Previous Post
Next Post

What is it with The Washington Post? The paper is obsessed with dissing Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Hardly a day passes without the paper supporting new gun control legislation, both generally and specifically pissing on gun rights. When a gun control org commissioned and released a new study called Firearms Training and Self-Defense highlighting the difficulty of armed self-defense, the WaPo’s Christopher Ingraham seized on it to “prove” that non-law enforcement civilians are incapable of using their firearm to good effect when faced with violent attack. Click here for the original study. Here’s Ingraham’s take . . .

The notion that more guns are always the solution to gun crime is taken seriously in this country. But the research shows that more guns lead to more gun homicides — not less. And that guns are rarely used in self-defense.

Now a new study from researchers at Mount St. Mary’s University sheds some light on why people don’t use guns in self-defense very often. As it turns out, knowing when and how to apply lethal force in a potentially life-or-death situation is really difficult.

The study was commissioned by the National Gun Victims Action Council, an advocacy group devoted to enacting “sensible gun laws” that “find common ground between legal gun owners and non-gun owners that minimizes gun violence in our culture.” The study found that proper training and education are key to successfully using a firearm in self-defense: “carrying a gun in public does not provide self-defense unless the carrier is properly trained and maintains their skill level,” the authors wrote in a statement.

They recruited 77 volunteers with varying levels of firearm experience and training, and had each of them participate in simulations of three different scenarios using the firearms training simulator at the Prince George’s County Police Department in Maryland. The first scenario involved a carjacking, the second an armed robbery in a convenience store, and the third a case of suspected larceny.

They found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, people without firearms training performed poorly in the scenarios. They didn’t take cover. They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at.

To check the veracity of Ingraham’s “context,” click on the link guns are rarely used in self-defense to discover that the stats only chart cases of proven justifiable homicide. Even the lowest estimate of defensive gun use (DGU) is 55k per year. The upper end of that stat: 2.5 million DGUs per year. Either way, I’d hardly call that rare. In fact, it’s greater than the number of total annual firearms-related deaths in the U.S., roughly half of which are suicides.

As for the study itself, as our man Leghorn says, defending yourself from criminal attack with a firearm is incredibly difficult and dangerous. But so what? Somehow, some 55k to 2.5m Americans manage to successfully defend themselves and other innocent life with a firearm.

The study’s anti-gun bias is there for all to see. “Legislators and public policy makers must stop denying the reality that carrying and possibly using a firearm is the same as riding a bike and that once you learn you are ready for the Tour de France or the Olympics.” Talk about moving the goal posts . . .

Ingraham acknowledges that “The study, of course, has its limitations. Seventy seven participants is a very small sample size, for instance.” But he reckons that “its conclusion should be fairly uncontroversial: if you want to be able to use a gun in self-defense, you should be trained in how to do so.” Leading to the Igraham’s own conclusion that

There’s a lot of middle ground between “repealing the Second Amendment” and “requiring school children to pass firearm training.” Requiring gun owners to be trained and licensed, similar to what we require of say, automobile drivers, may be in a middle area that more people could agree on.

Absolutely not.

First, mandatory training imposes an unfair burden on poorer and less-educated Americans, who cannot afford the time and money required to take state-sanctioned firearms training, who may (or may not) be able to defend their lives without it.

Second, mandatory training is unconstitutional – just like literacy tests for voting. The Second Amendment doesn’t prohibit government infringement on the right to keep and bear arms “subject to aspiring gun owners passing a test on their ability to use firearms safely and effectively.”

Third, and most importantly, the right to keep and bear arms was not created for armed personal defense or hunting. Those activities are protected but they are entirely besides the point.

The Second Amendment was enacted to enable citizens to defend themselves against government tyranny, both as a deterrent and an option of last resort. Governments have a vested interest in keeping its citizens disarmed. Mandatory firearms training gives them an important tool to achieve that goal.

Ingraham and the study’s authors ignore this crucial point and argue for curtailing “regular people’s” gun rights in the name of public safety. And they’re not shy about admitting it. From the study:

Entrusting the right of citizens to carry a deadly weapon and employ lethal means should be a thoughtful process that is based on facts and evidence— not emotion— that identify what is in the best interest of everyone’s public safety.

I encourage all armed Americans to get force-on-force firearms training. I also encourage all Americans to resist this ongoing and blatant attempt to degrade, discredit and destroy their firearms freedom in the name of public and/or individual safety. Constitutional or permitless carry is the only constitutional form of carry. Period. [h/t DT]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Oh my god. This is laughable.

    The first woman just stood there with the gun at her side while the guy threatened to kill her. NOBODY would react like that. You may choose to shoot. But there are two other choices. 1) comply 2) run. She chose 4) none of the above. The worst choice.


    p.s. Most police are required to qualify only once per year. I suspect that most of us here shoot more often than that. And there ARE officers who only shoot when its time to qualify.

    • Another thing I find funny is they point out innocent people taking stray bullets, I thought that was Ok since police in New York do it all the time. /sarc

      Just a lot of effort to prove that not all self defense situations are for the better, but I would rather fight and lose then just lose. The firearm is the best tool for assistance in survival.

    • Check out the second “citizen” in the armed robbery at 2:30. You can clearly see the gun vibrate twice and hear it go off softly at least once while aiming at the same subject the officer shot, then she transitions to the second suspect. They don’t even acknowledge the shots took place.

    • First, and IMO the fatal flaw in these sorts of “studies”: The people know that it’s a training scenario.

      Your actions and reactions are going to be a lot different if your are in a real situation where you KNOW you may be shot or killed than if you are in some safe training environment running a simulation.

      Force on force simulations are good, even if they are just procedures you run through your head as to how and when to react, but even with Simunitions they can never approach reality and your physical and emotional reactions under life or death stress.

    • To make an assumption on what is the likely or unlikely response of the majority of human beings faced with a life-threatening situation is naive and simply wishful thinking. A person’s reaction to the threat of violence is generally one of fight or flight and although most people would hope to be able to defend themselves when posed with a threat, the reality is that there are many factors that contribute to what the response will be: age, gender, physical health, size of the person in comparison to the aggressor and most especially, whether or not the person has been a victim of violence in the past. For that matter, one could argue that there is even a wide range of what one can perceive to be a threat. A person speaking loudly and holding his hands behind his back could register as a deadly threat to someone who has been the victim of violence, while another person may not feel threatened at all. No one can really predict what a person’s physical and emotional reaction will be in any given situation…..which doesn’t even include what the reaction of a person under the influence of drugs/alcohol would be. Are their any restrictions to using a firearm while under the influence of drugs/alcohol? Or would this be considered unconstitutional as well? Training as a contingency to gun ownership is in the best interest of all citizens….even if your gun is for defense against tyranny….wouldn’t it make more sense for every gun-owning citizen to be as trained as their fellow gun-owning government official?

      • It would make more sense, and greatly help our country, if the electorate was properly educated as a requisite to voting. Wouldn’t you agree?

        • Absolutely…..and thankfully we have compulsory attendance laws in this country that pretty much state you have to participate in some kind of formal education, be it going to school or being home schooled from the ages of about 5 to 16….now public education may not be very quality in certain low-income neighborhoods, but it’s at least an attempt to ensure that U.S. citizens are educated and able to make informed decisions in all realms of life, including at the ballot box on election day. Requiring at least some minimal training as a contingency to gun ownership is not asking anyone to compromise their constitutional rights…..if you can apply for your FOID card and have the money to buy a gun, then you should have no problem passing a simple training course on how to use your gun.

        • First off, show me where a proper education is COMPULSORY for voting, and I might concede your point.
          Second, if you equate public schooling to firearms training I think that’s a great idea. That means mandatory firearms training for everyone on the public dime. Sounds good to me.
          Keep in mind that you don’t have to actually learn anything during your time in school or even prove your knowledge to a certain minimum standard. You have to attend up until a certain age and that’s it. You don’t get your voting rights after passing a test. If you are a citizen you get them when you hit 18.
          Very few ordinary citizens are injured killed, etc by individuals that legally own and carry firearms. Statistically, it’s almost non-existent. It’s the individuals that obtain a firearm illegally, and/or are barred from possessing firearms that obtain them regardless that cause all the deaths and injuries. Deal with that issue first and then come talk to me. A firearms safety course, and even a test on safely owning/handling firearms won’t stop a felon with a gun from hurting someone else with it. It’s not a safety issue, period. They intend to harm another person. Figure out a way to stop them from doing that with a safety course.

      • sorry…the anti gunners will use any minimum training requirement as a starting point and then it will be increased to be so burdensome that only the wealthy and politically connected will be able to pass it or engage in it………We know how the anti gunners think, and we know what their goal is…no way. mandatory training will do nothing to stop criminals or mass shooters, and will only limit law abiding citizens, especially poor ones, from exercising a Right. What is the need for mandatory training…According to the CDC, in 2013 there were only 505 accidental gun deaths and that is down from over 600 in 2010….
        505 accidental deaths in a country of over 320 million guns in private hands and over 12.8 million people carrying guns for self defense….which shows with great detail that American gun owners are already extremely responsible and more than capable of handling firearms safely without guys like you mandating training….which will in essence make criminals out of law abiding people if they have a gun without the training…right? that is the real goal, right? another law that allows good people to get tripped up if they are unfamiliar with the Byzantine gun laws created by gun grabbers to catch the and punish them for wanting to own or carry a gun….

        No way.

        • Don’t feign concern for the plight of the poor d the injustice of making them pay for mandatory trainings. Poor people don’t buy guns. They obtain them illegally and you have the nations prisons to look to for proof of that…..and they are also very good at using them, much better than your average middle class male
          who shoots at paper targets.

        • Don’t feign concern for the plight of the poor and the injustice of making them pay for mandatory trainings. Poor people don’t buy guns. They obtain them illegally and you have the nations prisons to look to for proof of that…..and they are also very good at using them, much better than your average middle class male
          who shoots at paper targets.

        • Ah, and now the ugly classism/racism of the anti gunner finally comes out. So everyone who is poor is automatically a criminal? You sound like your buddy Michael Bloomberg.

        • @Vhyrus……no, not all poor people are criminals, but most criminals are poor….and most poor people with guns don’t obtain them legally and they are more adept at using them than your average gun “enthusiast” for too many reasons to go into here. Not only are most criminals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, but they are more often the victims of violent crime as well. Don’t read into a post what you want to, simply because you disagree with their politics. Also, I’m not an anti-gunner…..I simply advocate for gun legislation that makes sense.

        • But we already have the legislation that makes all the sense needed: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed”

  2. Most studies are a joke. Follow the money on who is funding the study, or who benefits from the results of the study, and you can usually expose the biases within the study pretty quickly.

    • +1. When it says “foundation for sane gun laws” then gun owners are going to look bad. But they made themselves look incompetent that they had the same officer run all the senerios but there was a total of 4 different “civilians” with not all shown doing each senerio. Which probably means they don’t want you to see the “civilians” did well on the others. Don’t trust a “study” that does not release all data to you.

      • No doubt, never trust a study that doesn’t release all of it’s data, but keep in mind, data negative to a study’s goal is often scrubbed, and other data is often manipulated or reframed to give a positive impact to the study’s goal. Almost every study has a goal, and this of course will determine the outcome of the study.

        • If the “study” produces data you don’t agree with, then manipulate the data. NASA does it all the time with “Global Warming” data. Over time there are fewer and fewer legitimate researchers and scientists out there as more and more of them become corrupted and sell out for government grants, money controlled by Leftists with a clear agenda and who’s honesty is always sublimated to what they see as “the greater good.”

        • yep, but not just leftys. Dr. Richard Horton, editor in Chief of the Lancet, a prestigious medical journal said, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” It is likely all of the medical journal studies are BS. It crosses political affiliation.

    • Good point….which is why it is no surprise that Congress will not approve funding for the CDC to study gun violence….because the NRA butters their bread. Anytime research is funded or not funded as a result of the influence of groups like the NRA you will have skewed data….or in the case of gun violence research conducted by the CDC….no data at all.

  3. Simple enough to counter by searching a little website I found… called YOUTUBE! How many videos of armed self defense would you like to see? Also, the defensive gun use statistics you mentioned. One of my faves to mention is that in 2011 about twice as many people died from falling out of bed than being shot by rifles of any kind… so I propose strict controls on bed height, mandatory rails, mandatory sleep training, and mattress registration.

  4. I advise new gun owners or potential gun owners to obtain training. I guess posting the hundred or so stories of grandpa using an old .22 rifle or grandma using that revolver collecting dust to defend herself at Wa-poop would get a reply that the stories just never happened.

  5. When facing a life threatening situation, I can care less how effective guns are or are not. I’d at least like to try to save my life thank you very much.

  6. This is the straw man we have been made into. The bumbling incompetent “civilian” who went into Walmart, bought a Glock and a box of bullets and got a chl without ever firing a shot from it.

    Yes in those circumstances you are probably not any better off with a gun. This is the new meme that the media will now go full court press on.

  7. Over the past 25 years, the number of homicides in this country has dropped by 50% while the number of privately owned firearms has doubled. Clearly, more guns = more murder/death/kill.

    Shannon’s Sugar Daddy spreads his money around and the Harvard Whores put out.

  8. I saw this and debated it on a political site…….I simply took several pages of “The Armed Citizen” from the NRA site. For those who may not know “The Armed Citizen” collects gun self defense stories from local and national news… is a great source when you debate the gun grabbers. Keep in mind, the people in these stories are not Navy Seals, or members of police, though there are some off duty police officers, they are not the majority of the stories……

    The People in the stories you read sometimes have very little, to no training, and they are shown to handle themselves with incredible calm, and reason, in situations that are violent and ugly. So I would say, if you debate this with a gun grabber esepecially online, grab a few pages from “The Armed Citizen” and ask them to explain all those people defending themselves…never back down to these gun grabbers, go right back at them.

  9. “specifically pissing on gun rights”….RF, not to split hairs, but guns don’t have rights, people do. And these rights don’t exist in a vacuum. Without standing for all individual freedom, having the right to own firearms means little if you’re willing to acquiesce other individual rights.

  10. “There’s a lot of middle ground between “repealing the Second Amendment” and “requiring school children to pass firearm training.”

    I think the “middle” would lean more towards the latter than the WP would care to admit.

  11. Typical. Because someone in a simulator couldn’t do it, no one should be allowed to do it.

    I think it is more properly called projection. Because they would stand still in stark terror (like the woman in the carjacking simulator) they think everyone else would to.

    The question we need to ask in return is if why should it matter if we carry a gun if we aren’t going to use it, if we are just going to get killed anyway?

  12. But the research shows that more guns lead to more gun homicides — not less. — Christopher Ingraham

    This is a blatant and obvious LIE. Our beloved Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Reports indicate that our nation’s murder rate has been steadily falling since its peak around 1993. Today the murder rate is about half of what it was in 1993. And yet there are something like 30% to 100% more firearms in our nation now than there was in 1993.

    Mr. Ingraham needs to turn in his journalism card immediately. Clearly, the right to Free Speech is too dangerous for just any person — even journalists — to exercise.

  13. So if the average citizen lacks the training to effectively use a firearm when confronted with a armed criminal. My question is where are the criminal getting their training at? Clearly they are all lethal gun sling assassins right? They would have to be if Joe American does not stand a chance against one with a gun.

    • Yeah they seem to have ignored the fact that somewhere between 30-60% of recovered crime guns are either inoperable, partially inoperable, or loaded with ammunition for a totally different caliber.

      A good half of the ‘bad guys’ should have guns that are good for threatening with but not much else.

  14. The fabricators of this article have purposely misinterpreted the results. What the short video actually demonstrates is that training can help anyone reveal shortcomings in their current level of ability and can improve an individual’s skill level through practice. It is never a replacement for real-world experience, anymore than only flying a simulator makes you a pilot. I’ve tested simulations systems such as this in the past for the Air Force. Not shown is the fact you would have been shot anyway by the simulator had you been unarmed. Therefore, to imply from such demos that carrying a gun will get you killed, or that high levels of mandatory training should be required before owning or carrying a gun, is a charade not supported by real world facts. It appears that ‘smoke and mirrors’ such as fake gun stores and fake customers, are the only tools the antis have. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, and “don’t confuse me with the facts” seem to be their mantras. In a rational debate they would be eviscerated.

  15. I wouldn’t use the Washington Post for fish wrap, the fish complain too loudly. Whether or not a person is trained in the use of firearms, if they are already in the situation, they should have the tools available with which to defend themselves or loved ones.

    What I notice about people with firearms, those who carry say its up to you and generally leave you be regardless of your choice. Those who are anti gun seem to want to tell you how to do everything from wiping your backside to what brand of drinking water to buy. I tell them to mind their own business and stay out of mine.

  16. Didn’t ABC try some similar kinds of “simulations” a while back to show “regular folks” were useless with firearms?

    It did not stick then, so I guess the antis trot out the same old crap to see if it sticks now.

  17. What an amazing, contraintuitive finding! People with little or no training don’t do as well in dangerous situations as people who actively train!

    NEXT from researchers at Mount St. Mary’s: Drivers with less experience DON’T DRIVE AS WELL! The logical conclusion is that untrained drivers shouldn’t be allowed on the roads until they have completed 150 hours of law enforcement-supervised training. (After all, cars kill abut 33,000 people each year, more than 3 times as many as were murdered with guns).

    AFTER THAT from the intrepid Mount St. Mary’s team: Swimmers with less training and experience drown more often! Naturally, the logical conclusion is that untrained individuals must not be allowed near swimming pools and bathtubs until they have completed 150 hours of law enforcement-supervised training. (After all, drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 14 and under, with firearm deaths trailing far behind.)

  18. Self defense is hard. So much better to die cowering. /sarc

    Does America not try anymore? Apparently it’s, “Nope, your gonna fail; so give up”.

    Even if I suck at using a fire extinguisher, I still want the option to own as many as I want, in whatever size I want, and charged with whichever chemical extinguishant I desire.

  19. Classic BS.

    I’m waiting for the “Here’s what happens when you put someone in a car who’s never driven before or been provided any instruction on how to drive”. But not holding my breath.

    They are obviously just trying to spread their hoplophobia to other potential new firearm owners because they are alarmed by the increase in the rate of gun ownership.

    Oh – and do you become an ‘irregular’ person if you actually spend a little time at the range or in a class and learn how to use your firearm to protect yourself?

    What a joke.

  20. Seriously? This is lame. And having no gun at all would have helped them how??? Some would die – some wouldn’t. Lame Defeatists.

  21. Wow so people who don’t carry a gun, wouldn’t normally carry a gun, when given a gun with no training, do poorly in contrived and unrealistic self-defense scenarios.


  22. After reading the study, the one question the study’s PhDs failed to ask of participants:

    Are you willing to use deadly force if it means it could save your life?

    If they aren’t willing to use deadly force, they self select out of the study.

    And saying it and actually being willing to use deadly force legally do not necessarily intersect either.

  23. Does anyone have a representative sample of how much firearm specific training LEOs get? I’m betting its in the neighborhood of 24-32 hours total with range refresh once or twice a year depending on department. I’m sure they can pad out the hours with “Waiting at a range to shoot” time where .5 hours shooting = 8 hours.

    Related, how often do citizens defending themselves shoot the wrong person, I cant recall any incident in the last 10 or so years.

  24. Another issue with this sort of thing: isn’t it a simulator for police training? Police are much more likely to be thrust into ambiguous use-of-force situations because it’s their job. They won’t know exactly what’s going on when they respond to a 911 call or an alarm, and they’ll have to figure it out on the fly and hope they shoot the right guy (if he needs shooting, of course) and don’t get shot, themselves. I would think a use-of-force situation for a CHL will be a lot clearer, since it’d be something that unfolded right in front of them or involved a direct threat to them. CHLs don’t have to go in and sort it out like the cops are supposed to if it’s unclear what’s going on or who the baddies are–they can run away and call the cops if there’s no immediate threat. If there’s an immediate threat, it’s clear who the baddies are.

  25. The WaPo article is nonsense with the usual lies making it not worth discussing. The study on the other hand was interesting. The point being that if you are going to carry a gun regularly get some training and know how to use it? I agree.

    The amp’ed up and armed carjacker highlighted my worst fear. The training I have received has proven that a high noon draw situation at close range is 50/50 at best. Of course that is against other people with significant training drawing from holsters but it is a $hitty place to be no matter what.

    I read most of the study and it reached a conclusion that suggested mandatory training for CCW holders. 24 hrs initially and 4 hours every 2 years. Truth is, I would do that for 100% national reciprocity. Is it a pain in a$$? Sure, but I would expect that a lot of the training would be satisfied by training I already pay to attend.

    • Are you going to endure a similar amount of paid training to exercise your right to vote?

      Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile…

  26. We were lost when the news outlets were allowed to be bought and controlled by big corporations. Now all of our news organizations are owned by a few and they are told what to write about. The Washington Post, The NY Times, the L.A. Times, the Huffington Post, NewsMax, and the list goes on, all have scripted anti-gun agendas and they hire the appropriate sycophants to tote that party line. If you were a journalist with free thought before the takeover, you either write what they tell you or get fired. Go look at the other articles by Christopher Ingraham and you’ll see the anti-gun and anti-drug fear mongering he engages in. If you writing skill is questionable to begin with, and you know nobody else will hire you, you hop on the party bus and write the best drivel that you can. IMO, he’s the best hack he can be, and writes the best inaccurate drivel there is. It is sad that America has lost their best journalists, and even sadder to see their replacements.

  27. The video is such BS it’s actually funny. The producer must have picked the “civilians” up from some Bloomberg anti-gun group. I’d love to see ANYONE who visits this site regularly be put in the simulation. My guess is that A.) the serious concealed carry citizen would put that Cop to shame in accuracy and time to engage, and B.) would completely neutralize the threats with multiple rounds to subject. I love this video……I would love to have my 2 year old little girl run this sim. She could barely hold a gun and probably would shoot everything and everyone, but she sure as hell wouldn’t stand still like an idiot.

  28. Joseph J Vince who conducted the study is president of Crime Gun Solutions LLC and was a board member of The American Hunters and Shooters Association. Remember them from about a decade ago? They were ‘Grass Roots’ and were interested in giving gun owners a sensible alternative to the NRA.

  29. The study was commissioned by the National Gun Victims Action Council, an advocacy group devoted to enacting “sensible gun laws” that “find common ground between legal gun owners and non-gun owners that minimizes gun violence in our culture.”

    Stopped reading there. That study is as reliable as a study on global climate change commissioned by the Koch brothers.

  30. Proof practice makes perfect. Vote for constitutional carry and government sponsored training with free ammo for life!!

  31. So, someone who hates guns, has never owned one, never used one, never thought about any of the scenarios in which one might be needed, is 100% oblivious to everything gun related, performed poorly in the very situations they’ve never bothered to think about, while in possession of an object they’ve never even touched… And that’s somehow evidence of something other than what a bunch of fuckin’ morons “regular” people are these days?

    I’m glad I’m not from this planet.

  32. “…the research shows that more guns lead to more gun homicides — not less. ”

    Yes, dude. “the” research ….. That one.

    If more guns “leading” to more homocides was conclusive, you’d see a gradient of homicides rising with the concentration of guns. As in, firing ranges, military bases, gun shops and police stations being full on slaughterhouses.

    Whatever. Honestly who cares. This kind of semilitterate, subhuman garbage will continue to spew and believe whatever it is semilitterate, subhuman garbage are told is fashionable to spew and believe.

    An honestly much bigger problem, is that even those who ought to know better, still cling to the, for at least a century now, outdated idiocy, that this kind of riffraff, somehow sorts amongst “we”, while all manners of God Fearing Dudes with Guns somehow do not.

  33. “Governments have a vested interest in keeping its citizens disarmed.”

    I would suggest that despotic governments may have a vested interest in keeping its citizens disarmed, but good governments should realize that they have a vested interest in keeping its citizens armed so they (the government) won’t be tempted to venture down that well worn path.

  34. Mandatory training is one of the many ways they limit access to guns in Europe and other countries…..first you have to get the training, then you have to accepted into, and belong to an exclusive gun club and then you have to pass tests, and then be interviewed by police……sorry, no way. Any mandatory training requirement is an infringement, and intentional infringement on the right to keep and bear arms….and it will be used to stop people from owning and carrying guns…..

  35. Sorry….the statistics show that our gun murder rate is going down, not up, so those anti gunner studies are already shown to be wrong… all standards they are wrong, and yet they still try to pass them off as true. Gun murder, and gun accidents are going down, not up as more people own and carry guns. Truth, reality, they both show the anti gunners are wrong, and we have to push back wherever they try to lie…..

  36. Tom Givens of Rangemaster in Memphis would be amused by this. His students do very well against armed criminals. The only ones he has lost were three who were unarmed when attacked.

  37. While I get the point that just having a gun doesn’t mean you’re ready to use it effectively. This ‘so called’ simulation is the most boring thing I’ve ever seen. I’ve seen better simulations where a person was given a small handgun that fired paint-balls and was in a class room with other unarmed people. When the assailant barges in the one ‘good guy’ with the paint-ball gun goes for the gun first before taking cover. Even worse, in the simulation they did two other scenarios where there was another person in the class with a paint-ball gun; in one case he was working with the assailant and shot the other guy who had the gun, in the 2nd case he was another ‘good guy’ but the original guy who thought he was the only one in the room with a gun didn’t know whose side the guy was on. In the chaos and spontaneity of any scenario where you may need or want to have a gun so much can go wrong. Take cover first, evaluate the situation, only draw and fire your weapon if absolutely necessary.

  38. So many problems with the linked video. In addition to cherry picking examples to show out of 77 subjects and cherry picking scenarios for the study:

    2:16 Civ #1 shoots at male perp in convenience store robbery with no reaction, same perp later turns and shoots at him. Video makes no mention of this. Maybe he missed?

    2:29 Civ #2 DID fire at the robbers, you can CLEARLY see recoil and hear the clicking but the video system gives no response and the subtitles claim no shots fired.

    3:08 Officer DID shoot at the unarmed black male. You can hear his gun click. The subtitles claim he held his fire.

    3:36 If the Civ did shoot at the unarmed black man like the subtitles say, I don’t see or hear it (like you can with the officer who clearly shot him).

    Additionally, in all skill groups, the accuracy rate was far better than the NYPD average of 15%. The “civilians” in this study ranged from 28% at their worst to 97% in their best scenario. If anything this study should be hurting the cause it was paid to help. “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

  39. Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs. Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here