Only the police are responsible enough to have guns...

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08 … g-20130209
   
   So, fugitive cop is suspected to be in a grey Nissan Titan. Some genius cops opened fire with no warning or command into the BACK of a BLUE Toyota Tacoma.
   
   
   
   Two women on a paper route, both of them were hit.
   
   Just a story, but it's representative of the statistics. Cops hit innocent civilians more often than conceal-carry permit holders. Cops miss their target more than conceal-carry permit holders.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ok, I amend my position.  Cops shouldn't have guns either.
      
      Point proven.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Yeah, that would work out just fine... you aren't actually serious are you?

         replyreport
         1. 58

            MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No actually I wasn't.  But you do realize that your story really doesn't help the overall reputation of guns or further your pro-gun position, right?  I mean you have to realize that.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               If someone wants to take a biased look at it, then yes, but a biased look will always result in the same conclusion.
               
               The fallacy I'm pointing out is that police are elite-special-ops guys with tons of training and are so much more responsible than civilians, when in fact, the opposite is true.
               
               If people feel safe around armed police, then realizing that civilians miss their targets less and shoot innocent people less should make them feel even more safe around armed civilians.
               
               Many police only have to qualify once a year... 50 shots at a range, once a year, but the fact that they have a badge makes people think they are awesome and safe and responsible. Meanwhile, a civilian who owns guns and shoots hundreds or thousands of bullets a year at the range is considered 'untrained'.
               
               So, if someone is willing to think about it, then no, it doesn't hurt the overall reputation of guns. It opens their eyes to fallacious thinking.

               replyreport
   2. 62

      Paul Wingertposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Cops hit innocent civilians more often than conceal-carry permit holders. Cops miss their target more than conceal-carry permit holders." Where did that piece of info come from? Your imagination again? Besides, gun carrying Joe Blow don't respond to incidents on a daily basis like law enforcement does. You're comparing apples and oranges.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I don't get info from my imagination.
         
         I'm talking about rates, so how many bullets out of 100 do cops hit with vs. civilians, and how many bullets out of 100 do cops hit bystanders vs. civilians.
         
         One example of such data would be Lott and Mustard, who found in one year police killed 11 times more innocents than civilians.
         http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files … final_.pdf
         
         That same year, police only killed 28% more criminals than civilians did.
         http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr … 95sec2.pdf
         
         
         For hit rates, NYC cops over a decade had a hit rate of about 1/3. Other studies have found it to be even lower.
         http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyreg … wanted=all
         
         Civilian hit rates are trickier, because civilians don't have to account for every bullet fired by police. The Kleck and Gertz study does list 15.3% of incidents involving firing a gun, and 8.3% of incidents involving hitting the attacker, for a hit rate of 53%.

         replyreport
2. 60

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   I have to say it does get me to hear people spout out these statistics as if these statistics are justification.
   
   I am certain that these statistics being presented so confidently would not be nearly as important to those presenting them if they were one of those statistics facing injury or death.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Statistics are useful for knowing about generalities and averages. Of course there are bad situations that happen, but if you focus on those(emotional argument), then you end up with policy that makes more bad things happen(statistics).

      replyreport