Can there be a middle ground on this subject?

[Robert Hairless]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

There can be no middle ground when it comes to gun control. Compromise is another word for srrender!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

This is sounding more and more like it needs to go to PMs.

IBTL.

 

[geekWithA.45]

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-.