Top 10 myths about mass shootings

Boston Globe ^ | Dec 19, 2012 | James Alan Fox

[Innovative]

Whatever their agenda and the passion behind it, those advocates made certain explicit or implied assumptions about patterns in mass murder and the profile of the assailants. Unfortunately, those assumptions do not always align with the facts.

Myth: Enhanced background checks will keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of these madmen. Reality: Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization.

Myth: Restoring the federal ban on assault weapons will prevent these horrible crimes. Reality: The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban.

[GOPJ]

In the recent Mall shooting there were reports of a man with a CCW who chose NOT to shoot because innocent bystanders behind the man would have been shot. I agree with most of this article, but feel James Alan Fox underestimates the average CCW citizen. Yes, most might panic - but some won’t... and my guess is most will fall on the side of being too careful ... not the other way.

[Jabba the Nutt]

Science and medicine can not predict who will commit violence, mass violence even less so.

Gun prohibition doesn't work and mental health access will also make no difference.

The only practical and effective method to deter and stop mass murder is to have armed people everywhere. The only way to do this is to ban "gun-free zones". Second, as a sop to our trial lawyer pals, lets create a basis for suit against the perpetrators of "gun-free zones." These people are provable negligent in protecting the public on their premises.

Governments and private owners ought to be able to be sued.

[DBrow]

The author seems to see some benefit in somehow forcing the bad guy to use small mags, making him reload more often.

But with a few hundred million normal size mags, why would a mass shooter feel obligated to buy new small ones?

[Gil4]

Sandy Hill Hook

[rarestia]

Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

BS! Complete BS! I trained for weeks with tactical instructors on several pistol and rifle platforms. I learned the experience and the feelings associated with that sort of stressful situation. Absolutely NOTHING can prepare you for when you have to use your training, but that training kicks in instantly and you become robotic in your movements and purpose.

I've used a pistol to prevent a violent encounter, and I never pulled the trigger. The assailants fled as the police came screaming down the street, but my training kept me and my friends from becoming victims to those who wished to do us harm. Having been a concealed carrier may have saved several lives that night. We'll never know, but I have no qualms about doing it again if the situation warranted it.

[RedMonqey]

A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

I imagine the adult victims would have appreciated a little crossfire

And considering the mere approach of armed opposition(twenty minutes later) cause the attacker to cease his illicit activity and remove himself from this worldly proximity

Just imagine what the whizzing of an actual bullet past his head would do.

After all we are told, Ad nauseam, by anti gun critic and liberals in general "that if it saved just one life, it would be worth it"

[Brett66]

A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire

Sounds like they're more afraid of a law-abiding citizen defending people than a crazed gunman aiming for them.

[Chipper]

Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts. Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

The only incidents I can recall of sudden wild shootouts with innocent victims, involve LEOs not CCW citizens.

[RedMonqey]

Yeah, it would have been nice if the armed Texas citizens would have been better shots.
Considering the citizens were at the disadvantage of being relatively unprepared and shooting up at the height rather than down, they did very well.

After all they were just a bunch of untrained yahoos(according to the LSM)

Thankfully this was not a "Gun-free zone" and the cops weren't buzy disarming helpful citizens

[AppyPappy]

Same in Va. We had a student who had no idea how to aim something. She just pointed in a random direction.

[ChildOfThe60s]

I don’t know about other states but Ohio’s CCW training requires actual shooting at and *hitting* a target. Several hours worth.

IIRC, Kentucky required we complete the better part of a day in the classroom and then a marksmanship test. Something like we had to get most of 21 shots into a torso target at 21 feet. Not sure, but I think we got one try.

We were told, if possible retreat. Avoidance is preferable. Don't pull your gun unless you truly believe a life is threatened. And, *If* you have to shoot someone, empty the gun.

[Vigilanteman]

Considering the citizens were at the disadvantage of being relatively unprepared and shooting up at the height rather than down, they did very well.

Actually, I agree. And if you read the whole account of the UT Tower shootings, you are awestruck by how well and almost naturally that law enforcement and citizens cooperated not only in putting an end to the thing, but putting themselves at risk to rescue the wounded even at their own peril.

Americans were wired to behave that way back in the 1960s. Now, too many of us are wired to run, hide and "wait for the authorities." So the whack-jobs operate with impunity.

Running and hiding, of course, is the prudent thing to do if you are unarmed, untrained and unable to help in any way. I'm not suggesting that everyone play hero. It is just that we had a much higher ratio of the population willing and able to do so back in the 1960s . . . and even today in certain conservative voting areas.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The first big mass shooting in America which took place at the UT tower in Austin, Texas in the mid 1960s.***

Hollywood made a TV movie about this. It had the usual anti-gun statement in it, and at the end there came a voiceover telling how the shooter had a brain tumor, but there also came a louder voiceover covering the movie voiceover advertizing another entertainment show on the network. It almost covered the movie voiceover about the brain tumor.

It is as if the network (I think it was NBC) did not want the audience to know about the tumor.

[Wiser now]

OK, That is scary!

[tnlibertarian]

I emailed the author

Please let us know what response you receive, if any.

[BitWielder1]

Libs are more concerned by innocents being hit by stray bullets from the good guys than the intentional damage being done by the bad guy.
Yet, the good guys do care about bystanders while the bad guy don't care at all.
I'm not saying that the risk to bystanders is zero but libs can't seem to distinguish between a small risk and an immediate serious problem that has to be dealt with.

[Mack the knife]

Myth 11: Mass school killings have only occurred in “Gun Free Zones” mandated by the Federal “Gun Free Zone” law.

Oh, wait - that one is true.

Maybe we should try an experiment - eliminate the gun free school zones for 2 years, and compare results.

[bolobaby]

Well, I won’t transcribe his responses exactly, because I wouldn’t want someone doing that to me, but...

We had a polite exchange. He mentioned the shooting outside the Empire State Building as an example of innocent people getting caught in the crossfire. When I pointed out that was the police and NOT a CCW holder, his general sentiment was that if the police could fire indiscriminately, a CCW holder could as well.

We went back and forth a bit - with me presenting all of the arguments you are tempted to type to me right now - and left the dialogue with Merry Christmas and holiday well-wishes.

He wasn’t unreasonable, and took the time to respond - for that I was grateful.

[tnlibertarian]

He wasn’t unreasonable, and took the time to respond - for that I was grateful.

And thank you for also taking the time to respond. And for contacting the author.

[driftless2]

The writer thinks the way most libs think: a common citizen would be virtually frozen and helpless in a confrontation with a violent person. Remember when 9/11 happened and many people began urging the arming of pilots. I knew several people who pooh-poohed that thought contemptuously declaring that terrorists would simply walk up and take the gun away from the pilots. These people actually laughed as they were saying those words as if the thought of an average person defending themselves with a firearm was too outlandish to be believed.

My own belief, which has been confirmed thousands of times, is that many average citizens who have never fired a gun in anger, would respond quite ably if some demented freak was attacking them, family members, or just innocent citizens at large.