Posted on 08/02/2015 10:38:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Okay. I mean, this shouldn’t be a shocker, but people who have no firearms training didn’t survive the firearms training simulator located at Prince George's County Police Department in Maryland. Another non-surprise is that police officers did well; though some might add that concealed carry holders spend more time at the range than police officers. Regardless, the Washington Post reported on how determining life and death situations–and when to use deadly force–is difficult; something that any gun owner, or person with common sense, would already know:
[A] new study from researchers at Mount St. Mary's University sheds some light on why people don't use guns in self-defense very often. As it turns out, knowing when and how to apply lethal force in a potentially life-or-death situation is really difficult.
The study was commissioned by the National Gun Victims Action Council, an advocacy group devoted to enacting "sensible gun laws" that "find common ground between legal gun owners and non-gun owners that minimizes gun violence in our culture." The study found that proper training and education are key to successfully using a firearm in self-defense: "carrying a gun in public does not provide self-defense unless the carrier is properly trained and maintains their skill level," the authors wrote in a statement.
They recruited 77 volunteers with varying levels of firearm experience and training, and had each of them participate in simulations of three different scenarios using the firearms training simulator at the Prince George's County Police Department in Maryland. The first scenario involved a carjacking, the second an armed robbery in a convenience store, and the third a case of suspected larceny.
They found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, people without firearms training performed poorly in the scenarios. They didn't take cover. They didn't attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy -- they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough -- they didn't shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.
First, the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) is a pro-gun control group, who seem to be driving home that “police know what to do, average Joe don’t” narrative when it comes to firearms and self-defense. That’s fine. It’s also axiomatic. If you’re not trained to do “x,” you’re probably going to suck at it–and with firearms; that’s especially the case. In fact, without proper safety, it’s downright irresponsible that could get yourself or other around you injured, even killed. As an avid shooter, my first step was to take a safety course from a NRA-certified instructor. It lasted a few hours, but it taught me basic safety, and what to look out for (squib loads, hang fire, etc.) and what to do if such malfunctions occur when I’m at the range.
Regarding self-defense, like the examples in the video, of course, people with zero experience in anything firearms-related aren’t going to fare well. Also, the Post noted that the sample size is also very small, so one shouldn’t cite this piece in future debates about gun control. So, yes, we can agree that folks with zero training will probably die. Yet, the premises of the NGVAC, such fighting the “epidemic of gun violence” and “why gun violence is a direct consequence of current gun laws,” are still painfully wrong. The country is safer, violent crime’s downward trend continues, and gun-related homicides are down 39 percent between 1993-2011, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
If firearms safety and training is what NGVAC is trying to promote, they should work with an organization that does this pretty successfully, and respects the Second Amendment as well. It’s called the National Rifle Association.
Last Note: Yet, there seem to be times when you know that using deadly force is the only way out of a dangerous situation. Even pastors of churches know this.
Where's the video of the scenarios?
There are too many documented cases to count of untrained and inexperienced people using firearms to successfully defend themselves. Even children with no gun experience have done it. So the assertion that you will be probably die if untrained is absolute pro gun control BS
I knew an agent who said something to me that I never forgot. In close shoot/no shoot situations, he always elected to shoot. His theory was that he would sooner be alive and deal with any repercussions the next day than dead and in the morgue.
That true, but to be fair I think it should be noted that once you're laying prone and wedged into a sharpshooter's sling it's pretty well impossible to fire in any direction except downrange.
In fact wasn’t there just a news story of a women disarming a serial killer and shooting him?
It gives one reason to pause when I, as a hobbyist, am being solicited at the range for shooting tips from someone who has successfully completed the state mandated firearms training course for armed security guards.
Exactly. It's probably one of those simulations where the omniscient "bad guy" smokes the concealed carrier first, proving the ineffectiveness of carry.
Sure. There are no-win situations. The crackhead might want to kill every MF'er in the room. But, paraphrasing the GODFATHER, I'd rather be there with a gun in my hand, than just my dick.
I told her that I didn't believe in gravity until I fell off a roof.
“the idea that guns are some magical, elaborate technology that require hours of training to operate safely is a liberal myth. I’m sure it’s probably true for them, with their limited experience of anything outside the liberal realm, but for normal people, operating a gun is no more challenging than operating a toaster.”
If you have a gun and don’t put in hours of training, you are a fool and will not be prepared for a real emergency.
Being a fool and unprepared is not the same thing as "losing."
People who sky dive with no parachute hit the ground hard.
More time with Xbox would cure that
World at War III is a good place to start....
The idea that most people need extensive training to defend themselves successfully with a firearm is elitist bullshit.
The confusing description may be the result of sloppy hypenation:
1) A pro-gun control group (Are the pro-gun? Not really.)
versus
2) A pro gun-control group (That's more like it.)
From their About page:
National Gun Victims Action Council is Elliot’s response to Michael’s death, and a promise to the hundreds of thousands of gun victims, survivors and their families to change the culture of violence in America. Elliot spent many years as a strategic marketing advisor to Fortune 500 companies, so his understanding of strategy and how corporations function has become an invaluable tool in the formation and strategic direction of NGAC.See, they only want sane gun laws. (Only a true gun-nut could possibly oppose that, right?) Oh, and they want to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of gun owners. (Yeah, right. /s)National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) is a non-profit network of gun victims, survivors, the faith community and ordinary people leveraging their economic power to change America’s gun laws. By harnessing the buying power of 9 million victims (the loved ones of those who lost their lives to guns), their supporters, 5 million gun assault survivors, their supporters and many of the 100 million Americans polls consistently show want sane gun laws, NGVAC will introduce a different strategy based on establishing an economic lever that leads to sane gun laws.
“”Hours?” please quantify.”
Depends on the person. But you are not a proficient nor a safe shooter unless you put some time in on the range.
“Being a fool and unprepared is not the same thing as “losing.”
It can be.
Does the photo with that article bother anyone else?
“Now, it does require common sense, and some measure of good judgment”
hmmm. With common sense and good judgment a person puts the safety on when not using the gun.
In a panic situation that person pulls out the gun and tries to fire without disengaging the safety. Dude loses.
“Does the photo with that article bother anyone else?”
It’s a simulator.
yes,and woman who flies up side down have crack up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.