Do citizens with guns ever stop mass shootings? | Hacker News Reader

Do citizens with guns ever stop mass shootings?

washingtonpost.com

24 pointsnanis52 comments

I appreciate the level of detail the author gave about each incident, given that in a lot no one or few people were harmed. I've seen similar (more dishonest) articles that claim that there's never even been one case, because they only count mass shootings as above 4 deaths/injuries or something similar. In reality, most of the time the citizen stops the shooter they get that far.

Theres a reason the gentlemen who occupy the watchpost at the gates to the CIA -- literally on the side of a major public road -- are visibly armed.

There's a the Secret Service carries weapons.

There's a reason Dianne Feinstein had a concealed carry permit for decades. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273989-fein...

An armed opposition is a deterrent.

I'm not sure if it's off topic, but stopping mass shootings is not the point.

Gun ownership is about stopping the catastrophic damage governments can do.

Both stopping a coup and totalitarian policies.

Police are much more hesitant to go around raiding/searching homes and people when there is a gun culture.

I feel amongst educated people the OP is a silly topic(but an interesting analysis). I get it's part of a propaganda war, so perhaps it should be discussed but this does seem to be nothing to do with why people should and do have a right to arms in the USA.

The NRA and libertarians know guns don't stop mass shootings. Do we really think they do think that?

This is complete bullshit, and is what you're sold in the USA. When there is a gun culture amongst the population what happens is that the government acquires an even stronger gun culture (ie SWAT teams that raid the house, kill the dog and some times people who get startled and react poorly, because there's a suspicion of weed). See how easy it is to get shot by the police compared eg to the UK.

A "well armed militia" might've made sense in the initial years of the USA's government, but it doesn't nowadays. You know they have tanks, airplanes and drones, right? What did you expect, that the people arm themselves against the government, and the government won't one-up you?

I agree that the remaining scraps of the second amendment function more as an opiate than a useful mechanism. But it would be utterly foolish to further extinguish them and expect USG to magically reform - that domestic army won't be demilitarizing any time soon, and at this point the totalitarian surveillance/control state only seeks its own growth.

Crime is always going to happen. Do not believe those who promise to eliminate it if only you make just one more compromise at an emotional time - their results are plain to see.

The real modern problem we face is media, now augmented by social media, saturating us with these events. Overloading us with sensationalized hyper-reality, stripping away any semblance of context, probability, individualism, or rationalism. Nevermind encouraging follow-on crime for another's "15 minutes". But of course the media reflecting on itself would be complex, nuanced, and boring. So on to the next 5-minute tragedy entertainment we'll go.

> A "well armed militia" might've made sense in the initial years of the USA's government, but it doesn't nowadays. You know they have tanks, airplanes and drones, right?

The Syrian government had chemical weapons and everything else, yet people with small arms still held their ground.

Have you been propaganda-ed much? A war currently running that tells you the BS behind this statement. But you still said it?

Humans are not monsters. The military will not drone bomb their own people, day in day out. That will cause them to mutiny if anything.

> Have you been propaganda-ed much?

Mate, propaganda is not a verb. If you want to talk to me have manners.

A few years ago I read in the news that a small (20?) group of people in the US (Texas?) had literally refused orders from the federal government and were well-armed enough that they continued to exist and live without government control. Sorry i wasn't able to pull the exact reference, but it makes for an excellent, "yes" as a response to your question -- at least in that case.

In general tho I agree. Thinking you're going to win against the United States government using guns is a fool's errand and will probably just get you killed.

I've also heard that armed protesters are treated better than unarmed ones. It makes sense that sometimes the government doesn't want to follow your escalation. But if they want to, they certainly can.

Think about the stand-off at that ranch in Arizona or Nevada or wherever it was.

Both sides were heavily armed and it was diffused without much incident.

Compare that to student protests in big cities where the police start tear gassing and clubbing hippies with reckless abandon.

They know the students aren't going to start shooting back so they can escalate unilaterally, whereas if they did with the ranchers they'd be getting into mutually assured destruction territory.

Considering how nervous policemen seem to be when approaching a car that they just pulled over, I'm surprised to hear this.

I would LOVE to see a reference. Something tells me it's not exactly as you're describing.

Knowing how sensationalist the media tries to always be, my instinct is to imagine that these people were well armed and fought some government in court and won, all the while warning that they would fight with guns if they'd lost. The newspaper picks it put and puts a spin on it, which makes the story more interesting. That's just my guess though.

Can you remember other info? Maybe we could find the article.

Likely this story here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militi...

And the chap who led to this is apparently in jail awaiting trial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff

Thank you! Reading the Reuters article it's not really that they could defend themselves. The government just went "we have to be the bigger man or someone will get hurt". They waited a couple of years and then arrested him when he wasn't expecting. Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government.

>Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government.

Perhaps not in the US, but in other countries the step before mass killings and genocide began was the disarming of the population. People who have read history and wish to not repeat it are a bit more wary about disarming populations when a government asks for it.

Now as I said in a recent post of mine - I'm not too worried about the US going all tyrannical and killing its population after a disarmament. But what about people who have migrated to the US from countries where that has happened in recent history? Would you tell them their lived experience and dead friends/family are just "a fantasy"? Would you expect them to trust you when you say "that won't happen this time"?

Personally I would prefer stricter gun control but the usual argument is probably that a mass shooter won't go where he knows that people have guns. So you could argue that having people with guns in a location avoids mass shootings.

I think the effectiveness of any gun control measures in the US will be determined by what any legislation is trying to stop. Is it these (relatively?) rare incidents of mass murder, is it gun violence related to drugs/gangs/poverty, is it trying to stop accidental deaths involving children and unsecured firearms, or is it trying to stop domestic violence related deaths? From the perspective of someone who enjoys target/trap shooting a handful of times a year, the hysteria in the media about "high powered military grade automatic AR-15's" seems to be pushing gun owners away from a reasonable middle ground (perhaps a registry of guns to reduce domestic violence and mental illness related deaths or make it easier to track straw buyers fueling gang related violence?). Personally I think the failure to act on this is just another example of how broken the political system is - both sides yell at each other, the media routinely reports half truths, and the middle ground of common sense that most people seem to have is lost in the "debate".

Stricter gun control laws don't do anything to prevent mass shootings. Look at the cities who have the strictest gun laws. Places like Chicago and New York City. They have some of the countries' highest gun violence rates. If you want an obscene example? look at Mexico where guns are banned completely. Sure doesn't stop gun violence does it??

You can also look at how over the past 20 years as gun ownership has increased in the US, violent crimes (including gun crimes) have continues to decrease - something Obama likes to tout.

So no, stricter gun control laws do not reduce gun crimes.

> So no, stricter gun control laws do not reduce gun crimes.

There is solid evidence against that point of view, and has been discussed/disproven numerous times. https://vimeo.com/97417009

The US is a special case compared to Australia, for sure, due to the massive difference in population. However many countries in Europe with similar population densities can manage low rates of mass shooting homicide via gun control laws...

many countries in Europe with similar population densities can manage low rates of mass shooting homicide

True...

via gun control laws

... but this is unproven I think. Europe also has much better social security and mental health care, to name just a few confounding factors.

but this is unproven I think. Europe also has much better social security and mental health care, to name just a few confounding factors.

I do agree, to be honest

There is also solid evidence that when you have more guns, you have less crime - something I pointed out in my original post.

Another Harvard study concluded the same thing:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_Kate...

While American gun ownership is quite high, many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) have high rates of gun ownership," said the report. "These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002."

Number of mass shootings is so low that "gun violence rates" may be completely unrelated to the number of mass shootings.

You can certainly argue that gun crime rates are what matter, but don't confuse the two.

It's only that way because in those places, the laws weren't strict enough. If they stripped searched everyone and controlled access with metal doors all over the place, it would work. It would be a nice and safe - like prison. /s

Why dont you look at Europe and see how many mass shootings we have each year per capita?

Or why doesn't he look at India? Why didn't you ask about India? Or Sri Lanka. Or anything.

You respond to his cherry picking by suggesting a different cherry picking.

He probably chose Europe because its easier to make a like-for-like comparison to in terms of culture, wealth and religion.

But it's not a good comparison at all... massive wealth inequality, a broken health care system that makes people fearful of getting sick, and violently partisan media and political climates... The United States of America is so unlike Europe that it's hilarious.

Bunch of small racially homogenic nation-states with relatively even income distribution vs. large country where racial and very poor minority shoots itself. Latter also has gang culture. Something most Europeans only see in movies and football matches.

U.S. is pretty unique in many ways.

how about Australia? Canada? Europe?

Estonia had a school shooting last year. Sweden had a mass-stabbing at a school[0] last October.

Canada had a school shooting this year[1].

Australia remains free of murder sprees since that one that convinced everyone to trade-in (or bury) their guns.

0. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/world/europe/western-swede...

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/canada-school-shooting-s...

And because we are HN readers we dont care about statistics only individual incidences..

I live in Canada and I did not hear of Canadian shooting. Thanks for bringing "Canada’s worst school violence in a decade" (4 people dead) to my attention. Because the only shooting news I hear about are from USA. Maybe, due to their sheer number of deaths? Or due to how often they happen? hhmmm

You shouldn't need to carry a gun to enjoy a basic level of safety in our society.

I'll be sure to bring that up at the next care bear meeting.

If you pull out a gun in a mass shooting and the police is there you are getting shot too imo

The police are probably at least 10 minutes away. That's plenty of time to use your own gun in self defense, and have it put away long before the police arive. During the recent tragedy in Orlando, it took the police 3 hours to enter the building.

If you choose to try to stop a mass shooting, by far the biggest threat to you will be the shooter.

How will you tell who is the shooter and who is another "good guy with a gun?".

What kind of situation do you think the "good guy with a gun" is really going to enter? They probably only have a handgun. They have limited ammunition. They have a very limited number of targets to consider.

An armed citizen responding to a gun attack isn't going to start a shoot out with lots of cover based shooting like a game of Call of Duty. The armed citizen has most likely one chance to overcome the attackers.

When the cops get there the armed citizen is either dead or has disarmed themselves and is complying with authorities the best he can in a non-aggressive manner especially if they are a well educated individual licensed for concealed carry.

I'm reminded of Frank Drebin: "When I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That's my policy."

If you see one person shooting another person, how can you tell if they're a "good guy" shooting a "bad guy", or if they're a bad guy?

If you can't tell, and you're not a police officer or any other government employee charged with keeping the peace, why does it matter?

Because you might shoot the wrong person by accident.

That's kinda what I meant. If you don't have a target you're willing to shoot and live up to the repercussions, you don't shoot.

"If you can't tell, why does it matter?" You can't tell what target you should be shooting at, you don't shoot.

>You can't tell what target you should be shooting at, you don't shoot.

If only people with guns actually behaved liked this. Even cops, who are supposedly trained, can't get it right: http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/278502-seattle-man-peace-des...

I dont disagree with that but i think it can be a reason ppl will think about before pulling their gun and if muliple do it at the same time its gonna be messy (why not scale the argument?)

Yet that didn't happen in any of the examples in the article.

Nor have I (anecdotal sample of one) ever hear dog it happening.

hhmmmmm would all these incidents happen in the first place if buying guns would not be that easy?

All for 2nd amendment rights, but there damn well be some serious hurdles you have to jump through to be able to own a machine gun. 2nd amendment absolutists are not being realistic, and I'd hate to see things swing too far left because they can't learn to compromise.

Machine guns have been heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934, and civilian ownership of full-auto weapons manufactured after 1986 has been effectively banned.

You'd think the outcome would be something like Soccer at the Farmers' Market: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAsgOhQvvcE

In Israel yes, a lot of times.

This is HN, let's take the intelligent conversation up a notch:

If we look at firearm homicide, there is ratio of legal guns used to kill people and illegal guns used to kill people. What ratio is the saturation point, after which you gain nothing from stricter gun laws?

I think we can safely assume that some portion of people would like to own gun whether or not it's illegal. If we also assume that such people are likely to get illegal gun only if they know someone who has already bought illegal gun. Now we can also assume that there is certain tipping point, where illegal guns start to penetrate society disproportionally compared to legal guns. Also we can safely assume that illegal guns are used disproportinally in homicide, because it's so difficult to use them in hunting or sport. I think we should use the homicide rates compared to each other, because the actual number of illegal guns is always uncertain by definition. The actual total rates of firearm homicide are not very reliable, because they are influenced why what happens to be available weapon in a situation where homicide would happen anyhow. Also it seems that there are certain types of homicide cultures, which affect the situation considerably across time and space. Total amount of homicide and it's fluctuation is useless, because there is considerable time lag and the number and effect of different variables is unknown.

I don't know enough statistics to calculate it. But my gut feeling is that after 50%/50%, you have reached the tipping point. Also my gut feeling is that if I was police, I'd prefer something like 5 legal gun homicides against every illegal gun homicide. This way the legislation could provide some info how perps are armed in hostage situations etc. Also high amount of legal/illegal guns might help to regulate the caliber of guns. Which in turn would help to keep the police body armor effective.

We can also assume that organized crime benefits from overly strict firearm laws. They get their own partial violence monopoly plus income from smuggling.

On the other hand, is it even possible to calculate the opposite, too lax gun law? Now if the ratio of gun murders to other murders is very high, that has to rise some suspicion. Because we are particularly interested by gun inspired crime. Again my gut feeling is that above 50%/50% indicates something. Knives are always available, if murderers pick firearm instead, then firearms may be too available. But then again, murderer might opt fro firearm if there is possibility of the target to be armed. This gets tricky.

Police despotism? What is the ratio of police shooting a civilian to civilian shooting a civilian? Civilian shooting another gives indicator of general rate of violent crime. If police shoots lot's of people in a nation where crime rate is very low, that hints totalitarian state. What is the acceptable band of ratios?

For U.S. there is this extra "police comes and takes away my guns". My suggestion would be that give people licenses to certain calibers. Now police knows who and how people are armed, but they don't know the actual number of firearms in any ones possession. Which makes collecting all of them away impossible. Which means it's pretty dumb to even try, one person can own ten pistols, but can only shoot them one at a time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com