Boston.com : Top 10 myths about mass shootings - James Alan Fox

[rep308]

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/12/top_10_myths_about_mass_shooti.html

From our old 'friend' James Alan Fox of Northeastern University

He's a smart guy and does not like private ownership of firearms but I agree with most of his myths in the article. Basically no new laws or procedures will do a damn about this type of thing. Worth the read

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

James Alan Fox is pretty honest intellectually. When he's talking fact, figures, and data, I don't usually find much fault with him. He just comes to different conclusions than I would.

 

[jtorbin88]

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree aside from the armed ppl in schools part.

 

[drgrant]

Not completely abhorrent, except for this turd...

Myth: Expanding “right to carry” provisions will deter mass killers or at least stop them in their tracks and reduce the body counts.
Reality: Mass killers are often described by surviving witnesses as being relaxed and calm during their rampages, owing to their level of planning. In contrast, the rest of us are taken by surprise and respond frantically. A sudden and wild shootout involving the assailant and citizens armed with concealed weapons would potentially catch countless innocent victims in the crossfire.

Yeah, because someone shooting back at that point (during a mass shooting) is so terrible. Where's his facts and figures to back up the "body count increasing" theory? Oh wait, there aren't any. Even cops responding to mass shootings don't usually crank up the body count, so why would CCW holders be any different? (Of course some a**h*** will go "bbbut the police are trayned!" without knowing that at least 50% of LEOs are probably no better or worse marksmanship wise than a typical american who owns a handgun...)

ETA: A better way of him saying "Reality" would be that not enough people would take advantage of being able to carry a handgun to make an impact on these types of events, it wouldn't hurt anything but it might not achieve the desired result. That, I couldn't really argue with. There are millions of people who own handguns in the US but only a relatively small portion of those people actually carry them every day.

-Mike

 

[ScottS]

How the hell did the editors let that get published?

While I disagree with some of what's there, Boston.com, in the wake of Sandy Hook, is the last place I expected to read this.

ETA: I agree with Mike. The only place this guy diverges from facts is when he "decides" that we will all be "caught unawares" and start indiscriminate cross-fire.

 

[Business]

so basically what he is saying is there is nothing any body can do to change anything

 

[Pete85]

Fairly good article, especially considering the source. The ones I primarily disagree with him on are the one where he asserts his own opinions or fears as facts. Properly trained and armed citizens don't just shoot indiscriminately. The innocents aren't going to be caught in a crossfire with bullets flying at them from both sides. They're going to still have the same number of bad guys firing indiscriminately or even deliberately targeting them, while having a good guy or multiple good guys, carefully picking their shots.

I find it amazing that they point to the guy in Tuscon who didn't draw and fire indiscriminately because he didn't know his target, and then say that in reality an armed citizen creating additional hazard for innocents would be the norm. The other one I always hear about Tuscon as well is the armed guy who across the street doing something unrelated, hearing the gunshots ran over to help and at first drew down on the wrong person (either another armed citizen or someone who had taken the suspect's gun). They point this out as how he could have shot the wrong guy, but disregard the fact that he didn't. He assessed the situation, the same as any police officer would have done. Any police officer showing up at that point would have also drawn on the guy while he assessed the situation or gave commands to drop the weapon.

 

[Mattyweb]

Two fairly pro gun artilcles in the Globe in one day? Mayans were correct, world definately ending tomorow.

 

[TLB]

Not completely abhorrent, except for this turd...



Yeah, because someone shooting back at that point (during a mass shooting) is so terrible. Where's his facts and figures to back up the "body count increasing" theory? Oh wait, there aren't any. Even cops responding to mass shootings don't usually crank up the body count, so why would CCW holders be any different? (Of course some a**h*** will go "bbbut the police are trayned!" without knowing that at least 50% of LEOs are probably no better or worse marksmanship wise than a typical american who owns a handgun...)

ETA: A better way of him saying "Reality" would be that not enough people would take advantage of being able to carry a handgun to make an impact on these types of events, it wouldn't hurt anything but it might not achieve the desired result. That, I couldn't really argue with. There are millions of people who own handguns in the US but only a relatively small portion of those people actually carry them every day.

-Mike

And a large, painful turd that is - he must not have had Coulter's references from her recent article.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/182269-Coulter-How-to-Stop-School-Shootings

 

[Amazon]

Not completely abhorrent, except for this turd...



Yeah, because someone shooting back at that point (during a mass shooting) is so terrible. Where's his facts and figures to back up the "body count increasing" theory? Oh wait, there aren't any. Even cops responding to mass shootings don't usually crank up the body count, so why would CCW holders be any different? (Of course some a**h*** will go "bbbut the police are trayned!" without knowing that at least 50% of LEOs are probably no better or worse marksmanship wise than a typical american who owns a handgun...)

ETA: A better way of him saying "Reality" would be that not enough people would take advantage of being able to carry a handgun to make an impact on these types of events, it wouldn't hurt anything but it might not achieve the desired result. That, I couldn't really argue with. There are millions of people who own handguns in the US but only a relatively small portion of those people actually carry them every day.

-Mike

+1 this

 

[LUVG274LIFE]

+1 this

I just don't understand why anyone would think that having a person or people with a CCW in that theater or in that school, that was willing to use it, would not have helped save lives!

 

[vicpinto]

I don't know.... sounds like a tool to me.

 

[Larry Legend]

My jaw hit the floor when I read this article. I simply could not believe the Globe published it. I was equally surprised because the author tends to write firearms related articles that are slanted in the other direction.

 

[rivet_42]

Wasn't the Oregon mall shooting stopped by an armed citizen? Citizen displayed his weapon and the Bad Guy, knowing it was Game Over, shot himself. Armed citizen didn't even have to fire a shot. That wasn't widely reported in the media.

What would be worrisome would be the idea that an armed citizen ends up in a firefight with the Bad Guy, and then the police show up and have to figure out who the Bad Guy *is*. Or *multiple* armed citizens, looking at multiple armed people, all of them having to figure out who the real target is. But maybe I'm off into something out of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.