Why the 'More Guns' Argument Doesn't Make Sense - NYTimes.com: "Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, echoed that sentiment this morning. “The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said.
I see it differently: About the only thing more terrifying than a lone gunman firing into a classroom or a crowded movie theater is a half a dozen more gunmen leaping around firing their pistols at the killer, which is to say really at each other and every bystander. It’s a police officer’s nightmare."
'via Blog this'
A couple of questions for the author:
1. Would you rather be in a movie theater shooting with an armed police officer, or without?
2. Would you rather there be two armed police officers, or just one? What about three? or four?
3. Would it matter to you whether the police officer(s) were on duty?
4. Would it matter to you if the police officer(s) were retired?
5. Would it matter to you if they weren't police officers at all, but retired or active military?
6. Would it matter to you if they were not military or police officers, but simply gun enthusiasts who frequently practice?
7. How exactly do you stop a gunman if not with a gun?
2 comments:
Your argument takes it for granted that the first gunman, the one who wants to massacre people, will be in the theater trying to kill people. That's a good deal less likely if he believes there are other armed people in the theater, one of whom is likely to stop his massacre by killing him.
Committing a massacre looks, to those crazy enough to want to do it, a good deal more attractive if you expect it to succeed, demonstrating your power and your victims' helplessness, than if you expect it to fail.
Back when the concealed carry issue was relatively new, in part due to the Lott and Mustard paper, a lot of people claimed that if concealed carry was legal, the result would be a large increase in shooting deaths. Whether concealed carry has slightly increased or slightly decreased crime is something people are still arguing about. But nobody, so far as I know, has claimed that it had the effect--a large increase--that was confidently predicted by the critics.
Fair point. The unseen effects of gun regulation should be taken into account, too.
Even just focusing on the seen effects, I can't see how the author's argument makes much sense. It seems like he is arguing that its better for the gunman on a mission to kill to go unchecked until the police arrive, rather than have a crossfire that could unintentionally harm innocents. I suppose it's an empirical question, but it seems pretty unlikely to me that you are more likely to survive when no one shoots back.
Post a Comment