Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

Full article

 Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association (NRA), has famously claimed that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

Much of today’s opposition to stronger gun safety regulations rests on the gun lobby’s Hobbesian vision of self-sufficient, heavily-armed citizens standing up to vicious thugs. This Die Hard argument is constantly parroted by politicians and conservative pundits. But the statistical reality is that for every justifiable homicide in the United States—for every lethal shooting in defense of life or property—guns are used to commit 34 murders and 78 suicides, and are the cause of two accidental deaths, according to an analysis of FBI data by The Washington Post.

LaPierre, a career lobbyist, has no clue what it’s like to use a firearm in anger. But The Nation spoke to several people who do—including combat veterans and former law enforcement officers—and who believe that the NRA’s heroic gunslinger mythology is a dangerous fantasy that bears little resemblance to reality. Retired Army Sergeant Rafael Noboa y Rivera, who led a combat team in Iraq, says that most soldiers only function effectively after they’ve been exposed to fire a number a times. “I think there’s this fantasy world of gunplay in the movies, but it doesn’t really happen that way,” he says. “When I heard gunfire [in Iraq], I didn’t immediately pick up my rifle and react. I first tried to ascertain where the shooting was coming from, where I was in relation to the gunfire and how far away it was. I think most untrained people are either going to freeze up, or just whip out their gun and start firing in that circumstance,” Noboa said. “I think they would absolutely panic.”

 Those interviewed for this article agreed that the key distinction isn’t between “good guys” and “bad guys,” because intentions are less important than the rigorous—and continuous—training that it takes to effectively handle firearms in high-stress situations.

Dr. Pete Blair, an associate professor of criminal justice at Texas State University and director of the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center (ALERRT), has studied mass shooting incidents and trains law enforcement personnel to respond to active-shooter situations. The cops who go through his course conduct live-fire exercises using real firearms which are re-chambered to fire “soap rounds” that leave only welts when they hit.

Blair’s trainees run through a number of real-world scenarios—“force on force training” that’s designed to “inoculate” officers against the problems people naturally encounter in high-stress situations. That stress response, says Blair, includes “tunnel vision, audio exclusion and time dilation,” and one would expect people who weren’t trained in these situations to “freeze up or not know what to do, and to have difficulty performing actions correctly.”

And in case you read to the bottom and don't want to scroll/look up. This is also a link to the full article.

<yawn> there's more to it than just that....

if more people are armed then criminals are more likely to think twice before attempting to victimize someone...since the criminal doesn't know whether their potential victim is armed and trained or not....

florida has relaxed its gunlaws, as a result crime has gone down...criminals are more cautious when selecting potential victims...would you attack an elderly person if you thought they may be carrying a firearm?...there has been several cases in recent years of elderly folks successfully defending themselves against assailants by use of firearm...i personally know 3 people that have successfully defended themselves against armed assailants by use of firearm....if they had not had their guns they would have likely been harmed or worse...

I agree with the OP. A perp has the advantage of surprise, which means they can pick the time and the method of commiting the crime to minimize any reaction from an individual armed or not. People seeing a gun incident don't really know who is in the right or wrong so the best way to avoid killing an innocent is to either hide or is confront the armed person, but if it is a criminal then they will probably be shot anyway.... are criminals really always rational under best conditions, let alone after having just shot someone. There are a million scenario's, falling on both sides of the argument - but my concern application of lethal force is a serious responsibility, and gun's make it quick and easy compared to other mechanisms. Most people can't even drive a car safely.

if more people are armed then criminals are more likely to think twice before attempting to victimize someone...since the criminal doesn't know whether their potential victim is armed and trained or not....

This year american police officers have killed more unarmed civilians (any weapon) than terrorists have killed people in France. And the US remain the least free country in the world thanks to the highest incarceration rate in the world. Gun culture works. :silly:

It's true that some fantasy heroic gunslinger is a joke. Of course you have to take a class and prove to be profficient with your handgun to get a concealed carry permit, however this training does not involve a real high stress scenario obviously. I still think it's better to arm yourself, train, and get a concealed carry permit though. Not everyone who carries is going to just jump into a firefight because they have a gun thinking they are a hero.

Like Adder said there good arguments for both sides to this and I guess I'm just on the side where I will own firearms, train with them, study different cases and the laws regarding the use of deadly force, and carry concleaed with a permit. I know that at least in my rural area where I live as overwhelmed as they are, the police are not reliable protection. In big cities I don't like the idea of carrying concealed because of so many people around. I wouldn't want to get into a firefight risking collateral damage and unwanted legal problems as I don't consider myself the heroic gunslinger.

As for the myth that the second ammendment has everything to do with gun violence, well gun violence has actually declined since the 90s. There hasn't really been a mass shooting everyday in the USA as it has been recently claimed and even if Reddit is right those "mass shooting" didn't all result in death according to the FBI. According to the FBI, only 21 of the 355 shootings identified by the anti-gunners can actually be categorized as mass murder with a firearm.

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released research results compiled with CDC data in June, 2013. It showed “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

http://time.com/4133808/san-bernardino-shooting-mass-shootings/

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

An FBI report released last year details that over a thirteen year period, between 2000 and 2013, there were 160 “active shooter incidents. In addition, a small number of those identified as wounded were not injured by gunfire but rather suffered injuries incidental to the event, such as being hit by flying objects/shattered glass or falling while running. For the purposes of this study, the FBI did not seek to isolate the exact number of individuals that fell into this category, when research did not allow for that type of injury to be easily discerned."

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/#note-97-6

"In fact, most of the time the offending criminal was not killed. 92% merely brandish their gun or fired a warning shot to scare off their attackers, according to Gary Kleck and Aldine de Gruyter of the National Self-Defense Survey. Moreover, for every accidental, suicide (and this category is the largest number of firearm deaths) and homicide death, 13 lives, or in total 390,000 lives were saved (Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter)."

I don't mean to take over your thread, I agree with you that the whole heroic gunslinger fantasy is a total joke as I said. But besides police who aren't reliable protection, I also am worried about the media and politicians who would go out of their way and take advantage of tragic situations to push their agenda to disarm law abiding citizens and this is why so many people fight against their gun control cause that is where it is leading and that's what they want. A lot of states don't require background checks and documentation for private party transfers, which I agree is pretty shady. But the same media and politicians support giving terroris... I mean moderate rebels overseas millions of dollars worth of weapons some that can take commercial airplanes out of the sky, the same government that was caught selling guns to Mexican cartels (Fast and Furious) and gun running leading to the Benghazi situation WITHOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Just some food for thought.

Each person is going to react differently in “high stress” situations.

Believing that you are going to respond like you see in the movies because you own a firearm will not only get you hurt or killed but will endanger other and most likely end up giving the criminal element more firearms.

There are some that have been baptized in the fires of combat that no longer think about a response but respond with clear and decisive action. Which is not always the best course either.

Eliminating the ability for people to arm themselves only gives the criminal element a distinct advantage over their targets as laws do not apply to those that do not abide by them.

The best thing one can do is decide ahead of time what one is going to do in a worst case scenario and practice that and a few other options as the best choice may not be possibility at that time.

When I was in the service I responded well in situations which required immediate response and could be considered high stress. But as a civilian, I have owned, used and taught fire arm safety and usage since I was very young, starting in my teens to be more precise. I have a CHL. I rarely ever carry anything. And I have never needed a fire arm to resolve a situation. But I have not been in every situation either.

Hind sight is presumed to be 20/20 but that is only because people are afforded the opportunity to set back and say, “what if” or make up scenarios in their minds where the outcome would be beneficial to their thoughts or beliefs where in reality, things happen that are not in your control nor will they happen to your design.

Many things have been banned throughout the years and it hasn’t stopped anyone from having any of them. Great examples of this are prohibition and the fact that marijuana has been illegal in the states for over thirty years. The sad reality is that making fire arms illegal will mean that only criminals will own fire arms.

I ask, what causes people to commit these acts of violence? Perhaps we should focus on the individuals and the circumstances that lead them to the point where they felt this was their best option and look to resolve those. I mean, if a bot smashes a bunch of bricks with a hammer, I do not throw away the hammer. I find out why he did it and look for a path to help him realize that such destructive behavior is not only bad for him, harms others but also will not lend him to the end he believes he desires.

But these are just my thoughts.

Wescli Wardest wrote: I have never needed a fire arm to resolve a situation.

This is one of the most commonly used arguments I have ever heard about why a person doesn't carry a weapon. You are the first person who has admitted

Wescli Wardest wrote: But I have not been in every situation either.

Thank you.

I usually respond by saying that I'll bet [insert victims of most recent shooting spree] said the same thing that very morning. It only has to happen to you once.

Also, note that many of the mass shootings take place in locations that ban guns. Schools, government buildings (that one happened here in the US and in Canada. CANANDA!), office buildings where employees aren't allowed to carry. Wolves go where the sheep are. I don't want to be a sheep and I CERTAINLY don't want my government to force me to be one. It's been the same tactic for thousands of years. Oppression 101: disarm the citizens.

Oh the Force, now I'm starting to sound like a doomsday preper! :laugh: Next thing you know I'll start spouting off about black helicopters and who really killed JFK. :laugh:

On both sides of this issue, it might do us some considerable good to investigate and discuss why this issue gets our passions up so quickly.

Certainly, there is the fact that people are dying and none of us wants that. I don't think this is the whole of the issue, though. And there is the fear, of course. We are afraid that this will happen to us, or worse, our loved ones. So, we want the shooter to not have a gun and/or that we have one of our own. Fear obscures many things.

But we are quick to burn on this issue. We escalate quickly. It would be valuable if we took some time to discuss why.

I will need to think about it too.

RyuJin wrote: <yawn> there's more to it than just that....

if more people are armed then criminals are more likely to think twice before attempting to victimize someone...since the criminal doesn't know whether their potential victim is armed and trained or not....

florida has relaxed its gunlaws, as a result crime has gone down...criminals are more cautious when selecting potential victims...would you attack an elderly person if you thought they may be carrying a firearm?...there has been several cases in recent years of elderly folks successfully defending themselves against assailants by use of firearm...i personally know 3 people that have successfully defended themselves against armed assailants by use of firearm....if they had not had their guns they would have likely been harmed or worse...

I believe the same thing happened when Chicago legalized handguns and Illinois finally legalized concealed carry. I haven't verified, though. Somebody want to look into it?

you will never be able to produce a statistic or an argument that will convince me that my tire will never go flat - even if you make a new tire that just cannot go flat, i know for a fact that my car doesnt have them, and as long as my tire might go flat, you will never convince me, no matter how many people dont know how to change a tire or how many have been run over while attempting to change their tires, that i should not keep a jack and a spare tire in my car

who will be there to change my tire for me if it ever goes flat?
anyone in the "jack-control" lobby?

no, there is a real potential that if it does happen that i will be forced to handle the situation on my own resources

and tires go flat - period

we can find hundreds of cases of peoples tires going flat and it is totally unpredictable (which is why you cannot convince me that i should have faith that it will never happen to me)

until you can make it safe to drive, (which you can never do) or at least demonstrate that the tires on my car are impervious, (which i know already that they are not) i will not be receptive to the idea of giving up my spare tire and my jack

and people who pay money to own tires and jacks will spend way more money to keep them than people who dont spend money to not own tires and jacks will spend not to keep them

and people who make billions of dollars every year on tire and jack sales will spend even more money to keep selling them

so at the political level there is a much stronger force working to keep the tires and jacks economy going

to me, its an issue of being personally responsible for ones own safety

ive never accidentally killed anybody and i dont think its unreasonable to expect that i may go through the rest of my life without ever accidentally killing anybody

and since i willadvocate peoples right to decide for themselves what is appropriate to their own safety, are you going to resent me and treat me as an enemy or blame me every time someone does get hurt?

both sides of the issue are infested with self righteous, morally certain, ideologues - and i will be the first to point out that i myself have the potential to be one as much as anybody so, dont think im throwing stones or looking down my nose at anyone with this point

and if you want to make classes or categories of "things that are very dangerous" or "things that make life miserable for everyone" i would suggest that "self righteous, morally certain ideologues" are way higher on that list than firearms