Sharp as a Marble - A common debate

<< If the number was any smaller, it'd rival the Detroit Lions' '08 record | Home | The 100 meme >>

A common debate

Gun Myths , Self Defense , War on Terror

Mad Rocket Scientist emailed me last night with a link to this story regarding the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Speaking of the comments, MRS says

A common debate, played out in a predictable fashion

The article itself was primarily about the actual rarity of terrorist attacks (24x7 news coverage amplifies the effect, yet terrorist attacks are still rare) and the security measures that fail to prevent them. However, the comments took on a life of their own.

Let me summarize

JohnMcLane- This happened because India is a gun free zone. Had civilians been allowed to carry guns, someone with an HK USP could have laid down suppressive fire while someone else with a Glock 26 could have picked off the terrorists with head shots from 200 yards away using the Bauer technique.

PHelmke - If only one civilian was armed, he would end up panicking and shooting every person he saw with each shot killing at least a dozen people. Civilians cannot be trusted with firearms since they'll only increase the body count which helps the terrorists.

Repeat those two comments several hundred times. There, I just saved you the trouble of reading through them all.

Now, onto my point. An armed populace isn't going to deter terrorist attacks. Period. What an armed populace may do is change the method of attack. I doubt that any terrorist attack on the U.S. is going to involve a few guys armed with nothing more than rifles or handguns and a couple of grenades. 9/11 used box cutters.

Suicide attacks aren't thwarted by the thought of dying, so your CCW isn't going to change their minds. Those terrorists with a plan aren't going to simply pick up a surplus rifle at a gun show and walk into the eatery at the local mall and start shooting. Hollywood notwithstanding, those with a plan are also going to be trained in tactics and have a detailed plan of attack. Here's the kicker - they're not going to plan on doing it without anyone shooting back at them at all and they'll be prepared for it. It's easier when you know your prey is disarmed, but they assume some risk anyway so one or two people with a snub nosed .38 special aren't going to deter them all that much.

This isn't to say having a concealed weapon is useless, but statistically it isn't going to help against a well armed, rare encounter with homosapien terroristia. Even if you take one out, I guarantee you it isn't going to stop the others from continuing their attack. What your weapon can assist with is getting your own ass out of the situation, and for that I wholeheartedly agree you should have one on you at all times.

Now, the other side of the arguments come from people who assume that those carrying a pistol are doing so because either they are itching to kill someone and would use panic as an excuse to execute everyone in plain sight or are just incompetent and would kill everyone in plain sight. Either way, they assume civilians with firearms = mass causalities, something that has never happened. Heck, in fact just this week two gang bangers went at it in a Toys 'R Us and through the entire barrage of bullets manages to only kill themselves.

People like that are deluded by what they see in movies (ironic that they claim gunnies are fooled by Hollywood!). A hail of bullets actually has less of a chance of killing someone than an aimed shot. They don't call it spray and pray because it's effective. You're not praying thanks, you're asking for just one of your bullets to meet a vital organ. This isn't to say stray bullets don't kill or harm innocents, but hitting a target with lethal accuracy isn't as easy as it looks on The Transporter.

When I first started really paying attention to guns and gun rights, it was natural to assume that an armed populace would help reduce crime as criminals would think twice about attacking someone who could fight back. I then came to realize that if criminals were actually intelligent, they wouldn't be criminals and intelligence is required to make the logical connection that your victim might be armed.

I now argue that concealed weapons are neutral when it comes to crime rates. They neither go up nor down with an increase of people carrying them. What does increase are the number of victims who are able to walk away from a crime both alive and with their belongings intact. This doesn't change when the crime is an attack of terrorism. You increase your own personal chances of getting away, but that's about it.

Yippee ki-yay and all...

posted @ 12/4/2008 11:02:01 AM

Comments

Gregory Morris says:

on 12/4/2008 11:15:37 AM

So I shouldn't keep carrying these two chrome Desert Eagles in .50AE? I thought for sure I was scaring away terrorists (and tigers... don't see too many tigers around here do ya?)

I pretty much agree with you, except that I still think criminals are put off, to some degree, by the potential of being shot. All that may do is convince them to choose known unarmed (or disarmed) targets. That is why I like the idea of keeping the laws and the culture so that a criminal never knows for sure who is armed.

MadRocketScientist says:

on 12/4/2008 11:41:12 AM

I have to agree with Robb as well, unless they terrorists choose a target that is currently hosting the super secret tactical squirrel operators convention, the chance that armed civilians will halt an attack is next to nil. The civilians will be unable to coordinate their fire and activity the way a military or police response team can. But an armed civilian might drop the one or two bad guys who confront them while getting their self and their loved ones to safety. The bad guys can't just stand in the lobby or atrium and spray bullets, as their target rich environment will disperse rather quickly, forcing them to break into teams and go hunting if they want a higher body count. That is where the armed civilian can make a difference. The lone defender who stays in the open during the initial enfilade is the first one to die.

Discretion being the better part of valor, beating a tactical retreat to behind friendly lines is always called for (when in a gunfight, bring a gun, and if possible, bring friends with guns). Dropping a bad guy who confronts you as you make your way out is about all the good an armed civilian would do. While it is not insignificant, it isn't going to stop the attack cold.

Wolfwood says:

on 12/4/2008 12:25:02 PM

I think we need to break it down into archetypes, with the following being only some: (in no specific order)

1. Terrorist
-spree (Mumbai, 9-11, Intifada)
-hostage (Iranian Embassy, FARC)
2. Mugger/Robber/Rapist/Murderer (violent non-terrorist criminals)
3. Suicidal Spree Shooter (mall/church/school shooters)
4. Non-Suicidal Spree Shooter ("DC Sniper")
5. Heat-of-the-moment (drunk guy who pulls a gun on the man who looked at his girl the wrong way)

Each of these has different motivations and a gun may or may not be effective (and if so, for different reasons). In each case, incapacitation is a worthy goal. I'm not trained in psychology; these are only my observations from a historical perspective. If I'm completely off base...be kind, but say so.

The terrorist may (or may not) be afraid of dying, but he's certainly worried that his mission may not succeed. This is somewhat like Japan not invading the mainland USA during WWII because they thought there would be too much armed resistance.

The "regular criminal" certainly doesn't want to die. While looking like a stone-cold body-building Marine is probably a good way of seeming like a bad choice of victim, simply knowing that muggers have a common tendency to get shot may lead criminals to try something else (be it a real job or at least something nonviolent like check fraud).

The suicidal spree shooter doesn't have a defined mission, but the past has shown that these guys tend to off themselves when they face resistance. They're cowards (well, all on this list tend to be). If they think they'll walk into a crowded place and get shot as soon as they try to kill people, they won't do it.

The non-suicidal spree shooter is probably least likely on this list to be deterred by firearms, as he does hit-and-run attacks that offer little chance for resistance. A gun may not help here, but it doesn't hurt.

The heat-of-the-moment scumbag probably doesn't want to die, and can probably be deterred. If he pulls out a gun and someone else does too, he may decide the insult wasn't as bad as he thought. Essentially, he's acting like a regular criminal for a brief moment.

Sorry this was kind of long; it just seems to me that we sometimes oversimplify things.

Robb Allen says:

on 12/4/2008 12:59:00 PM

Not a problem Wolf, feel free to comment as much as you like. Nature abhors a vacuum, I abhor an echo chamber.

As for simplification, unfortunately that's a side effect of communication. I can't explain every atomic part of every idea I have, so I have to generalize a bit.

However, I disagree in some aspects. Criminals that also are rational actors will be dissuaded from attacking an unknown. Many criminals are just plain #&*(ing stupid. There was a story last week about a robber who hit two houses in one night, getting a face full of shotgun in both.

I'm not saying the deterrent effect doesn't exist, but the crime statistics do not show enough of a drop off in crime vis-a-vis gun ownership to safely assume it's statistically significant. It may be, but it's kind of hard to track since people don't usually go to the police station to report they were going to do a crime, but weren't sure if they're victims would be armed so they went out for pizza instead.

kbiel says:

on 12/4/2008 1:04:09 PM

I would argue that CCW does in fact lower crime rates (there is a strong correlation) for two reasons: 1) Some criminals will be deterred by the fact that they may be killed and 2) the killing of a criminal prevents him or her from becoming a repeat offender.

RAH says:

on 12/4/2008 1:36:19 PM

Actually a pair of terrorists did that in the Washington DC area. Remember the snipers, I do. The places they hit were places that I went to daily on my job.

They were precision shots and killed women, a migrant mowing the grass and kid going into a school. The targets were random. Traveling, I had to watch whenever I parked and left my car to see if any suspicious cars were around. Not knowing the race or type of car made it difficult to guess who may be suspicious.

As soon as the police released the car info a pair of truckers found them within a couple of hours and blocked the rest area and the police arrested the pair with ease.

The real cure was that finally the police released info to the common folk who could act on the info. The pair was neutralized and no more terror.

One of the reason that no good attacks from terrorists have occurred is that people have notified police when the notice something strange like the NJ guy at the photo shop who notified the FBI and those guys were caught and tried. Police caught the pair that was traveling with bombs in S Carolina to a naval base.

The police and FBI and others have been very good at catching these wannabe terrorists before they can act.

The US warned the attack was coming by sea and hotels were a target. Still the lack of warning to the populace meant no one was watching. The fisherman saw the pirate/ terrorist kill the captain of the fishing trawler. Others saw the other killings and bodies dumped. None of this info got out to do any good.

Good police works finding these guys and types have been effective. An alert populace is very good about detecting these types. Some people may be able to stop a terrorist if they are armed and circumstances allow. Most often the killers are not up against a prepared defense. Chances are not good that armed CCW guys are in place to take down a terrorist.

But if a terrorist holds up there are enough people to get there own rifles and shoot back like the Texas U and clock tower. Once professors and others shot back against the killer, the killer shot no more innocents.

The point is have competent populace that can act independently and barbarians have a harder time getting control.

Joe says:

on 12/4/2008 2:16:30 PM

The advantage a CCW has is locality.
If he is at the location where something is happening, he maybe able to stop, what is happening right there. He was there before the barbarian showed up, he knows who was behaving themselves, and who is the aggressor. If he doesn't have this knowledge, he has no special advantage over the police, and may have disadvantages. A person with a CCW shouldn't go all john McLane regardless of his level of training, because it would be giving up his advantage, of knowing what was happening around him before it started.

bill says:

on 12/6/2008 12:21:11 PM

my own thoughts mirror yours. You hear gun shots in a populated area (mall), draw you weapon and head out with family in tow.

Comments have been closed on this topic.