Donald Trump Is Dead Wrong About the “Good Guy With A Gun” Theory - A Ballistics and Firearms…
Hollye Dexter

I have to say…I’m impressed. You managed to include nearly every false pro-gun control narrative I’ve ever heard. You’ve done your homework. And from your comments I’d say odds are good that you’ve never purchased a gun, never been to a gun show, never fired a gun, and don’t know the difference between a semiautomatic and a full automatic firearm. Where to begin?

To anyone who has had the least degree of training to acquire a CPL (and admittedly, not all states require it), they’ve already been educated on the fact that in a high stress situation your fine motor skills flee. That is precisely why they teach you to aim for ‘center of mass.’ As a civilian, you won’t have the accuracy you think you might have in that situation. Trained CPL holders have already been taught this.

Also, I’m very glad that you had a chance to speak with a ballistics expert. However, for what you were talking about, you needed to be speaking to a human performance expert. But be that as it may, your 18% number is utterly useless without any sort of context. Is that ALL police shootings? Including SWAT teams with their rifles? Pistols fired at long range? Or is that pistols within the range of the size of the club where the Orlando shooting took place? It kind of matters. But even so, no one would argue with your revelation that people would not perform as well in such a situation as they would at the range. We even would have believed you without the snarky commentary.

With regards to Trump’s commentary on the matter (which, by the way, references to the original quotes are always nice…especially when you indicate with the “…” that you’ve taken an excerpt from a larger quote), you said: “What a reckless statement for a Presidential candidate to make.” Really? What an ignorant statement for someone who sits on the Board of Directors of Women Against Gun Violence to make. Let’s examine the evidence…

First of all, you don’t even KNOW “Joe Schmoe,” so how can you conclude that he has “little-to-no training?” Did you ask him? Ever hang out at a gun range to see how much training the ‘Joe Schmoe’s’ of the world get? Most will not hold a candle to law enforcement, but that is not the same as “little-to-no” training. You are making assertions about facts not in evidence.

“Imagine multitudes of people shooting in a dark, crowded nightclub where people are running and screaming and a madman with an assault rifle is shooting at them.” Ummm…this kind of thing happens in the movies…and in TV. You *DO* realize that what you see on the screen isn’t always a true representation of real life, right? Why do you immediately assume that any CPL holder is going to begin “panic fire” the minute someone starts shooting? I think the first response is for that “Joe Schmoe” to actually seek cover or to try to get out. I’ll stipulate that you cannot ever know 100% how somebody is going to react in that type of situation, but you have no justification to make such a sweeping assumption (except for whatever movies you’ve seen). You have a very twisted view of gun owners, Madam.

“Bullets would be flying everywhere.” — Newsflash: According to all of the pro gun control folks, they already were.

“Not to mention, when the police arrive to find multiple shooters, how are they supposed to know the good guys from the bad guys?” Well, they will know the “good guys” from the “bad guys” because the bad guy is CARRYING A RIFLE as you originally stated, as well as when the police tell the “good guys” to drop their guns…THEY WILL. And every CPL holder knows to expect to be cuffed and arrested if they draw their weapon in a situation such as that. The police have no other choice but to detain everyone who is there and is armed and sort it all out after the crisis is over. Why is it that you don’t know this? Could it be because you are spouting about something you know pretty much nothing about?

“The increased death rate would be unfathomable.” Umm….let’s do the math. Let’s say that 6 people are armed and immediately fire at the shooter (they can tell who he is because he’s the one firing over and over again and shooting at people who are already down…and in this case, he’s also the only one holding a rifle…kind of a dead giveaway). Let’s say that those 6 people each fire 3 times. With your 18% accuracy for police…no wait…I’ll say a civilian has 12% accuracy just for the sake of argument, the “good guys” would score two hits on the shooter, while missing 16 times.

Now, let’s assume the worst. Let’s assume that the civilians completly forgot every last bit of safety training they ever learned, which included knowing what is BEHIND the target you are shooting at before you shoot (and this IS possible because of the hightened stress…but I doubt all 6 would forget that at the same time…but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt). And…let’s say that people were NOT diving for cover, as would be the normal thing to do, but were just standing there so they could catch a bullet accidentally fired by a “good guy with a gun.” Let’s say that ALL 16 stray bullets killed some innocent person. That is 16 dead (no wounded because I’m assuming the worst on the shots fired by the “good guys”) and two hits scored on the shooter. Now, who knows where those two hits landed on the shooter? Maybe he’s dead. Maybe he’s wounded. If he’s alive, he now has a new psychological mindset: he is being shot at. I also point out that when law enforcement arrived and engaged him, he retreated into a bathroom. While reports of what happened afterward still seem to be incomplete, one thing that IS certain is that he was not just shooting people with impunity after he was shot at by law enforcement (who apparently didn’t even need to hit him to change his behavior).

So let’s tally up the body count. The “good guys” accidentally killed 16 people. Let’s say that bad guy managed to kill 10 people before the bullets started flying in his direction. No, let’s make it even more in your favor. Let’s say he already killed TWENTY people. The end result is that the shooter is now not shooting, and 36 people are dead…and zero people are wounded (I assumed that every person the shooter shot in those first 20 he managed to kill). So with Mr’ Trump’s “reckless statement” scenario, THIRTEEN more people would be alive today, and 53 people who were wounded would not be.

Now let’s look at YOUR/President Obama’s/Hillary Clinton’s plan. Well, we don’t have to compute anything. We already know the answer to that question. No one in the club had a gun. No one had a prayer of defending themselves in that situation. FORTY NINE people are dead, and FIFTY THREE people are wounded.

So you see, with a little application of math, we see a possible scenario where the results turn out much better (13 less people killed, and 53 less people wounded). Sure, you can argue with my assumptions, but I’m pretty certain that you STILL are going to end up with less people dead and wounded than what we already had. And what is the great proposal by the pro gun control folks? Put up “gun free zone” signs. Whether you agree with me or not, you at least see my point.

“91% of Americans want Background Checks on all gun sales” — Ummm…could you (and the President) PLEASE note where you are getting this information from? Because the only survey I saw with a question like this had serious flaws in its make up. The question itself was unclear about the disposition of private sales (because it did not mention them) and the only allowable answers were “yes or no.” If you would please reference where you got that number, I could be more specific.

“…over 33,000 Americans killed by guns every year…” — Now wait a minute, Ms. Dextere…now you are lying. By “lie” I mean you are attempting to deceive us all. You see, all this time in your article you’ve been talking about “gun violence” and “mass shootings”. But now you’re trying to pull a fast one. Now you’ve carefully changed your wording to talk about “how many people are killed by guns” instead of “gun violence” and “mass shootings” as you’ve been saying all along. Why is that lying? Because I HAVE to believe that you know as well as I that about 21,000 of those “30,000” people were SUICIDES. You can verify that by going to the statistics over at the FBI’s website and the CDC’s website. You see, in 2014 only about 9,000 people died by a gun through homicides. It’s right there on those two sites.

So tell me, why did you not mention this? Do you think that EVERYONE believes that suicide is “gun violence?” That is a rather unique perspective you have. For me (and most people I know), “gun violence” is when “person A” shoots “person B”….not when “person A kills themselves.” Again, I’d expect a sitting board member of Women Against Gun Violence to know this…unless your organization cares only for your agenda and nothing about truth.

And of course, what pro gun control rant would be complete without “…40% of guns are sold, legally, without a background check, through unlicensed dealers at gun shows, through the internet, and in some states, you can even buy guns at yard sales.”

I find it hard to believe that you sit on the Board of Directors for a gun control advocacy group called Women Against Gun Violence when you give such a group a bad name because you haven’t done your homework (or else you are just lying). You see, that 40% number comes from a study in the 1990's. The President, and I believe Hillary, have been quoting that number for some time. But the problems with that study include:
1) Only 251 people in the survey answered the question about whether or not they had a background check when they bought their gun.
2) The survey was conducted EIGHT MONTHS after the national background check was instituted, but asked this question about guns in the subjects possession for the last TWO YEARS. It made no distinction about guns bought BEFORE the background check system was even instituted.

Did you really not know this? If you truly did ANY work to understand ALL sides of the issue, you would have known this because these facts were made known back in 2013. However, you are in good company. The other people and organizations that have tried to use this claim include:
1) President Barrak Obama
2) Vice President Joe Biden
3) New York Times (multiple times)
4) Wall Street Journal
5) Associated Press
6) Politico 
7) Fox News
8) ABC News
9) Washington Post (multiple times)
10) CNN
11) Huffington Post
12) Detroit Free Press
(this is just a subset…see for a full list)

And with regards to gun sales over the Internet…I invite you to try to buy a gun over the internet and have it shipped directly to your door. Any gun sold online MUST (by federal law) be sent to a federally licensed dealer who will then run a background check on the buyer before allowing them to have the gun. You know that, the President knows that, and yet you still spout lies about it. Now why is that?

Well Ms. Dexter, I’m very sorry you experienced gun violence in your own home. That is terrible, and no one should have to live through something like that. However, that doesn’t give you the right to lie, mislead, and misstate facts about gun violence in America. Your arguments are, for the most part, unsupported, lacking justification, and in some places just plain wrong.

If you think I’ve been overly harsh in my assessment, I’d say that given the level of your falsehoods, AND given the fact that you sit on a board whose purpose is to work on gun violence issues…and given that you DO NOT KNOW these things (or else are just lying about them), it makes me feel like being less polite than I normally would be.

If there is going to be any real change made in order to address the issues that face us regarding guns, it is ONLY going to come after all sides stop this childish lying contest and speak openly, honestly and respectfully about the issues at hand. Lying assassination pieces that don’t even stand up under the weight of their own falsehoods will not do anything to get us closer to some sort of progress on the matter.

Perhaps you could bring that up at your next board meeting…

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.