4 ms·

just as likely to accidentally shoot a child as they are to do any good with a weapon You know, this isn't the first time I've heard this sentiment, and -- wit

by Dove 14y ago

just as likely to accidentally shoot a child as they are to do any good with a weapon You know, this isn't the first time I've heard this sentiment, and -- without meaning offense -- I think it reflects a simple ignorance of the practical realities of handling firearms. I don't know whether you're referring to someone trying to shoot an assailant and missing, or simple failure to follow safe handling, but . . . I think maybe an analogy will help. From my perspective, it's as if someone said, "I don't want strangers driving cars near schools, because I think there's a significant risk they'll run over children accidentally." From my perspective, I know how much control a driver has over a car, how well they pay attention, the rules pedestrians follow and how well drivers respect them . . . and I'm not really worried about it. Every morning, I see bazillions of children walking to school, passed by bazillions of strangers driving cars right next to them, and I just don't give it a second thought. The person I'm talking to does, though. He seems to think cars drive up on the sidewalk all on their own, all the time. Sure, a malicious person could run over a child. Sure, a crazy or drunk or just irresponsible person could get a hold of a car and do a lot of damage. But those are both rare problems and not really specific to cars (or helped by laws). A normal person, in a normal traffic situation, will spend their whole lives driving and absolutely never be danger of accidentally shooting a child. I hate it when people say, "Your opinion on a topic isn't valid if you haven't done X," but I'm going to say something really similar. Not as a way to invalidate your opinion, but . . . I really do think that folks who claim to have a serious opinion on gun issues should at least spend an afternoon at a range once. Spend $50, take a class, rent a gun, and work through a box of ammo. It's fun, and you'll learn what guns are, how they're safely handled, how dangerous they are (and aren't) when handled responsibly, and . . . well, for lack of a better way to say it, learn how much control even first-time shooters have over them. I know that comes off as a snarky, "I know more than you" post, and it's not intended that way, really. It's just that I really do think a lot of the fear of guns is fear of the unknown. I honestly wish a firearms safety course was routine, like driver's ed, and then maybe we'd all at least understand the object we're talking about.

wwweston 14y ago
While I don't know exactly what the poster you were responding to meant, it's possible that rather than meaning: "I think it's possible someone carrying may choose to intentionally shoot a child at any moment." he meant: "I think that (a) accidents happen in general and (b) should a specific crisis situation emerge and someone carrying uses their gun to respond, they are likely enough to shoot an innocent bystander accidentally vs successfully using it to stop an assailant." As someone who has spent a few afternoons at the range and even in the hills shooting junk, I certainly don't think someone is a threat just because they've got a gun. But I'm less sanguine when I think about the increased accident/incident rate, and I'm not sure how well most people would do with a gun in a confrontation vs recreational situation.
- Dove 14y ago
  Yeah, that's what I thought he probably meant, too -- that someone trying to shoot at a threat would miss and hit a child. That's what triggered me saying, "you must not know much about guns." You're welcome to your own judgement call on that, of course, but to me that's really unrealistic. One of the places I went shooting was a weekly practical skills tournament. Everything we shot at moved or popped up or had something you weren't supposed to shoot next to it; sometimes all three. Most of it was pop-can sized, too! And while a lot of the guys there were pros, they had a deal where first-time shooters were free, so a lot of folks brought friends, and I got to see a lot of amateurs try to handle those situations. And you know, they did pretty well. Even if you've only been shooting for a week or two, even if you have to run up to where you're shooting from and peek out from cover, even if you're under time pressure and all the targets are in motion . . . most people can hit one paper-plate sized target and not another one at ten yards or so, most of the time. And that's kind of a worst-case scenario! So now you put a man-sized target in a classroom, probably less than 10 yards away, where he's probably holding still or at most walking, where everyone else is frozen or running away from him (and at any rate, isn't IN FRONT of him), and so on. I'm sure it's emotionally stressful, but . . . that's not a difficult shot. I'm not trying to pick on the GP in particular -- he just stepped on a pet peeve of mine. I've heard people opine that in that situation, the odds of missing and hitting a kid are something like 50%. I think that's crazy. I think, based on experience, that the odds are close enough to zero as makes no difference. And I don't mean just me, either; I mean anybody could make that shot. But more than that, think about what the cutoff should be, from a game theoretic perspective. These school shootings generally result in what, ten people dead? More? Wouldn't that mean the shot is a win even if the odds of hitting the wrong person were up around 90%?

by Dove 14y ago

wwweston 14y ago

While I don't know exactly what the poster you were responding to meant, it's possible that rather than meaning: "I think it's possible someone carrying may choose to intentionally shoot a child at any moment." he meant: "I think that (a) accidents happen in general and (b) should a specific crisis situation emerge and someone carrying uses their gun to respond, they are likely enough to shoot an innocent bystander accidentally vs successfully using it to stop an assailant." As someone who has spent a few afternoons at the range and even in the hills shooting junk, I certainly don't think someone is a threat just because they've got a gun. But I'm less sanguine when I think about the increased accident/incident rate, and I'm not sure how well most people would do with a gun in a confrontation vs recreational situation.

Dove 14y ago
Yeah, that's what I thought he probably meant, too -- that someone trying to shoot at a threat would miss and hit a child. That's what triggered me saying, "you must not know much about guns." You're welcome to your own judgement call on that, of course, but to me that's really unrealistic. One of the places I went shooting was a weekly practical skills tournament. Everything we shot at moved or popped up or had something you weren't supposed to shoot next to it; sometimes all three. Most of it was pop-can sized, too! And while a lot of the guys there were pros, they had a deal where first-time shooters were free, so a lot of folks brought friends, and I got to see a lot of amateurs try to handle those situations. And you know, they did pretty well. Even if you've only been shooting for a week or two, even if you have to run up to where you're shooting from and peek out from cover, even if you're under time pressure and all the targets are in motion . . . most people can hit one paper-plate sized target and not another one at ten yards or so, most of the time. And that's kind of a worst-case scenario! So now you put a man-sized target in a classroom, probably less than 10 yards away, where he's probably holding still or at most walking, where everyone else is frozen or running away from him (and at any rate, isn't IN FRONT of him), and so on. I'm sure it's emotionally stressful, but . . . that's not a difficult shot. I'm not trying to pick on the GP in particular -- he just stepped on a pet peeve of mine. I've heard people opine that in that situation, the odds of missing and hitting a kid are something like 50%. I think that's crazy. I think, based on experience, that the odds are close enough to zero as makes no difference. And I don't mean just me, either; I mean anybody could make that shot. But more than that, think about what the cutoff should be, from a game theoretic perspective. These school shootings generally result in what, ten people dead? More? Wouldn't that mean the shot is a win even if the odds of hitting the wrong person were up around 90%?