The main reason you can't shot a handgun accurately

[Steve]

These statements couldn't be more congruent. I genuinely think you completely missed what I'm saying.

It's possible.

 

[Jared Traveler]

LOL. I think we agree on many things.

I'd say, might need a gun in some situations is a good start, because it suggests that you would agree a cop might not need a gun.

There's a lot of room in there for agreement, but it's intentionally vague for two reasons. First, to answer your question thoroughly would probably be deemed overtly political. Second is, I think to get to that discussion, extreme positions like none or all have to be acknowledged as unconstructive. It's not zero-sum, but that's the way it's often portrayed.

If they might need a gun, that means they need a gun. Because you can't know which officers will need a gun to perform their duties and which ones will not. Can we agree on that?

 

[Steve]

You think unarmed people aren't dangerous? Or that a gun is the only thing that counts as being armed?

Calm down, big boy.

 

[Steve]

If they might need a gun, that means they need a gun. Because you can't know which officers will need a gun to perform their duties and which ones will not. Can we agree on that?

Okay. Sorry. To be more specific. I believe SOME cops need guns SOMETIMES to do SOME portion of their assigned tasks. The devil is in the details, but if we can't agree that SOME cops don't need guns, then yes, I don't think we agree on this.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Okay. Sorry. To be more specific. I believe SOME cops need guns SOMETIMES to do SOME portion of their assigned tasks. The devil is in the details, but if we can't agree that SOME cops don't need guns, then yes, I don't think we agree on this.

Honestly Steve, and I hope this can be said in a way that isn't going to come off rude, but, if you don't think working cops need guns, you can't begin to understand the problem, or the real solutions. You can not understand how to interpret the statistics or what to do with the numbers you are looking at.

Because you are not living in reality. The reality being there is no way for an officer to know when or if they will need a gun, or what type of situations they will find themselves in when they need it.

Every cop needs to be armed, trained and prepared for a gunfight, regardless of what type of shooting they actually find themselves in, or if they ever need to fire their gun at all. There is no crystal ball to predict these SOMETIMES. Human aggression is unpredictable and cops need tools and training to be prepared for that, regardless if it happens or not.

In fact thinking otherwise directly contributes to the problem, not any solution. Because it leads to further mental and physical unpreparedness.

 

[Steve]

Honestly Steve, and I hope this can be said in a way that isn't going to come off rude, but, if you don't think working cops need guns, you can't begin to understand the problem, or the real solutions. You can not understand how to interpret the statistics or what to do with the numbers you are looking at.

Because you are not living in reality. The reality being there is no way for an officer to know when or if they will need a gun, or what type of situations they will find themselves in when they need it.

Every cop needs to be armed, trained and prepared for a gunfight, regardless of what type of shooting they actually find themselves in, or if they ever need to fire their gun at all. There is no crystal ball to predict these SOMETIMES. Human aggression is unpredictable and cops need tools and training to be prepared for that, regardless if it happens or not.

In fact thinking otherwise directly contributes to the problem, not any solution. Because it leads to further mental and physical unpreparedness.

I think it might be possible that guns are so much a part of the culture that cops (and you as some kind of either former or current cop) cannot envision a manner in which to do their job without them. And that's the challenge we have. Guns are all wrapped up in what it means to be a cop, the identify of it, and the feelings of fear and lack of preparedness that accompany even the thought of being without them.

There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of people who have very dangerous jobs where they interact routinely with people who may or may not be dangerous, where they could easily use the same argument you are using to justify carrying a sidearm at all times. And they don't.

To be clear, if this were a conversation about "tools" that may or may not include a sidearm, this could be a very different conversation. Also, just fyi, if you start off qualifying your statement by saying you hope it's not rude, it's probably pretty rude. It's okay, though. I have a thick skin.

@Dirty Dog , FYI, of course people who don't have guns can be dangerous, and also, I never suggested having a gun is the only way to "be armed." I'm sorry I reacted to your snarkiness in kind.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I think it might be possible that guns are so much a part of the culture that cops (and you as some kind of either former or current cop) cannot envision a manner in which to do their job without them. And that's the challenge we have. Guns are all wrapped up in what it means to be a cop, the identify of it, and the feelings of fear and lack of preparedness that accompany even the thought of being without them.

There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of people who have very dangerous jobs where they interact routinely with people who may or may not be dangerous, where they could easily use the same argument you are using to justify carrying a sidearm at all times. And they don't.

To be clear, if this were a conversation about "tools" that may or may not include a sidearm, this could be a very different conversation. Also, just fyi, if you start off qualifying your statement by saying you hope it's not rude, it's probably pretty rude. It's okay, though. I have a thick skin.

@Dirty Dog , FYI, of course people who don't have guns can be dangerous, and also, I never suggested having a gun is the only way to "be armed." I'm sorry I reacted to your snarkiness in kind.

Well in that case I'm glad I didn't actually say something rude.

Again, your welcome to your opinion, but there is a reality to police work that you are unwilling or unable to comprehend. Those other professions all call the police when they need help. And yes some of them have dangerous jobs, that doesn't eliminate or minimize the very real danger to cops. Sending a police officer in America out to do their without a firearm on their person at all times is irresponsible, and foolish. That's not debatable by anyone who understands the realities of a police officers duties and responsibilities in America.

It also calls into question your ability to understand and interpret the data regarding police shootings without bias. Because nothing about the data suggests an officer shouldn't be armed and prepared for a violent attack. In fact everything points to the need for an officer to be armed and prepared.

 

[Steve]

Well in that case I'm glad I didn't actually say something rude.

We all say rude things sometimes. I forgive you. I was curt with @Dirty Dog, and admitted it.

Again, your welcome to your opinion, but there is a reality to police work that you are unwilling or unable to comprehend. Those other professions all call the police when they need help. And yes some of them have dangerous jobs, that doesn't eliminate or minimize the very real danger to cops. Sending a police officer in America out to do their without a firearm on their person at all times is irresponsible, and foolish. That's not debatable by anyone who understands the realities of a police officers duties and responsibilities in America.

I know my opinions seem pretty naive to you. I get it. When you've lived a lifetime never questioning that a sidearm is a tool you have to carry in order to do your job, I don't expect you to be open to any opinion to the contrary. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything.

Also, to be sure, I think cops have a very dangerous job and should be given the tools they need to do their job safely and competently. I think the hang up we have is that you believe a gun is something without which cops are unsafe and unable to competently execute their jobs. I believe it's possible, and there is evidence to support this, that in some situations, a gun can actually make cops less safe, along with the public they serve. You provided one good example, yourself, when someone tries to take a cops gun away, that's a big problem. I can easily understand how that could take a bad situation and make it worse.

It also calls into question your ability to understand and interpret the data regarding police shootings without bias. Because nothing about the data suggests an officer shouldn't be armed and prepared for a violent attack. In fact everything points to the need for an officer to be armed and prepared.

There isn't any such thing as "without bias", and I try very hard to speak plainly. And when you suggest I have a bias without acknowledging your own, I literally snorted. I mean, you are nothing if not biased on this topic. More concerning is that you don't seem to recognize that.

But now you're starting to speak my language. What do you mean by "everything points"? Everything is a pretty bold claim.

 

[Jared Traveler]

We all say rude things sometimes. I forgive you. I was curt with @Dirty Dog, and admitted it.

I know my opinions seem pretty naive to you. I get it. When you've lived a lifetime never questioning that a sidearm is a tool you have to carry in order to do your job, I don't expect you to be open to any opinion to the contrary. I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you of anything.

Also, to be sure, I think cops have a very dangerous job and should be given the tools they need to do their job safely and competently. I think the hang up we have is that you believe a gun is something without which cops are unsafe and unable to competently execute their jobs. I believe it's possible, and there is evidence to support this, that guns actually make cops less safe, along with the public they serve. You provided one good example, yourself, when someone tries to take a cops gun away, that's a big problem. I can easily understand how that could take a bad situation and make it worse.


There isn't any such thing as "without bias", and I try very hard to speak plainly. And when you suggest I have a bias without acknowledging your own, I literally snorted. I mean, you are nothing if not biased on this topic. More concerning is that you don't seem to recognize that.

But now you're starting to speak my language. What do you mean by "everything points"? Everything is a pretty bold claim.

This is not the case, I certainly have bias like everyone, but not to the point that I can't match 20+ years of law enforcement and more accurately than most conceive what that might look like without a firearm.

In fact I have traveled to 19 counties to date, all without a firearm. Some of them active war zones, or during times of riots and instability. I'm very experienced more than your average person is in operating in very dangerous environments without a gun. And also willing to beyond what most anyone would be comfortable with.

The reality is, you believe my bias blinds me to what's possible. But the fact is, I'm right. I'm not right about everything, but I am about this. It's not sane or responsible to send cops out to do their basic duties in America without a weapon.

 

[tkdroamer]

The Washington Post maintains the database. The data is available for free, no pay wall, and it's updated regularly. I encourage you to look it up yourself. You're skeptical of information you haven't taken the time to review yourself. That's a bad idea. I think the numbers are credible. This is just simple numbers that are either accurate or not. If I said that the elementary school near you has 312 students, and 45% of them are Hispanic, it's either correct or incorrect. This is like that.

Whether they are relevant or important is debatable, which is why we talk about things. I don't think that's a rabbit hole. I think the word is "discussion." We're talking about the main reason you can't shoot a handgun accurately. The OP says it's because you aren't willing to prioritize hitting the target over your own life. A lot to unpack there. The societal implications of all of that are pretty interesting to me. I read this thread and think, let's presume the OP is correct. Is that a healthy mindset for regular people? What about cops, whom the OP used as an example and the basis for his theory? How does his theory mesh with what data we have?

Not saying that's interesting to anyone else. But it's what I'm interested in

I am not arguing whether the numbers are credible. I would aver that 'credible' can be very, very questionable at best. Using that data for your discussion argument is parallel to finding and using a stat on how many EMS workers get hurt every year by assisting injured or sick people. I am certain there are some big statistical number(s) out there. But unless you are looking to get into that line of work, do they really matter? They are both essential personnel.

 

[tkdroamer]

Honestly Steve, and I hope this can be said in a way that isn't going to come off rude, but, if you don't think working cops need guns, you can't begin to understand the problem, or the real solutions. You can not understand how to interpret the statistics or what to do with the numbers you are looking at.

Because you are not living in reality. The reality being there is no way for an officer to know when or if they will need a gun, or what type of situations they will find themselves in when they need it.

Every cop needs to be armed, trained and prepared for a gunfight, regardless of what type of shooting they actually find themselves in, or if they ever need to fire their gun at all. There is no crystal ball to predict these SOMETIMES. Human aggression is unpredictable and cops need tools and training to be prepared for that, regardless if it happens or not.

In fact thinking otherwise directly contributes to the problem, not any solution. Because it leads to further mental and physical unpreparedness.

You said that so much better than I ever could have.

 

[Steve]

This is not the case, I certainly have bias like everyone, but not to the point that I can't match 20+ years of law enforcement and more accurately than most conceive what that might look like without a firearm.

In fact I have traveled to 19 counties to date, all without a firearm. Some of them active war zones, or during times of riots and instability. I'm very experienced more than your average person is in operating in very dangerous environments without a gun. And also willing to beyond what most anyone would be comfortable with.

The reality is, you believe my bias blinds me to what's possible. But the fact is, I'm right. I'm not right about everything, but I am about this. It's not sane or responsible to send cops out to do their basic duties in America without a weapon.

I think you have a valuable perspective. But respectfully, I don’t think you are right. I also think you are a short step from the ad hominem stage of the discussion where it becomes about me and not the topic at hand. Suffice to say that so far, beyond your insistence that it’s true, there is nothing to suggest 100% of cops carrying a firearm 100% of the time is good for either cops or the public they serve.

you guys are at the point where you are crying bias and attacking the messenger and not the message. I’m good letting it drop and I appreciate the interesting discussion.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I think you have a valuable perspective. But respectfully, I don’t think you are right. I also think you are a short step from the ad hominem stage of the discussion where it becomes about me and not the topic at hand. Suffice to say that so far, beyond your insistence that it’s true, there is nothing to suggest 100% of cops carrying a firearm 100% of the time is good for either cops or the public they serve.

you guys are at the point where you are crying bias and attacking the messenger and not the message. I’m good letting it drop and I appreciate the interesting discussion.

Because the topic has to address your personal bias to continue in the pursuit of real meaningful conversation verse fairytales.

 

[Steve]

Because the topic has to address your personal bias to continue in the pursuit of real meaningful conversation verse fairytales.

Ad hominem it is then. That was quick. 😬

 

[Jared Traveler]

Ad hominem it is then. That was quick. 😬

Don't make this about me Steve.

 

[Oily Dragon]

The reality is, you believe my bias blinds me

That's kind of his point. It just did.

Anybody claiming to have "reality" down is suspect.

Everyone has their biases, which cloud perception. Please don't make me spout ancient scripture about this...it's true primae facie, like Royce Gracie.

And then you went on about "fact", but reality, fact, and bias are different things. To tie it together, facts are independent of your biased perceptions of reality.

So just as friendly advice, avoid stating "facts" that are your own biased opinion, and never, ever claim to know what reality is when you're describing your own personal experience. Just say "IMHO" and not "I've been in 19 countries...". That just reeks of pride and authority. We're all equals here.

Probably why your missing Steve's friendly attempt at communion, and why you'll get angry at me posting this. Or not, maybe that's just my perception.

 

[Jared Traveler]

That's kind of his point.

Anybody claiming to have "reality" down is suspect.

Everyone has their biases, which cloud perception. Please don't make me spout ancient scripture about this...it's true primae facie, like Royce Gracie.

And then you went on about "fact", but reality, fact, and bias are different things.

So just as friendly advice, avoid stating facts that are your own biased opinion, and never, ever claim to know what reality is when you're describing your own personal experience. Just say "IMHO" and not "I've been in 19 countries...". That just reeks of pride.

The implication was my bias towards feeling like I need a gun was clouding my judgement on what is possible. Having 20+ years of armed law enforcement experience, plus traveling and working in 19 counties without one significantly debunks that accusations. Take it how you want, it's extremely relevant info for me to bring up.

With that said, I apologize if that came off wrong, it wasn't my intention. Although I'm sure I do suffer from pride from time to time. So I will check my heat on this matter. Genuinely thank you!

But yes, I maintain their is a reality to conflict and violence that I do understand from personal experience.

 

[Steve]

Don't make this about me Steve.

I’m glad we can still laugh. Here I’ll try one more time.

Why didn’t you carry a weapon in all of those 19 countries? Was it always a personal choice of yours to leave the gun at home after an evaluation of the threat?

 

[Oily Dragon]

The implication was my bias towards feeling like I need a gun was clouding my judgement on what is possible. Having 20+ years of armed law enforcement experience, plus traveling and working in 19 counties without one significantly debunks that accusations. Take it how you want, it's extremely relevant info for me to bring up.

With that said, I apologize if that came off wrong, it wasn't my intention. Although I'm sure I do suffer from pride from time to time. So I will check my heat on this matter. Genuinely thank you!

But yes, I maintain their is a reality to conflict and violence that I do understand from personal experience.

Sure dude.

Armed cops also have a terrible track record of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and paranoia, and beat, shoot, arrest, and kill people all the time, and a lot are innocent.

It's stressful all around, and on both ends.

Oh and suicide. Cops are at the top of the list, sadly.

There's a lot to consider if you really want to stab at "reality". In fact some people believe it's futile to try, and better off listening to others and constantly re-evaluating your views. E Pluribus Unum.

I dominated a big cop on the mats once. We both learned something. I think he was humbled, but I know I was. I felt terrible, at his defeated face.

 

[Jared Traveler]

I’m glad we can still laugh. Here I’ll try one more time.

Why didn’t you carry a weapon in all of those 19 countries? Was it always a personal choice of yours to leave the gun at home after an evaluation of the threat?

It's because one, I am there on a different mission, without the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement. Also, I'm rarely legal to carry weapons in those countries. Also, living isn't my highest priority, so I'm willing to take risks to accomplish certain an objects. Not working in law enforcement there I can mitigate threats in different ways, that I can't do as a police officer.