(October 1, 2015 at 8:27 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(October 1, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Cecelia Wrote: They have this gun-porn fantasy of stepping in and being the hero by shooting an assailant, when they're far more likely to shoot an innocent person, or miss and end up getting shot themselves.
Numbers? Do you have data?
Simulations have been run by law enforcement have shown that untrained (and even those with some training) are unlikely to hit an assailant in a shooting.
An article and a video demonstrating:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1
(from the article) "You have to be able to know what your target is; but you also have to know what's behind your target, what's around your target; you're very responsible for everything," Benton said. "One stray bullet that misses and hits a bystander, you're responsible for it."
The stress of the situation and the psychological effects are greater than most people realize. That's why there's so much police training. They don't jump in there, and day one are ready to react to a shooting. Even if you handle guns all the time, you don't handle them under the stressful situation of someone shooting back at you.
Also keep in mind that shooting a handgun is harder than any other type of gun.
Many law enforcement officers that I know echo similar opinions that untrained civilians aren't likely to successfully stop a mass shooting. It's nothing like a video game, or out at the range where bullets aren't flying back. The results of this simulation are what you'd expect. Imagine trying to shoot someone with a handgun (which are fairly inaccurate to begin with) in a crowded and dark theater. Or in a classroom with people screaming and running everywhere. It's not as easy as the movies makes it look. Which is why it's so rare that an armed civilian stops a mass shooting. It's a pipe dream of many gun enthusiasts who want to get to shoot someone.
Keep in mind most states have little to no requirements for a concealed carry permit.
