Gun use — safe and accurate gun use — is hard. Safe and accurate combat / conflict reactions are hard. Both take training. In the case of combat and law enforcement personnel, that training is repeated on a regular basis — and even so we still get cases of friendly fire / blue-on-blue deaths and injuries, not to mention collateral damage amongst the citizenry when the bullets start flying.
So why would anyone whose job is not to sell more guns and bullets think that putting more guns in the hands of ordinary folk and telling them their patriotic duty is to be "a good guy with a gun" in case a crime or mass shooting is being committed isn't going to frequently end badly? (See, for example, http://goo.gl/ucC8nK)
Combat Vets Destroy the NRA’s Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy
The last thing a chaotic crime scene needs is more untrained civilians carrying guns.
A number of years ago, our apartment complex had a shooting. Well, *a* shooting really doesn’t cover it. It was a sales force disagreement between two competing chemical distributors, and all 10 involved pretty much killed themselves off.
So a friend of mine came to me and in great distress told me I needed to borrow his AK. After a split second of rational thought, fed by actually being a trained veteran, knowing how and when to use that thing, I explained to him that I couldn’t imagine a firefight where actually my having a weapon would improve the situation. At best, I might shoot one of the neighbors, or not hit anything at all, and at worst, they’d shoot me and have more firepower.
Now, I do own a rifle, it’s an antique, and keep it prepared for its intended purpose, defending the settlement against Indian raids (which admittedly, even in Oklahoma, aren’t all that common outside of the Western Channel).
You invade my house, I will introduce you to the fine art of 15th century longsword…
I've often wondered about movie theater shootings in this light: how do you tell? Black vs white hats Do Not appear magically on the heads of all involved parties. Also, a savvy shooter could plan for such behavior and use it to his/her advantage.
I still don't understand why guns aren't treated more like cars. To own and operate a car, you have to (or did in my day) take a driver education course to learn the basics and the applicable laws, take a driver training course to practice driving, pas a written exam, pass a driving test, pass an eye test, purchase insurance, register your car, and maintain your license, registration, and insurance, which may necessitate passing the tests again.
Having one person shooting in a movie theater sounds terrifying. Having multiple people shooting at each other, good guys and bad guy(s), in a movie theater, especially at anyone who lunges out of their seat to escape and therefore may be another shooter, sounds really terrifying.
Eugene Volokh collected up some anecdata on civilians stopping (mass) shootings here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/ — though he admits the info is sometimes unclear.
In the cases described, there was only a single respondent.
(This also leaves aside the idea of building policy around mass killings, which are a tiny fraction of gun deaths, but that's another matter.)
+Scott Randel Yes. Also, cars are only allowed certain places, and must meet visual, operability, emissions, and safety inspections.
The primary difference (at least in American jurisprudence) is that car ownership is not an element of the US Constitution, as (according to current SCOTUS precedent) individual gun ownership is. That, again per SCOTUS, puts a much higher burden on the state regarding any sort of regulation or restriction on gun ownership and use.
In the meantime a 11 year old shoots 8 year old neighbour in dispute about puppies.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/boy-11-shoots-eight-year-old-girl-dead-in-the-us-because-she-wouldnt-let-him-play-with-puppies-a6681141.html