Starbucks caught in Crossfire between Anti/Pro-Gun sides

[Hauptman]

Irresponsible people are dangerous. Violent people are dangerous. Mentally ill people are dangerous. Adding guns to the mix really doesn't change anything, because it was the person who posed the threat to begin with.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but this point is very debatable. I believe that the presence of a gun makes otherwise violent or irresponsible people far more lethal, and statistics bear this out.

As a society we make choices regarding life and death all the time. For instance, we know that people die in car accidents, but as a society we accept those deaths in exchange for the benefits that cars provide. Although we do actively legislate to minimize those deaths as well.

In the case of guns, the benefit that you pointed to was that robberies would diminish by more people carrying guns; I concede that point and will even add that some lives will be saved as well.

My question is how do those benefits balance against the negative consequences of more guns in circulation? Call it gun control, or gun responsibility, or anything you like, but that doesn't change the consequences. How many lives are lost by guns for every life saved by guns? I'd honestly like to know.

I'm not attempting to take one side or the other, but I am trying to balance the conversation. Anectodal reports of thwarted robberies do not answer the underlying question, but do play to people's emotions.

[jeff]

And I have to ask for examples of this type of event. I'm not saying it hasn't happened where a police officer shot an armed civilian who stopped a robbery but I've never seen such an example.

Please cite some so we can see that this could be a real concern.

Firearms aren't a top of mind issue with me, as they seem to be with you, so I don't keep a handy library of citations. However, I recall cases in which people were shot because a police officer merely thought they had a gun. Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell and Patrick Dorismond come to mind. It's hardly a stretch to imagine that there would be more "oops, shot the wrong guy" if police arrived on the scene during a firefight.

A Google search with "officer shot armed civilian" gave me more hits than I felt like dealing with, so here's a sample:

http://www.nola.com/crime/law_and_di..._is_found.html
(Police shooting after Katrina, police said the guy had a gun but none was recoverd. Article says that 10 other people were shot with unclear circumstances)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311138,00.html
(cops thought his hairbrush was a gun)

For a closer analog to your scenario, consider friendly fire where cops shoot other cops. That fits the scene of "good guy with weapon". A quick Google finds these:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30996759/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c...e_officer.html
(NYC officer shot an officer chasing a thief with a weapon in his hands)

http://wcbstv.com/local/white.plains....2.638715.html
(cop shot by another cop, while trying to break up a fight)

http://njtoday.net/2010/02/12/off-du...friendly-fire/
(Newark NJ cop shot by another cop after reporting burglary incident)

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10228242/from/RS.3/ "According to the FBI, 43 police officers have been killed since 1987 by friendly fire. Some were caught in crossfire, or killed by firearms mishaps. A handful, like Young, were mistaken for criminals and shot by fellow officers."

So, it clearly is true that police can arrive on the scene and pop somebody they shouldn't have. If you're holding a weapon and the cop sees you when he arrives on the scene - it might be you. This is exactly the scenario my hapkido teacher (ex-Navy Seal) warned against. Things can happen in the heat of the moment with adrenaline flowing.

If you want to claim that more people are saved and protected by civilians packing heat than are put at risk, knock yourself out, but don't act as if it's merely ignorance that would lead people to fear the consequences of what you promote.

[Superscribe]

If you want to claim that more people are saved and protected by civilians packing heat than are put at risk, knock yourself out, but don't act as if it's merely ignorance that would lead people to fear the consequences of what you promote.

you want to claim that more people owning guns is going be detrimental to people's livelihood, then don't act as if unrelated and improbable situations are a good rule of thumb.

It is taught by most firearm classes that the only time you should draw is to shoot. Most shootings end quickly.

It sounds like we're talking about situations where something bad happens, you pull out your gun, and just as you have your gun ready to shoot, a cop arrives on the scene. How often do you think that's going to happen? The conflict is much more likely to be ended before law enforcement arrives.

[jeff]

Okay, I made it all up. Those people never existed and didn't get shot. And all armed confrontations end quickly and without the cops there. Sure.

melensdad wanted cites, I gave cites as requested. For some reason you object to that. That's two sets of anecdotal examples that by themselves are not probative. If it turns out that on balance having a lot of armed people is a good thing, fine, but don't act as if it's silly to raise objections or show where it doesn't always work out.

[melensdad]

But we also know that more guns in circulation leads to more accidental shootings, and more guns being used in confrontations that might otherwise have been violent but not nearly as lethal.

Uh, actually while gun ownership is becoming more common, gun accidents have been dropping and firearm related accidents are at an all time low. In fact there has been a 40% decrease in accidents over the past 10 years. And while guns may make some confrontations more lethal, they tend to make them more lethal for criminals and less injurious to the intended crime victim. The D.O.J's study on resistance with a gun shows that women who resist rape by using a gun in defense are far less likely to be seriously injured. Other similar statistics confirm resistance does not require shooting, but often merely presenting the gun to deter the crime.

...really why do you need to carry your gun on your hip like this is the old west? Why do you feel the need to bring your gun with you into stores?...

Dave I presume you are not asking this as a personal query so I'd have to suggest that there are probably a multitude of reasons ranging from having a stalker to an estranged ex-lover to the fear of crime. There are many who are advised by police to do so (I am one of those) there are many who probably do so for irrational reasons as well. But the "wild west" was far less wild than many suggest, and was actually safer than many cities we inhabit today.

I won't advocate for the open carry clan other than to admit it is far more comfortable. But as roughly 11% of the adult population of Indiana has a license to carry a handgun in public I'd have to wonder why people think that carrying a gun into a store is dangerous when we don't have shootouts here? Perhaps we have lower crime on this side of the state line than you have on the Illinois side of the state line precisely because of the fact that so many people in this state carry guns? Or perhaps that is a factor in our crime rate being lower?

...I recall cases in which people were shot because a police officer merely thought they had a gun. Amadou Diallo, Sean Bell and Patrick Dorismond come to mind. It's hardly a stretch to imagine that there would be more "oops, shot the wrong guy" if police arrived on the scene during a firefight.

A Google search with "officer shot armed civilian" gave me more hits than I felt like dealing with, so here's a sample:

http://www.nola.com/crime/law_and_di..._is_found.html
(Police shooting after Katrina, police said the guy had a gun but none was recoverd. Article says that 10 other people were shot with unclear circumstances)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311138,00.html
(cops thought his hairbrush was a gun)

Thanks for those. All are cases that show that police have shot UNARMED people.

But when I googled exactly what you googled I found lots of cases of police shooting criminals or suspected criminals and NOT cases of law abiding citizens with carry licenses. There were some questionable shoots too. But again it had been alleged that police would shoot law abiding citizens with licenses to have weapons but that is not the case in the search you provided.

[Superscribe]

Okay, I made it all up. Those people never existed and didn't get shot. And all armed confrontations end quickly and without the cops there. Sure.

melensdad wanted cites, I gave cites as requested. For some reason you object to that. That's two sets of anecdotal examples that by themselves are not probative. If it turns out that on balance having a lot of armed people is a good thing, fine, but don't act as if it's silly to raise objections or show where it doesn't always work out.

No, your references point out that cops make mistakes on who and when to shoot, which is true.

It seems to me that Melen's dad is asking for situations where "the police show up on the 911 call for an armed robbery in progress, see guys with drawn firearms and blow them away, whether a Good Guy or a Bad Guy. I'm not saying that the scenario of "civilian saves the day" can't happen, but it could get pretty messy."

You gave interesting cites... they just weren't of the situation you were talking about.

[jeff]

All are cases that show that police have shot UNARMED people.

But when I googled exactly what you googled I found lots of cases of police shooting criminals or suspected criminals and NOT cases of law abiding citizens with carry licenses. There were some questionable shoots too. But again it had been alleged that police would shoot law abiding citizens with licenses to have weapons but that is not the case in the search you provided.

No,that's wrong, because I included cases in which police officers shot police officers, who are "law abiding citizens with licenses to have weapons", some of whom were carrying, and at least one who was shot because he was carrying. And, I'm not alleging - I'm stating a point of simple, documented fact.

Maybe the net harm to law abiding citizens would be less if more were packing. Maybe not. But let's have that discussion rather than a frivolous one.

[jeff]

No, your references point out that cops make mistakes on who and when to shoot, which is true.

And you suggest that the presence of weapons can not make such errors more likely?

It seems to me that Melen's dad is asking for situations where "the police show up on the 911 call for an armed robbery in progress, see guys with drawn firearms and blow them away, whether a Good Guy or a Bad Guy. I'm not saying that the scenario of "civilian saves the day" can't happen, but it could get pretty messy."

You gave interesting cites... they just weren't of the situation you were talking about.

I'm sorry to not have come up with exactly the situation requested. I did say this wasn't an area I give a lot of thought to. But the very first friendly-fire cite I gave was a cop with a drawn weapon shot by a cop while a robbery was in progress.

[Superscribe]

And you suggest that the presence of weapons can not make such errors more likely?



I'm sorry to not have come up with exactly the situation requested. I did say this wasn't an area I give a lot of thought to. But the very first friendly-fire cite I gave was a cop with a drawn weapon shot by a cop while a robbery was in progress.

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your stance on these things. There's an important distinction between your examples and the original scenario which you seem to be glossing over.

In all cases you mentioned, police shot somebody because they thought there was a threat.

In most training people go through for carrying handguns, you are instructed to not draw unless you are prepared to fire.

I made a claim that you wouldn't be able to find cites concerning melensdad's situation or anything like melensdad's situation because "those types" of situations don't typically happen. Why? because conflict resolution happens very quickly anytime two or more opposed parties draw guns. Especially when one of those parties has drawn for one reason, and one reason only: to discharge their weapon.

If you add more guns into the mix, you won't have a problem with police accidentally shooting the good guy, because unless the good guy goes in hot pursuit of the criminal after a prolonged shootout, there won't be a situation that would lead an officer shoot anybody. The shooting would have already taken place.

[Philistine]

{snip}
But we also know that more guns in circulation leads to more accidental shootings, and more guns being used in confrontations that might otherwise have been violent but not nearly as lethal. The statistics seem to show that when there are more guns in households there are more accidental shootings, suicide attempts by shooting, and more domestic violence ending in a shooting; all of which are more lethal because a gun was involved.
{snip}

Aren't you comparing apples to oranges here?

The issue doesn't seem to be whether there will be more guns in households. Instead it's whether those who already own guns can carry them around with them wherever they want to.

In which case the minuses you identify don't seem to apply (because they already exist and won't be increased by Starbuck's or anyone else's policy).

--Philistine

[jeff]

In all cases you mentioned, police shot somebody because they thought there was a threat.

We seem to be having a failure to communicate here. That's exactly the situation that would occur if police arrive on the scene of a crime in progress, especially if they see individuals with drawn weapons.

In most training people go through for carrying handguns, you are instructed to not draw unless you are prepared to fire.

Of course. Tell me something I don't know. So?

If you add more guns into the mix, you won't have a problem with police accidentally shooting the good guy, because unless the good guy goes in hot pursuit of the criminal after a prolonged shootout, there won't be a situation that would lead an officer shoot anybody. The shooting would have already taken place.

You act as if it's a guaranteed thing that the Good Guy nails tha Bad Guy and we have a neat resolution to the problem. But that might not happen. The Bad Guy might see the Good Guy pull his weapon, and not get killed or even wounded. Maybe they have a gun battle crouching behind tables in the Dairy Queen. Maybe the Bad Guy takes a hostage. Or has friends outside (crooks often do) who see that it's hit the fan and start laying down fire.

Even trained people panic and do the wrong thing - that's how you get the police friendly fire situations. Mr. Joe Civilian isn't Rambo and might jump the gun (literally), be inaccurate if the perp is more than a few feet away, hit a bystander, or do a "Stop or I'll Shoot!" announcement and wind up shot dead. I'm a little sensitized to the last one because I knew a fencer who did exactly that and is dead because of it.

Look, I'm not saying that an armed Good Guy can't save the day. Maybe the good outweighs the bad. I really don't have a position on that. If it turns out to be a net win, then terrific. But I do reject a Pollyanna claim that this is simple, neat and a clear, obvious, safe win.

[melensdad]

We seem to be having a failure to communicate here. That's exactly the situation that would occur if police arrive on the scene of a crime in progress, especially if they see individuals with drawn weapons.

But there are many states with DECADES of history of civilian carry. Both concealed an open carry. If what you claim were a real probability then wouldn't there be ample evidence of it in actual fact? That fact seems to be lacking, therefore the claims seem to be hollow.

[fencerchica]

An interesting thing about Starbucks is that they seem really prone to wanting to bend in the wind of whatever the local regulations might be, rather than seeking to impose any chain-wide policies. I wrote an angry letter to Starbucks not too long ago to complain about the way they impose strict gender segregation policies in the shops they operate in Saudi Arabia, which means that as a chain they've signed on to bear a share of the responsibility for gender apartheid in the conservative Islamic world.

Personally I don't really see an argument for concealed carry in the 2nd amendment, but I'm supportive of the right to openly carry. Having said that, stories like the one AndrewH passed on about the feckless dad allowing his kid tragic access to a loaded handgun are the kind of thing that makes me a lot more conflicted about supporting handgun ownership than I am about rifle and shotgun ownership, which for me personally is pretty clear-cut. I see ownership of long guns as being enormously safer than ownership of handguns, although of course not having handguns would make carry a little more difficult, not to mention concealed carry.

[Hauptman]

Uh, actually while gun ownership is becoming more common, gun accidents have been dropping and firearm related accidents are at an all time low. In fact there has been a 40% decrease in accidents over the past 10 years. And while guns may make some confrontations more lethal, they tend to make them more lethal for criminals and less injurious to the intended crime victim. The D.O.J's study on resistance with a gun shows that women who resist rape by using a gun in defense are far less likely to be seriously injured. Other similar statistics confirm resistance does not require shooting, but often merely presenting the gun to deter the crime.

Except that gun ownership may not actually be increasing inspite of increased sales. http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/17...-OWN-GUNS.html

If the number of households with guns has been decreasing over time then the decrease in shootings that you cite supports my correlation.

[Hauptman]

Aren't you comparing apples to oranges here?

The issue doesn't seem to be whether there will be more guns in households. Instead it's whether those who already own guns can carry them around with them wherever they want to.

In which case the minuses you identify don't seem to apply (because they already exist and won't be increased by Starbuck's or anyone else's policy).

--Philistine

I don't see it as apples and oranges; increased access to guns results in more shootings. So letting more people carry them around town may increase shooting around town. I may be wrong, but it's not a stretch of the imagination.

A weakening of gun restrictions likely will increase gun ownership which will increase gun related deaths and injuries. I don't deny that guns will decrease deaths in some circumstances, but I'd at least like an acknowledgement that guns will increase deaths in other circumstances.

Then we can start the discussion of comparing the two phenomena, and the relative pros and cons.

[jeff]

But there are many states with DECADES of history of civilian carry. Both concealed an open carry. If what you claim were a real probability then wouldn't there be ample evidence of it in actual fact? That fact seems to be lacking, therefore the claims seem to be hollow.

Beats me. I don't know what the data says. I don't know what the statistics are for good guys taking out bad guys either, your anecdotes notwithstanding.

Read my last paragraph from the post you just quoted. That's what I'm saying. You seem to be awfully sure that this is benign, and you haven't convinced me yet.

[Hauptman]

But there are many states with DECADES of history of civilian carry. Both concealed an open carry. If what you claim were a real probability then wouldn't there be ample evidence of it in actual fact? That fact seems to be lacking, therefore the claims seem to be hollow.

Ok, so I looked at states with the highest rate of death by firearms:
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri...100-000#source

And then at the states that allow open carry:
http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Of the top 10 states with the highest rate of firearms fatalities, 7 are listed as Open Carry "Gold Star" or Friendly states. That doesn't appear to be a good correlation to me.

[JackOfHearts]

I carry pens. Usually three of them at all times. I can shank anybody at any time if I so choose, because a pen is pretty pointy. The fact that I don't is because I have a modicum of good sense, self-control, and I was taught that a pen is for writing and not for shanking a sucka unless absolutely necessary.
Putting more guns out there will increase instances of gun-related incidents. Just as having more cars creates more car accidents, and more planes in the air causes more plane crashes. It's a quantitative effect rather than a causal one, but all the same, one that can be improved by increased education and training.
I don't care if people carry open or concealed, just so long as they're properly trained on the hows ifs and whens to use. And that's the key here, education to dispel ignorance. The bad guys don't care for the law, they'll carry and use whenever they wish. The restrictions only affect the good guys and regular people out there, and if they want to carry, they should be educated and trained in the use of their weapons.
That's where the fear comes in. When only the bad guys are so empowered, anything associated with them will be feared. And fear is natural, it keeps us alive. Yet it also breeds ignorance. You can't always help the former, but all the latter needs is knowledge. But I'll save my ideas on that for a later discussion.

[melensdad]

Except that gun ownership may not actually be increasing inspite of increased sales. . .

If the number of households with guns has been decreasing over time then the decrease in shootings that you cite supports my correlation.

Using the US Census data, the number of gun owners is actually increasing. The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually.1 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner.2 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,3 probably because of some respondents' concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration. There is no factual data that I can find for the Obama effect on new gun owners, but there are plenty of news stories reporting that first time buyers were flocking to gun stores.

It is true the the rate of gun ownership had been declining for a couple of decades but that has apparently been reversed as of late.

1Bureau of the Census (http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html).
2Gary Kleck, Targeting Firearms, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, pp. 94, 98-100.
3E.g., BJS Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2002, Table 2.58, (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/).

[JackOfHearts]

Of the top 10 states with the highest rate of firearms fatalities, 7 are listed as Open Carry "Gold Star" or Friendly states. That doesn't appear to be a good correlation to me.

Correlation doesn't always reflect causality. Do the incidents occur most often in affluent or poor areas? Are they a result of negligence or crime? Are they as a result of licensed gun carriers or unlicensed weapons? It makes a nice graph, I'll give you that, but it doesn't really prove anything.