Gun Defense During a Mass Shooting
10 Responses | Leave a Comment »
Thought you all might find this interesting: 20/20’s Shooting Under Fire. It’s a special report on guns, given the tragic mass shootings that have been taking place recently. The latest, of course, was the Binghamton rampage where Jiverly Wong killed 14 people including himself.
The most interesting part of the 20/20 story was where they train the college kids to use guns and then test them by simulating a mass campus shooting. I’ve heard people advance the argument that the world would be safer if everyone had a gun, but as you can see from the experiment, it’s much more difficult to return fire than it sounds. Under the psychological pressure of a mass shooting, people will fail to pull the gun out of the holster, will freeze, or will get shot without even realizing it. As shown in some of the real footage, people will also make bad decisions regarding the welfare of other people.
What are your views on this topic?
(Posted in different form on bigwowo.)
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
mojorider
1:34 pm | Apr 13, 2009Upfront, I am a gun owner but I am not a gun nut or activist. I own a personal one simply due to my work in law enforcement and worry, on occasion, about retribution. I am operational support and not a gun toter myself but I do testify in court where the defendants have a right to face their accusers.
I’m not big on armed civilians. I’ve heard the arguments by gun activists that it lessens crime etc, but the average Joe Citizen does not receive the kind of firearms training that those in law enforcement do. I simply don’t want these folks out there with their carry permits and what not thinking they are equipped to “take down a perp”. It’s Hollywood; pure fantasy from the reality.
I’ve gone out with the agents to the firing range and it’s a perishable skill. They are mandated to have quarterly qualifications with their firearm. Adn as someone who only shoots occasionally, let me say that it’s a lot harder than you think. You’d be surprised at how hard it is to get tight groupings from just 10 yards out in timed drills. Now imagine that this is a real emergency when your adrenaline is pumping and your hands are shaking. It’s not surprising that a lot of people, who are not well trained, to miss their target from a close range. The hardest drill was to shoot from 50 yards out in a prone position. I had three shots and I completely missed the target!
The difference between trained professionals and the average citizen is the quality and the continous type of training. From the outset, at the academy, a great deal of time is spent on firearms training and tactics that it becomes engrained and second nature. Just like in the military. And once you graduate, you have your quarterly exams.
How the hell is Joe Citizen going to react with just one or two training courses? Well, they’re going to react just like what 20/20 reported. Besides, who the hell has time to spend constantly training when you have other life responsibilities? There are too many damn guns in this country anyway being owned by a lot of irresponsible peole to begin with.
lopan
2:07 pm | Apr 13, 2009Great article, Jaehwan, and awesome response Mojo. Ultimately, things will be fine for the US once we absorb you into Canada and make you the 4th Canadian Territory, and it becomes illegal for you to carry firearms at all. :)
EvilPanda
10:20 pm | Apr 13, 2009I’m also a gun owner and I understand the lethality and caution that come with possessing a firearm. I also understand the reluctance of sworn law enforcement to enable US citizens from having that kind of responsibility. However, I can’t just sit idle watching subjective media being fed to the masses. This is just scare tactics.
Mojorider, you are absolutely correct about having the training and muscle memory to pull out a gun in response to a heightened gun battle. But we can’t just ignore the people who need to defend themselves from dangers that cannot be handled quickly by law enforcement. Believe me, I’ve taken firearm training classes before and I know the responsibility and consequences of those actions taken. There are specific guidelines which entail the reaction of deadly force and it’s not a very big window. Any violation of that “suggested” guideline would land you arrested for manslaughter.
The point is that we have to educate the public. Help them understand what gun ownership means and when to use it. After taking those classes and knowing the consequences, people do think twice about concealed firearms. If there is a restriction on guns….guess what, everybody’s going to carry a big knife…and then are we going to outlaw knives? Everybody wants more gun control without knowing what controlling guns is about.
Guns are obtained by criminals by stealing them or buying them from a dealer. How are we going to stop that? That’s a hard question…there’s no right way of answering it. Similarly, the issue of legalizing marijuana has the same context. Should we legalize marijuana to prevent drug dealers from making a criminal living?
The best gun control I think is to enact a nation-wide database of guns sold in the U.S. If you buy one, your name is in the database. If you sell one, the your name is in the database. If you SELL ONE ILLEGALLY, you’re name is in the database (and get arrested). If you CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN BURGLARIZED one too many times of registered guns, you lose your license and be accountable. Just like buying a car - new or used. Everybody’s heard of CARFAX.COM or the DMV right? Anyways…
BTW, the 20/20 episode showed a case scenario that was biased. You have a gunman (who is the FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR mind you) enter the room and ACCURATELY targets each student precisely. This is like sending a law enforcement officer in the room to kill everyone. Overkill. If they wanted the scenario to be objective, try dressing up a student as the gunman into the room.
And also, try getting the opinions of people who have concealed weapons permit or gun owners…at least TRY to be un-biased.
Criminals will get guns any way possible…no matter what gun control there is.
Ok…you guys can refute everything I said now. :0)
QuiveringMass
11:57 am | Apr 14, 2009I, too, am a civilian gun owner. I agree with mojorider and EvilPanda. First, there is a fundamental difference between a civilian gun owner and a law enforcment officer (LEO); and that’s training. Training, training, training.
Secondly, there is no laws out there which will prevent criminals and die-hardened gun fanatics from acquiring guns. For example, guns are banned in the UK, but criminals in the UK have easily obtained firearms. If a person is will to break the law, do you believe he/she will obey other laws? Don’t let the inate fear of firearms steal the rights of the common citizen.
As a service to the community who will inevitably own guns (because it’s a right as a citizen of the United States), why don’t police departments conduct training for the citizenry? Simple put, you don’t need to train a civilian to perform SWAT entries or room clearing, but simple defensive skills (ie. hiding, stances, etc). Not only that, you educate them on the legal ramifications when you do draw a weapon and fire it.
I don’t want to see vigilantism out there, but specific cases and conditions, an armed trained citizen would have prevented a tragedy from getting worse. Case in point, the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings… Both shootings involved the shooter going from room to room. It takes time for police to arrive on-scene and assess the situation from the outside. I would have rather had an armed and trained teacher subdue the subjects before more people go hurt. This is a question that can never be answered because schools are “gun-free” zones.
Finally, I want to point out how bias this article author and 20/20 are in presenting this topic. I concede that 20/20 is sending the message that guns are not for any Joe Schmoe out there. But the manner it was presented is nothing but nonprofessional journalism. The “shooting” experiment involved 1) full-size handguns not meant to be drawn from a conceal carry fashion, 2) the training did not demonstrate various covered shooting position the student could have taken, and 3) you have a calm trained “shooter” who was targetting the student.
jaehwan
4:46 pm | Apr 14, 2009Good points, everyone!
One issue that mojorider and 80/20 raised is that the ability to use a gun for defense is a perishable skill. People have to train over and over and over in order to maintain the skill. How many people have the time, money, and inclination to do that? How many people could become overconfident without training since lack of training maintenance often won’t become apparent until there is actually a fire fight?
I think we need to remember that teachers teach. I don’t know if a Classics professor would be willing to take time out of her day to get to the range and practice ducking and firing with a drill sergeant. Most students probably wouldn’t have time for this either. Plus, I’m not sure students would learn as well if they knew their teacher was packing heat. It changes the atmosphere of the learning environment.
Anyway, there was an Op-Ed by Bob Herbert today about gun violence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14herbert.html?th&emc=th
mojorider
6:22 pm | Apr 14, 2009appreciate the comments and thoughts in response to my post. Indeed, training is everything. And you folks seem to be RESPONSIBLE gun owners but my fear is that there are far too many irresponsible ones out there. Perhaps all states need to make it mandatory for all new gun owners to take firearms safety training. People need to know that once you pull that trigger, you can’t make that bullet come back.
Also, the whole Federal Firearm Licensing program is kind of a joke. It just doesn’t seem right that you can run a business out of your garage, you know? In my mind, it’s ripe for abuse.
I certainly agree that there are some folks who really DO need to have access to firearms for protection, eg, women being stalked, or women trying to get away from abusive husbands.
As for national databases? isn’t that the stuff that the NRA and gun activists/nutjobs worry about the most? You can find some pretty strong libertarian views about the government and databases when it comes to handguns.
I dunno what the answer is either as to these mass shootings and gun violence. I really don’t see the need for assault rifles by the average citizen, though. Those things are designed for one thing—to kill and those LA bank robbers some years back had the cops pinned down. There’s no sport recreation with an assault rifle. You can still exercise your 2nd Amendment right to own firearms, but it doesn’t say what kind of firearms.
lopan
6:24 pm | Apr 14, 2009A thought: before we begin thinking about arming people and providing firearms training, why don’t we demand mandatory quarterly driving examinations/assessments? There’re enough bad drivers out there for me to worry about than to have to worry about which one of those idiots might also be carrying a gun!
THX1138
4:52 am | Apr 15, 2009I think we need to have mandatory AK-47 training starting in the grade schools at the latest, or maybe even at the daycare level.
America’s kids need to know how to handle firearms as well as they can handle their pacifiers.
By the time they get to junior high, they should be well versed in the use of RPGs and improvised explosive devices.
DONKEY
4:03 pm | Apr 15, 2009guns aren’t allowed on school grounds and they shouldn’t be.
shooting sprees are not common enough to warrant arming the civilian population.
if you don’t deal drugs, are not a gang member, and don’t act totally stupid your chances of getting shot are still extremely low.
jaehwan
12:33 am | Apr 16, 2009Mojo,
I agree. There has to be some kind of limit on the kind of weaponry. The government just awarded over $20 million for research on a gun that people are guessing will enable snipers to hit a person from 1.5 miles away:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891348,00.html?cnn=yes