When I was the Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana and we had a police-action shooting I would often be asked why the police officer didn't shoot the weapon out of the assailants' hand, or just wound them in the arm or leg, rather than shooting to kill. I would have to point out that real life was not like the movies.
In a situation involving the exchange of gunfire with a criminal suspect, police officers generally hit their target only 20 percent of the time. The most critical decision a law enforcement officer makes is whether to shoot. When the decision is made to shoot, police are trained to shoot to kill, because even that is very difficult to do.
Given how difficult this is for law enforcement officers, who are regularly trained and tested, it seems clear that it is also very difficult for private individuals. And more guns, in more inexperienced hands, are likely to make tense situations worse. Just ask Phillip Van Cleave, an experienced gun owner, how hard it is to have a successful outcome.
Van Cleave is the President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun organization that takes some positions with which I strongly disagree. But Van Cleave recently posted an account that I found very insightful, a cautionary tale about how hard it is to succeed at being a "hero." His honest account deserves to be widely read.
Van Cleave took a "force-on-force" training course, and he wrote about the scenarios the class went through, and he pointed out that they mostly didn't come out too well. In the latest installment, Van Cleave wrote "gun fights tend to be very, very fast. They're best avoided altogether. Even if you do everything right, you still might lose."
Here is his tale of a simulated gunfight in a convenience store:
I slowly and quietly sliced to my left. The closet door was my safety shield.
Suddenly I spotted him. Actually, I caught only a glimpse of my opponent: his foot and part of his leg. He was about five feet away on the other side of the door, just in front of one of the other closets.
Great. Now that I know where he is, now what?
Do I rush him, firing, risking running straight into a volley of bullets? Do I run into the room at an angle and open fire? While I would be harder to hit while moving, it would be harder for me to hit the bad guy, too.
Do I step forward past the door for a clear shot and open fire, trying to stay behind that door as much as possible? That seemed my safest option, even though it left me relatively stationary with partially obscured vision.
Whatever I was going to do, I knew I had to act quickly. If he'd spotted me, there was nothing to keep him from jumping out from behind that door and blasting me as I was considering my options.
I stepped out from behind concealment to get a clean shot, still trying to stay somewhat behind the closet door.
When I had him in sight, I opened fire. So did he.
The exchange had just begun when I saw an explosion of blue in front of my right eye (remember I am wearing a protective face mast). It was over for me. I took my face mask off in disgust. Had that been a real scenario, I would have been be lying on the floor, dead.
Equally sobering: I hadn't hit the bad guy even once.
I know Phillip Van Cleave is still a strong believer in gun rights. But his story should be a cautionary lesson. After tragedies like the recent one in Manchester, Connecticut, when a disgruntled employee shot and killed eight coworkers, there are usually comments from the gun love community about how the tragedy could have been avoided if only someone else there had been armed.
Many of those who collect guns passionately, and wear them concealed wherever they can, think they are ready for a showdown, and ready to be a hero, if any criminal pulls out a gun. To them I say read about Van Cleave's experiences.
Like everything else in life, matters don't always turn out as we'd like, or as we plan. And sometimes, a would-be hero just makes matters worse.
"Many of those who collect guns passionately, and wear them concealed wherever they can, think they are ready for a showdown, and ready to be a hero, if any criminal pulls out a gun."
Is he serious?? The further out of mainstream politics gun control gets, the more disconnected from reality the 249K a year head of Brady seems to get. Most people (as in the vast majority) don't carry a gun so they can be some kind of hero in this situation. They do so because it gives one more option for survival in a life threatening situation. I'm not sure what he hopes we'll see as the point with the rest of the story. Imagine if the good guy had no gun and wound up stabbed or full of holes, would Hemke still waste 3 paragraphs retelling the story?
Or, folks could just ask the FBI, who put the number of defensive gun uses (legal, successful, justified uses, by non-police) at some 100,000 per year. In only 6 to 8 % of those situations is it necessary to actually fire the weapon. Sounds to me like guns in 'average' hands are making tense situations better. Of course, this number (100,0000 is based solely on cases that are reported to the FBI by local and state police deptartments throughout the country. Other sources include unreported cases as well, and estimate the figure to be as high as 2.5 million per year.
BTW Paul, most firearms enthusiasts get a lot more range-time in than most cops.
Ask one: a real one.
See for yourself:
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
To put this in context, I also cited the Kleck study which found approx 2.5 million defensive gun uses, the NIJ study which estimated 1.5 million defensive gun uses and the National Criminal Victimization Survey which found 108,000 defensive gun uses. I also cited each study, so the readers can determine for themselves which study to believe.
You and I both know that the terms "Brady Campaign" and "honest" are mutually exclusive!
Best,
Old SF MJT
There are two false assumptions here, one the law enforcement officers are "regularly trained and tested" in firearm marksmanship and two, that private individuals do not regular train in firearm marksmanship.
I have a number of friends that are both civilian firearms enthusiasts and law enforcement officers. I see man of these these civilian friend spend at least an one to two hours a day for at least three days a week at the range training in marksmanship. I also see many law enforcement officers strap a firearm on their side and use it for less than an hour a month at the range.
The fundamental difference is that a firearm is a tool for law enforcement officers that they don't necessarily want to train regularly with. Fire arms enthusiasts, on the other hand, enjoy training at the range so they naturally do so as much as they can.
Also, Paul is also neglecting the fact that many civilian CCW holders are former law enforcement officers and/or former (or current) military personal that has had extensive weapons training.
As for the training, in terms of firearms marksmanship, I am pointing out that many law enforcement agencies do not have strict required firearm range training time. In fact, many officers that only visit the range when required to sees very little actual firearm training, certainly less than a civilian firearm enthusiast that chooses to train regularly.
The bottle line is, most that do train regularly with firearms, be they civilians or law enforcement, do so because they WANT to, not because they are required to. This is true for law enforcement and civilians alike.
2. How many times has any popular Brady Campaign supporter trained, tested, competed, or even fired a gun this year?
3. Why does the Brady Campaign support legislation that decreases access to training facilities, such as Chicago's ban on gun ranges?
4. Why does the Brady Campaign support California's ban on mail order ammunition that prevents individuals from buying bulk ammo for training?
5. Why does the Brady Campaign frequently oppose the NRA, the nation's largest provider and underwriter or firearms training for both individuals and police officers?
These are all simple questions, but I doubt any of them will be answered.
After reading posts on this website for months now, I do not recall seeing a single 2A poster make a claim that he is ready to be a hero. While I am sure that there are a few deluded individuals who think this way, if I NEVER have to take my weapon out except to lock away or fire at a range, I will be thrilled, as I suspect most 2A posters here would agree.
http://www.campuscarry.com/2010/08/17/the-brady-campaign%E2%80%99s-paul-helmke-doesn%E2%80%99t-know-which-side-he%E2%80%99s-on/
I finally got a chance to proofread it, so hopefully most of the typos and grammar/spelling errors have been removed.
"Storming a building with an armed assailant inside is hard...."
....therefore....
"....ban all rifles with a bayonet lug."
Seems like sound logic to me :\
I think your article was very good up until you try to sell us on being disarmed during a fire fight. Perhaps you should have told your friend that since he got outshot, he should stop carrying his gun and just give up.
Or did I miss the point of your story?
When I first decided to take up pistolry as a hobby, I took all of the courses the local pistol range offered. It was absolutely worth it. I've seen some truly idiotic practices at the gun range and I immediately leave the range and inform the range officer.
In a self-defense course, we were told that in an emergency situation where there was no chance of escape, and if we were in fear of immediate death or grievous bodily harm, we could shoot at our attacker. But we were not supposed to shoot to kill. We were supposed to shoot to STOP the attacker. The best way to do that is to shoot them in the chest. But in stressfire situations, people tend to get tunnel vision and lose their hearing and fine motor skills. Practice helps to build muscle memory which may be the key to surviving in an emergency situation.
I believe that is called a distinction without a difference .... if you're aiming for the chest, you're shooting to kill.
In a stressfire situation you can't rely on being able to shoot someone in the leg, You need to shoot center-mass, preferably with a 9mm or higher as smaller calibers do not have as reliable a stopping power. Even shooting someone in the stomach might not stop them.
So if you are in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm or death from an attacker, you need to stop them in their tracks. The best way to do that is to shoot two bullets at their "cardiac triangle" (the area within the throat and both nipples). It's been shown that one bullet is not reliable to take someone down, as many times people miss wildly with one shot.
For more information, check out the writings of Massad Ayoob at the Lethal Force Institute.
What's more important? Your life or theirs?
If I think I'm going to be killed within the next few seconds, I need to shoot to stop the attack upon me as quickly and effectively as possible. If it ends up killing the attacker, so be it. Self-defense.
The truth is even worse than you detail, because most police officers don't train with their firearms, and most were not "gun people" prior to being hired. So, besides the very meager training they get early on, many are in rough shape if they get into a gun fight. Also, unless things have changed, much of the training is long range "aimed shooting" which is pretty useless generally, as most gun fights happen very quickly and at very close range.
As part of my civilian courses I was given a proficiency test similar to that needed to pass FBI training. The first test was to shoot 6 rounds at a target 3 yards away, reload, switch hands, and fire 6 more rounds at the target. We had 12 seconds to shoot all 12 rounds. The time it took to load the magazine and switch hands seemed like 10 seconds to me. I actually finished the stage with a second to spare. Unreal.
My brother just went last week for his 235 certification for his security job, and you're right, it's got slow-fire precision shooting. I like the GSSF competitions but ever since I lost half my left foot a few years ago I haven't even been able to get to the range. That sucks.
Well .... a simulated cautionary lesson.
Yes, a life preserver will not save your life in *any* boating accident ... but I'd still rather have one when far from shore.
A firearm is not a magical shield of invulnerability, and anyone behaving as if it is will be sorely disappointed.
Also, when a pack of canines start paralleling my bike on the way home I don't actually have to hit anything to scatter them. The noise is sufficient.
Yes, half my commute is in the city, then there is a train ride to the end of the line, and the other half is on a bike trail through the ranch land. Moooooooo