Question for the anti-gun crowd: Which of these things are true?

Because of the things seen posted on this board, I am quite curious:

Which of these things do you think are true?

<poll pending>

Options:
-The only way to properly use a gun is to kill something with it.
-The only way to use a gun to defend yourself is to kill someone.
-An 'assault weapon' is not capable of firing single shots
-'Assault weapon' and assault rifle are interchangeable terms
-'Assault weapons' are far more powerful than 'standard' weapons.
-'Assault weapons' are necessarily inaccurate and only suitable for 'spray fire'
-Penetrating body armor is a Herculean task for a 'standard' firearm
-A policeman is necessarily far better trained, far more competent, has far better judgment and is more emotionally stable than an ordinary citizen
-All of the above
-None of the above

I tried to add a poll, but option 8 was too loing and it failed.
Please add.
Multiple Choice, Public poll.

The average cop is probably more of all those things than the average citizen, mostly due to the fact that they all go through extensive firearm training while the average citizen doesn't. There's also probably something to the fact that in situations where guns are being used, police officers have a different set of interests than do private citizens.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Moderator's Warning:

Poll added. I had to alter the language of option #8, slightly...the system will not accept an option with more than 100 characters. If you want it rewritten, let me know.

Click to expand...

That will do. Thanks!

RightinNYC said:

The average cop is probably more of all those things than the average citizen, mostly due to the fact that they all go through extensive firearm training while the average citizen doesn't. There's also probably something to the fact that in situations where guns are being used, police officers have a different set of interests than do private citizens.

Click to expand...

Oh really?

Cop sees a robbery going down. Draws firearm and approaches situation with intents of halting it / protecting their fellow citizen.

Citizen sees a robbery going down. Draws firearm and approaches situation with intents of halting it / protecting their fellow citizen.

I fail to see a difference?

I can't speak for the extensive firearm training they go through.. but I can speak of the newspaper reports that come in about a cop shooting at someone 15 times and hitting them twice. Which seems to happen quite a bit. That doesn't make me feel any better about their "training."

RightinNYC said:

The average cop is probably more of all those things than the average citizen, mostly due to the fact that they all go through extensive firearm training while the average citizen doesn't. There's also probably something to the fact that in situations where guns are being used, police officers have a different set of interests than do private citizens.

Click to expand...

Ummm....I'd have to disagree with you, at least in part.

I know lots of cops and lots of armed citizens. Many of the armed citizens I know have had more and better training than many of the cops.

When I was a county cop, we had four AD's (accidental discharges) in the locker room over three months. No one was injured. Most were attributed to racking the slide with the finger inside the trigger guard on a type of auto pistol with a light trigger. Now, that is just a newbie error... finger off the trigger until ready to fire is basic. Embarassing. At least they got the "pointed in a safe direction" part right. :doh Our Captain was not pleased.

The average cop does only that training that is required of him by the department. Many of the private armed citizens I know have sought out at least some advanced training with world-class instructors. Is this typical? I don't know, but its been my experience.

As for being more stable... naaaaaah, not really. Divorce is so common its practically a stereotype. Domestic abuse ditto, often covered up (seen that with my own eyes more than once.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting on cops; I used to be one and the majority are good folks. My point is they are like human beings in general; their character and quality comes in many degrees and flavors.

Your last sentence is dead-on correct. Private armed citizens use guns for self-defense, or defense of others. Cops do that but also have to use weapons for effecting arrests in many cases. Where citizens usually try to avoid trouble when they can, cops are obliged to seek it out and involve themselves, a different dynamic. Dynamic entry (usually SWAT) is a whole 'nuther thing too. Not to mention cops usually have backup present or on the way when the SHTF.


G.

stevenb said:

Oh really?

Cop sees a robbery going down. Draws firearm and approaches situation with intents of halting it / protecting their fellow citizen.

Citizen sees a robbery going down. Draws firearm and approaches situation with intents of halting it / protecting their fellow citizen.

I fail to see a difference?

Click to expand...

While both may share that interest, the cop is also interested in following standard police procedure in order to keep his job and ensure that should a shooting be necessary, it will comply with the rules and regulations of his job. These rules are not always in alignment with what a civilian might do.

I can't speak for the extensive firearm training they go through.. but I can speak of the newspaper reports that come in about a cop shooting at someone 15 times and hitting them twice. Which seems to happen quite a bit. That doesn't make me feel any better about their "training."

Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence is worse than no evidence.

stevenb said:

I can't speak for the extensive firearm training they go through.. but I can speak of the newspaper reports that come in about a cop shooting at someone 15 times and hitting them twice.

Click to expand...

When was the last time you heard of this happening with a CCW holder?

Goshin said:

Ummm....I'd have to disagree with you, at least in part.

Click to expand...

To clarify, I was referring to the "average citizen" who probably doesn't have a gun at all or has only had the most minimal training. I don't doubt that there are many private citizens who are far more responsible with their weapons than many cops.

RightinNYC said:

To clarify, I was referring to the "average citizen" who probably doesn't have a gun at all or has only had the most minimal training. I don't doubt that there are many private citizens who are far more responsible with their weapons than many cops.

Click to expand...

I see your point.

There is certainly at least one advantage many cops have, that repeated exposure to high-stress and/or threatening situations makes it easier to keep your head in such scenarios, than those lacking such experience.

On reflection though, it would seem that comparing cops to the average unarmed citizen is kind of apples-and-oranges, don't you think? At least, since guns and things related to guns are the topic of comparison.

To illustrate the point, if I were comparing the driving skills of an average cop to those of an average citizen, a citizen who didn't own a car or have a driver's license probably wouldn't be a good comparison, yes?

G.

Goshin said:

I see your point.

There is certainly at least one advantage many cops have, that repeated exposure to high-stress and/or threatening situations makes it easier to keep your head in such scenarios, than those lacking such experience.

On reflection though, it would seem that comparing cops to the average unarmed citizen is kind of apples-and-oranges, don't you think? At least, since guns and things related to guns are the topic of comparison.

To illustrate the point, if I were comparing the driving skills of an average cop to those of an average citizen, a citizen who didn't own a car or have a driver's license probably wouldn't be a good comparison, yes?

G.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I was just going off of this from the poll:

A cop is better trained, competent, has better judgment and is more stable than an ordinary citizen

Click to expand...

If it said "A cop is better trained, competent, has better judgment and is more stable than an ordinary citizen who has received similar-quality training, is of equivalent intelligence and judgment, and has passed similar mental screenings," then I would agree. I don't think there's anything intrinsic to cops that make them better at those things.

RightinNYC said:

I agree, but I was just going off of this from the poll:

Click to expand...

The question was supposed to be:

-A policeman is necessarily far better trained, far more competent, has far better judgment and is more emotionally stable than an ordinary citizen

But that was too long; CC edited it down to what it was.

I voted for #5 and #8.

I'm not necessarily anti-gun, and I'm not entirely sure about voting for #5. I think it depends on what is considered a 'standard weapon.' For example, an M4 can do far more damage than a Glock right?

For #8, that's common sense, officers and specially trained for their jobs.

Goobieman said:

When was the last time you heard of this happening with a CCW holder?

Click to expand...

I can't, cause most CCW holders know that if they miss and hurt someone else.. the badge isn't going to protect them.

One could make a logical conclusion that your average ccw holder is more cautious in situations where they'll have to shoot compared to a police officer... who's badge might be on the line.. but not their freedom.

stevenb said:

I can't, cause most CCW holders know that if they miss and hurt someone else.. the badge isn't going to protect them.

One could make a logical conclusion that your average ccw holder is more cautious in situations where they'll have to shoot compared to a police officer... who's badge might be on the line.. but not their freedom.

Click to expand...

You could conclude that, but I'm unaware of anything that would support that conclusion.

And why would you imply that police officers don't face legal repercussions for improperly using their weapons?

Cilogy said:

I'm not necessarily anti-gun, and I'm not entirely sure about voting for #5. I think it depends on what is considered a 'standard weapon.' For example, an M4 can do far more damage than a Glock right?

Click to expand...

Yes, but only because an M4 uses a rifle round while a glock is a handgun and uses lighter ammunition, an M4 will not do nearly as much damage as a standard deer rifle though.

RightinNYC said:

You could conclude that, but I'm unaware of anything that would support that conclusion.

And why would you imply that police officers don't face legal repercussions for improperly using their weapons?

Click to expand...

A specific case comes to mind where a police officer tried shooting a python in a tree... missed, and hit someone's kid in the head down the block.

Not so much as even a formal investigation brought against him to start with... it wasn't until people started rallying and complaining that they did anything to him.. and last I heard there was no official punishment.

Goobieman said:

-A policeman is necessarily far better trained, far more competent, has far better judgment and is more emotionally stable than an ordinary citizen

Click to expand...

Had to laugh when I saw this option. A trained competent stable policeman is a contradiction in terms.

Badge + gun == dangerous person not to be trusted.

RightinNYC said:

And why would you imply that police officers don't face legal repercussions for improperly using their weapons?

Click to expand...

Why would you imply anything but?

LaMidRighter said:

Yes, but only because an M4 uses a rifle round while a glock is a handgun and uses lighter ammunition, an M4 will not do nearly as much damage as a standard deer rifle though.

Click to expand...

Ok. :roll:

Cilogy said:

Ok. :roll:

Click to expand...

you asked.:roll:

Cilogy said:

Ok. :roll:

Click to expand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw"]YouTube - The Truth About AK-47 Firepower[/ame]

Check this video out.

It happens every once in a while, that a LEO with a bad shoot actually faces criminal charges. The charges usually get dropped or downgraded... convictions are very rare even in cases that are pretty heinous. Every once in a while a cop goes to prison, but it is rare.

Frankly you're a lot better off wearing a badge when you pull the trigger. At the very least, LEO's get the benefit of the doubt in questionable cases...citizens almost never get that.


G.

Cilogy said:

I voted for #5 and #8.

I'm not necessarily anti-gun, and I'm not entirely sure about voting for #5. I think it depends on what is considered a 'standard weapon.' For example, an M4 can do far more damage than a Glock right?

For #8, that's common sense, officers and specially trained for their jobs.

Click to expand...

Cilogy... (patience, Goshin :slapme: ) ... you don't know much about guns or cops, clearly.

The vast majority of the time when an armed citizen defends themself with a gun, they just point it and the perp runs away. No one usually dies. Yes, there are studies and stats, google "Kleck study".

"Assault" weapons are NOT more powerful than "standard" weapons... a AR15/M4/M16 in .223 is weak compared to a 30-06 deer rifle.

Cops are not superhuman... gaw, not even close. A cop is just an armed citizen, with a badge, some training and maybe some experience, but they screw up more often than citizens with carry permits. I went thru cop training and honestly I wasn't impressed.

Okay, you are now relatively edumacated. Go forth, and let your light shine amongst the darkness of ignorance. :think: