If they were just armed they would be alive today . . . Really?

[flamin lib]

I hear this every time a mass shooting occurs. The NRA chastised the deceased Pinckney for voting against carrying firearms in church saying those very words and now the usual suspects are saying that arming recruiters would have saved the Chattanooga five.

As I understand things the first attack occurred from a car in the parking lot in front of the recruiting station. Just how was an armed recruiter or anyone else supposed to react to that? Fifteen to thirty rounds fired from a car in the street (I counted 21 holes in the storefront from the CBS video)?

At the second scene the shooter crashed his car through a security gate and began shooting as soon as he entered the building. There's no way someone could un-holster a weapon and respond to that scenario before the four marines were shot. There was a semi auto pistol recovered at the scene that is reportedly the private weapon of one of the victims, if so this reinforces my point; there WAS a gun on site and it wasn't used.

The attacker always has the element of surprise on his side. He has selected his target, thought out his actions and is prepared while the victims are unaware of what is going to happen. His gun is drawn with a round in the chamber and safety off while a concealed weapon has to be drawn and fired even if it also has a round in the chamber and no safety. The fastest reaction time is .2 seconds to recognize what is happening and another .2 to begin to draw a weapon if the victim is EXPECTING some event. By the time a hand is laid on a defensive weapon four shots have been fired and then, with the noise and bullets flying a potential victim is supposed to draw and return fire in the least possible time? Sergeant First Class Robert Dodge, survivor of the first shooting, said as much to Rachel Maddow when answering her question about combat training. Paraphrasing, he said that in combat you have your gear, armor and your weapon at the ready because you are prepared for an attack, not like being in a civilian setting.

I'm sorry folks, but the notion that a concealed carry hero is going to save the day is pure fantasy.

[-none]

1. When are we going to wake up and declare the NRA a domestic terrorist enabler?

Or even a domestic terrorist organization itself?

[exboyfil]

2. One case where it might have helped

was the Virginia Tech shootings. If the Israeli professor who blocked the door had been armed, he would have had a very good chance of stooping the shooter at that point.

Agreed that in most cases it would not make a bit of difference. The obvious downsides are accidental discharges, having the gun stolen or seized by a nut, and hot blooded shootings (where anger flares at the moment).

[frylock]

3. Worked for Chris Kyle, didn't it?

[Frustratedlady]

4. I totally agree with you. The element of surprise changes the chances of success.

That's exactly why the "terrorist" performs as they do. I imagine planning their surprise attack is part of the excitement.

Arm chair critics drive me crazy.

If I were caught in this situation, I'd probably be embarrassed because I just lost control of my "functions" and grabbing my concealed gun to shoot back would be the last thing on my mind. I'd be a goner with dirty drawers and bullets still in the gun.

[jeff47]

5. Here's a video where ABC tried to test "if they were just armed"

Not perfect methodology. But also not completely unreasonable. It doesn't go well for those armed.

[jimmy the one]

6. wrm ok - standing army, uh oh

flaming lib: .. and now the usual suspects are saying that arming recruiters would have saved the Chattanooga five.

I agree that arming recruiters & national guard & army bases is not going to do much of anything to prevent or stop mass shootings on military bases, it's largely a cosmetic feel good remedy from the political right to strut about & chest puff.
Will predicted saved lives & woundings from attacks (near zero) outweigh increased domestic abuse & misuse from those guns on bases, like kids finding loaded guns, & suicides (predicted dozens to hundreds).

But, on the other hand I don't object to arming the national guards even if it's cosmetic & prompted by mass shootings, for they are a 'well regulated militia' ... (but we better beware that standing army, eh?!)

[Cerafine]

7. An armed society is a polite, accidental death filled society

The idea that putting more guns in more pockets would lead to less deaths is nonsense. Perhaps there would be less deaths in mass shootings (which only make up a tiny percent of firearm deaths) but the accidental discharges would spike tremendously. Those deaths rarely make the news and occupy almost none of our consciousness. The likelihood that you and I will die by a bullet would increase drastically.