The Singapore Forum

In the aftermath of the Colorado theatre shootings, David Morrell posted this opinion piece on his website which I thought was a pretty interesting take on the subject. It's rather long but worth the read.

A lot of people ask me about my firearms training.

JULY 28, 2012 BY DAVID MORRELL

Readers often ask me about the action-skills training I receive when I write novels like THE PROTECTOR and THE NAKED EDGE. After the Colorado-theater shooting, I was reminded of my firearms training when gun sales increased because people wanted to be ready—“just in case.”

There are good reasons and bad reasons to carry a weapon in the United States. The pros and cons aren’t the subject of these remarks. What I want to talk about is training. When people tell me that they received a concealed-carry license after a day or two of instruction, I’m appalled. Anybody can easily learn how to fire a weapon. It’s not difficult. But there are so many other factors.

A proper concealed-carry course should spend at least a day on the legal use of deadly force. Did the opponent have the means, motive, and opportunity to threaten your life? Did you have absolutely no other option except to shoot? Do you know about grand juries and the sorts of serious questions they ask when someone shoots someone else? Ideally, a proper course would even put you in a grand-jury scenario, requiring you to get an idea of what it’s like to justify your serious actions in a way that convinces people who don’t have experience with guns.

Further, a proper concealed-carry course would provide a minimum of two days in which the class acted out scenarios that may or may not have required the use of deadly force. A man bangs on your door. He’s extremely distraught. He says his car broke down outside and his wife’s in the back seat—she’s pregnant, she needs an ambulance, she needs to get to the hospital! He pushes his way in, saying he needs to use your phone. You tell him to wait outside while you make the call. He shoves you away, demanding to know where the phone is. “Wait outside!” you order him. He knocks you to the floor and lunges past you toward the kitchen, yelling “The phone!” He might be a nutcase. Or he might be telling the truth. If you shoot him, you might be spending the next ten years in jail. Not to mention you might be financially ruined if it turns out the guy was telling the truth and the woman gives birth in the car, but the baby dies, and the woman almost dies also. You’ll be living in a tent by the time the lawsuits are over. But maybe the guy is indeed crazy and dangerous, and you saved the lives of your family and yourself. You need to make a decision in an instant. Good luck. Two days of rehearsal in this kind of scenario are probably not enough.

And then there are the physiological reactions to being in a gunfight. Most gunfights occur within ten feet of the shooters, and in many case, although a lot of shots are fired, the bullets go everywhere, except at the target. A gunfight is chaos and noise and adrenaline. Hearing shuts down. Tunnel vision sets in. Some objects get amazingly large. To replicate that chaos, which is not at all like the movies, this is one valuable scenario I experienced.

I was put through a shooting maze (sometimes called a “shooting house”). Inside a structure, there were various rooms with pop-up targets. Some showed bad guys with guns and grenades. Others showed a businessman with a briefcase or a woman with a baby carriage. One showed a woman being used as a shield by a guy with a gun. But I didn’t know what any of these targets looked like before I entered and confronted them.

My instructor spun me violently five times to the right. Then he spun me with equal violence five times to the left. As dizziness set in, he cursed at me, using the foulest language imaginable. Meanwhile he also pounded my chest and back. He literally threw me into the shooting maze so that I almost fell on the floor.

Mind spinning, heart pounding, lungs heaving, adrenaline flooding, I had 30 seconds to get through the maze and shoot the bad guys but not harm the good ones. I managed to do it, but it wasn’t easy. I personally saw a student empty a 15-round magazine into a target that showed a woman with a baby carriage. The instructor yelled, “She’s got a gun! She’s going to kill you!” The student kept firing. “She isn’t dead!” the instructor yelled. “Shoot her again!”

Having emptied his magazine, the student did a rapid reload and emptied another 15-round magazine into the target of the woman with the baby carriage. He was absolutely certain that he’d shot a bad guy, because the instructor had shouted repeatedly that the target showed a bad guy (the instructor was lying to make a point). It took the student 20 seconds to get his mind straight and to realize what he’d done.

Let’s consider the situation in the Colorado theatre. The place is full of smoke. Theater patrons are stampeding. The loud, action-filled movie adds to the confusion. The shooter is wearing body armor. Does it make sense to use a concealed-carry weapon in this scenario? As more guns go off, who can know the difference between the shooter and the people trying to defend themselves. The phone calls to the police would have said there were multiple shooters, thus adding to the deadly confusion. Well-meaning people with guns would almost certainly have hit bystanders.

It all comes down to adequate training and knowing what’s the right thing to do at the right time. If you decide that a concealed-carry weapon is necessary for you, remember what I said a minute ago. There are few responsibilities greater than carrying a weapon. Does the gun own you, or do you own the gun? There can never be enough training, and it can’t be repeated often enough.

That was hard to watch. He saved the best bit for the very last 5 seconds.

well that convinced me the gun lobby is sane....

Wow, stunned otherwise. Lili, you are dead right, that was hard to watch.

"The banks have taken over." I hate it when crazy people toss in the occasional true statement to lend themselves credibility, it discredits the statement.

I'd feel so much safer knowing people like that have guns.

Unfortunately Alex Jones is from Austin, TX, my town. Austin is pretty progressive but it is stuck in the middle of Texas which is not. There have been petitions for Texas to succeed from the Union but there are also petitions for Austin to succeed from Texas. Even back in the "old west" like Dodge City they used to make the cowboys take off their guns and leave them with the Sheriff before entering the town. I don't want to live in a country that is so dangerous that you have to carry a gun to protect yourself. I guess I'd better find a place to move to where I can afford to live.

& these guys are armed w/assault rifles

Even scarier is this-You'll notice the last one posted is exactly 1 month ago. They actually had to put a 30 day delay on it last year as the comments section was literally turning into online verbal taunting between aggrieved parties & resulting in even more homicides

http://projects.latimes.com/homicide/blog/page/1/


Yes America is a beacon for the rest of the world

Skank, that is quite an amazing thing to read. The FAQs are really interesting reading too, and all with an interactive map. It takes a while to get your head around it.

Maybe you don't need to arm the teachers afterall....

Californian teacher talks student out of high school shooting

The unedited version, thanks to Conan O'Brian

There is no solution for this crazy debate - the more the debate goes on, the more guns get sold and the more guns available just means gun violence goes up. The situation is totally crazy - I still think a massive HUGE tax on ammunition and gun powder makes the most sense - along with increased back ground checks, no online purchasing, mandatory for guns and ammunition to be stored in separate locked cabinets and of course no assault weapons. The problem is that the guns are already out there - so doing something also requires a buy back of existing weapons. This could be funded by the massive tax hike on weapons and ammunition.

J27. Thanks for your detailed concern about US domestic policies. I don't have such opinions about Australia, mainly because I don't know the details and ins and outs. I see you've not let that stop you here at all, though. Congratulations.

1. Yes, many more guns have been sold over the past decade. Also, laws allowing legal concealed carry of firearms have proliferated to almsot every US state in the past 10 years also, so hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens are walking around legally armed in the USA every day. In addition, the so-called assault weapons ban expired in 2004 after being in place for 10 years (and having zero effect on anything).

2. Contrary to what you've stated, though, violent crime has decreased considerably in that time (murder rates are down about 20% in the past decade). Given #1 above, how can that possibly be? Because guns (inanimate objects) cause crime (human actions), right? http://www.cnn.com.sg/2012/10/29/justic ... index.html

If Australia was happy with mandatory gun confiscations ("buy backs") then cool, I wouldn't presume to lecture other countries on how to run their domestic affairs. It's not suitable for the USA, though, given our history, our Constitution and our present situation.

T2K, that is a shit argument to a debate, and surely you know it. "You're not from here so you can't talk about it".

Secondly, on that point, if the US doesn't want non-US citizens to talk about US domestic policy, then stop blasting all your friggin' news across international websites. Keep your news to yourself. Do remember, though, that the 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers happened in the US, and therefore you would have garnered no support from other countries for your subsequent invasions of Afgahnistan and Iraq.

And now, no longer pointed just at you, but at the whole pro-gun lobby: how the hell can you not include gun control in the measures which would try to stop this sort of thing happening again?

I agree that you need to overcome the social issues which allow these nutjobs to go down this line. One of those avenues is gun control. I'm not saying stop guns altogether, I'm saying that there should no longer be a need to have such a wide variety of types of guns.

Guns that should be allowed are things like shotguns and hunting rifles to those who need them. Pistols and other rifles should be allowed at shooting clubs. There is no friggin' reason in this world that an ordinary citizen requires an assault weapon in the home.

Part of the reason why guns are so available illegally is that they are so available legally!

And whoever was quoting Sons of Anarchy as a possibly reality of availability of guns, then also note that a home owner who used a gun during a home invasion was shot and killed by her own gun in the same show. If you really want to bring fiction into the debate, bring it all in!

I think it's a fair argument and one that I use in this debate. Im thankful that despite the influence America has on the world in everything we do, the free for all with guns is not one that is making any grounds on most other countries. Its truly an American problem and I trust them to be smart enough sort out whatever it is they need to sort out, if they need it sorting out.

Much like the lack of public health care. Very odd for such a progressive country to not have it,but ts their problem as its not one that seems to be gaining ground in other countries.

FB - That's a shit response from you and you know it. You can talk about it, but just bother to know what you're talking about. Neither you nor J27 do. If I got on here and started ranting against your NHS, which I know fuck all about (in other words, the same knowledge level you have about this situation) I would rightfully be slammed. Turnabout is fair play.

Your suggestions display a complete lack of understanding of the US Constitution, even a seeming lack of recognition that it exists. I realize the UK has no constitution, so your ignorance of such a document can be partially excused by that. Still, US history, Constitutional rights and our current domestic situation are the key variables and I've explained all of it in detail here.

You're citing The Sons of Anarchy? Why not The Walking Dead? I take this a little more seriously than TV shows.

I cited the Sons of Anarchy because someone did previously.

Feel free to make comments in any debate about UK domestic policy. Go ahead, we've got plenty of issue. However, very few of them have led to gun rampages with 10-20 people dead.

Constitutions can be change. Isn't that the whole reason for the government? IF the government can not change the constitution, then what's the point of the billions of dollars your country spends every 4 years just to elect one person?

The UK has a constitution: we're just very aware that constitutions need to change as the world (and people) develop. I mean, there's nothing in the US Constitution about car ownership, so does that mean all Americans that own a car are against the constitution? Of course it doesn't, as cars weren't invented in the 1700s and therefore those that wrote the constitution could not have pre-empted those sort of things without being caught up in the Salem witch trials!

My lack of understanding is with those that believe a set of words written a few centuries ago, and believe those words can never be changed. Maybe you should put another form of religion on your census forms "Constitutionalist".

Early Alex Jones ...worth a watch ( by Jon Ronson ).

This is the primary reason you're not getting it -> "Isn't that the whole reason for the government? IF the government can not change the constitution..."

NO. The Constitution was created by the American people. The government derives its authority only from the Constitution. The government only governs at the consent of the people. The government is answerable to the people. The government has no inherent right to rule, no authority except that derived from the governed.

The US Consitution was created not to enumerate a list of things the government "allowed" the people to do, but rather as a document to list and limit the powers of government and confirm inalienable rights for the people. No part of the government, no person in the government can decide to "change the Constitution."

The Constitution can, of course, be amended. It's been amended 27 times in total, most recently in 1992. The process for amendments requires the approval of the people through their elected state legislatures. The US president, in fact, has no formal role in the amendment process, neither in proposing amendments nor in ratifying them.

If the American people want to repeal or revise the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution, we can. If not, then the right of individuals to keep and bear arms against enemies foreign and domestic is the law of the land. It's that simple.

You said the UK has a constitution. Can you direct me to that document, please? I would like to read it.

Edit - FB, you were in the British miltary, right? To whom did you swear your oath of allegiance upon enlistment or commissioning? I swore mine in the US Army National Guard to the US Constitution.

Ah, so we come to the problem. If only the people can change the Constitution of the US, and there's enough pro-gun nutjobs out there, then it won't be changed. So really, it's the people that are the f%ckwits, not the Government or the Constitution.

The UK Constitution is not one document. A Constitution of a country does not have to be a single document. Feel free to read the wiki page

Oh, and in the UK I saw an oath to the Queen. Not to the Government.

Oh and nor does a country need to codify a bill of rights in order to be free. The only reason I comment on the US guns issue is because your countries obsession with guns coupled with issues of mental health fill OUR airways with images of carnage. In the scheme of things, it doesn't matter if more and more insane people kill lots of others with guns - your political structures are locked in place so that congress wouldn't dare try altering the 2nd Amendment...

FB - You're a loyal subject of a monarch, with an oath sworn to her. Good for you. That's not how the American people chose to set our system up (after relieving ourselves of your sovereign's ancestor). I'm a citizen of a constitutional republic, the two are quite different. So yes, you're right, if the American people want to do things that you and other non-Americans consider dumb, then so be it and you can blame the American people. I guess that resolves this conversation.

J27 - I'm inundated with news of the Indian gang rape(s). While of course rape and murder is repulsive and it pisses me off, at the same time I realize that the causes and solutions in India must involve cultural, religious, governmental and other factors that I am only superficially acquainted with. So, I don't get vocal about my opinions about what Indians need to do to fix problems in India, displaying my vast ignorance of the details in the process. Also, as explained above, the US Congress cannot alter the 2nd Amendment, though they can propose alterations. Constitutional Amendments can only be ratified by the people via their state legislatures. Details, J27, details...they do matter.

The Constitution also guarantees the right to free speech, but not at all costs. We have laws against defamation, laws about what words can be mentioned in public broadcast, how old a person must be to access pornographic materials, protecting private property from graffiti, etc. You could argue that these laws infringe on people's freedom to express their views, but society has decided that it's OK to punish, censor, and legislate certain forms of speech in order to protect innocent people from those who would take advantage of these rights in order to harm others, make a profit, or get some other personal gain.

Nobody baulks at those laws, and yet the idea of examining gun legislation is met with rabid rage by the pro-gun lobby as if the slightest concession is akin to total defeat. It makes it impossible to have an intelligent debate about the topic at hand.

Lili Von Shtupp wrote:Nobody baulks at those laws, and yet the idea of examining gun legislation is met with rabid rage by the pro-gun lobby as if the slightest concession is akin to total defeat. It makes it impossible to have an intelligent debate about the topic at hand.

Not much different from the intelligent design nuts then.

Are there any laws in the US preventing Gun advertising or sponsorship of events ? Much like tobacco has restrictions (I'm assuming the US do have restrictions on tobacco advertising)