![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Huh? Whuh?
Today, my wife was doing one of the various visits that comprise part of her job. As she entered the next spot on her itinerary, a television was playing in the lobby, recounting the incident wherein some then-unidentified person had opened fire (massive fire, apparently) on theatergoers at a premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises”.
Our last word from my daughter (the redoubtable
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
sroni), visiting friends out of state? that she and they were attending a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises”.Fortunately, we’ve heard from her since then. Not even the same state. But, damn.
I look forward to the day when news reports indicate that one of these would-be perpetrators has been thoroughly and definitively shot dead by a dozen or so of his intended victims. But, you know what? even if it happened, today’s media wouldn’t report it. Or would use it to launch yet another demand for more gun control.
no subject
I'm all for concealed carry but in the circumstances as described I'm not sure return fire would have been wise. Extremely low visibility, far too many civilian targets between you and the shooter unless you happened to be on the first or second row.
I saw Dark Knight Rises today and approximately 20 minutes into the film there is a gun battle and my eyes cut toward the emergency exit, not because I expected a gunman to be there but because I realized this was the point when he entered and opened fire and I couldn't help imagining the scene for a moment.
And I know there are people who will never feel safe going to the movies again because of this, and they may clamor for silly, maybe even dangerous, things in a fruitless effort to be safe. That saddens and scares me even more.
no subject
It would have been a horrendous mess. You have to remember, though, that my basic perspective differs from yours. Yours is that of a regular citizen, law-respecting and law-abiding and (since you don’t evince a knee-jerk blanket disapproval of firearms) properly conscious of the necessity of using those implements in a safe, responsible fashion. I start in the same place, but in me those attitudes and beliefs are supplemented and modified by training for (and then experience in) active combat zones. The upshot is, you’re thinking of ideal circumstances, whereas my background accustoms me to the thought that one sometimes has to take action even when circumstances are far from ideal.
In that venue, under those conditions, dozens of things could easily have gone wrong for one or more persons attempting to apply effective preventive return fire, and almost certainly some of those things would have gone wrong. Innocent people struck, even killed, by ‘friendly’ fire? Bad, horribly bad. But would that have been worse than allowing a heavily armed man clearly intent on mass murder to continue without interference?
“The perfect is the enemy of the good.” We just have to make sure that the perfect doesn’t rule out the good so that we’re left only with the bad, the worse, and the unbearable.
no subject
That said, you are a trained soldier, taught how to evaluate a combat situation and operate in less adverse conditions. Also, when you are forced into a firefight you don't have the option of hoping for police intervention or fleeing (which, granted, these people didn't have either).
My point is that someone returning fire in these conditions who is not so trained is more likely to hit friendlies than an armed and (in this case) armored gunman.
I tell you, I consider it serious divine intervention that his gun jammed.
no subject
Yes, you had successfully indicated in your initial post that you are not in opposition to citizens’ right to arm themselves. And I agree with your basic point: that under those circumstances, opposing fire was only too likely to hit innocent people as well as the intended target.
However, put it in these terms:
I’m one of the people in the theater. (This is not ME, this is a fictional person on the premises.) I hear gunfire, and then screams. I have a weapon on my person, in violation of the notice posted by the theater, and as the people around me begin to react with alarm and then active fear and then growing panic, I try to get a sighting on where the fire is coming from. It’s not easy under those conditions, it seems to take forever, but I’m able at last to see muzzle flashes, and struggle to reach a position where I can get a clear shot. Too many people between us, too little visibility, and a terrible choice looms.
Scenario 1: I take the best sight picture I can, pray, and start carefully squeezing off rounds. Not careful enough. I can see my target but not where my shots are hitting, but there are more screams, and more people fall behind the gunman. At last he lurches, falters, and stumbles, and others around him seize him and drag him down. When ballistics tests are finally performed, in the aftermath, the results show that Holmes shot twenty people and killed three … and my bullets hit three (besides him), and killed one of them.
Scenario 2: I’m not willing to face the possibility of striking an innocent. I hold fire while pushing through the crowd of people trying to get out. It takes much too long, and by the time I get close enough, he’s already left the theater and been arrested outside. Final result, he shot seventy people and killed thirteen of them.
In Scenario 1, someone is dead because of me. The law will probably rule it justifiable (though some unscrupulous prosecutor might try to go at me because of my disobeying the theater’s NO GUNS ALLOWED posting), but I would absolutely be bankrupted by the inevitable wrongful death suit. And I would always have to remember that I killed someone who didn’t deserve it, and wounded two others who were likewise blameless.
In Scenario 2, no attention or blame is ever directed toward me (so long as I conceal the fact that I was also armed). I’m never haunted by the face of the person I didn’t kill, since it didn’t happen. If I have a conscience, however, I’ll always wonder how many I might have saved if I’d been willing to take the chance. And — because I lined out these scenarios — we can see that nine additional people died because I chose not to act.
It’s theoretical, of course. Scenario 2, except for ‘my’ insertion into the proceedings (ultimately without taking action), is what happened in Aurora. Scenario 1 is a story told of what might have happened but didn’t.
Trained soldier, experienced cop, or simple armed citizen, those are the principles in play here.
no subject
The bottom line is that if you or someone like you (fellow soldier, cop, etc.) was in that theater I'd have no problem with you firing, even if scenario 1 is optimistic. I would have a problem with someone like me firing simply because, in the low visibility and chaos, an untrained person I feel is more prone to panic and bad judgement. Think of the possibility of the outcome of Scenario 1 and 2 being reversed. Again, I view this as an unusual circumstance. If there was a shooter, say on my campus, any armed ordinary citizen could be effective against them, and in fact have been.
And I apologize for my incorrect information on the body armor.
no subject
It appears that we spend most of our time clarifying our positions, rather than actually disagreeing on anything.
I can live with that.