hudebnik | Entries tagged with guns

According to the Times's survey of Republican Senators, the primary talking point is "We don't want to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens."

Which sounds like a good principle... except that if I understand it right, the perpetrator in the Uvalde school shooting was a law-abiding citizen until he started shooting that day. Ditto the perpetrator in the Buffalo grocery store shooting two weeks ago. Ditto the perpetrator in the Parkland school shooting four years ago. Ditto the perpetrator in the Santa Fe school shooting four years ago. Ditto the perpetrator in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting four years ago. Ditto the perpetrator in the Las Vegas concert shooting five years ago. Ditto the perpetrator in the Pulse nightclub shooting six years ago. Ditto the perpetrator in the Sandy Hook school shooting ten years ago. Ditto the perpetrator in the Virginia Tech shooting fifteen years ago. Most mass-shooters have no previous criminal record, and acquired their guns completely legally.

"Law-abiding citizen" is not an innate, permanent quality that good people have and bad people don't. "Law-abiding citizen" means you haven't committed a crime yet. Every one of the mass shooters in the previous paragraph transformed himself from a law-abiding citizen to a mass murderer in seconds or minutes. Of course, our legal system rightly doesn't support punishing individuals for crimes they haven't committed yet. But it's not "punishment" to tell you not to endanger the public by doing something that nobody else is allowed to do either, like drunk driving, making bombs in your basement, or keeping a pet tiger.

These mass shootings weren't done with hunting rifles. They weren't done with pistols that you would carry to defend yourself against muggers or rapists. They were done with semi-automatic military weapons with large ammunition clips, weapons whose only purpose is to kill lots of people quickly. If you don't want to kill lots of people quickly, you don't need that weapon. And if you do want to kill lots of people quickly, you've just demonstrated why you shouldn't have that weapon.

If we consider carrying large-capacity semi-automatic weapons in public places a fundamental right that can't be abridged until after somebody has committed a violent crime, then there's absolutely nothing we can do to prevent this. One or two mass shootings every single day somewhere in the United States is just the way of the world; deal with it. Small children terrified to go to school, and parents terrified to send them, are the inevitable price of freedom.

If we refuse to accept the latter, the only alternative is to move large-capacity semi-automatic weapons into the same category with other strictly-military things like tanks, missiles, and machine guns, whose ownership and possession are already restricted by law. That doesn't seem like a stretch to me, but apparently it's a non-starter for some people.

OK, I get that Republican elected officials don't want to talk about gun control, which they call "politicizing a tragedy for partisan gain". (Of course, it wouldn't be an opportunity for partisan gain if Democrats weren't proposing moderate measures that an overwhelming majority of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, support, and if elected Republicans weren't blocking those moderate measures; elected Republicans could easily neutralize this as a partisan issue by doing what their own voters want. But you don't win primaries with broadly-supported common-sense policies; you win primaries with whatever the most extreme members of your party want. Reason number 27 to burn the party-primary system to the ground.)

So let's step away from 'gun control' and partisan differences for a moment, and look for areas of agreement. Most Republican elected officials are willing to say that mass-shooting incidents like these are "unfortunate" and "tragedies". Some might go so far as to say it would be better if they didn't happen (as long as we don't step on anybody's Constitutional rights). So ask your own Republican elected official "Forget about gun control. Is there anything government can do (at any level -- Federal, State, or local) to make such incidents less common or less lethal? If you don't like Democrats' ideas for solving this, what are your ideas? Have you taken any concrete steps to put your ideas into reality?"

If the answer is "no, government can't solve this", then we're saying government either has no legitimate role, or has no competence, in protecting the lives of innocent citizens against murder. Are we OK with saying that?

And yes, I know that mass shootings are a small fraction of gun deaths in this country -- about one in 70. But intuitively, they should be politically low-hanging fruit: if we can't agree on protecting third-graders from being massacred at their desks, and grandmothers being massacred in the produce aisle, there's no hope for the country accomplishing anything.

When George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in 2012, there was a lot of talk about "stand your ground" immunity and the "self-defense" defense. Florida's "stand your ground" law says "a person can use deadly force anywhere as long as he is not engaged in an unlawful activity, is being attacked in a place he has a right to be, and reasonably believes that his life and safety are in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by someone else" (quote from CNN), and if a judge rules that these conditions apply, the person who used the deadly force is immune from both civil and criminal trial in the case. As it turned out, Zimmerman didn't claim "stand your ground" immunity, but instead went to trial with a traditional "self defense" defense, claiming that Martin had attacked and beaten him first (and Martin's not around to dispute that claim). But I noted at the time that if Martin had survived, he too could have claimed both "stand your ground" and "self defense": he was not engaged in an unlawful activity, he was attacked in a place he had a right to be, and (especially as a young black man) he had every reason to believe his life was in danger from this white-guy-with-a-gun. Both sides were "justified" in using deadly force. It's almost as though somebody had written the laws intentionally to encourage as much violence and bloodshed as possible.

An opinion piece in today's NY Times points out that all three of the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot, as well as several others he didn't shoot, attacked him because of his gun, and that in his own words, he felt they were a threat because, although two of the three were unarmed, they could have taken his gun and "killed me with it and probably killed more people". He shot them to protect himself and others from the threat posed by his own gun, which wouldn't have been a threat if he hadn't brought it.

So why did he think they were an imminent threat? Because they were running at him, and in some cases hitting him. Why were they running at him and hitting him? Because he was a teenaged boy carrying a big military rifle at a riot, which made him an imminent threat to them and others. (Approximately half of you have been 17-year-old boys; would you trust younger-you with a military rifle in a riot? Would you trust your schoolmates?) Indeed, one of Rittenhouse's victims was an EMT who, after coming to the scene to provide first aid, drew his own gun to protect himself and others against an "active shooter", i.e. Rittenhouse, who by that time had already killed two people and was obviously an imminent threat to everybody around him. He presumably still thought of himself as a good guy, but to everyone else, he had become a bad guy who needed to be stopped by any means necessary.

If you're armed in a fast-food restaurant, a movie theater, a political protest, or some other public gathering, and somebody starts shooting, don't draw your own gun: in the chaos, nobody will be able to tell that you're the "good guy", and you're likely to get shot by other "good guys with guns". Indeed, the more "good guys with guns" there are, the more likely they are to shoot one another.

In a real-world gunfight, people don't come equipped with black hats and white hats, only guns. If you see a stranger (especially a teenager) carrying a gun in a tense, violent situation, that person is an imminent threat to you and everybody else, regardless of what headgear either of you thinks you're wearing. Rittenhouse shot at four people, injuring one and killing two, in self defense when they attacked him in self defense. If he was justified in defending himself against an imminent threat, so were they -- but two of them died for it before they could make their self-defense claim in court.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any situation in which carrying a gun would make me safer. Consider the traditional example of a burglar breaking into my house in the middle of the night. If I confront an armed burglar and I'm not armed, he could shoot me, or he could tie me up, or he could run away, and two of those three options leave me and my family alive and un-injured (and the burglar not guilty of a more-serious crime). If, on the other hand, I confront an armed burglar and I am armed, the burglar has to assume I'm about to shoot him, so he has no choice but to shoot me first (followed by any witnesses, such as my spouse). He'll probably win, because he has every advantage over me: (a) he knew all along that he might get into a gunfight, whereas I've only known that for a few seconds, so I'm jittery with adrenaline; (b) I just woke up in the middle of the night; and (c) I'm more concerned than he is about hitting my pets, my family, my neighbors, or my possessions.

OK, suppose a burglar broke into my house in the middle of the night, we both had guns, and I could see him but he couldn't see me. Then I could shoot him from behind at reduced risk to myself. But I probably wouldn't, because (a) I've never killed another human and would rather not start now; (b) "white-hats" don't shoot people from behind; and (c) if I shoot him without killing him instantly, we're back to the situation in the previous paragraph, and I'm likely to be injured or killed myself.

Guns don't protect people; people protect people.

Update 19 November: Rittenhouse was acquitted on all counts. Probably the correct verdict under Wisconsin law, which (like Florida law) makes both sides "justified" in using lethal force if they feel sufficiently threatened.

Let's review.

Rosenbaum feared, quite reasonably, that Rittenhouse would shoot him or somebody else, so he was justified in reaching for Rittenhouse's gun.

Rittenhouse feared, quite reasonably, that Rosenbaum would take his gun and kill him with it, so he was justified in killing Rosenbaum.

Huber feared, quite reasonably, that Rittenhouse would shoot him or somebody else (after all, he had just killed Rosenbaum), so he was justified in hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard.

Rittenhouse feared, quite reasonably, that Huber would hurt him, take his gun and kill him with it, so he was justified in killing Huber.

Grosskreutz feared, quite reasonably, that Rittenhouse would shoot him or somebody else (after all, he had just killed Rosenbaum and Huber and shot at somebody else), so he was justified in drawing his pistol, and would have been justified in killing Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse feared, quite reasonably, that Grosskreutz would kill him, so he was justified in shooting Grosskreutz, and would have been justified in killing him.

Under the law, you can do whatever you want if you're sufficiently scared. Again, it's as though lawmakers were trying to maximize the bloodshed on their streets. It's a minor miracle that the cycle of fear and death ended where it did, rather than going on all night.

Of the four people discussed above, all four acted in self-defense based on reasonable fear for their lives, but the two who didn't have guns are dead now, and the one who had a gun but didn't shoot could easily have been dead by now. The lesson is "if you plan to defend yourself, you'd better have a gun and be willing to use it on other people. Otherwise you'll get killed for defending yourself, and your killer will walk free." This message has been brought to you by your friends in the gun industry.

Actually, outlawing bump-stocks and other after-market mods that convert semiautomatic guns to automatic guns almost certainly won't hurt, and might even save a few lives. Not many -- after all, when is the last shooting you heard about that involved such a modified gun? The interesting thing -- in both good and bad ways -- is that it means the NRA supporting a legal restriction on something involving guns, for the first time in probably several decades. On the good side, it reminds the NRA of its one-time focus on gun safety. On the bad side, the NRA hasn't actually changed since last week, and this makes them look momentarily sane and moderate.

Anyway, in the same breath with supporting a possible ban on bump-stocks, they say "Restricting the ability of law-abiding Americans to buy guns will do nothing to prevent ... the criminal act of a madman."

WTF? Stephen Paddock *was* the NRA's perfect law-abiding gun-owning American until the moment that he fired on a crowd of concert-goers. Restricting his ability to buy guns would most CERTAINLY have prevented this "criminal act of a madman". Sure, he would still have been a homicidal madman, but if he had gone berserk with a butcher knife, he might have killed two or three people, and injured half a dozen. If he had been able to buy hand-guns, but not long-range semiautomatic rifles with large ammunition clips, he might have killed half a dozen people and injured dozens.

But of course we can't write a law for the guy who's going to become a mass murderer; in reality, any such law would have to apply to millions of Americans. What would be the effect of such a law? Well, the tiny fraction of gun owners who want to carry out mass shootings would have a harder time of it, saving lives. Hunters might have to stalk their prey to closer range before shooting, or they might have to take an extra second between shots, forcing them to either be better hunters or take home fewer prizes. Fewer children would shoot themselves, their friends and relatives, saving lives. A really strict gun law would even reduce the number of suicides, saving lives. Sounds like a win all around to me.

Rep. Scalise, the guy who was shot at the Congressional baseball practice, said (paraphrased from memory) "It's a shame that some people can't hear about a mass shooting without thinking 'Great: another opportunity for me to push my gun-control agenda!'" Wait: do you *really* think restricting guns is the goal? No, saving innocent lives is the goal. Preventing human suffering is the goal. Restricting guns is just one of the possible means to that end -- a really obvious means, that seems to work well in every other developed nation on earth, but only one means. For my part, I think it's a shame that some people *can* hear about a mass shooting without thinking 'How could we prevent this from happening again... and again... and again?'"

Just heard a news story on the radio, as President Trump sent his condolences to the people of Paris about "another terrible terrorist attack" yesterday. The attack in question involved a guy with a gun going to a public place, killing one person and wounding three others. Terrible, yes, by European standards... but the same attack in the U.S. wouldn't even make national news, because it happens LITERALLY EVERY DAY here, because we have more guns than people, with almost no controls on who can have one or carry it in public places.

I'm convinced that the jury reached the only conclusion they could under the law: in the absence of other witnesses, they couldn't say "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmermann didn't believe Martin was an imminent threat, or even that Martin didn't attack Zimmermann. This was a case with lots of "reasonable doubt" and very little hard evidence.

Martin was effectively charged posthumously with assault and battery, under modified rules of jurisprudence: he was presumed guilty, and since there was insufficient evidence of his innocence, his death became retroactively a state-sanctioned execution, for which the executioner naturally faces no penalty. Of course, if Martin had survived and Zimmermann died, Martin too could have claimed that he was acting in self-defense, since he was (after all) being followed by a stranger with a gun. In other words, once the hostile interaction had started, either man could legally kill the other.

As others have pointed out, the Florida law effectively legalizes the premeditated murder of anybody you want to knock off, as long as you can persuade a jury that you THOUGHT the person was an imminent threat. For example, any young man with dark skin and a hoodie who met Zimmermann on the street tomorrow might legitimately conclude that Zimmerman was an imminent threat, and would therefore be justified in killing him. Which in turn means that in the future, Zimmerman can legitimately conclude that any young man with dark skin and a hoodie whom he meets on the street is an imminent threat, and would therefore be justified in killing him. And since the law applies to imminent threats to OTHERS as well as yourself, it's hard for me to imagine ANY murder of ANYONE by ANYONE that couldn't be justified under the law. Welcome to the Wild West.

Of course, no reasonable court will follow that _reductio ad absurdum_. When somebody with dark skin shoots Zimmermann next week, it will be treated as a revenge murder, and the shooter will get the death penalty.

A better outcome would be that the Martin family sues Zimmerman in civil court for wrongful death, where the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt." They might well win that one.