The April 3rd multiple victim public shooting in New York was an insurmountable act of pure evil. Sadly, public shootings like this are nothing new and when another one happens we aren't really surprised. Activists try to use these tragedies as examples of why we need more gun control or why we need more citizens carrying concealed weapons. Public shootings are for the most part random events, we don't know when they will happen, but we can most definitely narrow down where they do and do not happen.
Let's take one hypothetical situation, tweak the parameters a few times and see what effect the different parameters have on the outcome of an event like a public shooting.
Constant conditions:
- 1 large room with 1 door and no windows
- There are 20 people in the room
- A man enters the room armed with two semi-automatic pistols and extra loaded magazines with the intent of murdering everyone in the room (public shooters are overwhelmingly male so that was intentional)
- The gunman has the element of surprise and has a pretty good idea about who will be occupying the room
Situation #1: All 20 people in the room are members of law enforcement armed with Glock 21 .45 semi-automatic pistols.
Result #1: The gunman enters the room and begins firing immediately. By the time officers identify the gunman as a threat and neutralize the threat, several of them have been struck.
Situation #2: All 20 occupants of the room are normal citizens. 2 of the occupants have concealed weapon permits and are carrying semi-automatic pistols concealed on their person.
Result #2: The gunman enters the room knowing that someone could potentially have a concealed weapon. He cautiously opens fire as he does not know who might be armed. Both armed occupants draw their weapons and neutralize the threat. Several occupants were struck including one of the armed occupants.
Situation #3: All 20 of the occupants are normal citizens. State law either prohibits all weapons in the building and the surrounding area or concealed carry is explicitly illegal everywhere. The gunman, who has premeditated the murder of everyone in the room, breaks this law when he pulls into the parking lot with the firearms.
Result #3: The gunman enters the room and begins methodically murdering the occupants of the room. The gunman is confident that he will not encounter armed resistance. Several occupants attempt to rush the gunman, but are killed before disarming him. After killing the resistive occupants, the gunman orders his hostages against the wall. He moves to each one and shoots them in the head. After making sure everyone in the room is dead, he turns the gun on himself.
- Which situation sounds the most familiar?
- Which situation is the most tragic?
- Are gun free zones like a university safer than areas saturated with legally carried firearms like a police department?
- Does concealed carry by law abiding citizens increase or decrease a murderer's effectiveness in carrying out a multiple victim public shooting?
- Would someone intent on murdering innocent people go where he will meet zero armed resistance or where he might encounter armed resistance?
Common sense questions that have common sense answers.
I still dunno if concealed guns is good.
I would 100% back that it would help in a case of crime shooting in a school.
But putting more guns out there doesn’t sound all too good.
But there is definitely no statistics for or against it. And that show that you posted was terrible. A terrible fake scenario.
You gotta attempt to explain why concealed carry and more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens isn’t good.
Check out the the item I shared a little earlier from John Lott. There’s actually quite a bit of research and data to back up the points made in this editorial from 3 Texas economics professors:
“• The best available empirical evidence shows that concealed-carry laws reduce the incidence of mass public shootings.
• Mass public shootings occur almost exclusively in places – like universities – where concealed carry is proscribed.
• There are numerous examples of firearms owners acting to disarm would-be mass murderers, thereby saving lives.
• Concealed-handgun-permit holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding individuals.”
The research is available in John Lott’s books if you’d like to borrow them.
And I’d also like to mention the sheriff’s are about to launch tear gas into one of the condos close to ours to flush a guy out. They’ve been talking over the loudspeaker for a couple hours telling him to come out with hands up.
And my post isn’t meant to come across as saying “everyone should be armed”, but rather bring up the idea that public shootings follow a very distinct pattern in where they happen. That pattern is directly affected by federal, state and local laws.
Oh I know.
I was just wondering out loud.
Haha, I own John Lott’s book. I think I have a ton of that stuff highlighted in his book.
What do you mean by putting more guns out there kevin?
Honestly, gun restrictions are only hurting the law abiding citizens who follow them. The percentage of whackos who legally procure their firearm is totally eclipsed by the percentage who obtain their firearms illegally. That being said, I would assume they wouldn’t be using those fire arms to practice safe concealed carry.