as an american non-gun owner, i used to not know where i stood when it came to guns in america because i didn't really care. after reading this, i'm convinced:
The Riddle of The Gun
The Riddle of The Gun
not sure where you stand in the gun debate? read this and your mind will be made up.
- Thread starter davidle
- Start date
Not sure if you can say your mind will be made up when the author does a pretty good job saying that there are valid concerns on each side and that there are no easy answers.
That said, and while my views on guns tend to mirror his on many points, he's wrong in several of his conclusions/arguments.
For instance, he says that the best way to stop someone with a knife is a gun. Actually, that is not true if your objective is to end the conflict with minimal death/injury. Non-lethal weapons are what many (hopefully most) police foces use in situations involving an suspect armed with a gun.
Another area I think he gets it wrong is regarding armed citizens against bad guys. This is especially true in some of his points about assault weapons. First off, you would have to be pretty brave or pretty crazy to go up against someone with an AR-15 with a simple handgun.
This is one of the things I think many gun advocates get wrong in wanting to arm teachers or having armed guards in or around schools. Standard operating procedure for a police officer in a situation like that would be to wait for backup. Why? Because the cop's handgun is no match for an AR-15. And if the gunman is wearing armor, the cop is totally at the disadvantage.
How we can expect some teacher or even a private security guard to engage an armed gunman that even the police are smart enough not to take on without overwhelming force is a tad unrealistic.
The author touches on some very good points though and I don't want to take that away from him. Unfortunately, he doesn't always hold up the gun advocacy argument in as harsh a light as he does the gun control argument.
For instance, for all of the claims of protection and whatnot, what are the statistics on crimes stopped or prevented by gun owners?
Or, in how many instances have the presence of one or more parties with guns escalated a situation? There is research showing that when the NYPD began training its officers to pull their weapons less often that cop shootings went down dramatically. Could it be that the threat implied by the presence of a gun in a dispute actually increases the likelihood of the situation escalating?
Just as he downplays the amount of risk of mass school shootings based on the number of children who attend class everyday compared to the number of shootings, I think some of his own views would look just as questionable if they were held up to the same light.
But he makes some really excellent points on guns and responsible gun ownership which are worthy of reading regardless of where you currently sit on this issue.
That said, and while my views on guns tend to mirror his on many points, he's wrong in several of his conclusions/arguments.
For instance, he says that the best way to stop someone with a knife is a gun. Actually, that is not true if your objective is to end the conflict with minimal death/injury. Non-lethal weapons are what many (hopefully most) police foces use in situations involving an suspect armed with a gun.
Another area I think he gets it wrong is regarding armed citizens against bad guys. This is especially true in some of his points about assault weapons. First off, you would have to be pretty brave or pretty crazy to go up against someone with an AR-15 with a simple handgun.
This is one of the things I think many gun advocates get wrong in wanting to arm teachers or having armed guards in or around schools. Standard operating procedure for a police officer in a situation like that would be to wait for backup. Why? Because the cop's handgun is no match for an AR-15. And if the gunman is wearing armor, the cop is totally at the disadvantage.
How we can expect some teacher or even a private security guard to engage an armed gunman that even the police are smart enough not to take on without overwhelming force is a tad unrealistic.
The author touches on some very good points though and I don't want to take that away from him. Unfortunately, he doesn't always hold up the gun advocacy argument in as harsh a light as he does the gun control argument.
For instance, for all of the claims of protection and whatnot, what are the statistics on crimes stopped or prevented by gun owners?
Or, in how many instances have the presence of one or more parties with guns escalated a situation? There is research showing that when the NYPD began training its officers to pull their weapons less often that cop shootings went down dramatically. Could it be that the threat implied by the presence of a gun in a dispute actually increases the likelihood of the situation escalating?
Just as he downplays the amount of risk of mass school shootings based on the number of children who attend class everyday compared to the number of shootings, I think some of his own views would look just as questionable if they were held up to the same light.
But he makes some really excellent points on guns and responsible gun ownership which are worthy of reading regardless of where you currently sit on this issue.
This might apply to a standoff type situation where the gunman would be fixated on trying to shoot or defend themselves against the cop. If though, a shooter was instead focused on and in the act of shooting students it would be much easier for the cop to take them out, and I would imagine that standard operating procedure would be for them to try to do so.
Okay, let's say you're a cop and as you're driving in front of a school you hear semi-automatic gunfire. You hear screaming. You see people running from the school.
For the safety of as many people as possible, what is the cop's response:
a) Run into the school all Rambo style and go take down the gunman
b) Call for backup and begin securing the scene, getting information on exactly what's happening (i.e. how many, what kinds of weapons, where are they, etc) as well as directing people running from the building to safety.
I'm pretty sure most police departments teach the officers that B is the best option here.
Good point. At the same time, I think history is full of examples of sparsely armed insurgents wearing down superior forces. Like, say, Afghanistan.
And, it always amazed me how clueless most people are about the house of cards nature of our modern society. People forget relatively minor examples like Katrina. Think of that on ten or a hundred times the scale. The grocery stores would be empty in a week. Then what?
Good piece overall though, I think. Thanks for posting.
The terrain of Afghanistan gives the insurgents/terrorists a massive advantage when it comes to guerrilla warfare compared to some suburbanites with high powered rifles. They're hiding in caves and running around in ridiculous mountainous terrain shooting rockets and mortars.
Also, a sizable portion of our casualties over there are due to IEDs, something even the most pro-gun folks in the US aren't arguing for the average citizen to have.
Yes, those are good points. And the average Afghani is probably a thousand times tougher than the average suburban American. At the same time, the nature of an insurgency is not to lose, while the aggressors have to win.
I'm not really making an argument for this, since it would be an shit show of epic proportions if it came to pass. If and when it does come to pass, resolution would depend more on the low-level military deciding not to stop shooting their neighbors more than anything, I think.
At the same time, the pro-gun arguments for an AR-15 being a "modern day musket" and what not are not without merit. They're not paranoid ravings, I don't think.
Training Police Officers to Respond to School Shootings - NYTimes.com
Mr. Anemone recalled attending meetings the same week that led to a rewriting of the active-shooter manual in New York. No more waiting for the emergency services unit to arrive: it would be up to the officers in the first patrol car to react.
“They pull up on the scene, they hopefully enter the building and engage as quickly as they could with the gunman,” Mr. Anemone said. “You can call for the cavalry, certainly. But you cannot wait for the cavalry.”
Can't IEDs be made with items available at Home Depot and such? I'm not aware of any "pro-gun folk" calling for bans on any of the items sold there.
I didn't read that dumb shit, I have a feeling you are just link baiting that article. You didn't make any statement either fucking way. SO... I'll just red brick you, since apparently this may not be the first time you said something stupid.
Not really....not from my fair bit of experience with both types of guns. Most situations would most likely be fairly close quarters, in which the AR-15 would hold no advantage over a handgun, imo.
it's a really good article, Sam Harris wrote it and it's actually in support of gun rights (though he does argue that a gun license should be as difficult to get as a pilot's license which is what I argue for here all the time :banana_sml::banana_sml::banana_sml: )
To be fair, the article discusses a training exercise. And, unless the shooter walks out into the open, it involves one cop getting shot so the other can enter the room after him and fire on the shooter. I have a feeling that this isn't going to become standard operating procedure.
The problem is that you have opposing objectives. Overall safety and ending the situation quickly and while minimizing loss of life. The reality of the situation is that most patrol units are not equipped to handle a gunfight with someone with an AR-15.
And while recent events have forced police to adopt a more immediate response tactic, best practices are to wait for 2 - 4 officers before attempting to enter the building where there's an active shooter.
That usually means at least one more patrol car needs to roll on the scene, so they are waiting for backup.
The change is that they no longer fall back, establish comms, and wait for SWAT. They're being trained to enter an active shooter situation in smaller groups but they're still going in with at least the advantage of numbers.
The thing I was speaking about was the suggestion that some gym teacher who did a 8 hour training class 2 years ago being asked to go into that same situation. Or even a security guard.
Even the police who constantly train on tactics generally won't go in alone. You do nobody good dead. Even if the shooter is in there blowing people away, you do more good waiting for backup and taking the guy down in a group than Rambo'ing it up and getting your ass shot.
My point was that the insurgents use pretty "unconventional" combat techniques to give our soldiers a hard time over there, so it's not just an example of people pulling out their rifles on their porches and fighting off the Army.
Actually an AR-15 would have a considerable advantage in terms of rate of fire and even accuracy. I too have experience with both being a vet so if you asked me if I wanted to defend myself in a room with a 9mm or a M-16 (the military version of the AR-15), I'll take my 16 any day. Especially if I had 30 round mags.
If I'm the guy entering the room, I would want a shorter weapon like a 9mm handgun but my real preference would be a short semi-automatic rifle like SWAT teams generally use.
The M-16 is a totally different animal than the AR-15. The AR-15 is (as you know) one trigger pull, one bullet...there is no 3 round burst or full auto.
Yes, I'd put an M-16 ahead of the handgun, but not an AR-15 (not in the types of situations these mass shootings occur in).
C'mon man, you clearly need on of these for classroom protection...
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8]AA-12 Fully Automatic Shotgun!!! - YouTube[/ame]
I love this nutty Russian dude, but does he ever wear ear protection? Have fun with that tinnitus, holmes.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8]AA-12 Fully Automatic Shotgun!!! - YouTube[/ame]
I love this nutty Russian dude, but does he ever wear ear protection? Have fun with that tinnitus, holmes.