Do you believe in guns?

[Thesemindz]

Also, statistics do show that people who carry guns have a tendency to shoot themselves.

I wanted to address this seperately.

Of course people who carry guns shoot themselves more than people who don't. That's like saying people who skydive are more likely to get into a skydiving accident than those who don't, or people who eat cookies are more likely to choke on a cookie than those who don't. It's a meaningless statement and a meaningless statistic.


-Rob

 

[Glycerine0160]

Statistics show that children who eat hot dogs have a tendency to choke on them.

As for the original post, I don't know if I "believe" in guns, but I have them, and I use them.

I carry a concealed Ruger P97 .45 caliber eight-shot semi-automatic handgun almost everywhere I go, though Rita and I have taken to carrying Glock 29 10mm’s in the field because they’re easier to bicycle with and will take out a black bear-consequently, I find myself carrying the Glock more and more. We keep a shotgun or two in our homes — all within easy reach. They all hold bullets or shells designed to kill or shred a violent criminal-or a bear- instantaneously, before he can take another step or move his hand another inch. I won't even go into the rifles.I don't keep gun locks on these weapons, and I don't apologize for them, and it's not just because it is my" Constitutional" right to keep guns, although that is reason enough. It is because I have been convinced by overwhelming evidence that guns keep me and my family safe.

Does that sound like the rantings of a paranoid, gun-toting nut? Probably, if you are a paranoid, gun-grabbing ignoramus who knows nothing about guns and the role they play daily in American society in the prevention of crime. To those of you who do know the relationship of gun and crime statistics, the weapons I keep probably make a lot of sense.

We who own guns for self protection have been much maligned by those who think guns are evil, even though the statistics about gun use show that guns are used far more often by average citizens to prevent violent crime than they are used by criminals to commit crimes. The evidence is greater than ever, thanks to the largest and most accurate study ever undertaken. It was performed by John Lott, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School who had never owned a gun and who had spent most of his career doing research on nongun-related issues. The study's findings are contained in his scholarly 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press), which is a detailed analysis of 18 years of the gun/crime relationship in all 3,000-plus counties in the United States.

After Lott finished the study, he went out and bought his first gun.

Here are a few of the things he found, much of which will sound like plain common sense to us gun owners:

• In counties that have "right-to-carry" laws or "shall issue" permits, that is, where a citizen must be issued a gun permit after meeting certain criteria, usually a background check and having taken a gun safety course, violent crime goes down dramatically while it goes up in surrounding counties that issue permits only at the discretion of the relevant law enforcement agency. Furthermore, the crime rate continues to go down year after year due to the increasing deterrence of more people getting the "shall issue" permits.

• Private citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals more than 2,000,000 times a year. Since the safety of children is often cited by gun opponents who don't want guns in private homes, the study analyzed deaths of children per year for the sake of comparison. For children under age 5 in the United States, less than 20 died of gunshot, about 100 drowned in bathtubs, and about 40 drowned in 5-gallon water buckets.


• Resistance with a gun, rather than passive resistance, is the safest option for the private citizen when confronted by a criminal. For a woman, especially, it is the best option, increasing her chances of not being injured by two and a half times.

• The biggest drops in violent crime occurred in urban areas, especially in poor neighborhoods, and among women and the elderly, who are most vulnerable.

When his study was released, Lott was instantly attacked by the likes of New York Senator Charles Schumer and other anti-gun advocates as being a stooge of the gun industry, which he is not. The mass media briefly mentioned his book, then ignored it much like they have ignored the 2,000,000 annual instances in which guns are used to prevent crime while heavily reporting the under 20 instances of young children being killed by guns.

What are we to conclude from this study, especially in the wake of the mass shootings at some of the nation's schools, such as at Columbine High School? If it is clear that guns save lives far more often than they take them, what happened at Columbine? May I be so crass and insensitive to suggest that some of the teachers-or security guards- should have been armed? In a country like Israel where they fear attacks by madmen and terrorists, the teachers carry guns into the classroom and they consequently have no gun attacks on their students. Here in the United States, we have a federal law that bans guns from within 1000 feet of schools, even sometimes posting signs outside the school announcing to the world and to the nuts it is a "gun free zone." Do you think there may be an analogy here, that perhaps Israel's policy works and ours doesn't?

In the counties mentioned in Lott's study, where "shall issue" laws are in effect violent crime goes down, while it goes up in the surrounding counties where there are no "shall issue" laws. Do you think there may be a connection there too? Do you suppose that violent criminals and nuts may be figuring out where the easy prey are?

We who realize the value of guns have been very silent in the face of the all-out war on gun ownership that is currently being waged by certain politicians and the mass media. Yet the evidence clearly shows that gun possession and "shall issue" laws save lives. Isn't it time we stopped apologizing for our guns and spoke up?


Anti-gun groups, politicians, and the mass media regularly hide incidents and studies that portray guns favorably, and they spare no ink to tell the rare story when guns are used by criminals or by accident. Then they pass stupid laws that endanger our children. We who know the truth about guns need to let that truth be known: Guns save lives and prevent criminal attacks. They protect our families from harm, not expose them to danger.

Very interesting article. Pretty ridiculous the media squashed it. Some things remain in question though. I know you mention it was published in the Chicago Press but that does not assume the study was done anywhere near Chicago. If it was done in a urban area then that is great stuff. But if it wasn't done there, that really gives no idea as to how it would translate into more urban areas like New York. Nor does the effectiveness of gun ownership in Israel give a clear indication on the what would happen in the United States. That is on par with assuming Amsterdam's legalization of marijuana laws would be as acutely impacting as it is there, as it would be here. The United States has much more diverse cultures of people unlike any countries of its caliber. Regardless, great post.

edit:
except a person who carries a gun I would bet has a much higher chance of shooting him/her self than choking and dying on a hot dog. You cannot compare bullets to hot dogs. Although parachuting is a excellent point. I never said it is a full frontal reason as to why guns should not be allowed, but it does hold itself down as a auxiliary reason.

 

[Thesemindz]

I completely agree you should have the right to defend yourself. Here is my conundrum with guns. Do you think all law enforcement agents know how to use their force properly? Clearly, many of them do not get into these incidents unless they are in bad urban areas. But you could think of many incidents where the officer did not obey "only if your life is in serious danger or a third party." If professionals in this matter sometimes may use excessive force to lethal, than what of regular civilians? I'm just referencing that obviously there would have to be a even higher risk chance here.

Otherwise, just stick with a knife and learn how to use it. As they say, from 15 feet a trained knife fighter will most likely take the life of a gun wielder (given he has to remove his gun from a holster or whatever have it.) 25 feet and they both will exchange even deadly blows. And knives are ridden of all these accidents guns carry. (for the most part)

Now lastly, I"ve taken some sociological courses and I ask,
"Do you think people are naturally bad?" Do you think they come born bad, or do you think they are socialized by some third party to be that way? Most likely, a person who commits a crime has had a much worse upbringing or a psychological disorder (schizophrenia, dementia, etc.) So although I am not negating people have free will and they should obey the laws of nature, I am just saying why would you want to kill someone unless you have to? And as aforementioned, have to would be you are in serious danger.

I think some law enforcement officers are professionals. I think others are rank amatuers. Just like I think some pizza drivers are profesional drivers, and others are bumbling fools collecting a check.

My own political views aside, I don't mean this as an indictment of LEOs, I just think to assume that a badge makes one a professional in the truest sense of the term is hoping for something that isn't there.

As to your comment that people should just "stick with a knife," the whole point of firearms as a tool for self defense is that they require little physical ability and only minimal training to use effectively. I'm not saying people shouldn't be trained, I think they should, I'm saying that a soccer mom can take a 12 hour CCW course and be a relatively responsible gun owner capable of defending herself if need be. Try learning how to use a knife against a commited violent attacker within 12 hours.

Additionally, while a gun is capable of doing massive amounts of damage to an attacker within a matter of seconds, even successfully defending yourself with a knife may take a great deal longer. Unless you are able to strike your opponent in a vital area, it may take minutes for him to bleed out while he is able to continue to attempt to disarm, disable, or murder you.

And what of those of us who are unable to draw a knife and cover 25 feet in a matter of seconds? What about the elderly, or the disabled, or the infirm? Should they also be denied the basic right of self defense on the grounds that guns in the hands of evil men are capable of assisting them in their evil deeds? Will we forever be constrained by projecting our fear of evil onto the innocent?

If a person has the right to do lethal damage in self defense, why would you force them to close within grappling range with their attacker before allowing them to exercise that right?

As to your last paragraph, I'm glad you've "taken some sociological courses." Now, I have a question for you. You seem to imply that those of us who advocate for defensive firearms use want to kill people. Besides the fact that that is patently offensive, it begs the question you already asked. Do you think we're naturally bad people?

The whole point of self defense is to be able to protect myself and my loved ones from the people who do want to kill people. The circumstances of their derangement are unimportant when they are attempting to murder your child or rape your wife. I don't give a damn if they had a rough childhood, or are poor, or have a drug addiction when they are pointing a gun at me. All that matters in that moment is whether or not I survive.

It isn't a matter of wild west. It isn't a matter of wanting to kill people. It isn't a matter of fetishizing guns. It is a matter of life or death.

Otherwise, the firearm wouldn't have entered the situation in the first place.


-Rob

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I think some law enforcement officers are professionals. I think others are rank amatuers. Just like I think some pizza drivers are proffesional drivers, and others are bumbling fools collecting a check.

My own political views aside, I don't mean this as an indictment of LEOs, I just think to assume that a badge makes one a professional in the truest sense of the term is hoping for something that isn't there.

As to your comment that people should just "stick with a knife," the whole point of firearms as a tool for self defense is that they require little physical ability and only minimal training to use effectively. I'm not saying people shouldn't be trained, I think they should, I'm saying that a soccer mom can take a 12 hour CCW course and be a relatively responsible gun owner capable of defending herself if need be. Try learning how to use a knife against a commited violent attacker within 12 hours.

Additionally, while a gun is capable of doing massive amounts of damage to an attacker within a matter of seconds, even successfully defending yourself with a knife may take a great deal longer. Unless you are able to strike your opponent in a vital area, it may take minutes for him to bleed out while he is able to continue to attempt to disarm, disable, or murder you.

And what of those of us who are unable to draw a knife and cover 25 feet in a matter of seconds? What about the elderly, or the disabled, or the infirm? Should they also be denied the basic right of self defense on the grounds that guns in the hands of evil men are capable of assisting them in their evil deeds? Will we forever be constrained by projecting our fear of evil onto the innocent?

If a person has the right to do lethal damage in self defense, why would you force them to close within grappling range with their attacker before allowing them to exercise that right?

As to your last paragraph, I'm glad you've "taken some sociological classes." Now, I have a question for you. You seem to imply that those of us who advocate for defensive firearms use want to kill people. Besides the fact that that is patently offensive, it begs the question you already asked. Do you think we're naturally bad people?

The whole point of self defense is to be able to protect myself and my loved ones from the people who do want to kill people. The circumstances of their derangement are unimportant when they are attempting to murder your child or rape your wife. I don't give a damn if they had a rough childhood, or are poor, or have a drug addiction when they are pointing a gun at me. All that matters in that moment is whether or not I survive.

It isn't a matter of wild west. It isn't a matter of wanting to kill people. It isn't a matter of fetishizing guns. It is a matter of life or death.

Otherwise, the firearm wouldn't have entered the situation in the first place.


-Rob

Exactly.

Some folks just can't, or just won't, get it.

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don’t carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, surrounded by my loved ones, not alone , in pain and bleeding out on a dirty sidewalk somewhere some afternoon.


I don’t carry a gun because I need it to make me "feel like a man". I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love, and do everything they can to this end.( Ditto women).

I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I AM inadequate, no matter what the chop suey movies say.

I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

 

[elder999]

Very interesting article. Pretty ridiculous the media squashed it. Some things remain in question though. I know you mention it was published in the Chicago Press but that does not assume the study was done anywhere near Chicago. If it was done in a urban area then that is great stuff. But if it wasn't done there, that really gives no idea as to how it would translate into more urban areas like New York.
.

More Guns, Less Crime is a statistical analysis of [every county in the U.S. over a period of eighteen years, from 1997 to 1994. You can read more about it, and the various studies supporting and rebutting it here.

I'd also add that you might be especially interested in Lott's other gin and gun control book, The Bias Against Guns, wherein he suggests that psychological bias prevents people from accepting the results of his study,More Guns, Less Crime :lol:

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Thank you, kind sir and likewise :rei:.



I don't dispute that in the slightest. It was perhaps a somewhat 'pie in the sky' statement for me to make. I do think tho' that, by focussing only on the present perceived need to go armed, other alternative approaches can never be considered. It's like being in a state of constant crisis and taking the expeditious measures to deal with the consequences but never getting around to dealing with the causes.

And here, I think, is another piece of the puzzle:

There seems to be a belief or assumption, both from outside of America, and from those Americans who do not Understand The Problem, that the wish to carry must necessarily be predicated on "need".

I don't "need" a seatbelt. But I wear one anyway because it's a good idea since, after all, one never knows what sort of people are out there, or when a collision may occur( "accident" implies there's no one to blame).

I don't "need" a fire extinguisher, but have several( and THEY'RE "loaded") because it's a good idea since, after all, one never knows what sort of people are out there, or when carelessness or accident could set a fire going.

I don't "need" to carry when I leave the house, but generally do anyway because it's a good idea since, after all, one never knows what sort of people are out there, and by now only a brain dead mosquito hasn't got the point.

You don't carry because of problems you can predict. If I *know* there's to be a gunfight at the OK Corral at high noon, and that I'll need to bring my guns to survive it, come high noon I'll be in the brothel across town, indoors, behind cover and having a GOOD time instead of a terrifying one.

You carry for the problems you *can't* predict.

 

[Glycerine0160]

1.) I think some law enforcement officers are professionals. I think others are rank amatuers. Just like I think some pizza drivers are profesional drivers, and others are bumbling fools collecting a check.

My own political views aside, I don't mean this as an indictment of LEOs, I just think to assume that a badge makes one a professional in the truest sense of the term is hoping for something that isn't there.

2.) As to your comment that people should just "stick with a knife," the whole point of firearms as a tool for self defense is that they require little physical ability and only minimal training to use effectively. I'm not saying people shouldn't be trained, I think they should, I'm saying that a soccer mom can take a 12 hour CCW course and be a relatively responsible gun owner capable of defending herself if need be. Try learning how to use a knife against a commited violent attacker within 12 hours.

Additionally, while a gun is capable of doing massive amounts of damage to an attacker within a matter of seconds, even successfully defending yourself with a knife may take a great deal longer. Unless you are able to strike your opponent in a vital area, it may take minutes for him to bleed out while he is able to continue to attempt to disarm, disable, or murder you.

And what of those of us who are unable to draw a knife and cover 25 feet in a matter of seconds? What about the elderly, or the disabled, or the infirm? Should they also be denied the basic right of self defense on the grounds that guns in the hands of evil men are capable of assisting them in their evil deeds? Will we forever be constrained by projecting our fear of evil onto the innocent?

If a person has the right to do lethal damage in self defense, why would you force them to close within grappling range with their attacker before allowing them to exercise that right?

3.) As to your last paragraph, I'm glad you've "taken some sociological courses." Now, I have a question for you. You seem to imply that those of us who advocate for defensive firearms use want to kill people. Besides the fact that that is patently offensive, it begs the question you already asked. Do you think we're naturally bad people?

The whole point of self defense is to be able to protect myself and my loved ones from the people who do want to kill people. The circumstances of their derangement are unimportant when they are attempting to murder your child or rape your wife. I don't give a damn if they had a rough childhood, or are poor, or have a drug addiction when they are pointing a gun at me. All that matters in that moment is whether or not I survive.

It isn't a matter of wild west. It isn't a matter of wanting to kill people. It isn't a matter of fetishizing guns. It is a matter of life or death.

Otherwise, the firearm wouldn't have entered the situation in the first place.


-Rob

1.) Yes, but LEO are required to receive recourse training sessions where as the average civilian who bares a gun does not/not as frequently. I am simply suggesting, the average police officer knows how to more efficiently use a gun over the average civilian.

2.) Valid point, that does turn my knife argument moot, if and only if, this more guns,less crime study is valid.

3.) You misunderstood me. I was suggesting that a person who is not familiar on sociology might be quick to assume people who commit crime are bad and that is it. I was hastening up the possibility that this might crop up and clearing out that perspective essentially. I have met very few people who have not taken sociological courses and have shared a more open minded view on the issue. Not to mention, I put emphasis on the use of force being circumstantial. If someone is raping your wife, that is a gray area. How did that happen? Did he start out with a gun? A gun would deem deadly therefore, deadly force would be applicable. Once again, the same thought that inadvertently came out of Tennesse V. Gardner should apply to civilians, only if your life is in danger or a third party.

More Guns, Less Crime is a statistical analysis of [every county in the U.S. over a period of eighteen years, from 1997 to 1994. You can read more about it, and the various studies supporting and rebutting it here.

I'd also add that you might be especially interested in Lott's other gin and gun control book, The Bias Against Guns, wherein he suggests that psychological bias prevents people from accepting the results of his study,More Guns, Less Crime :lol:

I appreciate you defending him. But the way you defend him suggests you are accepting everything that study says as true. I would be certain I could find studies done that support the use of gun ownership causing even more trouble. I'm sure you understand the nature of experiments and to understand how quickly results can become biased or false, and why it is important to see everything with a critical eye. Perhaps the media had good reason to invalidate this study or perhaps not. I will definitely take the time to read these soon enough.



Additionally, I never stated I was for or against. The OP asked for supporting points against, not for. Although the article completely supported what I had already stated. People should be well trained if civilians should carry guns.

 

[Sukerkin]

I honestly do take and understand the point, Andy. I am not an advocate of fearfully disarming every law abiding citizen just in case they hurt someone or themselves.

However, I wasn't speaking necessarily at an individual level in the post quoted above; it is a principle that can apply at any scale from one person to a whole society. It's a phenomenon I've often termed 'solution induced blindness' in my work i.e. you come up with a response to a problem that sort of works fairly well and fixate upon that such that you stop exploring other avenues.

It can be argued that, if you've got a solution, then what do you want another one for? Which is a fair enough point. But the point I was trying to make is that accepting that gun ownership is an answer to the problem of violent crime should not be allowed to stop us looking for a better one.

It's true that a paradigm which works very well in science and technology (build a better mouse trap) is not so easily applied sociologically but I don't think we'll ever know if we can 'evolve', as social creatures, beyond the use of violence to achieve goals if we never look.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I honestly do take and understand the point, Andy. I am not an advocate of fearfully disarming every law abiding citizen just in case they hurt someone or themselves.

However, I wasn't speaking necessarily at an individual level in the post quoted above; it is a principle that can apply at any scale from one person to a whole society. It's a phenomenon I've often termed 'solution induced blindness' in my work i.e. you come up with a response to a problem that sort of works fairly well and fixate upon that such that you stop exploring other avenues.

It can be argued that, if you've got a solution, then what do you want another one for? Which is a fair enough point. But the point I was trying to make is that accepting that gun ownership is an answer to the problem of violent crime should not be allowed to stop us looking for a better one.

It's true that a paradigm which works very well in science and technology (build a better mouse trap) is not so easily applied sociologically but I don't think we'll ever know if we can 'evolve', as social creatures, beyond the use of violence to achieve goals if we never look.

Well it's more simple than you think: All we would need to do is just all agree to love cats.

On a more serious note, I understand what you're saying, but I guess the whole "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" versus "how will we become a better species if we don't try" is just gonna boil down to the difference in our worldviews.

*You* would like to believe we live in the best of all possible situations, and *I'm* afraid you're probably right.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

1.) Yes, but LEO are required to receive recourse training sessions where as the average civilian who bares a gun does not/not as frequently. I am simply suggesting, the average police officer knows how to more efficiently use a gun over the average civilian.

Do you mean average "civilian", period, or average civilian "shooter"?

If the former, yes.

If the latter, I would say my own range experiences would tend to show the reverse is true--An average police officer may not be "into" guns, may never fire his/her duty weapon more then the required twice-yearly ( at least around here) Q-course.

But it has been my experience that civilians serious enough about training to get their carry permits tend , from the beginning, to *already* be recreational shooters, and thus fans of putting in their "trigger time".

As an example, my range lets the town police dept. train for free, no membership required. Yet during one week where I was shooting every day, I saw 4 or 5 of the same fellow carry permit holders there practicing, and saw only one cop. On one day.

Gives you an "insider" perspective you may not have had, and of course, other depts. may vary and those on special/tactical teams will have requirements seperate from general patrol.


.

People should be well trained if civilians should carry guns.

On that we agree 110%

 

[elder999]

Well it's more simple than you think: All we would need to do is just all agree to love cats.

Good Cat Haiku, #24

Really, I love cats
it's just that I can never
finish a whole one.

(I kill me!Do we have an "Alf" smiley??)

Carry on....

I appreciate you defending him. But the way you defend him suggests you are accepting everything that study says as true. I would be certain I could find studies done that support the use of gun ownership causing even more trouble. I'm sure you understand the nature of experiments and to understand how quickly results can become biased or false, and why it is important to see everything with a critical eye. Perhaps the media had good reason to invalidate this study or perhaps not. I will definitely take the time to read these soon enough.

Not defending him-I do agree with him. The raw data is available on his website, for all and sundry to draw their own conclusions, independent of the "nature of experiments."

 

[Sukerkin]

That's an important point, Elder, on any debate where people can have 'emotional' filters on the subject (and I don't exempt myself from that ). Drawing your own conclusions from the evidence is a vital part of having a 'view'.

Of course, the 'evidence' has to be worthy of the name and if there isn't any then we're on a sticky wicket from the start but weighing up the pro's and con's of a topic really should be a process that engages the mind with a degree of rigourousness - otherwise we're just taking everything on 'faith'.

 

[KenpoTex]

1.) Yes, but LEO are required to receive recourse training sessions where as the average civilian who bares a gun does not/not as frequently. I am simply suggesting, the average police officer knows how to more efficiently use a gun over the average civilian.

How do YOU know that the average citizen who chooses to carry a gun for defensive purposes doesn't train as much as the average LEO? I'll tell you that in my personal experience, most cops can't shoot worth a flip. Furthermore, they only train when the department is footing the bill and paying them overtime to attend (and that's only if they can't get out of going). This means that they typically only shoot once or twice a year during their laughable "qualification course."
I have seen a number of cops who I wouldn't trust anywhere near me in a gunfight...

 

[Glycerine0160]

How do YOU know that the average citizen who chooses to carry a gun for defensive purposes doesn't train as much as the average LEO? I'll tell you that in my personal experience, most cops can't shoot worth a flip. Furthermore, they only train when the department is footing the bill and paying them overtime to attend (and that's only if they can't get out of going). This means that they typically only shoot once or twice a year during their laughable "qualification course."
I have seen a number of cops who I wouldn't trust anywhere near me in a gunfight...

Oh, trust me. I am well aware of the many LEO's who cannot use their firearms well. That is why I brought it up. If they cannot, I would not expect citizens with guns to do any better. (given there is not rigorous training courses that are mandated) If there are these mandates, well then obviously that would lend itself to my point aforementioned in my previous input and would make this irrelevant.

 

[sjansen]

How do YOU know that the average citizen who chooses to carry a gun for defensive purposes doesn't train as much as the average LEO? I'll tell you that in my personal experience, most cops can't shoot worth a flip. Furthermore, they only train when the department is footing the bill and paying them overtime to attend (and that's only if they can't get out of going). This means that they typically only shoot once or twice a year during their laughable "qualification course."
I have seen a number of cops who I wouldn't trust anywhere near me in a gunfight...

The average citizen in the U.S. can't carry a gun legally. Those who do usually have to go through training to do so like you do in the martial arts. My wife had to go through 20 hours or more of training to be able to carry a gun in public. I had to go through less but was trained in the U.S. Marines as a machine gunner. I was trained in the use of personal firearms as every machine gunner at the time had to carry a pistol. My proficiency was tested before I was allowed to get a permit to carry a gun. Also, that proficiency is tested every time you renew your licence.

People who are trained to use guns are not the ones who use them in crimes. Look at the statistics. They are less likely to be the victims in violent crimes. States that have a more lenient gun policy have a less violent crime rate. Look at states like New York and California who have higher gun violence and more stringent gun laws. Also, look at what happened to Australia when they started dumping guns in the ocean. Their violent crime rate exploded and citizens were left with noone to count on but the police.

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

[KenpoTex]

Oh, trust me. I am well aware of the many LEO's who cannot use their firearms well. That is why I brought it up. If they cannot, I would not expect citizens with guns to do any better. (given there is not rigorous training courses that are mandated) If there are these mandates, well then obviously that would lend itself to my point aforementioned in my previous input and would make this irrelevant.

The problem here is your assumption that most private citizens who choose to carry approach the issue with the same attitude as most LEOs. While many CCW holders won't take professional training beyond what's required to obtain their permit, there are those that do. In the classes I've attended, "regular dudes" outnumber the cops by a huge margin. That said, even those who don't take formal training seem to practice more since, as another poster pointed out, they have used guns for recreation and sport prior to making the decision to carry for protection.
I don't want to give the impression that I have a negative view of LEOs (and those on this board know that is not the case)...there are a lot of cops out there who are professionals. However, many of them are not.

 

[searcher]

Andy and Tex beat me to the punch.


I regularly shoot with and train with LE guys. Of the 1000's that I have shot with, most of them(LE guys) don't shoot all that great. I hate to say it, but LE training does not make LE guys these wonderful marksman. I talk to most of the local Sherrif's Dept and Police Dept. on a daily basis and most of them will tell you that they shoot less than 100 rounds per year. In comparison, I shoot 750-1000 rounds in a weekend. And that is almost every weekend.

 

[Thesemindz]

If someone is raping your wife, that is a gray area.

I would recommend you inform your girlfriend, wife, or significant other that you consider their rape a "gray area."

I, on the other hand, do not.


-Rob

 

[Glycerine0160]

I would recommend you inform your girlfriend, wife, or significant other that you consider their rape a "gray area."

I, on the other hand, do not.


-Rob

I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole. You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital.

Example, if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense.

 

[Thesemindz]

I could not empathize with you more that rape is atrocious. But convicts of rape usually get 8 years if not less. Not to mention parole. You seemed to have skipped over my stress on the whole subject and only quoted a part. That part was vital.

Example, if you use lethal force on a bare handed man trying to rape your wife, good luck with that defense.

I'll take my chances. Thanks for your concern.


-Rob