You know that “multiple attacker” scenario that 2nd Amendment rights people keep talking about? Here’s a very recent one, March 11, 2013, that occurred in Thailand. This 1:06 video shows 12 attackers with machetes about to harm young women. Two men appear from a building to defend the women. One has a handgun. He was able to shoot and injure 3 of the 12 attackers. This incident ended as it should – with no innocents harmed.
What if these attackers had been more committed to their evil task and didn’t flee immediately once confronted? Could the single protective gunman have gotten them all? No.
How effective would a 10-round magazine be against more committed attackers? As it is, the defender was able to get 3 of them. Unless he’s a very good shot against moving targets and able to control his pumping adrenaline and extreme stress, he’d likely have missed with several shots before emptying his 10-round magazine. And in this case, even if he was the best shooter in the world, how effective would a 10-round magazine be against 12 attackers? No one is that good a shot. What would have happened on the 11th trigger pull when the handgun just went “click”? That should not happen to someone defending themselves or others and a 1:1 ratio of bullets to attackers is not favorable. A 3:1 ratio is not favorable. The kind of ratio that works for me is closer to unlimited:1. Within the more realistic limits of available standard-capacity handgun magazines, 12, 15 and 19 rounds sounds a lot better than 10 or 7 (per New York’s “SAFE” law).
What if the defender had arrived just 1-2 SECONDS later? First, innocent women may have been harmed. Second, the attackers may have been more dispersed, making them a more significant threat to the defender himself and then possibly more likely to attack the defender instead of fleeing.
What if this was in a school, a so-called “gun free” zone, with young children? Remove that armed defender and what do you have? Slaughter! I made the point shortly after the tragic incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School that the same devastating loss of life could have been accomplished with a machete. Who, in an unarmed environment, would have been able to stand against the evildoer? Once an armed intruder makes it into a classroom, there wouldn’t be much of a fight. For those not aware, on the same exact day as Sandy Hook, a man with a knife attacked school children in China. Twenty-two children and one adult were hurt. And this was with a knife, not a machete. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/14/Man-stabs-22-children-at-China-primary-school
Elimination of so-called “gun free” zones and armed defense of our schools is the most effective way to protect our children. And armed defense should not be limited to a single, uniformed guard. A single, dedicated defender does provide some protection. They also can easily become the first target. Anyone trained in military operations, law enforcement or security knows this. It’s the unknown element, the armed teacher, administrator staff member, or parent who poses a threat to an attacker. They’re an unknown quantity with the possibility to disrupt days, weeks or months of detailed planning and preparation. This is “common sense” to anyone who understands security because they know, if they were planning the attack, how they’d defeat our current, ridiculous “gun free” zones or a single, easily identified defender.
No comments:
Post a Comment