This is America and the current outlook is that guns and the concept of gun ownership is not going anywhere anytime soon. It doesn't matter how many people have died or will die in the future or how many mass shootings have and will continue to occur; it is what it is. However, the question still remains: is the tactical aspect of gun ownership even/still relevant? And the answer is a stark no. There are several academic and governmental sources backing our position when it comes to this case of cognitive dissonance because it runs contrary to common thought on gun ownership on a large social scale. But for the sake of time, we will only provide one source .
Coming from an article written by Dr. David Hemenway Ph.D. of Harvard School of Public Health entitled: "Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use" which stated the following:
"Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid."
"Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime
Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen."
"Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases). Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action. Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss."
The fact is the discharging of a firearm is more likely to occur during a heavy argument than any criminal action. Adding insult to injury, there are exponentially more crimes committed by people with "clean records" and by people in general with firearms than there are instances in which a firearm was used for self-defensive purposes which is a meager 1% chance. The truth is people in this country are armed out of "Anticipatory Anxiety" meaning they are psycho-emotionally "bleeding before they're even cut".
For many gun owners this is the most likely justification for owning a gun; playing the “what if game” or always having to be ready in case something happens. However, if one practices the simply rules of Risk Management, they would be far more protected than going into the streets thinking they can do what they want to do and go wherever they want to go regardless of the conditions of risk because they feel they have a “right” to; which is flawed logic in itself.
So why the push for the "tactical" gimmick by gun owners and the firearm industry in general? There are two simple reasons out of many. One being that the industry makes money off of conspicuous consumption. Meaning that the firearm industry makes tremendous profits off of people purchasing often overpriced tricked out firearms and tactical equipment at a significant quantity than what it practically required for the average person.
Another thing that occurs is the overinflation of one’s ego. Meaning that if one can look and be perceived as tactically inclined; due to them going out and purchasing equipment that does not in any of the vast majority of cases make them any better shooters then if they didn’t have the equipment at all; than then they wouldn’t feel more important than what they actually are. Thus, the people that see them in public wouldn’t perceive them as more than what they actually are.
This is nothing more than both parties having self-esteem and self-confidence issues feeding off each other. It's time we call a spade a spade. This was seen in the Kyle Rittenhouse case; because it doesn't matter who brought the firearm for him. He didn't have to be there in the first place as he could've simply stayed at home (he lived 20 miles away). But because he wanted to feel important by fulfilling his need to be needed, he went out there with a “tact” out rifle that he was not supposed to have and shot two men and wounded another. Culprit: being tactical for nothing while exercising conspicuous consumption, in order to feed one's ego.
Comentários