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 ...
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.
> DieHard, none of that changes the fact that your chances are ZERO if the goblin has a gun and you don’t.
Zero? What if I have done as was suggested in the article, and found some deep cover way out of the way? Or escaped thru a window? Or played Possum?
The Zero chance thing is an assumption in itself. A big one. It might be alot smarter to avoid the firefight and try to escape.
(Or crash-tackled the Perp from behind, or disarmed him, or...)
I hasten to add that, on balance, I’d rather be armed, too: perhaps with a Webley .455 Revolver. But that’s conventional wisdom, which is all based on Assumption.
You are never going to have a large percentage of the population carrying guns. They get heavy after a while and most people start making excuses to not carry. So, the “room full of shooters” scenario is unlikely unless you are in a gun store or cop bar.
Likewise, no one is going to draw their gun and hunt down the shooter. That’s great in movies, but in real life, you tend to focus on you and the people around you. Being mistaken for the shooter as you hunt the real shooter, Bruce Willis style, is unlikely.
When (If?) the cops come in, you can drop your gun and raise your hands because that’s what they’ll be ordering very loudly as they enter.
Staying low, hiding under desks, crawling into a closet to hide are excellent ideas. No one wants to be in a gunfight. But if you can hide, draw your handgun, and wait; you are better off than just hiding. Sometimes, these office shooters look under desks and then your hiding place just became a trap.
Bzzzzztttt! We have determined that these methods dont work and they have been banned. You dont have that option.
Its just as crazy as saying you cant defend yourself
I love that video!
Bloody Hell! you cant hide a .455 webely in your sock. L0L
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.
Even worse case scenario, you'll go out standing on your hind legs and shooting back, instead of being shot down like a sniveling dog.
>>Being mistaken for the shooter as you hunt the real shooter, Bruce Willis style, is unlikely.<<
I just noticed your name, DieHard the Hunter, after I posted this. Your attitude towards guns for self-defense is kind of obvious and your choice of screen names proves it. :)
Wearing a motorcycle helmet and other safety gear is no guarantee that you’ll survive a traffic accident while you’re on a motorcycle.
Wearing your seatbelt while driving in a car is no guarantee that you’ll survive a traffic accident in your car.
Both can increase the chance that you’ll survive.
It’s no different when it comes to having a gun when you need it.
Mark
> Bloody Hell! you cant hide a .455 webely in your sock. L0L
(grin!) Well, if I’m gonna pack heat, I’m gonna PACK HEAT.
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.