Welcome to PatsFans.com

Guns & Gun Training

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Oct 5, 2013.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    Interesting video here
    Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One - YouTube

    I like gun control, you guys know this. But this experiment is really interesting, & they go in depth on why you need to get trained and maintain your training -- and even that doesn't work all the time.

    The "if everybody had a gun we'd be safer" talking point never impressed me. But it's worth thinking about. If you want to be some kind of auxilliary to the police, if that's the idea, shouldn't you have to get the right training to at least be useful in that capacity?

    PFnV
     
  2. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +81 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    The test is more than a little disingenuous. You train without gloves and the have then put on heavy gloves and expect them to draw a weapon. Unless you train like law enforcement with the a glove, test them as you train them. What civilian wears a glove when drawing their weapon?
     
  3. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +216 / 9 / -26

    What a joke....LMAO :D

    Why don't we just put "Joey" in a suit of armour and see how he does? :rolleyes:

    Now lets ask Joey if he would have rather had a gun or not had a gun when that gunman came in firing.


    Las Vegas CCW permit holder defends himself! - YouTube

    Concealed carry versus two shotguns - YouTube

    Marine With Concealed Carry Permit Stops Man From Beating Woman - YouTube

    Gun Carrying Man Ends Stabbing Spree at Salt Lake Grocery Store - YouTube

    Gun Owner Retires Carjacker - YouTube


    "It’s the New Year, and with Obama and Democrats already clamoring for more gun control, we often hear that “civilians aren’t as well trained as police.” This claim completely ignores a reality that has long been known to firearm trainers – most cops are only marginally competent with a handgun. As a result, they often place the public at great risk when they engage in shootouts with suspects.

    A perfect example was the incident last September in New York, when a disgruntled employee opened fire on his ex-boss right in front of the Empire State Building. A short time later two NYPD officers caught up with him, and fired multiple shots, killing the offender. The video below captured the moment:

    CCTV: Police confront Empire State Building shooter - YouTube

    What is not immediately clear in the video is that the officers, shooting at a distance of less than ten feet, also hit nine bystanders.


    Records from major police departments like New York and Chicago clearly show that the “hit rates” (percentage of shots fired by cops that actually hit suspects) are nothing short of abysmal. Cops typically hit offenders less than 20% of the time, often at distances of 10 feet or less!

    But aren’t police officers “highly trained” experts in the use of firearms? The short answer is, NO. Contrary to the fantasy world of television, where law enforcement characters spend endless hours at the gun range honing their skills, in reality most police officers go to a shooting range only once or twice a year!

    Compare that to civilian handgun permit holders, many of whom practice monthly, if not weekly, and firing hundreds of rounds at each session. I am a professional firearm instructor, and I can attest to the fact that I often run into my students at the range, and they are not alone. As a result, civilians seldom hit innocent bystanders.
    But even more disturbing is research by the FBI that has shown that violent criminals (those most likely to get into a shootout with police) practice as much at TEN TIMES MORE OFTEN THAN COPS:

    Force Science News #62: New Findings from FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons at Force Science News

    Not surprisingly, the same study shows that the criminals are also better shots than the cops – their hit rates, in actual shoot-outs, average an astonishing 70% – they hit cops far more often than the cops are able to hit them."



    https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ar...public-safety-police-or-carry-permit-holders/
     
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    I see, RI.

    Your contention then is that untrained yahoos are going to have a higher hit rate than the highly trained professionals?

    Or is it more likely that the hit rate on the same test would be yet lower, unless you count indiscriminately taking down bystanders?


    What this demonstrates, in concert with the mass-murders we've been seeing, is that the best way to use a gun is to murder someone at point blank, or to shoot with a lot of targets grouped together in a tight space. Even at that, in a school of hundreds, heavily armed murderers "only" kill a couple dozen, right?

    Guns aren't a very good way, it turns out, to make a split-second decision to kill one particular individual.

    In other words, it's a very weak argument that "a good guy with a gun" will stop "a bad guy with a gun." The "good guy with a gun" has to hit a single target. The "bad guy with a gun" fires at the whole environment.

    The solution is not to have bad guys with guns. Many countries come very close to this ideal.

    But we have an ideological bias toward arming mental cases and yahoos, and a lot of money is going into keeping that bias alive.

    PFnV
     
  5. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +216 / 9 / -26



    My contention is that police do not have a better hit rate than CCW permit holders because they don't shoot their weapons as often.

    Unless you're going to disagree with the FBI study....are you? Where is your evidence to the contrary?

    The solution is to have no bad guys with guns. Wow, ingenious. :rolleyes:
    And with a country of 310,000,000 guns how exactly do you propose for that to happen?
    Let me guess....more gun laws?

    Let's see what the FBI report had to say about guns, criminals, and gun laws:


    Predominately handguns were used in the assaults on officers and all but one were obtained illegally, usually in street transactions or in thefts. In contrast to media myth, none of the firearms in the study was obtained from gun shows. What was available “was the overriding factor in weapon choice,” the report says. Only 1 offender hand-picked a particular gun “because he felt it would do the most damage to a human being.”

    Researcher Davis, in a presentation and discussion for the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police, noted that none of the attackers interviewed was “hindered by any law–federal, state or local–that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws.”


    In reality, victim officers in the study averaged just 14 hours of sidearm training and 2.5 qualifications per year. Only 6 of the 50 officers reported practicing regularly with handguns apart from what their department required, and that was mostly in competitive shooting. Overall, the offenders practiced more often than the officers they assaulted, and this “may have helped increase [their] marksmanship skills,” the study says.


    Force Science News #62: New Findings from FBI About Cop Attackers & Their Weapons at Force Science News
     
  6. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    I am shocked that criminals are not deterred by pathetically weak gun laws in the U.S.

    So now, as I understand your contention, cops don't know how to use firearms, but random yahoos do.

    It is irrelevant whether or not criminals in shootouts with cops score more hits -- although I think it's much more likely that you can have five or 10 cops to shoot at, than 5 or 10 criminals -- once again, just shooting at whatever's coming at you is much more "effective" than shooting a solitary target.

    But I don't think your random yahoo with a gun is going to be more effective, or more trained, than cops, on average. They've got no requirement to train, nor do they train regularly, on the average. They have no periodic certification that they have to pass. An no, shooting clay pigeons or huntin' every week is not the same thing as reacting to an unfolding event. Neither is training on stationary targets - as was so clearly demonstrated in the posted video.

    Our "well regulated militia" regularly shoots loved ones, whether accidentally or in the heat of passion, shoot themselves, etc. This constant blather about how good they'd be at substituting for the local cops is the purest stupidity.

    So as you say, we have some of the weakest gun laws on the planet on the federal level. We make it worse with the patchwork at the local level. You need a gun and your city or state has tough gun laws? You get them run in from another city or state, which, by the way, often counts as an illegal gun sale. Yes, you can get a gun legally at a gun sale. You can also just buy them online or from some buttwipe in the parking lot of a liquor store. Some illegally, and some legally... because they're everywhere.

    In a country w/300 million guns out there, it's common sense that people will be committing gun crimes.

    In a country like England with minimal gun ownership, legal or otherwise, you have minimal gun crime. Gun crime's more deadly than equivalent crimes without easy gun access.

    The fix for it, believe it or not, is not "more guns."

    PFnV
     
  7. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    By the way, I notice that "Force Science News" does not have any way to find "an FBI study."

    Do you have a link to the original research, or just the opinion piece?

    Thanks,

    PFnV
     
  8. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,892
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    So basically what you're saying is that the majority of people practicing at the gun ranges are using illegally obtained guns to practice with?

    Do you really think that gang-bangers, rapists, murderers, drug addicts and thieves are spending their money "practicing," their killing skills?

    And how what this "study," done, anyhow? Do they interview people entering or exiting the range and ask them if they're criminals or what?
     
  9. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,762
    Likes Received:
    32
    Ratings:
    +81 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    The problem with the ABC "test" was that it was biased as well. The " shooter" knew who was armed so after "shooting" the professor, he turned on the only armed student whom he knew in advance. In a room of 30 or more, the armed student would have an extra second or two to pull his/ her weapon while the shooter picked targets if the shooter had no preselected the armed target.....
    There are some civilians who should not have CCW permits just as there are some police who May not be great in a crisis.
     
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    That's fair, Philly. I also noted your gloves/no gloves point. To make it a fair test the "shooter" shouldn't know who's got a gun.
     
  11. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +216 / 9 / -26



    Actually, criminals aren't deterred by gun laws...period. I think the word "laugh" should have given you a hint. Read Page 52 of the FBI report and see what criminals think of gun laws:


    http://freedomsadvocate.com/files/r...ultsonAmericasLawEnforcementOfficers-2003.pdf


    Ok, so once again you say nothing. Just more babbling....surprise, surprise. :rolleyes:

    How about some evidence to support your position....hmmm? Any...it would be nice for a change. As much as I love to read your rambling pontifications, it would occasionally be nice to see some evidence to support your position.

    BTW, no one is asking for "more guns" so you can quit with the Progressive anti-gun rights propaganda.
     
  12. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +216 / 9 / -26

  13. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +216 / 9 / -26



    I'm quoting what the FBI report says in regards to criminals and cops.

    Unless you're saying that the FBI is wrong? Are you saying that the FBI is wrong?

    How about Newsweek are they wrong too?

    "Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively.

    Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)."


    Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby - Forbes


    Do you have any actual evidence to contradict my evidence? Maybe like a study done by the FBI? I'm guessing you don't have one.
     
  14. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,892
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    Why yes, actually we do.

    Here are the FBI statistics from 2003, the year in your cited article. (Must download files)

    Justifiable Homicide
    by Firearm, Private Citizen,1 1999-2003
    Year
    1999 158
    200 138
    2001 183
    2002 189
    2003 203

    Table 2.15
    Justifiable Homicide
    by Firearm, Law Enforcement,1 1999-2003

    1999 305
    2000 308
    2001 375
    2002 338
    2003 363

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2003

    And from 2010:

    FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data

    And individual firearm statistics for the years 2006 - 2010

    Police Citizens
    385 192 2006
    395 202 2007
    373 219 2008
    411 218 2009
    385 232 2010



    Police
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl14.xls

    Private citizens
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

    In each year the police killed significantly more criminals by firearms than did ordinary citizens.
     
  15. RI Patriots fan

    RI Patriots fan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    87
    Ratings:
    +216 / 9 / -26




    And the innocent people....where's the challenge data for that? That's the more important of the two claims.

    What about the FBI report....any evidence to refute that?
     
  16. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    Is what you're trying to say,

    "Yes, you just caught me red-handed peddling bullsh1t in one instance, but I'm attempting to peddle so much bullsh1t that I can just declare any surviving bullsh1t to be the important part"?

    You should really take a moment to digest that you've been proven to be peddling bullsh1t, perhaps even acknowledge it.

    PFnV
     
  17. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    Did the FBI study the very small comparative number of offenders in countries with stronger gun laws? It's not in my copy of the report. I read p. 52, which established that American criminals find it very easy to get a gun in America illegally.

    Now then: Are there illegal weapons factories that fuel all this crime done with illegal weapons, or were the vast majority of them stolen from someone who legally owned them?

    Were these guns all locked in gun safes or on the persons of their owners, how much easier or harder would it be to steal a weapon from a home or a car, just for example?

    This goes back to well regulating the "militia" which owns so many of the 300 million guns in this country.

    The set of "All gun laws" does include the subset "All the laws on obtaining a gun," but it also includes all laws on owning, maintaining, and safeguarding a gun. It also includes the laws on maintaining the integrity of the information on who's ever owned a given weapon, and the penalties for not reporting theft or loss of a gun. Just for example. Ours should be much more restrictive and have much better penalties attached, in accordance with the second amendment's purpose -- a well-regulated "militia." We have a problem here, my friend. 30,000+ deaths a year. More than drunk driving. Yet, we pretend we're "powerless" to do anything about it, and the con men dive into the shell-game logic: Measure A wouldn't solve problem B. Measure B wouldn't solve problem A. And so on.

    Wow - pretty impressed with yourself for a guy who's just been proven wrong on the single actual stat he's actually proffered. Smug put-down and an emoticon! You must hang out with folks with a pretty low bar.

    My position that societies with more restrictive gun laws have better gun violence outcomes?
    Guns in the United Kingdom: Firearms, armed violence and gun law

    In the U.K., there were 146 gun deaths in 2011. In the U.S., there were 32,163.
    Compare the United Kingdom ? Total Number of Gun Deaths

    Gee, there's some, genius.

    Your way doesn't work, so you can quit the reactionary, anti-life propaganda. LOL I can just see the little con-man "You can't say that!" alarm going off now...

    "OMG! You said "Life" means people who have been born???? OMG OMG I'm going to go tell on youuuuuu!!!"

    First of all, "No one" apparently does not include the NRA, whose president started braying "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with the gun," after the latest school shooting, and responded to that mass murder by pushing for teachers to be armed.

    Guess what sunshine? That means more guns. Guess what else? The NRA is continually pushing for ways to sell more guns.

    Secondly, what we do have proof of is that a country awash in firearms also has a quite high rate of gun deaths and gun violence, as the UK/US comparison clearly illustrates.

    Thirdly, one hardly needs to "ask for more guns" when we both acknowledge that you can get all the guns you want in the U.S. Not that that stops the NRA.

    Finally, your grasp of logic is clearly lacking, in terms of the OP.

    The original post here impugns the notion that randoms from across the population, given guns and plopped into dangerous situations, can be relied on to remediate said situations -- and, I have noted the much better-reasoned objections from Philly.

    Your objection seems to be that if we put a professional criminal in the place of the random member of the population, said professional criminal would be better at stopping a second criminal. The anecdotal accounts in the FBI study speak eloquently to the professional criminal's interest in training.

    That is not the contention implied by the OP. Rather, it establishes that it's unlikely for a random member of the population to be effective at neutralizing a threat, just because that random member of the population has said firearm.

    For the claimed effectiveness of the professional criminal to pertain, you have to establish that the general gun-owning population is similar to the professional criminal in the type and duration of their training.

    Finally, the sample sizes in the three studies which the FBI study surveys is very small, and it relies on self-reporting. It relies on 32 of 33 weapons used to kill police officers being obtained illegally to establish that "97% of gun murderers used illegally obtained weapons." Pretty big jump from 32 to the 12,000 or so homicides using guns. Adam Lanza obviously wasn't in this study. But that doesn't much matter to your set.

    If a crime's committed with a stolen gun, you say our lax gun laws didn't stop it, and you quote the criminal who scoffs at gun laws.

    If a crime's committed with a legally obtained gun, you say our lax gun laws didn't stop it, because it's a legally obtained gun.

    This crap might pass for compelling argumentation when it's just you and your buddies, but for those of us whose critical faculties still function, you may want to try a little harder.

    Kids these days :rolleyes:

    PFnV
     
  18. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,892
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    I've just finished reading through the entire 157 pages of your cited "report," and there's not one word about "innocent people," being shot in it. What ever report Forbes quoted Newsweek quoting - it wasn't this one.


    I've already refuted the first part of your claim, "Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, with the actual FBI statistics.

    As to the second part, "and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)." find me the Newsweek article which quotes or shows exactly where they got this information at (because it sure isn't from the study you've given us) and I can get back to you.

    Until then, I will operate on the assumption that because the first part of the equation is blatantly false and in direct opposition to the actual FBI statistics for 2003 the second part is equally bogus.
     
  19. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,838
    Likes Received:
    184
    Ratings:
    +377 / 11 / -28

    Be careful when using logic and reasoning on this forum, it is a foreign entity to most.
     
  20. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    To paraphrase a Brando line...

    I suppose reason and opinion could be described as distant cousins... and here on the Patsfans Pofo, they're simply not on speaking terms at all

    :)

    Part of the reason that the stats seem so likely to be based on smoke and mirrors on this subject (of the style of mythology RI is peddling here,) is that the scientific agencies aren't allowed to do real research on the causes of gun violence, because Congress has explicit laws against "propaganda" on the causes of gun violence, including relevant research. This is the same complaint we hear from peddlers of pro-death positions -- that anybody who brings facts to light regarding guns are engaging in "propaganda."

    So the real propaganda fills the void, this rot peddled by the gun lobby. Then it bounces around the echo chamber, and out comes another mound of 24K bullsh1t.

    It's always a link to an out-of-context claim, and when challenged, a link to a 2005 study based on a study of a small sampling done in 1993 or somesuch... because we have effectively removed reality from this conversation.

    So here's an idea, RI, since "nobody is asking for more guns." Would you have any objections to the following law passing Congress and the Senate, and being signed by the President?

    Federal scientific research and law enforcement agencies shall investigate the causes of gun violence, including but not limited to collaborative studies with federal, state, and/or local law enforcement agencies, and shall publish the results of their research.

    Whattaya say, champ? Interested in the truth, even one iota?

    PFnV
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>