Originally Posted by
jon c.
Ask some of those ppl who were in that movie theater when it got shot up if they wish they were armed. Bet you'd get an almost resounding yes.
And if several of them were, would they just start shooting in the general direction of the muzzle flashes in the dark and smoke filled room? Seems like an especially poor example of when private citizens with guns would actually be helpful rather than increasing the relative danger.
Even more hypotheticals. There is annecdotal evidence that legal concealed carry holders have ended such massecres already (not many but they have happened) and with lower loss of life than others where no private citizens were armed. There is no annecdotal evidece for your scenario however...
Originally Posted by
jon c.
I support the right of citizens to be armed, but I don't see it as being terribly viable for self defense in many circumstances. There is often great potential danger to innocent bystanders. Where there are no other people around, there's a fair chance the criminal will use the element of surprise. The gun toter comes out ahead in those situations in the movies, but not so often in real life. There are a host of other scenarios where the concept just falls flat. Such as the group of menacing thugs 'talking' to you on the street corner. You're scared because they're trying to scare you. But is that all they're doing? You don't actually have legitimate cause to use force when you're merely being intimidated and such situations can turn from intimidation (when you can't even legally pull the weapon) to assault so quickly that when you're surrounded you may have no chance to get your piece out before being knocked out from behind. Or the situation never turns to assault - the thugs just wanted to get their jollies by intimidating someone. That's an extremely infuriating situation to be in, but it isn't justifiable cause for lethal force. Or even for brandishing the weapon.
Again there is ample annecdotal evidence that it does prove effective. And no, there are infinite hypotheticals where it wouldn't; however, the reality is that is does provide some benefit--the degree of that benefit is arguable.
Originally Posted by
jon c.
The reality is that guns in private hands are not used to successfully thwart criminals very often. Sure, there are anecdotal cases, but the number of times where this really works is exceedingly small. As it is now, the number of people who legally carry concealed is not large. And licensing procedures tend to vet the carriers fairly well. But if it were to become commonplace, I would be much more worried about that than I am now about criminals.
There are more than 5,000,000 permits issued in the US--it is fairly common. Anyone who wants one and meets certain minimum criteria can have one. Given the small number of crimes commited on otherwise on non-criminal civilians, the use of self-defense weapons is fairly significant. What is significant is that the hypotheticals such as you postulate don't have much if any evidence, annecdotal or otherwise, to support them.
As a side note, the 'thug' as you put it may only intend intimidation (which is rarely the case), but what matters to the law is not the 'thugs' intent, but the reasonableness of the victims belief that they are about to be harmed... Which is all that is needed to justify lethal force for self-defense... Fifteen years of evidence indicates that allowing the lawful carry of concealed handguns does not increase the general level of violence/crime. In fact the evidence is the exact opposite--though the effect is small and may not be statistically significant...