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:
I'm a gun owner and I own most or have access to all the weapons that this kid used. This kid was failed in being educated about guns and what they do,when to use them and how to use them. Any weapon can have serious consequences if you don't know what your doing. From what I have been reading so far this kid had no history with guns. I am all for a tiered system for buying weapons where you can show your proficiency in handling and you can work your way up to being allowed to have high powered rifle. I had a BB gun when I was 8 and my parents and others (Boy Scouts) showed me what it means to be a gun owner and user. Maybe a little education on the early side of Gun use would have helped.
This was NOT an issue of knowing how to use the weapon.
Really then tell me why don't we let kids drive without a parent at age 14?
While I'm sympathetic to your gun education line, I'm pretty sure this is going to boil down to mental health issues.
In the Cafe Racer shooting in Seattle, one man was able to save a couple of lives by picking up a barstool.
It seems to me that the ability to fight back against a nutjob with a gun has a lot more to do with the overall circumstances than with whether or not you're armed.
Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic has an important point about the idea of a totally-armed citizenry: (my emphasis)
Right-wing extremists, a term that today seems to encompass most of the Republican party, are distrustful of government to such a degree that they believe they must be armed against their own duly-elected representatives' decisions. They are also distrustful of their neighbors, strangers in the grocery store, and even their own relatives. They already live in a nightmarish world filled with threats and deception, where the only safety lies in personal strength and vigilance.
I don't believe that anyone and everyone should go around armed to the teeth. Anyone with a carry permit should have training similar to that given to law enforcement officers. As far as the person wearing a Kevlar vest, my favorite handgun is the .45 cal 1911A1 Colt. I don't care what he was wearing, he would not be on his feet after being hit with one of these. Just as long as an attacker has no idea of who might be armed, I think that they will have second thoughts not knowing where there would be someone with the ability to take them down. It might even have avoided airline hijacking like 911.
Typical NRA BullS***!!!! This MASS murderer was armed with an ASSAULT rifle with multiple clips, a shotgun and 2 glocks! Not only did he have a kevlar vest, he was wearing FULL BODY ARMOR and had the ONLY GAS MASK in the building. He was almost mistaken for a Swat Team member in the parking lot. With tears your your eyes, under attack by massive firepower in what was supposed to be a casual atmoshere I'm SURE you and your effing .45 would have found it's mark. Utterly and completely dislusional. Guns DO KILL PEOPLE by the way!!!!
Two wrongs always make a right to non thinking people, like this Johnson fellow.
No one thinks that guns of all types should be available at the local convince store. Any with a carry permit should have extensive training; not just a week at the local shooting range. I think that this would be a great deterrent to anyone trying to commit a crime in a public place; not knowing who might be armed. Would the aircraft hijackers have been so confident if they did not know who might or not be armed.
Most places that allow CCW carry noticed a drop in crime and gun violence after they enacted their respectful CCW carry laws. Getting a CCW Permit requires many hours of classes that go into legal, emotional, just use of force issues, tactical and actual range qualification. Those permits also have to be renewed every couple of years.
Of course, we don't know what would have happened if there had been armed citizens there, because gun control was in effect in that theater - a "Gun Free Zone".
What we do know is what DID happen in that gun controlled area - a criminal entered and was able to be in complete control of the situation and keep harming innocents until he had mechanical failures of his equipment. Once he was confronted by an armed opponent, he meekly surrendered without a fight.
the shooter was covered in body armor from head to toe. so even if someone in that theater had decided to go all rambo on him, it wouldn't even have made a dent.
you are obviously ill-informed..body armor isn't magic. While it *may* stop *some* calibers from going through you , the impact will still transfer mechanical energy of the round to your body causing trauma--broken bones , wind knocked out of you etc. A 12ga slug round fired at police vests will cause a 1.75" "backface deformation" --that is a 1 and 3/4" DENT of tissue damage making it 1/2 the distance to your heart or other vital organs--you may not have a hole going through you, but you are going down none the less
Interesting. Not once but twice Rep. Johnson sees the need to reinforce his ministrations with "that's the truth" as if to strengthen comments that he may well think are in serious need of arbitrary support. What do all the articles about spotting misinformation from mis-informers say about that little vocal action?
I have commented on this discussion in the past. I worked in the gun/sporting goods industry for many years. Once again a NICS check would not have helped in preventing this particular tragedy. Once again although he is obviously mentally unstable there is no legal evidence to prove this. So again he would have checked no on the prior NICS check application to the mental health/drug portion. I am a supporter of the 2nd amendment, but something needs to be done. The loophole I see is the ammunition. NICS checks for ammo. The 2nd amendment gives us the Right to bear arms, but does not state the right to have an arsenal of ammo in your possession. I think it is time we limit the amount of ammo per person to be purchased at a time, and a limit on the amount a year. Crime in general would lessen. You can steal a car, and sell that to someone on the street, but if you can't get gas then it defeats the purpose of the car. Same with guns and ammo. It's not a fix per say, but it would limit the legal access to ammo, and the amount. I also think hi-cap mags should again be made illegal. If you can't hit your target with the first 6-9 rounds then you don't need to own a gun.
I also think it's time we get more involved. The gun range operators who received the voice mail from the shooter said that he sounded as if he was not all there. They should have reported that to authorities.
As far as more guns more protection. That is a really stupid suggestion. First of all the shooter had on full tactical gear. There were enough injured, and if they started a shoot out even more could have been injured. I am not sure how many people were in the theater, and realistically if everyone had decided to take down the shooter they could have. Your first response in a terrifying situation would be to get away from it. This was not like an airplane where they had no exit, and had no choice, but to fight back. These people knew there were exits, and that's the first thing I think most people would think was to get out.
I'd suggest that the licensing to own a gun (especially high-powered rifles and semi-automatics) needs to include a comprehensive psych evaluation. You'd need to see a specialized licensed therapist for, say two weeks before your purchase was authorized. That may catch some people who are not mentally balanced before they buy their arsenal and will allow those whose intentions are appropriate (or at least who can fool professionals) their freedom to own dangerous weapons.
@ekd74 I love your "guilty until proven innocent, lets put a massive financial obstacle in front of the 99.99999% of law abiding people to catch the 0.00001%"* solution. There are plenty of good reasons to own a gun that don't involve killing.
*yes, I counted, mass murderers are fairly rare
"where criminals actually have to be a little concerned before they commit a criminal act that maybe somebody could stop them."
He did and his response was to buy body armor. Which means if anyone in the theater actually did have a gun, and could see through the gas", the sicko would simply have shot the would be hero next. These Republicans have just lost all sense of reality. It's really disturbing.
Hey Ron, don't forget to write if you get work (after November).
I read or heard somewhere that half of the fatal gunshot wounds suffered by the pioneers of the old west were accidental, and mostly, self inflicted.
So far, fully automatic weapons are still regulated, but, a guy with a hundred-round magazine in a semi-automatic rifle is only slightly less lethal. The maniac in Arizona was only taken down when he had finally emptied his 30-round clip and had to reload.
We should, at least, reinstate the Brady Bill.
The NRA is only a pimp and a shill for the arms manufacturers.
I'm a former police officer and have been through a lot of firearms training, at the academy, on the job, and in the military prior to that. While I was lucky enough to never be in a firefight, I had plenty of opportunity to hear the stories of fellow officers and FBI agents who were. The statistic that always stuck in my mind is that only about 30% of bullets fired in a firefight by trained officers hit their intended target. Think how many bullets that leaves ricocheting around, sometimes hitting bystanders and the officers themselves.
I am not anti-2nd Amendment or anti-gun, but we need common sense. Regulation is absolutely necessary to protect citizens as well as police officers. Imagine how much more dangerous their job becomes when there are so many guns, particularly automatic weapons with higher caliber ammunition, are on the street?
My experience as a police officer opened my eyes to a lot of issues around gun control. I could quote facts and figures all day, but I encourage everyone to do your own research - and don't be content with one source. Focus on these questions:
The more guns there are out there, the more these issues come home to roost.
By the way, when I left the police force I sold my sidearm to a fellow officer. I have no guns in my house. I have good locks on my doors and windows, martial arts training, and a baseball bat and I don't feel afraid. The martial arts training is always with me, never locked in a drawer and of no danger to others unless they try to mess with me.
Very very well put, sir.
A) It's hard for someone to steal my ridgehand or kick and use it against my family.
B) If you don't hit the shooter in the first several rounds, you probably won't hit them with the next several (bad lighting, bad angles, they're shooting back and keeping you ducking), but every round a gun shoots goes somewhere. Only in movies does it strike wood panel or drywall and stop instead of reaching a family a hundred yards away.
That is why you use hollow points. They are deadlier to the intended target (unless they have armor on) yet safer to bystanders because they will expand and stop or fragment MUCH faster going through walls, wood, etc. As far as the cop above referring to automatic weapons on the street, he should have said semi-automatic. The only real full-autos on the street are 99.9% illegally possessed, mostly by criminal gangs. Unless he lives in a town like Mayberry, I find his story questionable that he would keep a baseball bat for defense. I would question the credibility of his post. However he does make many good, valid points.
We need to change the culture. Here's Michigan folksinger Kitty Donahoe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7uv8wqfLCE&feature=youtu.be
The only justification left to those who must have multiple automatic/semi-automatic weapons and lots of large clips is as part of the armed resistance to what they perceive as a tyrannical government.
Hope you get a chance to use them all before the stealth drone missile takes out your house....and you.
Well there's also the "it's fun to go out in the woods and shoot at cans" thing, but perhaps that's just me.
Your opinion probably doesn't count regarding target shooting. KAK1958 doesn't even know that legally owned and registered automatic weapons (full auto) are highly regulated and legally owned by a very few numbers of mostly millionaires. According to the ATF, there has not been ONE recorded crime by a legally licensed, civilian owned full automatic weapon in the United States. He/she doesn't even use the correct terminology in relating to a gun's magazine. Anyone who calls a magazine a clip lights up the BS radar about knowing anything about firearms.
There would certainly be a LOT less talking during the movie!
It is my considered opinion that Senator Johnson has been watching way too many Bruce Willis die hard movies and has been indulging himself in the hero fantasy common among teenage boys.
Joseph Baptistvia Facebook
"Of course, we don't know what would have happened if there had been armed citizens there, because gun control was in effect in that theater - a "Gun Free Zone". "
Considering the gun man came in and shot everyone , I am not sure how you think that is even a valid point to try and make , no one is getting patted down for guns , any where in the public
http://www.usacarry.com/colorado_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Places off-limits when carrying:
3. Any public building that prohibits ALL weapons which posts guards and permanent metal detectors at all entrances and requires all entrants to surrender handguns to security personnel before entry
Deadly Force / Castle Doctrine:
Colorado is a Castle Doctrine state and does have a stand-your-ground law.
Open Carry:
Unrestricted under state law; localities may regulate this aspect independently
Good luck trying to advocate you want the right to over rule private property owners and localities with your gun nutism
"What we do know is what DID happen in that gun controlled area - a criminal entered and was able to be in complete control of the situation and keep harming innocents until he had mechanical failures of his equipment."
The one interview I saw said the guy went out side , then tried to get back in , but people inside held the door shut , people stood up to the guy and were shot , he also had multiple guns and used them , it is impossible to present factual scenarios of " WHAT IF " to what happen , so your attempts to do so are just a complete joke
" Once he was confronted by an armed opponent, he meekly surrendered without a fight."
You do not know that is EXACTLY what happened , so you really sound kinda crazy
What's Twitt Romney's policy on gun control? More people should carry them and everyone should start wearing Kevlar? Ted Nugent is the poster boy for the NRA. Do you think he would fire into a crowd of Obama supporters?
Right-wing standouts/role models; Ted Nugent, Donald Trump, Bush, Gingrich, McConnel, Palin,,
Left-wing standouts; Franken, Hillary, Sanders (socialist), Obama, Nader, Barney Frank,,
Ask any rancher in Southern Arizona why he would want an AR-15 or similar weapon. Heavily armed gangs of drug and human smugglers are deadly. Bodies of people riddled with AK-47 bullets are found very often in the desert. I wouldn't want to be out in remote areas down there without some serious firepower.
I suppose we should arm school kids as well. Idiot.
Why would you do that smittyre? I would call you that insult for making such a cop-out, stupid response. Was that the best you could do?
Actually, I would be all for competent, qualified, and trained principals and/or other select school staff always on campus yet has less daily interaction with students (lessening the potential of the gun getting in the hands of a student).