Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Reality Eludes Them

"Since their goal is mayhem, and often suicide by cop they are as likely to choose armed citizens to attack as let the presence of other guns deter them. This means that tighter restrictions on firearms, not a more general arming of citizens, would probably reduce the incidence of mass shootings more effectively."

- R. Stanton Scott. - Talking about spree shooters

As usual anti-gunners like Mr. Scott make such statements within their own fantasy world rather than the real world. Mass shootings over the last few decades have predominantly taken place in "gun free zones." They're also still taking place in Europe despite the kind of gun control Paul Helmke would find orgasmic. Stan claims "they are as likely to choose armed citizens to attack" yet he offers no evidence to support such a claim. (surprise, surprise) Mr. Scott is, as Joe Huffman would put it, "incapable of determining truth from falsity.

Not only have such shootings generally occurred in "Gun Free Zones," but armed citizens have a good track record of stopping spree shooters.

One should also note that Stan's 2nd sentence has no logical connection to his 1st. If such shooters are "as likely" to choose armed vicitms as they are to choose unarmed ones, then tighter restrictions on firearms would have no impact on the frequency of such incidences. Furthermore, who such murderers choose to kill (armed or unarmed victims) has no bearing on the frequency of the incidences.

Rational thought has never been a strong suit of the anti-gun mind. I for one am happy that anti-gun bigots demonstrate this for us on a regular basis.

21 comments:

Weer'd Beard said...

Stan is also a definative narcissist and troll, and one that can't develop a readership of his own, nor make a post worth any merit, and unlike some idiots can't secure stationary with his name on it with Joyce or Brady letterhead.

Your blog, but he isn't worth feed from my hand.

Mike W. said...

Y'know, it is funny that he linked to me in several recent posts and I saw NO traffic from it.

I mean hell, if my meager little blog links to one of you guys you get at least a small bump in traffic.

MikeB and Stan can link to me in the same week and I'm lucky to see 2 or 3 hits coming from their posts, which is just sad on their part.

Stan's still in the category of "useful idiot" in my book. Jade, MikeB etc. have long since ceased being useful.

I have to say, the anti-gun blogs engage in some mighty fine circle jerking. I suppose when there's so few of them it's inevitable.

Bob S. said...

I just spent some time addressing Stan's post in my own inimitable fisking style -- going up tomorrow after a review later tonight.

If the shooter is 'as likely' to choose armed citizens, doesn't that mean that there is a higher chance of an armed citizen stopping him?

Basic math/logic seems to elude the antis.

No firearms -- no chance of being stopped by non-law enforcement.

Greater than non-firearms = greater chance of spree shooter being stopped.

So, is Stan for giving the shooters more chances to murder?

Mike W. said...

Basic math/logic seems to elude the antis.

Which is why it's accurate to say they have mental problems.

R. Stanton Scott said...

Ah, name calling in every comment, but only one substantial critique--that shooters who do their thing where they think others may be armed increase the chance that an armed citizen might stop them.

I suppose so, and did not claim otherwise. In fact, my argument is that this is so, because the shooter wants it that way. Until stopped, however he has a chance to do a lot of damage.

Restricting the availability of firearms, however, will keep some of these shooters from getting guns in the first place. Too bad you guys labor under a first order fallacy: that imperfect regulations are useless.

Have a nice night!

mike's spot said...

So if I follow the quote correctly, and Robert's corollary below, he is suggesting that the amount of murderers who will go for this suicide / suicide by cop / armed citizen is significantly lower than the number whom would be able to get guns with tighter regulation, suggesting that despite the ability of the shooters to be stopped, its still better to go with regulation as it prevents more incidents than guns would solve.

I just don't see where the additional regulation suddenly starts being effective. If we look at another tightly regulated object- like drugs (heroin and marijuana in this case as they are the only things I could find government data on)

we see that despite increased efforts to stop drugs over the past years, the volume of their availability is either growing slowly (but steadily) or rapidly (as is the case with marijuana)

Why will guns be different?

I just haven't seen the regulation work. Gun control has relaxed, and crime has decreased. I think the best the anti-gun crowd could hope for is no relationship between gun law and crimes, as any correlation found at this point would be very counter to their position.

mike's spot said...

* apologies for calling R Stanton Scott Robert, I misread his handle.

Bob S. said...

Stan,

Restricting the availability of firearms, however, will keep some of these shooters from getting guns in the first place

Exactly how is that going to work in real life?

Let's see we've prohibit illicit drugs and they are brought into the country by the ton.

We prohibit slavery and sex slavery ring arrests still make news.

We prohibit murder and ooops, all those people still die despite that prohibition.

So just how likely is restricting availability going to work?

others may be armed increase the chance that an armed citizen might stop them.

I suppose so, and did not claim otherwise.



From your own blog post
This means they would probably have failed to stop him, and succeeded only in getting themselves shot.

Sounds like you are saying that armed citizens wouldn't be able to stop a spree shooter.

Wow, talk about putting words in our mouths

Too bad you guys labor under a first order fallacy: that imperfect regulations are useless.

No we claim that regulations that fail to stop the criminal but handicap the law abiding are nearly useless and an unnecessary infringement on our rights.

Why should we put up with regulations that fail to do what they are designed to do?

Linoge said...

Too bad you guys labor under a first order fallacy: that imperfect regulations are useless.

So sayeth the man who can write this, "Until stopped, however he has a chance to do a lot of damage," while simultaneously placing such a low meaning on human life as to make it more difficult for the people at the scene of the spree shooting to effectively and lawfully defend themselves from their attacker.

That is, after all, what you are proposing, Stan - making it more difficult for average people to procure and bear firearms, thus reducing the number of people owning and carrying firearms, thus increasing the time period spree-shooters have to do their murderous activities unchallenged.

Who is it that has an "apparent lack of concern for real victims of gun violence" again?

Armed and determined citizens at the scene of a spree shooting have a documentable and verifiable history of reducing the duratoin of those shootings, if not stopping them outright. Why would you hamper such a proven and effective means of reducing those shootings' fatalities?

Oh, right, because you believe that what you are proposing would work, despite copious evidence to the contrary. But, then, that just dovetails nicely into the inability to differentiate fact from fiction - after all, all beliefs are equivalently valid, right?

R. Stanton Scott said...

At first glance a comparison between drug or sex trafficking prohibition and gun regulation seems to make sense, and lessons learned from enforcement of these policies might tell us something about the way we regulate things. But keep in mind that I am not proposing prohibition, and do not believe that gun ownership should be against the law in all cases. So the comparison may tell us less than you think. In any event, I certainly agree that no prohibition or regulatory regime will completely solve the problem it focuses on. But this does not mean we shouldn't try, and accept the good results we do get.

Weer'd correctly points out that to the extent regulations keep guns out of the hands of citizens, and these citizens if armed would deter or effectively stop spree shooters, tighter controls might actually make the problem worse. This means that the question is not which anti-spree-shooter policy is perfect, but which would affect the problem more. The question really is not "regulation or carry?" but "what combination of the two will work best?" That is, how can we construct tighter regulations (designed to keep guns out of the hands of potential spree shooters) and more effective carry laws (which put guns in the hands of the right people at the right times)?

Whether or not I make sense depends less on your stereotypes about "anti-gunners" than on just what new regulations I would propose. Since none of you bothered to ask what those might be, you seem more interested in name-calling and belittling others than having a serious discussion about solving a social problem.

Weer'd Beard said...

Is long-winded Trolling, more or less trolling? That IS the question.

Certainly there is no rational points being presented or debates taking place.

Mike W. said...

Weer'd - Given that Stan has failed to address any points raised in my original post I'm inclined to agree with you.

Considering what we've seen from Stan in the past this is entirely unsurprising.

I just don't see where the additional regulation suddenly starts being effective.

There's the rub Mike. Stan believes in the "Do it again only HARDER" philosophy. It doesn't matter that all facts prove his position ineffective, he and his ilk believe that if we just pass one MORE law gun control will suddenly "work"

Given that the laws Stan wants passed directly infringe upon the free exercise of my rights I have no issues calling Stan a bigot. After all, if he were supporting similar "reasonable restrictions" on other rights (say poll taxes, literacy tests & licensing to allow blacks to vote) we'd rightly call him a bigot.

Stan considers this "insulting." It is not. It is objective. Someone who consistently advocates infringement of my fundamental Constitutional rights IS a bigot.

Stan, Laci, The Brady's etc. belong where the KKK and other bigots have ended up through history. Relegated to the political third rail, shamed, and ostracized from free society.

Stan says,

Until stopped, however he has a chance to do a lot of damage.

He says this and yet he vehemently opposes both CCW and open carry, claiming that lawful carry by citizens is dangerous despite all evidence to the contrary. He brings no facts to bear, but he FEELS that carrying is bad and thus seeks to prohibit it.

Stan's positions, based on emotion and rhetoric and not on facts or objective reality, should not be considered to have any credibility whatsoever.

Weer'd - There's a fine line between "not feeding the trolls" and exposing the illogic, idiocy, and outright bigotry of anti-gunners. I fully intent to walk it so long as I find folks like Stan "useful."

I drive my tractor in pearls... said...

If the shooter is looking for mayhem as well as a quick death, I would assume that the shooter WOULD LOOK for armed citizens to shoot and then ultimately die at the hands of...

But that is not the case - shooters AVOID armed citizens.

If at the very least, they do not pay attention to armed/not armed, then the statistics would be more balanced - some armed locations, some not armed locations.

This is not the case, therefore, I conclude that the initial premise of shooters WANTING TO DIE is inaccurate or at the least, less important than causing mayhem. However, in the choosing of mostly UNARMED places to shoot, that they do want to kill the most possible.

Therefore, ARMED citizens DO DETER this kind of spree killing, especially among those that are ARMED.

So, I would conclude, if you dont want to carry a gun, at least hang around those that do for the safest possible you can be... :)

And Sir, refuted with no name calling....

Mike W. said...

You'll note that nowhere in my original post do I call Stan a "mean" name. He just can't take criticism nor rationally respond to it.

I do make a collective reference to "anti-gun bigots." That said, those who advocate for the infringement of fundamental constitutional rights are bigots. If the shoe fits.....

I drive my tractor in pearls... said...

Mike W - I do hope you know I wasnt talking about you "Sir"...

"Sir" was Mr. Anti-Gun....

Mike W. said...

Oh I know. I wasn't responding directly to your comment. Sorry if that was unclear & thanks for commenting.

R. Stanton Scott said...

Mr. Pearls, the fact that relatively few people carry firearms probably explains the rare encounters shooters have with armed citizens, not a deterrent effect.

Moreover, we know that many spree shooters continue their attacks until law enforcement arrives, which suggests that at least some of them wish to encounter an armed response.

Since some shooters evidently either want a gun fight or don't mind getting into one, armed citizens might become targets in the same way cops are now.

I drive my tractor in pearls... said...

Its Mrs. Pearls....

And yes, they shoot until STOPPED. How much quicker would their being stopped happen if citizens were armed?

Your assumption that they want to "shoot it out" with the police may be true, but its way down on the list of "Mass Spree Killer Priorities". If it were up there at the top, then more of these types of things would happen at police stations - and a quick internet search can put that thought to rest.

Amazingly enough, most of these things happen in SCHOOLS or BUSINESSES which prohibit the carrying of a firearm. The shock!

These killers are the ultimate bullies - they dont seek out those that can defend themselves, but they seek out the weak - plain and simple.

Mike W. said...

Mr. Pearls, the fact that relatively few people carry firearms probably explains the rare encounters shooters have with armed citizens, not a deterrent effect.

It seems Stan fails to grasp the obvious yet again. Such encounters aren't rare because very few people carry firearms. They're rare for two obvious reasons.

1. Spree shootings are quite rare

2. The majority of spree shootings happen in "Gun Free Zones" where folks who otherwise would be carrying have been disarmed. (See Suzanna Hupp as one famous example)

Of course Stan couldn't even figure out he was talking to a woman despite a picture right next to her name, so we really shouldn't expect much from him.

Linoge said...

Moreover, we know that many spree shooters continue their attacks until law enforcement arrives...

Many, but not all - some are dead, dying, or otherwise incapacitated before the police can even arrive. "If it saves one life" is a favorite argument of the anti-rights community - it is equally valid in this case.

Since some shooters evidently either want a gun fight or don't mind getting into one, armed citizens might become targets in the same way cops are now.

That would make sense if spree shooters were regularly hitting up police stations. They are not, for obvious reasons.

Likewise, not all armed citizens carry openly - how is the shooter to know who is armed, and who is not, and somehow target the former?

Of course Stan couldn't even figure out he was talking to a woman despite a picture right next to her name...

I was going to forgive him for somehow thinking "Linoge" and "Weer'd Beard" were the same word(s), but he is developing quite the pattern, is he not?

Mike W. said...

which would affect the problem more. The question really is not "regulation or carry?" but "what combination of the two will work best?"

This is crap. We already have PLENTY of laws regulating the purchasing, posession & carrying of guns, not to mention the use of them in crimes. And then of course there's the laws against assault, murder, rape, other violent crimes etc. etc.

There is absolutely NO objective basis by which you can claim that more restrictions will prevent violent crimes and/or mass murder.

A man willing to break 6 laws to commit an act of violence will not be stopped by law #7 or 8. For some reason folks like Stan simply cannot comprehend this simple truth.

I'd love to see Stan answer Joe Huffman's "Just One Question"

"Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"