[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I believe, based on everything authoritative source I read, that fighting back is the best choice in the vast majority of cases.
Fighting back causes stress, and stress deters the attacker’s performance. I’ll take the chance that that deterrent of performance will reduce casualties much more than any collateral damage caused by defenders. [/quote]
You’re probably right.
If you have people shooting back at the shooters, it’s probably more preferable than letting the shooters just have free rein. Any collateral damage caused is likely less than the damage done by shooters in such a setting as envisioned in this thread, or by shooters like in Newtown and Columbine where their only purpose is to cause as much damage as possible.
I just can’t seem to get the thought of “but what about collateral damage?” out of my head.
Well, that and the fact that I think you guys are overestimating the capability of most recreational shooters.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Yes.
Again, the woman who sits in her robe at night drawing and dry firing a couple hundred times a night, and switching mags while watching tv will do that under pressure as a conditioned response.
The fact is, most people, not getting upper level combat training, aren’t going to shoot period. I WWII there was some rate like 10% of people, without a commanding officer telling them to shoot, that shot at the enemy. This includes the attackers.
Yes there will be people that return fire, and yes some will miss, but the more armed people, the more people returning fire.[/quote]
Eh, this doesn’t actually answer that question.
I mean, dry firing and reloading in a comfortable setting (your home) isn’t exactly “doing training drills and learning how to fire accurately under pressure”.
So you’ll shoot. O.k. Are you even shooting at the right target?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I don’t know how many times I have to type this. Unless we are talking about trained, well trained, combat warriors, everyone, absolutely everyone will “lose their head”. Even trained warriors piss themselves at a insane clip of like 50%.[/quote]
Twice thus far =P
Really though, I wrote that to Pushharder because I wanted to see what he would write back. I know that I wrote a similar thing to you.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It means reverting back to the level of training you’ve mastered. And if Joe citizen has mastered a 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet, they’ll have an 8 inch group at 45 feet with 15 shots.[/quote]
They’ll have mastered an 8 inch group with 15 shoots at 45 feet at a non-moving paper/metallic plate target.
Saying that this translates into accurately firing at moving targets at varying distance under high stress is like saying me regularly translating from English to Korean and Korean to English for my parents means that I can handle translating for the Korean U.N. representative during a high-level meeting.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
And I believe you are eating up gun confiscation propaganda.[/quote]
Believe it or not, I don’t actually recall reading a lot of anti-gun propaganda.
Like I wrote, most of these come from my basic understanding of human response in time of high stress.
Afaik,
You believe that people will revert to learned behavior. I believe the same.
You believe that this learned behavior is sufficient for their intervention to cause a favorable response to the situation at hand (“Any stress put on the attackers reduces their effectiveness in slaughtering the innocent.”). I can agree with this, as I noted above.
What I disagree with are statements like this-
“If enough of our CITIZENS were legally armed, you wouldn’t be asking that question.”
I believe it is one thing to accept and agree with what you wrote, and another to accept what angry chicken wrote.
But I could just be overstating Mr. angry chicken’s (it’s so weird not to capitalize the name, and now I just realize that yours isn’t capitalized either) position by accident.
