Would Guns Have Prevented The Shooting?

[MJS]

I agree, but we need to be clear on just how much scope the notion of training has in such cases. The crucial point, the thing it all depends on, is the willingess of the defender armed with a gun to actually use it—to aim it and fire it so that it makes a hole in the attacker. This is't training for safey or training for accuracy—it's training for the will to use the firearm when life and death are at stake.

This seems obvious, I know, but it's not trivial in the least. Because we know, as I mentioned in my earlier post, that even people whose job is to kill enemies of their country—soldiers—cannot be counted on to do so without special training, even under deadly fire from enemy troops who are accessible targets. People who kill easily and without compunction are usually sociopaths; they work for—or are—Mike Corleone or Tony Soprano. In people without that pathological disorder, killing another person, even one who represents a deadly threat, is not a foregone conclusion, as David Grossman's extensive research and professional experience as a psychological warfare expert within the armed forces makes clear.

So if we're going to talk about training in this connection, then we have to talk about training to kill, or more accurately, to shoot to kill. All the safety and accuracy training in the world won't make a difference if defenders just can't quite bring themselves to pull the trigger with lethal intent, and what evidence there is makes it clear that that's what happens most of the time unless there's special conditioning involved.

So where does that leave us, in terms of the question in the OP/poll?

And this is the crucial point.

This may seem like a really trivial example, especially in light of the discussion and situation at hand, but please bear with me as I discuss it. I grew up enjoying shooting for fun and sport. I practiced with air rifles and pistols since I was old enough to hold one. I shot .22's in a range while in high school. When in the military, I qualified as expert on both pistol and M-16, and I narrowly missed placing in a base-wide competition against the lead shooters for the Base Security Police squadron (I flew a desk for the Air Force for 7+ years). Still, when a group of us off-duty military types got together to shoot paintball, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn any time I had to aim at a person.

This was paintball, guys, and whether it was something psychological about it or not, I could not hit anything other than inanimate objects.

I consider myself on the 'hawkish' side of most questions political, and a saber-toothed tiger on defense, when it comes to my kids. I always assumed that if there was a need, and I had the means, I would do whatever it took to defend my family in the most dire situations. However, something as simple as a game of paintball has made me pause and think otherwise.

Great points!! This is exactly what I was trying to say. Being able to bring yourself to doing it, rather than just talking about it, is a big issue. Also, training yourself to in low light, moving targets, etc., is also important, but something that I doubt the average shooter does on a regular basis, if at all.

 

[MJS]

Came across this article in the paper today and wanted to post it here, seeing that its related to the discussion.

SALT LAKE CITY -- Brent Tenney says he feels pretty safe when he goes to class at the University of Utah, but he takes no chances. He brings a loaded 9mm semiautomatic with him every day.

"It's not that I run around scared all day long, but if something happens to me, I do want to be prepared," said the 24-year-old business major, who has a concealed-weapons permit and takes the handgun everywhere but church.

 

[exile]

And this is the crucial point.

This may seem like a really trivial example, especially in light of the discussion and situation at hand, but please bear with me as I discuss it. I grew up enjoying shooting for fun and sport. I practiced with air rifles and pistols since I was old enough to hold one. I shot .22's in a range while in high school. When in the military, I qualified as expert on both pistol and M-16, and I narrowly missed placing in a base-wide competition against the lead shooters for the Base Security Police squadron (I flew a desk for the Air Force for 7+ years). Still, when a group of us off-duty military types got together to shoot paintball, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn any time I had to aim at a person.

This was paintball, guys, and whether it was something psychological about it or not, I could not hit anything other than inanimate objects.

I consider myself on the 'hawkish' side of most questions political, and a saber-toothed tiger on defense, when it comes to my kids. I always assumed that if there was a need, and I had the means, I would do whatever it took to defend my family in the most dire situations. However, something as simple as a game of paintball has made me pause and think otherwise.

Most who look directly into someone's eyes will freeze just like a deer does when it looks into a set of head lights.
Training alone will not give the average person the will power to over come this. The first time for any normal person will always be the hardest.

He who hesitates is lost.

Being able to bring yourself to doing it, rather than just talking about it, is a big issue. Also, training yourself to in low light, moving targets, etc., is also important, but something that I doubt the average shooter does on a regular basis, if at all.

All of these comments speak directly to the point, and Ninjamom's post in particular raises a important related issue. She says that she could not hit the target in paintball when the target was another person. But I gather from what she says that she did fire. So there was a `round' fired and it went... somewhere. Translate that into the Va. Tech scenario: someone has a gun, has never actually fired a live round at another person before, but in the face of deadly dangers draws it and fires. Ninjamom wasn't in actual peril, in her paintball game, but it's hard to say in advance if the defender in the Va. Tech situation would have functioned any differently than she did in her paintball game. One possibility is that the same `flinch' response would have kicked in, and so a round gets fired off... where does it go? In a crowded classroom, with people panicking...?

You see where I'm going with this: an armed defender can become another source of danger unless s/he is absolutely committed to firing at the attacker with precision and accuracy and a very, very cool head, motivated by a complete willingness to kill the attacker in the interests of saving innocent life. This is a pretty tall order, involving years of training for LEOs (and many of them will tell you how hard it is for them to have to shoot at a human target). So my main worry about all this is that we may be asking too much of people who picture themselves as armed defenders in that situation, but who, when it comes to the point, may have a hard time doing what needs to be done. If they don't use their weapon, we're back at square one, but if they do, and aren't able to do it properly because of that almost inevitable first-time flinch... then what?

 

[Ninjamom]

An excellent point, exile (as usual!). However, to my cowardly credit, I have to tell a little more of the story:

At one point in the paintball match, a friend on my team was pinned down when we all heard the phhhssssshhhhhh sound indicating all the gas had leaked out of his CO2 cartridge (i.e., he could no longer shoot back). One of several opposing team members in close proximity gave a loud, "Die, @#$@!," and began to charge my friend's position. He charged, that is, until I stood up and gave my best Clint Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day!" yell, and started firing back. The fact that I returned fire (even with horrible aim and without hitting anything) stopped the charge, pinned two of the opposing players, and allowed my friend to escape. Of course, I was toast, but back to the present discussion, I think it makes my point: whether you are a 'Weekend Warrior' or a hardened sociopath, having someone shoot back adds a whole new dynamic to the situation.

 

[jks9199]

An excellent point, exile (as usual!). However, to my cowardly credit, I have to tell a little more of the story:

At one point in the paintball match, a friend on my team was pinned down when we all heard the phhhssssshhhhhh sound indicating all the gas had leaked out of his CO2 cartridge (i.e., he could no longer shoot back). One of several opposing team members in close proximity gave a loud, "Die, @#$@!," and began to charge my friend's position. He charged, that is, until I stood up and gave my best Clint Eastwood, "Go ahead, make my day!" yell, and started firing back. The fact that I returned fire (even with horrible aim and without hitting anything) stopped the charge, pinned two of the opposing players, and allowed my friend to escape. Of course, I was toast, but back to the present discussion, I think it makes my point: whether you are a 'Weekend Warrior' or a hardened sociopath, having someone shoot back adds a whole new dynamic to the situation.

It's amazing how different it is the first time you're in a firearms simulator that can shoot back -- or working somewhere with Simunitions...

Lots of things that seemed fine in theory don't quite work the same way!

(There's a catch, though... It's easy to develop an "invincibility" mindset, since the pellets/paintballs/marker rounds don't do much more than sting... Good trainers can offset that.)

 

[exile]

The fact that I returned fire (even with horrible aim and without hitting anything) stopped the charge, pinned two of the opposing players, and allowed my friend to escape. Of course, I was toast, but back to the present discussion, I think it makes my point: whether you are a 'Weekend Warrior' or a hardened sociopath, having someone shoot back adds a whole new dynamic to the situation.

It's easy to develop an "invincibility" mindset, since the pellets/paintballs/marker rounds don't do much more than sting... Good trainers can offset that.)

So these two very telling posts begin to close in on the heart of the mystery, in a sense: given that you're dealing with a complete, pathological nutter (as in the VaTech situation), what is the likelihood that shooting back would have dampened his enthusiasm for committing mass murder? That's not a rhetorical question!! I have no clue what the answer is, but it's central to the question posed by the thread. What Ninjamom is getting at, I think, is that when someone else's life is at stake, you are willing to step up, even though you may still find it very difficult to actually target the attacker with lethal (or simulated lethal) force; and in doing so, you change the game for the attacker to a certain degree. Is it enough to get them to stop? Hard to say, but as jks points out, simulation can only take you so far...

I have no idea what the answer to the question is. My guess is that since Cho (on the basis of the stuff he had mailed out and apparently expected to be received by school officials after his death) seems to have been suicidal to begin with, he may very well have continued, guns blazing, rather than backed down the way someone concerned with self-preservation would, if there had been return fire. I don't really know. There are so many unknowns, in fact, that the more I think about it the less confidence I have in any particular scenario I can come up with involving an armed defender.

 

[Rich Parsons]

So these two very telling posts begin to close in on the heart of the mystery, in a sense: given that you're dealing with a complete, pathological nutter (as in the VaTech situation), what is the likelihood that shooting back would have dampened his enthusiasm for committing mass murder? That's not a rhetorical question!! I have no clue what the answer is, but it's central to the question posed by the thread. What Ninjamom is getting at, I think, is that when someone else's life is at stake, you are willing to step up, even though you may still find it very difficult to actually target the attacker with lethal (or simulated lethal) force; and in doing so, you change the game for the attacker to a certain degree. Is it enough to get them to stop? Hard to say, but as jks points out, simulation can only take you so far...

I have no idea what the answer to the question is. My guess is that since Cho (on the basis of the stuff he had mailed out and apparently expected to be received by school officials after his death) seems to have been suicidal to begin with, he may very well have continued, guns blazing, rather than backed down the way someone concerned with self-preservation would, if there had been return fire. I don't really know. There are so many unknowns, in fact, that the more I think about it the less confidence I have in any particular scenario I can come up with involving an armed defender.

While I stated earlier I believe that an armed person could have changed the out come, I understand the point exile is making here. While bouncing you realize the ones that are not sane or on drugs and you need help with versus those who might be intimadated or reasoned with. I unfortunately have a couple of encounters with weapons and I was lucky to not get hurt by the firearms. The situations I were in were different. I would have to be there to state what I absolutely would have done. Yet, I know from experience even unarmed I have done things to control and limit the possible damage to others by firearms and other weapons. My expectation is that I would have reacted given the chance. An older story comes to mind of this guy who stopped in the left hand turn entrance the CIA and got of his car and then went down the row just shooting the people in the cars behind him. No one backed their car up and tried to run him over. No one tried to jump out of the car. They just sat their and waited to get shot. Now I as not there, but I have a real hard time understanding this. I wonder if the class targeted was chosen for a reason other than being mad at someone, but from profiling of those who attended the class.

Peace
:asian:

 

[jks9199]

So these two very telling posts begin to close in on the heart of the mystery, in a sense: given that you're dealing with a complete, pathological nutter (as in the VaTech situation), what is the likelihood that shooting back would have dampened his enthusiasm for committing mass murder? That's not a rhetorical question!!

Well... It's absolutely certain that his "enthusiasm" would have been completely dampened, IF the people shooting back were on target...

Would the possibilty of armed defenders have done anything? I don't know. This guy was messed up from way, way back. Would it deter some people? Maybe, maybe not. There are just too many variables.

 

[Monadnock]

If responding with guns would not have helped, why do the police arrive with them?

 

[Ninjamom]

If responding with guns would not have helped, why do the police arrive with them?

I think no one is doubting that guns and the ability to return fire change the equation. The major point of the last page-and-a-half of posts, however, is that having a gun present is a world of difference from having a gun and using it with skill and lethal intent (which would be required for the gun to benefit the safety of anyone else present).

 

[exile]

I think no one is doubting that guns and the ability to return fire change the equation. The major point of the last page-and-a-half of posts, however, is that having a gun present is a world of difference from having a gun and using it with skill and lethal intent (which would be required for the gun to benefit the safety of anyone else present).

That's it in a nutshell, NJM.

We imagine a best-case scenario: shooter turns up, starts firing; armed defender is present, produces weapon, nails shooter, no collateral damage. But there is a whole pack of a cards here, each of which has an alternative, not-so-best case scenario described on it. Of course, if the best case is the actual one, then the question is answered. But an alternative way of posing the poll question is, what is the likelihood that a non-best case scenario developed instead.

In view of how horrible the actual situation turned out, it's hard not to think, well, anything had to have been better than what happened. But the question being asked is, `would it have made a significant difference'. And in view of the kinds of considerations that have be taken into account based on Ninjamom's story of her paintball experience, Rich's observations about having to actually be there in order to say what will happen, and similar excellent points made in-thread,—along with the Grossman-type results on the predictablility of forceful response in live-fire military combat situations—I can't see any justification at this point for concluding that the best-case I described above is a shoo-in. So going strictly by what the OP is asking for, it's pretty hard to say anything in response that you'd be confident enough about to bet the farm on...

 

[Blotan Hunka]

While it may seem cold, this piece has some interesting points that I agree with:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=

Excerpt:

We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

 

[Thesemindz]

Ok, I voted yes, but I feel this poll is far to limited. It only allows for yes or no, there's no option to choose possibly, probably, or probably not. I think there's a distinct possibility that someone who was armed might have been able to influence the sequence of events here, but I don't think it's a sure thing. Is it possible that someone with a weapon could have stopped him? Maybe, but I think that it would require serious resolve. I don't think this would have been resolved the way some school shootings have been in the past where there was armed resistance and the shooter simply surrendered. This guy was there to do a job, and he was well into it. He would have to be taken down. Just pointing a gun at him wouldn't have done the trick. So, the poll in my opinion is misleading. Could an armed student have changed the course of history, maybe, but not merely by virtue of being armed. An unarmed student might have stopped this as well, if he or she had been willing to die and actively aggressed upon the shooter.

-Rob

 

[Blotan Hunka]

"A rifle is only a tool. It is the hard heart that kills."-Full Metal Jacket

 

[Ceicei]

This is a thread that that is worth bringing up again, in light of the recent shootings the past few months....

 

[Doc_Jude]

Appalachian School of Law Shooting