Oleg Volk: The Real Reason for Shooting Back

Good stuff:

In modern times, we know that people shot with handguns have an 85% chance of survival, provided they get medical treatment. The chances are far lower with shotgun or rifle, but even then modern medicine can accomplish near miracles. Given the proximity of most mass shootings to urban medical centers, how do we end up with statistics reflecting dead:wounded ratios opposite of the military numbers? How is it possible that a single person with a hand-held weapon could produce more deaths than non-fatal injuries? The answer is simple: control of the scene.

The emphasis on shooting back comes not only from the likelihood of stopping mass murderers dead before they can harm more than a few victims, but also because even suppressive fire distracts them from the initial quest. In all recorded incidents, attackers who came under fire — even when the return fire was ineffective — stopped what they were doing and either hid or tried to fight the responders. As a result, the wounded had much better chance of survival.

The gun grabbers would have you believe that if you’re not a movie action hero you’re better off unarmed. Of course gun grabbers would lie about the color of the sky if they thought it would increase their control over you, so why pay them any attention?

All those highly-publicized mass shootings the gun grabbers claim to deplore – every single one – happen in “gun-free zones,” which the gun grabbers claim to advocate.

Therefore there’s one thing every “gun-free zone” you can’t avoid really ought to contain, if you can possibly arrange it…
…at least one gun.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Oleg Volk: The Real Reason for Shooting Back

  1. Allen says:

    I carry at the movies now, screw em.

  2. MamaLiberty says:

    It will be interesting to see if there are more people carrying when future “mass shootings” happen. Probably make them much less likely all around. What scares me badly is the very real possibility these monsters will go to bombs and fire, as they have in other parts of the world, often combined with guns, of course. You are so right… they grab control of the helpless victims, then kill them at their leisure however they please… Someone with a gun has to short circuit that control.

  3. Kentucky says:

    The REAL real reason for shooting back: get him before he gets you.

    All others saved by your actions are pure bonus/gravy.

  4. jed says:

    I think Michael Williamson said it well. His 2nd and 3rd ‘graphs are a bit harsh; I don’t need to be Rob Latham to know that an armed response is more likely to be helpful than not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *