ABC on self defense in active shooter cases

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!

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.

Chuck

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.