Let me start off by saying I'm grateful for the reasonable discussion. I think discussions like are the only way to find a solution to this problem; why can't our government leaders do this? Perhaps this is part of the problem, eh?
Let me tell you a little bit about my mindset. As I've mentioned, I'm older; think middle aged. I grew up around guns. My dad--who is no longer with us--was in the military. He was a hunter and shooting sports enthusiast. Many of my earliest and happiest childhood memories are of my dad, my brothers and me doing shooting related things together. Some of my most cherished belongings are the firearms and firearm related kit I've received as gifts from my father and my brothers, one of whom is also no longer with us. I never had sons (three daughters), but my brother did before he died. He never had the opportunity to pass along his love of shooting sports with his sons, but I'm trying. I believe he would very much like that I'm doing so.
I'm a mechanically minded person (I'm currently building an aircraft from a kit), so I enjoy working with precision mechanical things. Firearms, when well made and cared for, are precision tools, and can form the basis of an incredibly enjoyable hobby for people like me. Like any other hobby, researching, acquiring, modifying, maintaining and becoming proficient with these precision tools brings a tremendous amount of joy and satisfaction to me. The prospect of losing this part of my life is very distressing, which admittedly likely colors my thought process about the issues. I don't think gun control advocates understand how emotionally invested many gun owners are in the "gun culture" that so many like to denigrate and deride.
There are plenty of weak men as well...no need to appeal to emotion and sex to make that argument.
I'm not sure how you got there. My comment was a direct rebuttal of the claim that knowing another person does not have a gun means one doesn't need a gun for self defense. To me this is not an emotional appeal, it's simply being realistic. Women are seriously injured/murdered all the time by unarmed men. A brief web search reveals video after video of men suffering serious injury and/or death at the hands of an unarmed assailant or assailants. These events are possible because the assailant or assailants possess an overwhelming physical advantage over the victims. A potential victim's possessing and knowing how to use a firearm negates any physical advantage. Not in all circumstances, to be sure, but in cases where an assailant is going to kill or seriously injure the victim no matter what, it certainly gives a victim a better chance.
But at the same time, everyone's likelihood of being shot accidentally in every situation especially in a dark night club like that would go up drastically if everyone had guns all the time.
I think the idea of all--or even many--of the people in a nightclub being armed is outlandish. I live in a State allowing licensed concealed carry. Indeed, Florida was one of the first States in the modern era to enact shall-issue permit laws. Having gone through the trial and error process of selecting a carry method, it becomes pretty easy to spot when someone else is carrying a concealed weapon. I can count on a single hand the number of others I've spotted. This tells me that even when it's legal not many people actually carry.
Were it legal, I can easily see one or two people carrying a concealed weapon in a nightclub of that size, but not everyone, or even many. I would trust those carrying to do so responsibly, that is they would not drink and make an effort to remain aware of their surroundings. When I'm carrying I believe I'm actually far more careful about my surroundings; I believe I become far more polite and accepting of the foibles and failings of my fellow humans; I believe I make myself MORE responsible for my fellow citizens; having the means to take someone else's life is sobering (no pun intended). When I'm carrying you can make disparaging remarks about me, my wife, my daughters, my sisters and my mother. I will simply say I don't want any trouble while I look for a safe way to exit the situation and watch carefully for any sign of a physical threat. It will only be in a situation where I cannot safely leave AND someone physically threatens me or my family that I will resort to using a firearm. I hope desperately never to find myself in such a situation.
As to accidentally shooting the wrong person, that's always a possibility (even when it comes to cops, who do it all the time). It's something I discussed at length with the person I chose to provide my concealed carry training (an ex-law enforcement type), and something I think about often. I can't speak for others who carry, but those whom I know personally take the responsibility very seriously, and have much the same mindset as I do. Let me tell you how I think I might handle such a situation.
Assuming I'm not among the first to be shot and killed, my initial response would not be to pull out my gun and start shooting willy nilly. I wouldn't even think about trying to take out the shooter. Just like everyone else, I would try to get out of the club. Most people were able to get out safely, and I would hope to be among them. That said, I think it would be pretty easy to figure out who the bad guy is; he/she is the one doing the shooting; the one everyone else is running away from. I would trust than other armed bystanders would also be trying to get out, not looking for the shooter. Even if they were, I wouldn't expect them to be shooting blindly either. Is there a possibility for confusion? Absolutely. Which is why my first instinct would be to run rather than to start shooting. My concealed carry trainer used the following scenario to drive home this point: You see a man holding a gun and a woman on the ground. The man is over the woman, holding her down with one hand on her throat holding the gun in the other. What do you do? Someone in the class suggested pulling their gun and telling the man to stop. The trainer says alright, you shout at the man and he turns toward you while holding the gun, what do you do? The guy in the class said he would have no choice at that point but to shoot the man. Our trainer said congratulations, you shot an undercover cop who had just disarmed and was attempting to subdue the woman, an armed robbery suspect. It was a pretty eye-opening discussion, and it led me to realize that law enforcement is best left to professionals. If I witness something I believe to be a crime my reaction will be to get into a position of safety and call the police. THAT would be my goal in a mass shooting situation as well.
Be that as it may, there's always a chance I might not be able to escape. If I were unlucky enough to get stuck between a crowd trying to push out of a door and the shooter I might find my only choice is to face the threat. Just like a cop in a similar situation, I would do my level best to avoid accidentally shooting an innocent person. To that end, I spend what I believe an appropriate amount of time at the range maintaining my skills (I qualified as an expert with a pistol while serving the military), which is likely more than the average police officer does. Does this mean I can guarantee I won't shoot someone accidentally? Absolutely not, which is why my first reaction would be to get the fuck out of Dodge. But if my back's to the wall I will defend myself and accept the consequences.
After the initial exodus, I understand some people found themselves trapped in a bathroom; they had no way to escape. In that situation I believe an armed person would have an excellent chance of ending the ordeal; the gunman would have no way of knowing anyone in the bathroom was armed. With the advantage of surprise, I would attempt to position myself and others in the room in such a way as to present as small a target as possible to the gunman while providing myself as clear a field of fire as possible. No matter how you slice it, if I were to find myself trapped in a bathroom knowing someone with a gun was coming through the door to kill me, I would much rather be armed than not.
The bottom line is these mass shootings never end until someone else with a gun shows up. If I'm trapped and unable to escape from someone intent on shooting me I shouldn't have to wait for the arrival of law enforcement.
It's not disputable that the mass production and sale of guns and ammunition makes it easier for criminals to obtain weapons due to sheer quantity, so your point about legal vs illegal is pretty useless.
It's also not disputable that people don't need guns to kill other people (9/11, OK City, Boston, etc.), and that people acquire guns and use them even in countries with strict gun control laws (Norway, France, etc.). Given that reality, the idea of taking away an effective method of self defense makes no sense to people who have the skill and the mindset to use a firearm.
I'm not a supporter of assault weapons bans.
Agreed.
It seems to me that most 2nd amendment defenders are in favor of the status quo. That is, no change is fine. "The devil is in the details" too often becomes "no change because change is hard".
Herein lies the basis of our shared frustration. You feel that gun owners are in favor of the status quo, while I believe most gun owners desire a solution as much as you do. I certainly do. The problem is most, if not all, of the gun control proposals I've heard (such as the proposed ban on "assault weapons") would 1) not be effective at preventing the kind of mass shooting that we are discussing, and 2) be very effective at making it harder for people like me to acquire/own firearms. Opposing such proposals is not a vote in favor of the status quo, it's a demand for a proposal that effectively addresses the problem AND doesn't infringe my right to self defense.
(cont)