Combat Vets Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy..Nation:

[Stuart G]

http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

Wayne LaPierre, the head of the National Rifle Association (NRA), has famously claimed that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

Much of today’s opposition to stronger gun safety regulations rests on the gun lobby’s Hobbesian vision of self-sufficient, heavily-armed citizens standing up to vicious thugs. This Die Hard argument is constantly parroted by politicians and conservatives pundits. But the statistical reality is that for every justifiable homicide in the United States—for every lethal shooting in defense of life or property—guns are used to commit 34 murders and 78 suicides, and are the cause of two accidental deaths, according to an analysis of FBI data by The Washington Post.

 LaPierre, a career lobbyist, has no clue what it’s like to use a firearm in anger. But The Nation spoke to several people who do—combat veterans and former law enforcement officers—and who believe that the NRA’s heroic gunslinger mythology is a dangerous fantasy that bears little resemblance to reality. Stephen Benson knows what it’s like when bullets start flying. The former Navy SEAL saw extensive combat during his three tours in Vietnam. Later, while recovering from the wounds that earned him his third Purple Heart, he also trained elite troops at the Naval Special Warfare Center in Coronado, California. “In chaotic situations, the first thing you know is that the shit has hit the fan and you don’t know where the fan is,” says Benson. “And unless it’s constantly drilled into you, it’s very hard to maintain discipline in those situations. You’re immediately hit with a massive thump of adrenaline. Your mouth begins to taste like copper. You can hear the blood moving in your system. You can even experience a kind of time-warp. And the problem with that kind of state is that conscious thought shuts down because you’ve been taken over by your nervous system, and your nervous system is saying, ‘holy shit, things just got really bad.’”

________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is a long read, but totally disproves LaPierre's gunslinger mythology. Basically, it interviews Vets who have been there with hostile fire when it started. Proves that LaPierre famous statement “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.” is a total lie.

[xocet]

1. That is a good read. Thanks for posting it. n/t

[cprise]

2. This is good

and important.

[CTyankee]

3. I wonder if any of our resident gunners will come rushing into this thread and telling us

that combat vets don't know what they are talking about...

[gejohnston]

4. Read the Nation's retraction

The original story identified a source as a combat veteran and former Navy SEAL. A records search has since revealed that he significantly exaggerated his military record. His comments have been removed from the article, and the headline has been changed. We apologize to our readers.

It is a nice way of saying that he was exposed as a poser.

https://www.facebook.com/don.shipley/posts/10153552959322850

[CTyankee]

5. What I see is a Facebook page? Where is the "retraction from the Nation"?

I'm happy to see an official retraction the The Nation magazine. Please show that.

[gejohnston]

6. click on the link in the OP

you will find it under the picture.
BTW, combat in warfare, especially asymmetrical warfare, and self defense, where the "bad guy" is clearly identified are not even remotely alike. Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about would know that. I don't blame the writer for anything beyond intellectual laziness. My question is why didn't he go to self defense instructors or security experts?

[CTyankee]

7. are you seeing what I am seeing? I saw no such thing that you say...

You really have to be more serious about what you are doing when you talk about "intellectual laziness."

It's one thing to be committed to an idea, it's another to be dismissive of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And that happens ALL THE TIME, friend...

[gejohnston]

8. I saw it

I read it. If you click on the link, you will see it too in italics, word for word what I copied and pasted from the OP link.
Actually, there is no such overwhelming evidence you think there is. If there was such overwhelming evidence, which there isn't, people like the head of INTERPOL would not say the same thing I am saying. I'm not committed to any idea. I'm simply saying that the people making the idea you are committed to are usually pundits and politicians who don't know what they are talking about.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341

When I hear recognized security and self defense experts argue what the article is claiming, then I'll listen. If you can't find it, perhaps your confirmation bias meter needs to be reset.

[CTyankee]

9. and the other combat vets who were quoted? Were they phonies, too?

What are the "recognized security and self defense experts" of which you speak, anyway?

[gejohnston]

10. I have no idea who they are

but the guy busted was busted by a retired SEAL Chief Petty Officer who has access to the information and exposing fakes is his life's work. For all I know, they might not even exist.
I have no idea about the rest, and I really don't care because their opinions are simply not anymore valid than Piers Morgan's. As for The Nation and other partisan rags, I have zero respect for any of them left or right. I don't need some low IQ blogger to tell me what to think.

Their opinions actually mean as much as Piers Morgan's. Think about the absurdity they are saying. They are on patrol and someone fires at them at a distance or are ambushed from different directions. They shoot back with their guns. If they need back up, they call people with guns or aircraft with even bigger guns.

The basic premise is that an untrained individual is unstoppable against a permitted and trained individual, who is in the same room as the killer and likely to be a victim. The person mentioned was nowhere near the room, he was 200 yards away.

Since this and the Raw Story article, which printed basically the same thing, I have to see the actual interview transcripts. Let me put this really bluntly, I don't read any of these partisan rags. They simply exist to motivate the base, not inform anyone. He starts off with a premise and looks for only people who agree with him.
As he points out the number of justifiable homicides, but ignores the up to 800K defensive gun uses that do not result in death.

Here is the reality, these situations are usually over in one to five minutes. Police response time averages eight to ten minutes.

[CTyankee]

11. Oh, yeah. Your world and you are welcome to it.

Just FYI, the Nation magazine is one of the oldest, most respected progressive magazines read by liberals. And you regard it as a "rag."

I really thought I had put you on Ignore but I see I didn't. Well, that's easy to fix...

[gejohnston]

12. It was formed in 1865

It was once very respectable, however the quality of the writing has gone down hill over the past thirty years. It has gone from well written and well researched to rag over those years. Maybe because polarization to the extremes, maybe there has been a race to the bottom like the MSM, who can't function beyond memes and narratives and attract the dimmest and worst writers. I don't know. All I know it is common among blogs and online editions across the spectrum. That likely has more to do with the destruction of education system.

I'm old school, I have very high standards for writing and research. If it sucks, it sucks regardless of the bent.

One more thing over the years. In the US, liberal and progressive are synonymous. Or at least we use the terms that way. At one time that may have been true in the US. However, that is something else that has changed in the past 30 years. However, that is not always true. Woodrow Wilson was a progressive, but he wasn't a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Diane Feinstien is a progressive, but she isn't a liberal. In fact, she is very authoritarian. She isn't that unusual among modern progressives.

I am a liberal, but not a progressive.