“These scenes don’t play out like they do in the movies. It’s incredibly stressful. To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish.” – John Heisse in Do Guns On the Premises Leave Workers More Safe or Less? [at npr.org]
Of course the only right decision to them is to cower in fear while you’re being shot at and take no personal responsibility for your safety. Because it’s the more “politically correct” thing to do.
cf any discussion on r Selection vs K Selection.
I especially like the ‘attack the shotgun wielding attacker with an umbrella’ idea. Totally better than defending you and your co workers with a gun……like….totally
An untrained person with an umbrella is going to do more harm than good.
Agreed. And it just opens the door to the whole high capacity cabana umbrella issue. Then it’s “these beach-style” umbrellas have no place on our city streets” routine. It becomes a real cluster real fast.
Oh, I thought that was He-Man’s sword or something. I guess umbrella makes sense.
… which by the way, would only be “viable” on a rain day…
Outline figure on the right – is he holding a sword??
I just assumed he was holding a gun, but it looks like an umbrella! Who’s this guy think he is, the Penguin?
This whole picture is rife with bad choices. Where is the CC that confronts the gunman ala Oklahoma City beheading?
To be fair, he wasn’t CCing. He was a reserve Sheriff who fetched an issued AR from his car.
An umbrella sword. The oldest trick in the book. /sarcasm
It’s an umbrella but a sword is a million times more awesome ^_^
That could be fixed with a little Photoshop work….
It looks like a level 2 steel greatsword. Useless against a gunman though.
Looks more like a level 2 iron sword…and it wouldn’t be totally useless if your block was level 10 or up… Unless you took an arrow to the knee, then you’re screwed.
“I was an office worker like you, once…”
“Then I took an arrow to the knee.”
Arrow *to* the knee isn’t all that bad, since it doesn’t get any penetration. Arrow *in* the knee, though, is much worse.
It looks like an umbrella. The perfect indoor defense weapon.
Maybe if you’re John Steed.
But it doesn’t matter if you are trained or not, you still can’t have the firearm. I have had over 40 hours of formal defensive firearms training in the past 5 years and shoot an IDPA match at least once a month, so should I be able to carry everywhere?
No. They are lying about training. It’s a ruse. They love cops because they work for The People. (Except when they shoot black people.) They hate you because you can make your own decisions independently without supervision by The People.
Plus they can use the cops as storm troopers for feminism and nanny-statism, but you’re no good to them for that.
Obviously black people killing black people doesn’t bother you. I think Rand and Al are right let’s remove the cops from the ‘hood and let the gangs police things. I am sure everything will be peachy-keen then.
Whoa! Friendly! Friendly! Hold fire!
I’m pointing out the Progressive view of cops, not my view of cops.
I don’t understand, right now, why the police departments responsible for Ferguson are still showing up for “work”, that being to be vilified and treated as thugs by EVERYBODY, people and media both. I’d say treated as killers, but if the people really believed that, even for a moment, the riots would never have started. They should stay home until they are BEGGED to return, I’d guess two days at the outside. There would be no city left, but oh, well.
They may soon have to do that for survival. A BLACK Grand Jury in St. Louis is going to re-examine the evidence that the original Grand Jury and the FBI examined. Already. Still. A completely unbiased review, I’m sure.
Quick, dig up the body and shoot some holes in the back. Otherwise it will be obvious that the FACTS DON’T MATTER.
Cack Sackers
They don’t love cops, they hate cops. They just need cops, for the time being, to aggress against other groups they also hate. All the special privileges they want to carve out for cops are a form of bribe, nothing more.
Yeah, that’s pretty close to my view on the subject.
What exactly would go wrong if you were allowed to CCW everywhere. It’s a matter of perception. Growing up in rural Arizona, it wasn’t uncommon for a rancher to walk into the bank open carrying a pistol. Everyone knew this was nothing more than a tool of his trade and didn’t see it differently than seeing a carpenter with a hammer hanging off his belt.
If folks stop looking at the weapon and start looking at intentions, maybe we’ll end up with less folks shot at Wal-Mart for trying to buy a toy rifle.
What exactly would go wrong if you were allowed to CCW everywhere.
People would slip and fall and be injured. Because of all the puddles of urine left by Progressives wetting themselves.
I don’t think I’ve been on a farm since I was five years old, and I still open carry at my local bank.
Im pretty sure the right choice in the situation depicted is to realise that cowering will get u killed and fighting is the only hope preferably with a gun
I think that if at all possible running away from a gunfight is the best option. Especially if you don’t have a gun. The guy with the AR disguised as an umbrella has planned ahead, proving that armed citizens can effectively defend themselves.
I find it (unfortunately) amusing that the premise of the article is that in such a stressful situation you could not be relied upon to make the right choices to defend yourself and your co-workers with a concealed pistol, however, they believe that you can remember and choose wisely from this long list of less than ideal alternatives, including fighting off the AK-wielding bad guy with a stapler.
Sorry, I’d rather the opportunity to try the pistol than the stapler.
This is not the attitude that crossed the Atlantic and carved a civilization out of wilderness and savagery.
And if this nonsense persists, someday someone with a different attitude will come here and again carve a civilization out of wilderness and savagery.
Yup. Todays’ kids and grandkids will be able to experience the last days of the Roman Empire up close and personal. The only historical constant is that weak tribes are overrun and conquered by stronger tribes.
Yep, just occurred to me, it’s the nanny state in a nutshell: ordinary private individuals cannot be trusted to make any kind of really important, life-altering decision. That kind of thing has to be left exclusively to the agents of the state, in all their wisdom.
Why is the American tax payer still funding NPR?….Oh that’s right the moron in the white house…I think comments like this against the constitution and americans is grounds for de-funding…
The Discover Channel and the History Channel do not get federal funding, and dollar for dollar, they do a much better job. Even if NPR wasn’t a mouthpiece for the Democrat Party, NPR is an absolute waste of money, and it should be silenced.
Better at what, reality shows? NPR has an extremely biased filter on what they cover, but what gets through is still usually decent compared to the competition.
You’re joking, right? “Decent”, like the guy that insisted the Columbine killers were motivated by their Christian religious zealotry?
@Another Robert: No, he’s talking about the time Nina Totenberg rooted for one of Jesse Helms’ grandkids to get AIDS and die. Or the time they fired Juan Williams for daring to express an “Islamophobic” sentiment.
All jokes aside, NPR does run a little smarter than the typical media outlet: their coverage is deeper and they’re not afraid of large words. Unfortunately it’s also horribly, horribly biased.
Apparently taxpayer funding is a small percentage of NPR’s funding, which argues all the more for discontinuing it.
Funding for the National Public Ministry of Truth has survived lots of morons in the White House.
Newt Gingrich tried to defund NPR in 1994. New York’s effete snobs and Cali’s commies went all spastic about it, the Republicans were vilified by the press and the MSM and the attempt died aborning.
Too bad Voice of America shut down. At least you KNEW that was propaganda.
You obviously did not read the article, only the one comment. Both sides of the debate were presented.
You are correct, surprisingly enough. Not surprisingly, however, the ‘antis’ got the last word (yes, I know someone has to, but it could have been the “objective” narrator).
Technically, Mark N, you are correct- a couple of quotes by gun supporters,
but a paragraph and more sympathetic framing for the gun-grabbing group, made personal by his personal story of tragedy… suprisingly, timed to correlate with Sandy Hook 2 year anniversary and a host of other faux news items and op-eds on the progressive collective and fake aggregators…
No “investigative reporting” or even context, on what Heisse’s San Fran based activist group does in coordination with other progressive groups to ban guns. Just his personal tragedy, and his unquestioned statement, a cleverly and lawyerly strawman presented as a truth, that “no one could have done anything to stop a gun man, because its too un-scripted, by the un-trained”… its the old “only cops can defend you” shibboleth…dropped in as the narrative, echoed, by NPR.
As if that shallow thinking and emotional argument justifies taking away the 2A rights of 300 million American citizens.
While conveniently Ignoring the massive swing in public opinion, post DiFis failed attempt to once again imperially install the national AWB, or Holders corruption in F&F, or the huge swing in public opinion against more gun control laws, and the abject failure of gun grab groups like MDA, and the historic repudiation of the larger progressive philsophy and Democrat implementation of it, for last six years, as demonstrated in in the Nov 2014 elections.
Those direct proofs of trends on gun rights are ignored, dropped from context, while the tired “for the children” trope is rolled yet once out again, slightly refined and rebranded as workplace violence… ho hum…zzzzz. Just more clever NPR Talking Point Memos re-flecting off the Echo Chamber of the Cult. So, so predictable.
If the NPR junior reporter on the “national business desk” who was IMHO “used” by NPR to set this up as a faux workplace issue was given more time or the inches to dig deeper on facts, or these reflections- only a handful but a dozen more could be cited- well, we will never know for it did not make it past the editor cutting function.
NPR is not stupid- they know how to wrap the dog-meat for the elderly devoted dems…who pretend to be intellectual while waiting for Garrison Keilors cleverly disguised contempt for the bitter clinging duck hunters and bible thumping Lutheran Ladies, so they can feel superior once again…
Because people will think twice about going on a murderous rampage if they know they’ll be fired for bringing a firearm to their workplace. Of course you’d better not fire anyone. That would take the teeth right out of your no guns sign.
“These scenes don’t play out like they do in the movies. It’s incredibly stressful. To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish.”
or
These scenes don’t play out like they do in the movies. It’s incredibly stressful. To ASSUME that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the WRONG decisions is, I think, foolish.
I wish these people would stop attempting to limit my choices because of their feelings.
They seem to assume that BG is a superhuman too. He is also under stress and is likely to be untrained, far from being a ballistic Godzilla.
It’s interesting, too, that in that picture at least, the Good Guy has tactical advantage if he was armed.
(1) The BG looks tunnel visioned on firing down that lane he’s shooting down.
(2) BG is not too far away; looks like a do-able shot (from the comfort of this chair…)
(3) GG has concealment, maybe cover-ish and certainly surprise.
What’s to doubt here?
The issue the anti’s have is the very notion of someone standing up for themselves and fighting back. r Selected thinkers simply do not think they way. Such brains are wired as mice…it is anathema to even acknowledge the notion of standing up to a ‘predator.’
Yeah, look at the older lady in the Springdale, AK pawn shop robbery from the TTAG story by Dean Weingarten on December 9, 2014 “Would an AR or Shotgun in hand have Stopped this Robbery?” I very much doubt she is a “highly trained police professional”, but she managed to drive off the robbers with her little .38 revolver, in spite of being an “untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation”. She seems to have been able to make enough “right decisions” to protect her life and her customers’ lives.
I love hearing this kind of “expert” pontificating from media hacks who have never fired a gun in their lives. Their best recommendation appears to be “die like sheep”.
So watching the .gov’s short “run, hide, fight” video is adequate training but hundreds of hours of live fire training and decades of daily carry is not?
My time in and hanging certs put 99.999% of all cops and feds to shame but I’m the inexperienced plebe and officer negro choker is the superhero.
Exactly. Local LEOs are generally a decent shot on square range with a bullseye, but they generally fall in the middle to low ranking in IDPA and USPSA.
I’m not saying that USPSA and IDPA are a substitute for tactical training. I’m saying most people who hone their skills through tactical classes or competition and take their training seriously end up more competent than the average beat LEO with firearm handling skills. And in this the active shooter situation, you have all the advantage unless you are at T0 when the criminal opens up.
“These scenes don’t play out like they do in the movies. It’s incredibly stressful. To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish.”
Talk about starting out with a wholesale assumption of incompetence. No one without training will ever make s good decision under stress? Hell, why does anyone have a job if we panic and run into a wall everytime a stressful situation arises at work? This elitist attitude doesn’t lead to anything good.
Secondly, it’s is nice to see an anti acknowledge life isn’t like the movies. Perhaps more can adopt this attitude since I’ve heard too many times “why couldn’t he shoot him in the arm or leg” nonsense.
“My time in and hanging certs put 99.999% of all cops and feds to shame but I’m the inexperienced plebe and officer negro choker is the superhero.”
Well, there’s that.
But, there’s also the fact that his premise is completely wrong on its face.
We have many, many examples of untrained plebes handling themselves in stressful situations just fine.
I’m going to use as my first example the doctor in Pennsylvania earlier this year. Seems he did pretty good. I don’t know his training history, but I am willing to bet it was no more ‘intense’ than most of us…plebes.
Well, OK, but you must understand he has never seen any proof that such a thing has ever happened, and so long as he is still able to close his eyes, he never will. Therefore, it has never happened.
Training is no guarantee that you can handle stress. Captain Herbert Sobel was nothing is not supurbly trained yet under the stress of even a training scenario he was a disaster.
In spite of that, the men of “E” company credit Captain Sobel with making “Easy” the fighting unit they became.
He was an instructor, not a fighter and certainly not a leader. I also went to the same grade school he did.
For the “Disaster” that Sobel was, the results speak for themselves…
“To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish.”
Don’t have to make all the right decisions. Just one.
Even if it doesn’t go well, is dying with a gun in your hand worse than dying without one?
What this guy really means is cowering under a desk waiting to be the next person killed is better than the risk of making the wrong decision. How about this for a right decision? While he or one of his minions are on their knees in a fruitless effort to plead for their miserable Progressive existence in front of one of these psychopaths, I use that distraction to get me and friends/family to safety. I will call the police and be a dutiful witness when they arrive 10 to 30 minutes later. Geez.
The DNC wants gun control back in the news. Why?
Because their failure to pass gun control was the reason that they lost the 2014 elections
They’re trying to take attention off their complete failure to govern properly. Like the junta in Argentina invading the Falklands to give the citizens a distraction from their awful .gov.
Because lefties are like Terminators: they never, ever, give up. They know they are on a Long March through the culture. Even when they win a political victory, they are dissatisfied with what they’ve won, and they keep coming back for more.
There’s a guy with a shotgun/ak/ar on a murder rampage in a business/school/theater. How exactly is my being in the middle of that with a legally carried pistol going to make things worse?
It means you might have voted against the Progressive overlords. That’s how.
See, if you actually end the shooter’s life before he can whack a dozen people, then they lose their next good excuse to push for gun control. And if gun control doesn’t happen, then we gotta wait for more shootings so that it will happen, delaying societal nirvana.
That’s how.
As many here have penned, it seems that the author believes it would be better to be a passive target. Even if the gunbattle, assuming the employee armed, goes to crap it is better to fight back in ANY fashion than to just sit and wait. OF course, under the premise of, “How can I be a failure, I haven’t even tried” there probably would be a measure of success, in a liberals mind, in passivity. We could also believe that if we were meant to live through the mess the government would have responded in time to provide us sheep with that privilege.
So we should just wait under a desk and cower huh? While our overlords in black protect us? Got it. As I type this I have a 50year old episode of Daniel Boone on TV. Not quite as cool as the Rifleman but close. Men and women fending for themselves and being heroic in a crisis. Like most of American history. Just gimme an umbrella 🙂
Careful! That umbrella in untrained hands could put someone’s eye out…
“So on balance, Nys says, he feels he’s keeping his workers safer by not allowing guns into the office.”
So in the end, it’s all about the feelings. Again. Still.
The first rule of any gun fight is to have a gun. In the sort of dire situation depicted above, people deserve to at least have a sporting chance…especially when turning tail and running down one of the crook’s shooting lanes will just result in being shot in the back.
Yeah we gun nuts are delusional that we thing we could possibly deploy a firearm in a defensive encounter; but yet, if we force the bad guy to reload more often, we’ll be able to tackle the bad guy.
“These scenes don’t play out like they do in the movies,” he says. “It’s incredibly stressful. To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish.”
Therefore, NO ONE should be allowed to try and make the right decisions.
“To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish.”
“… is, I thing, foolish.”
States an opinion / conclusion, after an argument. So, no empirical. That would be: “Is observed to be foolish, based on these statistics about such persons decisions.”
“… untrained, inexperienced person…”
Former military? Hunters? Folks who participate at appleseed? So *who* is “untrained, inexperienced?”
Every much-derided proposal I saw to allow arms in schools *included* training and experience for the people armed. Some proposals started with letting the already trained, experienced folks pitch in if they wanted. Why can’t a vet voluntee time as a security officer with a side arm at a school?
” …make all the right decisions…
*All* the right decisions? So the onlyout come that’s less than disasterous requires someone to make *all* the right decisions?
Rhetorically, “all” is a cheat. You can never make *all* the right decisions.
Rhetorically, “all the right decisions” is another cheat. We care about better outcomes. Decisions are instrumental – a way to get better outcomes. The claim is that putting armed not-crazy people where armed crazy people might show up on a shooting spree gets better outcomes some of the time. You don’t have to make every right decision, to get a better outcome.
Why, I’ve even heard credible reports of successful DGU with The Wrong Caliber Handgun, and lord knows, there is only one true correct caliber, after which all other choices are moot. Or something.
Oh wait. Maybe sometimes a sub-optimal decision is good enough that you can still get a better outcome … if you have the means to keep making decisions, and influence that outcome. If your one choice is to lay down and die when some nut job shows up, well, your remaining choices don’t matter. Face up. Face down. Eyes open / closed. Orient N/S like a canine pooping? These might be the choices left to you, with little influence on the biggest part of how things end.
I think of my mother, of great spirit and courage. Should an assault come her way, I’d like her to have something more than courage and endurance to fall back on. Denying her that when more is possible seems … unsupportive of me.
Yep, the author is totally right. After all, just look at that Pennsylvania doctor a few months ago! He randomly decided to join the shooter because of the evil power of his- wait, what? An untrained man with a gun ventilated a would-be mass shooter and saved lives? Nah, you’re lying….
Typical anti BS. Always ignore I convenient facts or history that proves you wrong.
There’s something interesting happening among school folk. Descriptions like this, with the faux “solutions” like attacking an AK armed shooter with a pair of shears or a sharpened pencil (!!) do more to show the absurdity and vulnerability of “gun-free” zones than anything People Of The Gun can say about the necessity of self-protection. School teachers may be naive loons but they’re generally not all that dumb. The clear message they’re now getting from their higher-ups—the people who are supposed to protect them—is that 1. determined shooters will get into their schools and classrooms, and 2.teachers and their students are acceptable sacrifices because politicians and school administrators refuse to abandon the failed doctrine of gun-free zines. This new training clearly tells teachers their students and their parents that “gun-free” actually means “attack-here”.
True story. At my old school, a politically correct gun-free kind of place, one of the profs was approached in his office by a couple demanding money. They weren’t at all nice about it and physically threatened him if he didn’t pay up. It wasn’t a cheap robbery—they wanted monthly payments, or else. Gun-free zone be damned, he started carrying and let them know he was armed. Everybody, even the admin knew he was carrying but there was a tacit agreement made that he was doing the right thing. Gun-free zones work. Until they don’t.
I bet that umbrella could totally deflect bullets when open. Then, when the shooter reloads, you close it and smack him on the head and poke him in the ribs with it. Clearly, this is the best weapon available….
So the options are hide, run, or a short sword, conveniently disguised as an umbrella? Im not too sure about these choices.
Why do these people with this bed wetter mentality? Perhaps it is all they know.
So much of this is just preaching to the choir, but for me I’ll take a fighting chance over a cowering death. The teachers at Sandyhook died opposing a madman empty handed, anyone who thinks that the laws requiring that are defensible are beyond reason.
Someone might not be perfect, so better make sure they don’t have a chance. Good idea.
We better not give CPR training. You can cause further injury if it’s not done right and nobody but a doctor can be sure to have the skills required.
It is unfortunate that guns figure into TV and movie dramas as, usually, an item brought out to inflict terror, vengeance, or wrongfully coerce behavior. Guns in the hands of sane people should actually, we know, be used only to stop such actions. There exists in our society a moderately large group of people who cannot discern the difference. This includes both criminals and those in the voting public who think movies have educated them about gun use. All movies do is show us how one uses guns in dramas to keep an audience glued to the screen.
People “trained” by movie-viewing seem to have an incredibly difficult time understanding a defensive pistol as a vital but rarely needed tool, one which is not supposed to change the bearer’s behavior, manners, or method of asking for a favor.
Sigh… Its NPR. Its not news, its not nuetral, its simply left-progressive propaganda, wrapped up in faux British plummy accents.
Once again, its time to stop the taxpayer subsidy that long ago ran out of a reason, with the 90% funding by private and non-profits.
NPR is simply left-wing propaganda. We should not be giving it taxpayer dollars to repeat The Party Line.
PS: NPR is getting a lot of passionate pushback on this lame story by 2A rights believers, if you can stomach the need to access via the disqus comment platform.
Where does it show the guy kissing his hopeless ass good bye?
Where does it show the guy getting on his hands and knees wishing he had ignored the law and secretly brought his gun to work to stop the bad guy with the gun?
Never forget Luby’s Restaurant in Texas.
Never again.
Want to know what I think is foolish? This fool pretending that it is not possible for untrained armed citizens to defend themselves, because he has a theory. Ignoring, ofc, that they do so every single day. Just ask RF how many candidates he wades through each day, in order to post just one.
I guess fire extinguishers are pointless to have around too because if a fire starts up, the average person won’t be able to use that extinguisher nearly as well as a trained professional.
About that Wiki article, How to Survive a School or Workplace Shooting:
“Oh, I don’t know , Alex… let’s go with: “Why don’t we try using a GUN, for 1000″
As suspected, using a viable form of self-defense is just “not an option.”
( http://youtu.be/VVqHwqoo9k4)
Comments are closed.