Armed Woman Engaging a Shooter
According to Charleston, VA Police; Instead of running from the threat, an armed woman, who may own a product like a gun cleaning mat, engaging a shooter probably saved several lives the other night,
Police: Woman killed man who fired rifle into party crowd in West Virginia, (msn.com)
“CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — A woman in West Virginia fatally shot a man who began firing an AR-15-style rifle into a crowd of people that had gathered for a party, authorities said.
Dennis Butler, 37, was killed Wednesday night after he pulled out the rifle and began shooting at dozens of people attending the birthday-graduation party outside an apartment complex in the city of Charleston, police said in a statement.
The woman, who was attending the party, drew a pistol and fired, killing Butler, the statement said. No one at the party was injured.”
When you pull a pistol out and fire a round, the chance of hitting a person is anywhere from 30 to 50% of the time (Politifact). And this is with the police behind the pistol who do go to the range and practice. The closer you are, the better the chance to hit the target.
“The ‘Good Guy with a Gun’ Myth” | Giffords
In spite of what the gun lobby wants you to believe or police may tell you, reality does not support the claims of gun carrying. The truth is self-defensive gun use is rare. Guns are also many times more likely to be used for suicide or homicide. For every “justifiable” homicide with a gun, there were 34 gun homicides, 82 gun suicides, and two unintentional gun deaths. I am assuming these are pistol statistics.
- Where there is there is contact between a perpetrator and a victim, people successfully defending themselves with guns is less than 1% of crimes (National Library of Medicine).
- Calling law enforcement or fleeing the scene offers better protection from being injured during a crime compared to having a gun.
- Carrying a firearm may increase a victim’s risk of injury when a crime is committed. People in possession of a gun were more than four times more likely to be shot in an assault.
- FBI analysis of 160 active shooter finding from 2000–2013 found active shooter incidents were rarely stopped by armed civilians. Indeed, our times as many shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians restraining the shooter.
- No credible statistical evidence exists to show permissive concealed carry laws reduce crime. Countering evidence suggests laws making it easier for more people to carry guns in public may increase the frequency of some types of violent crime. This includes gun homicides.
State legislators, police, gun lobby, and various gun nuts are talking about arming teachers, putting armed veterans, etc. in schools. Instead of being a bit more restrictive to buy or own a weapon.
Is it going to matter much if the AR-15 was banned? It used to be in war, wounding the enemy meant two others would have to carry them off the field. When hunting many states limit the number of rounds in your rifle. Do you need 20 or more bullet-capacity magazines?
This is minimalistic stuff and you are getting it from a veteran who has been shooting since he was 12.
Not so vaguely related.
(Gonna be back-ground checks only, maybe? If so, not good enuf.)
Senators say gun deal is within reach, but without Biden’s wish list
Washington Post via Boston Globe – June 5
Despite my own wish list to outlaw the transport of all semiautomatic weapons other than by police and military, then a universal background check on all gun purchases is still way better than nothing. Take the win.
BTW, I got nothing to say to disparage the actions of the unidentified woman who shot Dennis Butler and saved lives at a party because I am not stupid. If we stand for the interests of ordinary people and still cannot get those same ordinary people to vote for our party, then we have a serious messaging problem. I believe that I see it here every day. At one time I thought this might be as simple as semantics, but now I see that it is deeper and more personal. The speaking truth to power idealists really need to get a realistic grip on themselves.
The police would not allow an armed Hispanic civilian to enter the school in Uvalde, TX, to confront the shooter. Sure, I understand the premise, but I cannot deny the look, particularly considering the lack of action by law enforcement. We should take the win on background checks rather than bury ourselves in bad messaging fueled by an obvious lack of self-awareness.
Ron:
What is
thismy commentary about?Run,
Don’t take facts to a compelling narrative fight – at least not in politics. If we do not discredit our cause, then we may yet take this opportunity to pass mandatory background checks. However, we have a long history of superior liberal intellect snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Maybe I am wrong about this, but that has not often been the case over the last half century. Of course, even considering that I may be wrong discredits my liberal bona fides.
Try again.
IOW, the juxtaposition of Uvalde, TX police failure alongside the W VA good lady with a gun make this a less than opportune moment to attack the myth. Which is more compelling to the unwashed masses, news of events over the last week or historical statistics? Sure, I know that you like data and statistics, but take a freaking psych class or two sometime. Until people are replaced by machines, then there is a human reality that must underpin our most effective humane attempts. To cap it off though, a guy was interviewed on the news today that was prevented by the police from going into the Uvalde, TX, school to stop the shooter. More damaging to our side than the narrative of the good guy with a gun, is the narrative of liberal overreach, which we should avoid stumbling up against in our exuberance over the Uvalde, TX, opportunity to move forwards with gun control.
The good news is that all the MSM (not just Fox and friends) is refraining from shooting down the good lady with a gun myth, which leaves Dennis Butler alone as a would be mass murderer that got guns for which he could never have passed a background check. Take the win and move on.
Another strength of the good guy with a gun narrative is the rather obvious aversion to gun toting patrons in the target selection of mass murderers because they are seeking easy prey rather than a shoot out where they can go down in a blaze of glory even if that will be the inevitable end when law enforcement officers arrive and actually have the nerve to face the active shooter.
‘When you pull a pistol out and fire a round, the chance of hitting a person is anywhere from 30 to 50% of the time (Politifact). And this is with the police behind the pistol who do go to the range and practice.’
That would be ‘the chance of hitting the person you are aiming at’.
Odds are not in favor of this pistol-packing approach working too well, but it’s what the NRA strongly advocates.
How about vastly reducing incidences by implementing mandatory background checks? Take away the offenders and then self-defense carries would become moot. Don’t get me wrong. Half a century ago then I sought ideal solutions, but now I am more than willing to settle with just somewhat adequate solutions.
At a minimum, ‘Red-Flag’ laws are necessary either ‘all-over’ or ideally at the federal level, to keep assault weapons and handguns away from dangerous people.
At a minimum, ‘Red-Flag’ laws are necessary either ‘all-over’ or ideally at the federal level, to keep assault weapons and handguns away from dangerous people.
One County’s Success With ‘Red Flag’ Orders Could Be a Model
NYT: Suffolk County authorities have acted more often than their counterparts elsewhere in New York to seize weapons from the home of someone who has made a threat. …
Could One County’s Success With ‘Red Flag’ Orders Be a Model?
Agreed. Red flag and background checks both appear within reach as long as we keep our eyes on the road and our hands upon the wheel.
Ron;
You release the trigger when three rounds are shot. And it is a myth. No facts support this.
Run,
You got me there. I have no idea what you were referring to.
Run,
In regards to the good gal with a gun though, statistical outliers are not myths but rather a reality, often more interesting than everything within three standard deviations of the mean. I had to hunt this very informative quote from the interview of the sheriff after first reading it and then finding that it appeared no were else.
https://www.wral.com/woman-credited-with-stopping-mass-shooting-at-apartment-complex-in-west-virginia/20306891/
By NBC News Channel
Charleston, W.Va. — Police say a woman’s actions may have prevented a mass casualty event following an altercation about a man speeding through a neighborhood.
“She did the right thing. I don’t know if any other person would have done that,” said Lt. Tony Hazelett with the Charleston Police Department.
*******************************
That makes the good gal with a gun still a hero although not an adequate public safety plan. There just are not enough of her to go around all the places that she would be needed. Was she reckless? From what I read she fired multiple shots all into Dennis Butler. That makes Dennis Butler reckless, not the good gal with a gun. Butler missed with every shot that he fired.
Senate Gun Talks Focus on Narrow Changes
NY Times – June 6
(Cornyn has an A+ rating from the NRA for voting the way the NRA wants.)
She got lucky. Even if she was trained and experienced she still got lucky. Able to identify the shooter, able to get her gun out and aimed accurately before he noticed and made her his next target. If she had been in the line of fire when he first shot, probably none of that would have happened. Good for her. Just don’t expect it to happen again soon. A good guy stopping a bad guy, that is. Another mass shooting? Probably.
Back ground checks should be mandatory for every transfer. I inherited guns. No one knows how crazy I am or might be because no one ever looked. I’m not, and I don’t have a record of contact with the police other than to report a burglary, but there is no way to know that unless you check.
Better yet, require everyone purchasing a gun to have a real reason for needing one. And make sure they have adequate, or more than adequate, training before they are allowed to pick it up. And then do a final safety and safe use exam with their own new weapon.
What am I saying? Any real, effective legislation on guns or even gun safety is not gonna happen in my lifetime. If we had a mass shooting big enough to generate action, we would call it a civil war.
Jane:
You could buy a small 9mm Glock to carry in your purse. It would weigh a little more than a pound. If you could not get it out fast enough, you could hit him with your purse to back him off. And then get it out.
If a person is more than 10 feet away, your shot may go wild and hit someone else. The probably of hitting someone you are aiming at decreases on the second shot.
Run,
Ordinary Joe has also set his sights on the 9mm handguns. The good lady with a gun was stated as having neither formal police nor military training. However, it did not say whether she was a match shooter or a professional assassin:<) Both of those like to have an accurate second shot and a lighter handgun to aim, so they go with 0.22 caliber and a longer barrel. I have the same, although in a cheaper Remington revolver format. In all such applications, then it is the long rifle 0.22 bullets that are used. Large bore handguns are aimed for center mass, but small bore are more effective when head shots are used – just as one does with copperhead snakes and small varmint. Dennis Butler was untrained, angry, and scared – a better target than an adversary.
Background checks I think is an area where some agreement might be reached, but I would anticipate that the details of the background check and what authorities can do with the checks is something that will be quite specific in the legislation. I don’t think either party will want an executive branch of the other party having much discretion in this.
Legislation is rarely as specific as court rulings. That is why we have judges.
OTOH, sometimes legislation is so specific that it creates ambiguities, loopholes, and other unintended consequences.
As a straw man then no conviction recorded in CJIS/NCIC should be an adequate background check, but likely qualified by either felony or violent felony to satisfy the NRA and ACLU :<)
To operate a motor vehicle, also a deadly weapon used in both intended use as well as nefarious, you have to take classes, do field training, finger printing, pictures, testing, field testing, application with a governmental agency, eye exam, and then are regulated and governed by some of the most comprehensive laws in the books.
And yet, most places to obtain a firearm, I can either be of age and just show up and the manufacturer will finance the transaction with a signature loan, or in other places a bit of paperwork and a hem and a haw and off we go.
Much like run, was trained very young to shoot, load, carry, own and the responsibility and weight of the power of that tool. And I say tool because when out in the field, a .22LR rat shot pistol can be the difference between an ER visit from a snake bite or not. Every trained military person will say you use the pistol to get to the rifle should something go sideways like war or home invasion. The classic rebuttal of “but the government has nukes and drones so what are you with a machine gun going to do about that?”. I say that is naive. Our government has, only once, been forced to invade itself, and it was for just cause. We would hope that the next time the better angels will be the guides. Also when hunting feral hogs, an AR-15 is the best tool for takedown of the entire troop running through fences and destroying crops. More to that, I can’t just go buy certain pesticides. I have to take a class and get a license and there are strict controls on what and where I can use some of these chemicals. And it’s not a right here right now kind of thing.
The laws for firearms have become so full of slack that they are no longer in keeping with the tradition of permissable formulation of law. We have standards in keeping. And this one is dramatically different by design to win elections, at what cost?
Dead children all over the country? Entire communities decimated by grief? Every time this happens and it hits the TV news 24 hour cycle we see the next two weeks of one or two of these incidents a day. Only the media and certain politicians gain from these disasters while the population buries our children and mothers.
Michael,
I have never had to deal with feral hogs and am glad to keep it that way. In countries where semiautomatic weapons are outlawed for public ownership there are some particular exceptions. Feral hog control would be a good exception. In any case, banning semi-auto cannot happen here within my short remaining lifetime (not sick – just 73 YO).
Live traps are the easiest way to deal with varmints (racoon, opossum, groundhog) here, except for the skunks which do not go easy.
Michael,
Also, I have never used #12 rat shot in my 0.22 pistol before. I read that it will not damage my barrel. What is the advantage over bullets? I am guessing less chance of ricochet. Down here in the low country there are not many rocks. Just wondering.
I have never shot a snake, but I have killed plenty of them with tamping tools, sledge hammers, and bush axes. My dad used to shoot them, but I learned to kill snakes from my mom when I was in grade school.
Varmint that I catch in live traps get one to the back of the head though, but they have big hard heads that need a bullet. I just use whatever is handy for snakes. Then of course, I only kill copperheads here, which we had a lot of when we moved in 18 years ago, but it has been several years since I saw the last one. I don’t wear a gun around. It stays in my basement until I have something in a trap to kill.
Michael,
Thanks and spot on with the snake behaviorism.