Today, gun violence claimed the life of another American outside the Empire State Building. But the muddled and confusing aftermath offers a lesson as to why the preferred conservative response to mass shootings, i.e. arm more citizens, would be disastrous:
A clothing designer who had been fired from a Midtown Manhattan company shot and killed a former co-worker in the shadow of the Empire State Building on Friday morning and was then killed by the police, in a hail of gunfire in which nine bystanders were hurt, the authorities said.
Some of those injured might have been shot by the two police officers, who fired 16 rounds at the gunman, Jeffrey Johnson, 58, said Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly — based on the number of people shot and the fact that Mr. Johnson’s gun held only eight rounds.
None of the bystanders’ wounds were life-threatening, Mr. Kelly said.
There were dozens of witnesses and almost as many accounts of what happened. But I think it’s clear that at least some of the bystanders were shot by the police. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a press conference that the assailant tried to shoot the police, and they returned fire. A New York City official later said that Johnson, the assailant, “may have fired one shot at the police officers,” and later said they Johnson didn’t fire anything at them. There were 2 bullets left in his gun, and it only had an eight-round magazine. And they know he fired at least five shots at the man he killed. Surveillance video apparently shows the shooter drawing his gun at the cops, but not firing it.
In other words, in the haze of events where trained police tried to stop a threat, they shot nine people. Like Atrios, I don’t know whether or not they followed protocol, or whether this made sense given the threat in front of them. What I do know is that introducing more guns into the situation caused bystanders to get wounded. That doesn’t mean the police shouldn’t have operated in the manner they did. It means that random people on the street packing heat should not respond to a shooting incident by pulling out their guns and firing away. This is part of the problem, not the solution.
Meanwhile, this wasn’t even the biggest mass shooting in the last day in America, let alone the last week or month. We have this major problem with gun violence in this country, and though a certain ideologically-motivated group wants to shut down that conversation every time another incident occurs, it’s getting harder and harder for the rest of us to do so.




5 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I love how all the ads on this page, on my screen, are for how I can get a concealed carry permit.
It’s not that the “ideologically-motivated group” (aka the majority of Americans”) wants to shut down the conversation so much as nanny state liberals have no credibility on the issue of protecting individual rights.
The idea that Americans should just give up their right to bear arms, and all that that symbolizees, in exchange for nothing, is a perpetual loser.
Some time soon a scenario like this will happen and some by-stander will pull out a gun to stop the shooter and will be gunned down by the Police, just like the shooter.
Hell, if they can shoot you for startling them, just think what they will do if they see an actual gun.
Please expound upon “all that symbolizes”.
No, it’s not a friendly request. I’m tryihng to see if you’re one of those folks who go all the way on the 2d Amendment, aren’t too PR savvy to admit it, and are thus willing to openly espouse some sort of Right of Rebellion.
Turns out all of the bystanders were shot by the cops.
Imagine the carnage if a half dozen or so of those bystanders pulled out their own piece and started shooting. The cops sure aren’t going to restrain themselves and ask to see a carry permit.