Regular people are totally useless when trying to use a handgun in self-defense: study

You’ve heard the mantra a million times: “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The only problem, it turns out, is that being a “good guy” isn’t good enough. A new study by researchers at Mount St. Mary’s University shows that proper training and the ability to know how and when to apply lethal force is essential to not only “stopping a bad guy” but not killing yourself and other innocent bystanders. As Christopher Ingraham of The Washington Post reports:

[Researchers] recruited 77 volunteers with varying levels of firearm experience and training, and had each of them participate in simulations of three different scenarios using the firearms training simulator at the Prince George’s County Police Department in Maryland…
They found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, people without firearms training performed poorly in the scenarios. They didn’t take cover. They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at

The study, it should be noted, was funded by a gun reform advocacy group National Gun Victims Action Council, and the sample size of 77 is rather small but the findings are significant and confirm what even the NRA says — more training goes a long way in preventing accidents in the event of emergencies. The researchers released some interesting video showing the difference between how trained professionals respond to crises and how the average Joe does.

The National Gun Victims Action Council considers itself a moderate gun control group advocating for “sane gun control”. They believe the first step to more sane control is requiring training for handgun ownership just as we currently do for the operation of cars and other heavy machinery.

The NRA, for its part, categorically opposes such measures.





http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/regular-people-are-totally-useless-when-trying-to-use-a-handgun-in-self-defense-study/

Have to say I agree with  National Gun Victims Action Council in regards to having training for gun ownership.

Be interesting to have some feed back from both Nicko and Victor on this.

Is this about training everyone to use guns better...?


Or is It just stating the obvious that people who are trained or have experience in something are better at it than people who aren't...?

Cuchulain wrote:You’ve heard the mantra a million times: “The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The only problem, it turns out, is that being a “good guy” isn’t good enough. A new study by researchers at Mount St. Mary’s University shows that proper training and the ability to know how and when to apply lethal force is essential to not only “stopping a bad guy” but not killing yourself and other innocent bystanders. As Christopher Ingraham of The Washington Post reports:

[Researchers] recruited 77 volunteers with varying levels of firearm experience and training, and had each of them participate in simulations of three different scenarios using the firearms training simulator at the Prince George’s County Police Department in Maryland…
They found that, perhaps unsurprisingly, people without firearms training performed poorly in the scenarios. They didn’t take cover. They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at

The study, it should be noted, was funded by a gun reform advocacy group National Gun Victims Action Council, and the sample size of 77 is rather small but the findings are significant and confirm what even the NRA says — more training goes a long way in preventing accidents in the event of emergencies. The researchers released some interesting video showing the difference between how trained professionals respond to crises and how the average Joe does.

The National Gun Victims Action Council considers itself a moderate gun control group advocating for “sane gun control”. They believe the first step to more sane control is requiring training for handgun ownership just as we currently do for the operation of cars and other heavy machinery.

The NRA, for its part, categorically opposes such measures.





http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/regular-people-are-totally-useless-when-trying-to-use-a-handgun-in-self-defense-study/

Have to say I agree with  National Gun Victims Action Council in regards to having training for gun ownership.

Be interesting to have some feed back from both Nicko and Victor on this.

if you are going to need to use a gun in a combat situation, especially where innocent bystanders are around, then yes, I would think training is necessary.

as guns (mainly shotguns and rifles) are used in the UK I dont really see the need for "formal training"
indeed I am against it not only becasue shooting in the UK is so safe (the VERY few accidents that have happened would not have been mitigated by "training" due to their nature)
but also the fact that the moment you mention formal training the pound signs light up in some shysters eyes.

90+% of people learn to shoo here either initially with a relatively harmless gun (like an air rifle)
or get "trained " by a more experienced mate
or learn at the local clay club

and let me tell you...mates and clay clubs are NOT forgiving teachers when it comes to gun safety......

In general there are (apart from common sense gun handling , few rules that are needed

1 dont point the business end at SANYTHING...unless you intend to destroy it
2 make guns safe
3check gun is safe
4 make gun safe before crossing obsatcles
3
carry guns open or bolt flagged unless shooting
3
slip guns when out and not in use
3
keep secure
3

when shooting

be sure of footing if standing shot
3

those are the common sense rules (and I bet nicko can add a few more


for the actual shot

3 main rules


OBSERVATION is there anything about that might be endangered by your shot? a trespasser even or a couple "at it " in the long grass.....


BACKSTOP i.e if you miss or your shot passes through the target, is there something there to stop it, preferably before it leaves the area you can observe, and most definitely before it gets to the next village/house/pub/road/etc. (and NEVER shoot through a hedge....you cant see whats on the other side...in contravention of the above......

and

IDENTIFY absolutely....your target....is it really a rabbit...or one of the farm cats....is it a fox...or lady mucks beloved rat on a string thats got out?
are those big eyes you see in your Night vision a fox...or is it one of the farm labourers on the vinegar stroke with her ladyships daughter????

oh and did i mention

3
and
3 again????


and all that is hammered home constantly on shooting forums, in discussios with more experienced shooters, and even when talking to firearms dealers...

not of course that most of it is plain good old common sense.

I think though Didge, at the end of the day the statistics show that any sort of formal training is unnecessary in the UK scenario.

as a booster to this is the fact that a years insurance for 3rd party risks of something like 10 million cover is about 15 quid at most....If there was much risk involved, you can be certain that the insurance would be MUCH higher....

consider how much vehicle insurance is even for just 3rd party cover and the fact most motoring insurance is limited to only 1 or 2 million.

Can't add anything to that Vic, I think you covered everything. An old poem comes to mind, I may have it wrong but my memory is not what it used to be.

"Never ever let your Gun
pointed be at anyone
for all the Pheasants ever bred
can never pay for one man dead.

PS, This came from an old book called "Advice For Young Shooters".......i'v got it somewhere.