Friday, July 26, 2013

Agree or Disagree, Also Valid Points Here

I have A LOT of problems with this video, but they make the 'other side' of the gun argument, most certainly. And they do make some points, even some I agree with. The 2nd part of this video series is a bit better, pointing out that its possible to shoot an intruder who may be a loved one in the kitchen getting a snack (ALWAYS know exactly what you are shooting at), as well as points out that police have shot bystanders accidentally.

The interviewer conducts some very interesting research here, but I'm suspicious on several grounds.

This whole scenario smells of entrapment - that is, setting up people in a situation in which you know they will look terrible and be exposed because of who you have selected and the environment you have put them in.

1) People who are not comfortable carrying guns, do not carry them for a reason. They are afraid of them, do not WANT to handle them, do not trust them, and do not EVER plan to use them. For those reasons, they are AWFUL when called on to use them and use them injudiciously, harming themselves, usually.

A statistic ignored in this video: most of the accidental gun wounds and deaths happen to gun owners, not random strangers standing next to them. This is typically from not properly enabling the weapon's safety and shooting themselves in the foot or knee. Also? I've read a few stories of such people being police shooting instructors. Yeah.

2) #1 is supposed to be negated by the fact they chose a kid who is a good shot, only they completely set him up to fail. Any handgun owner either carries their gun, openly, in a side holster, with nothing covering it, or they carry it inside a jacket, again, in a holster, and within reach with NOTHING covering it. Otherwise the holster is pocketed, and they have to unsnap, unzip the pocket, take out the gun, click the safety off and then fire. Its not supposed to be quick, it supposed to be safe.

In other words, this isn't the Wild West and you're not SUPPOSED to be able to reach down and rip a gun out in 2 seconds - you are rushing and that will ALWAYS cause a problem, NO MATTER WHAT.

NO ONE covers their gun with a LONG shirt, except ghetto-based gangsters, and I honestly think EVEN THOSE GUYS have enough sense to take cover first in such an incident, AND THEN get their guns out.

Further the kid has gloves and a helmet on. What!?!?!?! How often does one practice shooting with those on?!?! NO ONE DOES! Not even cops who are supposed to be the most prepared to fire their guns! This is like asking you to play tennis with mittens on and then pointing out you suck at it. Absurd.

Also note that since they are saying most common concealed weapons holders would screw up; but they don't advocate for cops to give up their guns, so what they are saying is, most concealed weapons holders are MUCH WORSE than a cop in a given situation. Really? Take a cop with 100 hours training and SET HIM UP like they did the kid in this video, with gloves and a helmet and a shirt over his gun. I bet you 50% of them make the same mistake. So then the experiment has proven nothing other than SOME police will act better than SOME concealed weapons owners. Didn't you already know that? And what does that conclusively prove!?!?! Nothing, of course.

Lastly, this is a textbook room entry by the gun instructor - he already has his gun up and ready and has a good firm base. He's moving steady, on the same plane, like some kind of commando/navy seal would. He's stable, calm, and he is going to shoot you first, even if you are carrying a gun, because HIS GUN IS OUT and yours is NOT.

3) Nathalie, their female 'contestant,' actually does great except for just one problem - she stands up to shoot, when she's sitting safely behind a desk and chairs. All she has to do is stay down and shoot from cover, but instead, she stupidly stands and makes herself a bigger target - I don't understand this. Human instinct is to protect yourself; I think most people would stay behind cover. So she does one thing wrong and its a rookie mistake. Instead of saying she shot the instructor-bad-guy in the leg, severely wounding him (he was actually starting to surrender after that), they point out she would've been killed. Foolish. I'd rather someone like her were in the room GIVING UNARMED PEOPLE A CHANCE TO LIVE, then no one armed at all. An obvious point but TOTALLY IGNORED by the show's presenter. BIASED.

4) The trained gun 'contestant,' Chris, DOES take cover, but again, the gloves and that stupid long shirt and helmet obstructing his view make it impossible for him to get his gun out in time; apparently the contestants are using their gun in winter fresh off a motorcycle, but the bad guy is in summer.

4.5) As you saw again with Chris, the officer-bad-guy entered the room stable, calm and firing accurate shots. Folks, look at the kind of people that storm into rooms, movie theaters, etc., firing like wild men - they are all unstable, and mentally insane. They do not enter calm and shooting accurately. Because they do not want to kill "individuals," they are spraying the crowd randomly with gunfire (you could argue Columbine was different). In the example here, the officer is carefully picking out targets in the crowd like a trained marksman or military soldier. Sadly, when army veterans suffer from PTSD, they don't do things like that, they typically kill themselves. And the crazy people who do things like what was shown are not so careful. In every recent mass shooting, a gunman would have time to unpack a gun, snap the safety off and open fire, especially if taking cover first. Lunatics shoot at "crowds," and an armed citizen would have a better-than sporting chance. Nevermind that the gunman would be FORCED to exchange fire with you while others ran away.

5) The police give the training and participate in this absurd mock-up and they are notoriously against anyone carrying a gun, especially concealed (as many of them do). This is like the NFL putting you on the football field in full gear and watching you screw up over and over again, then tell you you should not be playing NFL football. They would be right, but I would reply, that doesn't mean I shouldn't step on the field with the same gear you use to protect yourself!

6) The logic used is awful; some people are terrible using firearms, therefore all people should be banned from carrying guns. Some people are awful drivers too, and unlike guns, MOST OF US DRIVE EVERYDAY, so should we ban cars from everyone, just to be on the safe side? No. In fact, we even give bad drivers, 2 and 3 and more chances to learn their lesson and keep their cars. Why? Because the car serves a useful purpose and is critical to their survival. One could very well say the same applies to firearms. They serve a purpose, and should only be taken away only if used recklessly. 

7) Police carry guns to defend themselves at a moment's notice, but I'm supposed to believe the same things that make them feel they need to do this, do not apply to me!?!?! Absurd. The fact that police carry is all the more reason to make me feel I need to as well, as don't we both move in the same neighborhoods among the same people!?!?! I'm not going to race to protect others and make their mess my business, necessarily, but I do want to defend myself. It is later attempted to prove that police have "muscle memory" that makes them a quicker draw. I'm not impressed, frankly. The news is filled with many cops that have a hair trigger finger and shoot far too many bullets for a situation, putting innocent by-standers at risk. No, not ALL cops do this, many are great due to their practice, but the essential point does not change - I have as much of a right to defend myself as they do and just because I'm not a cop does not make me some reckless moron shooting anything that moves. Simply because its not my job to defend others, or because I don't train everyday, does not diminish my right to defend myself. Furthermore I think you'll find people who consider it necessary to carry a gun practice with it quite often, they are often firearm aficionados and some of the most knowledgeable citizens when it comes to firearms and firearms safety.

8) One thing the experiment DISPROVES about the no-one-should-carry argument: would you, unarmed, in that room, rather have a kid fumbling for his pistol to protect himself and you, OR NO ONE but the bad guy in that room and you at his mercy!?!?! Oh wait, that's right. You can call the cops and wait for them to mobilize - what is the response time of the police to such a call? 15 mins at least. Enough time to kill everyone in the room and leave. This is never pointed out, of course. And gun advocates are called crazy for pointing out this all-too-obvious fact. Brilliant, guys. Police do not PREVENT crime, they are not clairvoyant, they don't know where crime is going to happen before it happens!

The point I, and many gun owners wish to make is, we are only trying to be practical (I do not own or carry guns, but I'm glad many - good guys - do).

9) In the case of the truck gunner shooting at the interviewer, there are more problems. He already has his gun ready to fire - no one is fast enough to counter a weapon that is prepared to be fired. That's common sense. A weekend of paintball can teach you that. Further, since she was not fast enough and was shot, should she not carry a gun at all!?!? The shooter could miss! Not carrying a weapon, only makes the situation completely no-contest. 

10) The interviewer is a woman. So here's a test case - how about you take a 95 lbs woman and have a big man try to rape her. Tell me, when she fumbles her .22 pistol out of her purse and he runs away in fear, is that a great reason why concealed carry is SO. EVIL!?!?!?!

If you survey the above video as a whole it is all setup to prove one thing to you (and fails to do so) - you should not carry a gun and only trust cops to protect you. I disagree.

One or two test cases, especially like these, are narrow, unrepresentative of the gun-carrying public at large, and ultimately totally inconclusive!

No comments:

Post a Comment