Given the massacre in Aurora on Friday, much of the discussions on the Sunday shows dealt with what, if anything, can be done to prevent similar violence in the future. One of the more noteworthy discussions was held on "Fox News Sunday," where Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) made the case for gun control, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) argued against it.
Much of the conversation went about as one might expect. Johnson, a right-wing senator in his second year, argued that policymakers can't enact any new restrictions on firearms, and that even high-capacity magazines, which had been banned as part of the federal assault-weapon ban that expired in 2004, must be legally permissible.
If policymakers even try to "keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals who want to do harm," the result is undue restrictions on "our freedoms."
So what would Johnson prefer to see as an alternative?
JOHNSON: Well, it's certainly one of the rationales behind conceal and carry, where criminals actually have to be a little concerned before they commit a criminal act that maybe somebody could stop them. And I think that is the truth. That somebody, a responsible individual had been carrying a weapon, maybe -- maybe -- they could have prevented the death and injuries. I mean, that's just the truth.
FEINSTEIN: And maybe you could have had a firefight and killed many more people.
This apparently has become the principal talking point for many opponents of gun-control laws: if there were others in the theater with loaded firearms, maybe they could have shot at the deranged gunman wearing Kevlar and a helmet.
Indeed, this seems to come up quite a bit after every similar incident -- we heard very similar rhetoric after the massacres in Tucson and Blacksburg. Just a few days after the assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords' life, Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said, "I wish there had been one more gun there that day in the hands of a responsible person."
Let's unpack this a bit, because it seems like an important part of the larger discussion.
First, I think there's a risk that this argument starts to blame the victims, as if it was the job of those in that Aurora theater to bring loaded guns with them to the movies.
Second, the circumstances generally aren't as obvious as some would like to believe. I'm reminded of a piece from William Saletan published soon after the Tucson shootings, about Joe Zamudio, which I wrote about at the time.
Zamudio, you may recall, was in a nearby store when he heard gunshots. He took his own gun, clicked off the safety, and advanced towards the gunman. When he got to the scene, Zamudio saw a man holding a gun and shouted at him to drop his weapon. Indeed, Zamudio very nearly shot the man holding the gun.
The man Zamudio saw, however, wasn't Jared Lee Loughner; it was the man who'd wrestled the gun away from Jared Lee Loughner.
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person -- a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.
We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting.
The point, of course, isn't to take anything away from Zamudio. On the contrary, he showed great courage, and it's likely he played a role in saving lives.
But after the Aurora violence, Ron Johnson sees his approach as "just the truth," and it's not that simple. The common assumption -- more armed citizens means more public safety -- is more complicated than some conservatives would like us to believe.
Update: After the Tucson shootings, my colleague Laura Conaway did some great reporting on modern examples (or lack thereof) of armed civilian bystanders intervening to stop mass shootings.
Leave a Comment:
Whenever someone says "If only somebody with a gun had been there, this wouldn't have happened," I ask them how they know that there WASN'T somebody with a gun there. They could be among the dead or maybe they just ran for their lives like everyone else. Just because someone carries a gun that doesn't make them bulletproof and it doesn't automatically make them someone who would protect other people. I'm tired of the myth of the Concealed Carry Angel.
His premise is seriously flawed. I live on Long Island ,and recently an ATF agent trying to subdue a person ,who had robbed a pharmacy while he was a customer, was shot and killed by a retired Police lieutenant who didn't know if he was the bad guy or not.He only knew he had a gun. A year earlier another police officer in plain clothes was killed by friendly fire. How are the responding officers supposed to know who the bad guys are, if everyone's got a gun?
What the heck is up with in the last 60 days someone buying 4 guns! thousands and thousands of rounds of amunnition, multiple magazines including a 100 round magazine for an assault rifle!!! Should'nt there be a way a regulating how much supplies a person is purchasing in? or at the very least an alert that goes out and tell the local police "hey why dont you go check this person out". They are all talking about the man's MENTAL STATE slipping through the cracks, but what about the actual ACTIONS the individual was taking slipping through the cracks??!?
anyone feel the same way or have anything to add? I would love feedback.
I think the problem in this case lies with the laws in Colorado. You do not have to register your weapons just pass the background check. There was no cross referencing his purchases because there are no laws in place to do that. He bought the ammo from sites on the internet and had them delivered to his home and his place of work at the university. He got lots of packages but no one really took the time to put two and two together because he was not doing anything against the law. His purchases were legal and probably because he was a clean cut white boy no one paid any attention to what he was doing. Of course I am not sure they would have paid attention even if he had been a muslim if there are no laws on the books regarding what he was doing and he was not on the terrorist list.
Carleigh--"it's a free country"--on a state by state basis--. Here in AZ you can buy 4 guns in one day---it's called "Christmas shopping". Bulk ammo is the way to buy if you're an avid shooter--aside from reloading your own. I get better deals online especially on military surplus stuff in "spam cans". Who can say if the purchaser plans on setting up a table at a gun show and re-sell the ammo..? Perfectly legal.
daniel-I don't think that there's anything wrong with checking on such buying behavior, however. And if one is planning to sell in a gun show, then perhaps they could be issued a "permit code" or some such that would be required at checkout. I also believe that buying that many rounds and guns needs to at least be flagged for attention. Having that much ammunition is simply not necessary for "personal protection."
I don't think we should criticize people like Ron Johnson. After all, we allow Republicans to elect most of their law makers from a gene pool that lacks several important chromosomes. Enough with the hypocrisy, folks.
Actually if you google "Tucson home invasion caught on camera" you'll see security camera footage of a homeowner using an "assault weapon" to defend his home against multiple attackers..they do serve a purpose and I own several. Drum magazines are junk and thankfully the shooter probably wasn't aware of the fact and lives were spared when his weapon jammed. As far as him wearing body armor--thats why we need armor piercing ammo or more head-shot practice..
They are always touting the Second Amendment - let's see, how about just authorizing muskets and bayonets. Afterall, that was what the forefathers were talking about back then. Ron Johnson, you are an idiot!!
Sorry..but the bill of rights doesn't stop or apply to things in that time period. That would mean that freedom of religion doesn't apply to Mormons or Rastafarians as those religions didn't exist in 1776. Also , using that same logic--freedom of speech would not apply to radio , TV or the internet as those methods of expression were non-existant in 1776. The musket/bayonet argument is moot and absurd
That is the way some on the Supreme Court and on the right justify their beliefs. If it is not in the Constitution than it isn't constitutional and should be disallowed, like the minimum wage, social security, medicare and all the other things they are against.
It is only complicated in the mind of a liberal, as liberals believe everyone is a potential-holmes just waiting to snap.
No, Reagan_Patriot, it's more complicated in the mind of a liberal because we're used to thinking about the implications of an assumption. Not like a conservative, who stops thinking after "Guns.... good!"
The bravest among us carry no guns! -Kevo
It is difficult to know if the crafters of the Bill of Rights would hold that the public has a right to the same armaments as its government or just the right to bear arms. Remember, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the average citizen from abusive government, largely why the Revolutionary War was fought.
Wisconsin has much to be proud of with this clown AND Scott Walker
Johnson's statement is patently ridiculous. If we accept his argument that more people carrying guns would stop a mass shooting, we have to weigh that against the number of shootings that may occur with so many people carrying guns. How many instances of road rage or a mistaken threat would result in shootings. It is more reasonable to assume that there would be more fatalities than a random mass shooting. How would Johnson feel if people started showing up to his town halls with guns? Or maybe even his meet and greets during campaigning. Since he advocates more people carrying guns then we should oblige him and remind him that not everyone agrees with his politics. And some of those people are not mentally stable.
There was a case in Grand Rapids MI that involved shooting and road rage. A sister and brother thought they had been cut off by another driver. The brother and the other man got into a fight. The sister thinking she could stop the fight fired a gun. She was a better shot then she thought because she killed the man her brother was fighting with. Now she will spend time in prison so one life is gone and the other has been wasted all over an argument and someone with a gun.
The NRA is the perfect example of why too big to fail is so dangerous.
The TV networks have a SOP to handle this type of situation - just fill in the name of the latest town. We will have another 2 or so of these this year, more next year, and even more the next. The United States is a sick country. We love guns, violent movies, and brutal blood soaked video games. Can't make laws to control guns, and god forbid you touch the entertainment money machine. Unless and until guns and violent entertainment are curtailed this behavior will continue. So save your breath and outrage for something else!
Maybe I missed it in the commentary, but:
IF a potentially armed populace is a sure-fire deterrent against the criminal element
AND Americans have more guns than any other developed country
THEN America would have the LOWEST incidence of violent crime of any developed country
We need to take down all the "no guns allowed" signs at movie theatres and educate people that according to the 2005 supreme court ruling the police are not responsible for our personal protection-- this leads to a false sense of security
What the shooter was wearing:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5TjkjyCW1lc/UAtuvwrHZiI/AAAAAAAAFo4/FHNVQKFlOvg/s1600/shooters+gear.jpg
North Hollywood bank robbery shootout. SWAT and many street cops called in; 11 officers wounded, but you're right... one bad#*s John McClane or John Rambo with gas in his eyes, people screaming, startling gunshots-- he could have shot one round through the eye hole of the armor and saved the day without hitting the kids around him. Stop living in a dangerous fantasy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrlUsaYlKPs&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLCA1D78A9C5B95A5F
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1agr5ik81I&feature=BFa&list=PLCA1D78A9C5B95A5F
What kills me is the first saying they go to is, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Then why is it in the vast majority of these tragedies (and the fact I have to say that is astonishing) that a gun is the weapon of choice? Because firearms are the cheapest, least intellectual, most readily available, fastest, and most efficient way to do the most harm in the least amount of time. You never hear something like this being done with a bow and arrow, or a nail gun, or a chain saw, or a brick. To blame that solely on the person is the largest copout Ive ever heard.
I think I'm going to go pick up some sort of high powered rifle and a couple thousand rounds of ammunition after reading this story. You all are a bunch of sheep with your heads in the sand. Society is reduced to a bunch of crying babies when one wack job pulls out a gun! There is nothing society can do about stupid people. They exist and they will continue to exist. Instead of gun control how about better parenting or better teachers??? Quit acknowledging the symptoms and acknowledge the problem!! pathetic
Better parenting or better teachers? OK- how can people be better parents if they are under so much pressure and have to work 2 or 3 jobs just to scrape by? How can people be better parents with the stupid kids we have now that think they are entitled to everything? How can we have better teachers when every Republican governor, representative, senator, assembly person etc is cutting education funds? Do we need to have gun safety classes in schools? Have shooting be part of physical education? It has to be a good balance for it to work. There have to be laws in place to protect people from this. The 2nd Amendment rights activists have got to see both sides, and most of them can't. Thousands of people die every day from gun violence, cities are destroyed over it, families are decimated over it, but we can't seem to get anything done!
so sad... so sad... you arguments are full of holes and lies that have been pushed down your throat from birth.
and of course, no data to prove that what I was stating were lies, just the implication that I don't think for myself. My arguments were real questions from real situations that I have seen. I see lots of parents struggle to be good parents when they barely have time to be with their kids. I see kids that smart mouth their parents and teachers and won't sit down and have real conversations with anyone over 20. I see budget cuts here in my state that have caused a lot of strain on education and teachers don't have the time to deal with their workload plus teaching ethics and gun safety.
I was raised in a military family with a very republican father, so maybe that part of your argument has merit, I've been told lie after lie by the republican party and have recently learned for myself the truth about what the republican party truly stands for.
Everyday we search every single individual who goes on an airplane, including 6 year olds and 85 year old ladies in wheelchairs because we fear that someone is going to do harm on an airplane--but we allow anyone in this country to own as many weapons and as much ammunition as they choose, including weapons whose only purpose is to kill people by firing many rounds in a few seconds. The second amendment was written by men who wanted to make sure that if needed, there would be a "militia" to do battle. We now have the army, navy, air force, marines coast guard, national guard, police, FBI, CIA, etc. to fight our fights. I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting (I don't get it, but I don't care) or for self-protection in their homes--but stockpiling of weapons like assault rifles by a private individual is ludicrous--and leads to exactly what happened on Friday night. Men don't own weapons for the purpose of looking at them--they own them to use. George Zimmerman is a perfect example. If he had not been carrying a gun, would he have followed Trayvon Martin in spite of the police telling him not to? Would he have gotten out of his truck and approached him? No--but the gun made him brave. And stupid. Every time something like this happens--a nut job walks into a crowd and murders innocents--we have this "too bad, so sad" mentality about it--we hold the candlelight vigils and the politicians stand up and say how sad it is but we will carry on and not let this stop us from living our lives normally. But no one ever decides to do anything about it. "Guns don't kill people, people do." Well, 4 oz. bottles of hand lotion outside of the requisite plastic baggy don't kill people either--but I still have to surrender that particular weapon to get on a plane. The hypocrisy is stunning.
sally, beautifully said! What we are dealing with is a state of consciousness. Why do people "like" guns? Like shooting guns? I was in the military and carried a loaded weapon, in a combat situation. Fortunately, I never was called to fire it, although I directed others to fire weapons, including artillery and napalm. Yes, I admit, shooting at targets can be "fun" in a strange sort of way. Yet, I don't consider it mature, or responsible. If I grow a few marijuana plants, I can go to jail for months/years. But, if I purchase thousand of dollars worth of deadly weapons online, nothing happens. Holmes will be charged with many crimes, but not one for illegal weapons purchase or possession. Sally, you are right: "Men don't own weapons for the purpose of looking at them--they own them to use." The problem lies in the hearts of those who feel a need to own and operate weapons of mass destruction, for no other reason than their fear.
Both should be legal. People buy thousands of rounds at a time for the same reason people shop at Costco or Sam's Club. It's cheaper to buy in bulk.
They'll say that the highest death rate is usually associated with knives (Which ignores that it's knives at home used by relatives and friends and self-inflicted). Their stat is invalid in this type of argument.
Oh.... If only on of those little Amish girls had had a gun! (remember that shooting?)
And BTW... EVERYTHING is more complicated than some conservatives would like us to believe.
Gun worship in the USA is a cult...a religion. And as we all know, where religion is concerned, all logic and common sense fly out the window.
My take: Batman wants a ban on assault weapons: http://therepublicon.blogspot.com/2012/07/what-batman-wants-from-warner-brothers.html
Someone soon will likely post the story of an armed citizen intervening in a knife rampage. Knives don't go BOOOOOM. You can't throw 850 knives in three minutes and kill a bunch of people. The comparison is invalid as are home robbery comparisons.
In a space you know well, in the absence of war-like booms and gas against an assailant who 999/1000 just wants your ring and your DVD and to get out alive.
EVERYBODY is missing the real problem.
It's mental health.
Depression.
That's is what the debate should be about.
If only there had been a few citizens packing concealed weapons, wearing bullet-proof armour, night vision goggles, and training (yes training,, it's a money maker for someone) in all our public places, schools included.... Because, you know,, the trickle down theory says the more guns dad owns the more likely junior will take one to school...
The next great business in America: Assault weapons training. It will be like Karate training for adults. Open a school and make a million $
Ha, you can't buy marijuana but you can legally buy weapons. What a country this is!