Yeah. This was a case of a well trained individual using a firearm defensively. If only more firearm owners were as well trained and background checked as he, maybe this would occur more often.
The frequency of successful firearm defensive uses are affected by two factors:
1. Whether or not a person is in possession of a firearm.
2. Whether or not a person is present during a self defense opportunity.
The low numbers of successful self defense uses pretty clearly indicates that most situations of gun violence are not happening to people who are either a) armed or b) in a situation where they can defend themselves.
Using these numbers to argue against the efficacy of firearm self defense is kind of like using the number of deaths in automobile accidents to argue against the efficacy of seat belts.
Also, I wish you'd stop referring to 'training' as the be-all, end-all of 'acceptable firearm use.' Training is literally one of two things:
1. Situational training - Military/police forces train to respond to specific scenarios (ground assaults, sting operations, active shooter events, hostage negotiations, ect), none of which are situations the average person will find themselves in when using their firearm in self defense.
2. Weapons training - Military/police forces train to use a variety of firearms and equipment relating to the above situations, of which the average person will usually not find themselves in possession of when using their firearm in self defense.
Basic firearms safety/use are things that can be taught in 10 minutes to anyone, by anyone, regardless of teaching qualifications or training. Outside of basic safety/use, the only thing an armed civilian needs to do is practice with their firearm at a range. You're putting entirely too much emphasis on something that simply isn't a factor for the average gun owner.
Originally Posted by Jevlin
Why? Because fuck you, that's why.
Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.
"Malcolm X and the Panthers described their right to use guns in self-defense in constitutional terms." Guns became central to the Panthers' identity, as they taught their early recruits that "the gun is the only thing that will free us -- gain us our liberation."
The Panthers responded to racial violence by patrolling black neighborhoods brandishing guns -- in an effort to police the police. The fear of black people with firearms sent shockwaves across white communities, and conservative lawmakers immediately responded with gun-control legislation.
Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons."
blame conservatism for gun control, not liberals.
Last edited by arandomuser; 2014-09-27 at 04:54 AM.