Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The mindset of a permit holder

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
SsevenN Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 01:54 PM
Original message
The mindset of a permit holder
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 01:54 PM by SsevenN
"10 Commandments of Concealed Carry
Written by Massad Ayoob.

Carrying a gun is a serious commitment. Ten real-world factors to make a part of your life!

Editors Note: The following article appeared unfinished in the 2009 Concealed Carry Handguns annual. As a courtesy to our loyal readers, we have chosen to make the full article available online.

Carrying a lethal weapon in public confers a grave power that carries with it great responsibilities. Those who lawfully engage in the practice realize that. Those who are considering “carrying” need to know what those experienced people know.

If You Carry, Always Carry
The criminal is the actor, and the armed citizen is the reactor. The typical violent criminal arms himself only when he intends to do something with it. He picks the time and place of the assault, and initiates the attack. Therefore, he doesn’t need to worry about self-defense.

The armed citizen, the intended victim, does not know when or where that attack will come. Therefore, he or she must be constantly prepared and constantly vigilant. The “pistol-packer” learns to pick a comfortable holster and an appropriately sized handgun, and “dress around the firearm.” After a few days, or a few weeks, it becomes second nature to wear it.

When the defender does not know when the attack will come, the only reasonable expectation of safety lies in being always armed.

Don’t Carry If You Aren’t Prepared To Use It
There is a great irony that attaches to the defensive firearm. When you analyze a great many defensive gun usages (DGUs) you discover that the great majority of the time, the protection weapon does its job with no blood being shed. Usually, the offender who is confronted with the prospect of being shot in self-defense either breaks off and runs or surrenders at gunpoint.

Its most important asset turns out to be its power to deter. The irony comes from the fact that its power to deter is drawn directly from its power to kill.

Understand that criminals do not fear guns. They are, after all, an armed subculture themselves. What they fear is the resolutely armed man or woman who points that gun at them. Criminals are predators, and their stock in trade is their ability to read people and recognize victims. They are very, very good at reading “body language” and determining another’s intent to fight, or lack thereof. In short, you’re not likely to bluff them.

If you carry a gun, you must be absolutely certain that you can use deadly force. The person who is hesitant or unwilling to do so will, in the moment of truth, communicate that vacillation to the hardened criminal they are attempting to hold at gunpoint. In such a case, it is quite likely that the offender will jump them, disarm them, and use the hesitant defenders’ own weapons against them.

If, however, that same criminal realizes that he is facing a resolute person who will, in fact, shoot him if he takes one more transgressive step, he is most unlikely to take that step.

The irony: The person who is prepared to kill if he or she must, is the person who is least likely to have to do so.

Don’t Let The Gun Make You Reckless
Circa 1970, armed citizen Richard Davis invented the Second Chance vest, concealable body armor that for the first time could be worn constantly on duty, under the uniform, by any police officer. Some alarmists speculated that “being made bulletproof” would cause cops to become reckless. Those fears turned out to be totally unfounded. As any officer who has worn armor can attest, the vest is a constant reminder of danger and, if anything, makes its wearer more cautious.

It is much the same with concealed firearms in the hands of responsible private citizens. People unfamiliar with the practice fear that “the trigger will pull the finger,” and armed citizens will go looking for a chance to exercise their deadly power. This, too, is a largely unfounded belief.

The collective experience of ordinary, law-abiding people who carry guns is that they don’t feel a sudden urge to go into Central Park at three o’clock in the morning and troll for muggers. They learn that being armed, they are held to what the law calls “a higher standard of care” and are expected to avoid situations like traffic arguments that could escalate and, with a deadly weapon present, turn into killing situations.

Like an officer’s body armor, the armed citizen’s gun is a reminder of danger, a symbol of the need for caution. The late, great big game hunter and gun writer Finn Aagard once wrote, “Yet my pistol is more than just security. Like an Orthodox Jewish yarmulke or a Christian cross, it is a symbol of who I am, what I believe, and the moral standards by which I live.”

Get The License!
You’ll hear some absolutists say, “No government has the right to permit me to carry a gun! I don’t need no stinking permit! The Second Amendment is my license to carry!”

That is the sound of someone asking to go to jail. Like it or not, the laws of the land require, in 46 of the 50 states, a license to carry. In two states, there is no legal provision for the ordinary citizen to carry at all. Realize that things are not as we wish they were; things are as they are. If things were as we wish they would be, we wouldn’t need to carry guns at all.

If you are diligent about studying carry license reciprocity, and about seeking non-resident carry permits in states that don’t have reciprocity, you can become legal to carry in some forty or more states. It can get expensive, and it can get tiresome. However, allowing yourself to be made into a felon and being ramrodded through the courts is much more expensive and far more tiresome.

Bottom line: if you carry, make sure you carry legally.

Know What You’re Doing
You wouldn’t drive an automobile without knowing the rules of the road. Do not keep or carry lethal weapons for defense without knowing the rules of engagement. It is a myth to believe that you can shoot anyone in your home. When Florida rescinded the requirement to retreat before using deadly force if attacked in public, the anti-gun Brady Center introduced a publicity campaign claiming that the new law allowed Floridians to shoot anyone who frightened them. This, of course, was blatantly untrue, but a great many people believed it to be so because “they heard it on TV” or “they saw it in the paper.” Such dangerous misconceptions can cause the tragic death of people who don’t deserve to be shot, and can get good people sent to prison.

It is the practitioner’s responsibility to “learn the rules of the road” when they take the path toward armed self-defense. There are many firearms training schools, and at least one, the author’s Lethal Force Institute, specializes in teaching the rules of engagement. Information is available under the LFI section at www.ayoob.com. It is wise to take local classes that emphasize the rules of “deadly force decision-making.”

Similarly, a person who opens fire with a gun they don’t know how to shoot is a danger to all. If you need the firearm for its intended purpose, you will be under extreme stress. Learn to shoot under pressure. Quick draw from concealment, safe holstering, proper tactics, and much more are on the curriculum if you are serious about defending yourself and your loved ones to the best of your ability.

Concealed Means Concealed
A very few people carrying guns for the first time feel an irresistible urge to let others see that “they’ve got the power.” First-time carriers and rookie cops, usually young in both cases, may fall into this trap. It is a practice to avoid for several reasons.

In most of this society, the only people the general public sees carrying guns in public are uniformed “protector figures,” such as police officers and security guards. When they see someone not identifiable as such, who is carrying a lethal weapon, they tend to panic. This makes no friends among the voting public for the gun owners’ rights movement—you do not make people into friends and sympathizers, by frightening them—and can lead to a panicky observer getting the wrong idea and reporting you to the police as a “man with a gun.” This can lead to all sorts of unpleasant confrontations.

Moreover, a harasser who has picked you as his victim and knows you carry a gun can create a situation where there are no other witnesses present, and then make the false claim that you threatened him with the weapon. This is a very serious felony called Aggravated Assault. It is his word against yours. The fact that you are indeed carrying the gun he describes you pointing at him can make his lie more believable than your truth, to the ears of judge and jury.

MCRGO, Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners, is directly responsible for getting reform concealed carry legislation enacted in their state, and has been in the forefront of fighting for the rights of armed citizens in that state. MCRGO’s Steve Dulan, in the organization’s Weekly E’News of 6/23/08, had some cogent points to make on the topic of private citizens carrying handguns visibly in public:

“Open carry of firearms, subject to MCL 750.234d, it is legal to carry a visible pistol in public. MCRGO has not adopted an official position on this subject,” wrote Dulan, who continued, “I agree with Ted Nugent and many others that it is a bad idea in almost every situation. Tactically, you are giving up the element of surprise should you face a deadly force situation. Furthermore, you run the risk of being called in to 9-1-1 as a ‘man with a gun.’ I have been on police ride-alongs when this call comes over the radio. It creates a very dangerous situation for all concerned. I do not carry openly. I have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) and take care to choose a gun and holster that, along with appropriate clothing, allow me to keep my gun concealed unless/until I need it to save a life.”

As cogent and valid as Steve Dulan’s arguments are, it still makes sense to have legal open carry available as an emergency option. If the wind accidentally blows your coat open and reveals the gun, an open carry provision assures you have committed no crime. If someone who has not yet felt the need to get a concealed carry license suddenly begins getting death threats, open carry provides an emergency avenue of self-protection until the paperwork can be processed to acquire the license to carry the weapon discreetly out of sight.

Maximize Your Firearms Familiarity
The more you work with the firearm, the more reflexively skilled you will become in its emergency use and its safe handling. If your home defense shotgun is a Remington 870, then when you go claybird shooting or hunting, use an 870 pump gun with a barrel and choke appropriate for each task. If you are a target shooter who uses the 1911 pistol platform at bull’s-eye matches and have become deeply familiar with it, it makes sense to acquire a concealable 1911 to use as your carry gun, so that the ingrained skill will directly transfer. If a double-action .44 Magnum is your hunting revolver, and another double-action revolver is your home defense gun, it makes sense to choose a carry-size revolver as your concealment handgun when you’re out and about.

Consider training classes or competition shoots where your chosen defensive firearm is appropriate to the course of fire. This skill-building will translate to self-defense ability if your carry gun ever has to be used to protect innocent life and limb. If training ammunition is too expensive, consider a .22 conversion unit for your semiautomatic pistol or a .22 caliber revolver the same size as your defensive .38 or .357. The more trigger time you have with a similar gun, the more confidence and competence you’ll have with the gun you carry, if you can’t afford to practice as much as you’d like with the carry gun itself.

Understand The Fine Points
Every state has different laws insofar as where you can and can’t carry a gun. It’s your responsibility to know all the details. In one state, it may be against the law to carry a weapon in a posted “no-gun zone.” In another, that sign may have no weight of law at all behind it. In a third, you may be asked to leave if your gun is spotted, and if you do not depart, you will be subject to arrest for Trespass After Warning.

In the state of New Hampshire, it is perfectly legal to carry your gun into a bar while you sit down and have a drink. If you do the same in Florida, it’s an arrestable offense, though you’re allowed to have a cocktail in a restaurant with a liquor license, so long as you’re seated in a part of the establishment that earns less than 50% of its income from selling alcoholic beverages by the drink. In North Carolina, you can’t even walk into a restaurant that has a liquor license, with a gun on. And, perhaps strangest of all, in the state of Virginia at this writing, it is illegal to enter a tavern with a concealed handgun, but perfectly legal to belly up to the bar and sip a whiskey while carrying a loaded handgun “open carry” fashion in an exposed holster!

A superb current compendium of gun laws in the 50 states can be found at www.handgunlaw.us. Review it frequently for possible changes.

Carry An Adequate Firearm
If you carry a single-shot, .22 Short caliber derringer, you will be considered armed with a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law. You will not, however, be adequately prepared to stop a predictable attack by multiple armed assailants. Most experts recommend a five-shot revolver as the absolute minimum in firepower, and the .380/9mm/.38SPL range as the minimum potency level in terms of handgun caliber.

It is a good idea to carry spare ammunition. Many people in their first gunfight have quickly found themselves soon clicking an empty gun. A firearm without spare ammunition is a temporary gun. Moreover, many malfunctions in semiautomatic pistols require a fresh (spare) magazine to rectify. Some fear that carrying spare ammo will make them look paranoid. They need to realize that those who don’t like guns and dislike the people who carry them, will consider carrying the gun without spare ammunition to still be paranoid. It’s an easy argument to win in court. Cops carry spare ammunition. So should you.

Carrying a second gun has saved the lives of many good people. When the primary weapon is hit by a criminal’s bullet and rendered unshootable…when it is knocked from the defender’s hand, or snatched away by a criminal…when the first gun runs out of ammo and there is no time to reload…the list of reasons is endless. It suffices to remember the words of street-savvy Phil Engeldrum: “If you need to carry a gun, you probably need to carry two of them.”

At the very least, once you’ve found a carry gun that works for your needs, it’s a good idea to acquire another that’s identical or at least very similar. If you have to use the first gun for self-defense, it will go into evidence for some time, and you want something you can immediately put on to protect yourself from vengeful cronies of the criminal you were forced to shoot. If the primary gun has to go in for repair, you don’t want to be helpless or carrying something less satisfactory while you’re waiting to get it back.

Use Common Sense
The gun carries with it the power of life and death. That power belongs only in the hands of responsible people who care about consequences, who are respectful of life and limb and human safety. Carrying a gun is a practice that is becoming increasingly common among ordinary American citizens. Common sense must always accompany it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just wanted the antis to get a feel of the mind set most carriers have. We are not power hungry, cop-wanna be, dangerous people. We are very responsible, we know the laws, and are level headed.

Enjoy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Um ... this comes across as power-hungry and paranoid.
Let me say upfront that I own several guns. I rarely come into the gungeon because, well, I don't like shouting matches. And while I'm a-ok with CCW, this list will only reinforce the feelings of the antis, not abate them.

For example:
"a harasser who has picked you as his victim and knows you carry a gun can create a situation where there are no other witnesses present, and then make the false claim that you threatened him with the weapon. This is a very serious felony called Aggravated Assault. It is his word against yours. The fact that you are indeed carrying the gun he describes you pointing at him can make his lie more believable than your truth, to the ears of judge and jury."


Has this ever happened? Not to my knowledge. If this is the writer's view of what anti-gun folks are like, then what are anti-gun folks to think when they read this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SsevenN Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Massad is one of the premire CCW instructors..
He is covering all the bases, that's what he does.

I can't find a news story to support his assertation, but I've seen anecdotal evidence that makes me believe this COULD be a valid concern.

Likely to happen? HELL No. But worth covering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
59. of course it happens
any cop will tell you that a fair %age of alleged victims in ANY sort of crime are lying. people lie about burglaries, rapes, robberies, assault, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SsevenN Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Got one...
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 02:26 PM by SsevenN
It's not exactly the same situation, but I'm sure you can understand the relevance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perth teens waste police time with gun lies
Sep 18 2009 by Les Stewart, Perthshire Advertiser Friday

TWO Perth teenagers sparked a major firearms alert in the city after claiming a man brandished a gun at them in his house in the Letham area.

Eighteen-year-old Leon McLean, of Strathtay Road, also told police that his girlfriend had the weapon pointed at her in a house in Tweedsmuir Road.

When the Tayside Police Critical Incident Manager in Dundee was informed of the incidents, he immediately dispatched a Firearms Unit and a dog handler to the city.

And officers carried out extensive inquiries for almost 24 hours before discovering the claims were a total fabrication.

McLean and Garry Shaw (18), of Cooper Drive, both admitted wasting police time on April 12 by falsely accusing Alan Band, of Tweedsmuir Road, of committing a firearms offence by having a hand gun in his possession and brandishing it at them – and others.

Depute fiscal Janine Bates said that because of the “serious nature” of the allegations, both were taken to Perth Police HQ to give formal statements.

The CID were also contacted and went to the house in Letham.

Both accused stuck to their story but police became suspicious when they interviewed McLean’s girlfriend.

She denied having a gun pointed at her but said she had made an allegation “of another nature” against Alan Band.

No details of that were given in court.

McLean was again questioned and he admitted making up the firearms story because of the allegation made by his girlfriend.

When Shaw was again interviewed, he also came clean. But that happened 21 hours after the police were initially alerted.

Solicitor Neil Davidson said that Shaw had been undertaking a 12-week Prince’s Trust course and had performed well.

Shaw also pled guilty to assaulting Raymond Tiffin in Newton Place, Perth, by punching him on the face and throwing a beer can at him at his home on March 21.

He admitted a further charge of resetting 14 computer games at Gamestation, Perth, on March 21.

Sheriff Lindsay Foulis said the charge of wasting police time caused him the most concern, particularly as the deception had lasted almost 24 hours.

Shaw was ordered to carry out 120 hours of community service and he was told to pay Mr Tiffin £50 compensation for his bleeding nose.

McLean will be sentenced on November 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.perthshireadvertiser.co.uk/perthshire-news/local-news-perthshire/perthshire/2009/09/18/perth-teens-waste-police-time-with-gun-lies-73103-24719079/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. What he is saying is: "Keep the concealed gun CONCEALED."
Nobody, except those who have a valid need-to-know get to know that you are armed.

Ayoob is simply describing a possible bad result. There are lots of other bad results that can come from an accidental slip. Keep it concealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I get that, and I definitely agree. But I also think it's a bit of a silly example...
and certainly not one that's going to sit well with anti-gun people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Nothing sits well with them. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Eh, I can't really say that.
Being a solidly liberal fellow myself, and thus having a lot of friends with a similar outlook, I have a lot of friends who are strident proponents of gun control. I find that they have more in common with gun owners than either side would like to admit, and they certainly don't have any problem with my own gun ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I don't personally know any antis. I live in small town Texas. N/T
Close by Dallas, but still with a little bit of open land between my town and Big D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. If you don't know any of them...
then how can you say "nothing sits well with them"?


This is one of those unnerving similarities between the two sides that I was talking about. All too often, Rabid anti-gun folks don't know any law-abiding gun owners (or if they do, the gun owners decide not to bring up the fact as soon as they hear these people open their mouths). At the same time, unapologetically pro-gun folks often don't know any serious gun-control advocates, often because their hobbies revolve around gun ownership (e.g. hunters). As a result, both sides just assume the worst stereotypes about the other. It's prejudice, the same as any other. And just like every other prejudice, it's based in ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. I was judging by the antis that post here.
Notice that the antis that post here tend to be angry, ignorant of guns and gun laws, engage in personal attacks, and rarely use facts. They parade the latest victims as if that concludes the case.

The pros who post here overwhelmingly present reasoned facts and logic, and are much more polite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #25
50. Umm, you realize you just perpetuated a stereotype, right? 8>)
'Hunters' for the vast majority, have many enthusiasms outside of 'hunting'.

Just sayin'....:fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #50
55. Touche!
Totally get what you're saying. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, both sides could probably do with a little outreach on this issue. I really do believe there's common ground. Admittedly, my aforementioned friends who advocate gun control tend to look at my gun ownership as, shall we say, an "eccentricity," but they certainly don't think I'm a "gun nut."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
48. Well, I'm glad I open carry. Don't have to worry about 'accidents'. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
65. my wife doesnt even know..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
westerm Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Look up
Go look up "Harold Fish" and "Gary Fadden". No, their stories are not like the one you used as an example, but they're a large part of the reason people like Ayoob are so paranoid about carrying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Then maybe he should've mentioned them instead of this fictional anecdote?
Again, I'm not against CCW, and I certainly recognize Ayoob's expertise on the subject. But the OP stated that he or she posted this article to set anti-gunners' minds at ease, and I don't think it necessarily accomplishes that. That's all I'm saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blu_Statr Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
24. How is that?

I've seen people do this with other issues, I have no illusions that some are willing to do it in this environment.

People who believe that their ends justify their means can and do lie, and feel good about doing so.

Massad Ayoob is a long-time police officer as well as a self-defense trainer. He doesn't need to make stuff up, he's seen a lot of it first-hand, or heard from others he has trained.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. As I said to a previous poster...
the point is not whether this can or can't happen (though I think its likelihood is ridiculously small). The OP posted this to show gun-control folks that CCW advocates are not "power-hungry cop wannabes." I don't think gun control folks will read this and come to that conclusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. Usually Massad's writings come from actual incidents that have happened
He's a premier CCW instructor. A police officer. He studies every case he can come across of armed civilians and police officers involved in self-defense shootings. He testifies as an expert witness in self-defense with a firearm all across the country. I bet if he writes about it he saw at least one case where it happened. I enjoy reading his writings in magazines & in books & he's also on some of the gun shows on TV sometimes demonstrating unarmed self-defense as well as the legalities and tactics of firearms for self-defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
69. Where does he say that's what anti-gun folks are like?
I can't see where the hypothetical example you cite contains makes any comment regarding the harasser's position with regard to private ownership of firearms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. k&r!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thanks for the post. I've read several of his books. Well worth the money!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why do these manifestos always make the assumption
that people automatically become 'law-abiding' once they begin carrying? The first two sentences of the article make a HUGE assumption.
Several things I DON'T believe:
"Criminals will cease to commit crimes if they fear everyone is armed."
"All licensed carriers are law-abiding citizens." I noticed you said "most".
"A gun is more likely to protect you than be used against you or a family member, or be stolen from you and used to commit a crime, or cause you to be killed when attempting to stop a crime or 'protect' your property."

The average carrier is not trained enough, nor skilled enough to effectively 'protect' themself in a highly charged situation. Remember, a large percentage of (highly trained) police officers killed in the line of duty are killed with their own weapons.

I'm not 'anti'. I just think anyone who believes that a gun will 'protect' them absolutely, is a fantasizer. I have never seen an actual study that proved the NRA mantra that "millions of people every year protect themselves from a crime because they were armed." I think that's NRA propaganda. I HAVE seen the crime reports that show people killed because they bought themselves or a 'loved one' a weapon to 'protect' themselves. The toughest one for me was the father that shot his own daughter through a closet door because he thought she was an intruder. He insisted he was going to keep the weapon because he needed to 'protect' himself. Sadly, most likely the only time he will ever use that weapon, he killed his own daughter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SsevenN Donating Member (153 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Of course there will be bad apples.
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 03:03 PM by SsevenN
I've never heard anyone say 100% of permit holders are law abiding.

But the FACT remains that the VAST majority are (law abiding), at a higher perecentage than cops even.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. I would agree with you there.
But the rhetoric seems to assume, by the way it is worded, that being armed automatically assures that you are "a law abiding citizen". That's all I'm saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Perhaps because to have a CCW requires passing an FBI background investigation.
Don't you think that if I were a violent law-breaker that it would have caught up with me sometime in my 60+ years?

Why do you ignore the fact that CCW holders are carefully screened before they get the permit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
35. Settle down, you miss the point
as do most people who respond to any argument I make re: guns. I don't "ignore the fact..." If you would actually READ what I said before going off half-cocked (pun intended), you would see that my point was that the articles make it sound like the act of buying a weapon or applying for a CCW is what makes you a law abiding citizen. Sheeeesh! Gun lovers are touchy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Read the article
you would see that my point was that the articles make it sound like the act of buying a weapon or applying for a CCW is what makes you a law abiding citizen.

From the article:

Get The License!

SNIP

Bottom line: if you carry, make sure you carry legally.

It is passing the process of getting a license that proves that you are law abiding enough to have earned the privilege. (Except in some states.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #35
53. You've got it the wrong way round
These articles are written based on the assumption that you already are a law-abiding citizen prior to purchasing a firearm or applying for a CCW permit. Not that doing either will transform you into one if you weren't already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. "a large percentage...are killed with their own weapons" -- wrong
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=258435&mesg_id=258542
In 2007 2 of 57 officers were killed with their own weapon.
In 2006 2 of 48 officers were killed with their own weapon.

In both years the number of officers intentionally killed with a vehicle as a weapon was twice as high.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/feloniouslykilled.html

Also most cops are killed during an arrest. Someone in an arrest isn't looking to kill a cop BECAUSE he/she has a weapon they are looking to kill a cop because they are attempting to avoid arrest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. Thanks for the link. I never insinuated that an attacker was
"looking to kill a cop BECAUSE he/she has a weapon". The motivations may differ from a police situation to an armed intruder or robbery situation involving the average citizen, but the average citizen is rarely going to "get the drop" on someone who already has his weapon drawn and aimed. The 'unknown' is whether the bad guy would kill if the victim doesn't draw a weapon as opposed to the victim drawing a weapon. So, 3.5 to 4 percent of professionally trained cops were killed with their own weapons during an arrest attempt. I wonder what the percentage is among those normal citizens trying to stop a robbery on their person or property? I find this debate fascinating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
34. You are making some unwarranted assumptions.
but the average citizen is rarely going to "get the drop" on someone who already has his weapon drawn and aimed.

You are assuming that the criminal is going always be armed with a gun. Most of the time they will have fists, or a club, or a knife. Guns are an extremely good defense against a criminals who is so armed.

Frequently the BG does kill unarmed, complient victims, just for the thrill of it.

You are assuming that the criminal is competent with his gun, if he has one. In fact, as a class, they are very incompetent with guns.

Also, action beats reaction. If he isn't shooting, he has to realize that I am drawing, process the info, and send the nerve impluse to his hand. And he has to do that with a central nervous system that is often drug impaired. If I side-step at the same time that I draw, he has to also re-aim his gun. While he is doing all of that, I am acting. If one adds in a distractor that makes his eyes glance away as I start my action, he will have his head blown off before he knows what is happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I will agree with some of what you said.
Criminals will not always be armed with a gun. I never really assumed that. You're describing a scene in slow motion. "If I step aside then he has to re-aim"... If someone has a gun pointed at you at close range, you are a complete fool to try and draw a weapon.
This isn't Barney Fife doing judo in slow motion. Hoping he will miss is not a plan.

I will give someone the benefit of the doubt if they have trained for many years. I trained myself to "always leave myself an out"
when driving. Something my father used to say. I also pondered on how to react to a car suddenly swerving into my lane. If I swerve to the right, he could broadside me and kill me. If I swerve to the left, I could kill someone in the oncoming lane. Well, it happened and I reacted just as I had trained myself. Hit the brake and hope for the best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. I will admit that drawing against a drawn gun is an act of desperation.
My first defense is situation awareness. Don't let the BG get the drop on me in the first place.

But if it does happen, I have no guarantee that he won't shoot me anyway. FBI studies show that those who resist are harmed less often than those who meeky submit, and a gun is the best resistance. Others have posted the study in this forum.

Street criminals do have slower than normal or otherwise screwed-up reactions due to drugs, except if he is on PCP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
51. It does not require
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 09:25 PM by PavePusher
"many years" of training to BECOME profficient with a gun.

It requires many years of training to STAY profficient with a gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
61. both are true
people often conflate the statistic that about 80% of the time, a cop is disarmed by a suspect, he is shot with his gun with the idea that most cops who are shot are shot with their gun.

two TOTALLY different things.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Your average CHL applicant is not your average, casual gun owner, either.
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 03:10 PM by benEzra
CHL holders generally represent 1-3% of the population and 2-10% of gun owners in most jurisdictions, and those who seek carry licenses tend toward the more-trained end of the scale, are more likely to shoot competitively, and so on.

And as a rule, the average police officer is not "highly trained" in firearms use. Most police firearm quals are very, very basic, such that an officer who is not a gun enthusiast and shoots a couple of boxes of ammunition twice a year on a square range can still pass. Obviously SWAT/tactical teams would be an exception, but most officers are not SWAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. They still have to qualify for accuracy, don't they?
Aren't there minimum standards? Do the same standards apply to (we call them CCW holders in MI). From what I've seen, the number of CCWs in MI must be higher than your figures. The rush when they relaxed the rules in MI, the Obama factor, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Cop qualification tests are abysmally easy - 1/3 COM at 3-7' will pass you. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. Some states yes, some states no.
In some states, it's just filling out some paperwork, they run a background check, and print your card. Others, that plus you show a certificate of completion of a class, and you're out the door. Some, like Texas, require the above, plus a live fire proficiency test and proof of completion of a 10-12 hour class on conflict resolution, situational awareness, safe gun handling, and state and federal laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
43. I scored 250 out of a possible 250 points.
Long time ago, back in the Navy, I qualified expert with the .45.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
44. Here is the course of fire for the Virginia State Police, which is typical:
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 06:24 PM by benEzra
http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/standardsTraining/documents/performanceOutcomes/section7.pdf

They use a HUGE target (the old "B21" target) and you only even have to hit anywhere on the target with 70% of your shots to qualify, even given the extremely generous time allotments.

Yes, police do have to meet minimal accuracy and time standards, but those of most states are very basic, and any competent shooter could pass them. I was objecting to the characterization of police as "highly trained" in firearms use, when in fact the bar is generally set at basic competence. The vast majority of non-SWAT officers shoot considerably less than competitive shooters or most gun enthusiasts, unless the officer is a gun enthusiast herself/himself.

By contrast, here is what a "highly trained" course of fire would look like:

http://www.pgpft.com/MEUSOC_qual_M4-Pistol.pdf

My personal goal is to be able to pass this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Where does that "highly trained" course come from?
And what are the pass fail scoring?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. That's the MEU(SOC) qualification course
MEU(SOC) standing for Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Expeditionary_Unit

I don't know whether it was developed by the Marines, or by civilian trainers to train Marines (the link is to Pat Rodgers' website); I don't know if this is the same qual that Force Recon uses or not. If I understand the course of fire correctly, the maximum possible score is 100 points, and you have to get at least 80 to pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #47
58. I'm not sure about "Highly Trained".
Most departments spend more time worrying about training everyone in the force continuum, changes in law, and other mandated subjects. Oh, and then there's the constant weeding out of the ones who are in it for "fun". Firearms qualifications come down to a day or two a year at the range, tops. In our department, if there is any change in the course of fire or a subject that needs to be discussed about tactics, it's done on qualification day and that's the end of that. Our course changes every year, and it's not getting any easier. Oh, and accuracy isn't exactly the top priority. Safe handling, smooth movement, good reloads, use of cover, there's tons of stuff beyond a bullseye every time.

Cops insert themselves into social situations that no sane citizen on the street would consider. If you're not thinking to yourself "this is nuts" some times then you need to seek therapy. That's what gets them shot or injured so often. Comparing police weapons training with what a citizen doing CCW needs is apples and oranges.

The other thing you have to consider is that guns really aren't that important as a tool of a cop. When you need it you need it but it's not the most important part of the job. Other than being part of the uniform it's probably a minor part of it. Of all the truly great cops I've known through the years only one is what I would consider a good shooter.

Ayoob always makes some good points. Anyone who spends time reading or listening to him on the real and constant burden of going armed comes away with a unique perspective. Some folks don't like him because he spends a great deal of his time dealing with the personal and psychological aspects of gunfighting. Plenty of folks would rather consider carrying a gun some kind of fun and games, or a fashion statement, or whatever. He sucks the fun right out of a subject and that rubs some the wrong way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #58
68. that is one of the best posts i have read in a long time
Edited on Fri Oct-09-09 12:30 AM by paulsby
i can't disagree with any of your points. well done.

i'm also on the job, and i am a firearms instructor. my experience assessing at the range is that most cops only shoot at assessments. my shift has a really good sgt., so we manage to get down to the range for extended roll call several times a year. that's an exception. most cops shoot twice a year. at the range, for assessments and that's it.

a small %age of cops shoot IPSC or are really into shooting and/or guns.

they are a distinct minority.

my dept. probably has more cops with advanced college degrees (MA, MS, Law degree, phd etc.) than it does expert shooters.

but the stereotype and/or assumption is that most cops are into guns. most aren't. every recruit class that comes through, we ask the recruits how many have ever shot a gun before. the vast majority haven't.

also, your part about cops needing a gun (at least needing it to SHOOT and not just point) is also true.

last i checked the stats, the average cop fires his gun in the line of duty about once every 12 yrs.

so, given a 25 yr career, once or twice is par for the course. of course, for cops , in certain units and certain areas, it will be more (high crime area, etc.), and for others, it will be less on average (like the dept., recruiter, most detective assignments, etc.).

ask any cop who lives in a state where people have CCW's if he could pull over a random person, would he rather it be a CCW'er or a non-CCW'er. any cop with a brain would choose the former. because statistically speaking, that person is FAR FAR less likely to be a criminal (and by definition won't be a convicted felon, or DV misdemeanant or have an order against) and also less likely to be assaultive or whatever.

that's been my experience, and the statistics back it up.

ultimately, it comes down to choice. i'm pro choice- on abortion, on guns, on smoking, on eating fast food, etc.

and ayoob does a great job of emphasizing that for those who make the choice, there is responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. CCW holders are profoundly law-abiding. That is a fact.
With the exception of only a few states, to get a CCW an applicant has to pass an FBI background investigation. One can't pass such an examination unless you have lived a profoundly law-abiding life. The greatest demographic for concealed carry is age 40+. By the time one is that old, if the person has violent tendencies they will have already expressed themselves and have already generated arrests and convictions.

Further, if you will review the arrest statistics, you will find the CCW holders are very much more observant of the law than the general public.

Criminals do fear an armed public. In FL, when the CCW law was enacted, criminals began to target people in rental cars as they were likely to be tourists and therefore unarmed. In 1966, in Orlando, FL the rape rate had gotten very bad. Women began to buy guns to protect themselves at home. Concerned that many of them had no training, the police began to offer free firearms training to women. The Orlando Sentinel publicised the classes. The rape rate immediately dropped to zero. In Kennesaw, GA, as a spoof of the Morton Grove anti-handgun law, a city toothless city law was passed that required each residence to have a gun. Burglary rate instantly dropped to zero.

"A gun is more likely to protect you than be used against you or a family member, or be stolen from you and used to commit a crime, or cause you to be killed when attempting to stop a crime or 'protect' your property."
You list that as something that you don't believe. You ascribe to the criminal-as-superman myth, believing that they are somehow more capable than the average person. The truth is that most of them have fried their brains on drugs and are incompetent at everything.

Further, it is an anti's myth that a law-abiding person who has lived a peaceful life will suddenly snap and kill their family in a fit of anger. In all but the most rare cases, a domestic violence murderer has a long history of violent behavior with arrests, convictions, and restraining orders against him in his past.

You conflate CCW permit holders with people who buy guns for home use only. No permit is required for keeping a gun in the home. The father who shot his daughter, IIRC, was not a CCW holder.

The fact that you have parroted the anti's myths strongly suggests that, despite your denial, you are an anti.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. First, you are missing my point.
My point was that the language that is used in these articles seems to say that as soon as you get a CCW or simply buy a gun for your home, you automatically become a law abiding citizen. "Citizen as superman" to use your own term.

Second, you are putting words in my mouth re: "someone suddenly snapping". My argument never went there. I don't know what that had to do with anything I said.

I don't totally believe the statistics you state re: FL crime dropping because everyone went out and bought guns. I have never seen any actual stats. Just someone telling a story.

You make an assumption that most gun toting criminals have fried brains. People who have fried brains generally don't take the time to wonder if anyone else is armed before committing a crime. They just act out of desperation. I don't know how you got from my belief that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one, to "criminal as superman". That's quite a leap.

You also cite the 40+ demo as if it were the rule or an absolute. It's not. The majority of your statements are ones that I have heard from pro gun folks and the NRA for many years. As far as CCW people being more law abiding, I don't ever recall seeing any study done or statistics that proved that. I don't believe those stats are kept. I rarely see a news article or crime stat (much to my dismay)that states whether the gun used in a crime was legally owned. I don't think having a gun makes a person more or less law abiding. That was my point. I have also known people who have CCW that shouldn't, from first hand experience.

It would be fairly easy to find out how many guns are stolen in this country every year. I'm not sure how easy it would be to find out how many of them are used to commit crimes.

You're right, I was overlapping CCW and gun owners in general. The rhetoric I have been hearing for many years also overlaps.

Again, I am not anti. Except for the 'police killed with their own weapons', the arguments I am using are not 'anti' rhetoric. Sure, occasionally someone uses a gun to chase off a robber. I love to see it, especially when it's an old lady or someone who has been repeatedly victimized. Of course there are cases where the average citizen needs to carry, mostly job related. I just don't buy into the notion that more guns equals safer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. The article was addressed to CCW holders, not to gun owners in general.
the language that is used in these articles seems to say that as soon as you get a CCW or simply buy a gun for your home, you automatically become a law abiding citizen.
I, and others here, have patiently explained to you, and you continue to ignore, that CCW holders are screened before they get the permit. Only those folks who have squeaky clean records can get one. (Except for a few states.) Buy a gun or getting a CCW does not MAKE one law abiding, but it is the result of a test administered by the state to see if you are law abiding.

As far as CCW people being more law abiding, I don't ever recall seeing any study done or statistics that proved
You haven't looked. Many posters in this forum post those stats regularly. Many states make them available online. Here is the link for Texas: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demoreportsfy08.htm
Revocations of CHLs were about 1/10 of one percent. And there are reason other than crime for revocation. That means that 99.9%+ of the CHL holders obeyed the law. That is a very high percentage, greater than that of the general population.

I don't know how you got from my belief that owning a gun is more dangerous than not owning one, to "criminal as superman". That's quite a leap.
It is a tiny step. How is my gun more dangerous to me? Only if it somehow increases the criminal's advantage.

The three examples that I gave were well documented at the time.

A person who uses anti rhetoric is an anti. Your arguments are the same ones that the Bradys and other promote.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Stats re CCW holders committing crimes..
Edited on Wed Oct-07-09 05:44 PM by X_Digger
You should search here- they've been provided for at least two states- FL & TX.

eta: for TX, 4.4 to 8x less likely to be convicted of different crimes-

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. Thank you for those stats. Kinda puts things in perspective doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Really pisses on the 'one road rage incident from a shooting' schtick. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. You HAVE to be law abiding to get one
Whether you remain law abiding is up to you, but nobody with any offense past a speeding ticket will get one.

Oh and EVERY gun enthusiast I know to have a license or have come across in CCW training classes could pass the typical laughably easy police gun qualification while wearing incorrect prescription glasses, hopping on one leg and singing opera. Have you ever seen what "highly trained" police have to accomplish for firearms training? The typical firearms qualification can be passed with about 1/3 of fired rounds hitting center mass with 75% of the rounds fired at distances under 10 feet. Such shooting would be an abysmal failure on any CCW test I have come across. There certainly are genuinely highly trained cops out there, but they by no means all are or have to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. You mean to tell me that the CCW requirement
for accuracy is higher than the average police requirement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. In TX it is. Can't speak to other states. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #32
56. Correct, in most states.
Police, statistically are terrible shooters in real life situations.

That's not meant as a slam to police, but it does make sense too if you think about it objectively.
#1) All police are not necessarily gun enthusiasts. It's a job for them - to serve the community. Handling a gun, gun laws, and shooting a gun are only a fraction of their job. Many only shoot to qualify every so often or to practice for qualification. Compare this to private citizens... most CHL people who regularly carry will be gun enthusiasts and well practiced.

#2) Police shooting situations are nothing like civilian shootnig situations. Police SEEK crime and will normally be shooting from a greater distance. Officers can act offensively with their firearms. Civilian defensive shootings generally happen within about 10 yards, where the target is nearly upon the shooter. Civilians and officers are clearly playing by different rules while shooting.

#3) Officers have no element of surprise. If a criminal sees and officer they KNOW the officer is armed and will shoot if warranted... thus taking defensive action. When a civilian pulls out guns I'd imagine it's more an "OH SHIT" moment for the criminal - obviously too late for proactive/effective evasive action.

Summed up: CCWers generally have more skill, are presented with easier targets, and have an element of surprise.
It's no surprise they will perform better than officers in typical shooting scenario.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #56
62. #1 is undeniably true
i'm a police firearms instructor. the VAST majority of guys i run through assessments at the range are anything but gun enthusiasts. most admit they ONLY fire their gun during mandated training.

there is a small core of firearms enthusiasts. many find their way on to swat teams, fwiw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmallind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #32
63. Absodamnlutely, yes.
Now bear in mind some states have NO accuracy test or even like Vermont no test at all (and exceptionally low gun crime), so I am referring only to accuracy tests that exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
64. This isn't a direct reply, but here's a non-LEO civilian shooter shooting an IPSC match.
Edited on Thu Oct-08-09 04:59 PM by benEzra
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEBdXZKiLz0

That is WAY more rigorous with regard to time and accuracy than any non-SWAT firearms qualification I am aware of. The guy shooting in the video probably has a carry license...



And just for fun, some IPSC shotgun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrjZ4enV008&feature=rela


...as well as a shotgun and carbine stage in a IPSC-style 3-gun match:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww10nixp0Kw


Shooting IPSC/USPSA is a lot of fun; I highly recommend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. If you keep posting stuff like that
you're gonna cost me a shit load of money. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #6
60. wrong
"The average carrier is not trained enough, nor skilled enough to effectively 'protect' themself in a highly charged situation."

do you have evidence to support that. ime, and from the case studies i have read, they most definitely do. it's not friggin rocket science.

"Remember, a large percentage of (highly trained) police officers killed in the line of duty are killed with their own weapons."

police officers HAVE to (it's their job) go TOWARDS a bad situation, they HAVE to make arrests (iow close the reactive gap and go "hands on" with a suspect to arrest them) etc.

for example, most cop gun grabs happen DURING arrest. civilians generally don't use their guns to make arrests, they use them to keep people AWAY from them.

it is a ridiculous analogy. fwiw, one of my coworkers was disarmed and shot by a suspect. he RESPONDED to a report of a naked man running in traffic. and when he approached the man and tried to get him out of the street, the man attacked him, got his gun and shot him. this was confirmed by literally 20+ witnesses.

that's typical of the gun grab. it is not a situation most civilians need fear.

fwiw, i have never in a 20+ yr career heard of a case where a civilian carrier was disarmed. never. not saying it never happens, but i've responded to scores of incidents involving citizens who were lawfully packing and i've never heard of it, let alone responded to it.

facts matter. the stats on CCW'ers are out there, and they've been posted here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left coast liberal Donating Member (889 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is crazy and depressing. Who would want to look at the world that way?
Bummer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Want to? Nobody..
.. however, how I choose to look at the world doesn't change the reality of what the world is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. A realist would look at the world like that.
Violent psychopathic criminals are a reality. They exist. And the national crime rate shows that there are a lot of them. Gangs and gang wars exist. Muggers exist. Armed robbers exist. Burglars exist.

And they really are looking, right now, for their victim.

By denying their existence and denying their threat, you are setting yourself up to be a victim. Maybe you might enjoy parading your crime victim status before society, but you will find that it is so common that society won't care.

Personally, I will fight against being a victim, by personally giving the attacker armed resistance - if it happens. Of course, my first line of defense is avoidance, if possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-07-09 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
52. I don't know about you...
but looking at reality in any way but square on with your eyes and mind open, is just asking to be Darwined.

Just sayin'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #13
54. A sheep dog looks at the world in that way. (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-08-09 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
57. Who would want to ignore such a reality?
Edited on Thu Oct-08-09 10:23 AM by OneTenthofOnePercent
Ignorance is not always bliss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
67. The first sentence says it all
Irrational fear of "bad guys."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-09-09 06:17 AM
Response to Reply #67
70. Are you reading the same article?
Cause the article I'm reading has as its first sentence:
Carrying a lethal weapon in public confers a grave power that carries with it great responsibilities.

I guess some people read what they want to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC