Do guns prevent killing sprees?

Posts you want to find years later go here.
Post Reply
George
Veteran Doodler
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:26 am
Location: Arlington, VA

Do guns prevent killing sprees?

Post by George »

As I was responding to Joe's posts in the other thread, I though of something odd.

All of the killing sprees I can remember from the news involved the killing of unarmed victims, followed by either suicide or the police taking out the killer. I can't remember any mass-murders in which the killer was stopped by those who would have been his victims. The killing sprees take place in locations where firearms are either prohibited, or extremely unlikely. Schools, federal government buildings, and in that one case a day trader brokerage.

I have a theory why this is. I think it's possible that there are actually unsuccessful attempts a killing sprees that don't get reported by the news. The national news generally only reports killings if there are lots of casualties (i.e., successful kiling sprees) or if someone famous is involved. Use of firearms for self-defense almost never shows up in the news (TV, paper, or internet). However, even the Brady campaign admits that there are tens of thousands of reported uses of firearms for self defense every year. Is it possible that some of those self-defense actions averted what would have been a killing spree? If the killer is stopped before he racks up a sizeable body count, it's easy to believe that the story woun't be picked up for the national news.

What do you all think? Is this a plausible theory? Unlike most of my pro-gun arguments, this isn't something I've seen posted elsewhere. It's just my own attempt to explain what appears to be an odd phenomena.
I feel like I just beat a kitten to death... with a bag of puppies.

Jonathan
Grand Pooh-Bah
Posts: 6722
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by Jonathan »

Browse the Justice Department's website and let us know what you find out.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html

Alan
Veteran Doodler
Posts: 2758
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:32 am
Location: Where I am
Contact:

Post by Alan »

I don't believe in vigilante-ism or revenge in real-life situations. It makes for good movies, but I don't believe it should or can form the foundation of society. I am also starting to doubt the merits of the adversarial court system in juvenile cases, but that's a different story.

When someone pulls a gun on you, they want something. Usually to rob, sometimes to rape, and much less likely, to kill. Guns are a good way to get someone's attention - you can run away from a guy with a knife but you probably shouldn't run from a guy with a gun (unless you're already 10 or so yards away and there's cover nearby). Guns do make most crimes more easy to commit. But yes, you can rob a store or hijack a plane with a knife. And yes, you can perform a revenge killing with a crowbar.

The problem with gun control is that it doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Not handguns, and not assault weapons. If criminals want guns, they're going to get them. If psychotic mass murderers want guns, they're going to get them. It may be more difficult to get one, but nowhere near impossible.

At the same time, I don't believe that arming the populace is the answer. Nobody should carry a gun who isn't fully trained to use it. Nobody who walks into a bar should carry a gun. Nobody with untreated mental illness should carry a gun. Nobody who internalizes anger or grief should carry a gun. Yes, maybe armed teachers could have taken down Harris and Klebold before they killed anyone. But do you want the guy you cut off on the freeway to be carrying? Do you want the guy you fire to have a gun?

I'm not saying that abolishing gun control would lead to an armed populace. That is of course silly. But in my view, the harder it is to get guns, the better. I don't want a gun. Joe and Jane Citizen don't want a gun. And certainly I and they have no interest in buying assault weapons.

You can quote all the statistics you want that say gun control doesn't prevent crime. I'll even believe those statistics. I'll also agree that gun control represents a possible infringement of second amendment rights, and I'll agree that you have a right to challenge gun control for that reason. But to me, gun control just makes sense. So gun control will continue to be an issue for which I am slightly in favor. I don't ever see gun control being an issue that decides who I will vote for.

Health policy, especially a single payer one-risk pool system on the other hand...
Image

skanks
Poser
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 6:16 am

Post by skanks »

I imagine most of these killers want to get a little mileage and media out of their last hurrah before being abruptly taken down by the SWAT team and/or ATF. Consequently, I would imagine spree killers aim high and go for large population centers: universities, schools, crowded workplace environments, stadia, theme parks. It just so happens that firearms are prohibited in such locations with large vulnerable populations (for obvious reasons). I contend the fact that firearms are prohibited in such places are a secondary consideration to be taken in account tactically rather than strategically.

I can't really think of a good place for a killing spree that doesn't have prohibitions against firearms. The Bus Station, perhaps? Greyhound wouldn't be my first choice of a killing spree. Indeed, that's perhaps one location where latent firearms might provide a sufficient deterent. Nonetheless, I don't think Disneyland would be any safer if it allowed patrons to bring in guns for the purpose of self-defense.

George
Veteran Doodler
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:26 am
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by George »

skanks wrote:I imagine most of these killers want to get a little mileage and media out of their last hurrah before being abruptly taken down by the SWAT team and/or ATF. Consequently, I would imagine spree killers aim high and go for large population centers: universities, schools, crowded workplace environments, stadia, theme parks.
In most of the recent mass killings, the killer appered to select a location based on what they believed to be the source of their problems--their own school, their employer, or in that one case, their brokerage, not based on exposure. Yeah, there are exceptions (one of the schoolyard shootings and that thing at McDonald's), but even those happened at "soft" targets. I can't ever remember there being a mass killing at a stadium or theme park (which have full time security forces), or at any facility public or private with security guards. If killers really were selecting targets based on media, you would think that there would be more killing sprees at places like theme parks and sports events. An active security force appears to prevent these crimes. Is this deterrence only, or is it a combination of deterrence and actual intervention to stop incidents in progress?
skanks wrote:It just so happens that firearms are prohibited in such locations with large vulnerable populations (for obvious reasons). I contend the fact that firearms are prohibited in such places are a secondary consideration to be taken in account tactically rather than strategically.
Hmm, I don't follow you here. My hypothesis was that killing sprees are less likely at certain locations because the firearms were used to actively stop the crime (which I would call a tactical influence), rather than because the presence of firearms deterred the killers (which I call strategic). Your point sounds like you don't believe firearms were an influence at all, tactical or strategic.
I can't really think of a good place for a killing spree that doesn't have prohibitions against firearms.
Supermarkets, malls, movie theaters, stadium parking lots, restaurants, department stores, clubs, bars, and really any store that has checkout lines that backs up. Any of those places would provide similar body counts to the average school, and have higher concentrations with less cover.

Many states have concealed carry laws that allow permit holders to take weapons almost anywhere, unless explicitly asked not to, which means that in those states, it is likely that there are gun carriers present in all of the places I just mentioned. That is what lead to my hypothesis. Why are killing sprees so much more likely at locations where concealed carry is not permitted? Is it coincidence, deterrence, or (my hypothesis) active self-defense coupled with media disinterest?
skanks wrote:Nonetheless, I don't think Disneyland would be any safer if it allowed patrons to bring in guns for the purpose of self-defense.
Agreed for the most part. Theme parks (as I said above) are relatively hard targets, with limited screening (post 9/11) and active, trained security. And either that is sufficient, or else the killers are avoiding the theme parks for other reasons.
I feel like I just beat a kitten to death... with a bag of puppies.

George
Veteran Doodler
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:26 am
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by George »

Dwindlehop wrote:Browse the Justice Department's website and let us know what you find out.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html
A while ago, I actually did read through some of their reports, including the one where they surveyed inmates about the firearm usage. My question relates to a specific type of crime--"going postal"--and I don't remember seeing any relevent data in the report. I'm not sure it's possible to prove any answer to my question. There is no obvious way of determining which prevented crimes would have been mass killings if they hadn't been prevented. My theory would fail if the ratio of prevented killing sprees to acomplished ones was comparable for "armed" vs "unarmed" locations. But without knowing how many were attempted and foiled (specifically foiled by use of firearms, though the more general case would be interesting too), I suspect the question is unanswerable.
I feel like I just beat a kitten to death... with a bag of puppies.

George
Veteran Doodler
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 12:26 am
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by George »

Alan wrote:I don't believe in vigilante-ism or revenge in real-life situations. It makes for good movies, but I don't believe it should or can form the foundation of society.
There's a difference. Self-defense generally involves responding to violence or the threat of violence within the first couple minutes. No police force in the world can react with that kind of speed. Obviously, I don't believe civilians should be using guns after the fact, but there is no practical defense (other than deterence) that is more effective in preventing a crime than a firearm used by a trained individual. If the criminal hurts or kills a person in spite of the firearm, then you have to accept that they probably would have hurt or killed them without it.
Alan wrote:At the same time, I don't believe that arming the populace is the answer. Nobody should carry a gun who isn't fully trained to use it.
I agree with this. Ideally, I would require a prospective gun owner to take a series of training classes for several hours a week over the course of several months. I'd also require refeshers every few years. I believe that the courses should be offered regularly, with different schedules to meet the needs of most interested individuals. Finally, the entire thing needs to be offered free or at some negligeable charge. People should be encouraged to take the course even if they aren't planning to own a gun, just because understanding guns makes accidents much less likely. And this would be a federal law, so that no matter where you go in the country, your training is still accepted.

However, that ideal is impossible because of the anti-gun extremists. They would prevent the course from containing any useful content, make it cost thousands of dollars to enroll, offer the course only under Halley's comet at 3:30 AM, and ensure that every state, county, and town is free to ignore your training. There are anti-gun people who will sabotage any responsible gun-control legislation just to try to make it harder to own a gun. I have seen many examples of this, especially in Maryland. Maryland has a compulsory training law for handguns, but it doesn't actually require any gun training. Instead, it requires wathcing an anti-gun propaganda video. That's it. It provides no useful benefit, and makes it unlikely that any future law will ever be taken seriously.

Alan wrote:Nobody who walks into a bar should carry a gun.
Driving under the influence is responsible for far more damage, injury, and death than using a gun while under the influence. I suspect its proportional, but I'm sure its absolute. A more reasonable restriction would be prohibiting carrying a firearm with a blood alcohol level above some threshold, just like DUI. That way it applies to people who drink elsewhere, without affecting people who don't drink in the bar (like the bartenders), or who drink "responsibly".
Alan wrote:Nobody with untreated mental illness should carry a gun. Nobody who internalizes anger or grief should carry a gun.
Now here I have to absolutely disagree. Without compulsory medical and psychiatric exams, this would be impossible to determine, and even with the exams, these are highly subjective measures, largely determined by a doctor's opinion. An anti-gun doctor would manage to find symptoms of some mental disorder in every patient they came across. Currently, being commited to a psychiatric hospital (or being convicted of a violent crime) is the criteria for gun ownership. It's very clear cut and approximates objectivity, because any such decision is subject to review.

Any broader definition of mental incapacitation sets a very dangerous precedent. Consider, the numebr of firearm deaths is something like 40,000 a year. That includes accidents, suicides, self-defense, property motivated killings, and gang motivated killings as well as killings by people who just snapped (the only category that would be affected by denying guns to people based on nebulous psychiatric conditions). Say you manage to avert 15,000 (probably wouldn't be that many). Think about all the other health related restrictions and laws that would save more lives. Prohibit people with heart problems from working in high stress jobs. Sterilize people carrying recessive genes that trigger serious medical conditions (or at least restrict their choice of breeding partner). Prohibit consumption of certain types of food by people who are overweight or have certain cardiovascular conditions. Health-related laws should only be used when absolutely required, and when the health problem proves dangerous in a statistically significant portion of the afflicted population.
Alan wrote:Yes, maybe armed teachers could have taken down Harris and Klebold before they killed anyone.
Before? No. However, I suspect that the presence of several armed, trained individuals on the school grounds could have interrupted the spree and reduced the total casualties. Instead, the killing continued until most people had escaped the area and the police arrived.
Alan wrote:But do you want the guy you cut off on the freeway to be carrying? Do you want the guy you fire to have a gun?
There are tens of millions of non-criminal gun owners in this country. People cut them off and fire them on a daily basis. There are occasionally cases where someone who was a non-criminal snaps and commits an unjustified violent act with their gun. But those are the exceptions, and they're very rare relative to the number of people who refrain from such actions.
Alan wrote:I'm not saying that abolishing gun control would lead to an armed populace. That is of course silly. But in my view, the harder it is to get guns, the better. I don't want a gun. Joe and Jane Citizen don't want a gun.
Actually, something like a third or half of the adult population of the US have guns. I've seen varying numbers, but they tend to hover around there. If you doubt the number of gun owners, look at the election that lost the Democrats control of the House. Even the Democrats (including Clinton) agree that they lost most of those seats because of the assault weapons ban. Any lobbying organization can buy a politician once they're in office, but the NRA is one of the few that has a consistent record of getting them into office. They manage in spite of the fact that they only have one issue to appeal to voters with.
Alan wrote:And certainly I and they have no interest in buying assault weapons.
If you're using that term correctly (an assault weapon is capable of automatic fire), then I agree. I believe restricting ownership of automatic weapons is probably reasonable. If the government were willing to provide appropriate compensation to owners at true market value, I'd even support a total ban on ownership (But many models run as high as $50,000, and rare variants or historically significant guns can run much higher).

However, semi-automatic clones should not be restricted any differently than any other rifle. Assault rifle (and clone) caliber ammunition is actually less powerful than most hunting rounds. I chose the AK not only because it's cool looking. It's also a practical rifle for a novice. It's easy to maintain, it's durable enough to put up with mistreatment, it's cheap, ammunition is cheap (half the price of the .38 rounds I bought for my revolver), it's easy and cheap to modify, and it has simple internals which makes learning its function easy. Only a bolt-action .22 would have been a better option, and I didn't know at the time how to choose one.

The only issue I see with clones is removeable magazines. They really aren't necessary for home-defense, target shooting, or hunting. I like magazines, and think they add a great asthetic to the rifle, but I have to admit I can't justify them. The only thing I can say is that banning removeable magazines will remove a lot of guns from the market, thus reducing consumer choice and artificially inflating prices. Not a safety argument, but a legitimate one, proven by the effect of the assault weapon ban.
Alan wrote:I'll also agree that gun control represents a possible infringement of second amendment rights, and I'll agree that you have a right to challenge gun control for that reason.
I don't believe that any right (including gun ownership) is justifiable or defensible on the grounds that it's in the Constitution. Rather, I believe the Constitution lays out certain rights are justified on their own merits. If I didn't believe private firearm ownership had merit, I'd be in favor of stripping it out. The Constitution reflects society (and to some extent the current sitting judges) and changes as society does. Slavery, income tax, direct election of senators, voting age, etc.
I feel like I just beat a kitten to death... with a bag of puppies.

Dave
Tenth Dan Procrastinator
Posts: 3483
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:40 pm

Post by Dave »

<< too lazy to read above

I always thought gun rights reasoning were based from a time when america could concievable be attacked/invaded by other nations and wished to be able to defend themselves. That and have some way to protest the government. Local Militia and such. Ideally, I say everyone that wants a gun should be shot 1st, so they know the consequences.

/me shoots George in the eye.
It takes 43 muscles to frown and 17 to smile, but it doesn't take any to just sit there with a dumb look on your face.

Alan
Veteran Doodler
Posts: 2758
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:32 am
Location: Where I am
Contact:

Post by Alan »

George wrote:
Alan wrote:Nobody who walks into a bar should carry a gun.
Driving under the influence is responsible for far more damage, injury, and death than using a gun while under the influence. I suspect its proportional, but I'm sure its absolute. A more reasonable restriction would be prohibiting carrying a firearm with a blood alcohol level above some threshold, just like DUI. That way it applies to people who drink elsewhere, without affecting people who don't drink in the bar (like the bartenders), or who drink "responsibly".
Alan wrote:Nobody with untreated mental illness should carry a gun. Nobody who internalizes anger or grief should carry a gun.
Now here I have to absolutely disagree. Without compulsory medical and psychiatric exams, this would be impossible to determine, and even with the exams, these are highly subjective measures, largely determined by a doctor's opinion. An anti-gun doctor would manage to find symptoms of some mental disorder in every patient they came across. Currently, being commited to a psychiatric hospital (or being convicted of a violent crime) is the criteria for gun ownership. It's very clear cut and approximates objectivity, because any such decision is subject to review.

Any broader definition of mental incapacitation sets a very dangerous precedent. Consider, the numebr of firearm deaths is something like 40,000 a year. That includes accidents, suicides, self-defense, property motivated killings, and gang motivated killings as well as killings by people who just snapped (the only category that would be affected by denying guns to people based on nebulous psychiatric conditions). Say you manage to avert 15,000 (probably wouldn't be that many). Think about all the other health related restrictions and laws that would save more lives. Prohibit people with heart problems from working in high stress jobs. Sterilize people carrying recessive genes that trigger serious medical conditions (or at least restrict their choice of breeding partner). Prohibit consumption of certain types of food by people who are overweight or have certain cardiovascular conditions. Health-related laws should only be used when absolutely required, and when the health problem proves dangerous in a statistically significant portion of the afflicted population.
I am not advocating that people with mental illness should be prohibited from buying guns. That would be a violation of their civil rights and discrimination besides. I didn't mean to imply that.

My position is that there are many, many people who should not carry guns. I should not carry a gun because I am not trained to use one. The most likely situation for me pulling a gun to stop a criminal is escalating the situation, ending with one or both of us wounded or dead. But it's not absolute that I would hurt someone or myself by carrying. Similarly with intoxicated people, it's impossible to make the argument that they'd definitely be a danger. Drunk drivers get home fine every day, and I'm sure armed drunks go home without killing anyone every day as well. But when you're drunk, you shouldn't be carrying a deadly weapon.

Mental illness can be treated. I have no problem whatsoever with people with mental illness carrying guns if they are being treated for it and trained to use them. But the sad fact is that people who are not treated may experience extremely strong suicidal or homicidal thoughts. Yes, a gun is not the only way to commit suicide or murder. But it is a way. When I was at Western Psych, the male patients suffering from depression, bipolar disorder, and schizo-affective disorder who experienced suicidal thoughts almost always expressed a desire to shoot themselves. Many said that if they didn't receive treatment, they would go out, find a gun, and kill themselves. Would they have found another method if they couldn't get a gun? Probably. But a gun was their first choice.

My main point is not that drunks or depressed people shouldn't be allowed to own guns. My point is that most people should not own or carry guns. Guns represent a very serious responsibility that most people, drunk or ill or not, are not ready or able to handle. Guns escalate situations. If you are robbed at gunpoint or see someone robbed a gunpoint, let them have your money. If you are being raped, wait for the right moment to escape, because at some point, the rapist will lower his gun and his guard. In these situations, they most likely don't want to kill you. If you pull a gun, the criminal will freak out and might do something you'll regret, because he's probably as nervous as you are and not thinking very clearly. Neither will you. Two people pointing lethal weapons at each other while not thinking clearly is not a good situation.

Only in the case that a criminal wants your life might a gun be useful in deterring the crime. This is a rare event. I agree that in these cases having a gun will allow you to protect yourself. But I don't believe all the associated risks of carrying a gun justifies a rare, one-time event.
Image

Peijen
Minion to the Exalted Pooh-Bah
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:28 pm
Location: Irvine, CA

Post by Peijen »

Rather than arguing personal believe on guns, I will asnwer George's question. How often do you think "keys, check. wallet, check. badge, check. guns, oh wait let me go get it." as you are going out of the door?

I grow up in a country where gun is prohibited, even now I still feel uncomfortable around guns. I am sure there are people feeling the same way, and these people will not be carrying a gun around with them. So what about the poeple who feels comfortable? Most of them will probably leave it at home due to lazyness. If gun owner follows proper safty procedure, the gun would be hard to retrieve and store, and for us fat americans that's too much trouble.

So the people who will be carrying guns are people with small hand gun for self protection and people who carries them for the sake of carrying a gun. In a "going postal" situation I am pretty sure the people carrying small hand gun will probably think "shit his guns is 50x larger than mine and I don't want to die!" The remaining few might stay and fight, but most likely self preservation will kick in before they though about fighting back. Even if micky, donald, and goofy are armed with desert eagle the people with guns will be a small percentage and they probably won't respond in time for most situations.

So I don't think allowing/prohibiting guns at public places will change much.

Peijen
Minion to the Exalted Pooh-Bah
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:28 pm
Location: Irvine, CA

Post by Peijen »

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review
Ha, I was right bitches. Right to carry law doesn't affect crime one way or another, suck on that.

I didn't bother to read the article beyond page 2 of executive summary.

Post Reply