - Tyler, TX courthouse
4. Military base - there has been a marine (IIRC) who went on a rampage at a base.
5. DC sniper - in Virginia, there is CCW and open carry
6. There are several gun related suicides at gun ranges. Rampages - not yet.
7. UT Austin, TX tower - started a rifle fight in a venue awash in rifles as we saw.
8. Columbine - there was the known presence of an armed officer.
These kind of overblown arguments are sometimes due to zealotry but zealotry does not always aid in argument.
The deterrence argument is hard to demonstrate in the case of what is known as 'suicide with hostile intent'. The shooter wants to die. They have an issue, either specific or symbolic, with a locale. Their attack and their death is to make a statement. They want to punish and die as a 'warrior'. They expect to kill many quickly and then die reasonable quickly in the action. If they wanted to just kill, you would get folks like the DC sniper. Note, they were not deterred by Virginia CCW or open carry.
The reason for carry is that you have a better chance of stopping an attacker. A targeted attack by some who wants to die but kill first isn't going to be deterred that much by the small chance of having someone armed.
Only 1 to 4% of the population get permits/licenses. Some estimate only 80% carry even with a license. They want a 'car' gun - whatever use that is.
The argument needs to shift away from deterrence as the first point to being able to engage the shooter quickly as the strongest argument. BTW, that means if you claim this second argument - you need to train a touch and not just posture. Sorry to be seemingly nasty here but I see too much of that from some on the INTERNETS!
In some of the instances, I mentioned above and others, armed personnel aided in quickly stopping the shooting. However, at Tacoma and Tyler, the civilian didn't do well. At the Colorado church and Applachian law school - the folks were trained LEO or ex-LEO.