Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

I've been in the military for nearly eleven years. I've been through a direct life-and-death situation once in which I did react appropriately. But it wasn't under threat of a weapon nor involving other people. I've been deployed twice, I've been under threat of indirect fire but I thank the Force I haven't had to face using Deadly Force in combat. I've always passed my M16/M14 training and I'm an M9 Marksman. I would LIKE to say I would react appropriately in an Active Shooter incident. But I know better. I know that I don't know. I've only ever shot paper and clay targets (thankfully). But what I do know that your average Joe-off-the-Street isn't prepared.

Do you know what the training we go through tells us to do in the event of an Active Shooter? Lock/barricade the doors, turn off the lights, turn off your cell phones, and hide. Only confront the Active Shooter as a very very last resort. (evidently chucking motorcycle helmets is the thing to do ) But I think this kind of telling that the Air Force trains their own personnel to lay low until Security Forces arrive. They'll send us to the desert with a weapon in our hand, but tell us not to be a hero when an Active Shooter comes to call.

But there are other people out there who ARE trained for this. Who have the experience and can react as needed in this situation. I'd assume those are the kinds of people the NRA are talking about. Not unblooded people like me.

I would like to see changes to the laws for firearms. I think I would like to see more training involved before you can purchase a specific type of weapon. I don't want to see firearms banned. I really don't. But I am tired of these mass shootings. I honestly think it's a problem with people. Not so much with the tools. They'll always find different tools to use.

Just to note, I post this because we've had three mass shootings in the past couple of weeks and at least four death threats/bomb threats (schools, primarily).

But I didn't post this so folks could reiterate gun ownership is great, I posted it because mass shootings keep happening and people here keep insisting armed citizens is the answer to the problem. I posted it because I see an overwhelming amount of stuff supporting strict gun regulations. I'm not going to jump into this debate, most folks posting here already know where I stand. Sometimes I feel like people are choosing to ignore evidence and why they would do that is between them and their minister, but I know that here in America there's this idea that gun ownership is a fundamental right thanks to the Constitution.

Jamie Stick wrote: (words)...but I know that here in America there's this idea that gun ownership is a fundamental right thanks to the Constitution.

which is a distortion of the text. the actual words are "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

a militia. a well regulated one, at that. johnny six pack or joe blow or whoever is not a militia. the forefathers did not intend everybody and their dog to own and operate a firearm. nor should they.

/drops the mic

What were people before they were a well regulated militia? Your average citizen.

When militias were used, they were not even that "well regulated"

When they use militias, people already had firearms, there own personal weapons. They were not issued by a military, or some other authority that one would constitute as "well regulated".

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."-- Lord Acton (titled, landed, seat in parliament...)

What better way to keep people powerless than to tell them they will become bad people if they gain power?- Rory Miller

Jamie Stick wrote: ...mass shootings keep happening and people here keep insisting armed citizens is the answer to the problem. I posted it because I see an overwhelming amount of stuff supporting strict gun regulations.

Mass shootings suck. Any shootings suck. Armed citizens isn't the answer. Disarming citizens isn't either. If someone is using a tool in a way that is inappropriate, THAT's what needs fixing.

Then there is always the old argument of whether or not the people with authority are any more responsible in regards to the weapons they wield(whole military forces, and all its bells and whistles) and if there really the ones that should be able to dole out and take away our ability to have the same rights.

I mean, what ultimately would be described as a "well regulated militia" or terrorist group, or psycho with a gun.

Isis is fairly well regulated, and yet, I wouldnt want them to even have a pencil.

Bottom line is, people have been finding ways to kill each other loooooong before we had guns to blame for it.

Its not even a case of being more common, as much as were so connected to the other 7 billion people on the planet and there problems that we see it almost as it happens, day in and day out.

It seems overwhelming because the information comes so much faster.

At one time, you only had the nightly news, and the paper.

i think a good example would be switzerland, khaos. as i understand, and feel free to research this, they have a very high per capita ownership of guns there. perhaps even mandated military training? of which i am in favor, of course.

but they dont have weekly mass shootings. the guns are regulated. the ammo too i believe. the citizens themselves are not so bellicose and hooah hooah as we americans seem to be.

they are well regulated. it can happen. why not here?

EDIT: i am also in favor of rigorous mandatory gun safety training, plays into the military training aspect. as in, 'you dont pass guns 101, you dont get a gun legally.' gun owners liability insurance is probably going to happen in some states, there is already talk of that.

the bottom line is, we cannot continue to have mass shootings and not do anything about it. that isnt working. do we wait til every single one of us has been affected by a mass shooting to act? or can we have enough compassion and reason to not have to wait that long?

Desolous wrote: i think a good example would be switzerland, khaos. as i understand, and feel free to research this, they have a very high per capita ownership of guns there. perhaps even mandated military training? of which i am in favor, of course.

but they dont have weekly mass shootings. the guns are regulated. the ammo too i believe. the citizens themselves are not so bellicose and hooah hooah as we americans seem to be.

they are well regulated. it can happen. why not here?

I think what we seem to be getting at is that it is a societal or "people" problem more than the instrument used to enact the violence?

[hr]

Edit added.

How to resolve the issue is what seems to be the debate. Well, it would be the question I would ask. But a lot of the time the issue is "aimed" at the instrument and not the cause in my opinion.

Here's a quote from the FBI study of active shooter incidents between 2000 and 2013 (a little outdated, I know, but they haven't done a new one in the last two years).

The study identified 21 (13.1%) of 160 incidents where unarmed citizens made the selfless
and deeply personal choices to face the danger of an active shooter. In those instances,
the citizens safely and successfully disrupted the shootings. In 11 of those 21 incidents,
unarmed principals, teachers, other school staff and students confronted the shooters to
end the threat. In 10 incidents, citizens, working or shopping when the shootings began,
successfully restrained shooters until police could arrive. And in 6 other incidents, armed
off-duty police officers, citizens, and security guards risked their lives to successfully end
the threat. These actions likely saved the lives of students and others present.

Recognizing the increased active shooter threat and the swiftness with which active shooter
incidents unfold, these study results support the importance of training and exercises—
not only for law enforcement but also for citizens. It is important, too, that training and
exercises include not only an understanding of the threats faced but also the risks and
options available in active shooter incidents.

Emphasis added by me.

So in 13% of the shootings a citizen stepped in and stopped the shooting. Note that it didn't say that they were sometimes successful at it, they always were. Every time someone stepped up to the plate to help their fellow man they did so successfully. That's just the unarmed ones too. Another 5 incidents (3%) were armed civilians, 3 killed the shooter with no additional loss of life, 1 wounded the shooter, and in the other the shooter committed suicide.

What that tells me is that the evidence points to the fact that these would happen less, or at least result in fewer deaths, if people were willing to stand up and fight for themselves and each other. In all the other cases they waited to let the police handle it. You know what? 40% of the time the police show up after the fact. 23% of the time the shooter does what he aimed to do and kills himself before the police even arrive.

The discussion shouldn't even be about guns, it should be about our letting people do this and not stopping them ourselves. The evidence says that if we act early we save lives. That is all the evidence I need.

Here's the FBI study I got the statistics from.

Wescli Wardest wrote:

Desolous wrote: i think a good example would be switzerland, khaos. as i understand, and feel free to research this, they have a very high per capita ownership of guns there. perhaps even mandated military training? of which i am in favor, of course.

but they dont have weekly mass shootings. the guns are regulated. the ammo too i believe. the citizens themselves are not so bellicose and hooah hooah as we americans seem to be.

they are well regulated. it can happen. why not here?

I think what we seem to be getting at is that it is a societal or "people" problem more than the instrument used to enact the violence?

[hr]

Edit added.

How to resolve the issue is what seems to be the debate. Well, it would be the question I would ask. But a lot of the time the issue is "aimed" at the instrument and not the cause in my opinion.

I dont think there is a debate about how to resolve it. I dont think it can be resolved. We can lower the numbers perhaps, but eradicate them completely? No. Guns exist, the methods to make them exists. If its not guns, there is bows, swords, martial arts, rocks, sticks, and at this point there are drones, bombs, tanks, planes.

You wont resolve the issue, unless you find and enact a way that controls a person down to the minutia of there every day decisions. And remove them.