Jay Bookman (courtesy Twitter)

I recently debated Eliott Fineman, jefe of the Gun Victims Action Council (GVAC). I asked Fineman why he would leave a woman disarmed and defenseless against, say, a rapist. I was more than a little shocked when Fineman argued that a gun would be useless in that situation. When I pointed out that women have done it – scared off or shot potential rapists with a firearm – Fineman denied even the possibility that it could happen. In fact, Fineman wants to run a simulation to prove that a gun would be useless. And therefore OK to restrict or, let’s face it, ban them. In this he’s not alone . . .

Atlanta Journal Constitution writer Jay Bookman inflicted the exact same logic on his readers re: the call to end “gun-free zones” in the wake of the recent FedEx shooting. He’s not impressed with the idea that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun (unless the good guy is a cop).

Unfortunately, that argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Using the situation as described by [critically injured victim Christopher Sparkman’s father-in-law, Russell] Brannen, it assumes that a guard not trained to police standards, armed with a holstered handgun with the safety on as policy would dictate, could have pulled that weapon, switched the safety off, aimed accurately and fired that weapon, all in response to a pre-dawn surprise attack by an assailant who burst in on him with loaded shotgun blazing.

I’m sorry: While I understand the sentiment, that is not a realistic scenario. Such claims grossly underestimate the speed with which such incidents play out, the panic and confusion that ensue, and the difficulty of responding effectively even for highly trained law-enforcement, which Sparkman is not.

So the argument is that gun bans are OK – even for rent-a-cops – because average citizens are incapable of defending themselves with a firearm – despite the fact that Americans do so an estimated 800k to 1.2m times per year. (The lowest estimate of defensive gun uses is 80k.) Nevermind that we’ve already tested that exact idea in a simulation and found the average person to be extremely effective in stopping an active shooter in a school environment.

I plan on taking Eliott up on his offer to run a defensive gun use sim. I highly recommend that Mr. Bookman do the same. What are the odds of the experiment happening? And if they did see with their own two eyes that a DGU is not only possible but desirable and practical what are the chances they’d change their views on civilian disarmament?

Recommended For You

158 Responses to Is This The Stupidest Argument for Gun Control?

  1. I wonder if he understands that the gun carried by many cops, Glocks, M&Ps, don’t have safeties?

    • I was at an IDPA match yesterday, just a small local one. I didn’t see anyone having any problem drawing and putting bullets on target quickly. Even had a kid there shooting with his dad. He was nearly putting the bullets through the same holes.

      I went in here thinking it couldn’t be a more stupid argument than “why do you need _____?” but this inability to comprehend that people without shiny bits of metal on them are incapable of performing the very simple mechanical action of pulling a gun out of a holster and shooting someone is just insane.

      I mean, that guy who shot up Fedex didn’t seem to have a problem, did he? Was he a cop with one of those magical metal shields of +5 Dex?

      • My wife and I just started shooting last year. We go to the range 3 or 4 times a month. That will taper off once our unlimited range use pass expires this August. There will be a uniformed officer in the lane beside us from time to time shooting his duty pistol at a full size silhouette target at 7 yards. He will get almost all his shots somewhere on the 3′ x 4′ paper but I can’t see any grouping at all. Meanwhile my wife is shooting the “fly paper” target at 5 yards, hitting at least half of the tiny bugs. I always thought cops were all at least marksmen. That’s not the case.

    • Since their logic appears to consist of denying anything that doesn’t play into their scenario, I’m guessing they would just say you’re wrong.

    • If they admit that guns can be useful for self defense, then they would have to seriously consider obtaining a gun and training. They do not want to do that. They refuse to do that, so they deny the possibility of that reality.

    • You didn’t factor in statist logic. According to these people, cops are the ubermenchen. They are smarter, stronger, faster, better trained, more accurate, more in control of them selves, morally superior, just all around better than the rest of us because they are agents of government control. They are not people, they are superheroes.

    • And weak.

      So, what’s their solution? To just give up? Who cares if Person X can succeed in stopping the bad guy before he shoots anyone 100% of the time? Isn’t it better to AT LEAST TRY?

      I don’t get their reasoning at all. Check that. I actually DO get it…it’s r Selected prey animal reasoning. Just give up and HOPE you are not the one culled out of the herd when the predator comes.

        • You know, that’s a very, very good point. We spend a lot of time around horses, and they are “wired” exactly for self preservation…honed by being prey animals.

          So, I guess I’m at a loss, then. How to explain the absolutist “do NOTHING” mode of thought?

  2. Wow Robert! All I can suggest is to tell Eliot to grab his Left ear with his Right hand, and his Right ear with his Left hand, and pull his head out. During the debate did you feel like you were trying to convince a 5 year old there are no monsters under his bed?

    Don’t moderate me bro.

  3. I could imagine a 28 inch barreled shotgun being kind of cumbersome to stop a rapist. But an easily accessible handgun ought to do the trick.

    • While I appreciate the sentiment in Patrick Stewarts role in Dune, Most of my shotguns have 18-20 inch barrels and one has topped a possible rape/home invasion. My friend used it while staying with me after being stalked for some time by a registered offender, she used my old 870 riot gun, fortunately she never fired a shot and held him there until police arrived. It comes down to the individual, nobody at IDPA matches just picks up a gun and can make a tight pattern the first time. They practice often and practice in less than ideal situations. Some IDPA shooters I would trust to protect people more than I would a police officer. Many officers are not gun people, and only inch by enough to pass their qualifications.

  4. So Cops are Super-Human when it comes to handling both bad guys and guns. The rest of us are mere mortals and should bow down immediately lest they strike us down with their superior training!

    • It’s the uniforms. Uniforms give all police a +2 to Wisdom, and automatically adjusted the wearing to ‘lawful good’, AND gives them a +5 to ranged weaponry.

      • Yeah, I like it when I throw on a cowboy hat and instantly I get +5 in lever actions and revolvers, and throw back a beer I get +10 strength.

      • That’s the reason I don’t leave the house without my combat boots. They give me +2 to all combat skills as well as intimidate checks.

        • +2? You must have Navy boots son. USMC ICBs grant a +5 with a +5 bonus vs Chairborne Rangers.

      • They must have some rigged dice if they have a THAC0 of 10 and miss as often as they do and hit bystanders.

      • I don’t think so, uniforms given armor rating but it’s the badge and the hat that give bonuses to weapon use (hence plainclothes and off-duty officers being OK by these folks).

        • I always suspected there was a lot of crossover between gamers and shooters… thanks for the confirmation, guys.

    • Think of it from an r/K Selection perspective and their reasoning makes a lot of sense. Cower in the corner like mice with a cat in the room and just hope the cat picks the other guy.

      It may well be that their brains are not wired to even consider “fighting back” as an option.

        • I like that. Better than sheeple, as it’s more accurate and less convoluted/long winded to explain.

          Any votes for lemmings to replace sheeple?

        • Got my vote, sure. Never liked “Sheeple” anyway. Plain “sheep” is more descriptive. Lemmings fits, too.

        • There is nothing in that link that disproves lemmings as an appropriate label. They may not commit ‘mass suicide,’ but that’s not the point; I’m not accusing the sit-and-die crowd of mass suicide, either.

          The point is that they are making bad survival decisions that seem to be hard wired.

        • OK, so why not use steeple and lemmings interchangeably? Same fundamental concept underlies both – follow the butt in front unquestioningly.

        • JR, lemmings are acting on instinct. Liberals? meh. The closest a liberal gets to instincts is when his laundry pile stacks up and becomes offensive.

        • I don’t know…if you buy the ‘r Selection’ hypothesis…that some humans are more r dominant that is, it could be said that they are doing precisely that…acting on instinct.

          That their behavior seems out of instinct to someone more balances or even ‘K dominant’ is not surprising. It’s a different set of instincts.

          Their behavior certainly fits the “r Selection’ model very well, and not solely in self defense terms.

      • I look at it more like bait fish swimming in a school. When one or two bigger fish decide to feed most of them get away, some may even pick up a few left over bits, but when the pogy boat comes by with a net they all get turned into cat food.

  5. A##&$=#s like the guy need a road to Damascus experience. Maybe robbed, beaten up or shot. Reality of crime. Whatever RF. That statement is INSANE.

    • Some people might change their minds about defense after such an experience; others, I suspect like this guy, would just build it into his world view.

  6. So a gun in the hands of a homicidal maniac, with probably minimal training; is an unstoppable killing machine; and the same gun in the hands of a “civilian”, is a useless waste of space.

    The level of contempt that these statists have for the regular citizen is incredible. But that is what makes a statist, a statist; they believe the average citizen to be a mass of emotional instability that has to be disarmed to be controlled for their own “collective” good.

    The really pathetic part is that so many subjects agree with these arrogant elitists and follow with bated breath every utterance that falls from their “educated” lips and beg to be disarmed so they can be kept safe by the “authorities”.

    • “So a gun in the hands of a homicidal maniac, with probably minimal training; is an unstoppable killing machine; and the same gun in the hands of a “civilian”, is a useless waste of space. ”
      The same can be said for a lot of cops. Most of the officers I know are not nearly as serious about shooting as I am. Some of them only fire their weapon twice a year for qualifications. I have even met a couple who had not fired one since academy, and I have seen one where the mag was rusted into the magwell.

      • Recent (I think) study by FBI (I think) looked at officer involved shootings, and found that ‘bad guys’ outshot cops by a significant margin.

        I’ve got the link here somewhere and can get it later, but that study is a nuke to the anti’s argument that cops are somehow ‘better’ at this stuff than others.

        It won’t matter though. Anyone that can make the verbal nonsense these folks make don’t care what study or what data is presented. They just can’t think in terms of self defense.

  7. As far as cops being highly trained. I install floor covering where I live, so I get talk to all kinds of people. Some of them happen to be cops. We were talking about guns and shooting while I was working. I let him know that i reload my own and over the last 2 years my family and I have shot maybe 4 to 5 thousand rounds. He laughed and said “wow I’ve never shot that much in my life total, Just shot 150 rounds a year”

    Does that mean I am more trained. Or my wife and kids for that matter. Not sure. I do feel a whole lot better knowing my wife and kids can respect and handle many firearms. Including all aspects of cleaning. Rule at our house,you shoot it you clean it.

    All i can say is he must not think very highly of his family. Assuming he has wife and daughter.

    Mine are protected.

  8. If this guy wants to run a simulation then have someone simulate sexually assaulting him, first him without a gun then again him with one. Let’s see which simulation he prefers.

  9. Looking at the security guards at a nearby grocery store, I do question their ability to react to a situation. I doubt someone making minimum wage goes to the range regularly.

    However, seeing old guys at the range who carry concealed, I have no doubt they are better shots then most police officers and could react appropriately. An even better reason for concealed carry to be promoted.

    • I have a relative in a similar situation, went with him to the range on his last trip. The range is EXPENSIVE when you’re making near minimum wage, he would not think of going for the hell of it, he goes when it is required, and shoots the minimum amount required. He doesn’t LIE, and I think he could, but he does nothing extra. I happened to have my Kimber Ultra on that trip, went along and bought range ammo to shoot with him. 2 of his 3 mags did not feed correctly, I don’t think I talked him into informing his armorer of that, just not important. I also did not gather he planned to “run to the sound of the guns”, either.

  10. Heck… even using their lowball 80k people saved per year with guns, that’s still almost 8 times as many folks are kept alive by firearms than are killed in homicides with guns…

    Don’t they often justify gun bans with sayings like “even if it saves just one life?”

    By that logic, gun bans are more harmful to American citizens’ well being than beneficial…

    • The thing about that 80k number, too is that it is from a SINGLE study from nearly two decades ago (1997) and is the ONLY one putting the number that low.

      Even other ‘grabber’ studies have the number estimated at about 5-10 times that at least.

      At the end of the day, though, they simply do not care what the number is. It’s not our “place” to want to defend ourselves or our families. In other words, in terms of number of Self Defense gun uses, they want the number to be Zero.

      That is, after all, what they are working to accomplish.

  11. Right. It would be, like, really difficult to draw and accurately fire a weapon in defense of self or others, so we shouldn’t even be allowed to try. That’s the logic I apply to every aspect of my life, and its why I’m so successful. Because I have chosen to focus only on the easy and fun things in life, while completely avoiding and ignoring everything that might prove stressful, difficult, or scary. The juice is never, ever worth the squeeze, so I drink breast milk and poop my pants while sitting in my climate-controlled bubble, all the while trying to force everyone else to live like me.

    Sincerely,
    A. Gungrabber

  12. What are the odds of the experiment happening?

    As my sainted mother used to say: “When pigs fly.” In no way will they ever risk even the slightest possibility of failure.

    • Don’t be so sure. So long as they can control the narrative and manipulate the experiment, they’ll do it.

      From the description:

      “The controlled study documented in these videos show that concealed carry permit holders are fooling themselves if they think they will be able to react effectively to armed aggressors. Most CCW holders won’t even be able to un-holster their gun. They will more likely be killed themselves or kill innocent bystanders than stop the aggressor.”

      Too bad their “controlled study” was crap from the get-go.

      • I know when I was in school I sat in the back and away from the main entrances. Most of my large classes had an entrance at the bottom at the front. This “scenario” of course placed the one CCW person dead center in the front. I hate sitting in the front.

        • That “controlled study” had a LOT of problems. Also, I would not put it past them to have the whole thing staged to fail anyway.

      • Just goes to show you can “prove” anything with a “controlled study”,just like you can “prove” anything by citing (cherry picking) “statistics”.

      • I wonder if THE GIANT F**KING GLOVES that made him wear had anything to do with his inability to draw his weapon. Plus the extra long tee shirt. And, oh, what was that, the respirator on his face?

        What a joke. This is the CCW version of NBC News putting rocket igniters on a truck to get it to burst into flame during one of their experiments.

        Oh, if you want proof that CCW permit holders can defend themselves and others, how about looking at the millions of times this has actually happened?

      • Yeah, that “experiment” was BS from the word go…

        The active shooter knew who was armed before hand and immediately engaged the known threat.

        It was set up to fail.

      • You guys are too critical. Looks to me like that study proved beyond any doubt exactly what it was intended to “prove”.

        • “You guys are too critical.”

          Flattery will get you nowhere, sir.

  13. Outside of a gun free zone, a spree shooter might get me, but he won’t get a chance to shoot all of my friends.

    USMC Rules For Gunfighting

    1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

  14. I’m from the Detroit area. Everyone knows our position on defending ourselves against crimminals.

  15. Are you freakin’ serious? Are you making this stuff to entertain and confound us? I can’t believe someone would make the above statements. Do they really misunderstands guns so much, that they don’t get how simple they are to use? This floors me. If they think guns are that difficult to operate, why are they even afraid of gun violence. I mean, while the bad guy is setting up, studying the complex instruction manual and preparing to shoot someone, you could just run away, board a plane and fly across the country before the shooting starts. Right? What a friggin fool.

  16. The required police training in shooting is so much less than people like Eliott Fineman think it is. It took a bit of searching, but I remembered Guns.com running the LAPD qualification course and smoking it.
    http://www.guns.com/2012/11/24/shooting-the-lapd-qualifying-course/
    With the exception of officers who shoot as a hobby as well as for their job, I’m sure the average CCL holder is going to be on par with police officers if not better.

    “…could have pulled that weapon, switched the safety off, aimed accurately and fired that weapon…”
    Ignoring the number of pistols that lack safeties, I don’t know of anyone who owns a handgun who couldn’t do this in less than 5 seconds. And I know there are lots of people who can do it so fast you wonder if they don’t practice instead of sleeping.

    • I think you are overestimating the average CCL holder about as much as other people overestimate police training.

    • Interesting. When Craig Douglas has studied the effects of “surprise” in SD classes vs “Ok, I’m on the range and I’m being timed, and the start sound is about to go” practice, he found a few interesting things happen in more “realistic” training:

      (1) Draw times go to crap
      (2) Many draw mistakes happen…dropped guns, guns caught in cover garments, etc.

      Just making the point…beware what he calls “equal initiative” training.

    • Naw, you’re talking about games as opposed to training. I, for example, might be able to clear 5 seconds, and I might not. I’m too old and frail for that crap, I simply make sure I bring a gun, and will have it in my hand before heading toward the gunfire. I doubt I will ever outdraw anyone. I also hope for the chance to shoot the bad guy in the back, from hiding. Otherwise, I’m likely to lose. But I’ll be there.

  17. What makes these idiots (Fineman and Bookman) credible in any way shape or form? Why do people read or listen to anything they say? The lumpenproletariate?

    • “What makes these idiots (Fineman and Bookman) credible in any way shape or form?”

      Nothing.

      ” Why do people read or listen to anything they say?”

      Selection bias.

      Some folks only get info from very narrow sources, and have fixed those sources as those that confirm what they already believe to be true.

      That’s why MDA/MAIG/EGS and others shut down comments on their youtube videos and ban dissenters from their other social media pages. They want their readers / listeners to only read / hear their message….all the while somehow claiming they want “discussion” and “dialog” and what-have-you to APPEAR open minded.

  18. His argument proves a lot more about the futility of stationing a lone individual wearing a shoot-me suit inside a shoot-me booth than it does about the defensive value of firearms.

  19. Why bother evening trying to reason with these idiots? They are so smug that no logic or reason can penetrate that smugness. I work with someone who refers to any reports of civilians defending ourselves with firearm as “anecdotal” and “unsubstantiated”. But yet all their reports are factual. F–k them. I am sick of those commie liberal pricks.

  20. “And if they did see with their own two eyes that a DGU is not only possible but desirable and practical what are the chances they’d change their views on civilian disarmament?”

    Nothing is wrong with you running a simulation. Nothing is wrong with you trying to change the minds of those who have rejected evidence to the contrary. However, I believe it will be fruitless. I admire you for being willing to try. I think your attempt will be met with contempt, which is how they have treated what you have said already. I don’t think that will change.

  21. I agree with your attempt. But we both know that all this exchange does is bolster the arguments for each side. His backers will say “agree agree” just as we do the same for you.

    There’s only one way to change a gun control advocate’s mind and its most likely in the terrible situation where they realize they can’t defend themselves. In that instance, whether Wild West fast on the draw or not, I’d like as even a playing field or even tilted in my favor as possible. Arguments and logic won’t change these peoples minds. Vote, donate to the gun-group of your choice, take a newbie/liberal to the range, raise your kids, encourage the same.

    So much of American politics is the masses being told what to think by the talking heads in suits. We already know what’s important. And there’s a whole lot more of us than they’d have the country believe.

    PS-don’t be a dick at the range when it comes to new shooters. Promote the movement at all times with patience and politeness. Sat next to a guy at the range today showing his probable step-kids his AR ins-and-outs. I’d never want to go anywhere again with that guy, let alone a gun range or voting station.

  22. My comments there:

    “Unfortunately, that argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Using the situation as described by Brannen, it assumes that a guard not trained to police standards, armed with a holstered handgun with the safety on as policy would dictate, could have pulled that weapon, switched the safety off, aimed accurately and fired that weapon, all in response to a pre-dawn surprise attack by an assailant who burst in on him with loaded shotgun blazing.

    I’m sorry: While I understand the sentiment, that is not a realistic scenario. Such claims grossly underestimate the speed with which such incidents play out, the panic and confusion that ensue, and the difficulty of responding effectively even for highly trained law-enforcement, which Sparkman is not.”

    Well, sure, if you want to ignore that it actually DOES happen, with some frequency, you can tell any lie you want to.
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

    And that’s aside from mentioning Mr. Bookman’s failure of logic in implying that a killer with minimal training isn’t stoppable without “highly trained law-enforcement”….
    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG717.html
    http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/

    “In fact, Loretta Worters, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, told the AJC’s Mike Kanell that insurance companies typically charge companies higher premiums when they use armed security at their facilities. The insurance companies don’t base such decisions on political rhetoric or “liberal” sentiment: Their actuaries know the statistics — that’s what they do and that’s how they make their money. Those statistics tell them that an armed guard is more likely to be a danger than a protection.”

    Because those charges aren’t due to the presence of the armed security, but for the business practices and/or transactions that require them: valuable commodities on-site, and susceptible to theft/high-jacking, etc. So, another lie by Mr. Bookman. Hmmmmm…..

  23. Ugh seriously? I don’t know what to say, how does he think the bad guy learned how to shoot the gun? police training? Lol, the first time I touched a gun I was shooting a can with a 22 and hit it 10 times in a row. I must be superwoman 🙂

    • You mean superman? Because we all know that women would never, ever touch those icky guns. It is true, Bloomberg and SW told me so.

  24. Pretty sure it’ll be similar to these videos: http://geekologie.com/2014/04/youre-doing-it-wrong-the-definitive-comp.php

    Fineman’s strategy is to present scenarios where the gun is going to be used against the intended victim, to illustrate that introducing a gun for defense is actually worse than employing a different form of defense (ie. pepper spray, striking, etc.).

    Unless he’s completely stupid and saying any form of defense is a bad idea. At which point he’ll just make himself a target for any women with a shred of self-preservation and actual common sense.

  25. Ideologues. If you challenge their beliefs, and even prove the beliefs to be illogical or wrong, an ideologue will not reconsider. An ideologue will simply dig in their heels and double down, no matter what lengths of absurdity they must go to. They cannot except any other path, else it may shatter their whole world view.

  26. I hate the whole cops are so trained and qualified argument. I practice more than any of the cops I know. Jeff Cooper said it best when he said something to effect of people will train harder to win a small trophy than to save their life

  27. The truth is none of these controlled studies were done in a true home defense or even street defense environment. They also don’t take into account those who have gone through training beyond the classes needed to pass the tests for the CCL in most states that allow conceal carry. They are all done in a classroom-lecture hall environment without anyone on the test subject side being someone with actual training. They are rigged to support the gun ban advocates’ points of views as well. In a real home invasion the homeowner won’t be caught that much by surprise unless they are the one who opens the front door without checking what’s on the other side first kind of people. Most of the home invasions I’ve read about are done by folks trying to gain entry pretending to be the pizza delivery person or someone needing assistance. Those who storm the gates are rare and usually are the ones read about in the Armed Citizen column of the American Rifleman. Still the ones who trick their way into a home usually pick homes where they’ve spotted that the homeowners are the most vigilant.

  28. What DaveG says. Twice. THEN go get your GUN. Then see if the rapist is still there.
    Robert Seddon
    Life Endowment Member NRA
    YES, I do carry
    No, I have never been RAPED

  29. I’m sorry, but I have no respect whatsoever for the AJC, especially when it comes to firearm-related stories. I was involved in a DGU during a home invasion and the AJC identified me as ‘the gunman’. Perhaps they don’t teach about word connotation where that journalist when to college, but how is that at all reasonable? Screw that institution. They don’t know the meaning of journalistic integrity.

    • Please write up and submit your experience with citations / links to online references if possible. This story could be very, very important to the cause.

      And…I would think it fits for a submission as a “Truth about Guns”

      I’m not affiliated with TTAG or influence editorial decisions, but as a reader, I’d like to see your story and it sure looks like it could be an important one.

      • I’ll see about finding some old links and submitting it. It was over a year and a half ago. Crazy related story? Local news interviewed another student who lived in the neighborhood about the DGU and he was supportive of students defending themselves (we constantly get Clery act notifications of students being victimized). About a year later, this kid they interview gets shot on the street. I think he was walking home from a baseball game.

    • Well, clearly you were the aggressor and instigator, good sir.

      You should have just let the poor, disenfranchised soul help himself to your belongings. I’m sure he was a modern day Robin Hood, robbing from those whom have some much, to give to those whom have so little.

      No, but in all seriousness, you should write something up and submit it.

  30. They’re already ignoring facts, you can run your simulations and the response will be “Yeah, but….”

    None so blind as that which will not see.

    • I think the old geezer just hit the one with his first shot, clearly aiming and hitting the guy right in the butt. But he was still shooting as they crawled all over each other scrambling out the door. I laughed until I cried, it was so funny. Sure didn’t see that very often, didn’t show the right result. Interesting comparison with this “study” or whatever, huh?

  31. Most gun owners are proficient with firearms.
    I wouldn’t bet any of my money on that proposition.

    • A guy who owns a bolt rifle with a scope and fires 1-2 shots a year at the outside is still a “gunowner”. Obviously, I would rather have him pick up a loose gun after I’ve ventilated one of three gunmen, for example, than a total novice, but calling him “proficient” because he is a gunowner would be an extreme stretch.

  32. Those idiots can pound sand. I am not taking self-preservation advice from either sheep or professionally guarded hypocrites.

  33. A planned mall shooting at the Clakamas Town Center (southern Portland, Oregon) was stopped by a mere mortal who only drew his gun and let the bad guy see it. The good guy (reportedly an active duty Army guy) didn’t shoot because he could not identify a clear background. The bad guy, as the murder/suicide crowd tends to do) escape around the corner and promptly shot himself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting

    So, as we know, it works. They just don’t accept reality.

  34. Gentlemen, it is a mistake to accuse this clown and others like him of being stupid. He is not stupid, he is simply a coward. There are essentially 3 types of anti gunners: The elitists who want to disarm the common man, the fools who don’t think the matter through, and then this type, the cowards who want the government to disarm everyone so that they do not have to face the option of protecting themselves. This particular creature is part of group 3.

    • One could argue that cowardice is a form of stupidity, especially when said cowardice stupidly lowers your odds of self preservation, the one trait that every single living thing on the planet supposedly has.

      • One could argue anything they wish, but I think Salvatore is closer to the truth. I’m afraid we’ll never know for sure.

        • True; I don’t disagree with Salvatore’s comment or conclusions.

          Was only pointing out that “stupidity” and “cowardice” are not mutually exclusive. One can certainly be BOTH.

          I think Fineman and Bookman qualify.

  35. Doing the simulation is mostly risk without much chance of reward. Even if the outcome shows the truth of what you’ve been trying to get across, him and others like him won’t change their tune. The results will be picked apart mercilessly until they are meaningless. Even if they can’t do that, the truth will still get denied. If something should go wrong and even one simulation run gives his argument any credence, that instance will be pushed to the front. Rules for Radicals is at play.

  36. The best thing this group can do is….keep talking. Seriously. They make our argument for us.

  37. Why doesn’t someone who is debating these people ask them what their qualifications are to make such judgements? – How often do you shoot? What training courses have you taken? Have you ever shot a pistol? Have you ever trained with a pistol? Do you have your concealed carry license? Do you even know how to operate a pistol? Do you know how to read? Do you know what Google is? Have you ever been instructed in logical thinking? And other questions along the same vein. If they answer “No” to any of them then you can say, “So, what you are telling me and our audience is that regarding firearms and their defensive use and the ability to employ logic and do research you are utterly and shamefully completely ignorant on the subject? Is that a good summation of your current qualifications in life? How long do you intend to remain willfully ignorant on this subject? And will you now stop pontificating on what you know nothing about?”

    • After previous posts, seems like you might want to change the appellation to “frightened idiots”, or maybe “stupid cowards”.

  38. Look, for everyone who has posted above about the D&D points that accrue from X training, as a longtime reader of Bookman’s bilge, I assure you that you are -5 in intelligence for every paragraph of his you read. He’s an exemplar of the liberal, free speech for me but not for thee editorial stance of the AJC. Read too much of his stuff and you will lose a turn. Remember that he is a mouthpiece for a paper that endorsed Cynthia McKinney and her crazy anti-Semite father for years. His towing the Bloomberg line is de rigeur, nothing more. Move along, nothing to see here.

  39. Most of the liberal democrat ranks have invested themselves so deeply in their ideology, that to question one liberal assumption, and discover it was all just a lie, and to acknowledge that they now realize it, is to ask them to question the veracity of all the rest of their long-held liberal assumptions. Good luck with that.
    It would be like asking a Christian to deny the existence of God. Liberalism is very much like a religion. In many ways, it becomes the anchor point of ones reality, so much so, that it can more often define ones existence than it can understand and accept ones existence. And they think – WE’RE – dangerous?

  40. So, I’d like to hear from the ladies: Which is better, being able to even possibly defend yourself from a would-be rapist with a gun, or being raped?

    Recognizing that most women who read TTAG are are quite probably biased in favor of the former choice, I ask them to pose the question to their female friends who do not shoot, and be so kind as to get back to us with your collected responses. Don’t bias the question, just ask it and note the responses. [And if you are so lucky as to not know any other ladies who don’t shoot, then just have a Ladies NIght out at the Shooting Range and enjoy!]

    Not a “scientific” poll by any means, but might yield an interesting insight.

  41. Trick question. Gun control itself is a stupid argument. As such, any argument in favor of it is therefore stupid by default. The only thing that even differentiates the various “supporting” arguments is the level of stupidity they contain — and all of them do (and only) contain some modicum of rote stupidity — ranging all the way from “mild-but-correctable” to “I’m-officially-dumber-now-for having-witnessed-this”.

    Fineman exhibits, beyond a shadow of any doubt, the latter extreme. In every word he utters.

  42. Perhaps the neatest argument in favour of armed self defense comes from the cash in transit industry, and (unarmed) Britain vs other countries:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478564/Britain-worst-world-armed-robbery-says-security-boss.html

    “Britain is the worst country in the world for robbery and the number of armed and violent attacks is growing, according to the head of the country’s biggest security firm.

    “Nick Buckles, chief executive of Group 4 Securicor, attributed the rising level of attacks to the fact that his staff are not allowed to carry guns, leaving them vulnerable to armed raiders.

    “He said: “It’s just part of our business. It is a rising trend, particularly in the UK, mainly because we are not armed. Britain is the worst country in the world for robbery.”

    “Mr Buckles’s comments, made as the company’s results were published yesterday, were particularly troubling because G4S also operates in countries which are notorious for violent crime, such as South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, the U.S. and Colombia.”

  43. It’s certainly plausible that, if a surprise blitz attack comes, and I am the very first one in the bad guys crosshairs, I may be dropped before I can even begin to get a shot off. No one can argue that.

    However, let’s say that, instead of a gun free, target rich environment, I’m instead working in a business where gun carry is welcomed. I may well still be dropped. But the second guy will likely take out the bad guy before he can shoot a dozen people. That’s the problem with the scenario Bookman used, it tries to justify banning guns because the first person may not have time to get a shot off. It’s like banning seat belts because one person in five hundred thousand wrecks dies because of some obscure mechanism of injury that occurs because he was pinned to his seat.

    It also ignores the fact that, statistically speaking the shooter would likely have never chosen to go shoot up the place had he known that a number of his former fellow employees were armed.

  44. Their arguments are all equally stupid.

    I think they underestimate how quick one is on the draw. I don’t know for others but for me, time seems to slow down when drawing a gun, raising a rifle or aiming.

    Doubt it only happens to me.

    • There has been some work on the ‘slow-down,’ enhanced clumsiness and similar effects on response in more realistic training environments (such as force-on-force) and the like.

      For example, here’s an interesting study:

      http://www.forcescience.org/articles/tempestudy.pdf

      One important takeaway is that response to VISUAL stimulus (such as someone presenting a gun at you) is measurably slower than auditory stimulus (such as the buzzers we use at the range or in competitions to initiate our shooting sequence).

      A lot of people overestimate what their response / performance will be in a REAL gunfight; that does not change the simple fact that should, in fact, have a gun for the gunfight.

      What these guys (Fineman and Bookman) is simply moronic and disingenuous. There is no study or real world data to support their assertions at all, and they are stupidly assuming, as others have pointed out, that there is only one armed person to fight back. They do, of course, commit the crime of additional stupid assumptions.

      Unfortunately, none of that will hinder their sycophantic followers from singing their tune and passing it on. It is truly and remarkably irresponsible to sell these “thoughts” as some sort of reasoned conclusion based on observable reality.

      • Good read, will admit I am not the usual reader of these magazines.

        I am still confident in my ability to shoot quickly, then again I have always been cautious.

        Can’t understand why they used a 10 pound trigger, most guns have way lighter triggers than that. The guns I use have a 2-4 pounds triggers.

    • This story reminds me of a quote from the movie Tombstone.

      “It’s not revenge he’s after, it’s about the reckoning.”

      This guy got his reckoning and one of his prior victim delivered it.

  45. It’s not that their “logic” is flawed or that they are stupid. They are deliberately talking that way because they have an agenda.

  46. What an idiot. He forgoes the possibility that individuals should be able to make a choice.

    NO SOUP FOR YOU!

  47. As a rent-a-cop, that fed-ex shooting made me uncomfortable. I am unarmed, in a factory with posted no weapons allowed signs. What am I to do if someone, on their third week without a day off decides its time to take a vacation and wants to take someone with him? Run? Hide? I shouldn’t have to cower and wait for death to arrive if some wacko decides to start shooting. This is why i keep a shotgun in my trunk.

  48. I know many citizens who shoot thousands of more rounds each year than some cops do. We (cops) are required to qualify each year but unless the department holds firearms training more each year that is it.

    I issue several boxes of rounds to my officers and encourage them to shoot often. I send them to any shooting class they wish to attend within reason and budget limits. Some enjoy shooting and others don’t. Some cops are competition shooters, others shoot once or twice a year.

    That said I have encountered far more gun owners who have NEVER shot their gun. They bought it for “Protection” and keep it unloaded in the original box on the top shelf of their closet. The rounds are in the garage.
    The next group at least keeps a loaded gun and has fired it once or twice. These make up the vast majority.
    The next group are the shooters. They own several firearms, Shoot often and are good at it. Some are expert marksman. This is the smallest group. Lets face it. It’s an expensive hobby.

    Anyone with a firearm and at least some practical shooting time can easily use a gun for self defense. To think otherwise is just stupid. Typical anti gun trash.

    • Good for you in your job!

      A couple decades ago, I heard a story, supposedly true, of a guy who became an LEO in his home town, was required to provide his own revolver (nobody carried semis). Sometime after he retired as Chief, 30 years later, he got together with some friends to go to a new range, and he took his service gun, carried for all 30 years, and discovered it would not fire, had been delivered from the factory without a firing pin. Worked perfectly every time he needed it, since that was zero.

      Don’t count on police to have even a clue, they have a job, but only a tiny fraction of them ever use a gun as part of that job, and most of them never expect to. The open carry is as a badge of authority along with the actual badge. Not something you might actually need.

      • Unless this was like 40 or more years ago….How did he qualify?
        Since 1965 (In GA at least) Academy qualification and most places (Now ALL depts) yearly qualification is mandatory.
        I can confirm that MOST PD’s do not shoot anywhere near enough, not counting spec ops and the like. I shoot at least 50 rounds of .40 and 100 rds of .223 every 2 months with issued practice ammo and plenty more at my expense. I work in a small dept but i am the ONLY one who does that. The others shoot about twice a year.
        I find that is true for all cops who don’t shoot recreationally. Its sad but nobody wants to spend the time or money to shoot more.

        • It was closer to 50 years ago, if you count up the years I quoted. OTOH, there have been many people, military and LEO, since that time who have qualified on paper, and that does not mean on paper targets, it means “sign here” on paper. WHATEVER the requirements, they can be defeated by a signature. Two times that I can remember in the military, the range officer sidled up to me and asked if I had already qualified expert, then “let slip” that this or that guy or girl nearby was not going to qualify. Surprisingly enough, they did qualify after scoring 15 hits in 10 shots, although I did not attain expert status yet again. Don’t even ask how many times that must have happened overall if it happened to me twice!

          The story included the guy retiring as Chief, which would mean, at least at the time, that he held a high rank for the last 15 or so years, probably signed his own qualification certification if there even was such a thing, like the 350 lb Colonels who were certified as running the mile in under 4 minutes when they were 45 years old, or whatever. Nobody challenges such, or is not there next year to challenge again. Thinking that passing a rule takes care of qualification is really sweet of you, but a bit naieve.

  49. There are tons of security cam videos on YouTube and other sites that disprove his argument. The armed citizen is a YouTube channel that has a lot of them.

  50. I don’t know how you can argue with people who are being deliberately contradictory…

    Once I figure out that there is no reasoning with them, I bow out.

  51. Sage dynamics offers a class with simnuitions in Atlanta the armed citizens response to the active shooter. I suggest you pay for him to go.

  52. It would seem that Mr. Fineman is either remarkably stupid, completely ignorant of the relevant facts, intentionally duplicitous, or delusional (though it’s possible that some combination exists).

    This three sided problem exists anywhere illogical thought exists: Ignorance/stupidity, Dishonesty (intrinsic or extrinsic, or both) and/or insanity (typically of a delusional nature). That is, either a person is incapable of arriving at logical truth due to inadequate or incorrect information or the inability to cognize the information effectively, is being dishonest with either themselves or others or both, or else suffers from a mental issue, such as delusion, that precludes them from correctly perceiving reality.

    This can be witnessed in all manner of illogical thinking and is repeatable across all issues.

    I don’t insist lightly that such people are fundamentally flawed, but given the ready availability of factual information on virtually every topic of discussion being misinformed and remaining so to the point of debating from the flawed premises seems impossible if one is of sufficient intelligence, is being honest, and isn’t suffering under some mental impairment.

    Thus someone such as Mr. Fineman must be intellectually deficient, morally challenged or mentally ill: that is, an idiot, a liar or a madman.

  53. How much more likely is survival if you wait for the cops (the guys with guns you call, as oppossed to the ones you don’t want there) and take a smoke break as the active shooter continues actively shooting while the victims continue actively bleeding and collecting bullets?

    • Then wait some more as the cops set up a perimeter, gear up, suggest different approaches, have a smoke break of their own, while people bleed and die and collect more bullets. How many active shooters have recently been stopped by people carrying badges?

      • A few, but they were already on the scene when the shooting started.

        The Aurora, CO high school shooting from a few months ago comes to mind as but one example.

        The point is, of course, that the fastest response possible stops the damage as soon as possible. There is no faster response than a ‘good guy with a gun’ ON THE SCENE. Any other “response” is secondary.

  54. I’m going to start comparing mass murderer situations to my cat. Bear with me for a moment.
    Foolish individuals like Mr. Bookman above believe it’s not worth doing if you can’t succeed 100% of the time. However, in the case of one of my girlfriend’s cats, I no longer bother trying to clip her claws to save the furniture. It’s not that I can’t, or that the cat is somehow stronger, smarter, or more capable than I am.
    It’s just so much of a pain in the ass that it’s not worth trapping the damn thing in a corner, putting on a leather jacket and gloves to prevent multiple bite wounds and lacerations, and then cleaning up after it defecates on itself in order to clip some nails once a month.
    Just like my PITA cat, I’d much rather succumb to an overwhelming force while putting up a hell of a fight, and maybe just ‘win’, than lock the door and wait in terror for the inevitable.

  55. This theory could have a lot of merit.
    I think it’s worth some empirical testing.
    No stupid-ass simulations, if these guys are so confident let’s do it for real.
    Bookman and Fineman vs Kirsten Joy Weiss.
    Kirsten gets to use the gun of her choice and can make no attempt to defend herself other than trying to shoot at them with the gun that they know is useless. If they get their penises in her they win (assuming they have penises). If they die, the whole country wins.

  56. He’s welcome to stand in front of me and see if I can’t draw and fire my weapon, hitting him

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *