"More often than not." That's a pretty interesting statement too. More than 50% of the time? It's true that few of the cops I know have fired their weapons, and none, ever, at a human being. None of them have ever hit the wrong person either. But they are trained. Maybe you get better training in the back of a gun store, I doubt it.
I didn't say I'd feel _safe_ if I were surrounded by trained gunmen, I said that if I had to be surrounded by gunmen, I'd rather they were trained. I'd feel safer than if they weren't. I'd feel even safer if I weren't surrounded by gunmen.
I know you feel differently. However, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> > If there are people with guns around, I'd rather
> have it be
> > cops who are trained in their use, including when
> not
> > to use them, than random civilians who can get
> > themselves a permit.
>
> That's a pretty interesting statement. I mean,
> first of all, it's
> pretty well documented that cops are some of the
> least trained gun
> handlers around. Cops don't shoot their guns much,
> and when they do
> it's more often than not to disasterous effect[*].
> But it does open up
> the possibility that you'd feel safe if the people
> around you who were
> carrying guns _were trained to some level of
> competence that you approve
> of_ ... you've only just presumed that this is the
> kind of training that
> cops get, but it's no secret: non-cops can learn
> such things as well.
>
> I agree with you: education is an excellent idea.
>
>
http://www.wjactv.com/successby6/11127477/detail.html
>
> /jordan
>
> [*] Cops are far more involved in shooting the wrong
> person than
> non-cops.
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com