A Rebuttal to Tom Brokaw

[ltorlo64]

I heard the 1 minute radio spot today by Tom Brokaw called “An American Life”. Today he was lamenting the call from Americans to reduce gun control and allow more citizens to be armed so that an attack as happened in Paris would not be as bad. He said this greatly concerned him as arming citizens is only useful if the citizen is “positioned perfectly and they have been trained as a marksman.” His argument went on to say that if an armed civilian is not in the perfect position they will not be able to use their weapon, so they will be useless and if they are not trained as a marksman they are more likely to hit another civilian causing more people to be injured or killed. This is one of those emotional arguments made by liberals that is not born out by logic or actual events. His solution was to increase the number of police so that they would be closer to any attack when it starts.

His first argument is shown to be false by his solution. A person who is at the location of a terrorist attack may not be in the perfect position, but they are much closer to being in a perfect position than the police who are almost always (by design of the terrorists) not in the area. Police are now being trained that in the event of a terrorist attack or active shooter situation stopping the shooter, even if some bystanders are injured in the process, will limit the number of injured and killed. This is because the terrorist goal is to kill as many people as possible and as long as they are uncontested they can continue with their efforts more quickly. Even if a person does not have a “perfect” shot, shooting at the terrorist will distract them from their goal thereby minimizing the number of people the terrorist will be able to kill or injure. A second issue has to do with when the civilian will take a shot. Despite what liberals think law abiding citizens are not going to take a shot that they know will likely hurt an innocent bystander. This does not mean that an innocent bystander will not be shot by an armed civilian but that the chance is much lower than they would have us believe.

His second point that civilians need to be trained marksmen in order to make the shot seems to discount where these attacks are happening. The person trying to defend themselves and other innocent people are not trying to shoot 100s of yards with a handgun, but are most likely taking a shot at about 25 yards or less. This is because these attacks tend to be done inside where people are more easily corralled. A trained marksman will be more likely to hit their target on the first shot, but when someone is shooting at you first I would expect that most of the marksmanship training someone has had will go out the window as they just try to stop the person from shooting them and their loved ones.

It is unfortunate that people like Tom Brokaw are able to say things like this without having someone able to refute the errors and misconceptions that he states as facts.

[Altarboy]

Good one. But in my world there is seldom a rebuttal needed when Tom Brokaw speaks.

[alismith]

Tom Brokaw is a pure-bred, mentally disabled, CMSM liberal. You can't really expect much in the way of lucidity from any liberal.

[imanaknut]

Tommy is of the idea that it is better for a terrorist to kill 30 unarmed targets than it is to have the gunman taken out by an armed citizen with one person accidentally killed as they like to call co-lateral damage but the terrorist kill number is zero.

I am so sickened by these brain dead idiots.

[Full Otto]

"His second point that civilians need to be trained"

Lets get them trained then
case closed

[sevlex]

Brokaw is desperately struggling to remain relevant in a world that no longer gives a shit about him or his doddering thoughts.

[Krupski]

......as arming citizens is only useful if the citizen is “positioned perfectly and they have been trained as a marksman.” His argument went on to say that if an armed civilian is not in the perfect position they will not be able to use their weapon, so they will be useless and if they are not trained as a marksman they are more likely to hit another civilian causing more people to be injured or killed.....

An armed citizen may or may not be in a position (i.e. clear shot) to fire at an attacker, but common sense says that regardless, a HELPLESS person is GUARANTEED to be a victim whereas an ARMED person may or may not be a victim and may have a chance to live.

As for me, I prefer at least a CHANCE at surviving or saving someone else.

And, as far as "trained marksmen", I wonder who Tom Brokejaw is referring to? Special forces soldiers and military snipers may be "trained experts", but I wouldn't call an average soldier a "marksman", nor would I call a cop who grudgingly qualifies with his duty piece twice a year a "marksman" (or even "trained").

Of course, there are a lot of dumbass gun owners who know little to none of the safety rules and indeed ARE a hazard to themselves and those around them, but add it all up and you get the same answer: Better to be armed and have a CHANCE than to be disarmed and 100% helpless.

[Krupski]

"His second point that civilians need to be trained"

Lets get them trained then
case closed

I honestly consider those of us who know and obey all the safety rules religiously, and those of us who go shooting for fun regularly as well "trained" and any "professional" guard or shooter may be.

We (through practice) are good at hitting what we aim at, we know and follow all of the safety rules.

As far as stress, I think ANYONE, sport shooter or "professional" shooter will be equally influenced by stress.

Given that stress is probably the same for both groups, "stress" can be crossed out of the equation.

What remains? We know how to hit the target and we know how to do it safely. What more is required?

[Full Otto]

What more is required?

Tom Brokaw closing his pie hole

[Krupski]

Tom Brokaw closing his pie hole

Yup. Agreed 100%.

[L1A1Rocker]

Well said!