In the wake of the Lafayette, Louisiana movie theater shooting, gun fanatics have been very quick to claim that this shooting happened because the Grand 16 theater is a “gun-free zone.” By their logic, if a “good guy with a gun” was allowed to carry their weapon into that evening’s showing of the movie “Trainwreck,” this tragedy would have been averted. This is a tired old talking point that they use over and over again to state that we need to allow everyone to have guns everywhere while they also accuse anyone who proposes sensible regulations and training requirements of trying to ban guns altogether.
Claiming that “gun-free zones” don’t prevent criminals or lunatics from shooting up a school or business while deflecting from the loose gun laws in places like Louisiana is a favorite tactic of gun fanatics. In their minds, all of these incidents could have been avoided if guns were allowed, because weapons seem to magically solve everything in their world. As I’ve said before, I am a gun owner and do carry a handgun at times for personal protection. However, I do not operate under the assumption that I am a trained professional or that carrying a weapon automatically qualifies me to do anything other than protect myself as a last resort. The problem is that too many people do think that they are professionals, even though they have little (if any) training in the use of a weapon, let alone the legal consequences that follow a shooting – even when it is in self-defense.
In other words, we have a lot of untrained individuals who have been led to believe by gun lobby “experts” like John Lott that more guns make us safer, and that simply owning a gun and having an NRA membership makes them some sort of expert. Let’s look at the fact that young drivers have the highest rate of accidents and fatalities due to a lack of experience operating a vehicle, even though they have undergone classroom instruction and behind the wheel training in order to receive their license to drive.
Now can you imagine what would happen with an untrained individual attempting to engage a deranged shooter in a dark, crowded theater? How about multiple untrained people on an adrenaline rush with guns trying to determine who the “good guy with a gun” is and who is the person they’re trying to take out, all while chaos reigns in that confined space? I hate to break it to all the wannabe John Wayne gun extremists out there, but even highly-trained and specialized police or military units still manage to end up killing innocent bystanders from time to time, so imagine the potential bloodbath that would occur with multiple wannabe Wyatt Earps.
Now a study from Mount St. Mary’s University prepared for the National Gun Victims Action Council shows again that the NRA’s propaganda about more guns making us safer is false. From the Washington Post:
The study found that proper training and education are key to successfully using a firearm in self-defense: “carrying a gun in public does not provide self-defense unless the carrier is properly trained and maintains their skill level,” the authors wrote in a statement.
They 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. The first scenario involved a carjacking, the second an armed robbery in a convenience store, and the third a case of suspected larceny.
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. (Source)
This video shows that untrained people do not live up to the slogan “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” that the NRA likes to promote in order to market guns. In fact, every issue of American Rifleman has a collection of stories in the front pages of their magazine as well as on their website called The Armed Citizen. These anecdotes are used to hype up how private citizens with guns save lives and stop crime, but as this study shows, those people are the exception instead of the norm.
Now here is the part that shows how morally bankrupt the NRA is. The NRA does have a series of training classes which are offered across the country by NRA-certified instructors. Some of these classes are required in many states in order to be able to carry a concealed handgun and/or open carry. So looking at these videos, why wouldn’t the NRA promote these courses and push for gun owners to be more proficient with their weapons so that they are better able to respond in life or death situations? I think the answer is that if people needed to take courses in order to own and carry handguns, they would be less likely to purchase a handgun, thereby depriving the gun manufacturers that advertise with the NRA of sales revenue. In other words, the NRA may care about gun safety, but they care far more about making money, and they will keep on promoting their false and dangerous message to keep the cash flowing in.
Watch the video below courtesy of the National Gun Victims Action Council:
Latest posts by Manny Schewitz (see all)
- It Looks Inevitable, Donald Trump Will Eventually Be The Republican Nominee - January 17, 2016
- Donald Trump Is Now Using Ted Cruz’s Canadian Birth Against Him - January 14, 2016
- Hillary Clinton’s False Statements On Bernie Sanders’ Healthcare Record Are Disgraceful - January 14, 2016