Wednesday, September 7, 2011

How realistic is the premise of the armed citizen?

Once again, we have a mass shooting this time in Nevada. The standard response from the pro-gun side is that "an armed citizen could have stopped this."

But, once again, there was an armed citizen on the scene as The Record-Courier (Gardnerville, NV) mentioned:
Ralph Swagler, owner of the adjacent Locals BBQ restaurant, told the Nevada Appeal that he saw the gunman pull up in a minivan, get out and begin firing an automatic rifle at the IHOP. The gunman then reloaded and went inside, and Swagler said he heard more gunshots inside the restaurant...

Swagler said he had a handgun and considered opening fire on the shooter, but he didn't want to engage a gunman who was armed with a fully automatic weapon.
Not that I totally blame him for erring on the side of caution given that he was outgunned.

Early in the Columbine shootings, a Jefferson County deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and began shooting at Harris and Klebold, distracting them from the injured Brian Anderson. Anderson staggered out of the area and made it into the library, where he ran into an open staff break room. He remained there until the ordeal ended. Harris fired ten shots at the officer, who then radioed in a Code 33 (officer in need of emergency assistance). The shooting continued for another 18 minutes.

When Gabrielle Giffords was shot, Joe Zamudio almost shot the wrong person. The Arizona Daily Star added two details to the story based on its interview with Zamudio First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

Good point, since the Active Shooter Response Protocol says that a non-responders should:
keep your hands above your head and listen for instructions that may be given by police officers. If an officer points a firearm at you, make no movement that may cause the officer to mistake your actions for a threat.

The concept of the active shooter protocol is that the sooner the shooter can be contained, captured or neutralized, the fewer the casualties incurred. During the pursuit, police officers will move through unsecured areas, and bypass dead, wounded and panicked citizens while approaching the perpetrator(s). It is important for law enforcement personnel to survive the encounter to end a massacre, rather than become additional victims.

Carrying a weapons could endanger yourself, as well as being a danger to others, in these situations.

Mark Evans has an interesting piece that was posted in the Tucson Citizen where he discusses how hard it is to function in these situations if you are trained, let alone an untrained citizen. Your perception changes when you are pumped with adrenaline in a stressed up situation. You don't see things as they really are.

If the cop(s) is (are) telling you to drop your gun in one of these situations, and you don't hear him (them)--what do you think will be the outcome in reality?

Additionally, you could be in the scope of a sniper who sees a person with a gun and is not able to hear what you are saying. This sniper only knows that there is an active shooter in the area.

If there is a sniper who only knows that there is an active shooter and he sees you with a gun--what do you think will be the outcome in reality?

Think about it.

Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg where "armed citizens" are concerned--how much more of a problem could they be instead of the boon that the pro-gun side claims.

Unfortunately, this is a subject where the information is horribly biased to present that armed citizens could have stopped these situations. But, do we need to see armed citizens creating more confusion on the scene before this premise is openly questioned?

See also:

6 comments:

  1. "Mark Evans has an interesting piece that was posted in the Tucson Citizen where he discusses how hard it is to function in these situations if you are trained, let alone an untrained citizen. Your perception changes when you are pumped with adrenaline in a stressed up situation. You don't see things as they really are."

    I couldn't read the article--the link would not work--however, he does hit on one very important aspect and that is most armed citizens are not sufficiently trained, nor are they prepared for the physiological effects of a deadly encounter. Unfortunately, most police officers, while somewhat trained in armed combat are not usually trained for the latter. Tunnel-vision, auditory enhancement or exclusion, time standing still, etc. are all things that your body will do to you in order to help you survive.

    "If the cop(s) is (are) telling you to drop your gun in one of these situations, and you don't hear him (them)--what do you think will be the outcome in reality?"

    This could be a bad situation. History has shown though that if an active shooter is ended by an armed citizen or off duty police officer, the fight is over long before the police arrive. Hopefully the chance of such a mistake will be mitigated in such a scenario.

    "Additionally, you could be in the scope of a sniper who sees a person with a gun and is not able to hear what you are saying. This sniper only knows that there is an active shooter in the area.

    If there is a sniper who only knows that there is an active shooter and he sees you with a gun--what do you think will be the outcome in reality?"


    This hasn't happened yet. Most active shooter sprees are over in minutes, most before the police arrive. If there is a hostage situation and a SWAT sniper or counter-sniper is deployed, hours have passed and there is a standoff. Probably by that time any armed citizens not held hostage have been removed or at least identified. Anything can of course happen and as these crimes increase, we will see different situations emerge that could give some credence to these fears. Historically, armed citizens have not been much of a detriment to the outcome of active shooter crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. " he does hit on one very important aspect and that is most armed citizens are not sufficiently trained, nor are they prepared for the physiological effects of a deadly encounter."

    And yet you, and apparently EVERY fucking LGO in the U.S. says "No Restrictions" on my 2nd Amendment Rights.

    Does cognitive dissonance not bother you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. demo - we let everybody vote because they have the right.... still some people are stupid enough to vote Democratic, but we let them vote anyway :p.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Demo,

    I earned First Aid Merit Badge in 1976. Does that make me ready to perform an emergency tracheae?

    There should be no mandatory training to own a gun. Very little safety training to carry a gun. It is up to the individual to invest the time and resources in their personal training.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim:

    And that relates to something I said? In what way?

    FatWhiteMan:

    Why? Why any training of any sort if it's not required? If the answer is because you know full well that there are millions of armed morons out there who know less than I do about firearms and STILL insist on owning, carrying and using them then why a superficial amount of training.

    People ARE required by law to do all sorts of things, doesn't keep them from refusing to follow best practice. So, I gather what you're saying is that if a proctologist wants to do open heart surgery then it's up to him to get the training and stuff.

    Oh, but wait, performing surgery isn't a GODGIVENFUCKINGRIGHT, whereas teh gunz things are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. At least now we can probably expect less of that bragging crap we used to hear from the gun guys about how they provide a service for the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete