We’ve all heard liberals say that no gun carrier has ever prevented a mass shooting. If there had been a concealed carrier in the Aurora theater, liberals insist that there would have been no way for him to take out the murderer James Holmes. Same thing at Sandy Hook, and every other mass shooting. In fact, having concealed carriers in those situations would only make things more dangerous for everyone else. Besides, the studies show that concealed carriers’ guns are always used against them by the bad guys. Or, so they say.
But we all say that the more law-abiding concealed carriers there are out there, the better chances we have to prevent mass shootings from being carried out. There really isn’t any way to determine whether a mass shooting would have happened if someone takes out the shooter. Imagine if a guy walked into an office wielding an AK-47, fired a few warning shots, and right before he started mowing people down, a concealed carrier shot and killed the guy. If that were to happen, no liberal would ever admit that the carrier prevented a mass shooting. In fact, they’d probably argue that the office employee acted rashly and recklessly and put everyone else’s lives in danger.
A news station put those with concealed carry licenses to the test to see how they would fare in active shooter scenarios:
Ironically, those with the most training didn’t do very well. But they still hit their target, which is better than not doing anything.
I think these sorts of tests are good training exercises, but all the participants were anticipating an active shooter. Everyone was expecting it, so it wasn’t very representative of reality. However, this is how you train. If something like this were to happen in reality, these carriers would be more adequately prepared.
In spite of the experience disparity between the “bad guy” – a SWAT team member and tactical instructor with 22 years of experience – and four civilian “good guys” with concealed carry licenses whose experience ranged from about six hours of training to 50 hours of training, I’d say they all fared pretty well. The rules were that in order for the bad guy to be taken out, he had to be shot in the head, neck or pelvis. The whole test was stacked against the good guys, and they were all able to at least hit the bad guy. In a real situation, even if the shooter had body armor, if he were shot in the chest, it would definitely affect him. Check out this video of a man getting shot with a bulletproof vest on:
People who have been shot with bulletproof vests describe it as getting hit with a baseball bat and getting the wind knocked out of you. Imagine if the active shooter got shot multiple times in the chest even while wearing a vest. It would knock him down, which would make it easier for the concealed carrier to shoot elsewhere.
H/T: The Blaze