Right THERE you made the claim that people who werenít trained as law enforcement were more likely to miss and hit others. I asked you to prove it and youíve done nothing but danced around the topic and tried to deflect with talk about reaction speed. It was accuracy that stopped Matthew Murray.Let's not forget this either:
The former security guard . . . ex-Minneapolis police officer.
Now, as I talk to law enforement folks, it's risky for some trained well. Maddess for the novice shooter. More likely to miss and hit others.
To which you replied:It's beside the point that the whole premise of the study seemed to be the police saying, "Hey, yeah, we sometimes shoot innocent people, but our job is HARD, man! Look, you can't even do it right either, so cut us a break."
Finally, I said:no, the point was to show that training helps. No one sugests mistakes can be removed completely. But you improve the odds by having better training.
At this point, I provided the quote directly from your article to support my statement. Iím really not sure why youíre having trouble following this, but the point was that the flawed study had absolutely zero to do with arming citizens and everything to do with justifying already existing police procedure.The goal of the study was to make Law Enforcement not look so bad for their accidental shootings.