Sufficient information has come to light to offer at least a bit more informed commentary on the Navy Yard shooting of 09-16-13. The media and various politicians have predictably renewed their calls for additional gun control. Several readers commenting on my initial article on this incident have likewise been predictable.
Regular reader and commenter SlingTrebuchet wrote in part:
What if all the military personnel on the base had been armed?
What if many of the civilians on the base had been armed?
The narrative here is that armed individuals on the ground would have lessened the casualty count. Is this actually true?
The situation appears to have been chaotic. At one stage there were reports of two other shooters.
One was said to be in ‘military-type’ clothing and carrying a handgun. This person was later apparently identified as ‘legitimate’. What is interesting about this ‘legitimate’ person is that witnesses were reporting him as a shooter. What if one of those witnesses just happened to be carrying and acted in the belief that they were dealing with a shooter? What if the ‘legitimate’ person decided in turn that the witness was a shooter?
These are not unreasonable questions. What would have happened if people were armed on the base? Precisely the same things that happen in the majority of states where the concealed carry rights of citizens are honored: people who, in this case, were unarmed victims, would have been able to protect their lives and the lives of others. The kinds of horrors gun control proponents have always predicted when concealed carry has been adopted have, in every state, failed to materialize. Those licensed to carry are more law-abiding than the general population, and more responsible and cautious. They make few mistakes.
If the base were not a victim disarmament zone, the attack would likely not have occurred. In the modern era, every mass attack has taken place in a “gun-free” zone where the shooter or shooters have been assured they would face no effective response for a considerable time. But if it had occurred, the death toll would likely, at the least, have been reduced, and the attack might have been stopped with no loss of life.
Consider this report from cnsnews.com:
I know a lot of people are concerned about guns these days, but you know if everybody had arms, then there wouldn’t be these problems.
My son was at Marine Barracks — at the Navy Yard yesterday – and they had weapons with them, but they didn’t have ammunition. And they said, ‘We were trained, and if we had the ammunition, we could’ve cleared that building.’ Only three people had been shot at that time, and they could’ve stopped the rest of it.’
The Navy Yard shooting brings up the legitimate issue of carrying – and using – firearms on military installations.
Back in 1993, the Clinton administration virtually declared military establishments “gun-free zones.” As a result, the policy banned “military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that ‘a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region” before military personnel ‘may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.” Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan,” according to economist John Lott.
Additionally, Lott discovered that “every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
Aaron Alexis
credit: newsone.com
The statements of victims that have thus far come to light indicated that they had no doubt about what was happening or who was doing it. While they didn’t know the shooter–Aaron Alexis–they could see him shooting at them. Had they been armed, there would have been no cases of mistaken identity. They knew precisely who they should shoot and why. The possibility of a mistake is hardly reason to leave innocents at the mercy of murderous madmen. If it were, no one should ever again drive a car as mistakes at the wheel kill far more than those killed by gunshot each and every year.
Presidential Priorities:
Mr. Obama, on one of his frequent “pivots” to a policy area that has been his absolute number one focus all along, planned a speech on his economic successes for Monday. And unfailingly decisive leader that he is, he did not allow something like the actual, ongoing murder of federal employees to deter him. He made scant mention of the dead, and immediately launched into a scathing and lengthy attack on Republicans that oppose his agenda, you know, the real enemies of America, unlike Islamic jihadists, dictators, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. Even the press took notice:
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was later peppered with questions on the tone of the president’s remarks. While Obama opened his address by calling the victims of the mass shooting ‘patriots’ and vowing to get to the bottom of what happened, he quickly pivoted to his remarks about congressional Republicans.
Carney defended the president’s remarks, saying that with Washington facing some looming deadlines, ‘Congress needs to act.’
He said Obama was addressing ‘the need to make sure that we, as a nation, do not make mistakes … and reverse the progress that we’ve achieved.’
He said it was ‘entirely appropriate’ for Obama to address the shooting at the beginning of the remarks. Asked if there was any consideration given to canceling the remarks given the shooting situation, Carney said there was not.
Well, of course! How could President Obama wait even a minute, nay a second, to tout his successes in keeping unemployment at record high levels for years, at depressing the labor participation rate to record lows, at dramatically lowering the household wealth of the middle class, of keeping gas prices about twice as expensive as when he entered office, at increasing the national debt by previously unimaginable levels, of putting record numbers of Americans on food stamps, and of raising the medical insurance rates of Americans dramatically via Obamacare?
Mr. Carney is right. It is entirely appropriate that Mr. Obama wait not another second for any reason to viciously slander and attack the very Republicans he pretended to respect and honor when he temporarily thought he needed them to approve a Syrian military adventure until Vladimir Putin changed his mind. How could any competent commander in chief wait even a millisecond to do that regardless of the reason?
Charles Krauthammer, however, dared to suggest that perhaps Mr. Obama could have waited a day–until the shooting was over and the dead and wounded had been identified and properly honored–before launching his partisan attack:
The president in that speech was back to hyper-partisan mode. Slashing attack on Republicans, at one point, he’s speaking of the Republicans, he said, and some of them are decent, which is quite a remarkable thing for a president to say if you expect cooperation.
And to do this within minutes of 13 naval employees, brave Americans lying dead, I thought was in extremely bad taste. He could have waited until tomorrow. It isn’t as if this is a holy anniversary. He could have spoken later in the week which is the week that marks the fifth year of the [economic] crisis.
The Status Quo:
Fox News reported the bare bones of what is currently known. The shooter, 34 year-old Aaron Alexis, a military contractor, killed thirteen people, aged 46 to 73, and at least eight were wounded, three by gunfire. People that know Alexis were hastily interviewed and the results were predictable: surprise, amazement, “he was always very polite to me,” and similar comments. A motive for the killing remains unknown. At this writing, it appears Alexis acted alone.
AR-15 Variant
Also unsurprising was the reaction of the media and politicians when it was somehow reported that Alexis used an AR-15. The Washington Post, saying Alexis used “an AR-15 assault rifle, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol,” immediately editorialized for gun control. The conclusion of the editorial:
Life does go on, through Columbine in 1999, through Virginia Tech in 2007, through Sandy Hook in 2012. Each atrocity provides a jolt to the nation and then recedes with little effect, until the next unimaginable event occurs, except each time a little more imaginable. Everything was supposed to change after a man with a semiautomatic weapon mowed down 20 elementary school children in their classrooms last December. But for the politicians, nothing changed. Now, another massacre, another roster of funerals. Again, again, again.
Mass killings are horrific and terribly frustrating, but notice the Wapo’s blind reliance on politicians to change everything. Notice too that such change is always to be accomplished by disarming the responsible, law-abiding and sane.
The New York Daily news, via talkingpointsmemo.com, was equally reactive, not bothering to wait for facts. Columnist Mike Lupica called the AR-15, the most popular sporting rifle in America, “made for murder.”
CNN also invented an entirely new weapon, an “AR-15 shotgun,” which exists only in the under-informed brains of media talking heads. CNN also noted this:
The sources, who have detailed knowledge of the investigation, cautioned that initial information that an AR-15 was used in the shootings may have been incorrect. It is believed that Alexis had rented an AR-15, but returned it before Monday morning’s shootings. Authorities are still investigating precisely how many weapons Alexis had access to and when.
No firearm dealer “rents” AR-15 rifles, or any other firearm. Dealers with indoor ranges often allow customers to fire various weapons on the range for short periods of time and under supervision, but the weapons never leave the premises. Federal law requires that complete federal paperwork and background checks be done for any firearm leaving the premises, counting all as sold. There is no such thing as renting a firearm to anyone and allowing them to leave the premises with it. The potential liability alone would be almost unimaginable.
This is the kind of misinformation those what would disarm Americans bring to public debate and the legislative table.
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air also notes that Pamela Brown of CNN has also reported:
No AR-15 “assault rifles,” no “AR-15 shotguns,” no AR-15s at all. Oooops.
The Real Cause?
The Associated Press–and many other new outlets–have hit on what is likely the real cause of this attack:
U.S. law enforcement officials are telling The Associated Press that the Navy contractor identified as the gunman in the mass shootings at the Washington Navy Yard had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder. He also had been hearing voices in his head, the officials said.
Aaron Alexis, 34, had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems, the officials said… The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance that Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.
Family members told investigators that Alexis was being treated for his mental issues.
Fox News is also following this angle:
A Newport, Rhode Island police sergeant reported Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis to naval station police last month after the suspect told cops he was ‘hearing voices’ through his hotel room wall and that three people were following him and sending vibrations into his body, according to a police report obtained by FoxNews.com.
In the document, the officer said that on August 7, he was sent to a local hotel to check out a suspicious person report involving Alexis, who told him he was a naval contractor and travelled often.
The report said Alexis told the officer that while flying from Virginia to Rhode Island, he got into an argument with someone else at the airport who he believed had sent three people to follow him and keep him awake by talking to him and sending vibrations into his body.
He also said he thought he heard these three people – two black males and a black female–talking to him through a wall of his hotel room and through the walls, floors and ceiling of a hotel on the Navy base.
Alexis told the officer the trio was using ‘some sort of microwave machine’ to keep him awake.
The Newport Police did notify the Naval authorities, but it’s not known, what, if anything, the Navy did about that information. Fox continued:
There was no immediate response from the Navy about this latest revelation involving Alexis’ disturbing history of psychological problems and violent behavior involving guns.
Despite his past record, Alexis had his federal security clearance renewed just two months before his rampage Monday at the Navy Yard that left 12 dead before he died in a shootout with police.
Although Alexis was not a direct employee of the federal government, working as an IT subcontractor required that he obtain ‘secret’ clearance, according to Thomas Hoshko, of The Experts, a Hewlett Packard subcontractor working at the Washington Navy Yard. Alexis had previously worked for the company under clearance, but when he returned in July, another background check was conducted, Hoshko said.
‘We had just recently re-hired him,’ Hoshko told Reuters. ‘Another background investigation was re-run and cleared through the defense security service in July 2013.
The Fox report lists several instances of violent behavior, including discharging guns, involving Alexis from 2004 to 2010:
In Fort Worth in 2010, Alexis was involved in another shooting incident, this time at his home, where he, according to police reports, he shot through the ceiling and into his upstairs neighbor’s apartment, ‘terrifying her.’
According to a Nov. 4, 2010 police report, a neighbor of Alexis said she was sitting in a chair and heard a loud pop, saw dust and then holes in both her ceiling and floor. She said her downstairs neighbor Alexis had called cops on her several times for being loud but police always said they didn’t hear anything and no further action was taken.
Final Thoughts:
As usual, many in the media have reported their favorite, anti-gun/anti-liberty narrative without bothering with such niggling matters as facts. As usual, many politicians have done the same, calling for gun control measures that almost certainly would not in any way have stopped Alexis, or anyone else, from killing. And as usual, the federal government has, once again, shown itself to be decidedly unserious about matters of safety and the prevention of deadly attacks, whether by insane domestic killers, or jihad-inspired terrorists.
It is, let’s keep in mind, still early in this investigation. While the FBI has told CNN no AR-15 was used, it’s possible that is not accurate. We still don’t know a great many things with any degree of certainty, though it seems reasonable to believe that Alexis was quite mentally ill, the Veteran’s Administration, and other organs of the federal government knew about it, and not only did nothing about it, they renewed his security clearance.
Common Remington 870 pump action shotgun
We don’t know how he managed to smuggle a shotgun onto the installation, but it may have been nothing more complex that putting it in the trunk of his car and driving though the gate after a cursory inspection of his identification. A Remington 870 can be disassembled into a relatively compact package less than two feet long. The weapon isn’t designed for that, but does break down–for cleaning–into smaller pieces that can be hidden in a backpack or clothing and reassembled within a few minutes.
In fact, there is a pre-existing internal audit that is, considering the events of 09-16, very disturbing, if not unexpected:
A soon-to-be-released government audit says the Navy, in an attempt to reduce costs, let down its guard to risks posed by outside contractors at the Washington Navy Yard and other facilities, a federal official with access to the report tells TIME.
The Navy ‘did not effectively mitigate access-control risks associated with contractor-installation access’ at Navy Yard and other Navy installations, the report by the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office says. Parts of the audit were read to TIME by a federal official with access to the document.
The risks resulted from an attempt by Navy officials ‘to reduce access-control costs,’ the report finds.
We do not know if this is a substantial contributing factor, but it certainly wouldn’t be cited as a factor helpful to security.
It may well be the case that these killings were done with a common shotgun, a weapon the Vice President has lauded as the be-all and end-all in personal defense. To date, virtually no anti-gun politician has suggested banning shotguns, preferring instead to focus on any weapon that looks remotely like a machine gun–hence the AR-15–hoping to trick the public into thinking they are actual machine guns rather than common semi-automatic rifles, a type of firearm mechanism more than a century old. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see how Mr. Biden “pivots” in his firearms advice.
At the moment, it seems likely that the proximate cause of this attack was the insanity of a single man, just as it was at Sandy Creek Elementary School. And it is also likely that insanity was known to a wide variety of authorities, yet nothing remotely effective was done to deal with Alexis. Who to blame for that?
The left bears substantial blame, as my 20122 PJ Media article notes, but surely not all of the blame. We must be able to detain and treat the genuinely insane and dangerous, but above all, we must be able to preserve individual liberty. Our recent experiences with the NSA, IRS, Fast and Furious (the Department of Justice) Benghazi, and the Obama Administration in general reveal that government cannot be trusted with the liberty and lives of its citizens, and one shudders to think how they would misuse involuntary commitment laws. After all, if one opposes government policy, are they not, by definition, crazy? Who in their right mind could possibly think that Obamacare, for example, is anything but the greatest blessing ever bestowed on a grateful nation? And as various Administration functionaries have claimed, conservative thought, such as honoring the Constitution and opposing big government, is inherently dangerous, insane and terroristic.
As always in such cases, firearms are not the cause but merely tools used for ill in these attacks. Ultimately, there may be a simple means to test sanity and connection with reality:
You are at work and suddenly hear gunshots. Looking into the hallway, you see a man armed with a handgun walking down the hallway, firing into open doors. He looks very determined, and positively unhinged. He will be at your doorway within 20 seconds. At that moment, would you prefer:
(1) That you and every other adult in your building be unarmed and helpless, left with no options but running, hiding or attacking the gunman with your bare hands?
(2) That you and others be armed and able to stop the attacker?
Begin sanity check–now.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
“As usual, many in the media have reported their favorite, anti-gun/anti-liberty narrative without bothering with such niggling matters as facts.”
Here are a few facts –
The rate of people killed by guns in the US is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world. In the last 30 years since 1982, America has mourned at least 61 mass murders. Below is a timeline of mass shootings in the US since the Columbine High massacre:
On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members in a mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the village of Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.Before driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother Nancy at their Newtown home. As first responders arrived, he committed suicide by shooting himself in the head.
December 11, 2012. Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. .
September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.
August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.
July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.
May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.
April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.
April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA.
February 27, 2012. Three students were killed by Thomas “TJ” Lane, another student, in a rampage at Chardon High School in Chardon, OH. Three others were injured.
October 14, 2011. Eight people died in a shooting at Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CA. The gunman, 41-year-old Scott Evans Dekraai, killed six women and two men dead.
September 6, 2011. Eduardo Sencion, 32, entered an IHOP restaurant in Carson City, NV and shot 12 people. Five died, including three National Guard members.
January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot.
August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.
November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.
April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.
March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife.
February 14, 2008. Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University, killing 6 and wounding 21. The gunman shot and killed himself before police arrived.
February 7, 2008. Six people died and two were injured in a shooting spree at the City Hall in Kirkwood, Missouri. The gunman, Charles Lee Thornton, opened fire during a public meeting.
December 5, 2007. A 19-year-old boy, Robert Hawkins, shot up a department store in the Westroads Mall in Omaha, NE. Hawkins killed 9 people and wounded 4 before killing himself. The semi-automatic rifle he used was stolen from his stepfather’s house.
April 16, 2007. Virginia Tech became the site of the deadliest school shooting in US history when a student, Seung-Hui Choi, gunned down 56 people. Thirty-two people died in the massacre.
February 12, 2007. In Salt Lake City’s Trolley Square Mall, 5 people were shot to death and 4 others were wounded by 18-year-old gunman Sulejman Talović. One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy.
October 2, 2006. An Amish schoolhouse in Lancaster, PA was gunned down by 32-year-old Charles Carl Roberts, Roberts separated the boys from the girls, binding and shooting the girls. 5 young girls died, while 6 were injured. Roberts committed suicide afterward.
March 25, 2006. Seven died and 2 were injured by 28-year-old Kyle Aaron Huff in a shooting spree through Capitol Hill in Seattle, WA.
March 21, 2005. Teenager Jeffrey Weise killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend before opening fire on Red Lake Senior High School, killing 9 people on campus and injuring 5. Weise killed himself.
March 12, 2005. A Living Church of God meeting was gunned down by 44-year-old church member Terry Michael Ratzmann at a Sheraton hotel in Brookfield, WI. Ratzmann was thought to have had religious motivations, and killed himself after executing the pastor, the pastor’s 16-year-old son, and 7 others. Four were wounded.
July 8, 2003. Doug Williams, a Lockheed Martin employee, shot up his plant in Meridian, MS in a racially-motivated rampage. He shot 14 people, most of them African American, and killed 7 before killing himself.
December 26, 2000. Edgewater Technology employee Michael “Mucko” McDermott shot and killed seven of his coworkers at the office in Wakefield, MA..
September 15, 1999. Larry Gene Ashbrook opened fire on a Christian rock concert and teen prayer rally at Wedgewood Baptist Church in Fort Worth, TX. He killed 7 people and wounded 7 others, almost all teenagers.
July 29, 1999. Mark Orrin Barton, 44, murdered his wife and two children with a hammer before shooting up two Atlanta day trading firms. Barton, a day trader, was believed to be motivated by huge monetary losses. He killed 12 including his family and injured 13 before killing himself.
April 20, 1999. In the deadliest high school shooting in US history, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Kiebold shot up Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. They killed 13 people and wounded 21 others. They killed themselves after the massacre.
And you call this “liberty”.
Bizarre.
Dear 1735099a:
The lack of facts to which I refer are the facts relating to the Navy Yard incident. Attempting to distract from that by waving a list of criminal outrages is not convincing.
The fact that criminals and the insane commit crimes and behave in insane ways says nothing about the quality or fact of liberty. Free men have the unalienable right to protect their lives and the lives of others from criminals and the insane. Countries that recognize that right and do not interfere with free men obtaining the means to act upon it–keeping and bearing arms–practice liberty. You rail against human nature, not liberty or unalienable rights.
By the way, it’s customary to provide attribution when one provides a pre-prepared list of this sort. Would you be so kind as to do that? Thanks.
And your point? In every instance had the victims themselves been armed perhaps they would not have been victims. Your solution seems to suggest that we should ban firearms. Much like we have banned all sorts of illegal substances. Somehow criminals keep a steady supply in circulation. Do you actually think the same wouldn’t be the norm with guns and ammo?
The latest shooting took place in a part of the country with some of the strictest “gun control” laws. According to the anti gun idiots this latest shooting should have been impossible. I would bet there were all kinds of signs that said no guns allowed. The shooter must have either been illiterate or perhaps he was just a deranged criminal with zero regard for the laws. To bad for all the law abiding people who died. Some idiot politician decided their fate and put them in a situation where they were helpless to defend themselves. Basically they were just serfs and the king wasn’t around to protect them. He was however somewhere in front of his teleprompter surrounded by men with guns spewing more lies and telling us how he can’t accomplish anything because of the evil Republicans.
The deadliest massacre in Australia was carried out by a man with mental problems.
In every single case that can be listed the mental condition of the perpetrator is an issue.
However, just to balance out these claims about massacres and guns, what about the numbers killed in China by knife-wielding mad men? Should knives be banned?
Oh yes, and also in Australia there are more knife related deaths at the present time than gun related deaths, excluding those killed within bikie gangs.
“By the way, it’s customary to provide attribution when one provides a pre-prepared list of this sort”.
Except that it’s not a pre-prepared list. It’s a series of facts pulled together from a range of media reports..
If I had posted a series of facts extolling the virtues of gun ownership you wouldn’t be asking me for attribution.
“Your solution seems to suggest that we should ban firearms.”
Congratulations! Got it in one!
Mind you, you’d first have to destroy millions of firearms. We did it successfully in Australia in 1996, and there hasn’t been a mass shooting since.
But our political thought has evolved somewhat since December 15, 1791.
Amazes me that you look at becoming a slave, serf, peon, etc as a step up. You now are owned by your government masters. You gave up your liberty for a false sense of security. Sad thing is you believe it to be a good thing. I’m sorry but I would rather keep my liberty and take care of my own security. I have yet to find anything my government can do better for me that I couldn’t do myself.
To balance the facts here, about the GUN BUY-BACK in 1996, since then there has been a steady increase in the ownership of legal guns.
Did Australia really do it successfully? NO
Australia today has a major gun problem. It is not a problem associated with legal gun ownership. People apply for licenses and make sure that their guns are safe most of the time. There have been instances in recent times where robberies have taken place and a person who owns a lot of guns has had them stolen. The problem is associated with ILLEGAL gun ownership.
There has been a large increase in gun deaths here in NSW. The perpetrators are mostly of Middle Eastern origin. The majority are gang related and drug dealer related deaths. We recently went through a spate where there was a drive-by shooting almost every night… and then we had a 2 week break. However, the gun violence has started again.
Recently, a large cache of weapons was found hidden in an unoccupied house. These guns were illegal weapons.
On top of the drive-by shootings, there has also been an alarming increase in the number of armed robberies and home invasions.
Do not be fooled by some Left-wing lunatic who wants all of us to be banned from using guns making false claims about what is happening in Australia. What this person says is not true.
I have only mentioned the situation in NSW. This pattern is repeated in Victoria. On top of that there has been an increase in bikie related gun violence in the A.C.T.
The basic fact remains.
The fatality rate from gun deaths (corrected for population size) is much lower in this country than it is across the Pacific.
This is despite the best efforts of the Middle Eastern crime gangs and the bikies.
The more firearms held legally in a country, the more likely they are to be stolen and used by criminals.
Simple stuff – let me spell it out for you.
Take two comparable communities with equal populations. You can assume that each community has its share of solid citizens as well as out and out psychopaths.
Assume the first community has a gun prevalence rate say five times the second example. If every other factor is the same, the rate of gun fatalities in the first community will reflect the prevalence rate. It’s a simple correlation, and holds true if all other factors are controlled.
Now apply human intelligence to the issue, and discard the rhetoric about freedom (which is a total red herring) and the solution is obvious. Forget the name calling, the political posturing, and the references to a constitution written when the USA was a frontier society, and deal with the issue as a public health problem, because that’s exactly what it is.
Let’s throw out freedom because it’s a red herring? Wow! I guess I really shouldn’t expect someone living under government oppression to understand the meaning of freedom and liberty. Our 2nd amendment does not come from a bunch of backwoods hillbillies needing guns to survive. We had thrown off the chains of bondage and our founding fathers put it in our constitution for one reason and only one reason. To assure the people maintained a way to keep the government they created in check.
1791? You’re off by over two millenia.
Molon Labe
“Let’s throw out freedom because it’s a red herring?”
It’s an absolute red herring in this debate.
Freedom of fear is the most important freedom of all.
If you lack that, you lack any kind of Liberty.
As of 2013, the USA is racked by fear.
THE USA a free country?
In no way….
Dear 1735099a:
“Freedom of fear is the most important freedom of all”? Oh dear. There is no such thing as freedom from fear, and no government can secure it, not for individuals, not for a society. Fear is an abstraction, an emotion produced by stimulus in the individual human brain. What one man fears, another finds unremarkable. Does your government provide you absolute protection from assault of any kind? Can you hold that government accountable for failing to provide that protection? If not, there is no freedom from fear, is there?
Liberty is quite another thing. And if you do not have the right to self defense–and the most common and usual means to secure it–no other right–or freedom–matters, for your life is forfeit to the government or individual cruel enough to take it. Living in such a nation might reasonably be said to be the very definition of a state of fear.
“you look at becoming a slave, serf, peon, etc as a step up”
I am a free man, living in a free country. Unlike you, I don’t have to be screened every time I walk into a government office, an airport or a school.
The reason is that firearms are not rife in my community, and I am freer and safer as a result.
If I have to defend myself or my family I use my fists. Only cowards need firearms.
Bull dust again.
There are plenty of places where we have to be screened. The best example is Parliament House in Canberra. You cannot enter Parliament House without first going through screening. That has not changed in more than 10 years.
Also, going through an airport is a nightmare because of the screening. That has not changed at all. Inadvertantly carry scissors, you will lose them. No knitting needles, no cigarette lighters and look out if you set off the metal detectors.
At all airports you have to place items on the conveyor belt and you have to go through a metal detector.
The same applies if you are going on a cruise. You have to go through a metal detector before entering the ship.
Fists are not much of a defense. It is absolute b.s. to make the claim that one can defend a family with fists.
And another thing, here in Australia there are lots of deaths, and some ending up as paraplegics that are caused by a king hit situation.
It is total b.s. to claim that only cowards need firearms. It is just bravado.
I am not a gun owner, and never have been one, but there are most definitely times when I think that victims of crime would be better off if they had a gun to defend themselves, such as the woman who was slashed more than 30 times in her own home, or for that matter the latest of many murder victims slashed to death by a knife-wielding perpetrator.
You don’t get screened entering schools in this country.
That is not the case in many parts of the USA.
You don’t get screened when visiting a government agency in this country.
That is not the case in many parts of the USA.
If the solution to violence was carrying arms for protection, the USA would be the safest society on the planet. The US has more firearms per head of population than anywhere else in the free world.
A check of comparable statistics on gun deaths shows that rather than being safe, you are at least eight times more likely to die through misadventure with a firearm in the USA than in (for example) Australia.
There is very strong statistical correlation between gun ownership and gun fatalities, whether they be homicides, accidental deaths or suicides.
These are indisputable facts. Put them together, and the solution is obvious. Vested interest, ignorance and paranoia continue to get in the way.
If some politician has effectively disarmed you making to a slave to rely on government to provide your safety you are far from free. I carry daily. I have for over 35 years. Twice in that time a firearm protected me and did so without being discharged. Both time I would have been happy with pulling the trigger and removing some garbage from the planet but I really didn’t want to deal with the paperwork hassle. It was far simpler to let them back up and run. Let a professional take care of it later. My job requires me to be armed. What we manufacture could be a target for thieves. That said my wife who is a registered nurse in a hospital in the questionable part of town also is armed, as are my daughters. None of us have any fear because unlike you and your countrymen we are fully capable of our own security. That is true freedom.
You have admitted that in your own gun free society that criminals are well armed. How is that possible? What if those same criminals one day see you and your family and decide that they want something you have? What defense do you have to stop a well armed criminal? Besides maybe your telephone? Thanks to your politicians who are no doubt surrounded by men with guns you have zip. Are going to be feeling safe and free at that moment? I have my doubts. If I’m out with my family and the same thing happens the only thing my phone will be good for is calling the authorities to take the bodies away. We don’t just carry weapons we train with them at least 3 times a month as a family. I’m on a range pretty much every other day testing products before shipping and while there always practicing with my own weapons. Something you as a free man can never do if you so desired. Maybe you could but I’m guessing that only the elite few are allowed to own weapons in your country and the cost is above the. average mans ability to pay. I’m sorry but that is not how I would ever want to live my life. You people were suckered into believing some pie in the sky liberal BS and you bought it. Now you come into message boards like this trying to convince us that it’s a wonderful life. I’m not buying it.
You are harnessed to fear.
If I had to acquire firearms, learn to use them, and they were necessary to keep my family safe, I’d be looking for somewhere else to live.
Like most Australians, I don’t need to arm myself to be safe.
The only time I carried a firearm in my life was when I was in a war zone. If you believe that carring is necessary, it’s obvious you believe that your country has become exactly that – a war zone.
Living in such an environment is not freedom – it’s slavery – slavery to fear and paranoia.
You’re welcome to that enslavement – we don’t need it on this side of the Pacific.
By the way, to call John Howard, one of the most conservative Prime Ministers this country has seen, a “pie in the sky liberal” is a pretty fair indicator of your total ignorance of Australian politics.
John Howard is a conservative? I find it interesting that a conservative is the leader of the liberal party. From his bio…
“John Howard was a member of the House of Representatives from 1974 to 2007, representing the Division of Bennelong, New South Wales. He served as Treasurer in the Fraser government from 1977 to 1983. He was Leader of the Liberal Party and Coalition Opposition from 1985 to 1989, which included the 1987 federal election against Bob Hawke. He was re-elected as Leader of the Opposition in 1995.”
And as far as ” forced to carry weapons” um no. We choose to carry weapons. Its a personal safety issue. One we are free to make. Not one that is required. We choose to provide for our security and not be a slave to a government who says it will provide what we need when it decides we need it. Silly liberal.
“Liberal” in this country has a very different meaning from what it does in yours. Again, you’re demonstrating your ignorance of Australian culture.
” We choose to carry weapons”.
And this whole discussion is about how it is necessary to carry a weapon in your country to stay safe.
Doesn’t add up…….
What I know of your culture is a once proud and independent people have somehow allowed a vocal busy body minority to decide how you will live your life. Other than what you see in popular media and movies do you know of ours? Judging by what you have written here not much. Its not necessary to be armed and be safe in this country. However if I wish to be I can. A choice you can’t make. That choice has been made for you. I have to assume your the type of person who enjoys being told how to live, how to act, what to eat, what activities your allowed to enjoy. Hey whatever floats your boat. Most of the world is like that. You fit right in. Now imagine a world gone to hell. Natural disaster, monetary collapse, whatever. All of a sudden your orderly world is gone. Most cities have at most 3 days of food in the stores. Your government is overwhelmed. Mobs are running in the streets doing and taking what they want. You and your neighbors can fight them off with sharp sticks. Now remember a lot of these people will be gun packing criminals.
I guess your probably thinking well that can never happen. Then think about the people in japan, new Orleans, homestead Fl, NYC, and on and on. It can and does happen. The two times I mentioned using a firearm to stop an attack were in disaster areas. One in Homestead FL after hurricane Andrew the other in Ft. Lauderdale FL after hurricane Wilma. Both were attempted robberies.
The point I am trying to make is nobody has to carry a gun here if they don’t wish to. If they choose to however they can. That is called freedom of choice. Something you have in a free society. Something that somebody else decides for you in a country without true liberty.
Do us all a favor and stay where you are. We have more than enough liberty sucking busy bodies here already.
Reblogged this on A world at war and commented:
Comments made by Mike hold true in Australia.
The worst Australian massacre in Australia occurred at Port Arthur in Tasmania. This is the former prison for colonial convicts and today it is a tourist spot. It is not the kind of place one would expect to find people carrying guns.
There are other gun massacres such as the one known as the Hoddle Street massacre. Perhaps if the victims had carried a gun the outcome might have been different.
I think there are times when a case can be made for carrying weapons, and that is the reason that I remain pro-legal carrying of guns.
We continue to have gun deaths here in Australia. The majority happen to be in a sub-group of bikies and drug dealers, mostly of Middle Eastern origin. The guns themselves were mostly illegal.
Yeah, there hasn’t been a mass shooting by Jews since Hitler disarmed them too. I’m sure you’ll agree that was unmatched accomplishment for public safety?
Though the imposition of “effective gun control” in Rwanda does come pretty close. I’m sure you’ll agree that April, 1994 was a shining moment when your vision of the success of ensuring a goverment monopoly on violence was revealed in all it’s wonderful glory?
Reading some of these comments, I am amazed at easily some people lose their perspective. The US is a very large country with more than 300 million residents and in most of the country gun deaths are rare. Even in Chicago which has its problems with gang related violence and shootings if we were to remove a section of the city, gun deaths would be almost non-exsistent.
The most violent country according to UN stat of people victimized by crime (as a % of the total population). Data refer to people victimized by one or more of 11 crimes recorded in the survey: robbery, burglary, attempted burglary, car theft, car vandalism, bicycle theft, sexual assault, theft from car, theft of personal property, assault and threats. Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence, but using this criteria;
Australia is number 1, followed by New Zealand and then the UK. The US is number 15 on the list. London has ranked number 1 in this category for years. So if guns deaths are the only issue yes we have more of them, though we still not in the top 20 of that category, either.
What happened at the Naval Yard was another tragedy that would not have been prevented by taking guns form law abiding citizens. Your are a fool to believe that if we did not have the 2nd Amendment this country would not suffer from the problems and abuse by government that are frequent in other countries.
“if guns deaths are the only issue yes we have more of them”
Thanks for admitting the truth. It makes a refreshing change on this blog.
“Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence”,
That’s likely to be the reason for the 9% difference between the USA and Australia for the victimization figures. I’d argue that victimization is a pretty woolly concept to be used in a statistical analysis, and tuned to perception rather than reality.
Death is a more confronting reality, and a lot easier to measure.
The victimization statistics report trivialities such as somebody throwing eggs at your house, or graffiti on your fence. To equate these incidents with gun homicides is a misuse of statistics.
But let’s play your silly game – If the ownership of guns is such an effective prevention of crime, why is there only a 9% improvement in the USA over Australia?
Check this website – http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
It shows a few pertinent facts –
1. USA has the highest gun ownership rate worldwide
2. it has 2.97 gun homicide rate per 100000. Australia has .14. The US rate is 20 times ours. Remember – this is homicides only, Suicides or accidental deaths aren’t included.
I’m happy to debate you with statistics any day.
Stop getting hooked by 1735099a, he needs an audience. His idea of a combat zone is Nui Dat. To put things in perspective: from 1962-1972 there were 143 KIA for Australian National Servicemen. That is 14.3 deaths per annum. Australian’s kill that many on the roads every Easter long weekend. With those odds he was safer in Vietnam. He quoted the ‘Guardian’ website, it’s a far left rag, a thousand times worse than the NYT. That’s all you need to know about this wanker. Australia doesn’t have a Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta. Stop trying to convince this clown, it’s a dialogue of the deaf. I promised Mike no blasphemy otherwise…….
“Stop getting hooked…..”
It must be tough when someone has the temerity to disagree with you, Keith.
Especially when the blog hosts objects to your profane language.
I’ll warrant I spent a damn sight more time than you did in harm’s way, not that makes any difference to the argument I put about the clear and obvious correlation between firearm prevalence and firearm fatalities. I don’t know why you have such a hangup about my service.
And that old myth about casualties vs road deaths is nonsense.
There were, at any given time during our committment in Vietnam, only about 4000 diggers in front line service – the remainder were support personnel.
Your comparison simply doesn’t hold water.
Mike,
I agree with you that my questions were not unreasonable. Well, I would.
I will now repay your kind opinion with ingratitude – and raise concerns about your answer. ;)
My ‘not unreasonable questions’ were more complex than your answer acknowledged.
This is correct – but only in theory!
My questions were accompanied by reports of confusion during the incident, and misidentification of shooters. I also described two sample instances of cops shooting innocents due to misreading of a situation and due to inaccurate shooting.
Could it really be – that while experienced and trained cops can shoot someone who is not actually a threat or not holding a gun and can hit bystanders – that a civilian who just happens to be a licensed carrier would somehow not make such mistakes and also would not miss their target?
One would think that cops and perhaps SWAT teams more so would have standards of training and readiness that far surpassed those of a civilian. But …we see a continuing stream of incidents where the cops/SWATs prove to be a mortal danger to innocents.
Can we really expect that a civilian who is perhaps facing an active shooter situation for the first time in their lives will somehow magically become something more like the Terminator (awesomely clinical) rather than like an experienced cop ( of the dangerous variety: ‘an accident that has found a place to happen’)?
Yes, yes. You gentle reader or I would be super-cool and competent in any situation, but what about that idiot Bob down the street? Jeeeze! Hope we’re not in the neighborhood if he ever decides to start shooting at something.
.
That’s pure aspiration. It flies in the face of reason.
It would raise a “chicken-and-egg” debate – if it had any validity.
I would be fascinated to see a scientific study that comes to that conclusion.
As a global assertion. It is patently untrue. Consider the shooter in the case in question. He was licensed to carry.
Whether or not you include LE in “licensed to carry” it definitely fails.
.
I don’t believe that “gun-free” is actually a determining factor in a mass-killer’s choice. Is it not that their choice of location is generally associated with whatever grievance they might have?
Getting killed – even by their own hand – appears to be part of the expectation.
It’s difficult to attribute rationality to such people. They must surely be insane to do what they do. My guess – and it is a guess – is that they are driven to a location that means something to them. It’s symbolic. Survival does not appear to be a consideration.
Take this guy Alexis. If he wanted to open up on a crowd, there are many places where he could have done so. Does he not have ‘history’ with the Navy?
I suspect that the draw is the act itself in the particular location – and not simply a body count somewhere. It’s theatrical.
We can’t really put ourselves in the mind of a madman – but try this…( eh… without actually doing the shooting bit !! )
Go to a crowded public place.
Check out the locations, patterns and manner of cops or armed security.
Check out cover and fields of fire.
Start by killing strategic cops/security at close quarters and preferably from behind. You have the advantage of surprise over them. You really need to be sure of eliminating them to begin with.
Then start killing everyone else.
Use the cover and angles that you have already sorted out. Assume that returning fire will come early or late.
Maybe somebody there might have a concealed handgun. Maybe they might hit you. Maybe they might even hit you in the right place or enough times to have actual stopping power before you hit them. You got something way better than a puny concealed handgun right? Consider the incidents where cops miss their targets – even at close range. Why should J Random Licensed do any better?
Maybe more cops arrive and get you after spraying a few hundred rounds in your general direction. Maybe you get yourself.
Before the end comes, you are definitely going to kill a number of people. Given that you are going to be dead, the actual number of dead might be a tad academic. Over half a dozen is probably fineDouble figures might be a bonus. . Maybe you just wanted to hear them scream – like you scream inside your head. The main thing is that you went out while showing the b**tards whatever it was that you think you were showing them.
The problem for your victims will not be the ‘gun’ status of the location.
Their problem will be you – and your gun. How the hell did someone crazy like you get their hands on a gun?
Their problem might also be Bob from down the street firing off his licensed handgun in the general direction of people he thinks might be shooting. Or….their problem might also be the people who are shooting at Bob because they see him with a gun in his hand – shooting or not. It’s freak-out time people!
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
Actually, we can expect a civilian to do better. One of the primary reasons that police officers make mistakes in such situations is that they are obligated to respond, and they seldom, if ever, have any idea what is going on when they first arrive. They don’t know who is a bad guy and who is a good guy. And as I’ve often noted, police officers are not, generally speaking, great shots. A great many citizens are far more experienced and capable.
It is the citizen present at the initiation of a mass shooting incident who is far more likely to know precisely what is happening, and is far less likely to shoot the wrong person.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Mike,
I do see a certain amount of sense in what you say, but it’s a slim amount.
Just take the two examples of cops shooting that I mentioned in the previous thread.
In both cases, it was clear to the cops who the ‘bad guy’ ( who was actually an innocent guy) was. In both cases their assessment of the relatively simple situation was bad. In one case their shots hit the target. In the other case, their shots hit bystanders.
Take some of the SWAT raids mentioned in other threads here and elsewhere. In nearly all cases, they ‘know’ who and approximately where the bad guys are. Then they go bat-sh*t crazy.
Take any crowd situation and have some incident happen. You are going to get maybe as many different accounts as there are people who actually saw the start of it. Then add the people who only became aware of the general cause after a bunch of people are running about like headless chickens.
Take that cinema shooting a while back. What if four or five people had pulled guns in the middle of all the panic?
Take the Navy Yard incident. People appear to have identified as shooters people who were not *the* shooter. Most people in the complex just heard shooting. They had no idea who was shooting, how many were shooting, or if they might be confronted with a shooter whether they stayed still or tried to get out.
What if a licensed carrier – with gun drawn – were moving down a corridor and saw the three stooges coming at them?
Maybe it’s not the three stooges. Maybe it’s just three concerned citizens.
He/she sees three armed civilians. They see an armed civilian. Cops shoot people just for body language or for just being in a room when somebody thinks somebody is shooting. This one is definitely holding a gun – and it’s definitely pointed at them. If they were not already in firing positions, they are now. Plus somebody has been shooting. There are bodies around. Is everybody going to wait to have a chat or is somebody going to shoot before the person aiming at them fires? In theory, they would have a nice reasonable adult chat. In practice, many asses have been kissed goodbye.
.
What could it be about cops that would make them “not, generally speaking, great shots“. It’s not just a long trigger action? Some strange societal phenomenon that has bad shots gravitating to LE?
What percentage of gun-carriers have actually been in a shooting environment? They are ordinary people who just happen to have guns. It’s a low bar.
Could it be that when cops shoot, they are cr*pping themselves, but when licensed carriers shoot there is little to no danger of the targets shooting back at them?
Never underestimate the potential for apparently well-balanced sensible people to freak out when the sh*t hits the fan right beside them.
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
I’ve often written on this topic, but most of the police are not “gun guys” (or girls). In fact, even within the police culture, officers who are highly proficient with firearms are considered unusual. Most officers fire their primary weapon–their handgun–only when they undergo mandatory qualifications, which for most agencies is once a year. Providing fifty or so rounds of duty–as opposed to training–ammunition for every officer on a police force is a very expensive proposition. Qualifications tend not to be challenging, and passing scores, generous.
The primary point here is that putting on a police uniform does not impart magical shooting abilities beyond those attainable by non-police officers. Millions of citizens practice more often, using more realistic courses of fire, and attain higher skill levels than most police officers. Anyone claiming that the police have some real advantage here are, in most cases, misinformed, which is not surprising as the police don’t like the public to know this sort of thing. Yet they know they cannot protect the public and have no legal responsibility to do so.
In addition, when anyone shoots–police or citizen–if they are not shooting in response to an imminent threat of seriously bodily injury or death, they are committing a variety of felonies. The danger is as real for non-police officers as it is for police officers.
Yes, there is great stress in such situations, but most police officers will complete a career never having to discharge their weapons at another human being. When an officer gets into a shooting situation, he or she is often in the same, or worse, boat as a citizen.
Again, BT, DT, GTT-S.
Mike,
I completely agree with what you say about cops and marksmanship.
The gun just happens to go with the job. There is no particular reason why they should be shooting-team standard.
This does not necessarily mean that an average gun-holder will be a better shot than an average cop.
It is true that a gun-holder makes an explicit choice to carry. One might expect that the reason for the choice would drive them to become very familiar with the weapon and to practice.
“Practice makes Perfect” does not apply to shooting. I know people who are crap shots and will never make the shooting team no matter how they try – and that’s shooting at static inanimate targets.
Maybe numbers are available?
How many licensed gun owners take ongoing formal training/practice in excess of that given to cops?
How do their scores stand v the cops – right across the population, as opposed to the top x%?
In the two ‘cops-shooting’ incidents that I mentioned, they missed in one and hit in the other. Disregarding that they were shooting at a non-threat in both cases, that’s GoodShots: 1 , BadShots: 0
It’s a very small sample size, but it might illustrate that capability varies regardless of cop/civilian status.
.
That aside, there is far more to the question than marksmanship.
There is the question of the ability to assess a situation.
In the two incidents that I mentioned, the cops made incorrect assessments – and decided to shoot.
One might expect that cops would be more aware of situations in their day-to-day work. Their assessments might not regularly involve potential shooting incidents, but the nature of their work is that they generally find themselves dealing with parties that do not appreciate the attention. One might expect that they are accustomed to reading people to some level of skill.
A civilian gun-holder could go right through life without being faced with the tensions that cop faces day-to-day.
.
It might be that the hazards of being a cop drives them to making very self-protective assessments, and shooting at vaguely suggestive body language.
Maybe SWAT team members are so hyped up that we hear of so many incidents where they purge their magazines at innocents. Presumably they generally receive training for their work.
Should we expect that civilians in a stressful situation would perform any better?
.
When I look around me at the general population interacting and reacting to situations, the thought of them being armed during a mass-shooting scares the hell out of me :)
Just in that Navy Yard incident, people appear to have tagged as a shooter two individuals who were not the shooter.
I, of course, would be super-cool. Despite this, there would always be a danger that in a confusing traumatic situation I might misinterpret the actions of an armed individual who appeared to be aiming/firing in the general direction of people ( and particularly my general direction ).
Take the Three Stooges in the screen shot that I linked above. They don’t look like LE. If they behaved like a bad SWAT team, they would definitely be in danger of being fired on by super-cool me. Their appearance and actions would be indistinguishable those of from bad guys. Ditto for any armed civilians – particularly if they had “lost it”.
I would then appear to be “the shooter” to all around me.
The shooter in the Navy Yard apparently arrived with a shotgun and 24 cartridges.
He took a handgun from a downed security guard.
And yet, I have read descriptions of floors littered with hundreds of cartridge cases. That’s a LOT of misses. Yeah. I know. Win the firefight. Pin them down. But.. the shooter apparently dumped the shotgun after he took the hand-gun.
Would random individual civilians have exercised more restraint in the particular circumstances?
“Friendly fire” must be one of the weirdest phrases ever coined.
Well ok 1735099a, I’ll stop the cheap shots. Just google Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, Eve Carson, Autumn Pasquale, the list goes on and on. But if you do search you’ll find the answer to why decent law abiding Americans should own and carry firearms. Oz ain’t the US, don’t lecture them.
I was raised to believe that there are good and bad people in every race, and I stubbornly cling to that belief. I guess that makes me a bleeding heart liberal if you want to judge all black people by the actions of a few punks, and it makes me a racist if you follow the politically correct party line that all black people are saints and that all whites are Nazis. Re: the question of police and armed civilians, I’ve read that LEO’s are five times more likely than civilians to shoot an innocent person by mistake. In fairness, cops are probably a lot more likely than civilians to encounter violent situations where they don’t know who’s who (is that guy coming out of the store with a gun in his hand an armed robber, or is he a storekeeper or off-duty cop chasing the robber?) (Whereas, if you’re a civilian sitting at home and someone is smashing in your door with an ax, you can be reasonably sure it ain’t the Avon lady). That’s why I shuddered when states started passing “shall issue” CCW laws; I feared an increase in mistaken identity shootings, e.g., harmless panhandlers being mistaken for muggers. But that does not seem to have been the case. Generally, crime is down in the “shall issue” states, and worse in the “gun-free” jurisdictions. Facts are facts, and they are still facts if they contradict a pet theory, if they are politically incorrect, or if they don’t fit msnbc’s agenda. Re: the latest media coverage, it’s the usual exploitative propaganda, from the NY Daily News “same gun” (i.e., AR-15) myth to the New Yorker editorial claiming that being armed didn’t save the victims (ignoring that the victims were NOT armed, and that military bases and federal facilities in general are gun-free zones). That New Yorker editorial also claimed that strict gun laws have reduced crime in Europe and would work here in the US, unless you assume that Americans are uniquely violent. I don’t claim that my fellow Americans are trigger-happy homicidal maniacs, and, in fact, the US crime rate is over-rated. Our crime rate is in the top 25-30 in the world, but if you exclude certain cities (New York, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami, and Washington DC) it drops to about the bottom 5. There does seem to be something in American culture that makes people blame others for their problems and direct anger outward rather than at themselves, which may be why we have a higher murder rate and a lower suicide rate than other countries. Sometimes I think we are becoming a nation of spoiled brats, and that goes for the homey parking his car in front of a fire hydrant and then accusing the cops of racism when he gets a ticket, and it goes for the white frat boy driving 100 MPH in a school zone and then threatening to sue the city when the cops pull him over. (“My dad is like, you know, the senior partner in, like, you know, Shyster & Pettyfogger, and I’m gonna, like, call my dad, and like, you know, you’re gonna get, like, fired.”) Then again, this spoiled brat “blame somebody else” attitude may just be in those aforementioned cities (where there are a lot of welfare recipients who have been raised to expect free handouts) and affluent suburbs (with idle rich people who have a similar sense of entitlement). You don’t see it so much in rural areas or blue collar working class suburbs. And the “blame someone else” mentality is largely a liberal/progressive invention. You see it in their complaints that state and local gun laws only fail because guns are brought in from states with lax gun laws (i.e., Iowa is to blame for people in Chicago killing each other). And you see it in their welfare mentality (it’s Ronald Reagan’s fault that a drug-abusing high school dropout is not the CEO of Microsoft).
“But if you exclude certain cities……”
This is a textbook example of manipulating statistics to reinforce a fallacy.
How about we remove the data from Western Sydney from the Australian statistics?
Mike,