The Goleta Postal Shooting, Part II: Still A Case Study For The Non-Gun Owner.
John Longenecker
Are we managing violent crime?
No, we are not. Not in California, New York or Washington. D.C.
Crime is not managed by tying the hands of the law-abiding, rules which will never touch the criminal – violent crime is fought on an instance by instance basis where the would-be victim is the first line of defense with superior force.
Let me relate to you briefly two stories.
The first is my analysis of the Goleta shooting and the second is a case where this idea of citizens being the first line of defense is respected.
As reported recently, murderer and suicide actor Jennifer San Marcos visited the postal center to shoot people, and when her weapon misfired, she reloaded. How many seconds passed from the time she noticed the misfire until she again made her weapon, as we say, battery ready? (That means loaded and ready to fire, folks.)
Reports show that she released her clip and inserted another.
Was it enough time to stop her right then and there? Does a misfire on an automatic give you time to stop the crime?
The answer is probably yes.
Ask the experts. But be sure to phrase the question properly.
If a killer points a loaded gun at you and it misfires, and if the shooter is a little inexperienced and somewhat unfamiliar with guns, as Jennifer San Marcos was, can you have enough time to stop the crime?
Reportedly, one person had the time to exit the building without being shot.
The second case is excerpted from page 131 of my book, Transfer Of Wealth:
On January 16th, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa brought his .380 handgun to bear on students at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia. He shot the Dean and two others before students reportedly subdued him.
Curious in this news item was a finding of Professor John Lott, Jr. who found that, of all the 280 news reports of the event a week following the shooting, only four reports made mention of the fact that Odighizuwa was stopped in progress by two armed students on scene. Their names were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, law students. Reports printed that the killer was ‘subdued’ and ‘tackled’, but the real story was that Gross and Bridges held him at gunpoint with weapons they fetched from their private vehicles.
Virginia is a right-to-carry state. Their weapons were legally in their vehicles.
Talk about critical response time . .
A few seconds of clearing a jammed weapon isn’t a lot, but is it enough?
How it’s handled by an armed private citizen is a little specialized, and pretty risky, but look at the alternative. Compare the cases.
What some people describe as Cowboy actions or Wild West days is more honestly the intervention of a murder, sometimes a mass murder. What is important is that police will not arrive in time, and the murders are likely to be completed.
But you are there.
And her gun has just misfired.
Armed citizen involvement is, like most issues, a two-sided issue. Observers ask whether such-and-such a crime of violence is worth killing someone for. The other side of the question is whether completing the violent act is worth dying for. It depends on your values system and in that system just who is more important, the victim or the criminal.
In the case of a workplace shooting, the question is not whether a witness-citizen could shoot to kill someone like the aggressor, but whether they could act to save someone, like the deceased. Again, values system.
Crime is fought not by restraining the law-abiding, but on an instance by instance basis where the victim is the first line of defense.
_________________________
John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth, available worldwide. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net
Are we managing violent crime?
No, we are not. Not in California, New York or Washington. D.C.
Crime is not managed by tying the hands of the law-abiding, rules which will never touch the criminal – violent crime is fought on an instance by instance basis where the would-be victim is the first line of defense with superior force.
Let me relate to you briefly two stories.
The first is my analysis of the Goleta shooting and the second is a case where this idea of citizens being the first line of defense is respected.
As reported recently, murderer and suicide actor Jennifer San Marcos visited the postal center to shoot people, and when her weapon misfired, she reloaded. How many seconds passed from the time she noticed the misfire until she again made her weapon, as we say, battery ready? (That means loaded and ready to fire, folks.)
Reports show that she released her clip and inserted another.
Was it enough time to stop her right then and there? Does a misfire on an automatic give you time to stop the crime?
The answer is probably yes.
Ask the experts. But be sure to phrase the question properly.
If a killer points a loaded gun at you and it misfires, and if the shooter is a little inexperienced and somewhat unfamiliar with guns, as Jennifer San Marcos was, can you have enough time to stop the crime?
Reportedly, one person had the time to exit the building without being shot.
The second case is excerpted from page 131 of my book, Transfer Of Wealth:
On January 16th, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa brought his .380 handgun to bear on students at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia. He shot the Dean and two others before students reportedly subdued him.
Curious in this news item was a finding of Professor John Lott, Jr. who found that, of all the 280 news reports of the event a week following the shooting, only four reports made mention of the fact that Odighizuwa was stopped in progress by two armed students on scene. Their names were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, law students. Reports printed that the killer was ‘subdued’ and ‘tackled’, but the real story was that Gross and Bridges held him at gunpoint with weapons they fetched from their private vehicles.
Virginia is a right-to-carry state. Their weapons were legally in their vehicles.
Talk about critical response time . .
A few seconds of clearing a jammed weapon isn’t a lot, but is it enough?
How it’s handled by an armed private citizen is a little specialized, and pretty risky, but look at the alternative. Compare the cases.
What some people describe as Cowboy actions or Wild West days is more honestly the intervention of a murder, sometimes a mass murder. What is important is that police will not arrive in time, and the murders are likely to be completed.
But you are there.
And her gun has just misfired.
Armed citizen involvement is, like most issues, a two-sided issue. Observers ask whether such-and-such a crime of violence is worth killing someone for. The other side of the question is whether completing the violent act is worth dying for. It depends on your values system and in that system just who is more important, the victim or the criminal.
In the case of a workplace shooting, the question is not whether a witness-citizen could shoot to kill someone like the aggressor, but whether they could act to save someone, like the deceased. Again, values system.
Crime is fought not by restraining the law-abiding, but on an instance by instance basis where the victim is the first line of defense.
_________________________
John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth, available worldwide. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net
<< Home