With the NRA pushing stories of people using guns to protect their lives and homes in social media, we are seeing comments from the peanut gallery (or gunnut gallery?) on crime stories stating that "they should have had a gun" or "this is why I carry" and the like.
I call this "magic" thinking. The idea that simply having a gun makes you immune to crime or if crime does happen you will be turned into a hero.
The reality is much different, not that the NRA or gun nuts want to admit it.
This weekend a classic example happened in my city, that worked out for the victim luckily.
(Yeah, a teaser, more after the squiggle)
The Facts
A bad guy with a two by four broke into a home with the intent of killing the victim. They did know each other (most murders and attempts at murder are that way). Yes, you can see how the guns are the answer to everything would be drooling at this.
The bad guy attack the victim in his home, the victim did what the NRA says should be done - got his gun. This makes the drool flow even faster and heart race ready to say "See, this is why I have a gun!"
The victim takes his gun, shoots at the bad guy till he is out of bullets (five times - he did not have if fully loaded). Some stories report the bad guy was hit, others don't, but the call over the radio was for a person shot in the arm and the photo in the story shows the bad guy with his arm in a sling. And the gun nut is about to bust one at this point.
The bad guy (likely shot in the arm) grabs the gun and wrestles it away from the victim, points it at the victim and pulls the trigger.
It is here that the gun nut freaks out. How could that happen? The victim (good guy) had a gun! He shot the bad guy! A good guy with a gun always stops the bad guy! the good guy hit the bad guy! Why did the bad guy keep fighting?!
The victim got lucky, he had not fully loaded the gun so when the bad guy took it away from him and tried to use it on the victim it was empty and did not kill him.
The "magic" gun theory
In the comments on social media and under the articles, you can tell that most people did not read the story because they immediately posted "He should have had a gun!" and "Had this bad guy tried it at my place they would have been shot!"
The other group that read the story questioned the victim's ability or accused the victim of causing the attack or even lying about having had a gun. (because "no one is going to attack you with a piece of wood if you really have a gun")
This shows the unrealistic thinking many gun advocates have about the abilities of a gun to protect.
It is just a tool. Just like a saw and hammer are tools. A skilled craftsman can take a saw and hammer and make a very sturdy and pretty shelf or table. While I can make large pieces of wood into smaller ones with dents using the same tools. I don't have the skill nor have I put in the time to become skilled with a saw and hammer.
Most gun advocates have not put the time and effort into becoming skilled with the tool they hold as the "fix" to any problem or threat. They carry the gun very confident in the knowledge that since they have a gun, they will be able to react and effectively use the tool...even though the only "training" they have had is the 8 hour safety class for hunting and a few hundred rounds fired on a range.
They treat the gun like a talisman, that if they touch it often, will imbue them with the power of the gun to stop others. They have an unrealistic view of what they can do with the gun, either from ego or too many Liam Neilson movies. To suggest that the gun can be taken from them, or that the gun won't stop someone, or that it is possible that they may never get a shot off, or might hesitate to shoot a person, or lose their fine motor control when attacked, is greater with scoff and distain. Often the verbal response of "Not me, I have a gun".
The "real" gun theory
I have some experience with firearms. I trained as a Personal Security Detail member prior to one mobilization. I have taken several training programs with family and friends because of what I call "spill over" from my competitive (amateur) shooting with IDPA (International Defensive Pistol Association --- sometimes "I Don't Practice Anymore"). I feel I'm not bad with a pistol in a defensive situation.
However I know I am not great. I have learned from many hours of practice that a gun does not stop 100% of the time. That under pressure your aim is off, your motor functions become hammered, and actions you can do when you're calm turn into fingers of butter.
A gun is not "point and shoot and bad guy falls down". Like any tool, it takes effort and practice to become competent. And many hours of training to become competent under stress.
Personally, a gun vs a 2x4 does lean towards the gun. But it is not 100%. You have a right to protect your life, but if you are going to use a gun to do that, you need to train for it and understand the limits of it.
http://www.whas11.com/...