Instructive video by ABC demonstrates that having a concealed weapon on you won’t do much good in most surprise attacks.
A concealed weapon is not much help in a surprise attack.
Instructive video by ABC demonstrates that having a concealed weapon on you won’t do much good in most surprise attacks.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/08/can-average-citizens-really-save-lives-in-active-shooter-situations-heres-what-the-experts-found/#
Research on mass shootings over the last decade has bolstered the idea that people at the scene of an attack have a better chance of survival if they take an active stance rather than waiting to be rescued by the police, who in many cases cannot get there fast enough to prevent the loss of life.
In an analysis of 84 such shooting cases in the United States from 2000 to 2010, for example, researchers at Texas State University found that the average time it took for the police to respond was three minutes.
“But you see that about half the attacks are over before the police get there, even when they arrive quickly,” said J. Pete Blair, director for research of the university’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center and an author of the research, which is set to be published in a book this year.
In the absence of a police presence, how victims responded often made the difference between life and death, Dr. Blair said.
In 16 of the attacks studied, researches came to some intriguing findings: civilians played a key role in stopping the attacker in those cases. In three of the cases they shot the attacker, while in the other 13 instances they subdued him in some other manner.
Other counterpoints to the scenario as presented by ABC can be found here: http://www.prattontexas.com/_disc1/00000306.htm
Apt captcha: “counter”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4
Somehow this seems appropriate.