Likely as a response to the growing number of American’s who have come to realize that having a firearm makes them safer, a blogger at the washingtonpost.com recently reported on a “study ” by an anti-gun professor that attempts to discredit the utility of carrying a firearm for self-defense by placing participants into simulated self-defense scenarios. The “study” was notably prepared for the anti-gun group National Gun Victims Action Council.
The thrust of the Post article is a not-so-veiled attempt to convince readers that carry permit holders are unprepared for most self-defense encounters. However, the “study” doesn’t actually show this at all. The “study” didn’t limit the participants to concealed carry permit holders. Therefore, the conclusions in the study can’t be applied to people who have actually made the decision to carry a gun for self-defense.
Perhaps the most interesting finding, given the “study’s” consistent recommendation of extensive training for carry permit holders, is that there was no statistical evidence that training improved participants’ accuracy during the simulated encounters, largely due to the fact that the scenarios were so badly designed. But even without any evidence, the authors of the “study” press on, which is not uncommon among anti-gun fanatics trying to advance their cause.
Self-defense simulations are not needed to determine if lawfully armed citizens can defend themselves from criminal attacks. Armed citizens defend themselves and others on a daily basis. Just a few examples from this month show that armed citizens are able to consistently make the correct split-second decisions in real-life encounters with violent attack. On July 3, a Milwaukee clothing storeowner used an AR-15 to repel three armed men who had already crashed a van through the front of his store. In Georgia, an Army veteran ended an armed robbery with accurate fire from his lawfully carried pistol. In perhaps the best example, only days after Kansas’ permitless carry law took effect, an armed citizen carrying under the new provision foiled an armed robbery without firing a shot.
With over 11 million armed citizens with carry permits and many more carrying where no permit is required, criminals are more and more likely to be confronted by a lawfully armed citizen, which can only lead to more Americans understanding the societal benefits of having “a good guy with a gun” when and where you need them most.
Gun Control "Study" Misses the Mark Badly on Lawful Self-Defense
Friday, July 31, 2015
Monday, September 28, 2026
Jay Jones, the anti-gun but pro-bullets to the head Virginia attorney general, announced on September 15 the creation of the Firearms Accountability & Industry Responsibility (FAIR) Unit within the Civil and Criminal Justice & Public ...
Monday, September 28, 2026
For too long, Minnesota Governor Tim Waltz and his anti-gun allies in the state have treated the exercise of a constitutional right as something subject to government permission and whatever wait is required for the ...
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
On September 17, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memorandum opinion to answer the question “whether restricting young adults from buying firearms comports with the Second Amendment as the Supreme ...
Monday, September 28, 2026
In spite of some countries deciding they cannot trust their own citizens with firearms, other countries seem to be rejecting this policy…at least a bit.
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
The Trace, the “newsroom” funded by anti-gun extremist Michael Bloomberg, reported in June on the extent to which the NRA-backed NYSRPA v. Bruen case has, to date, rebuilt the modern Second Amendment landscape.
More Like This From Around The NRA




















