ABC on self defense in active shooter cases
The story, or at least the predictable propaganda, is here. At least it has the virtue of unintended humor.
Antigunners "point out that most people are unprepared to handle a gun," because most states don't require a permit that requires formal training. In a fight, bullets will be flying at you, people running, screaming, you get so pumped up that you forget how to do things, can't even draw, get tunnel vision.... it's like trying to fly an airplane without lessons.
Some truth to that ... but if that means you cannot fire... isn't that also a proof that there can be no such thing as an active shooter? He's got all that AND knows to a certainty that he's going to be dead at the end. So he's worse off, can't draw his gun, forgets how to reload. So if the above were truly an bar to useful shooting, there would be no mass killers.
So what's ABC's alternate plan? Play dead. Hide and call 911.
Then they have a scenario with simunition guns in which the prospective students come off badly against a supposed mass killer. Sensibly Progressive takes that drill to pieces.
Oh, and the comments are chewing into them (even while some say they're being deleted)...
Reader Eric emails:
"You can go over to Clayton Cramer's Gun-Self-Defense blog and read dozens and dozens of news stories of people defending themselves with guns. Sometimes it doesn't work out well, occasionally the wrong person gets shot, but overwhelmingly the good guys win (either by killing, wounding, or repelling their assailant(s)), without injury to themselves or innocent bystanders.
I find it very unlikely that every one of these citizen defenders attended a Gun Site, Farnam, Suarez, or any other formal self-defense school. Most load up the gun, put it away until they need it, and when they do, pull it out. I don't recommend this as a conscious strategy, but the notion that an "untrained" adult cannot figure out how to use a handgun is nonsense."
The purpose of doing a simulation as ABC did is to try to predict what will happen in the real world. Any conflict between the results of the simulation and real world experience are resolved in favor of the real world.
In the real world, civilians who are attacked and respond by firing a firearm hit their target 18% of time according to the USDOJ.
That sounds poor.
A report by RAND for the NYPD finds that those highly trained police officers who find it necessary to fire a firearm in the line of duty are able to hit their target 18% of the time.
Those months and months of training must really pay off!
Posted by: denton at April 11, 2009 03:46 PM
The teenagers who did not now how to safely clear a handgun saddened me. I am naïve because my kids, who are now 32 and 28 learned this at a very early age. I wondered how so many accidents happened. Now I know.
Please, let us find a way to teach gun safety to every 12 year old. At my high school it was called “hunters safety" and taught by the local police chief.” I am 56 now and have respected firearms my entire life. We need a program as robust as drivers ed. With all the gory films about traffic accidents.
Just my 2 cents worth. I am going to go to work Monday and figure out how to introduce a gun safety course at the university I teach at. I really had no idea that teenagers like this existed.
Posted by: Chuck at April 11, 2009 04:38 PM
Wow, okay, this must be the dumbest line so far:
Also, they said, the vigilante is responsible for whatever his or her bullets hit.
The vigilante! So if you are standing around doing nothing, and are attacked, and try to defend yourself and others, that makes you a vigilante in the mind of this police officer.
Posted by: Jim at April 11, 2009 06:09 PM
Florida requires you demonstrate proficiency with live fire of your gun, at an approved range, with an approved instructor.
IMHO, anyone who carries should visit the range often. Otherwise, what's the point.
Posted by: bill-tb at April 12, 2009 08:10 AM
Anyone who carries should be actively involved in IDPA or IPSC...."move and shoot" drills are far better than stationary target practice. Even better are the professional training courses (Tiger Valley, et. al.), but of course these aren't always possible for everyone in the tight economy these days. I've taken both an "Intro to IDPA" and "Intro to IPSC" class and look forward to doing some actual local matches soon.
Posted by: JJR at April 13, 2009 09:02 AM
In the 20/20 piece they did, they had 2 shooters...one who entered the "classroom" and another, unknown to the civilian "CCW" person, sitting near the civilian. When the civilian went to engage the active shooter (who was attacking the teacher), his 'undercover' partner shot and killed the civilian defender.
Bullshit. It never goes down this way. To say that they stacked the deck against the civilian defender is being kind.
Posted by: Tim Weaver at April 13, 2009 10:55 AM
Please don't mind the horrible smell - it's just the MSM sh!tting all over themselves with their false agenda and yellow-journalism PSH once again.
ABC = "Astoundingly Baseless Crap" - it's what we've come to expect from them and they're here to deliver, as always.
Posted by: Retro at April 13, 2009 12:09 PM
JJR ... good suggestion.
But I'd opine that anyone who carries would be wise to do some IDPA shooting.
I think that "should be actively involved" is pretty strong. I shoot IDPA nearly once each week ... but I still don't consider myself "actively involved." Heck, I am not even a member of the IDPA. My concern is that sooner or later, someone will try to legislate your suggestion, making such involvement (or other hurdle) mandatory.
Training to bear arms is a good thing, and it's what any gun owner should strive for. In part, that's exactly what "well-regulated" means. But we aren't quite to the point of universal mandatory training just to exercise our right to own and carry guns. I am not sure I'd support it, either, at least outside a citizen militia context.
I'd rather see laws subsidizing training, ammo and gun purchases, school firearms programs, etc., in the light of a robust and respected second amendment. But I am not sure I want to see mandated hoops and hurdles.
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at April 13, 2009 02:32 PM
Curious and interesting that ABC both believes that guns are magically the problem, but that this magic vanishes when guns might be a solution to the same problem.
Posted by: Broadsword at April 14, 2009 08:38 AM