Reader 2ASux writes:
It appears the recent shooting of the New Jersey bombing suspect put the lie to the notion of a good guy with a gun stopping an armed terrorist.
One of the favorite pastimes of those who frequent this blog is the story-telling of how a private citizen with a gun will stop or reduce deaths and injuries by “a bad guy with a gun.” Ahmad Khan Rahami was pursued and attacked by multiple police in Linden, New Jersey. Rahami fired one round, hitting the officer who initially found him, an abdomen shot by a likely untrained and unskilled gunman.
Then a reported “walking gun battle” ensued between Rahami and multiple police officers, in broad daylight, on public streets. (Note: the fight did not take place in a crowded, dark venue with all the problems that would pose.)
The outcome of the event was a wounded, but still living suspect. The police hit Rahami between seven and 11 times, yet he suffered only non life-threatening wounds. I’m not privy to information regarding the calibre of handguns used by Linden police, but most likely they sport either 9mm, or .40 handguns. Giving the police credit for never missing a shot, multiple officers hit Rahami numerous times before he gave up the fight. What we have here is not “a” good guy with a gun, but several.
Rahami fired his first shot dead-on striking “center mass” of vest-protected police officer. That officer returned fire and missed. So a single “good guy with a gun” could not stop Rahami, at close range.
Based on how events unfolded , how can one believe a single “good guy with a gun” conducting uncoordinated return fire with an unknown number of strangers (who may very well be defending themselves) actually alter the outcome of horrors those seen in Brussels, Paris, or Orlando?
“A good guy with a gun” may (may, that is) successfully defeat a home invade (or even a few of them). But based on the confrontation in Linden, it seems unlikely that an armed private citizen would be successful against a single, much less multiple attackers, especially in the kind of less-than-ideal conditions in which Rahami was taken down.
It’s time to give up the boyhood dream of riding to the defense, guns a-blazing, frightening off or killing the blokes wearing black hats. Walking about heavily armed is neither a useful deterrent, nor an effective defense against a determined “bad guy”.
The usefulness (or “need” as may you put it) of carrying a firearm in public can’t be defended by the likely results. Consider carefully the lessons of the capture of Rahani. Be honest with yourselves, if no one else.
It’s time to give up the boyhood dream of riding to the defense, guns blazing, frightening off, or killing of the blokes wearing black hats. Walking about, heavily armed, is neither a useful deterrent, nor an effective defense against a determined “bad guy”. Usefulness (“need” as you put it) of carrying a firearm in public cannot be defended by the results, or likely results. Consider carefully the lessons of the capture of Rahani. Be honest with yourselves, if no one else.