This is a good response to the recent church shooting. I expect it will be used to justify more guns in more places. If you come up against these lines this piece will be useful.
Devin Hughes
Some thoughts about the Texas church shooting:
First, there is no way around that this was a horrible tragedy that ended about as well as could be reasonably expected. The security guard acted perfectly in the moment and is a hero, period. He is very highly trained from all accounts, a former Sheriff Deputy and firearms instructor. If there is anybody we would want with a firearm in this situation, it is him.
Second, the laws Gun Violence Prevention (GVP) advocates are proposing would not stop a highly trained individual from providing security. Permit to Purchase and other regulations (outlined in the Denver Accord) would not have prevented the hero from doing all that he did. Training is very important and should be emphasized. What stronger laws could have done was prevented all the other parishioners from carrying in the church, as well as the shooter (who had a criminal history) from obtaining a weapon, and thereby preventing the shooting before it started. Which leads to the next point:
Third, all the “good guys with guns” (ggwgs) outside the highly trained security didn’t stop or prevent anything. The shooter knew people were armed, yet he attacked anyway. This demonstrates that the presence of “ggwgs” doesn’t deter anything. The claim that Gun Free Zones (GFZs) “attract” shooters is still very much a myth. Further, when many of the parishioners finally drew their weapons, the incident was already over. The best they could accomplish was nothing, and we were fortunate that none of the “ggwgs” didn’t mistake someone else for a gunman.
Fourth, there were actually two Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). One of the first people the shooter attacked was a guard who tried to draw his firearm and was shot before he could do so. This is despite evidence that the guards had already noticed the shooter and thought his behavior was suspicious (this also explains why the other guard was able to react so quickly, as he had already clocked the potential threat). Even with that suspicion and heightened awareness, the shooter was still able to get multiple shots off. This demonstrates that in a one-on-one DGU scenario, if the “bad guy” has the draw on you, there is not much you can do even with a gun and extensive training.
Fifth, DGUs are rare. Of 2,000+ mass shootings (4 or more shot) since 2014, less than 2% of those had a DGU, and less than 1% had a “successful” DGU. Overall, there are approximately 2,000 verified DGUs annually, compared 14-15,000 homicides, 22,000+ suicides, tens of thousands of injuries, hundreds of thousands of estimated abusive gun uses, and more than 200,000 firearms stolen annually. When weighing positive vs negative gun uses, guns are overwhelming detrimental to society. Further, on average, firearms do not make a person safer, doubling an owner’s risk of homicide and tripling their risk of suicide. When looking at active shooting incidents, unarmed “good guys” stop significantly more shootings than armed civilians, meaning the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” talking point is flatly false.
Finally, we should be thankful the shooter wasn’t in body armor with an AR-15. This could’ve been a lot worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment