|
joether -> RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (11/1/2013 12:22:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
it was not a competition in "who is going to score the more hits on the opponent's body", you see it that way but if it was at the first hit the student should be out of game, but they didn't realized it untill everything was over, even if the shooter was another student he would have come in the room shoot the teacher and looked at the students, the armed student in the class would have fumbled with the gun, missed the target, shoot other students, not realized there was another shooter anyway, the point was how an average gun owner can react under stress, not who was the best shooter between the student and the instructor.
If we pretend for a moment that the demonstration had any contact with reality had the last one had but one assailant (they used two to stack the odds) the "armed students" would have stopped one of the six attacks.
When you factor in that mass shooters are losers who surrender or commit suicide when faced with armed opposition it would be a greater percentage. One in six is better than zero in six.
Like the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997? I seem to recall those guys not only took on the law, but for a long length of time, were holding the police back from doing anything. Since that time, police forces across the nation have beefed up their equipment to handle a wide range of situations.
The events in the ABC experiment were handled under a controlled area, which is extremely unlike any of the mass shootings that have taken place. The similar parts, is how individuals handle a violent change in their environment. If you have problems because in both situations, humans retreat rather than engage for the majority of times, and failed to remove the threat(s) when they did engage; that's your problem.
No matter what spin you put on it you are still saying that even using this rigged demo that 0 of 6 is better than 1 in 6.
Are you really this oblivious to reality? The study was NOT a game. It was not pushing a political agenda. It was not to set things up in a 'life and death' situation for real. It was a STUDY. I'll say it slower, just for you: S.....T......U.....D.....Y. It was designed to present a hypothesis, create an experiment to test the hypothesis, collect data and than try to understand what the data stated to form a final conclusion.
What was the hypothesis?
Could individuals upon taking a basic firearm instruction course be fully able to handle a crisis situation they were placed in with their training? What would the individual due, even if given a firearm to defend themselves? What might be the likely out come if definable? These are not ABC's questions, but my understanding of what the questions may have been.
Creating the Experiment:
First consideration, when handling firearms is to keep safety a prime requirement. If you have ever handled firearms, you would understand this. Since ABC was in partnership with law enforcement, everything had to be sane, safe, and controllable. With science, one tries to eliminate variables as best as they can, to understand the question(s). The actual location of the experiment would be a classroom. And that all the confederates would know ahead of time what their role was in the experiment (i.e. duck and flee). The folks that did this study....KNEW....folks like you would criticize each and every part of it, if it did not conform to your political viewpoints. So they did not just give the basic firearm instruction course did they? They gave advanced training in serveral things: removing from a holster quickly, getting accurate shots down range quickly, taking in the scene without mindless firing.
Collecting the Data:
This was the video of each candidate in the classroom as the various actions took place. Those running the study were given a prime opportunity to test out three different scenerios. The first was one assailant, second with two entering at the same time. The third was a second assailant already in the crowd like a metaphorical 'sleeper agent'. In all the cases, only one shooter placed a glancing hit on the attackers. But all those that engaged their assailants directly were killed. Those that fled with the others generally got out alive.
Conclusion:
Further study would need to be performed to understand the information already collected would be my first observation. Was the training insufficient? The purpose of the study is not to 'teach for the test', but to give what maybe a reasonable level of training that is the norm to the population at large.
Your within your opinion to disagree with the whole study. But is your disagreement due to an actual unbiased view on how the study was performed? Or a bias because the belief you hold and the events of the study are so different in result? The belief that the world was not flat was very shocking at one time. And a great number of people went to great lengths to hide this knowledge from people. Could it be said that your doing the same thing?
|
|
|
|
