The Huffington Post
Though the scenario plays out in virtually every western and action
film ever made, good guys stopping bad guys with guns is a rare
occurrence as we know from reports from the U.S. Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice and the Harvard Injury Control Policy Research Center's David Hemenway.
Every year there are even a few token incidents in the news of this
occurring, but for most part these events are uncommon. And there is a
good reason for why that is: Human physiology.
When people are put in a crisis situation the fight-or-flight
response is triggered and the sympathetic nervous system kicks into
action involuntarily. Stress hormones like epinephrine are released en
masse into our blood stream increasing arterial pressure and blood flow
to major muscle masses, dilating the blood vessels. This boosts our
gross motor skills. Still some blood vessels constrict which reduces
blood flow to the ends of appendages to limit injuries. The heart rate
increases. A report
from Killology Research Group, that studies the science of combat,
explains that "extreme SNS activation will cause catastrophic failure of
the visual, cognitive, and motor control systems." Tunnel vision and
auditory exclusion impair our ability to take in our surroundings, we
lose complex motor control (meaning we fumble performing anything but
the most basic movements) and irrationality and confusion prevent sound
action.
And what is supposed to be significant about this article?
ReplyDeleteSure, people experience physiological responses in their bodies when they face dangerous situations. Does that response prohibit them from responding? Absolutely not. Violent crime victims, police, and military personnel all continue to function during such conditions. Even hunters manage to function through a similar response.
Some things would be unwise to attempt during an adrenaline dump -- like a jeweler sculpting a diamond. Defending yourself, however, is the right thing to do.
The average gun owner would shit himself in a life and death confrontation. Remember, the average gun owner does not train like the fanatics do. That's the point.
DeleteThe average human being would shit themselves in any life or death struggle. So what? Does that mean they should not bother trying to live? Just accept death because they are scared?
DeleteWe should also take away the fact that the average criminal will shit themselves if their victim turns the tables and puts THEM into a life or death confrontation. Your better off leveling the playing field by getting their stress hormones to kick in as well.
DeleteNo, TS, what it means is you gun rights fanatics should stop lying about how many DGUs there are and how much safer we all are because of you.
DeleteWhat does this article about stress hormones have to do with DGUs? What does the amount of DGUs have to do with my rights? I ask you this question often, and never get a response: you think DGUs are much much rarer than the various reports- so what are your thoughts on improving it then?
DeleteThis article is about stress hormones adversely affecting motor function. Ok, but that's true if someone defends themselves with a bat, knife, or fists as well. And it is true for cops with guns. And it is true for criminals with guns, bats, knives, or fists, etc... None of it disputes the value of self-defense
What is significant is that there are few DGUs, compared to unverified accounts.
DeleteDog Gone, we're not going to take your word for it.
DeleteThe author of that article is a political cartoonist who read a bunch of old articles and is repeating all the stale rubbish that gun control freaks have claimed before. Of course, gun control freaks deny that guns can be used to defend innocent people. That is, they deny this until it comes time to hire bodyguards.
ReplyDeleteWe do not argue that small arms should not exist for the defense of persons, Simply that such weapons be reserved for the protection of persons worth defending.
DeleteAlso, it is a common misconception that a firearm is a defensive weapon. Not so.
Greg,
Read (or learn how to) what we say. Read Party approved material. You might learn something.
Gunsuck Greg: So, guns can be used to defend innocent people. People like Ronald Reagan, shot while surrounded by some of the best bodyguards in the US? People like the students at Columbine, shot although there were armed security guards on campus?
DeleteGuns are not defensive weapons. Because whoever shoots first wins, and the bad person will probably do that. You may kill him, but that doesn't help the collateral damage from being hurt. But for gunsucks, collateral damage is simply that - an unfortunate but necessary part of the gunsuck world. Me, I think that the notion that 20 kids and 6 adults are unfortunate but necessary deaths to allow gunsucks to get sexual thrills to be a sick idea.
Nick, fine, by all means, persist in your belief. Don't be armed. Given your comments, I don't think you should have a gun. But the rest of us would like to make up our own minds, thanks. I carry a gun to improve my odds if I need to defend myself. I realize that it's not a magic shield or a guarantee. Nothing in life is. But there are steps that we can take to improve the odds.
DeleteNo person has ever used a gun to defend anything. A gun is an offensive weapon. It cannot be used for defense. Of course gunsucks cannot tell the difference. Defense means stopping something. You cannot stop a bullet with another bullet. You can kill the other person, but as we have learned all too well in the Middle-East, nothing can stop a suicide bomber or someone who does not care if they live or die.
ReplyDeleteThe only defense against a gun is not allowing it to be obtained in the first place.
Nah, man, you just shoot them before their blast radius impacts where you're standing.
DeleteNo person ever used a gun to defend anything? Are you serious? Then why do we let bank guards have guns? Why does the president's Secret Service detail go armed? Try logic for once.
DeleteAccording to you, nickdanger, a person who fires upon a belligerent party who has the intent to inflict bodily harm, is acting in an offensive manner?
DeleteA gun is an object. A piece of wood and steel (with a few rather unfortunate plastic exceptions). Whether such a device is used in a offensive or defensive manner is the pejorative of the beholder.
With regards to your last comment, "The only defense against a gun is not allowing it to be obtained in the first place". Such a defense may be achieved by restricting the use of arms from those who cannot use such in a responsible and safe manner, (such as yourself, as you make your inadequacies abundantly clear) much in the same manner in which heavy machinery, boats, aircraft, and automobiles are regulated. It is a depiction of duty for the State to deny the populace the means to protect life and liberty against the violence which is manifest in humanity.
So why should we take Joe Biden's advice that a double barrel shotgun is all you need for personal defense? This article is just saying you're more likely to miss under high stress, which I'll agree with, but staring at those two barrels isn't so intimidating to the criminal after they have heard "bang" twice.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting because my experience, which includes federal law enforcement in the USCG and time in a war zone in the USN, was of using guns only for defensive purposes. Since I thought my experiences might, possibly, be unique I asked a number of other prior and current law enforcement and military personnel. It's weird that they all recall using guns for defensive purposes, too. Its probably because you have so much more experiential knowledge than we do collectively.
ReplyDeleteThe astonishing ignorance and evil of the gun control freaks never ceases to amaze me.
ReplyDelete"Evil?"
DeleteTrying to take away the rights of others is an evil act.
DeleteSpeaking for myself, I wouldn't want to deprive a qualified person from owning a gun. That's not the sweeping "taking rights away from others" that you keep mis-characterizing us with.
DeleteMikeb, what you describe as a qualified person hardly exists. Your list of restrictions, requirements, and infringements would make legal gun ownership almost impossible and legal gun carry essentially banned. That's what I mean by taking away the rights of others, and that's evil.
DeleteBut you would deprive a qualified person of an adjustable stock? And you would deprive them of their freedom by throwing them in prison for having said item that "increases lethality". And you would forever deem them "unqualified" after releasing them.
DeleteTell me, it seems that having a MikeB approved gun vs. having no gun at all is a bigger increase in lethality than whether or not a stock is adjustable, don't you agree? You would do your movement a service if you really did focus on criminal access, and just dropped the bans all together. And maybe we could believe you when you say things like the above statement.
Unfortunately, Mike B, while you may not want to prevent a qualified person (the definition of which is probably a matter of disagreement between us) from owning a gun, that is not universally true of gun control advocates. It is a matter of record that a number of those in positions of leadership within the gun control movement have been in favor of doing just that.
Delete