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 ...
BTW - Molon lave! commies!!! :-)
The article earned it’s barf alert by using the word vigilante for someone defending their life during an attack.
I’m a person who goes about their every day life and just happens to have a concealed weapon. I don’t patrol my neighborhood. I don’t own a police scanner. I don’t belong to any organization that fights crime. I’m not a vigilante if I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and hope to survive it with skills I have learned.
That argument was settled when the ink dried on the parchment to which the 2nd ammendment was written. Every argument and all legislation to the contrary are overt acts against our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I can't wait 'till some 'armed' citizen gets to cap some crazed killa who opens-up on innocents before the SWAT team arrives.
"Well, he started shooting at the kids, and I just pulled out my pistol, got into position, gave a quick thought as to what lay behind the target, moved a bit to get a clear shot, and double-tapped him."
it beats throwing your subaru keys and purse at the shooter.
You are not a vigilante because you are rarely at the wrong place at the wrong time. If you need to use your weapon it would be because you were at the right place at the right time and someone else was not and had bad intentions.
In other words, I am sure that most of the students at Virgina Tech were in class; the right place at the right time. The shooter was not.
It's my own fault. What else should I have expected from ABC.
That's why I have Crimson Trace grips on my handgun. The Rangemaster where I shoot won't let me use them..I do fine without them, but if I am ever in a situation where I need them, getting off five shots center mass, or three center mass & 2 in the head with that little red dot..it's a nice thing to have, and I am assuming that in the ABC contrived show, the glock didn't have them.
I can't imagine I'd shoot as well with someone else's gun, as well as I do with one of mine.
pinging you on this. Haven’t been on FR for some time but I watched this stupid show tonight and thought you might be interested.
I can't believe you did either. What were you thinking? I was tempted, but knew I'd just get PO'd if I watched.
Thanks for that report on what we all suspected... ABC Nightly Noise does not report on an issue, they propagandize. I could not stand to watch it.
abc has an anti-gun agenda period. Any BS that they portray has one motive, to demonize a tool and those who own them.
You can formulate all the different scenarios that you want where a handgun in the hands of someone inexperienced would be ineffictive in a mass shooting and disregard all the shootings that were stopped by a weapon in the hands of someone who knew what they are doing and you have an abc special.
Here in America I think most of those who carry a weapon would rather be responsible for their own safety than to cower, cry and wait for the police to come and draw a chalk outline around your corpse.
> Shooter kills 10 people shooting back at him
I think that would make a fascinating scenario. If you end up with one dead shooter full of holes and 10 armed citizens blowing smoke from their barrels but otherwise unscratched, that would be ideal.
It would be interesting to see if that really happened, tho’. Perhaps instead you’d end up with eleven people on the ground full of holes, some of them bleeding out.
Or worse still, eleven people in this room bleeding out, plus two or three more in the room next door.
Don’t get me wrong: I like the idea of people having the right to concealed carry: I wish we had that right here in NZ. I also think that the best time to find out the likely outcomes of these scenarios is before they happen, under simulation.
This is why I find this ABC show fascinating: it sets out to simulate one of these scenarios. I wish I could watch it. It would be interesting to see what assumptions they build into their scenario, and how realistic it is when played out.
> Here in America I think most of those who carry a weapon would rather be responsible for their own safety than to cower, cry and wait for the police to come and draw a chalk outline around your corpse.
You’d get no argument from me: I share your viewpoint, and wish we had the same provisions for Right to Keep and Bear Arms in our laws.
I think there is some potential value in what ABC is doing: depending on the assumptions they build into their scenario it could provide some valuable insights into what could happen in that sort of shootout.
Experiential Learning is an excellent scenario-based tool: if this is what they are delivering it is likely to be of some considerable value..
I wonder why your Rangemaster won’t let you practise with your Crimson Trace grips? That seems rather redundant, having a perfectly-good tool that you aren’t allowed to practise using.
I’ve never used them, but I’ve seen them in magazines and they look like they’d be pretty handy.
> I can’t imagine I’d shoot as well with someone else’s gun, as well as I do with one of mine.
To me it makes sense to get to be really, really good at using the gun(s) that you are most likely to have access to, and have a nodding acquaintance with other guns, “just in case”.
> The article earned it’s barf alert by using the word vigilante for someone defending their life during an attack.
Ahhh. That makes sense then. I get the same reaction to the word “vigilante” with the patrolling work that I do.
Vigilantes take the law into their own hands. I don’t. You don’t either. It’s an unfair label.
What they did in their scenarios was to show that 2 people, the airsoft guy and the reporter, both of whom had NO experience handling firearms did not perform well in a staged scenario. I fail to see the value in this except for propaganda purposes.
> FWIW I wasn’t trying to bludgeon you for your opinions. Whether you intended to or not you provided a Devil’s Advocate POV which opened the door for a rebuttal. Since I know for certain that you’re not a moonbat it made for an interesting exchange. It is actually kind of nice to have that instead of 400 posts of “Molon lave” once again.
(BIG GRIN!) Thanks for that — I’ve enjoyed the discussion, too. I hope you Yanks never give up your Second Amendment rights.
> What they did in their scenarios was to show that 2 people, the airsoft guy and the reporter, both of whom had NO experience handling firearms did not perform well in a staged scenario. I fail to see the value in this except for propaganda purposes.
If that’s what they did, that’s a shame. What a waste of a perfectly good opportunity to run a great scenario. How disappointing. It would have no value at all, not even for propaganda purposes as it would be too easy to debunk.
‘Strewth.
Is this the network that faked the “exploding pick-up truck gas tanks”? Not that it matters; I don’t trust ANY of them to tell the truth...
P.
Because the State of Texas doesn't allow you to use them on your test for CHL, and he gears things towards that end. He lets me use them at the end of lesson, but it's pretty much like laser tag. Where the red dot goes, you have a direct hit. He's a picture sight, front sight guy.
To me it makes sense to get to be really, really good at using the gun(s) that you are most likely to have access to, and have a nodding acquaintance with other guns, “just in case”.
Sometimes I've shot his glock or one of his CZ pistols, so he does teach you differences in guns, SA vs DA, changing the mags, clearing jams, but in TX, I think the thought is that you are going to have your favorite pistol with you at all times.
BTW, ebay has really great prices on Crimson Trace products. Way less than you'd pay from a retailer.
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.