20/20: A Gun Wouldn't Necessarily Get You Out of Shooting; Us: But it Can't Hurt!

ABC News and 20/20 are running a special entitled: "'If I Only Had a Gun': 20/20 Examines Gun Violence in America." In addition, they have posted a companion article on ABCnews.com called: "Carrying a Gun Wouldn't Necessarily Get You Out of a Shooting".

The mainstream media we know and love are finally getting back to their anti-gun bias now that there have been some high-profile shootings in the news. The article and the 20/20 segment are clearly and openly framed as a rebuttal to those that believe concealed carry is the best way to stop, or at least severely limit the deadliness of, so-called 'spree shooters.' The title of the article itself should be enough of a warning that 20/20 is only looking to display one side of the argument.

First, some inaccurate conclusions are drawn based upon the view that many sates have of concealed carry as a right:

Opponents also point out that most people are ill-prepared to handle a gun. Only six states, for instance, require any kind of training before issuing a routine permit to own a gun...

Just because the majority of states do not require a class for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights does not mean that people who regularly carry are automatically "ill-prepared" to handle a gun. Though anecdotal (which is about as good as any evidence presented by ABC News in this article), the group of 2nd Amendment advocates that I associate with are all proud of their extensive knowledge of firearms, the hours of range time they put in, and the advanced training that they partake in. In addition, gun safety and education courses are booming aroundcountry. So, state mandated training in itself does not necessarily make one more or less likely to be able to handle a gun in an active shooter situation.

ABC News quotes a Bethlehem, PA police investigator who gives his opinion that having a gun will not be of any assistance in a dire situation:
the

"Rounds are coming back at you," Benton said. "You've got outside environments, people are screaming, running. It's too much for a normal person who's never been trained to deal with. It's overwhelming. What happens is that you get so jacked up you forget how to do the simple things," Benton said. "Because your [heart rate] elevates, your fine motor skills deteriorate, and you can't get your gun out. And you're thinking, 'Oh there's a gun; I'm getting shot at.'"

ABC also quotes a firearms instructor who states that if a stray bullet hits a bystander you are legally responsible for that action. We are then told that those who have survived active shooter scenarios are those who have played dead or fled to potential exits, such as windows. What is not addressed is that it is not always possible to play dead or to flee. If a shooter enters a room and starts executing people at point blank, unfortunately the only option may be to become a victim - unless you are armed. Choosing between attempting to defend yourself and your colleagues/classmates, or dying, I think most people would attempt to overcome the risks of being 'jacked up' on adrenaline and fighting through poential tunnel vision. Also, if multiple people are being executed in a small area, bystanders being injured from defensive gun fire (an extremely rare phenomenon despite the fear mongering) will be on the lower end of concern when considering possible negative outcomes.

At the same time that they claim armed defense would be impossible due to the physical and mental state of the armed citizen, they suggest complex planning and strategy as the best way to survive:

"Get on the cell phone, tell people, barricade these doors, and wait it out." Stanton said there are three immediate steps to take if you're suddenly in the middle of a deadly shooting: "Identify what's going on, recognize the situation, and have an exit strategy." When they do a post interview of all these different people (spree shooting survivors), you'll see a, a general commonality: 'I knew I had to live.'"

So, having a will to live helps you think clearly. And the 'experts' suggest calling authorities, barricading doors, and planning exit strategies. Sounds like complicated work, especially if "Rounds are coming back at you," and when "you get so jacked up you forget how to do the simple things." How can someone get their cell phone out of their pocket and dial with fine motor skills if they cannot even upholster a weapon? The double standard being applied here is obvious and dripping with bias.

Additionally, while the 20/20 article quotes a number of 'experts' speaking against the possibility of civilian intervention, the only dissenter that they briefly refer to is the head of a local chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. 20/20 should have looked at recent research by police trainer Ron Borsch. When training officers, he advocates that they act as soon as possible, even if they are by themselves, because active shooters add to their death toll by the second. He makes a number of observations that indicate an armed citizen could slow or stop the massacre :

• 98% of active killers act alone
• Despite heavy armaments...they have an average hit rate of less than 50%
• They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”
• They generally try to avoid police...and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”
• 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

Borsch concludes that quick confrontation by a single individual can often be the best way to save lives and end the situation:

They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant...If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves.

There is no reason to believe that this effectiveness would not translate from a single patrol officer to a determined armed citizen who "knows he has to live." The 20/20 video seems set on ignoring this possibility, and attempts to disprove it with mock scenarios that clearly set the participants up to fail. They create a situation where individuals who volunteered for firearms training are given real firearms with simulated rounds. Then, during a classroom lecture, a police officer poses as a shooter and opens fire on the teacher and fleeing students. In addition, this attack happens when the subjects of the test are wearing protective gloves, neckwear, and helmets with face shields. Then, when these first day shooters do not have perfect results, 20/20 reacts derisively. Some have trouble getting the gun out of the holster, some freeze, and some get shot while engaging the shooter. But while the program states that this is a reenactment of a real scenario, they do not state that the deck has been stacked against the subjects. Let's take a look at how this does not accurately represent an armed citizen/active shooter scenario:

• The perpetrator does not fit the profile of an active shooter as described above (a pain-avoidant coward), and is not in that state of mind - he is actually a trained police officer prepared for the situation
• The subjects do not represent an accurate cross section of concealed carry holders and their varying skill levels. Only one the participants shown claimed to have firearms experience and most were barely comfortable wearing and operating a holster.
  
• Participants were wearing heavy cloth gloves and a helmet with full face shield for protection. This clearly impedes their motor skills and potentially obstructs their vision.
• The police officer "perpetrator" knew which person in the classroom was armed and was able to target them for the purposes of the 'experiment.' In addition, most of the other people in the lecture were either officers or involved in the setup. They quickly moved away from the subject which allow for easier targeting.
• Though the subjects claimed the scenario felt very realistic, they knew before hand that everyone was using simulated rounds, including themselves. This means the armed students were less likely to flee and use the firearm to protect others while hiding or taking cover - a tactic often taught in firearms and self defense classes.
  

One of the subjects shown, "Danielle", does manage to unholster her weapon, take aim, and score a hit despite of the circumstances. 20/20 then points out that she took a hit to the head and chides her for striking the perp in the leg when she though she also got off a headshot. Last time I checked, the femoral artery was one of the least desirable places to be shot. Also, in this scenario almost every other person in the room was able to escape.

So, 20/20 says that having a gun won't necessarily get us out of a shooting, but I don't think that people who chose to carry concealed believe that arming themselves guarantees anything. What it does do is level the playing field. And from the profiles of past active-shooter scenarios to even the stacked experiments on 20/20, we have seen that intervention from a single armed individual can make a difference. At the very least it can distract and delay the shooter, which in itself could save lives. In the best scenario, it can end the confrontation and save countless lives. Having a gun won't necessarily save you, but not having one surely won't.