I did not write this, but I believe I know the person that did (I know several people that it would fit, so I’m not positive which one it might be). It was good enough (even though anonymous, given the political climate today) that I thought it worth passing onto our readers.
Thought I’d pass this on. Pass it on to whomever you think it might be useful:
A Response to “If I Only Had a Gun”
On April 10, ABC ran a persuasion piece done by Diane Sawyer entitled “If I Only Had a Gun.” The purpose of the piece was to convince people that if one were in a situation in which he or she was attacked, especially by someone with a gun, the very last thing that person would want is a gun of their own to defend themselves with.
Because of a growing concern over a hostile political climate, I am choosing to write this response anonymously. I am a self-defense, firearms, and tactics instructor who teaches the defensive use of firearms to private citizens, police officers and private security. I am also a competition self-defense pistol match director. I have been used as a source for firearms information by journalists in this country and in Europe.
There were some helpful aspects to Ms. Sawyer’s piece, but on the whole her belief that only people who can pay for private protection should be protected colored the whole piece, and there were fundamental errors at the root of her expose.
The ability to own and carry (“keep and bear”) firearms is a right. That right morally requires the responsibility of training and proficiency, but the lack of living up to that moral responsibility does not take away the right. The first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of the press. That right also morally requires the responsibility of telling the truth, getting your fact straight, and the like, but the mere fact that journalists do not do this does not take away their right to freedom of speech in the print or broadcast media.
Among the not-quite-true intimations of the piece was that the police have far superior training compared to the average concealed handgun permit holder. With the exception of SWAT teams, most police agencies have very poor training. In fact, it’s not really training. It’s annual, slow-fire-from-known-distances to pass some minimal state requirement (much like the minimum requirement for most concealed handgun permit holders).
But many concealed handgun permit holders are not satisfied with the bare minimum. No one makes them carry a gun. They have chosen to, and they feel obliged to be good with it. Many concealed handgun permit holders (not all) are ardent students of the shooting martial arts. Now there are police officers who are dedicated to studying the shooting disciplines, and some of them are outstanding shooters. But such police officers are rare. Most police officers carry their gun simply because they are required to do so as a part of the job, and so are satisfied if they can make the minimum scores for their qualification.
Self-defense pistol competition is a great place for those who carry a gun to test their abilities. These competitions have gained in popularity, and most people who carry a gun could easily participate in one a week if they chose to.
These competitions regularly require moving to and shooting from behind cover, decisional shooting, avoiding “innocent” targets and engaging only threat targets, all done under the pressure of a timer. Fast times and clean shooting wins. Slow times and misses or mistakes lose.
You would think such competition would be a police officer’s dream, particularly because in all likelihood his or her department provides nothing similar, but surprisingly few police officers participate. Most competitors are private citizens with concealed handgun permits. When police officers do show up, most of them place in the bottom half of shooters. I’ve seen police officers fumble reloads, shoot non-threat targets (either because they missed the indicators that they were non-threats and deliberately shot them, or because they missed the target they were shooting at and hit the non-threat), and shoot so slowly that I could have eaten a sandwich in the time it took them to solve the scenario. Some of these officers never come back out of embarrassment. Others stay and improve.
In Sawyer’s piece she displayed footage of actual shootings in which the upright citizen prevailed, but then went on to say that we should not pay any attention to these actual instances, but rather should make our decision based upon a “scientific” classroom scenario that she set up.
The problem with the scenario was the person who played the part of the criminal shooter. She co-opted a highly skilled firearms instructor to play the part. That’s simply skewed journalism. None of the mass-shooters have had that level of skill. What would have been more telling is if Diane Sawyer herself played the part of the criminal shooter. That situation would more approximate the skill level of the murderers in actual incidents.
The piece was helpful in one aspect though, enough for me to recommend to my clients that they watch it. Those who stood still while reaching for their own gun were shot by the highly-trained shooter. It reinforces what I constantly preach: Don’t stand flat-footed, get off the “X.” Your first order of business is to get to where you are safe. You need to buy yourself time to get to your gun. You are behind the power curve when you start against a drawn gun.
One of Sawyer’s points highlighted how different her moral make-up is than mine. In one of the scenarios, a young lady was able to return fire and hit the shooter, but not without herself being hit. It was obvious from Sawyer’s reaction that she deemed this completely unacceptable. The message was, “You may get the shooter, but not without you yourself being shot,” with the implicit conclusion, “It is therefore not worth it to have a gun.”
That’s where Ms. Sawyer and I differ. If taking a bullet means that I can save my family members, friends, or scores of innocent people from a murderous rampage, I’m willing to do it. Without shooting back, there’s a good chance I’ll die in the carnage anyway. If I’m going to die anyway, I’d rather my life count for something and that my death serves to save innocent life. That moral conviction is what separates Diane Sawyer from most concealed handgun permit holders.