Here's a real live rebuttal to the often heard argument from the pro-gun crowd that allowing people to carry hand-guns will save lives in mass shootings. It seems that in the recent disgruntled worker shooting in New York City, all nine injured bystanders were injured by police bullets.
Police are trained tactical shooters yet they could not help injuring, luckily not killing, bystanders. Imagine how a bunch of Walter Mitty types and with their manly un/concealed carry permits and associated handcannons would fare in such a situation.
A tail dragging romp through the swamps of the world
3 comments:
"Police are trained tactical shooters yet they could not help injuring" — you optimist.
FWIW, the average competence with a handgun of your local police is abysmal.
You may not really be familiar with handguns, but please understand it can take thousands of rounds and hundreds of hours of range practice to get really competent — and accurate.
Police forces cut budgets, and officers get lazy.
The point is, do not necessarily assume that just because someone in uniform is carrying a firearm, that they know how to use it properly.
That's pretty much my point. The police have range access and training as a matter of their job. You'd think they'd have the advantage there, but they don't and lord knows what would happen if you're average idiot started blasting away. I'd be surprised if there wasn't someone at the recent shootings carrying but froze, fled, or forgot themselves enough in the moment not to make things worse.
I can imagine a scenario in the near future. Wacko opens up in a public place, would be John Wayne number one pulls out and kills Waco, John Wayne number two opens up on John Wayne one thinking he is a waco, John Wayne number three drops one and two, then number four opens up on him, and so on.
Post a Comment