What If We Encouraged ‘Victims’ To Shoot Back?
This article was written by Fred Weinberg and originally published on Western Journalism.
Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/what-if-we-encouraged-victims-to-shoot-back/
Here is a scenario which should be food for thought in light of ISIS attacks in Paris and various nutcase shootings here in the United States.
What if some towlheaded representative of the religion of death stands up at a high school football playoff game with his weapon of choice—usually a Kalashnikov AK-47—and starts shooting? Only instead of the mass carnage they expect to wreak, one or two members of the crowd calmly reached into their waistband holsters, drew their Glock 26 semi automatic pistols and used two of their 10 rounds to double tap the shooter, aiming for center body mass? Or maybe their Kimber or their Sig Sauer?
In short, what would happen if one could reliably expect some of the “victims†to shoot back?
What if we stopped our government’s (at nearly all levels) obsession with gun control and started to encourage people to arm themselves, carry those weapons everywhere and use them in situations where it was called for?
Why do we automatically assume that we cannot trust law abiding Americans with their own defense?
Where is it written that we must depend on armed police to defend us in every situation?
Do you have any idea what might really happen if we removed every legal impediment to carrying a concealed weapon and, instead, encouraged it?
My guess is that we would have far fewer mass shootings because even terrorists don’t want to get their butts shot off.
Criminals and terrorists almost always go for the path of least resistance.
If there’s a better than even money chance that when you go into an arena and start shooting, someone who has some level of skill will shoot back, they might rethink their MO. At the very least, fewer people will get mowed down because when people shoot back, they will shorten the carnage.
Instead of being horrified by people who carry weapons, what if we should encourage it and assist in the training of those people?
I know that you have heard this before, but it is true: Criminals and terrorists really don’t care about gun laws. Only law abiding people do.
Did a single person shoot back in Paris?
Of course not. There is no right to bear arms for the French; and to own a gun, you need a hunting or sporting license which needs to be repeatedly renewed and requires a psychological evaluation. Kind of like the way Michael Bloomberg would like the United States to be.
As a result, when seconds counted, the police were only minutes away. And well over 120 law abiding citizens of France were shot dead. By people who knew they would face little or no opposition.
It all gets down to a matter of trust.
I actually trust my fellow citizens to do the right thing.
Our government and the French government do not. They both think that if nobody has guns, there will be no gun violence.
How’s that working out for us?
What if, here in the United States, we simply changed our attitude? What if we accepted the obvious fact that what we are doing is simply not working?
What if we eliminated all legal impediments to concealed weapons and allowed citizens to defend themselves and each other?
Would gun violence increase or decrease?
I’m betting that the more guns there are, the less violence there will be.
And I’d like to know from the Brady campaign just how many more people have to die before they will discover the flaw in their thinking?
I believe this is a good article. Some immediate steps I would like to see taken are to allow the carrying of firearms in Post Offices and to do away with the 1,000 foot gun free zone around school buildings. I live within 1,000 feet of a school building. I can have guns on my private property, but if I cross a public street to get from my house to the garage on the opposite side of the street my understanding is that my long guns must be cased, unloaded, and locked up. I have a concealed carry permit but my understanding is that in Kansas that only applies to handguns.
I understand the rationale, but…
I hesitate to think of what would happen if some suicide nut started shooting in a sports arena, and 20 or so people (out of how many? Hundreds? Twenty could be a very low number) started shooting? To think that everyone who has a concealed weapon has the presence of mind to check BEHIND the target in a real adrenaline rush is simply unrealistic. Not even the police manage that very well. Just read a story about police shooting a perp, and check rounds fired vs. rounds in the perp. Then factor in those who are REAL MEN and carry hand cannons that just go through a perp, to land somewhere unknown, in a stadium packed with people.
The idea sounds good, but in practice leaves something to be desired.
In reference to Big Bill. All evidence shows that armed citizens (non-police) actually do a much better job or not injuring innocent bystanders. Certainly, it would not take much skill to do better then NYC police.
No, Lee, not on an individual basis. IF you posit that everyone who would carry if carry was open to everyone was as practiced as I am (which isn’t nearly as much as many I know); and I can unload an entire magazine into center of mass fairly quickly, at the range. But, I think, it’s fair to say that, if everyone were able to carry without any restrictions, the number of people who practice and carry would be a lot lower than those who don’t practice. And that’s at the range. Imagine adrenaline hitting you (or anyone) in such a situation.
Add to that, that there would be a lot more than two or three unloading; even if they were all better than the police, that’s a lot of misses.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for constitutional carry, but the unintended consequences can easily shoot bystanders.
I wish I knew the answer, but I don’t.
I saw an article the other day that said the occasional shooting of innocents is the price we must pay for the right to carry. It sounds cold, but it’s true. The occasional drowning of a child is the price we’re willing to pay to allow backyard swimming pools. Cold, but true.