"We train more, they do better"

[TPaine7]

Knowledge--the most dangerous of weapons to anti-gun zealots--is proliferating. Here's a sheriff who knows the truth and isn't afraid to speak it to power. Of course he "stunned the room" of policymakers. Most folks, and almost all anti-gun zealots, are woefully ignorant of the relevant facts.

Sheriff White argued that armed college students have the potential to end the threat quickly. And he stunned the room with this assertion.

"In actual shootings, citizens do far better than law enforcement on hit potential,” said White. “They hit their targets and they don't hit other people. I wish I could say the same for cops. We train more, they do better."

Source:http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=331460

What if the truth got out, and other states' sheriffs were as knowledgeable and as honest as Missouri's sheriff White? Imagine accurate facts running in our streets, lose in our daycare facilities, our hospitals, our churches, our college campuses!

The horror! Something must be done.





PS: OK, apparently I can't handle cold turkey. I'll have to just try to cut back.

[Buzz Clik]

1. Interesting that the sheriff had time to conduct that scientific study.

Fascinating results, though hardly intuitive.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. It would not surprise me if his statements were true.

People that regularly carry guns are most likely gun enthusiasts. They enjoy shooting (so they're probably pretty good at it) and they get out and practice. Does it come as any suprise that CCWers generally perform well with thier guns? I myself attend fortnightly USPSA competitions, so I'm at least averaging 100rnds every other week. I would wager large sums of money I could outshoot most of the officers in my city.

On the flip-side, guns are actually a small part of being a police officer. Yes, there is formal training and they carry it around everyday - but that is a job requirement. Being a police officer is a job. I am under the impression that very few cops went into the profession because they get to shoot guns alot (those nutjobs are in the marines :P). In fact I would love to see studies that show just how many cops regularly shoot outside of thier periodic qualifications - my guess is fewer than most.

My uncle was a police officer for quite some time and I'm not sure I've ever heard him talk about shooting recreationally or carry a firearm. For all I know, he probably does not even have them anymore. I hope he keeps an old service revolver locked in a drawer somewhere.

[paulsby]

30. very true. from a police officer

the vast majority of cops are not firearms enthusiasts. i am a police firearms instructor. relatively few cops are "firearms enthusiasts" and/or do ANY firearms practice on their own. per our union contract, in my agency, we get free range time (during shift) every month. i can count on one hand the # of guys i have seen who take advantage of this.
your analysis is correct.

cops rule of engagement and reasons FOR shooting are also slightly different. iow, there are other factors that affect hit ratio besides shooting accuracy in general. that's a whole other topic.
regardless, few cops are better than an average shot.

many cops are experts at a lot of thing. for example, driving, interview technique, etc. firearms expertise is much more rare

[TPaine7]

6. Criminologist have done multiple relevant studies

Civilian Shooters

Another argument is that civilians are not skilled enough to use guns; they are likely to shoot innocents—or even themselves. This, while at least intuitively reasonable, is wrong.

Evidence pertaining to police use of firearms also indicates that civilians who use guns for self-protection are actually less likely to shoot innocent parties than police officers.42

Civilians are safer in real life shootings according to several measures:

A nationwide comparative study conducted by Mr. Kates at St. Louis University School of Law found that police succeeded in shooting, wounding or driving off criminals 68% of the time, while 83% of the armed citizens succeeded; 21% of the officers and 17.8% of the citizens were wounded or killed. Incidentally, 11% of the police shootings but only 2% of those by armed citizens involved innocent people misidentified as criminals.43

They are 1.22 times more likely to shoot, wound, or drive off criminals; they are 15% less likely to be wounded or killed; they are 5.5 times less likely to shoot the wrong person due to misidentification.

Much of this, at least, is a function of difficulty. Police must go to the felon, who is often strategically positioned; they are seldom attacked in their stations, while citizens often repel home invaders. Police go into dynamic and difficult situations where split second decisions are required. It is often hard to tell the innocent from the guilty. Citizens face little difficulty in knowing who is trying to rape, rob or kill them. Most violent crime also requires the perpetrator to get close, so close it is easy to shoot him. Gun battles with police are not always so intimate. Finally, a felon knows that a uniformed officer is armed, whereas a nice lady who produces a weapon may very well catch him flat-footed.

But even though this comparative data is no indictment of police officers, it definitely puts the overblown danger of citizen shootings in perspective.

(To read the footnotes, you'll have to read my open letter at www.obamaonsecond.com .)

[iverglas]

8. it's Don Kates!

The universe's most objective source!

A nationwide comparative study conducted by Mr. Kates at St. Louis University School of Law found that police succeeded in shooting, wounding or driving off criminals 68% of the time, while 83% of the armed citizens succeeded; 21% of the officers and 17.8% of the citizens were wounded or killed. Incidentally, 11% of the police shootings but only 2% of those by armed citizens involved innocent people misidentified as criminals.

Gosh. They couldn't possibly have been operating in ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FUCKING SITUATIONS, could they???


Hey - you acknowledge it: yes, they could have been, and usually are.

What was your point now?

Members of the public most often use firearms in their own homes / up close and personal, and cops don't?

Oops, no:

But even though this comparative data is no indictment of police officers, it definitely puts the overblown danger of citizen shootings in perspective.

Indeed. If you call "smothered in red herrrings" "perspective".



typo fixed

[TPaine7]

16. Oh clueless one...

Seeing a guy shooting a classmate 20 ft away from you and realizing that you have a clear shot and you're out of the shooters field of vision and able to draw from concealment--an extremely likely scenario in a school shooting--is a hell of a different situation than getting a radio dispatch and being notified that there is a shooting in Johnson Hall.

Or didn't you realize that?!!!

[iverglas]

18. uh, yeah

... is a hell of a different situation than getting a radio dispatch and being notified that there is a shooting in Johnson Hall.

I think that was kinda my point. Like, the different circumstances in which Kates's bogus "statistics" existed as actual facts.


Seeing a guy shooting a classmate 20 ft away from you and realizing that you have a clear shot and you're out of the shooters field of vision and able to draw from concealment

I can tell you're just jiggling with excitement at that prospect as you type those words, but I'm very much afraid your daydream will almost certainly remain in the same realm as mine about the castle in Cornwall. Fantasyland. (No purses with pistols allowed in mine, of course.)

You let us know when you actually are in that situation though, and we'll have a think.

[TPaine7]

27. O clueless one...

I see your clueless status hasn't improved.

... is a hell of a different situation than getting a radio dispatch and being notified that there is a shooting in Johnson Hall.--{TPaine7}

I think that was kinda my point. Like, the different circumstances in which Kates's bogus "statistics" existed as actual facts.

You are so confused, iverglas. As usual. If police officers and CCW carrier typically find themselves in different situations IN THE REAL WORLD, and these REAL-WORLD SITUATIONS mean that CCW carriers perform better, it is not a legitimate argument that the CCW carriers have an "unfair" advantage. This is not an academic question of who would shoot better in identical situations--police or CCW carriers--it is a debate on policies to deal with REAL WORLD CONDITIONS.

You sound like a police supervisor who has to decide on which sniper should take a shot, sniper A who is 100 ft from the target and has a clear shot, or sniper B who is 3000 ft from the target and must get the bullet through a quarter sized opening.

Sniper A gets the shot. And if sniper A can get into such positions consistently in real-world situations, sniper A will get the shot consistently. And that has nothing to do with how well snipers A and B perform under identical conditions in head-to-head competition.

Duh.

[iverglas]

33. is this your personal verbiage?

citizens often repel home invaders
Citizens face little difficulty in knowing who is trying to rape, rob or kill them
Most violent crime also requires the perpetrator to get close, so close it is easy to shoot him

Can you provide us with the circumstances of the cases in the two groups compared by Kates?

No?

So maybe you have a third leg you're standing on? Not seeing that you have one to stand on from what you've presented, maybe you'll disclose it.

[TPaine7]

57. Why yes, your Sophistry

Those are my words, ripped as some of them are from their context.

Here are my words as I wrote them:

Much of this, at least, is a function of difficulty. Police must go to the felon, who is often strategically positioned; they are seldom attacked in their stations, while citizens often repel home invaders. Police go into dynamic and difficult situations where split second decisions are required. It is often hard to tell the innocent from the guilty. Citizens face little difficulty in knowing who is trying to rape, rob or kill them. Most violent crime also requires the perpetrator to get close, so close it is easy to shoot him. Gun battles with police are not always so intimate. Finally, a felon knows that a uniformed officer is armed, whereas a nice lady who produces a weapon may very well catch him flat-footed.

In post 8, you called Kates' objectivity into question. Apparently he isn't a rabid supporter of Canadian-style gun control. So I'll cite a source less competent, less knowledgeable about criminology, less honest and infinitely less objective--you.

I'll go out on a limb and say that you--even you, iverglas--are neither stupid enough to disagree with the points I am making in context or dishonest enough to lie and say that you do.

Point One

As quoted:

citizens often repel home invaders

In context:

Police must go to the felon, who is often strategically positioned; they are seldom attacked in their stations, while citizens often repel home invaders.

In context, my statement is a comparison. Home invasions are frequent relative to police station invasions.

You agree.


Point Two

Citizens face little difficulty in knowing who is trying to rape, rob or kill them.

A potential victim knows who is trying to rape, rob or kill them. I'm not talking about later in a lineup, I mean when the assault is in progress. They know who to shoot.

You agree.


Point Three

As quoted:

Most violent crime also requires the perpetrator to get close, so close it is easy to shoot him.

Let's think about the most common violent crimes--assault, armed robbery, battery, rape, kidnapping and mugging. Even you can see immediately that the intended victim will not usually have a problem with her assailant being too far away for her to aim well. He can't rape her from down the street or from behind the cover of a car, like a felon can shoot a police officer responding to a call from behind a car or down the street. Assault, battery, mugging and kidnapping are also impossible from long distance. I know the subject is gun policy, but I trust even you can see that, right?! What about armed robbery? Can you see a felon pointing a gun at woman 30 meters away and saying "drop your purse" or "throw your purse this way"? Even if you think that's how most armed robberies happen, that's the majority of only one of the violent crimes we've examined. For the others, long range crime is virtually impossible.

Ok, I left out murder. The DC snipers were really an anomaly, iverglas. Most murders are much more intimate. No, I can't (or won't) cite evidence, but then I don't really need to. You know I'm right. But even if most murders were like the DC sniper murders, other violent crimes numerically dwarf murders. So in the majority of violent crimes, long distance felonious activity IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Citizens shooting defensively in these situations will not miss the assailant due to great distances.

You agree.


As biased as my source is, you have little choice but to agree with her.





Now to the point you're trying so desperately to avoid.

In the real world, police and civilians who shoot in defense of self or others face vastly different circumstances, statistically speaking. In the real world, civilians who shoot in defense of self or others perform much better than their police counterparts, statistically speaking. Regardless of the "why", if you are near a defensive police shooting you are in much more danger than if you are near a defensive civilian shooting, statistically speaking. Those are the facts.

Now the objection you make--basically that the police have harder situations and the comparison isn't fair--is not relevant to the real world. It may be relevant on another planet. It may be relevant in a debate on how civilians would do clearing buildings, answering burglary calls, routinely arriving at the scenes of fights between people they don't know and the like.

In the real world, your objection is only meaningful under the gun control reality distortion field. Your purpose is transparent; we all know what would be "fair." Policymakers should turn their backs on reality. They should consider how civilians would do in police situations. And they should base their policy decisions IN THE REAL WORLD on what they THINK would happen IN THAT IMAGINARY CONSTRUCT.





This is your brain, people...

...And this is your brain on the gun control reality distortion field.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Are the situations really so different?

"Gosh. They couldn't possibly have been operating in ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FUCKING SITUATIONS, could they???"

whether it be cops or a someone with a CCW responding to an immediate justifiable threat, there is a perpetrator the "victim" (cop or CWWer), and weapons involved. The only real difference are the elements of surprise involved - which I'm unsure that merits much impact on the discussion.
Another difference I think is important to touch on is the fact that officers respond to dispatch calls. They know what kind of situation is unfolding and mentally/physically prepare to deal with it. If anything, well trained cops should have the statistic advantage... but do not for whatever reason.

[iverglas]

32. did you bother to read what you're pretending to talk about?

Let me know when you have.

[iverglas]

3. ya gotta jump down, turn around

pick a bale o' cherries ...

Look what else is in that article:

Skeptics in the law enforcement community say the weapons permitting process does not red flag the people it should.

"Most of those individuals, if not all, will pass a criminal background check," said Sgt. Kim Vansell, University of Central Missouri.

Oh, and:

Other officers say arming everybody makes it harder for them to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

And my goodness, in case non-cop interested parties count:

“And when you have multiple people potential pulling out guns, that's gonna totally go against our training and potentially create a chaos that we may not be prepared to handle," said another school adminstror.

Can you bake a cherry pie, Master Paine, Master Pain?


Now that Sheriff Greg White, he's an interesting dude.

http://www.wordandway.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=231&Itemid=95

But Sheriff Greg White's office contains something unexpected - a certificate of ordination. That's right - this sheriff is a preacher, one who insists that ministry has a place in police work.

Law enforcement played a large role in the sheriff's life and became the door to his conversion.

... <In Alaska> "I was inundated with Christians," White said. "I couldn't go to the post office, go to the grocery store, go to a restaurant without hearing a Christian witness."

He couldn't work either without being confronted. An officer who rode White's shift with him for a month constantly talked about the Lord.

Too bad for him he didn't follow up on his second-choice career as a kid: joining the RCMP. He would have been protected from this kind of harassment.

And now, guess what? He's a Southern Baptist. The outfit that Jimmy and Roslyn Carter quit in disgust many years ago.

Yes, a sheriff who is also a Southern Baptist preacher. That's whom I'll be looking to for my news and views!


What if the truth got out, and other states' sheriffs were as knowledgeable and as honest as Missouri's sheriff White?

I'm not seeing those two things being related, myself.

[TPaine7]

13. Catch your breath, old woman. All that jumping could kill you.

Oh, and:

Other officers say arming everybody makes it harder for them to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

*Gallows humor cynical laugh*

Read the story of Virginia Tech. Odds are, the officers saying that would just swarm all the safe areas of the campus until the perpetrator killed himself or ran out of bullets. Sheriff White is correct, things are likely to end very quickly on a campus with CCW permitted armed students. The perpetrator is extremely unlikely to wander from room to room shooting at will. The odds of police responding before the shootout is over are infinitesimal. And win or lose, at least the students would have a chance of not being sitting ducks.

Sheriff White's fact-backed statement clearly refuted their "point." Not only did you fail to realize that, you cited the refuted "logic" to make your own anti-gun "point." Typical.





PS: your geriatric status is fair game as long as you keep implying that I am extremely young by calling me Master. If you are humbly acknowledging my intellectual dominance of you (strictly platonic, at least from my perspective), just say so. I really don't care how you get your kicks.

[iverglas]

20. "Sheriff White is correct" ... because ...

he says what you want. No more, no less.


The difference between us here, my young friend, is that you in fact are extremely young, by adult standards, those being the standards that apply here, while I am neither old, by the standards of anyone but a child, nor geriatric, by anyone's standards, including the dictionary's. So I'm merely honest, and you either aren't or are a child. Q.E.D.

[gorfle]

22. So why not fix it?

Skeptics in the law enforcement community say the weapons permitting process does not red flag the people it should.

"Most of those individuals, if not all, will pass a criminal background check," said Sgt. Kim Vansell, University of Central Missouri.

If there is a problem with NICS, fix NICS. If they are passing criminal background checks, the only other thing that would be bouncing them are mental issues. If states don't have the proper data for screening mentally unhealthy people from owning firearms, we need to get them that data.

Other officers say arming everybody makes it harder for them to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

Wah. I'll take my chances while waiting for the good guys to show up, thanks.

[iverglas]

4. where do you people dredge these people up?

http://www.talentforsenate.com/coalitions/?id=11

Sheriff Greg White
Jefferson City
Sheriff White has an extensive background in law enforcement. He was a Police Officer in Alaska for 9 years before he moved back to Jefferson City where he retired from Jefferson City Police Department prior to running for Cole County Sheriff.

Jim Talent for US Senate
Election campaign news from Republican candidate for US Senator from Missouri.
talentforsenate.com/

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Talent

James Matthes "Jim" Talent (born October 18, 1956) is an American politician and former Senator from Missouri. He is a Republican and resided in the St. Louis area while serving in elected office. He identifies with the conservative wing of the Republican party, being particularly outspoken on judicial appointments, abortion, flag burning, and defense issues. ...

... Talent supported a ban on abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

... Work as a lobbyist

For ten months in 2001, Talent worked for Washington lobbying firm, Arent Fox, earning $230,000. During this time Talent was not allowed to directly lobby Congress, and he was not licensed to practice law in Washington, leading some Democratic opponents to accuse the lobbying firm of using his appointment as an illegal conduit to donate toward his upcoming Senate race. Arent Fox said the idea that Talent was not paid for genuine work was "absurd", but that "Talent's Republican ties did play a role in his hiring."

I wonder what ticket White ran on ...

[TPaine7]

7. Can you refute the points the sheriff made, old woman?

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. She had to get the ad hominems out of the way first

The objective arguments will be along Real Soon Now. Have patience.

[iverglas]

10. my dear young fellow:

First, I think the sheriff, or you on his behalf, is going to have to present something that calls for refuting.

I am dreadfully sorry to tell you this, but his bald assertion ain't it.

[JonQ]

5. Not too surprsing

people who own guns tend to do so because they enjoy shooting, cops carry guns because they are required to. It makes sense that average citizens would put in more time at the shooting ranges (I think it argues for more training on part of the cops though).

[iverglas]

11. yeah

That woman caught with a pistol on her purse at Disneyland, because she had "forgotten it was there", undoubtedly spends a lot of time training and was perfectly prepared to do the exactly correct thing should Goofy have gone berserk.

[JonQ]

12. I wish I had slept through stats class too

so I could then draw trends from a population of n=1, instead of being bogged down by "studies", "percentages", "error rates", "control factors" and "facts".

[TPaine7]

14. LOL! Excellent.

[iverglas]

17. probably would be better off if you had

since it apparently did you no good.

No trend was drawn by anyone anyone here ... oh, except maybe Kates and his resident acolyte.

I'm not really interested in trends when the subject of discussion is who's wandering around with the ability to kill a few people at the drop of a hat. Intentionally, accidentally, negligently; maliciously or with the best of intentions; with perfect aim or while intending to shoot a bank robber, a bunny rabbit or themself; I don't really give a fuck.

[JonQ]

26. "I'm not really interested in trends"

That kind of says it all. You think individual cases are meaningful and should be used to set laws. Fortunately our laws, our constitution and good old common sense don't agree with you.

I don't need none of those number thingies, I'm thinking of the children!

[iverglas]

31. Put me on ignore now

You think individual cases are meaningful and should be used to set laws.

Yes, yes I do. I think individual cases that involve serious risks of serious harm to individuals and/or the public, not to mention cases in which said risks have materialized, are extremely meaningful.

I think the idea that someone would take a firearm in her purse when she visited a place like Disney World because she FORGOT it was there is appalling.

But hmm, I find the fact that you claim to have done the same thing to be indicative of a trend.

Evidently, it is not uncommon for people who wander abroad with firearms to just not give enough of a shit about the law, and other people's interests, to comply with the law / respect those interests.


In any event, it sure is funny how you pretended the main point of my post wasn't what it was:

No trend was drawn by anyone anyone here ... oh, except maybe Kates and his resident acolyte.

I was accused of "drawing a trend". I didn't.

I see instance after instance of assholes in legal possession of firearms behaving badly with firearms. That the trend I draw.

[JonQ]

34. I would never put you on ignore

besides being entertaining you offer a fascinating, if disturbing, insight in to the mindset of the zealous anti-gun subculture that is trying desperately to gain legitimacy here.

[iverglas]

35. and you'll notice how many sane, decent people

don't spend their time reading this forum and what it's filled with.

Strong stomach, me. Even though I'm a Virgo.

[JonQ]

39. Likely to most it's not enough of an issue to raise much interest

That can be said for many single issue forums.

[JonQ]

38. A few other things

How many car owners have forgotten to stop at a designated stop sign, and killed an individual? How many people forgot to build or lock the fence around their swimming pools and allowed someone to drown in them? How many forgot to wash their hands and spread potentially deadly diseases? If the answer for any of those is 1 or more then by your logic that requires draconian responses, even if they shred the constitution in the process.

Trends don't matter, only single anecdotes matter. And one death is just as tragic as a thousand, no matter what the cause, and warrants a complete overreaction (for the children).

Also I never said anything about carrying firearms, you're thinking of someone else.

Nor is forgetting the same as "just not giv enough of a shit about the law, and other people's interests, to comply with the law".

Its interesting, you don't apply this same logic to any other item than guns(cars for instance) nor to any other people than gun owners. It's like you believe guns and gun owners are somehow special, filled with some sort of magical aura, that others aren't. Even other items that can be linked to far more innocent people being killed.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. It's certainly plausible.

People that become 100% comfortable around their firearm don't necessarily think about it all the time. People new to carrying are usually aware of thier gun all the time. As time goes on comfort/complacency sets in and you don;t always think about it. There have been times where I got to the doors of my work and discovered I actually still have my glock on (no guns allowed at my work).

It can and does happen, and would have nothing to do with how well a person can shoot.

[iverglas]

19. "People that become 100% comfortable around their firearm ..."

There have been times where I got to the doors of my work and discovered I actually still have my glock on (no guns allowed at my work).

can just forget about laws and other people's property rights and other interests. Okay.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. No... they can't.

"just forget about laws and other people's property rights and other interests."

Don't put words in my mouth. People aren't allowed to just forget about laws and infringe on the rights of others. I'm not sure how canadians deal with their trash up there... but forgetfulness is not an affirmative defense in the States. Nor does forgetting make it OK. I was merely stating that it's entirely possible for someone to forget her pistol was in her purse... which you feel to be incomprehensible.

Odds are, when forgetful situations as you/I described happen - the infringed rights (likely unnoticed) do not ever equate to much. Do you image that, on remembrance of carrying a gun, a CCWer's attitude changes to a bloodthirsty paranoia and they start wildly shooting? No. Like stated 1000 times on this board, people with CHLs are not the problem.

[JonQ]

25. I don't think he ever said it was ok, merely that it happens

Putting words in peoples mouths eh?

[jeepnstein]

23. "I can quit any time I want to..."

[TPaine7]

28. That's just cruel. LOL!

[Tim01]

36. LMAO nt

[Tim01]

29. It shouldn't surprise anybody that civilians can shoot better than cops.

Cops carry a gun because it is their job to do so. It is also their job to chase people who might try to hurt them.But cop gun training is often not very good.That is because cops have to be trained in lots and lots of different stuff and all of the training costs money. And cops are very often not gun enthusiasts. But they are the ones who are very likely to get into a gun fight with a bad guy.
If a civilian is carrying a gun there is a very high probability he is a gun enthusiast. And so he has spent lots of time shooting and maybe competing or taking training classes, that he pays for.

Pretty straight forward.

We are only comparing shooting skill, not any other aspect of police work. Comparing cop driving skills to a guy who builds and races race cars is similar.

[iverglas]

37. "they are the ones who are very likely to get into a gun fight with a bad guy"

Yes, this is something that any cop in the USofA is likely to have happen on any given day.

We are only comparing shooting skill, not any other aspect of police work. Comparing cop driving skills to a guy who builds and races race cars is similar.

Actually, I'd say it's similar to comparing cop driving skills to the skills of somebody with a driver's licence and a car.

Despite all the sound and fury in this place, there is absolutely no reason to believe in the fabulous firearms skills possessed by permit holders in general, let alone by any particular permit holder.

And it really is a particular permit holder, not permit holders in general or some other permit holder, who is going to be in a particular situation. Should said situation ever arise. The odds of which are minute.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

41. I would have to say it still applies to "most" permit holders.

Yes, this is something that any cop in the USofA is likely to have happen on any given day.

"Likely"... really? I don't imagine you have a lot of reference to back up that gem.
I would say an overwhelming majority will not engage in a gunfight in their entire career... much less likely to do so any given day.

Despite all the sound and fury in this place, there is absolutely no reason to believe in the fabulous firearms skills possessed by permit holders in general, let alone by any particular permit holder.

And it really is a particular permit holder, not permit holders in general or some other permit holder, who is going to be in a particular situation. Should said situation ever arise. The odds of which are minute.

I just don't see many non-gun enthusiasts getting their CCW AND carrying it around routinely. Most people who aren't really into guns probably carry another means of personal protection - Pepper spray, tasers, pocket knives, whistles, etc...
No one here is saying that it's unheard of for CCWers to be unpracticed. It certainly happens. My father has a carry permit and probably only shoots twice a year. I'd say he's an average shot for most non-beginners. The point we're arguing is that it's very likely most people who routinely carry are as practiced (or more so) than typical Law Enforcement. To deny that is just sticking your head in the sand.

[iverglas]

43. damn

"Likely"... really? I don't imagine you have a lot of reference to back up that gem.

I don't imagine I have ANY.

That would be because it was fucking SARCASM.

Yeesh.

I would say an overwhelming majority will not engage in a gunfight in their entire career... much less likely to do so any given day.

Duh.

I think that a cop's prowess at pistol play is a relevant factor virtually never.

That's what I think.

I do know that cops have training, responsibilities and oversight when it comes to what they do as cops, and that's what members of the public don't have, and THAT is what I consider to be the pertinent point.


I just don't see many non-gun enthusiasts getting their CCW AND carrying it around routinely.

Then how in the hell are they going to stop all those schoolroom massacres?

[Tim01]

45. That's a lot of words to admit you are wrong. nt

[iverglas]

46. Dave's adopted brother?

Or maybe separated at birth.

[Tim01]

48. Just admit you don't know what you are talking about. nt

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

49. Iverglas likely has little or no experience

with ccw training, carrying a weapon around, shooting pistols, ... etcetera.
Does it really come as a surprise that this same person sounds about as intelligent as an anvil regarding the subject matter?

Reading iverglas's postings is like watching a fox trying to dodge an avalanche. It was somewhere it really shouldn't have been and, despite all the animal's grace, agility and gifts, everyone knows whats coming. Well hey, that's life, eh?
VERY entertaining to say the least.

[iverglas]

52. I'll readily and gladly admit I don't know what you are talking about!

And it's quite obvious you have no more clue.

You demand that I admit I was "wrong". About anything in particular, or just life and the universe in general?

[Tim01]

55. Most civilian CCW are better and safer shooters than average cops. Clear enough? tn

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. shucks

I don't imagine I have ANY.
That would be because it was fucking SARCASM.

Ahh, iverglas dances some more. You should really come up with a name for your moves - you're getting pretty good at 'em.
The Iverglas-Slide, the Canadian-Crawl, the Tempest-Tap... I'm sure we can come to a consensus on something.

I do know that cops have training, responsibilities and oversight when it comes to what they do as cops, and that's what members of the public don't have, and THAT is what I consider to be the pertinent point.

By law I was required to sit through lectures, videos, demonstrations, and exams for 12 hours.
Afterward, I was required to demonstrate live-fire proficiency for another two hours under supervision.
Boy that sound an awful lot like TRAINING to me.
And are you claiming that citizens lawfully carrying firearms do not have responsibilities, accountability (oversight)? L-O-fuckin'-L

I just don't see many non-gun enthusiasts getting their CCW AND carrying it around routinely.

Then how in the hell are they going to stop all those schoolroom massacres?

I don't suppose their goal is stop massacres if they've decided not to carry a firearm.
Then again, there's no abundance of non-gun enthusiasts lined up to stop massacres anyways - so nothing lost I suppose.

[iverglas]

53. let me read it to you slowly

I'll move my lips, if it will help.

Someone said:

"they are the ones who are very likely to get into a gun fight with a bad guy"

I quoted that statement in the header of my post, because it was what I intended to address first off. I put quotation marks around it, to show that it was someone else's words.

Then, commenting on that statement, I said:

"Yes, this is something that any cop in the USofA is likely to have happen on any given day."

Now, if you actually believed that was a straight statement, and not a sarcastic response to the statement that cops "are the ones who are very likely to get into a gun fight with a bad guy", you feel free.

Your own comment:

"Likely"... really? I don't imagine you have a lot of reference to back up that gem.

Made sense if I were the person who had made the initial statement. I wasn't.

Here's where it was made:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=243633&mesg_id=243684

Here's who made it:

Tim01.

Please have a word with him. All you need to do is copy and paste this:

"Likely"... really? I don't imagine you have a lot of reference to back up that gem.

It's pretty much exactly what I was saying. Maybe he'll give you what I didn't get.

[Tim01]

44. Since I train with both cops an civilians, I can tell you, you are wrong. nt

[iverglas]

54. what in the fuck are you telling me I am wrong about?

So you do blah blah blah. Who cares?

If I'm wrong about something, state what it is and offer something to back up your claim besides "I blah blah blah".

[spin]

40. In many cases civilians are better shooters than cops...

but that often describes regular shooters, not those who purchase a firearm and rarely practice.

Many concealed carry permit holders become regular shooters, especially those who carry on a daily basis. The training they have received points out that they are responsible for every round they shoot in a real life encounter. Therefore, they practice. Shooting a handgun under stress is extremely difficult. Practice helps prepare the shooter, but it's impossible to duplicate real life on a target range.

True, some people get concealed carry permits and never practice. They also tend to leave their firearms at home when they venture into public places. At first there is a certain thrill in carrying a concealed weapon into Walmart. After a few trips the thrill wears off. Packing heat is a pain in the ass. Only the dedicated bother, and the dedicated practice a lot.

[iverglas]

42. and once again

No true holder of a permit to carry a concealed firearm rears his/her head!

Only the dedicated bother, and the dedicated practice a lot.

A woman hauling her gun around in her purse and wandering into Disney World with it must be one of those.

Remember?

http://www.wftv.com/news/14808302/detail.html?1

Tearful Grandmother Apologizes For Disney Gun Incident

Richardson was headed inside Magic Kingdom with her daughter and three young grandchildren Sunday when security screeners found a loaded .32-caliber handgun at the bottom of her bag, along with a pocket knife and a pair of scissors.

"I forget a lot of things. That might sound silly and stupid, but I did not remember that the pistol was down there," Richardson told Eyewitness News after her released.

Other Disney World vacationers said they're not buying Richardson's story.

"I would know if there was a gun in mine. I know everything that's in my purse. So I hope the law handles her in a good way so she'll think twice before she does something like that again," a Disney visitor told Eyewitness News.

Oh, smite me. She didn't have a permit to carry the thing.

So maybe permit holders do have a magical aura. And they would never do such a thing.

I'm tending to doubt that, myself.

[ManiacJoe]

50. Given the population size of the USA,

cherry picking the exceptions does not take much effort since they always make the news.

[ManiacJoe]

51. Pretty sad reporting in that article.

You don't find out what she is charged with until the very last paragraph.

I love the way they make it sound like Disney is someplace special all through the article.

[spin]

58. If she had had a concealed carry permit recognized by Florida..

chances are she would have been asked to leave or at a minimum return the firearm to her car.

If she had had the firearm concealed on her person, they probably would have never found it. I understand Disney checks bags not people. Note: this is all hearsay.

Since she didn't have a carry permit, she doesn't fit the category of people I was talking about in the post you replied to. My post dealt with individuals who have carry licenses and carry on a regular basis, not grandmothers illegally carrying handguns in their purse.

Many people who carry concealed without a license are poor shots. Most are criminals who carry firearms for intimidation or because the illegal drug trade is a hazardous occupation. Fortunately, shooting ranges are normally not hangouts for this group of people. Unfortunately, they often tend to miss their targets and shoot innocent bystanders.



But since you did bring Disney World up:

Man accidentally shoots self in leg at Downtown Disney

In other gun-related news, an armed guest headed to the AMC Pleasure Island theater complex shot himself in the leg as he was securing the gun before leaving it in his vehicle. At around 7:30 p.m. Saturday, the unnamed man told his 12-year-old son to get out of their vehicle so that he could safely clear the weapon. He then removed the semiautomatic handgun from his waistband and was clearing the round from the chamber when the weapon discharged, striking him in the leg. The man's son then called authorities to report the shooting and request assistance.

The man was taken to Orlando Regional Medical Center where he was treated for a non-life-threatening accidental injury. He was in stable condition at the hospital as of late Saturday.

While Walt Disney World can prevent its own employees from carrying weapons into parking lots, it can't restrict guests from carrying their own guns in their cars. Guns are not allowed in the theme parks.
http://www.mouseplanet.com/8448/Walt_Disney_World_Park_Update

I fail to understand why the man felt he had to unload his weapon before leaving it is his unlocked vehicle. Perhaps he was worried that someone would break into his car and steal his loaded weapon. I have left loaded firearms in my vehicle in the Disney parking lot many times over the years. It's no big deal.

[iverglas]

60. just an odd bit ...

While Walt Disney World can prevent its own employees from carrying weapons into parking lots, it can't restrict guests from carrying their own guns in their cars.

Is there some authority for that? Not starting anything about it, just curious.

As I understand it, a private property owner (in Florida) *may* prohibit whatever it wants in its parking lot, except that it *may not* prohibit employees from leaving firearms in their vehicles on employer property.

?

[spin]

61. Interesting question...

The Mouse is very anti-gun. Disney World is sometimes described as a state within a state.

They could have pushed the issue in the past and posted no gun signs in their parking lot, but they probably feel that the threat of firearms is not worth the bad publicity and the possible loss of business. But a new law in Florida addresses this.

The statute provides that an “employer”—that is, a business with at least one worker who has a concealed carry permit—may not: (1) prohibit a worker with a concealed-carry permit from securing a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot;(2) prohibit a customer—whether or not he or she has a concealed-carry permit—from securing a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot; (3) ask a worker with a concealed carry permit or a customer whether he or she has a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot, take any action against such a worker or against a customer based on a statement about whether the worker or customer has a gun in a vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes, or search a vehicle in a parking lot for a gun; (4) condition employment on whether a person has a concealed-carry permit; (5) terminate a worker with a concealed-carry permit, or otherwise discriminate against such a worker, or expel a customer, for having a gun in a vehicle on the business’s property, unless the gun is exhibited on the property. A business that does not have at least one worker with a concealed-carry permit is not subject to any of these provisions.
http://www.southfloridacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2009/02/florida_possession_of_firearm_1.html

The actual text of the law is at:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC251.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0790-%3ESection%20251#0790.251

One employee has sued Disney World over the Mouse's policy that employees can't leave firearms in their cars in the company parking lot.

In last week's article about Walt Disney World claiming exemption from Florida's new guns-at-work law, we noted that Disney security guard Edwin Sotomayor, 36, had decided to protest the decision by notifying all local media that he would be bringing his .45-caliber Springfield pistol to work with him and leaving it locked in his car on July 4, and that Sotomayor was then suspended by Disney for not cooperating with their investigation into his violation of workplace rules. On last Thursday's MouseStation news podcast, we updated the story to note that Sotomayor had been fired on Monday.

On Friday, Sotomayor filed suit against Disney in state Circuit Court in Orlando, challenging their ban on guns at work and demanding his job back. Sotomayor's attorney insisted that the burden of proof will be on Disney to show that it is exempt from state law, and that if they offer the 13-year employee his job back without affirming his right to have his gun in his car, they will continue the suit.

Disney's position is that their determination that they are exempt from the law stands, and that there is no grounds for the suit. The new law allowing people with concealed-weapons permits to keep their guns locked in their vehicles' trunks in employee parking lots had a last-minute exemption added to exempt any "employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property." Disney, which was among the groups lobbying for the inclusion of that exemption, has such a permit in order to handle all of the nightly fireworks on property.

It appears that Disney got the exemption included in the law fairly, regardless of the protestations of the law's original sponsors, who did not realize that they were being outmaneuvered until it was too late. Meanwhile, the law is being challenged by several business groups, and a review is underway by a Federal judge. We'll continue to follow this story and provide more information as it develops.

http://www.mouseplanet.com/8448/Walt_Disney_World_Park_Update

[iverglas]

62. Sotomayor?? ;)

Interesting, ta. Not a Disney fan, or a devotee of private property rights above all, but have not yet heard any good reason to compel any private property owner to allow firearms anywhere on its property. ;)

[spin]

63. And many business owners agree with you....

but many of their employees disagree.

[proteus_lives]

56. The Sheriff gets kudos for honesty!

:thumbsup:

[jeepnstein]

59. Doesn't surprise me a bit.

Cops learn very quickly that the firearm on their hip is only a tool that is to be used in the direst of extremes. There are more important skills one has to master to be a really effective police officer. Interpersonal skills (see the Gates arrest), defensive driving, criminal law, civil law, motor vehicle enforcement, I can think of literally a hundred things more important to being a good cop than shooting like a competition pro. Shooting just doesn't matter that much to most of them.

All the cops I know who have used deadly force in the line of duty did so after strenuous activity, on terms not of their own choosing, and it all happens in a matter of seconds. It's not like they're barricaded in an office while Johnny Ringo is pounding down the door. Try running several hundred yards through moving traffic and then hitting a bulls eye at seven yards sometime.

Citizen CCW shootings and Police Officer uses of deadly force are apples and oranges.