Huh? Whuh?

[aadler]

 
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 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.

Comments

[aadler]

I hear now that James Eagan Holmes was wearing a tactical vest rather than actual body armor. (A tac vest has pouches for extra ammunition or other useful items, but has no protective properties per se.)

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.

[texanfan.livejournal.com]

This is one of those arguments that is ironic because I'm not actually arguing with you.

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.

[aadler]

Your information was current at that time, I was just repeating what looked to be an update.

It appears that we spend most of our time clarifying our positions, rather than actually disagreeing on anything.

I can live with that.