"Myth of the Hero Gun Slinger"

[sonofbaldwin]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...gunslinger/?hp

PHOENIX — To many gun owners, the question of whether to arm even more people in a country that already has upwards of 300 million guns is as calcified as a Sonoran Desert petroglyph. It’s written in stone, among the fiercest of firearms advocates, that more guns equals fewer deaths.

But before the Tucson tragedy fades into tired talking points, it’s worth dissecting the crime scene once more to see how this idea fared in actual battle.

First, one bit of throat-clearing: I’m a third-generation Westerner, and grew up around guns, hunters of all possible fauna, and Second Amendment enthusiasts who wore camouflage nine months out of the year. Generally, I don’t have a problem with any of that.

Back to Tucson. On the day of the shooting, a young man named Joseph Zamudio was leaving a drugstore when he saw the chaos at the Safeway parking lot. Zamudio was armed, carrying his 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol. Heroically, he rushed to the scene, fingering his weapon, ready to fire.


Suppose, in the few seconds of confusion during the shootings, an armed bystander had fired at the wrong man.
Now, in the view of the more-guns proponents, Zamudio might have been able to prevent any carnage, or maybe even gotten off a shot before someone was killed.

“When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim,” said Arizona state representative Jack Harper, after a gunman had claimed 19 victims.

“I wish there had been one more gun in Tucson,” said an Arizona Congressman, Rep. Trent Franks, implying like Harper that if only someone had been armed at the scene, Jared Lee Loughner would not have been able to unload his rapid-fire Glock on innocent people.

In fact, several people were armed. So, what actually happened? As Zamudio said in numerous interviews, he never got a shot off at the gunman, but he nearly harmed the wrong person — one of those trying to control Loughner.

He saw people wrestling, including one man with the gun. “I kind of assumed he was the shooter,” said Zamudio in an interview with MSNBC. Then, “everyone said, ‘no, no — it’s this guy,’” said Zamudio.

To his credit, he ultimately helped subdue Loughner. But suppose, in those few seconds of confusion, he had fired at the wrong man and killed a hero? “I was very lucky,” Zamudio said.

It defies logic, as this case shows once again, that an average citizen with a gun is going to disarm a crazed killer. For one thing, these kinds of shootings happen far too suddenly for even the quickest marksman to get a draw. For another, your typical gun hobbyist lacks training in how to react in a violent scrum.

I don’t think these are reasons to disarm the citizenry. That’s never going to happen, nor should it. But the Tucson shootings should discredit the canard that we need more guns at school, in the workplace, even in Congress. Yes, Congress. The Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert has proposed a bill to allow fellow members to carry firearms into the Capitol Building.

Gohmert has enough trouble carrying a coherent thought onto the House floor. God forbid he would try to bring a Glock to work. By his reasoning, the Middle East would be better off if every nation in the region had nuclear weapons.

At least two recent studies show that more guns equals more carnage to innocents. One survey by the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that guns did not protect those who had them from being shot in an assault — just the opposite. Epidemiologists at Penn looked at hundreds of muggings and assaults. What they found was that those with guns were four times more likely to be shot when confronted by an armed assailant than those without guns. The unarmed person, in other words, is safer.

Other studies have found that states with the highest rates of gun ownership have much greater gun death rates than those where only a small percentage of the population is armed. So, Hawaii, where only 9.7 percent of residents own guns, has the lowest gun death rate in the country, while Louisiana, where 45 percent of the public is armed, has the highest.

Arizona, where people can carry guns into bars and almost anyone can get a concealed weapons permit, is one of the top 10 states for gun ownership and death rates by firearms. And in the wake of the shootings, some lawmakers want to flood public areas with even more lethal weapons.

Tuesday of this week was the first day of classes at Arizona State University, and William Jenkins, who teaches photography at the school, did not bring his weapon to campus. For the moment, it’s still illegal for professors to pack heat while they talk Dante and quantum physics.

But that may soon change. Arizona legislators have been pushing a plan to allow college faculty and students to carry concealed weapons at school.

“That’s insane,” Jenkins told me. “On Mondays I give a lecture to 120 people. I can’t imagine students coming into class with firearms. If something happened, it would be mayhem.”

He’s right. Jenkins is a lifelong gun owner and he carries a concealed weapon, by permit. He also carries a modicum of common sense. The two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

[Infra-Man]

[The Mandarin]

The thing about most people is, they're sheep. It's actually been shown in studies that in times of danger, most people won't react until someone who is in authority or unusually aggressive acts first. If no such person is present, the crowd will muddle about doing nothing but looking pensive. That's why a few men with knives were able to take over a huge airplane and crash it into a building. The crowd could have easily bum-rushed them, but the crowd contained no one with the initiative to do so.

This wouldn't be changed by giving everyone guns. Most people would still be sheep. All it would do is increase crimes of passion. Y'know what would happen if someone with a gun came into a crowd of people with guns and decided to, say, murder his cheating wife? The wife would probably die simply because she'd be taken by surprise and wouldn't have time to get her own gun out. The crowd, in all likelihood, would do nothing to either stop or avenge the crime. No average person would have the initiative to be that first person who whipped out his gun. Theyed all kind of stand around looking pensive with their guns holstered while the guy shot her and then ran off. Afterwards they would be making excuses about how, well, it all happened so fast. But really, it's the sheep-factor.

[Corrina]

The thing about most people is, they're sheep. It's actually been shown in studies that in times of danger, most people won't react until someone who is in authority or unusually aggressive acts first. If no such person is present, the crowd will muddle about doing nothing but looking pensive. That's why a few men with knives were able to take over a huge airplane and crash it into a building. The crowd could have easily bum-rushed them, but the crowd contained no one with the initiative to do so.

.

This is partially accurate but also the conventional wisdom at the time was not to attack hijackers and let authorities handle it, as the plane would eventually have to land.

it was the first time, at least in common memory, that the purpose was to use the plane to slam it into a building rather than hijack it, land, and demand the release of some jailed terrorist.

You have to know what you're up against to react. If you think you're up against crazies who will land the plane, then you know that negotiations start and plans are made to rescue you.

However, if you think the crazies in charge are going to slam the plane into a building, that's a helluva incentive to act--and those who did know this did react. That's the example set now and likely to happen again because people remember that. witness the people who reacted fast with the shoe bomber.

Most people have slow reactions in times of crisis, looking for a leader. People do react quicker when they're alone and not in a crowd because then they have no choice but to be the one who acts.

But there's also an intense psychological barrier against firing a gun in combat. I think I saw one survey that said nearly half of men in World War II did *NOT* fire their weapons upon first contact with the enemy.

[sonofbaldwin]

However, if you think the crazies in charge are going to slam the plane into a building, that's a helluva incentive to act--and those who did know this did react.

I was about to say, didn't the passengers on the 9/11 plane that crashed in Pennsylvania actually bum rush the attacker?

[Ravenwing263]

Yes, they sure did.

[Chris Jones]

Reminds me of this Something Awful article from a while back: You are Not Batman.

[Benel Germosen]

I don't trust most people with my lunch. I wouldn't trust most people with a handgun.

[stevapalooza]

Mortal fear definitely has a paralyzing effect on most people. There's a story from the Mongol invasion of the Middle East that tells of a prisoner who was about to be executed when his Mongol captor had to leave momentarily. He told the prisoner "don't move, I'll be right back." And even though there was no one else around and nothing to stop the prisoner from escaping, he did as he was told. Whether or not it's a true story, it's a pretty accurate portrait of how most people act under extreme stress and fear.

The only reason most of us think we wouldn't act that way is because most of us have never experienced that level of terror.

[The Xenos]

I don't trust most people with my lunch. I wouldn't trust most people with a handgun.

Yet you do. Every day. They're called police. You trust them with a lot more than just handguns. Though even then there are plenty of criminals with handguns. I don't see why it should be only cops and criminals with them. I just don't buy that. Who the hell is the state to say that only police should lawfully have guns? I don't know if even I want to have a hand gun or even a hunting gun, but I don't fancy the idea of only law enforcement and criminals being the only ones allowed to. The criminals, the bullies, the crazies like this fucker are going to get guns. You can't outlaw them anymore than booze or any other contraband. Why should the state prohibit sane law abiding citizens from having a gun? It's a pretty pessimistic view. I never got how being for strict gun laws was liberal. It seems very pessimistic and very against inherent liberty to me, two things that go against my very concept of liberalism.