If the odds are that a civilian gun carrier will freeze up the odds would really be low that there would be two civilians bearing guns in a given situation. For the "one good guy shoots another" scenario to occur two of them would have to buck the "freeze-up factor."
The real question is what are your chances for survival and resistance if you're unarmed vs. armed.
> You can’t have it both ways, DieHard. The civilian gun owner can’t both “freeze up from adrenaline rush” and “shoot another good guy.”
Why not? Adrenaline rush stuffs up your fine motor skills — your gross motor skills often work just fine. Why can’t you adrenaline dump, aim poorly and shoot another good guy?
> The real question is what are your chances for survival and resistance if you’re unarmed vs. armed.
I agree. I sure wish I could tune into ABC and see what they have to say: we don’t receive it here in NZ. I won’t necessarily agree with their finding, but it is fascinating that they are examining the subject. I particularly like their simulation scenario: I was a member of a team that used to train executives in Crisis Management using scenario-based experiential learning techniques, so their methodology is particularly interesting to me.