Friendly fire shootings show why arming everyone won’t solve gun violence

[SecularMotion]

The New York City police officers who shot and killed Jeffrey Johnson near the Empire State Building last week did not know that he was a lone gunman with a vendetta against a co-worker. The incident took place close to a world-famous landmark in a city that has suffered dearly from terrorist attacks, so it’s not surprising that police reacted aggressively. Still, the incident, in which innocent bystanders were also shot, raises questions about whether police were too quick to assume a broader terror plot was underway ­— and about claims by the gun lobby that having lots of armed people on the scene is the best way to stop gun violence.

The New York Police Department has admitted that all nine bystanders wounded were actually struck by bullets or fragments from two cops. This mystifying fact should result in a serious review of protocols; these officers are trained to be good shots. This was chaos in a crowded environment — an environment that ought to be controlled by law enforcement. As they review the incident, investigators should determine whether any suspicions of a larger plot prompted officers to fire their weapons in ways that would endanger innocent people.

http://articles.boston.com/2012-08-31/editorials/33503371_1_gun-violence-police-officers-gun-lobby

[rDigital]

1. Debunked

The best-trained police officers can be in error when actually facing an enraged gunman. If even these professionals end up shooting and injuring bystanders outside the Empire State Building, how can private citizens be expected to discern an attacker from innocent people inside a darkened theater?

We've already established in a prior thread that the NYPD is not only poorly trained, but has one of the WORST firearms curriculums of any major police department in the US. They can't even be taught to keep their booger hooks offa tha bang switch, so they give then ridiculously heavy triggers to try and make due with their sub-par training.

http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/02/16/the-nypd-and-the-kahr-k-9-no-substitute-for-training/

The NYPD is apparently incapable of training its officers to keep their finger off the trigger, so instead of increasing or improving their training (which would cost the department money, as well as be an acknowledgement that the training was the problem), they mandate that the gun companies provide them modified weapons.

I don’t dislike Glocks, I love Glocks. I carry a Glock every day, and am in fact wearing one right now as I write this. However, Glocks equipped with the 12-lb New York Plus trigger are an abomination. A few years ago at an editorial roundtable, the InterMedia Outdoors staff had a friendly competition involving a Glock with such a trigger. Everyone involved reported that the pistol was nearly impossible to shoot. G&A’s Handgun Editor Pat Sweeney (a veteran pistol competitor and Master-Class USPSA shooter) won the contest, but to do so, he used a technique he wouldn’t recommend anyone use—he was pulling the trigger with both his index fingers. A 12-lb trigger on a Glock only makes it harder to shoot fast and accurately, thereby increasing the chances that an officer’s bullet won’t end up where he or she intended.

[SecularMotion]

2. You wear a gun to post on DU?

[holdencaufield]

3. I like it better when it just...

... Google Bombs

When it *tries* to express an opinion of its own, it reminds me of the poor, unfortunate Bong-Bong.

[SecularMotion]

4. I'd like it better if it didn't shill for a right wing organization on a Democratic message board.

[Reasonable_Argument]

5. Well

Some of us do not put party above principle, as you seem to do unforunaitly.

[rDigital]

6. Pro-2A Democrats exist and there are millions of us. It's nothing new, get used to it. nt

[SecularMotion]

9. There's an organization with millions of Democrats who are pro-2A?

I've never heard of this before. What's the name of this organization?

[rDigital]

10. It's called the "Democratic Party" you might have heard of it before. nt

[bongbong]

30. The name

It's called "Me and all my buddies who post on DU but never seem to post on any topic except how wonderful guns are!"

[hack89]

32. The Democratic Party. nt

[apocalypsehow]

24. There's never a time not to carry! A few years back, one of our "pro gun progressives"

confessed he'd rigged up a waterproof thingy that allowed him to carry while showering! That way, if some intruder broke into his house while he was bathing, he could come flying out of the shower spraying lead!

[rDigital]

25. It's a quote from the article. Not my words.

[Kolesar]

7. booger hooks

More hyperbolic language from a gungerelic

[rDigital]

8. If you'd ever taken a defensive firearms class in your life you'd know the joke behind that

statement. People remember the rules of firearm safety better when they are uniquely stated in an entertaining way.

[Kolesar]

11. You live in a bizarre world of stereotypes

I was on the college rifle team. I took the handgun course in college.

I also was on the debate team and debated public safety issues, I am sure that I have a broader understanding of public issues than you do.

[rDigital]

12. UH-OH here comes the really really smart guy! Everybody look out!

[Kolesar]

13. You lost the debate, so you changed the subject eom

[rDigital]

14. Not quite, just laughing you out of the room for your unabashed boastfulness. Pissing contests are

for internet infants. Stick to the facts, broski.

[rfranklin]

16. It seems you were bragging about your expertise...

Only moments ago.

[apocalypsehow]

27. Yep, he was. But, don't you see, intellectual consistency is for OTHER posters. n/t.

[bongbong]

31. Great job

Nice, quiet, clear job of pwning the gun-religionist.

Didn't hear from him on the sub-thread after that. Nice!

[TreasonousBastard]

15. We got it-- an amateur gunslinger with proper training and a proper weapon...

will cause less collateral damage on a crowded city street.

Ergo, we need more properly trained gunslingers on city streets for the next maniac who starts shooting at his ex-boss. And take the lousy guns away from the lousy shots in the PD while we're at it.

BTW, battle hardened vets, even with PTSD, will have the instincts to anticipate drivebys and random schoolyard shootings, so we should post them, fully armed with battle gear, on potentially dangerous corners in the cities.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Please show where CCWers have shot that many people by friendly fire.

There have been hundreds of instances of a CCWer defending him/herself by shooting a bad guy. Try to find more than a few where any innocent bystander has been hit by the CCWer. Now try to find even one in which the CCWer hit more than one by mistake.

[Euromutt]

17. Has anyone actually claimed "arming everyone will solve gun violence"?

Because if not, you're jousting at a straw man.

Let's get this out of the way: the latest shooting at the Empire State Building wouldn't have been a "mass shooting" if it weren't for the deplorable performance of the NYPD. But as other posters have pointed out, the NYPD has a fucking awful record on firearms use; the department is evidently unwilling to invest in training its officers properly, and seeks to compensate for inadequate training with user-unfriendly measures on equipment. This is not representative of police departments in general, and it certainly isn't representative of private citizens who go armed in public.

All the more so since private citizens know that they--not being agents of the state--don't have the legal protections a police officer does if he shoots someone he shouldn't have.

The argument is that would-be mass shooters might (might) be deterred by the possibility of facing a target capable of fighting back, and even if not, the casualty numbers might (might) be reduced if a prospective victim were capable of fighting back and cutting short the shooter's rampage. There's no certainty because there's not enough data, except to determine that so-called "gun free zones" have proven ineffective in preventing mass shootings.

[Atypical Liberal]

18. It also shows why the idea that "ONLY THE POLICE SHOULD HAVE GUNS" is a bunch of shit.

[johnlucas]

19. I made a point about this truth on a Yahoo News story using the Gabrielle Giffords situation

When that nut shot up all those people in Colorado on the Batman movie, there was a story promoted by Yahoo from ABC's Good Morning America called "Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 12 People Dead"

I made this post in response to the story & the general mentality of the comments there (pay attention to what's bolded):

The real truth is that even if you own a gun it will not protect you from craziness like this. In fact it may escalate the situation especially if one looking to take out the crazy gunman accidentally shot a bystander in the exchange. Your military who is specifically trained with firearms have numerous incidents of Friendly Fire. And they're TRAINED to shoot weapons. That pistol you have won't stop a bomb that has been planted. Will do little against an machine gun. Will do nothing against a sniper rifle. The answer to these problems is Mental Health Services. How do you CORRECTLY identify the violent crazy people, how do you treat them to make them 'un-crazy', & how at least do you isolate them from the public if you can't make them 'un-crazy'? Guns may make you feel powerful & give you a false sense of protection but chances are in the heat of the moment they don't do much to prevent crazy situations like these. Think about Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, one of the places that lives by the 'Everybody's Packing' mentality. All those guns they got & nobody intercepted Jared Loughner with one. They stopped him by simply tackling him to the ground.

John Lucas

[GreenStormCloud]

21. There have been several mass shootings that were stopped by an armed citizen.

The fact that it has happened several times proves that it can happen.

[PavePusher]

33. You have missed an important point.

Most civilian defensive situations don't have nearly as many people involved as a military firefight.

Go on, ask me how I know this...

[ileus]

22. You don't have to arm "everyone" 25% would do.

[aikoaiko]

23. So, how is that gun restriction legislation coming along?

How badly does it hurt to know the president has abandoned you and your cause?

Are you heartbroken? That would explain your obsession.

[rDigital]

26. That's a real sore spot for Gun-Prohbitionists. It's best not to bring it up,

else they foam at the mouth and stomp their feet.

[2on2u]

28. If only the cameras at intersections had guns..... hah! n/t

[tularetom]

29. Neither I nor anyone else can tell you whether the presence of one or more armed citizens

would have prevented the Empire State Building tragedy. But I can say without contradiction that disarming the NYPD would have prevented nine bystanders from being shot.

I have no problem with people carrying concealed handguns if that is their thing.

But I am sort of intrigued by the concept of unarmed cops.