A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Probably Going to Hurt Someone Innocent

feedback.pdxradio.com forums feedback.pdxradio.com forums Politics and other things A "Good Guy with a Gun" is Probably Going to Hurt Someone Innocent

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #12709
    duxrule
    Participant

    Regular people are totally useless when trying to use a handgun in self-defense: study

    “…[Researchers] recruited 77 volunteers with varying levels of firearm experience and training, and had each of them participate in simulations of three different scenarios using the firearms training simulator at the Prince George’s County Police Department in Maryland…

    They found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, people without firearms training performed poorly in the scenarios. They didn’t take cover. They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.”

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/regular-people-are-totally-useless-when-trying-to-use-a-handgun-in-self-defense-study/

    #12711
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    This is precisely why I will continue to advocate we introduce mandatory gun education for all people.

    We’ve established gun ownership is an individual right. I agree with this SCOTUS decision too. Great! In that same decision, SCOTUS made it clear, rights come with responsibilities, no different from any other rights.

    Over time, the cost of gun ownership as a right will eventually result in some regulation for the common good.

    Here’s the take away argument for the gun nuts out there:

    If we do the education, we reduce the risks and costs, and that reduces the need for more stringent regulation!

    So, if you oppose gun controls, get off your ass and start educating people and advocate we do the same. We will all be better informed and safer for having done it.

    Or… do nothing, and see this managed in other, very likely more painful, ways.

    Seriously. Think it through.

    #12712
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    If it were me, I would mandate a course for everyone be completed within a specified time period. Say a few years.

    Once that has been resolved, any newcomers get it when it makes sense.

    -immigrants get it prior to citizenship

    -kids get it as part of primary education.

    -long term VISA holders get it when it makes sense, etc…

    Said education needs to consist of:

    -safety best practices
    -use cases, under attack, hunting, etc…
    -history and impact of gun violence
    -history and intent of second amendment
    -personal liabilities and defenses.

    That’s gonna suck for a lot of people, but it’s necessary if we are to hold this individual right responsibly.

    I’m pretty sure Sweden –it’s one of those nations over there I can’t seem to remember precisely right now, issues a gun to everyone who comes of age. Everyone. They are to keep it, be responsible for it, and understand it’s use as part of their obligations as an adult citizen.

    We would do very well to emulate at least the education and responsibility portions of that. I don’t think actually issuing guns is needed given we have so damn many of them anyway.

    So we fund this with a tax on ammo. Said fund covers:

    -cost of education
    -cost of certification and compliance for educators
    -cost of administration
    -costs associated with gun violence
    –medical
    –legal
    –research
    –other to be determined

    The more we fuck this up, the more ammo costs.

    #12714
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    By the way…

    Good on them! I’ve also been a consistent advocate for gun research. Each of the bumper sticker type slogans we hear all the damn time really does need to be evaluated critically and for that to happen, we need data.

    This bit of research is great! “A good guy with a gun” could be a total wild card! Probably a mess more than a good force.

    Nice to know, isn’t it?

    #12715
    duxrule
    Participant

    We require drivers to pass tests showing that they can see, that they know the traffic laws, and that they have the physical skills to be able to safely control a motor vehicle. We also have additional training and testing requirements for people how drive big trucks and other vehicles, simply to make sure these things are operated safely, to try and make sure they’re not running rampant. Why do the NRA/2A backers go insane when someone suggests these same measures before someone can get a gun?

    #12717
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    For the same reason they oppose research:

    Responsibility and liability.

    They like the individual right part of it. Unbridled freedom. Absolute right.

    Of course, no rights are absolute, but they figure delaying and marginalizing liabilities and responsibilities is as good as it gets.

    Count on them to continue that no matter what.

    #12723
    Alfredo_T
    Participant

    Some time ago, a video link was posted to this site for a story that was broadcast on ABC, entitled, “If I Had a Gun.” In the story, several college students who had firearms training and described themselves as persons who were “good with guns” were recruited for simulations where a gunman would break into a college lecture. The lecture halls chosen for the simulations were ones where it would be hard to duck for cover (so very fast action with the gun would be required).

    I recall that a surprising number of the students had problems with their guns becoming tangled in their shirts while attempting to unholster. This was because the students invariably wore untucked, oversized T-shirts. I wouldn’t have thought that this could be an issue, and apparently neither did the students.

    #12744
    missing_kskd
    Participant
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.