Civilians w/Guns in an Emergency

[Dr. Cheese]

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/?from=rss

This essay from the Slate makes some interesting points.

[billhilly66]

Yeah, he 'almost' shot somebody. Too bad these guys didn't handle things the same way. http://www.ky3.com/news/nationworld/...780,full.story

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by billhilly66

Yeah, he 'almost' shot somebody. Too bad these guys didn't handle things the same way. http://www.ky3.com/news/nationworld/...780,full.story

There is nothing more dangerous than being an undercover cop, especially a black one. Those guys get shot all the time it seems.

[Floyd Eye]

That article from SLATE is factually incorrect. It claims you do not need a permit to carry a concealed weapon in AZ. That is a lie. The article is obviously an anti-gun hit piece.




http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by Floyd Eye

That article from SLATE is factually incorrect. It claims you do not need a permit to carry a concealed weapon in AZ. That is a lie. The article is obviously an anti-gun hit piece.




http://www.azdps.gov/Services/Concealed_Weapons/

It is not pro-gun, that's obvious. The issue is does the author have a legitimate point?

Is it possible that the issue is not dishonesty, but simply an error? Is Arizona a state where non-concealed carry does not require a permit?

[Floyd Eye]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

It is not pro-gun, that's obvious. The issue is does the author have a legitimate point?

Is it possible that the issue is not dishonesty, but simply an error? Is Arizona a state where non-concealed carry does not require a permit?

Did you click the link I provided?

I think the issue IS dishonesty. Either that or completely irresponsible "Journalism".

[spade2you]

Originally Posted by Dr. Cheese

The issue is does the author have a legitimate point?

Really, it can be argued wither way. Pistols take skill to be accurate, but even police will have some problems under real world stress and trying to operate their service pistol. I think civilians would be slightly worse, but probably not as far off law enforcement as one might think.

[billhilly66]

The point I got was that he DIDN"T shoot anybody. They can talk all they want about his training or lack thereof but the guy did the right thing under very stressful circumstances. Cops don't always do that and they have what I would assume to be training that meets the author's standards.

[MatticusMania]

Originally Posted by billhilly66

The point I got was that he DIDN"T shoot anybody. They can talk all they want about his training or lack thereof but the guy did the right thing under very stressful circumstances. Cops don't always do that and they have what I would assume to be training that meets the author's standards.

+1

An armed civilian, whom, under stress, was able to act in a responsible way, and still be a hero.

[Dr. Cheese]

Originally Posted by spade2you

Really, it can be argued wither way. Pistols take skill to be accurate, but even police will have some problems under real world stress and trying to operate their service pistol. I think civilians would be slightly worse, but probably not as far off law enforcement as one might think.

Biases and stereotypes can have a powerful impact on a split-second decision. That is something that I refered to in my statement about black undercover cops being killed so often.
I also remember thinking that boy playing with a pitbull was being attacked when he was playing. With a gun, would my bias against that breed have lead me to make a bad decision?

[Dr. Cheese]

For what it is worth, I am not anti-gun. I just think that a gun is simply another tool, and not a cure-all. Like any other tool, it might also cause problems too.

[billhilly66]

Fair enough Cheese. It just seemed to me like the article was trying to find an issue with regular folks having guns after explaining how this particular guy did everything right.

[Basshappi]

In AZ one may carry a handgun concealed or openly without a permit. It used to be that one could "Open Carry" without a permit but had to have a CCW to carry concealed, this was changed last year to the current law.

Without a CCW there are greater restrictions on where one may carry as well as some related to the purchase and tranportation of firearms. Furthermore, other states do not recognize reciprocity if non-permit holders.

[MakiSupaStar]

I kind of felt the article states the obvious (the danger of armed citizens in a situation like this is that it's confusing to determine who's the real gunman and in extreme situations can create a melee between innocent people... duh), and then uses that as a framework to hang his opinions on. I'm not a gun nut, I don't own one, but I've seen much better arguments for gun control than this article.

[etoncrow]

I am a NRA certified firearms instructor for handguns, personal protection and home defense. Generally speaking, it is my experience that civilians who are properly trained and pass the NRA concealed carry course are better shots and more aware of the handgun laws than the police. They are also taught target acquisition and identification. I have trained both civilians and police so I am in a position to make this observation. I would much prefer to have armed citizens available in every situation than to have these "no firearm" zones. If civilians were still allowed to carry on airplanes, and they were not that long ago, the twin towers episode would never have happened. Four terrorists would never hijack and airplane filled with armed citizens.

[billhilly66]

I'm a firearms instructor as well and while I agree with your assessment of cops' vs regular folks' ability to shoot well, I'm not too keen on the idea of having holes shot in an airplane I'm flying in. Overpenetration, structural integrity and all that. Maybe knives, swords, tasers, or something that will prevent terrorists without poking holes in a pressurized aluminum tube...............

[etoncrow]

Originally Posted by billhilly66

...I'm not too keen on the idea of having holes shot in an airplane I'm flying in. Overpenetration, structural integrity and all that...without poking holes in a pressurized aluminum tube.

I am not an expert in airplane integrity but I have been told that much of the anxiety is an urban myth.

Regardless, the outcome in the field in PA is better than the outcome at the towers or the pentagon

[warwick.hoy]

Originally Posted by etoncrow

I am a NRA certified firearms instructor for handguns, personal protection and home defense. Generally speaking, it is my experience that civilians who are properly trained and pass the NRA concealed carry course are better shots and more aware of the handgun laws than the police. They are also taught target acquisition and identification. I have trained both civilians and police so I am in a position to make this observation. I would much prefer to have armed citizens available in every situation than to have these "no firearm" zones. If civilians were still allowed to carry on airplanes, and they were not that long ago, the twin towers episode would never have happened. Four terrorists would never hijack and airplane filled with armed citizens.

Just out of curiosity,...how many of those civilians maintain their training?

[steamthief]

Frangible rounds would do the job inside a plane.

[billhilly66]

Originally Posted by steamthief

Frangible rounds would do the job inside a plane.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Even frangible round poke holes in stuff.