Printable View
We practice & drill daily as many have said they do as well but aside from that training or not I do not have the right to restrict the right of a law-abiding citizen to protect themselves. Choosing not to be the only guy in the gun fight without a gun really shouldn't be subject to someone else's idea of what constitutes minimum qualifications.
I can't get the blog to come up, but my sense is that it would be a waste of time. I will continue to train for a day that I hope never comes.
You didn't miss anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
This guy is the reason we need to stop allowing these tomfoolery-prone Texans into our great state. F*ck Texas.[Coffee]
Smile when you say that, pilgrim. [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Remember that the mere presence of guns is a deterrent. Most bad guys do not go to someplace that allows concealed carry. I doubt Holm's would have gone to the theater with a gun if it was commonly known to have half a dozen armed people there at every show. Even if none of the were highly trained.
We're all better off if people don't even attempt a crime because they are afraid of armed citizens.
John Lott addressed the deterrence influence of concealed carry in his first book.
On the other hand bad guys have all kinds of other ways killing people where they don't have to worry about if anybody is armed. I think if Holm's hadn't been able to get guns he would have used some other means of mass killing. He may have been able to kill more people if he used some other means. Remember the bombing in Oklahoma. It's nearly impossible to stop someone with that goal.
Nearly everyone freezes up under fire, even if only for a second. The more experience you have under fire, and the more experience you have metabolizing adrenaline, the shorter the freeze and the easier it is to break. Very few people can respond instantly AND effectively to an unexpected and immediate threat -- but people like that have different wiring from other folks. A momentary freeze is a normal and expected reaction. You train to break the freeze.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChadAmberg
Yeah, an undertrained and inexperienced civilian with a CCW may not be the best solution, but if everyone in the room is getting shot anyway, and he is in a position to stop the threat, one or two additional stray rounds is an acceptable risk. In many police shootings half the rounds fired miss the target, and police have regular training. In my opinion it is pretty much a moot point. The average mass shooting is limited to family members and co-workers. Mass school shootings are rare. Random mass shootings of strangers are rarer still.
This. Why folks seem to think that the risk of getting accidently shot by a CCW holder is so much higher, and so much worse, than getting deliberately shot by a crook is beyond understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
I think someone published some numbers recently that showed that shootings involving the police had a mistarget percentage many times of the equivalent civilian-involved shootings.Quote:
In many police shootings half the rounds fired miss the target, and police have regular training. In my opinion it is pretty much a moot point. The average mass shooting is limited to family members and co-workers. Mass school shootings are rare. Random mass shootings of strangers are rarer still.
Don't get me wrong when I say this, but we teach all new cops and beat it into the older cops at every range training that there is an attorney attached to each and every round fired in the course of duty, especially those rounds that do not hit the target. Collateral damage can destroy your career, take your house and all your money and possessions. It is not like in the military, where fire suppression and fire superiority is taught. That is one of the hardest things to re-teach former military and especially combat vets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Why does the news always choose the stupid people to follow?......