First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Uber driver stops mass shooting
16741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/3/15 , edited 10/4/15

Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding people carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings. Opponents occasionally ask: If that’s so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven’t heard of even one such example.

The Chicago Tribune on Monday (in an article by Geoff Ziezulewicz) reported on one such incident (thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer), though I should stress that it’s always risky to rely on early news coverage such as this:


Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver [who has a concealed-carry permit and] who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend….

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/20/uber-driver-with-gun-apparently-stops-would-be-mass-shooter-have-civilians-stopped-such-mass-shootings-before/


More stories:
*Store owner attacked by thugs with concrete block and bottle: http://www.wbtv.com/story/30154330/catawba-man-says-he-shot-intruder-out-of-fear-for-his-life

*Kid saves family from gunmen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nTkHM2860g

*15-year-old Boy Protects Sister, Shooting Home Invaders with Assault Rifle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wsQNCjoafY
51197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/3/15
I think the biggest reason stories like this are rare is because it doesn't get enough attention to attract news reporters. It doesn't become news until AFTER blood has already been spilled. Just think of how many similar stories never get reported because the people close to the incident fail to realize the tragedy that was just avoided.
8010 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / florida
Offline
Posted 10/3/15 , edited 10/3/15
this story will not be publicized because it shows a man with a licensed gun defending people.
28767 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 10/3/15
"Will not be publicized?" That's the freakin' Washington Post.

This really isn't as complex as gun advocates want it to be. On average, when you have more so-easy-a-caveman-could-use-it killing machines available, more people are going to be killed by them. It's inevitable. Occasionally something like this happens, and everyone suddenly forgets that the heroic gunman could have used a taser or something... and, more to the point, the whole incident probably never would have happened in the first place if it had been even slightly difficult for an obviously dangerous person to get their hands on a gun. And, like the article says, most gun deaths don't happen in mass shootings (it's mostly accidents and suicides).

America just loves guns too much to consider that guns might be, y'know, dangerous. Even right after yet another school shooting, we're still trying to come up with excuses for having so many guns lying around.
16741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/3/15

kotomikun wrote:

"Will not be publicized?" That's the freakin' Washington Post.

This really isn't as complex as gun advocates want it to be. On average, when you have more so-easy-a-caveman-could-use-it killing machines available, more people are going to be killed by them. It's inevitable. Occasionally something like this happens, and everyone suddenly forgets that the heroic gunman could have used a taser or something... and, more to the point, the whole incident probably never would have happened in the first place if it had been even slightly difficult for an obviously dangerous person to get their hands on a gun. And, like the article says, most gun deaths don't happen in mass shootings (it's mostly accidents and suicides).

America just loves guns too much to consider that guns might be, y'know, dangerous. Even right after yet another school shooting, we're still trying to come up with excuses for having so many guns lying around.


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/TASERS-INEFFECTIVE-IN-4-OFFICER-INVOLVED-SHOOTINGS-269299881.html

Guns lying around hurt no one. They require a human or other sentient being to be used.
3034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Texas
Offline
Posted 10/3/15 , edited 10/3/15
Most gun deaths happen in war, where an entire nation licenses every gun to their citizens under the guise of patriotism. If wars were fought with, less say pillows, would we wanna ban those too? You can't blame the instrument of war as the criminal. It's the leader of the country, the madman who snaps at his school, a group of Russians playing roulette who are to blame.

But on the topic of this forum, the shooter was a hero indeed.
27705 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / TX
Offline
Posted 10/3/15
Give this man a medal. Really sad we won't be seeing this on national news or any other cases like it.
16741 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/3/15
18917 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/3/15 , edited 10/7/15

kotomikun wrote:

"Will not be publicized?" That's the freakin' Washington Post.

This really isn't as complex as gun advocates want it to be. On average, when you have more so-easy-a-caveman-could-use-it killing machines available, more people are going to be killed by them. It's inevitable. Occasionally something like this happens, and everyone suddenly forgets that the heroic gunman could have used a taser or something... and, more to the point, the whole incident probably never would have happened in the first place if it had been even slightly difficult for an obviously dangerous person to get their hands on a gun. And, like the article says, most gun deaths don't happen in mass shootings (it's mostly accidents and suicides).

America just loves guns too much to consider that guns might be, y'know, dangerous. Even right after yet another school shooting, we're still trying to come up with excuses for having so many guns lying around.


This is America, so you're allowed to be stupid, but please do it elsewhere. You are right that guns can be tools for killing, unlike other options that are non-lethal and less effective. Tasers, as you mentioned have limited range and effectiveness. You also only get one chance to hit and immobilize your target. If you miss or get a bad shot in, you could be shot and you might die. Though that probably wouldn't bother a person like you would it? Better to die at the hands of a criminal than defend your life, your friends, your family, or innocent bystanders right?

Do you have a genius solution for keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals, and legal guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals that snap? If we could make it harder for criminals to obtain guns without penalizing law abiding citizens, that would be great. But at this point in time, I haven't heard about a magical solution to fix this problem. Oh, while you're at it, you should tell the government how to crush the illegal drug trade. Oh wait, that isn't necessary since no one can get their hands on illegal drugs, and the war on drugs is going ever so well...

A (significant) percentage of gun deaths occur in accidents and suicides. Don't blame the guns. People get killed in all kinds of accidents due to lack or knowledge, training, or supervision or due to carelessness or something else. People die because they make a mistake, or someone else makes a mistake. Accidents happen. People mess up. And sometimes people die due to those mistakes. Don't blame the gun just because it supports your cause.

Even without guns, people still have plenty of ways to kill themselves. Pick your poison. Most of them work some of the time.

Guns are dangerous when placed in the hands of a person with ill intent. Guns can also save lives when given to the right person. I concealed carry and open carry when I am not around idiots. I've never pointed a gun at anything I didn't fully intend to kill or destroy, be it for self defense or sport. A gun is a tool. Nothing more. What a gun is used for is up to the person pulling the trigger. I choose self defense or for hunting game. Some people choose serial killings, mass murder, or suicide. Who made the decision? Who pulled the trigger? Protest guns all you want, but disarming law abiding citizens with common sense won't solve a damn thing.
51197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/3/15

kotomikun wrote:

"Will not be publicized?" That's the freakin' Washington Post.

This really isn't as complex as gun advocates want it to be. On average, when you have more so-easy-a-caveman-could-use-it killing machines available, more people are going to be killed by them. It's inevitable. Occasionally something like this happens, and everyone suddenly forgets that the heroic gunman could have used a taser or something... and, more to the point, the whole incident probably never would have happened in the first place if it had been even slightly difficult for an obviously dangerous person to get their hands on a gun. And, like the article says, most gun deaths don't happen in mass shootings (it's mostly accidents and suicides).

America just loves guns too much to consider that guns might be, y'know, dangerous. Even right after yet another school shooting, we're still trying to come up with excuses for having so many guns lying around.


Yes, guns are dangerous. That's why not even a madman like Hitler was crazy enough to attack a country where any random civilian could potentially be armed (Switzerland). Most of the mass shooters you see on the news are certainly crazy, but they're smart enough to know they'll have an easier time killing people in gun-free zones.

People who advocate for stricter gun control after mass shootings are ignoring the real issue: a mental health care system that is a huge joke. Not only are you advocating for taking innocent people's rights away, you're ignoring the people that are actually crying out for help. It's sad how we live in a country where a mentally ill person can go all over the internet, announce where their crime will be, and carry it out long before anyone notices that they've already publicly announced that they were going to do this. If we want to see less mass shootings, we need to fix our broken mental health care system and put in place laws that limit people with questionable records from obtaining guns. None of which should infringe on the rights of sane law-abiding citizens. Taking away guns from regular citizens will only put them in danger of people who don't follow the law and/or are crazy.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/3/15 , edited 10/4/15
Yeah, people kill people, guns don't kill people, but that doesn't necessarily mean guns are worth the risk.

Let's talk....missiles. Let's say every person has his own personal missile silo. Missiles can be used for malicious killing or to kill someone trigger-happy to protect others. We'd probably still ban citizen ownership of these missiles for some of the same reasons we'd ban guns. Ending lives is just too easy with these sorts of weapons and their only real purpose is to cause death or great bodily injury.

Knives are tools with many uses and it takes considerably more effort and planning to kill with a knife than with a gun. Swords are tools for killing but they are conspicuous and can be used to practice certain martial arts. Both have limited range. Restraints are built in. A person doesn't need nearly as much training with a gun to be deadly and not much physical conditioning is required. Anyone can press a button to shoot a missile or pull a trigger to fire a bullet. I think that is what makes them so dangerous, much more dangerous than any bladed tool or weapon. Contrary to what is depicted in anime and movies, swinging a sword properly to cut down a man so that he can't retaliate requires a fair amount of training. Same goes for knives, which are even less lethal. Strangely, since you're not likely to get into a knife fight or sword fight nowadays, it is more effective to train people today to cut down unarmed and unarmored enemies, but I don't see martial arts focusing on that.

Although gun bans do not directly solve mass shooter issues, the fact that people kill people does not mean guns are worth the risk. It all depends how you want to do the balancing. I just see a lot of talking past the opposition in this particular controversial issue.

At the moment, I could go either way, but both sides have major potential problems to address.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/4/15

kotomikun wrote:

"Will not be publicized?" That's the freakin' Washington Post.

This really isn't as complex as gun advocates want it to be. On average, when you have more so-easy-a-caveman-could-use-it killing machines available, more people are going to be killed by them. It's inevitable. Occasionally something like this happens, and everyone suddenly forgets that the heroic gunman could have used a taser or something... and, more to the point, the whole incident probably never would have happened in the first place if it had been even slightly difficult for an obviously dangerous person to get their hands on a gun. And, like the article says, most gun deaths don't happen in mass shootings (it's mostly accidents and suicides).

America just loves guns too much to consider that guns might be, y'know, dangerous. Even right after yet another school shooting, we're still trying to come up with excuses for having so many guns lying around.


1) Yeah, because tasing a guy that's already shooting people is so easy, right? "Aw, he might have a gun, but I'm sure I can just walk up to him and tase him...."

2) Except when the gunman obtains his gun illegally...

3) Yeah, "Will not be publicized." This happened in April, and I guarantee this thread is the first you've heard of it. Am I wrong?

4) Accidental gun deaths number an extremely minute amount, 500-600 per year (as we're discussing in another thread). You are correct in that mass shootings do not account for a significant portion of gun deaths, though.

Murica. Fuck yeah.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/4/15

izzymoto_sama wrote:

Most gun deaths happen in war, where an entire nation licenses every gun to their citizens under the guise of patriotism. If wars were fought with, less say pillows, would we wanna ban those too? You can't blame the instrument of war as the criminal. It's the leader of the country, the madman who snaps at his school, a group of Russians playing roulette who are to blame.

But on the topic of this forum, the shooter was a hero indeed.


That's not funny, man. Some of my best friends were killed by pillow-force trauma.
13129 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 10/4/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

Yes, guns are dangerous. That's why not even a madman like Hitler was crazy enough to attack a country where any random civilian could potentially be armed (Switzerland). Most of the mass shooters you see on the news are certainly crazy, but they're smart enough to know they'll have an easier time killing people in gun-free zones.

People who advocate for stricter gun control after mass shootings are ignoring the real issue: a mental health care system that is a huge joke. Not only are you advocating for taking innocent people's rights away, you're ignoring the people that are actually crying out for help. It's sad how we live in a country where a mentally ill person can go all over the internet, announce where their crime will be, and carry it out long before anyone notices that they've already publicly announced that they were going to do this. If we want to see less mass shootings, we need to fix our broken mental health care system and put in place laws that limit people with questionable records from obtaining guns. None of which should infringe on the rights of sane law-abiding citizens. Taking away guns from regular citizens will only put them in danger of people who don't follow the law and/or are crazy.


First of all, theres no evidence that mass shooters in general pick their targets based on whether or not they are gun free. They tend to be either places the individual was personally connected to (ex: workplace, ex school etc) or the place where the ones they wanted to kill are (ex: churches).

Second of all, the most recent mass shooting didn't actually take place in a gun free zone as state laws allowed concealed guns on campus with a permit and there were individuals with concealed weapons on campus at the time.

Additionally, while mental health is certainly a problem, it is not the whole problem. However, one of the most common ways to ensure that those with mental health issues aren't able to get guns is universal thorough background checks which gun lobbyists are almost unanimously against. Whether you like it or not, even keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is wrapped into the whole stalemate of gun control. Talking about the issue of gun control is not ignoring mental health as the two are in large parts tied together.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/4/15 , edited 10/4/15

sundin13 wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:

Yes, guns are dangerous. That's why not even a madman like Hitler was crazy enough to attack a country where any random civilian could potentially be armed (Switzerland). Most of the mass shooters you see on the news are certainly crazy, but they're smart enough to know they'll have an easier time killing people in gun-free zones.

People who advocate for stricter gun control after mass shootings are ignoring the real issue: a mental health care system that is a huge joke. Not only are you advocating for taking innocent people's rights away, you're ignoring the people that are actually crying out for help. It's sad how we live in a country where a mentally ill person can go all over the internet, announce where their crime will be, and carry it out long before anyone notices that they've already publicly announced that they were going to do this. If we want to see less mass shootings, we need to fix our broken mental health care system and put in place laws that limit people with questionable records from obtaining guns. None of which should infringe on the rights of sane law-abiding citizens. Taking away guns from regular citizens will only put them in danger of people who don't follow the law and/or are crazy.


First of all, theres no evidence that mass shooters in general pick their targets based on whether or not they are gun free. They tend to be either places the individual was personally connected to (ex: workplace, ex school etc) or the place where the ones they wanted to kill are (ex: churches).

Second of all, the most recent mass shooting didn't actually take place in a gun free zone as state laws allowed concealed guns on campus with a permit and there were individuals with concealed weapons on campus at the time.

Additionally, while mental health is certainly a problem, it is not the whole problem. However, one of the most common ways to ensure that those with mental health issues aren't able to get guns is universal thorough background checks which gun lobbyists are almost unanimously against. Whether you like it or not, even keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is wrapped into the whole stalemate of gun control. Talking about the issue of gun control is not ignoring mental health as the two are in large parts tied together.


"Gun control" is one of those broad terms we really have to define when we talk about it.

For many people, it's "ban all civilians from owning guns." For others it's "more background checks." For others it's "address the mental health issues." and so on and so forth, etc.

When someone says, "I'm for/against gun control," we tend to think "they don't want ANY restrictions on guns" or "they want to take all our guns away!"


(Also, the campus is a gun free zone. http://www.umpqua.edu/community-workforce-training/185-about-ucc/offices-administration/400-safety-security-info The 1989 Oregon law that allows CCW to be carried anywhere does have exemptions, see http://www.usacarry.com/oregon_concealed_carry_permit_information.html under "what areas are off-limits". CCW is, in fact, NOT allowed on campus.)


EDIT: Also wanted to address that most mass shootings have taken place in gun-free ones, but you're right--correlation does not equal causation. However, I really don't think it's much of a coincidence. We don't hear of many mass shootings affecting police stations, yet I can guarantee that more ill will is generated in tehre than a community college campus.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.