Skip to comments.Carrying a Gun Wouldn't Necessarily Get You Out of a Shooting (BARF!)
Posted on 04/10/2009 12:43:14 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
America is facing an epidemic of gun violence.
Thirteen people were killed last week in Binghamton, N.Y., when a gunman, identified by authorities as 41-year-old Jiverly Wong, executed a mass shooting at the American Civic Association. The aftermath of that bloodshed has raised many questions, including whether armed, everyday citizens could take down such a gunman and save lives. Could you protect yourself if you only had a gun?
There are 250 million guns in the United States, enough for almost every man, woman and child to arm themselves. The FBI performed 12 million gun-related background checks in 2008, according to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. And with more than 50 deaths resulting from mass shootings in the past month alone, the argument for ordinary citizens arming themselves in schools, workplaces and anywhere else continues to grow.
But if teachers at Colorado's Columbine High School or the students and faculty of Virginia Tech University had concealed or open-carry permits, range training and loaded handguns mixed with their school supplies, could they have taken down men armed to the teeth, ready to die and acting under the element of surprise?
Watch "If I Only Had a Gun" tonight on a special edition of "20/20" at 10 p.m. ET
Some, like the group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, which claims to have more than 38,000 members, think it would at least give people a better chance to survive.
Matt Guzman, leader of the advocacy group's Texas chapter, said that an armed student or citizen might even be more effective in taking down a gunman than law enforcement.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
It may not get you out of a shooting, but you have a much better chance of walking away from one if you do have a gun.
But have you ever noticed how many FEWER people carrying guns are the victims of shootings?
“Could you protect yourself if you only had a gun? “
Actually the question should be...
Could you protect yourself if you had NO gun.
The answer to that is an absolute NO.
End of lesson.
Kinda like “SUV rage”?
Carrying a gun may not, but shooting the gun you carry will.
Gee.....I guess we'll never know as the choice wasn't even available. I hate libtards.
There. Fixed it.
As usual, the disinformationalists argue from the false premise that any solution they don't like be 100% effective.
No -- no agenda here, folks. Move along...
I hate libtards, too! They have the brains of tapeworms and maggots.
tell that to Suzanna Hupp.
Wow. 12 MILLION background checks in 08 and only 50 deaths from ‘mass shootings’ in 09. That’s a percentage of.....really, really small.
No shots fired, BUT THE CRIME STATISTICS FALL!!!!
Fact: Having a loaded weapon raises your probability of shooting the assailant by more than 125 MILLION percent.
Things like that wouldn’t happen if more law abiding citizens were like this guy:
It is an amazing scientific discovery, considering that a student's life depends on eliminating the threat, whereas a LEO's life depends on just the opposite.
I don’t agree with your BARF alert.
The article very accurately describes adrenaline dump (tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills) and raises an excellent question about whether carrying a handgun would help the average person thru a shooting crisis. And it provides excellent advice on what you can do if you don’t happen to have a gun handy.
I wish we could get ABC here in New Zealand: I’d be fascinated to see how the students do in the simulation. I will go out on a limb and speculate, tho’ — I suspect it’s not as easy for them as pull-out-the-Glock-and-shoot-the-Bad-Guy. I bet most of them adrenaline dump and freeze up.
I’d be really grateful if someone could watch this one and tell me how it goes.
***** liers and puppets
In a situation like Virginia Tech University shootings, the very worst case is exactly what happened. No change.
In the best case, fewer people, and possibly none would have died.
Somebody point out the down side here, cuz I missed it.
Electing Obama won’t necessarily improve your life either.
Wearing a life vest won’t absolutely prevent you from drowning if your boat sinks either. Nor will having a fire extinguisher in the house absolutely prevent it from burning down.
However, both will put the odds on your side, should either of those eventualities occur.
Wouldn’t necessarily get you out of a shooting, but it will enormously increase your odds of being on the winning side!
Seat belts won’t guarantee that you will survive a car crash.
Helmets won’t guarantee that you survive a motorcycle crash.
Low cholesterol won’t guarantee that you live to age 90.
Smoke detectors won’t guarantee that you will walk out of a fire.
But, they sure do help!
Same thing for carrying a gun.
Gun owners should know what they are doing while carrying.
How many BS articles is ABC spewing today trying to promote their Clintonista era rerun tonight ?
If they ban my Hicaps and EBR’s today I just wait till that law is repealed tomorrow......aka 2010 !
Maybe they need to read the webster definition of “criminal” again. They did follow laws yesterday and they won’t tomorrow. Kind of like Presstitutes and Polidiots !
Doom on em all !.......
> Barf? I read that story, and it was one of the few good things I’ve seen regarding guns from ABC.
I agree — I thought it was a very good article.
> Wouldnt necessarily get you out of a shooting, but it will enormously increase your odds of being on the winning side!
You think? What stops you from being misidentified as “The Shooter” and gunned down by somebody else who is also carrying a gun?
I think it’s a huge assumption that hasn’t really been put to the test.
***Could you protect yourself if you only had a gun? ***
There is nothing worse than knowing you are near death with no way to fight back.
If you survive you will always have the survivor’s guilt of knowing you could have “taken” him if you had not obeyed the law and left your gun at home.
Guns are not violent, people are violent!
Be Ever Vigilant!
That doesn't mean you shouldn't have one, dumbass liberals.
A gun may not get you out of a shooting, but you have a lot better chance of being alive after the shooting.
>>The article very accurately describes adrenaline dump (tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills) and raises an excellent question about whether carrying a handgun would help the average person thru a shooting crisis.<<
This is why a person’s choice of handgun needs to be based on how much dedication they will put into it. If you buy a gun with the intention of “load and forget”, you need a revolver. It’s better than nothing, because if your motor skills are too degraded to shoot a revolver, you sure won’t be able to dial a cell phone, use pepper spray, or a knife, or any other weapon.
(I’m not implying that a revolver is only “better than nothing”. I mean that a revolver plus no practice or training is better than nothing. I love revolvers! I carry one for defense and I have a safe full of semi-autos at home. I stopped a knife-wielding mugger with a revolver.)
And a student has a much quicker ability to locate the threat than a LEO coming in cold.
Remember "This is a Glock 40. I am the only one here professional enough to... BANG."?
"The Shooter" is a stranger that walks around and shoots everywhere. He is likely to have two handguns, or a rifle or a shotgun. He is not hiding.
"You" are someone who is hiding behind some furniture and shooting a handgun at the shooter.
If the difference between the two is not obvious, don't shoot. This rule always applies: "Be sure of your target and what is in front of and beyond your target."
If the incident happens in an office or any place where people know each other (like maybe a smaller church) then chances of misidentification are even smaller.
But if despite all of that your 3rd person makes a judgement mistake and tries to shoot you ... well, chances of that are still lower than chances of a determined madman to eventually find you and kill you. There is no guaranteed way to walk out of such situation; you can only talk about probabilities. If none of the victims are armed then their probability of survival is about zero. Anything that improves that is a plus.
The amount of training required by government is cursory at best.
Whether states require this minimal training, or not, it is incumbent upon the individual gun owner to learn and practice on his/her own, and then to maintain this throughout their lifetime.
We don't need, or WANT, government to tell what we have to do to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights, and to exercise individual responsibility.
I would also say that MANY of us, particularly those of us that have been shooting since we were young, and/or that were in the military for any length of time, are likely BETTER trained than the average police officer that has done neither of those two things.
In short, FU government bureaucrats, and your silly-ass tax collection schemes (requiring law-abiding citizens to PAY to exercise their 2nd Amendment RIGHTS).
And having smoke alarms wouldn’t necessarily save you from a house fire.
> (Im not implying that a revolver is only better than nothing. I mean that a revolver plus no practice or training is better than nothing. I love revolvers! I carry one for defense and I have a safe full of semi-autos at home. I stopped a knife-wielding mugger with a revolver.)
Before I emigrated to New Zealand, I owned a few guns. I preferred revolvers to semiautomatics because I was much more accurate with them, usually. I could work the hammer with my left thumb and the trigger with my right forefinger and never flinch. I felt less in control with a semiautomatic, even tho’ shooting them was “easier”. And I was way less accurate and I did flinch.
I believe it is a really big assumption that having a room full of armed people would stop an armed perpetrator from racking up a large bodycount. I’m not saying it would or it wouldn’t — but I am saying it is an untested assumption. I do not know whether your odds are better if armed or unarmed. It is an untested assumption that your odds are better armed.
But what if you are armed and get mistaken for the Perpetrator, the Shooter? Suddenly you have a dozen-or-so bullets to dodge from the other armed citizens — REAL FAST. Your chances of survival just dropped a fair bit. As they say in the Army, “friendly fire isn’t.”
And what about all the bullets that are likely to be flying around, while everyone is trying to hit the Shooter? It would be nice if they all found their target accurately, and stopped in the Shooter’s body. But we all know that doesn’t happen in real life. And in an enclosed room, what is the likelihood of there being lead flying all over the place?
I’m not sure that it wouldn’t be safer finding cover somewhere and getting down real low — snake-height or lower — and leaving the firefight to those who want it.
I don’t know: it’s all an untested assumption. That is why the ABC’s show would be interesting to watch. Like I said, I wish we could receive it here in NZ. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who does watch it, see how it all turns out.
More people like him is what is needed. Like his choice of semi automatics too.
hOO BOY!.....ABC is on a bender
If you ignore the gunfight part of the “docudrama”, woulnt you agree that you’d rather see a mall full of housewives hiding behind counters with arms drawn in case the shooter decides it’s their turn?
I think most women would be able to maintain enough control to keep their arms outstretched, and pull the trigger if they needed too.
DieHard, none of that changes the fact that your chances are ZERO if the goblin has a gun and you don’t.
All of what you say makes perfect sense, and it is logical. And I’d even agree with the correctness of the theory.
But it all still relies on alot of assumption: for example, it assumes that everybody who is packing heat is operating in a rational fashion and has the mental presence to think things thru (”do I know that person?” or “who’s behind the shooter?” or “Is Mary-Anne the shooter? Has she flipped out?”).
Actually that last one is a biggie: you’ve assumed that the shooter is someone unknown to everybody else. That wouldn’t have been true in the Virginia Tech case. Who’s to say the shooter isn’t your best mate that you’ve worked with for 20 years?
Please don’t misinterpret me: I believe in your right to keep and bear arms, and I sure wish I had that right here, where I live in NZ.
I do think it is an assumption, tho’, that having everybody armed all the time would necessarily do much to avoid incidents like what happened in New York last week. Or even reduce the body count by much. I don’t know whether it would or it wouldn’t: it’s an untested assumption.
And you know what they say about Assumptions being the Mother of All Stuff-Ups...
Yes. Bullets affect the bad guy's bodies the same way they do anyone else's body.
Kind of a no-brainer.
Of course they will all do poorly.
But the show harps on the point of these mass-shootings and then focuses on one individual trying to counter a direct threat. Why not emphasize that if just ONE student in the halls or in a classroom adjacent to the first one getting shot up at Virginia Tech was armed, that person could possibly have saved many, many lives. In that case, the time could be taken to draw the weapon and plan the attack.
Instead, they will make it look like it doesn't matter if you carry or not (and point out it's safer if you don't, I'm sure) mass shootings will still happen.
I used to think that the guy in the trailer park wasnt responsible enough to carry a gun.
I was wrong. WE ALL have the right to protect ourselves.
Abuse others rights at your peril.