"I recently met a middle-aged couple from Florida who had just obtained licenses to carry concealed handguns. the man explained why: "Because if some guy walks into a restaurant and opens fire, like happened at Luby's in Texas, I want to be in a position to save lives."
Of course there are plenty of things he could carry on his belt that would be far more likely to save lives in a restaurant. An injection of adrenaline would treat anaphylactic shock (the potentially lethal allergic reaction to certain foods). Or he could carry a small sharp tube to give emergency tracheotomies to people who are choking to death. When I asked him if he carried one of those, he said "I could never stick something into a person's throat!" but he could send a piece of lead into a person's flesh like a rocket.
Statistically speaking, the the man and his wife are far more likely to shoot each other than to shoot some criminal..."
Where do I begin? Since the Luby's massacre was brought up, I'd like to say something about that: Here's a snip from the wiki article:
"During the shooting, [the shooter] approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at [the shooter] in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person."
My observation is that a shot of adrenaline or a sharp tube would not have stopped Ms. Hupp's parents from being murdered before her eyes. If she would have had her handgun (assuming she had been trained in its use), not only her parents, but around 20 other people might still be alive today. But that logic should be obvious to any thinking person - I won't dwell too long on it.
Mr. de Becker seems astonished that the gun owner would be willing to "send a piece of lead into a person's flesh like a rocket", but is uncomfortable at the thought of performing a field tracheotomy. There could be many reasons this would be the case, but among them COULD be that the man was not trained in that procedure and feared screwing it up and causing a bigger problem. Conversely, he may have been well trained in defensive tactics and handgun use. Maybe the hands-on, bloody aspect of the procedure would be more traumatic than firing at a murderer from a distance. But I'm speculating wildly - we have no way of knowing. We're not given more information. Certainly one could argue that a greater number of lives could be saved by the handgun than the sharp tube. Here's an idea that would surely satisfy Mr. de Becker: Just carry all 3 items. The handgun, the adrenaline, and the sharp tube. But why stop there? Maybe the guy should keep a portable AED machine in his car.
As icing on the cake, the author throws out this line: "Statistically speaking, the the man and his wife are far more likely to shoot each other than to shoot some criminal..." Excuse me, "far more likely"? I'm sorry, did I read that right? I wish he would have cited the alleged "statistics" and given the source. We all know how studies can be skewed. Maybe they're "far more likely" because they're around each other far more than they're around criminals. I would lay odds that's the case. Maybe the study dealt only with brand new gun owners before they'd received any training. But if we're talking about responsible gun owners who carry to protect themselves and their families, and get proper training, I have a very hard time believing they'd be more likely to shoot each other than a criminal, all else being equal. It's absurd. Talk about "unwarranted fear" (which the author claims is a curse)!!!
I'm glad that's off my chest. You may have noticed I harped on training a good bit. As a relatively new "gun guy", I take the responsibility of proper training very seriously. I look at it as a way of protecting my family not only from the bad guys out there, but from tragic accidents as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment