The shooter (actually the students firearms instructor) new exactly where the student with the handgun was sitting. That wouldn’t be so in real life. It was a set up.
I didn’t give a hypothetical supposition, I asked for facts. BTW, it’s next to impossible to manipulate facts when they aren’t provided in the first place.
Wouldn’t it be nice to know what those numbers are in the first place?
If I ask a simple question as to accidental deaths per gun usage versus accidental deaths per automobile usage, and I get back answers like “Well, since I feel assured that I am safer by owning a weapon, I am using it 24/7/365”, only one side is doing the desperate hand-waving, imho.
Now, if it turns out that it is impossible to find out what I have ask for:
- Just say so, and we’ll move on, and
- Don’t EVER compare the safety of guns to the safety of automobiles in the future in an attempt to minimize the dangerousness of either.
If you want a straight ratio of owners to accidents then that is easily provided…in fact, I believe most of the figures are in this thread already. If you are asking for some obscure quantification of mean usage for each then those figures are pretty much impossible to quantify IMHO…they would vary wildly as it’s doubtful that anyone has done so for either cars OR guns.
Depending on which question you are asking will determine if you get an answer…and who is handwaving.
Because it’s impossible to answer your specific question you feel that there is no basis of comparison?? That’s…and interesting debating tactic…
-XT
That is exactly what was my problem with the show. This is in no way a remotely close depiction of real life, as they seemed to be trying to do.
To add to the fact that the student had trouble retrieving the gun is actually a good thing. For one not just anybody could come up to you and take your gun easily. And for another, to be able to quickly unholster the gun in that type of holster would require a lot of practice which would probably end up in a lot of shooting practice. Who ever owns a gun, especially a pistol, needs to be experienced.
But the student knew it was coming, so that balances it out. The student was well trained and comfortable with hand guns.
I watched the show last night. My personal viewpoint is that handguns are over-prescribed for self defense by gun advocates for several reasons, including some that the show presented, but I tried to watch the show from a neutral standpoint. Overall, I was disappointed. Some bullet points:
-
I was disatisfied with the show’s overall thesis, which seemed to be “Carrying a gun is worthless because you suck, so don’t even bother.” At the very least, it should have been “Carrying a gun may very well be worthless because you probably suck, so either don’t bother or make it a point to not suck by devoting your life to intensive training.” Even then, that’s not the best thesis, but declaring a problem and then not exploring all reasonable solutions to the problem isn’t good IMO.
-
The classroom shooting simulation was the only interesting part of the show. All the time wasted drumming up drama over accidental shootings, kids with guns, and gunshow loopholes was garbage. It was terribly over-simplified and one-sided as 20/20 is apt to do.
-
Regarding the classroom shooting simulation -
– It’s pretty much impossible to realistically simulate a scenario like this. I think they did a decent job.
– However, they picked a scenario that stood the best chance of supporting their thesis. Alternate scenarios that might not have been so beneficial to their side could have included things like the VT shooting, where the action went down in a classroom next door and the armed citizen would have had time to draw and assume a defensive position. And any number of scenarios in between. That being said, many CCW holders undoubtedly feel that they’d be able to save the day in the situation as presented, so it was still interesting to me.
– The test subjects were given training on the weapon that day, including drawing and firing from the holster, and were told that they’d have an opportunity to use the weapon in a simulated self-defense scenario later in the day. From the footage they showed, all the students seemed to “get” what was going on much faster than I believe they would in real life because of this.
– While the attacker knew where the armed citizen was sitting in advance, he (in my opinion) did a good job of not shooting at the subject right away – he shot the instructor, then shot at some other people, giving the subject time to do something. Once a few seconds had passed, he did tend to single the person out, but usually the person was either visibly trying to draw a gun or making themselves a target by not trying to run. Overall, I think the attacker did a great job at trying to make the simulation as realistic as he could under the circumstances.
– While some of the test subjects had extensive range experience, none of them seemed to be that interested in arming themselves. I can’t help but feel that someone who actually takes the time to get a CCW permit and do range training with CCW in mind would have been better than these random shmucks. I’ve spent a fair amount of time at the range, including some holster training, but I’ve never approached my training from a viewpoint of having to use a concealed weapon for defense. So I don’t think I’d make a good test subject. I would have liked to see test subjects pulled from a CCW class or something – i.e., people who thought they would have been able to do something in that situtation. However, the intent of the show wasn’t to show what CCW permit holders could do if armed, it was to see what armed shmucks could do. I’m sort of torn on this one.
In summary, as a data point, I think the simulation expirement was interesting, but nowhere near thorough enough to base any kind of personal or public policy on it. The show overall was pretty much crap.
It doesn’t balance out at all. The simulated gun man was a trained expert with (IIRC) something like 20 years as a master trainer. He was also informed ahead of time that there would be an armed shooter in the room. Additionally, the student was not given all of the information about the shooter coming in the room, just told to react. Additionally, the other ‘students’ in the room were police and other trained personnel who were deliberately trying to act ‘chaotic’…but doing so as a training exercise.
So…the deck was totally stacked against the armed student. Deliberately so. If they REALLY wanted to prove their point then they should have used an untrained gun man who wasn’t informed that there was an armed student, and a student who was armed but didn’t know if a gun man would appear or not (i.e. a double blind test…probably a series of tests where sometimes there was a gun man bursting in and sometimes not, sometimes there was an armed student and sometimes not).
Even then I’m unsure how valid the test would be, since when you are shooting paint balls you don’t get the same kind of psychological suppression as you do when you know the bullets are real…as you could see in the show where the armed students just stood up and fired back without any attempt to find cover…and without the (highly trained) gunman ALSO not trying for cover or being suppressed.
-XT
Has this ever happened? I honestly don’t know, but if so I’d really like to read about it.
I have provided in numerous threads the numbers of accidental deaths from firearms over the years. Those numbers have remained fairly consistent at the ~700-800 per year mark.
Have you ignored those cites? They come from the CDC’s Nat’l Institute for Health Statistics. I trust you would accept them as an “unbiased source” in support of your position?
The rates are what they are. As xtisme correctly points out, there has not been (at least to my knowledge; feel free to try and google-fu one up on your own) any study conducted to assess “usage rates vs. accident rates.”
The U.S. Dept. of Labor estimate there are 1,000,000+ armed security guards and ~860,000 police officers in the United States as of 2006.
I provided earlier cites on the numbers of hunters in the U.S.A., with the caveat that that number is probably low due to the fact that it is generated by the number of license applicants, and there are situations in which hunting licenses aren’t required and that there are “lifetime licenses” also available.
I also maintain that a firearm sitting in a dresser, or a gun safe, whether loaded or unloaded, is as every bit “in use” as a firearm out “in the field,” on the hips of cops, security guards, and concealed carry licencees, in the hands of weekend target shooters, and hunters.
In other words, the firearm is “out there,” in the possession of people, both professional and private, and whether it is discharged in a “situation” or bought, stored, and never touched, it’s “in play” for purposes of counting accident statistics.
How about if you don’t ever attempt to advocate licensing requirements for firearms, saying “we license people to drive cars, we should do the same for guns.”
It is not an either or proposition. Gun owners use cars so they have that danger. They add a potential gun death to the probability.
And if they smoke, drink, fly, have sex, paint their house, use a tooth pick, watch TV, breath, etc etc, then they also add risk to their lives. And your point is…?
-XT
Whoa, steady there, Hoss! That’s a definition without edges, it doesn’t exclude much of anything. Somewhere, I have a .22 single shot my grandfather gave me when I was twelve, probably in my Uncle John’s attic and when I get to Hell, maybe I can ask him. That’s “in use”? By whom?
I can understand your need for a, ah, generous definition to make your stats look prettier, but this is, well, a bit thick. By those lights, about the only guns that aren’t “in use” are the ones being melted down (hurrah!) or being trucked from factory to outlet (sigh).
The problem with this scenario however is that any CCW’er with a brain is hightailin’ it out of there, not walking around, gun drawn, looking for a fight, if they hear a shot.
I carry to protect myself and my family. The best way to survive a gun fight is to not be in one.
I would not consider that “in use.” But my grandma’s little .22 revolver, that she bought for home defense, and which sat in her dresser for years and years without ever being fired, was “in use.” It was serving it’s design function and intended purpose.
Just like the truck I drive to and from work everyday is serving its design function and intended purpose. But my car is sitting at home in the driveway while I’m at work. Since I do drive my car at times (mostly weekends), even when it’s sitting in my driveway during weekday working hours, it’s still “in use,” in that it is an auto, legally permitted to operate on public roads, and subject to the dangers thereof for purposes of counting it’s “potentiality” to be involved in an accident.
How magnanimous of you. Rest assured, I too understand the need of anti-gunners to exclude as many legitimate “uses” (for various given definitions of “usage”) of firearms as possible to make them look better.
So, you carry, concealed, to protect yourself and your family? I don’t see how a concealed threat operates as a deterrence, you’d need at least one of those convention badges that says “HI! My name is JXJohns, and I’m packing!”
Now, that may have a deterrent effect on potential villains, as well as panhandlers, Hairy Krishnas and the annoying twit who seeks to engage strangers in meteorological conversation.
Do these villains congregate in your home town, or some place you are compelled to visit? How often are you required to address this issue directly? Perhaps you are one of the >5,000 daily occurances of defensive use which leave no physical evidence of having happened. What happens if and when you go about without packing? Is it any different?
If they feel the need to rob you are you are wearing a gun in a holster, the first act would be to shoot you.
You really don’t know??? Wow after all the silly comparisons made about more people killed while driving than by guns. That had been brought up a few times .
gonzomax already brought up the major reason why it is inadvisable to carry your firearm openly. Another reason is that, even where legal, the police and other citizens might not take seeing a firearm on a civilian very well.
The hard part about “villains” is that you never know what one might look like. Carrying a concealed firearm is a safety measure, just like wearing your seat belt or carrying a spare car key in your wallet. Better to have it and not need it than…, etc.
Going without packing and going out packing are both like playing the lottery; carrying a weapon is a good safety measure if your number ever comes up.
Sure, actually needing your weapon is highly unlikely, but to me it’s no different than having a smoke detector in the home.
It’s not necessarily as inconvenient to carry concealed as it is sometimes described: you can find small pistols and revolvers that only take up a front pant pocket. I recommend a J-frame size .38spc wheel gun.
You really didn’t read or comprehend what I wrote??? I’m militantly unsurprised.
Here is what you wrote that I was responding too:
Here is what I wrote:
Since you seem to be unable to grasp my point, let me be clearer. The act of driving incurs risk. Owning a gun incurs a separate risk. Not owning a gun incurs risk. Breathing incurs risk. Flying incurs risk. Getting on a ladder incurs risk. Living incurs risk. Stating that gun owners also use cars and thus incur more risk is flawed because each risk is separate…it’s also disingenuous since EVERYTHING incurs risk. It’s assessing those risks that is what I’m talking about.
MY question is…why do you and others think it’s ‘silly’ or invalid to compare probabilities of death in a given year of different items (guns, cars, alcohol, smoking, etc etc) or actions? Comparisons are made all the time concerning smoking, alcohol use, liver disease, heart disease, diabetes, etc etc…and the frequency of the behavior is seldom or ever used in such comparisons, mainly because frequency is difficult to quantify except in very broad terms.
I know it’s (an) inconvenient (truth :p) that deaths due to fire arms are relatively minor even in the US where millions own guns. It sucks that accidental deaths due to owning or using guns is so ridiculously low, and that even suicides by gun out number murders committed by them…and that even put all together the total deaths a year due to fire arms is minuscule compared to most other things that are likely to kill you.
I know all of this…and my guess is that most of the anti-gun folks in this thread are smart enough to be able to do the math as well…and that none of that matters in the end.
-XT
Am I the only person who thinks this is a ludicrous, irrelevent, and obfuscatory definition of “use”? I see this and I think “somebody here be afeared of the facts.”
“Having” is not “using” -even if you have it for a reason. I have car insurance. I have it for a reason and my having of it serves a purpose - quite a similar one to the purpose you “use” your stored gunes for, really.
However, I have only actually used my car insurance four times, I believe.
I also carry a small pocketknife. I feel unprepared and actually uncomfortable without it, so I have purpose in merely carrying it. However, I’m not using it unless I’m actually cutting something.
I’d be willing to debate whether you are actually “using” a gun when carrying it in a holster, but that or even carrying it in your hand could be quite fairly classified as non-use. After all, the way you use a gun, you point it at something and pull the trigger. Having it sitting unused in a drawer may be conforting, but unused is unused nonetheless.