Inept law enforcement. That's what scares me about your type of thinking. "Cops are all fumble fingered losers, so I'll carry a gun to solve my own problems."

Law enforcement is hardly inept. They do a pretty damned good job, actually.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

To be honest with you, you would be surprised the level of survival you would have if you're attacked with a gun in a high stress environment. Much like a knife wielding attacker if the shooter isn't trained, or even if he is, it all depends on distance, caliber and proficiency with said weapon. Just recently a lady shot an intruder in her home 5 times in the neck an face and he survived. I've seen people miss stationary targets from an arms length away. It's always intriguing to see people think that they can walk away from knife and club/bat/crowbar/hammer fights but the fact of the matter is more people are killed by those tools than guns in this country.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

And if law enforcement is inept, then how much worse is joe sixpack whose only real gun training has been shooting at cans down at the ravine with uncle Bob?

I, like most people on this forum, can run. Most attackers (just going by averages) can't. I'll take my chances. If someone is close enough to attack me with a knife, they're close enough to shoot me in the head.

Based on what metrics and where? I'm not saying taking the law into your own hands is the way to go at all. Law enforcement is a reactionary response that is often times too late. Also, do not be fooled, police officers aren't armed to protect you. They're armed to protect themselves. There are more instances of law enforcement hitting bystanders with their weapon then there are CCW permitted interveners. Trust me, most CCW permitted citizens would probably avoid conflict at twice the rate of an unarmed citizen, because they are simply not looking for a fight. They are looking to be left alone, and I think that is always misconstrued.

Again, we're getting way off base from the original topic. I'm not saying carry or do not carry during training. I'm saying weigh the options for where you are and if it makes sense then do it.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

Good idea, let's allow gun toting Joe Citizen fill in the gaps of the "inept law enforcement", and get rid of them all together. Lower our taxes and even put out incentives for those who "stop" crimes from occurring using their firearm.

Let me go grab my stetson and boots. I've got this speed holster I've been dying to wear out in public too. Can I get a sheriff's star as well? Arming the populace is not the answer to high crime rates. The answer would be to make the inept law enforcement less inept. Should Joe Citizen be allowed to own a gun? Yes, absolutely. Should he be able to own any type of gun out there? No. By living in a high crime area they already are allowing it to control their lives. Taking the law into your own hands is not an answer.

As a side note, most politicians live outside DC, and the area around the Capital building is actually very nice. Its once you leave those areas that it gets bad. The places our politicians don't travel.

---

- Cat 2
- Training Peaks ambassador

"A good coach will do more for you than a good set of wheels."

You would be surprised to find out that most recreational shooters fire more rounds than a police officer is mandated to fire in order to qualify on their service weapon. Joe Bob down the street, sure maybe more inept, but I don't eminently trust and confide special confidence in him to uphold the law and arrest or shoot criminals. A licensed CCW permit holder with proper training? Well, I would have more trust in him or her, perhaps the same amount as an average LE that does no shooting outside his duty requirements.

Again, we are off topic so I'm going to stop now.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

It's not that they're all fumble-fingered losers, it's that they're minutes away when seconds count.

Have you ever heard of an athlete who was threatened in such a way that they would have been justified and in a position to kill their assailant?

Chicago has pockets of badness for sure. Most of it is perfectly ok to be gun free, obviously.

By your reasoning, we should have armed teachers at all schools, armed bus drivers, and even consider arming high school students who might be walking to school so they can be safe as they're clearly the highest at risk of assault. That sounds like a real civilized society to me.

What part of my reasoning talked about arming the entire populace? I talked about not letting crime dictate the way you live your life. Give me a break, now you're getting into the argument that an armed society is an uncivil one?

If that's your reasoning then the need for law enforcement already signals that we live in an uncivil society because you need to be protected from uncivilized assailants and that your society has the need to enforce simple laws that should already be recognized as evil by "civilized" citizens living in that society ie: killing another human for no reason. Are you saying that without guns the world would be a safer place in which people wouldn't kill each other and criminals wouldn't exist? If that is your argument I have a beach house in Idaho I've been meaning to sell.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

I COMPLETELY agree with the bolded statement. (I don't agree with the part you add to make it My Little Ponyesque about no criminals and out of the realm of reality.)

Japan is a perfect example of a nation with very, very low gun ownership (near-nonexistent) and a near-nonexistent gun fatality rate to match. That's what we should be aiming for. And no, it's NOT just because of Japanese culture - you put guns in every Japanese citizens houses, and just by stats alone, someone's going to find daddy's gun and accidentally kill himself or brother/sister.


Again, my attitude has zero to do with liberalism, 2nd amendment rights, etc. It strictly has to do with what causes less deaths, particularly the staggering statistics of the US gun fatality rate. I'm dead serious when I'm saying that if there was good evidence that it was, in fact, much safer for the family to have a gun at home, and for all homeowners to own guns, proven by good statistics and lower overall homicide rates (esp gun homicides), I'd be all for it and backing guns every step of the way. Unfortunately, stats like this (the research of which has been almost entirely suppressed by NRA in the 90s-2000s by lobbying), are much more reality:

"Guns kept in homes are 22 times
more likely to be involved in
unintentional shootings, criminal assaults, homicides and
suicide attempts than to be
involved in injuring or killing in
self defense.
Kellermann, et al. Injuries and
deaths due to firearms in the
home. Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45
(2):263-267."

You can't even exaggerate that 22x statistics even if you brand the entire Journal of Trauma a liberal bastion (which it's not.) 22x is insanely high, well out of the range of "well maybe you could interpret it some other way."

And :

"American children are twelve
times more likely to die from gun
injuries than are youngsters in
all other industrialized nations
combined.
ABA Criminal Justice, July, 1998"

In a position to? No. Justified, god yes. If someone runs over me on purpose and leaves me there to die, I'm definitely justified in returning the favor. That, of course, is just my opinion and perhaps that's uncivilized. The proper response would be to call law enforcement and an ambulance and collect evidence and take them to court. Perhaps then you could teach all criminals an miscreants that doing bad deeds does not pay off.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

This has turned into the most frightening thread I've read on this forum.

---

Formerly DrD

Are you talking accidental deaths or premeditated murder with guns? I'm sure you realize those are two completely different things. Japan also has the highest rate of suicide (twice as high as US) with suicidal parents that kill their kids at a rate of one per day, in oyako-shinju. You also might be interested in researching why Japan has such a high crime solving rate, it's not because of their expert detective work.

I also enjoy seeing info and stats on Japan that has had documented reporting misconduct by police on statistics. It's interesting you didn't mention the UK which is just as restrictive with a 1,361 per 100K population violent crime rate. But I guess you're going to say you mentioned deaths, not violent crime and that you would trade a violent crime increase for less deaths? Am I right?

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

You do know the "young Americans" that are refered to in that are gang bangers right? That's like saying soldiers are more likely to die in battle than a lawyer.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

This is my last response to you, because you're responding in the typical "ignore the elephant in the room about gun death stats in the US" mode of a NRA person, which involves bringing up deflecting issues and deflecting stats to avoid the gun stats. If I even have to see someone bring up "so many more people die from auto deaths in the US than from guns so that means guns are safe", I think I'm going to throw up at the stupidity of that logic.

The stats on US gun deaths, and particularly, the CHILDREN gun deaths stand irrefutably on their own. Until the NRA has a good nondeflecting reply about how to eliminate those children gun deaths that's reasonable (sorry, arming all the teachers in all schools ain't going to cut it), they're not helping their cause. I freely admit that I don't know the best answer, but I can tell you that even an idiot would know that a pretty good starting place to at least attempt to dramatically cut down on children deaths with gun violence (as that's the most irrefutable of the ones to solve) is to look at the gun access issue in the first place.

Until you respond directly to stats like those 22x more likely to NOT be used in self defense gun stat I posted above, you're selective ignoring the crucial stats and data and trying to smokescreen it by bringing up other issues.

I absolutely agree that guns should be made inaccessible to children, and those that provide access of guns to children either purposefully or through negligence should be punished to the fullest extent that we have.

To restrict EVERYONE's access in order to keep a select group from accessing them however, I can not, and will not agree with.

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

So what justification is there for an assault rifle with a 50 round clip? If you can't hit them in the first 7...

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

I'll take your troll challenge but this is my last post.

http://www.theblaze.com/...fter-being-cornered/

Mother shoots 6 times emptying her gun, hits 5 times, guy still runs away. What if he had a partner in that house with him?

---

http://www.facebook.com/ReconFoundationTeam
http://www.facebook.com/MarineReconFoundation
http://www.reconfoundation.org

What if they came in with grenades, bombs and full-auto guns because they knew the owner was packing. Just toss in a smoke or flash bomb and bust the door down with guns blazing, that way they would get around the home owner with a gun.

If the stakes are even the criminals will escalate to maintain their advantage. It is a never ending cycle that results in everyone dying.

Ok, we have this story. http://wap.myfoxatlanta.com/w/main/story/83820737/

A crazy old man shoots defenseless young adult for pulling into the wrong driveway and then attempting to leave. If he didn't have a gun he wouldn't Have murdered someone

So what is the value in carrying a gun while training? If no one has ever encountered a situation where the proper response was to kill someone why bother carrying a gun while training? If someone runs you over you may think you're justified in killing them but how do you know it was deliberate vs just an accident?