Posted on 11/19/2001 12:49:32 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Pro-Gun Experts Prove Handguns Are Ineffective Self-Defense Tools, New VPC Study Reveals
WASHINGTON, DC—In response to the reported spike in handgun sales since the September 11th attacks, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) today released Unintended Consequences: Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice For Self-Defense. The 90-page study demonstrates through the writings of pro-gun experts the ineffectiveness and dangers of handguns as alleged self-defense tools.
"While the gun industry has greedily hawked its wares in the aftermath of the September 11th tragedy, they have worked even harder to keep hidden from the American public a secret they readily share among themselves—handguns pose grave dangers to their owners and families," states Tom Diaz, author of Unintended Consequences and VPC Senior Policy Analyst. "This study is comprised substantially of writings from pro-gun experts who readily admit handguns are basically impossible to use effectively in self-defense."
For example, Massad Ayoob, a legendary firearms instructor and respected pro-gun author has cautioned, "The uninitiated tend to make two kinds of mistakes with firearms: they either use guns when they shouldn't, or do not use them properly in the rare circumstances when they should." Ayoob has pointed out that, "The average American has more misconceptions about lethal force in the home than in any other self-defense situation. He not only has little understanding of his legal position under these circumstances; he has no idea of how to conduct himself if, by infinitesimal chance, the day comes when his home actually is turned into a battleground he must defend against armed criminals."
In fact, in 1998, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone. Yet, there have been an increasing number of news reports that women are a prime target for the gun industry as first-time handgun buyers. Left out of those reports is the fact that in 1999 for every one time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 120 women were murdered with handguns.
Handguns in the real world—as opposed to the industry's fantasy world of virtuous defensive gun use—make people who own them much less safe. The study reveals that according to leading pro-gun experts the overwhelming majority of people who own handguns:
are ignorant of—or ignore—basic handgun safety rules;
do not have the necessary handgun combat marksmanship skills to effectively defend themselves without harming innocent others; and,
are not prepared for the extreme physiological and psychological effects that the experts, many of whom have on-the-street law enforcement experience with firearms, agree inevitably occur in an armed life-or-death confrontation (the only situation in which lethal force is justified in self-defense).
Ross(exec director) - Well I called Mas about the article. Suffice it to say that he's not amused. VPC may yet regret that piece.
I'll be posting an update when I hear anything.
Mos ain't gonna like this. I don't put much faith in gun writers most of the time but Ayoob has a gem of info every once in a while. Albeit most of the time it has to be polished and refined he does provoke the thought process.
My take is that a few million cops can't be wrong when it comes to handgun use. I remember an article from NIJ or FiBi's that related the stats on gunfights between cops with revolvers and or pistols engaging stolen or illegal select fire subguns toting badguys etc etc . Every encounter was one by the LEO/FLEA with a handgun.
Now that was an official report. One would have better luck at winning the martian lottery than they would finding that data again I assume. But I did indeed lay my one good "Mark One Mod "O" eyeball" on that read...........
I'll stick to my 1911 meltdown for the CQB suprise and my 12 gauge pump or M1A for those planned encounters.
Stay Safe !
Really, I am not planning on going up any jungle rivers, just mostly friendly inhabited places, and was wondering about the laws.
But I will sharpen my teeth...and all the standard boat equipment I am familiar with. Thanks for the advice.
Seriously, thanks for your response.
In fact, in 1998, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 51 people lost their lives in handgun homicides alone
and I bet 50 of the 51 who lost their lives were gang-bangers.
My son saved his life -- and the lives of several others -- when he showed his pistol to the knife-wielding carjackers who tried to get his truck. While the punks were running, he called the cops, who were able to find them cowering in the shadows. LE was already looking for them -- they had just done a home invasion, stabbed and beat an elderly couple for $25, and were looking for a car to get to cracktown.
Years before, my dh saved the justice system a bunch of money when he showed his handgun and those steely grey eyes at a man who had just robbed a liquor store and shot the owner. Charlie opened the door, told the dumbass it was all over, and watched the SOB blow his own brains out.
Neither of them had to fire a shot.
I didn't even have to show my revolver when some punks were harassing an old man at WalMart. I just spoke to them, and when they mouthed off to me that folks could get killed talking to them like that, I patted my "fanny pack" and said "you're d**n right." They ran so fast, by the time I reported them to the service desk, they were pulling out of the parking lot. They were caught.
Not a shot fired.
I'd tell VPC to KMA, but I am too particular about who does that.
Sorry, I had already sent the email & posted the message here before I saw your posting...
Mark
Just four armed citizens could have prevented the World Trade Center and Pentagon disasters, and could have saved 4,645 lives.
LOL!
Even if we were to believe VPC's spurious numbers, they fail to account for the instances where handguns are used in self-defense without killing. I have personally had three instances over the years where mere presentation of my weapon brought an end to the attack upon my person. There are millions of instances of law-abiding citizens successfully using firearms in self-defence each year.
However, it is vitally important that anyone contemplating obtaining a weapon for self-defense do four things:
1) Obtain proper training in safe usage; and
2) Maintain proficiency; and
3) Know how and when they can legally use their weapon in self-defense; and
4) Cultivate a mind-set that will allow them to use deadly force in self-defense.
Just how is my wife supposed to carry THAT in her purse?
The only way these @$$holes could be even close in their supposition, is if a person is afraid to pull the trigger when confronted with violence. Not me ... I'll pull the trigger and "let the dice fly"! I trust in the jurisprudence of Judge Colt and his jury of EIGHT! Sarah Brady ... you can kiss my "REBEL @$$"!
Deterrent to Crime:
If the intent is to prevent mass shootings and other deadly acts, then gun control laws need to be eased, not strengthened.
By Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.
During the early 1970s, the PLO waged a nefarious war of terrorism against Israel that included attacking schoolchildren on playgrounds. A rampage of terrorist attacks culminated in the Maalot massacre, in which Arab terrorists, who had taken about 100 schoolchildren hostage, responded to an assault by Israeli rescue forces by blowing up explosives and firing upon their hapless victims, killing 25 people and wounding 66 others.
Following this hideous massacre, the Israeli government changed its stringent gun control policies (which it had inherited from the British Mandate) and issued personal arms and concealed-carry permits to law-abiding, ordinary Israelis in the settlements.
Writing in the June 13, 1998 Wyoming Star Tribune, Charles Curley observed:
[After the Maalot incident, teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry guns. Schools were protected by parents (and often grandparents) guarding them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or a trip without armed guards. The police involved the citizens in a voluntary civil guard project Mishmar Esrachi that even had its own sniper teams. The army taught firearm safety and shooting techniques.
This new policy had the intended effect. The PLO's premeditated school shootings had become so costly and ineffectual that this terror tactic was abandoned by the early 1980s. This episode illustrates a lesson relevant to our own recent rash of school shootings. Namely: Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons can reduce terrorist attacks and save lives.
Benefits of Firearms
From 1994 to 1995, the Medical Association of Georgia published seminal research documenting the health and safety benefits of gun ownership. That research is extensively corroborated by the works of Dr. Gary Kleck of Florida State University and other scholars. In his momentous books, Point Blank – Guns and Violence in America (1991) and Targeting Guns (1997), Kleck reported that in the U.S. guns are used more frequently by law-abiding citizens to deter crimes than by criminals to commit crimes. Kleck found that defensive uses of firearms by citizens total two to 2.5 million times per year and that between 25 to 75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. (emphasis added)
More recently, Professor John R. Lott, in his book More Guns – Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998), made readily available extensive research confirming the beneficial aspects of gun ownership by ordinary citizens in reducing crime. He also found, in his extensive analysis of data from all 3,054 U.S. counties for the period of 1977-94, that state conceal-carry laws have reduced murder by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robberies by 3 percent. (emphasis added)
"Conventional Wisdom" notwithstanding, criminals regularly make risk-versus-benefit assessments. Empirical evidence and criminologic studies consistently reveal that the knowledge that one in five or six citizens in a public place could be armed can deter crimes and avert massacres. This has been shown to be the case in Israel, Switzerland, and even those parts of the U.S. with conceal-carry laws. In Switzerland, for example, where gun ownership is nearly universal, there was not a single report of armed robbery in Geneva in 1993!
Based on the empirical and statistical data, laws governing concealed carry permits should be liberalized, not made more restrictive. More states should expend reciprocity to each other so that law-abiding citizens may be able to protect themselves and their families when they travel outside their own states. And citizens with firearm permits should be allowed to carry their concealed guns more liberally – so that they will be able to respond effectively to criminal acts, and so criminals will not encounter armed resistence.
Criminals are emboldened to break the law by a permissive society that absolves individuals of responsibility for their actions, and that shifts the blame to inanimate objects such as bullets and guns. According to the opinion cartel, the mere availability of guns can enable otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens to transform from "Dr. Jekylls" to "Mr. Hydes," making nearly anyone a potential monster likely to commit a crime of passion. Fortunately, this imaginative caricature of the typical murderer is not borne out by the criminologic literature.
The fact is that the typical murderer has a prior criminal history with four felony arrests before finally committing murder. FBI statistics also reveal that 6 percent of criminals commit 75 percent of all violent crimes. One study of police records in Detroit and Kansas City revealed that, in "90 percent of domestic homicides, the police had responded at least once during the prior two years to a disturbance," and that in over 50 percent of the cases, the police had been called five or more times to that dysfunctional domicile. Surely, these are not crimes of passion consummated impulsively in the heat of the night by ordinary citizens, but the result of violence in highly dysfunctional families in the setting of repeated alcohol or illicit drug use. Obviously, because of prior convictions, these deranged individuals capable of murder have already forfeited their right to have a conceal-carry permit issued to them.
Media Coverage
But the media is not interested in reporting any facts that conflict with its anti-gun agenda. Consider these cases in which citizens have used guns to prevent or minimize bloodshed:
* In Pearl, Mississippi, in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham used a hunting rifle to kill two students and wound seven others. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved his handgun from his automobile and held Woodham at bay until police arrived. (Later it was discovered that Woodham had also used a knife to stab his mother to death earlier that morning.) While Woodham's shooting spree was widely reported by the media, Myrick's armed intervention – which likely prevented additional fatalities – was widely ignored.
* In Edinboro, Pennsylvania, in 1998, another deadly incident took place when 14-year-old Andrew Wurst killed one teacher, and wounded another teacher and two classmates. Wurst's shooting rampage was halted by merchant James Strand, who used his shotgun to force the young criminal to halt his firing, drop his gun and surrender to police. Not surprisingly, in its coverage of the tragedy the major media gave short shrift to Strand's armed intervention.
* In a largely unreported incident in Santa Clara, California, earlier this year, Richard Gable Stevens rented a rifle for target practice at the National Shooting Club, but instead began a shooting rampage, herding three store employees into a nearby alley and stating his intent to kill them. When Stevens became momentarily distracted, a shooting-club employee, who had a .45-caliber handgun concealed under his shirt, drew his weapon and fired. Stevens was hit in the chest and critically wounded. He was then held at bay until the police arrived. A massacre in the making was prevented – but the major media was not interested.
In like manner, the prestige press shows relatively little interest in atrocities that do not involve firearms. Last May, Steven Abrams wreaked deadly havoc at a Costa Mesa, California day-care center playground, killing two toddlers and injuring five people. After his barbaric act, he then sat calmly and waited for police. Needless to say, this tragic incident did not receive the saturation coverage the Pearl, Mississippi; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; or Littleton, Colorado shootings did. The difference: The weapon sued in the Costa Mesa tragedy was an automobile, not a firearm.
What is at Stake?
Aided and abetted by the Establishment media's anti-gun bias, the Clinton administration is proceeding with its efforts to erode our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. On December 5, 1998, the administration unveiled its plan for instituting a national waiting periof for all handgun transfers in addition to the national instant check system (NICS) that went into effect last year. The administration has also exploited tragic mass shootings to coerce Congress to pass more draconian gun control laws – laws that will "harmonize" the federal code with the impending UN-managed global gun control.
Gun-control opponents are correct when they point out that incremental increases in the regulation of the right to keep and bear arms will take us down a slippery slope to registration and eventually confiscation. This author has witnessed the tragic consequences of just such a slippery slope. As a 13-year-old boy escaping from the island prison of Communist Cuba, the tragic lesson that gun control leads to tyranny was etched indelibly in my mind. Before 1958, dictator Fulgencio Batista had all citizens register their firearms. After the sweep of the revolution, Raul and Fidel Castro had their Communist thugs, aided by the newly formed Committees for the Defense of the Revolution (CDR), go door to door and, using the registration lists of the old regime, confiscate all firearms. In the end, my Cuban brethren lost not only their guns but their freedom.
We must never permit the loss of the right to keep and bear arms in my adopted country. Never!"
~~~~~~~~~~
Let us remember that upon Hitler's invasion and occupation of France, he went to the gun registration office, got the list of all registered guns, did a door-to-door search and confiscation (just as was mentioned in the above article) and, within 3 weeks, France was completely at the mercy of the Nazis. Soldiers walked about freely, knowing that they were "safe." On the other hand, in Sweden, where there weren't any gun registration laws, the Nazis traveled in groups of 2s and more - ever fearful - because the Swedes were armed and took every opportunity to let the Nazis know that they were not "safe."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As some one noted earlier on this thread, handguns could have saved us from the 9-11 disaster. A co-worker of mine suggested that all passengers who own handguns be allowed to bring them to the airports - no ammo. though. The airline s would then issue "plane safe" ammo that matches the calibre of the handgun.
The remarks from the captain as the plane is off the ground would be something like: "Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is Captain Jack Smith. The crew and I would like to thank you for flying [airline de jour]. You are on Flight xxx from Los Angeles to Chicago. We will be flying at 33,000 feet, [yada, yada]. We should have a safe flight as I am informed that we have 83 armed passengers flying with us today."
The last statement should make any would-be hijacker think more than thrice about the consequences of any actions he might take!
miss print
The goal of terrorists is to create terror, a mid-air gun battle involving (to use your figure) nearly 100 passengers wold achieve that goal. Further, the terrorists main weapon is that of surprise, if six terrorists take six hostages (children) before the other 77 armed passengers can react, everything changes.
On 9/11, even IF there had been armed passengers on that flight, they may have assumed that the hijacking would be just that, a hijacking. There was no precedent that would have indicated that they would do anything other than that.
Try this announcement, same flight.
"Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is Captain Jack Smith. The crew and I would like to thank you for flying [airline de jour]. You are on Flight xxx from Los Angeles to Chicago. We will be flying at 33,000 feet, [yada, yada]. We should have a safe flight as I am informed that all luggage has been throughly checked, as well as passengers, no guns are on board...other than the armed sky marshalls, and the pilots. Thank you for flying the safe skies."
Around three hundred million people fly every year, I don't think that you will doubt me when I say that at least a dozen morons out of that 300 million, will pull their guns on an airplane, drunk or otherwise.
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.