
Do citizens with guns ever stop mass shootings? - nanis
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/
======
nicolashahn
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.

------
huffmsa
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...](http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-
room/news/273989-feinstein-doesnt-have-concealed-carry-permit-anymore)

An armed opposition is a deterrent.

------
aaron695
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?

~~~
oneloop
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?

~~~
ccvannorman
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.

~~~
vintermann
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.

~~~
huffmsa
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.

------
maxxxxx
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.

~~~
at-fates-hands
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.

~~~
King-Aaron
> 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](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...

~~~
tremon
_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.

~~~
King-Aaron
_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

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

~~~
Buttons840
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.

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

~~~
undersuit
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.

~~~
foldr
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?

~~~
undersuit
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?

~~~
foldr
Because you might shoot the wrong person by accident.

~~~
undersuit
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.

~~~
foldr
>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...](http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/278502-seattle-man-peace-despite-
accidentally-shot-police-officers-16-times/)

------
nadezhda18
hhmmmmm would all these incidents happen in the first place if buying guns
would not be that easy?

------
transfire
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.

~~~
snerbles
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.

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

------
tovmeod
In Israel yes, a lot of times.

------
vlehto
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.

