Can there be a middle ground on this subject?


PDA






Vector
January 20, 2008, 04:24 PM
I suspect I will be accused of being a wolf in sheep's clothing by starting this thread, but try to be reasoned with your responses. I am pro gun, just not a fanatic, so try to see the other side of the coin rather than attack the messenger.

This quote was in response to police acting negligent or even criminal with their firearms.


The hard-core "gun grabbers" would just turn that around and say, "Well, if police are that irresponsible, then ordinary citizens must be even more irresponsible.

Responding to this quote in another recently closed thread, Intrepid Dad wrote;

Excellent point. The gun grabbers are fond of saying something like "trained law enforcement only has a 40% hit rate (I forget the actual statistic) when using force under stress. If they're that low, just imagine how incompetent ordinary citizens would be with their hit rate. Clearly only law enforcement should have guns".

They completely ignore the fact that many civilians train more frequently than some law enforcement, so the conclusion drawn on hit rates is completely erroneous. Of course, it serves to promote their agenda which is why they have no problem ignoring the facts.

It surprises me that many feel there is no middle ground on these issues. Furthermore, while "gun grabbers" will use anything that favors their position to promote their agenda, it does not mean that everything they say is without merit. While I do not purport to say LEO's are more proficient than all regular citizens, I also do not assume that most gun owning citizens train more frequently than LEO's. As a matter of fact, I'd bet on average, LEO's train more on a % basis that the average gun owner. Many departments require range qualification once a year.
So while many gun owners who are enthusiasts hunt and target shoot often, it is not representative of the large numbers of people who own guns but rarely use them.

Is that a reasonable statement, or do you feel I am off base?

`

If you enjoyed reading about "Can there be a middle ground on this subject?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
2RCO
January 20, 2008, 04:26 PM
Vector I will be watching this thread. Good luck to ya!

Hardware
January 20, 2008, 04:38 PM
Relative chance of success when using a gun is irrelevant. The right to have the opportunity to use a gun is.

The question is not whether there can be a middle ground. There is no middle ground. It is a binary solution set. Yes or No. Do I have the right to keep and bear arms or do I not have that right. The Bill of Rights says I do.

Some people want to "clarify" or "interpret" what the 2nd amendment says. I say that since the Constitution was ratified with the proviso of the Bill of Rights, nullify any one of those ten amendments and there is no Constitution. No Constitution, no United States. No Congress. No President. No Supreme Court. No standing armed forces. No right to taxation. Clarify and interpret that. Any attempt by individuals to enforce a suspension is an illegal act, treason, and if an office holder, abuse of office.

We have had the Constitution suspended twice. During the Civil War and During World War 2. Both times it was reinstated. Looked at another way it's gone down twice. I don't think it will survive going down for the third time.

Jim K
January 20, 2008, 04:59 PM
I don't know if it is a "middle ground" or not, but I have known a fair number of LEOs who couldn't shoot and would have been downright dangerous to anyone in the vicinity had they ever fired their weapons. And I have known ordinary citizens who were well trained and practiced continually with their guns. The police reality is that most officers go to the range for the same reason they take classes in first aid, because they have to. Some officers are "gun people" who like to shoot, and shoot when they can, even at their own expense, but in my experience they are the minority. To most cops, a gun is a tool they carry around because they have to and it might come in handy.

IMHO, the problem is not so much technical ability but mindset. A police officer who thinks citizens are scum and should be shot down on the slightest excuse is a lot more dangerous if he is a good shot. On the other hand a careful citizen could save his own life or the lives of others.

To my mind, there is too much macho BS about "how I would get the BG and be a hero" on these sites, often by kids who don't and can't legally own guns. Sorry, folks, Sir Galahad is dead and would probably be indicted for ADW and cruelty to dragons if he were around today.

As to the gun grabbers, don't forget that most gun control groups have always favored disarmament of police, though they tend to soft-pedal that line at this time. In his book, The Saturday Night Special, sometimes described as "The Bible of the gun control moverment", Robert Sherrill urges disarming police first; he says police are "mentally unbalanced", "morally inferior", "queer about guns", and cowards. At times the Brady bunch and other groups have agreed, even though they play different tunes at different times, depending on what they think will work to gain their agenda.

Right now, in Virginia, some relatives of the kids killed at VT are pushing for a ban on private handgun sales, even though the VT killer bought his guns through licensed dealers. But the Brady Campaign, which has been pushing for a private sale ban is using those people to push its agenda because it thinks wallowing in blood and tears will achieve its goal. In fact, their "ambulance chasing" is so blatant that many people have come to wonder if they are above creating a massacre just to promote gun control.

Jim

islw2863
January 20, 2008, 05:12 PM
Hardware You are exactly right

Vector Can there be a middle ground on this subject?

To continue Hardwares argument: Yes of course there is a middle ground, and the only purpose of and inevitable result of this middle ground is to destroy the logical and moral foundation of the right (pick one) being debated.

You are obviously someone who likes to stir the pot.

It is obvious what answer you will get to this question in this forum. I don't believe you are sincerely looking for truth or wisdom but just want to start a flame war. Making people angry for your entertainment is not cool and not healthy.

230RN
January 20, 2008, 05:12 PM
Hardware, may I respectfully offer you a beer if we ever meet?

Lonestar49
January 20, 2008, 05:21 PM
...

Ignorance is no excuse to say and be anti gun..

This would be the same if someone didn't know how to fly planes, and wanted to take away all planes from the Civil air wing thru out the USA..

A plane crashes due to pilot error, so according to the same thinking process of those who wish to take away all civilian guns, should mean take away all the civil planes..

But, that hasn't occurred, because most are not effected by what they read about airplane accidents, and they fly (now and then) via the commercial airlines, so they seem to leave what they really don't understand alone, but not so with guns, because if they don't own one, then no one should, because it's the right policy in their small worlds.

The messenger is fine, but should it not be from one that is educated to own, handle, and fire a weapon, the same as one that is educated to pilot a plane vs those uneducated/ignorant in either area, yet want to take away ones weapons or close more of the airports because they bought, or built, a home next to an airport..?

Go figure..


Ls

Technosavant
January 20, 2008, 06:14 PM
Just because one side says one thing and another side says its exact opposite does not mean that the truth is in the middle. Our society has come to think that is the case, but it is a complete fallacy.

One group of mathematicians says 2+2=4.
One group of other people, claiming mathematicians are only protecting their own special interests, says 2+2=2.

That does not mean that 2+2=3, since 3 is "middle ground."

Opposition to a truth does not then skew reality so that the truth itself is changed.

As to direct application to the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense and freedom from tyranny, how many others of your rights are you willing to accept "middle ground" on? You have freedom of speech so long as you have a recognized media outlet? You have freedom from unreasonable search and seizure so long as you aren't accused of a violent crime? You have the right to vote so long as you can prove you pass a quiz on current issues?

We wouldn't stand for such things in regards to other rights; those would be seen as full on infringements, not "middle ground." Hardware is correct; you either have a right or you don't. Period.

dracphelan
January 20, 2008, 06:15 PM
The problem is we have tried the middle ground for 74 years. And, the middle ground keeps pushing further and further into our area. Those who believe the Second Amendment is an individual right have had enough of giving ground. It started with "no civilian really needs full auto weapons or silencers." Now, we have areas of this country where it is almost impossible to legally touch a functioning firearm. The anti-gun crowd will not stop until there are no firearms legally in civilian hands. Enough is enough. We are pushing back. :mad:

Baba Louie
January 20, 2008, 06:21 PM
So while many gun owners who are enthusiasts hunt and target shoot often, it is not representative of the large numbers of people who own guns but rarely use them.Probably more truthful than not.

In between the colors black and white lies a modicum of grey. I tend to agree with those wise men who argued for including into the BOR's limitation of Congressional infringement on the subject.

"He, she or they" may or may not own guns, and/or, should they own them they may not be as proficient as some here, but I am most certainly against only the King's Men having access and/or proficiency.

While I may believe/think that ownership of a firearm means serious, adequate practice and competant use, not to mention safe handling and storage (let us call this position "White"), and while I personally know good citizens who think that NO ONE other than LEO and Govt Issue employees have any business with arms (call this condition "Black" and the pole opposite of my position on the subject), I'm glad there's a lot of grey in between those two extremes poles. The grey killing ground (or "No Man's Land") of "take an inch at a time by Elected and Appointed Officials" if you will.

I will never change their minds, nor they, mine. So Vector, you cover the middle "grey" ground, I'll stake out my end of things, wearing a white hat covering your back. Those at the other end of the spectrum... the do-gooder, know-it-alls? Here's hoping they never need face evil unarmed, be it criminal ilk or governmental ner-do-wells.

Or is this thread only about ownership and proficiency? ;)

If so, False security will be found on both sides of the "Ownership" coin.

TallPine
January 20, 2008, 06:22 PM
There is no middle ground because gun control laws do not work to reduce crime.

Not to mention constitutional and "god-given" rights.

Citroen
January 20, 2008, 06:23 PM
On this subject, and for that matter quite a few subjects it might help to remember - What used to be called right and wrong is now called right and left!

There is no compromise with evil, surrender is not an option!

I do agree that some posters appear to be overly macho and it is possible that they are in fact, youngsters, but who cares? There is no middle ground on free speech either!

The whole idea stems from "political correctness" which is national suicide.

John
Charlotte, NV

Dilbert
January 20, 2008, 06:33 PM
We, as legal gun owers, are the "middle", or maybe better stated, in the middle. If you are in the middle you are neither leading nor following, and that is a bad thing indeed. To move your position out of the middle there is only one thing you can do.
VOTE.
Research the candidates.
VOTE.
Ask questions and get answers, not double talk.
VOTE.
It's your greatest right.

1911Tuner
January 20, 2008, 06:55 PM
Playing Devil's Advocate is one of my weaknesses...so I'll add a little something to the "Cop vs Citizen" skill-at-arms debate, just to provide a little food for thought.

While it's very true that a large percentage of our law enforcement aren't
"Gunnies" in the sense that they live and breathe for shooting...they do have a lot of good training at their disposal and under their belts before they hit the streets.

Keep in mind, too...that shooting a lot and training aren't always on equal ground. You can practice until you can literally bust a June Bug at 50 paces...and lose a fight with a hophead holding his Glock sideways at arm's length. You have to be lucky every time he pulls the trigger. He only has to get lucky once. Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice approaches it.

Also...About as often as not, when the street cop grabs for his pistol, he's already up to his crack in crocodiles with an adrenalin dump in progress. That makes missing the first shot or two a higher probability than taking one's time and squeezing off an "X". Remember also that these hit/miss statistics are across the board, without much regard to circumstance, except in the officer's report...and it's not likely that's included in the figures. They're not graded on a curve.

The average citizen's defensive shooting isn't usually on an even footing with the cop's. Joe Citizen's is more likely to be at home, or at least on familiar ground. The chances of a citizen stopping a mall shooting is low compared to his chances of having to arm himself against a home invader or car jacker. The cop could be anywhere, and his attack most often comes without warning. Traffic stops and domestic disputes are among his most dangerous situations. Day-to-day stuff is what kills most cops. The things that he gets complacent with will be his undoing. Joe doesn't hear bumps in the night often enough to get complacent...so his level of alertness is high when he does.


Finally...Killing situations almost never go down the way that we imagine they will. No matter how well or how often you train...you're still facing a target that has shown the will and the means to kill you...and he is actively working hard to do just that. Shooting wide of the mark is a higher liklihood of hitting it under those circumstances...especially if you're action is essentially a reaction to his. You're behind the curve, and it's hard to catch up. Things like that makes hands tremble and body movements jerky.

Carry on!

Feanaro
January 20, 2008, 07:10 PM
From a practical perspective, the "middle ground" is dangerous. Slippery slope arguments are said to be logical fallacies but they are a political reality. When we have compromised, the anti's get a better position to enact more gun control, more legislation to make gun ownership a pain in the rump, and maybe a ban on a firearm or three hundred.

What do we get? Screwed. So even if I didn't think that the issue is basically black and white, I wouldn't favor much a "middle ground."

Vector
January 20, 2008, 07:19 PM
Hardware wrote;

Relative chance of success when using a gun is irrelevant. The right to have the opportunity to use a gun is.

Incorrect! This thread is not about the right to own firearms, regardless of how you try to change it to that subject. I guess it is easier to obfuscate the subject rather than address it.
________________________________________________________________


islw2863 who has a whopping post count of 1 wrote;

Hardware You are exactly right

To continue Hardwares argument:

Well if you want to discuss subject D rather than A, please go do it in some other thread, or start one yourself. He went off on a rant having nothing to do with the original topic.

You are obviously someone who likes to stir the pot.

It is obvious what answer you will get to this question in this forum. I don't believe you are sincerely looking for truth or wisdom but just want to start a flame war. Making people angry for your entertainment is not cool and not healthy.

:rolleyes:

Looking for truth or wisdom? LOL, I am looking for rational discussion and/or other posters point of view on the subject.
If you have read any of my other posts/threads, you will see that I strongly support the 2nd amendment. However I am not a koolaid drinker, and I guess that drives people like yourself crazy. Try getting an informed perspective on things before going on a rant against other posters. You will be better served if you take that approach.

`

thexrayboy
January 20, 2008, 07:21 PM
The frequency with which one chooses to excercise a right has no bearing on the validity of that right. Whether I choose to practice with my weapon weekly to insure competence or whether I choose to load the .357 stick it in a nightstand and never touch it again till I hear the sound of breaking glass is
exactly that...my choice. To even broach the subject that I should not be allowed to excercise my 2A rights unless I can demonstrate uncanny proficiency is BS pure and simple.

The same argument could be said for those who dropped out of high school not having the same right to free speech as compared to a college graduate who must obviously be better trained and capable in the use of language skills.

Every argument the antis throw up is a smoke screen. They have zero facts to base their position on. All that leaves them is smoke and mirrors. This is just another one of the smoke screens we see them attempt to use.

wideym
January 20, 2008, 07:27 PM
The middle of the ground is just like standing in the middle of the road, eventually you will get run over. You MIGHT get run over on the left or right side of the road, but you WILL get run over if you are in the middle.

AndyC
January 20, 2008, 07:44 PM
So while many gun owners who are enthusiasts hunt and target shoot often, it is not representative of the large numbers of people who own guns but rarely use them.

Is that a reasonable statement, or do you feel I am off base?
I am puzzled as to why you feel that enthusiasts have to be "representative" of those who are not enthusiasts - what's your point?

Telperion
January 20, 2008, 07:46 PM
Incorrect! This thread is not about the right to own firearms, regardless of how you try to change it to that subject. I guess it is easier to obfuscate the subject rather than address it.
Fair enough, but in his defense you did not define the issue very clearly. In fact, I'm not even sure what the point is: "So while many gun owners who are enthusiasts hunt and target shoot often, it is not representative of the large numbers of people who own guns but rarely use them." Since it is oft-quoted that 40% of American households have a firearm, is it really any surprise that the most enthusiastic and serious shooters are not representative of the larger gun owning population? The same can been said of any other hobby: driving, computers, etc.

Aguila Blanca
January 20, 2008, 07:49 PM
It surprises me that many feel there is no middle ground on these issues. Furthermore, while "gun grabbers" will use anything that favors their position to promote their agenda, it does not mean that everything they say is without merit. While I do not purport to say LEO's are more proficient than all regular citizens, I also do not assume that most gun owning citizens train more frequently than LEO's. As a matter of fact, I'd bet on average, LEO's train more on a % basis that the average gun owner. Many departments require range qualification once a year.
If I understand you correctly, you think that an LEO requalifying (which is NOT "practice" or "training" -- its qualification, and nothing more) once a year is more than most citizen handgun owners practice? I have no statistics with which to refute this, and you don't cite any statistics to support it, but I'd bet you're dead wrong.

I belong to an indoor range. There are a couple of LEOs who shoot there more or less regularly. But only a few. On the other hand, a local gun shop is owned by a retired LEO. His "thing" is antique shotguns, but he has a few S&W revolvers in the used gun case. I asked him once if he had shot a handgun since he retired. Nope. Fired one of the old shotguns a couple of times, though. Then I asked if he every practiced when he was an active LEO. Nope again. Doesn't like handguns, wasn't interested in practicing. Didn't think he'd ever need it. (In his case, apparently, he was lucky and did not have to use his duty weapon.) He seems to be typical of most of the officers around here.

As a practical matter, how can there be a "middle ground" in a discussion that only has two positions? Either LEOs are better qualified than "civilians" with handguns, or they aren't. What's the middle ground -- that we're equally qualified? How can you possibly quantify THAT?

islw2863
January 20, 2008, 07:53 PM
OP

You admit you are not looking for truth or wisdom, you LOL at it.

You asked for reasoned responses, but receiving them you say they are irrelevant because they don't address the point you say you want to address.

For example the number if times I have posted here is not reasonably relevant to the topics discussed here, but you point to this out to diminish my comment. The frequency of opinion spouting (number of posts) does not increase the value of validity of your opinion.

OP you continue to verify my hunch that you want to stir the pot and poke sticks into folks just to get a rise out of people.

<Namecalling removed>

SuperNaut
January 20, 2008, 08:03 PM
islw2863 please re-read the rules you agreed to when you signed up at THR.

Soybomb
January 20, 2008, 08:30 PM
I'm really not sure that I see much of a point to the thread other than your displayed need to feel like you're a moderate on the gun control issue. Quit worrying about which side of the fence it looks like you sit on and look for some real answers. If you think there's an issue with private citizens and training, look up some statistics and see if that theory is supported or not. Instead of softly saying "well both sides seem to have valid points" why not just see if either side's claim matches up the real world data that is so easily available? If there's a training and safety issue lets talk about it, if it doesn't exist there is no reason to specuate about one.

Superlite27
January 20, 2008, 08:34 PM
For example the number if times I have posted here is not reasonably relevant to the topics discussed here

Good point. I believe there is a tendency to ignore posts until the poster has an acceptable post count. This negates the fact of any first poster having a beneficial contribution.

There seems to be a wish or desire by the OP to "qualify". Not just in the discussion of firearms which he pointed out, but of all things in general.

1. Hardware's good point = disqualified. (not answer to specific question)
2. islw2863's point = disqualified. (not enough posts)
3. Civilian's gun ownership = disqualified (not enough practice %)
4. Superlite27's point = probably disqualified (too inflammatory)

Civilians are better trained. It's in the numbers. Take all gun owners. Now, take the top 10% of the ones who practice the most. I bet you have more of them than the number of ALL POLICE OFFICERS.

Considering that the 10% of civilian best now outnumber ALL the police, now who's better trained? We haven't even started winnowing out the desk jockeys in departments who merely plink out their once a year qualification, yet we've already discounted civilians by 90%.

Still think the police are better trained? Maybe their top 10% who actively seek practice, such as SWAT members or special agents are better. I bet the top 10 individual officers will outshoot almost any civilian. This isn't considering IPSA competitors. If you count civilian pro's against police pro's, I would still bet on the civilians.

(BTW islw2863, the term [<namecalling>] does kind of shoot yourself in the foot. It takes your relevant point, and justifies the ignoring of first posters. I kind of regret paying attention to you now. Of course, I'm wondering why you've waited a year and a half since joining to make your first post here.)

takhtakaal
January 20, 2008, 08:42 PM
It is a Sunday, isn't it?

Furthermore, while "gun grabbers" will use anything that favors their position to promote their agenda, it does not mean that everything they say is without merit.

I give them no credence whatsoever, because they have one aim, and one aim alone: to circumvent the original intentions of the framers of the Constitution, separating me and my brethren from the recognition of the God-given right to self defense that was given by wise men and codified as the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

Frankly, they're like snakes in Southeast Asia.

Brian Dale
January 20, 2008, 08:49 PM
Can there be a middle ground on this subject?Of course there's a middle ground. We've been living there since before I was born. In this middle ground, guns cannot be bought and carried just as easily as books. That's why too many of my friends have been raped, or robbed, or beaten.

No, I don't hang out with a rough crowd; I'm in my forties and I've known quite a few people. Do they have the right to their own lives? Should they?

Would you also suggest that the right to vote should depend on proficiency?

I don't.

revjen45
January 20, 2008, 09:41 PM
Would anyone have the effrontery to suggest that African-Americans have some obligation to seek a middle ground with the poltroons in white sheets? I see no difference in compromising with the Brady Bunch. Gun owners are no more obligated to compromise their rights as humans under the laws of nature and nature's God than are African-Americans... or anyone else. You're either a slave or a free man. There is no synthesis of the two polar opposites. Slaves are disarmed, or they wouldn't stay slaves for long. Free men are armed or they wouldn't stay free for long. Let us remember that the first gun control laws were intended to keep African-Americans quiescent in servitude. Today's gun laws are to make grovelers of us all. Free men are armed; armed men are free. The ultimate guarantor of our freedom is blue steel, not black robes.

Justice costs $400/hr. I can't afford enough of it at that rate to do any good, but I can afford a Mossberg 500 and a Steyr S9. The Govt has unlimited funds extorted from the productive sector of society to keep legions of shysters marching in lock step to steal our property, earnings, and freedom. An honest man will run out of money for shysters before the Govt will, and whoever has the resources to keep the lawyers prancing and belching the longest will prevail in the legal arena. The idea that the legal industry is somehow divinely entitled to respect is absurd. Respect can not be demanded- it must be earned, and the legal system in America has earned nothing but fear and loathing from free Americans. :mad:

SuperNaut
January 20, 2008, 09:47 PM
Nice post revjen45!

mainebear
January 20, 2008, 09:59 PM
The anti-gun crowd in this country have not, do not, and will not, ever, ever, ever, seek a middle ground.

Therefore, neither can we, ever.

Our rights are just to important to compromise by seeking a "middle ground" ever.

Erik
January 20, 2008, 09:59 PM
"Can there be a middle ground on this subject?"

Sure, the world is full of half right opinions!

And in demonstrationg how opened minded I can be, I acknowledge that some have half wrong opinions.

:neener:

Intrepid Dad
January 20, 2008, 10:38 PM
Since my post was used to help jump start this thread, I felt like I should chime in. Vector, I honestly don't know what middle ground you're seeking. My post in the other thread was meant to point out that those who would deny us our rights under the Constitution have no desire to find a middle ground. They will use any excuse they can to deny citizens the right to self-defense. They always have a reason why the "Average Joe" couldn't possibly be competent with a firearm. It's always about how they'll lose their temper, have shoot-outs over parking spaces, and how blood will be flowing in the streets. The history of concealed carry shows this isn't true.

In a subsequent post, you mentioned that you have a strong history of supporting the Second Amendment through your posts here at THR. I took the opportunity to search your writings and found the following:

December 10th, 2007, 04:22 PM #35
Vector
Senior Member



Join Date: 10-02-07
Location: South Florida
Posts: 119

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

vtoddball wrote:


Quote:
I think you'll find that the majority of people on this forum will agree that not only should CCW be allowed EVERYWHERE, they should especially be allowed where children and other high value targets exist.
I was referring to pro gun society in general, not those of us who take our time to post on a gun forum. I think we might be a little more hard core than the average person.
As to "EVERYWHERE", that would mean eliminating the current CCW Fl. law regarding schools, etc. I think most of the restrictions are reasonable for citizens. Almost every place CCW's are restricted, there are LEO's or armed security.
I certainly do not want to entrust that any yahoo who can buy a gun will not accidental discharge it, leave it laying around, or lose their temper and disregard the people/children around them. Lets face it, LEO's have special training and even they make mistakes. Having Joe six-pack around kids with firearms is not my idea of a safe environment for them. I am all for law abiding people owning guns, but carrying them around places like Disney, elementary schools etc. is not the same thing.

Note: I added the bold-face type to emphasis a specific section of Vector's post.

So I have to ask, what middle ground are you seeking? That law abiding citizens have the right to a gun, but only if they keep it in their house, disassembled, and with a trigger lock? And if we agree to that, do you really think the gun grabbers will be content? Or will they merely see that as a sign of momentum going their way and press for more restrictions?

Vector, for the record I don't think you're a troll. And I agree with you that staying away from the Kool-aid is a good thing. But I think that you are buying into our opponent's argument that gradually chipping away at Second Amendment rights in the name of "common sense" legislation is a good thing, and that only the government is competent enough to protect us.

I categorically reject that notion.

islw2863
January 20, 2008, 10:39 PM
superlite27 asked

I'm wondering why you've waited a year and a half since joining to make your first post here.

I post very infrequently superlite because I enjoy learning from others a lot, and I don't have a huge ego telling me that my own opinions are particularly valuable or unique.

Occasionally though someone pokes me with a sharp stick and I shout.

Sorry for calling OP <a name>. Good manners and political correctness must take priority over telling the truth, right?

SuperNaut
January 20, 2008, 10:42 PM
Edited snarky comment.

bensdad
January 20, 2008, 10:53 PM
This message is brought to you by me.

You are feeding a troll.

I now return you to your regularly programmed troll feeding.

SuperNaut
January 20, 2008, 10:57 PM
Roger that.

Hardware
January 20, 2008, 11:05 PM
Vector,
Let's dissect your ramble.
I suspect I will be accused of being a wolf in sheep's clothing by starting this thread,
Probably.
but try to be reasoned with your responses. I am pro gun, just not a fanatic, so try to see the other side of the coin rather than attack the messenger.




This quote was in response to police acting negligent or even criminal with their firearms.


The hard-core "gun grabbers" would just turn that around and say, "Well, if police are that irresponsible, then ordinary citizens must be even more irresponsible.
Responding to this quote in another recently closed thread, Intrepid Dad wrote;


Excellent point. The gun grabbers are fond of saying something like "trained law enforcement only has a 40% hit rate (I forget the actual statistic) when using force under stress. If they're that low, just imagine how incompetent ordinary citizens would be with their hit rate. Clearly only law enforcement should have guns".

They completely ignore the fact that many civilians train more frequently than some law enforcement, so the conclusion drawn on hit rates is completely erroneous. Of course, it serves to promote their agenda which is why they have no problem ignoring the facts.
So, your premise is; Many civilians train more frequently than some LEOs.


It surprises me that many feel there is no middle ground on these issues. Furthermore, while "gun grabbers" will use anything that favors their position to promote their agenda, it does not mean that everything they say is without merit.
If you ignore the small fact that their whole position is treason.

While I do not purport to say LEO's are more proficient than all regular citizens,
Now the statement is; LEOs are not more proficient than civilians.

I also do not assume that most gun owning citizens train more frequently than LEO's.

Now it is; Most gun owning civilians do not train more frequently than LEOs

As a matter of fact, I'd bet on average, LEO's train more on a % basis that the average gun owner.

Now your point is; Average LEOs train more than gun owning civilians.

Many departments require range qualification once a year.
So while many gun owners who are enthusiasts hunt and target shoot often, it is not representative of the large numbers of people who own guns but rarely use them.
Now it is Many LEOs go to the range once a year, and many gun owners do not go to the range that often.

Is that a reasonable statement, or do you feel I am off base?


Which statement? You've contradicted yourself here. You've stated;

Many civilians train more frequently than some LEOs.

LEOs are not more proficient than civilians.

Most gun owning civilians do not train more frequently than LEOs

Average LEOs train more than gun owning civilians.

Many LEOs go to the range once a year, and many gun owners do not go to the range that often.

I'm not trying to turn this into a personal attack, but is it any wonder why you are getting so many garbled responses? You've actually contradicted yourself in phrasing your question. You start out by comparing LEOs against all civilians, then you narrow your pool to gun owning civilians. How do non-gun owning civilians train more frequently than LEOs? Even allowing for your meaning to compare apples to apples you state that some civilians are more proficient but most LEOs are more proficient when most departments only range qualify once a year. How does this work.

So, to inject a little sanity into the question lets reason a bit. Are there more LEOs than gun owning civilians? Certainly not. 40% of American households own guns. I am reasonably certain that 40% of American households do not contain a LEO. Even assuming we remove LEOs from the gun owning households. That means there are at least 48 million gun owners in America given a cautious estimate of 40% of 220 million total population. Let's assume there are 1% LEOs in America, 2.2 million LEOs. Let's say 10% of the LEOs are hardcore and train frequently compared to 1% of civilians. That's still 220,000 LEOs that have superior proficiency versus 480,000 civilians. The numbers just cannot add up. I'm just pulling numbers out of thin air, but I am certain you are falling prey to the availability heuristic. Since more news stories are run with LEOs involved in gun fights it appears they experience more gun use than civilians. I am willing to be research would show otherwise. The population of the country just can't allow for that discrepancy.

Just Jim
January 20, 2008, 11:09 PM
Who can hit what with a gun is a moot point. Problem is the police have to be there to save you and they won't be there when you need it. Doesn't matter how good the cop shoots when he is across town when you need him.

The thread is poor argument at best and the original poster should realize he has to take care of himself.

jj

ArfinGreebly
January 20, 2008, 11:36 PM
Good manners and political correctness must take priority over telling the truth, right?
You're a guest here. We all are.

It's Oleg's house.

I don't give a rip what your politics are, but I will categorically enforce civility here.

You want to "speak the truth?" Find a way to do it that doesn't include foul language and personal attacks.

The rules for The High Road are clear and unambiguous.

Name-calling is one of the fastest ways to lose posting privileges here.

I enjoy an articulate argument as much as the next guy.

Rudeness, on the other hand, gets you the big red button.

Carry on, gentlemen.

tbtrout
January 20, 2008, 11:46 PM
The problem with middle ground is someone always wants a little more of the middle.

Vector
January 20, 2008, 11:48 PM
I have noted from having read most of the replies that my OP might be a little confusing since more than a few posters have gone off the topic I wished to discuss. It might also be because of the 3rd post where Hardware went way off course in that direction. However several posters are on target such as 1911Tuner (post #14) who hit the subject right on the head.

So for the record this thread is about the proficiency of shooting between LEO's vs. average Joe's who own guns. It has nothing to do with who should own guns, nor whether someone should show the ability to shoot properly to be able to own one. The next time I start a thread, I will try to be a little more clear as to the question/subject I put out for discussion.
As to the one poster who decided to finally post after being here for over 1 1/2 years just for this thread, it seems likely it is an anonymous ID. They want to be able to spew rude and/or vulgar comments without fear of reprisals to their primary ID.

Robert Hairless
January 20, 2008, 11:49 PM
Vector:

While I do not purport to say LEO's are more proficient than all regular citizens, I also do not assume that most gun owning citizens train more frequently than LEO's. As a matter of fact, I'd bet on average, LEO's train more on a % basis that the average gun owner. Many departments require range qualification once a year.

Vector, you need to shuck your doubletalk and clear your mind of the cant that fills it.

You have no way to know what "most" gun owning citizens or "average" gun owners do. No one can know such things. You also don't know what an "average" Law Enforcement Officer is, what training such a non-existant being undergoes, or how often one must qualify or even what the qualification involves. There is no average LEO, and training and qualification requirements vary.

You might as well propose to discuss the feeding habits of "most" South Floridians who have Internet connections or the intelligence of the "average" South Floridan who is online.

Nonsense is nonsense no matter how you dress it. You've woven some theories and suppositions around a web of ignorance and callousness and are trying to masquerade it as a subject worth discussing. It isn't. All you're doing is parading your own prejudices and values.

But just to show you I'm a nice guy, I will agree that the life of any law enforcement officer is worth more than yours or any member of your family. I like making people happy.

That's the real issue and you're distorting it. I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or out of ignorance: how devious or smart is the average South Floridian today, how well are they trained to think, and how often do they have to qualify their knowledge and intelligence before being allowed to communicate with other people online? Why are they even allowed online instead of letting the professionals handle such an important matter. Turn off Internet access to any South Floridian who can't demonstrate sufficient training to use it properly and who doesn't pass a qualification test at least annually.

So why not reintroduce the poll tax and literacy tests. Voting is too important a matter to be left to the poor or ill-educated.

I wouldn't argue that your life is worth much, or perhaps anything at all. That's a matter for you to decide and it looks like you've already made that decision. I think it's your right to decide that your life is worthless and I will defend your decision against anyone who attempts to argue against it.

But you don't have the right to make that decision for me or for anyone else. You only think you have that right. But you're wrong.

When you set yourself up as someone who can discuss whether other people should have the means to defend their lives you demonstrate incredible arrogance that attempts to dehumanize others but dehumanizes you.

You might have the gall to tell a little old lady who lives alone that she should not have a firearm with which to protect her life because she doesn't train often enough for you and doesn't qualify at least annually. I don't have that kind of gall. If I did I'd change my name to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg and run for public office, or name myself "Vector" and spout such inhuman nonsense on the Internet.

You tell the paraplegic with limited mobility and living on a small income that his life isn't worth defending. Tell the single mother, the elderly couple, the young college student, the retired man, the nineteen-year-old girl in her first apartment, the guy working two jobs to support his family, the pizza delivery guy, the taxi driver, the convalescent, the person undergoing cancer treatment, the nurses rooming together to save money--tell everyone who doesn't meet your standards for training and qualification that they can't have the means to try to save their lives against overwhelming deadly force. I won't do that.

Everyone who wants to live deserves a last best chance to defend their lives. You, no matter who you are, have no right to deny that to anyone else. Who do you think you are: Sarah Brady, Carolyn McCarthy, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Adrian Fenty, or C. Ray Nagin?

I don't respect in the smallest degree anyone who wants to deny anyone else the opportunity for a last best chance to save his life against a deadly force attack or even proposes to discuss it as a possibility.

Again, because I am one great guy, I will agree that there is a middle ground. The middle ground is that people who want to defend their lives should be allowed the means to do so and the people who don't want to defend their lives should not be forced to do so.

Beatnik
January 20, 2008, 11:56 PM
Well, if we were allowed to carry 6" barrel shotguns, we'd hit a lot more, wouldn't we?

Regardless of whether LEOs get more hits, we still get to blame gun control. No smiley here. You're seriously among people who don't see a logical reason why 6" shotguns should be illegal.

The hit-ratio middle ground idea isn't going to find any friends around here, because it's a point that isn't worth making. That is what I read in Hardware's post: he was simply the first to point out that the only reason it could possibly matter is as a reason to take guns away.

Vector
January 21, 2008, 12:00 AM
post #37

Hardware wrote;

So, your premise is; Many civilians train more frequently than some LEOs.

No, you have misquoted me. In response to the following comment another poster said the part in bold, not I. I just cut & pasted it for the example I was trying to use to discuss the issue.

They completely ignore the fact that many civilians train more frequently than some law enforcement, so the conclusion drawn on hit rates is completely erroneous. Of course, it serves to promote their agenda which is why they have no problem ignoring the facts.

So to be clear, the above comment in bold was from another poster, not me. I actually believe the opposite, at least on a % basis between LEO's and the average Joe who owns a gun.

Zundfolge
January 21, 2008, 12:01 AM
I certainly do not want to entrust that any yahoo who can buy a gun will not accidental discharge it, leave it laying around, or lose their temper and disregard the people/children around them. Lets face it, LEO's have special training and even they make mistakes. Having Joe six-pack around kids with firearms is not my idea of a safe environment for them. I am all for law abiding people owning guns, but carrying them around places like Disney, elementary schools etc. is not the same thing.
I know what you mean, I certainly wouldn't want to entrust any old yahoo with the right to join any old religion, they might become a Spaghetti Monster worshiper or join the Church of the Sub-Genious, or sacrifice their children to Ba'al (yet another reason why children should be raised by the state, and not these commoner breeders out there).

And I wouldn't want to entrust any old yahoo with the right to vote, God only knows what idiots they'll vote for, I'm surprised Brittney Spears isn't in the White House.


The core problem in your thinking is that of elitism ... the notion that the common man can't be trusted.


There is no middle ground between liberty and tyranny ... either the people are free, or they are not.

4v50 Gary
January 21, 2008, 12:03 AM
I agree with Hardware and there is no middle ground. It's about personal responsibility and it behooves the responsible gun owner to know and practice the rules of firearms safety.

BTW, what Vector mentions about careless gun handling is something (now) discredited Michael Bellesiles (late of Emory University and now teaching high school in England) tried to assert in his book. He cited that numerous firearms accidents proved unfamiliarity with firearms. Well, in virtually every single Federal sharp shooter unit raised in the Civil War, you've a collection of experienced shooters and someone invariably has an accident. What he failed to realize is that the knowledge of guns and shooting skills is not assurances of safe gun handling.

islw2863
January 21, 2008, 12:03 AM
OP You called my ID an 'anonymous ID' and not my primary ID.

It definitely isn't, and any moderator can verify this. I just post very little because I learn with my eyes and ears and not with my mouth (fingers, posts).

I will not use any language forbidden by board policies.

I stand by everything I have said about you OP. You admit you aren't looking for truth in a post #16 "Looking for truth or wisdom? LOL"

So what is left is entertainment. And stirring the pot for same.

You can only have expected the results you got with that question in this forum.

GO on OP, stir up some entertainment.

Officers'Wife
January 21, 2008, 12:14 AM
Hi Vector,

It surprises me that many feel there is no middle ground on these issues.

There is a middle ground to any difference of opinion called by various names. The most popular is from WWI - no man's land. And no, you are not off base per se. Unfortunately you sound far too much like a peacemaker. Blessed be the peacemaker for they are bound to get shot in the crossfire.

Selena

SuperNaut
January 21, 2008, 12:18 AM
I think it was here on THR where "middle ground" or "compromise" on this issue was compared to me having twenty dollars and you having zero dollars. You then ask if there is any middle ground between your nothing and my something.

There isn't.

Aguila Blanca
January 21, 2008, 12:18 AM
Sorry for calling OP <a name>. Good manners and political correctness must take priority over telling the truth, right?
I don't know about "political correctness," but the name of this forum IS "The High Road." Is it so difficult to comprehend that name calling is a rather low-road substitute for refuting a specious argument with facts and/or logic?

I suppose I'm hopelessly old-fashioned, but to me NOT calling people names isn't "political correctness," it's being polite.

Robert Hairless
January 21, 2008, 12:21 AM
Vector:

So for the record this thread is about the proficiency of shooting between LEO's vs. average Joe's who own guns. It has nothing to do with who should own guns, nor whether someone should show the ability to shoot properly to be able to own one. The next time I start a thread, I will try to be a little more clear as to the question/subject I put out for discussion.

Alas, you have not trained sufficiently to be clear in your communication and you have not qualified in the skills to do so. I don't think that you should post again until you have remedied your deficiencies and have provided proof of it.

By coincidence your thread comes at a time when it's especially funny to me. A couple of days ago I bought a police shotgun that was made in 1964. It was transported in police cars so much that the wood furniture is badly battered and needs immediate replacement. It is so bad that I fear the stock might fall off or splinter with the first shot.

But the shotgun was never fired. But the shotgun was never fired. But the shotgun was never fired. But the shotgun was never fired.

Right: I bought a police shotgun made 43 years ago that evidently was in service by a police department but no one--not one of those well trained, highly qualified law enforcement officers you're fantasizing--outside the factory had ever fired it before it was traded in. I could not believe my eyes so I disassembled the gun and checked. Rounds had been put in the magazine but no one ever shot this gun. I got myself what is effectively a new old shotgun that needs wood. When it arrives and I install it, I will have one hotsy totsy police shotgun. I've been spending my time racking the gun to break it in. I am just now breaking in a 43-year-old shotgun.

I like buying police tradeins of guns I want. So do other people. The reason is that the handguns usually show considerable holster wear but little other use.

Nope, I'm not saying that cops generally are irresponsible or badly trained. I know a lot of law enforcement guys and most of those I know are worthy professionals who take their work seriously. But they would laugh at your generalization. So, by the way, do I. You do not know what you're talking about.

jakemccoy
January 21, 2008, 12:22 AM
Relative chance of success when using a gun is irrelevant. The right to have the opportunity to use a gun is.

The question is not whether there can be a middle ground. There is no middle ground. It is a binary solution set. Yes or No. Do I have the right to keep and bear arms or do I not have that right. The Bill of Rights says I do.

Some people want to "clarify" or "interpret" what the 2nd amendment says. I say that since the Constitution was ratified with the proviso of the Bill of Rights, nullify any one of those ten amendments and there is no Constitution. No Constitution, no United States. No Congress. No President. No Supreme Court. No standing armed forces. No right to taxation. Clarify and interpret that. Any attempt by individuals to enforce a suspension is an illegal act, treason, and if an office holder, abuse of office.

We have had the Constitution suspended twice. During the Civil War and During World War 2. Both times it was reinstated. Looked at another way it's gone down twice. I don't think it will survive going down for the third time.

I agree. Many Americans feel the way Hardware does. I hope the clowns in higher offices take note.

Vector
January 21, 2008, 12:22 AM
PM #47
islw2863 wrote;

OP You called my ID an 'anonymous ID' and not my primary ID.
It definitely isn't, and any moderator can verify this. I just post very little because I learn with my eyes and ears and not with my mouth (fingers, posts).

Posting very little? How about never having posted until this thread.:rolleyes:

I have no way of knowing it for sure, but you can easily post from a different ISP or different IP address without a mod being able to know if it is the same poster (but then again you probably know that). ;)

I will not use any language forbidden by board policies.

I stand by everything I have said about you OP.

Including the rude and inappropriate names you typed before editing them? On the one hand you say you will not violate the boards policies, but in the same breath you say you stand behind everything you said? :scrutiny:

You admit you aren't looking for truth in a post #16 "Looking for truth or wisdom? LOL"

Maybe my following comment after the quoted one escaped you. All that was meant by it was that I do not accept the way you characterized things. Truth and wisdom are not the same as trying to get peoples thoughts and opinions.

The bottom line is that I have wasted to much time on your posts compared with others who have chosen to articulate a position rather than make personal attacks. Maybe when you post again in another year and a half you will be a little more civil. Then again, if this ID is what I suspect, you will only use it when you need to lambaste someone.

`

3rdpig
January 21, 2008, 12:30 AM
So for the record this thread is about the proficiency of shooting between LEO's vs. average Joe's who own guns.

Well for the record let me state that I'm 50 years old, have been shooting since I was 8, and have worked at several different ranges over the years, mostly on a voluntary basis. I've seen the cops shoot up garbage cans at the range, posts that hold the roof up, I even saw a cop blow his transmission out racking his shotgun. One town I lived in a female officer shot a hole through the roof of her patrol car, and not once, but on two separate occasions. I could cite chapter and verse of cops shooting the wrong person, or shooting the right person buy by accident, but we've all seen the stories.

I've also seen cops that were very, very good. They had all 3 legs of the stool working, Marksmanship, Mindset and Gun Handling.

I've seen non police (sorry, but to me police are civilians too) shoot themselves by accident, shoot others by accident and do just about every idiotic thing that's possible with a gun.

I've also seen non police and non military people that were every bit as good as anyone else I've ever seen and some that have been so good as to be hard to believe unless you see them in action.

Some police only shoot or practice when they have to qualify, some non police shoot hundreds of rounds a week in practice.

Also, you rarely see a civilian shooting where 10 civilians empty their high capacity handguns at a single target.

So Vector, I'm not sure what your point is? There are far, far more non police gun owners than there are police, so accidents, idiotic behavior is going to be far higher.

If you're not suggesting that gun ownership be limited to those that can display a decent level of proficiency, then what is the point of your post?

big44
January 21, 2008, 12:31 AM
There can be no middle ground when it comes to gun control. Compromise is another word for srrender!

Aguila Blanca
January 21, 2008, 12:34 AM
So to be clear, the above comment in bold was from another poster, not me. I actually believe the opposite, at least on a % basis between LEO's and the average Joe who owns a gun.
But you are falling into a fundamental logical fallacy. You are comparing LEOs, pretty much ALL of whom must and do carry handguns regularly, not against those "civilians" who carry handguns regularly, but against ALL "average Joes who own a gun." That's not a fair comparison. "Gun owners" includes hunters, who have nothing but long guns and/or shotguns, and who take them out only for one week out of the year for the annual ___ season, as well as collectors who never shoot anything they own, they just clean, oil, catalog and display them.

If your concern is whether or not YOU are safe on the street among gun owners who actually carry handguns on a regular basis, then I respectfully suggest you dredge up some statistics to show just how many LEOs practice and train REGULARLY, and how many citizens who carry also practice and train regularly. I don't know where to find those statistics, but this is your argument so it's your responsibility to (a) be intellectually honest enough to compare the LEOs against only those gun owners who are actually wandering the streets while packing heat; and (b) substantiate your premise with some facts rather than simply expound on your personal prejudice and then act surprised when other people don't buy into it.

Art Eatman
January 21, 2008, 12:46 AM
Vector, I'm coming late to the discussion. But I've been in this and many other such discussions for forty-one years, now. I was involved in the runup to the GCA '68, and I guess it's fair to say that I've heard both sides of every argument there is.

The intent of gun control laws is to reduce violent crime involving firearms, according to the public statements of those favoring gun control. Correct?

Statistical data (Wright, Rossi & Daly, for instance, in their "Under The Gun") tells us that there is no correlation between gun control laws and violent crimes involving firearms.

We know as fact that waiting periods do more harm than good. That's been proven many times by fatalities where the dead woman couldn't buy a gun before her ex- killed her.

We know from published judicial decisions that we as individuals are responsible for our personal security, and not the police.

We know that registration does not prevent a person from misusing his legally-owned firearm. And, physically, how can it?

We know from federal testimoney in front of Congress that the great majority of guns used in crimes were either stolen by the misuser, or were illegally purchased by a prohibited person from one who's illegally in possession. (Last I heard, it's around 85%, give or take.)

Most people do not want to be punished for a crime they've not committed, nor unduly hassled by business transactions in lawful commerce. Possession of certain equipment does not justify punishment in advance of an act--whether rape or prostitution. We also know that on an annual basis, a 20 mph speed limit would save more lives than have ever been lost to violent crime--but we opt out of that hassle.

So what I want to know is what "middle ground" laws would prevent evil people from acquiring and using guns in violent crime--without punishing the law-abiding citizen.

Again, all I want to know is how any law would be efficacious in stopping the Bad Guy from shooting you if he takes a mind to.

We accept the risks inherent in 70 mph travel, which contributes to the deaths of some 40,000 people per year. Why should we be willing to put up with so much prior restraint in an arena of only some 15,000 deaths per year?

Anyway, that's my beginning...

:), Art

Vector
January 21, 2008, 12:47 AM
PM #51
Robert Hairless wrote;

Alas, you have not trained sufficiently to be clear in your communication and you have not qualified in the skills to do so. I don't think that you should post again until you have remedied your deficiencies and have provided proof of it.

:rolleyes:

I read your last post and gave you the benefit of the doubt since you obviously had not read my clarification. Here though, you choose to rub it in? Is your goal more to try and annoy me, or to express an opposing point of view (presuming we are even talking about the same subject)? ;)

You opinion about LEO's vs. Joe's in the training and proficiency department is different than mine. While neither of us will have statistical evidence to back up our opposing views, there is a logical way to look at it. There are roughly 150 million households with guns in them. Taking away whatever % of them are current or former LEO's, military, or other armed government employees, you are left with many average Americans who own a firearm. Now of those hundred million + gun owners, how many do you think have any training in firing guns, much less training to shoot under stressful conditions? Once you answer that, tell me what you think the % of LEO's without training in the aforementioned is. I think using that logical approach, you can see my point.
Again, I am not suggesting that someone needs to prove proficiency to own a gun. I am just pointing out that % wise, LEO's have much more experience in handling and discharging firearms. If you disagree with that, I'd be curious how you would come to a different conclusion.

`

SuperNaut
January 21, 2008, 12:53 AM
Now of those hundred million + gun owners, how many do you think have any training in firing guns, much less training to shoot under stressful conditions?

I'd say quite a large number went through NRA hunter safety education, I think the NRA states somewhere that they have run millions through their program. You also failed to note Robert's point that you should compare CCW holders to cops, not collectors or weekend hunters. It is more of an apples-to-apples comparison.

If you continue to address only the easy questions most of us will quickly lose interest in your experiment.

takhtakaal
January 21, 2008, 01:13 AM
This is sounding more and more like it needs to go to PMs.

IBTL.

geekWithA.45
January 21, 2008, 01:38 AM
In order for there to be a middle ground, someone has to clarify just what in tarnation they're talking about.

At minimum, that requires two propositions, A & B, which delineate the extremes.

So for the record this thread is about the proficiency of shooting between LEO's vs. average Joe's who own guns.

This statement doesn't delineate extremes, and so I haven't the foggiest notion how to find middle ground on it.

What I -think- is implied is some notion that police are always more proficient than non police as proposition A, with the opposition proposition B being the simple refutation of that point, that non police tend to be more proficient than police.

The only true things of this that can be said is that

There is a wide array of skill at arms, and that these skills are possessed in abundance by both groups, and that both groups also have many members that do not posess skill at arms.

The data to definitively answer the question in a subjective way simply doesn't exist, and sum of our many anecdotes still isn't data.




Phew. Enough!


-A non police citizen who easily passed the NJ State police shooting test back when I was half as good as I am now-.

If you enjoyed reading about "Can there be a middle ground on this subject?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!