Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Training & Safety > Know Thy Enemy

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-06-2011, 03:09 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
EagleSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northeast,Arizona
Posts: 358
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 32

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewolf View Post
Two things which has stayed with me for years.:

1)-It's been statistically proven that civilian gun owners

are generally more accurate than LEOs~~
therewolf,

Can you list a link to your reference for the above statement. I'm very interested in seeing how the researchers determined this statistic and from which time frame....Thanks.
__________________
Best Regards.......Eagle Six
http://tactrain.net
EagleSix is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 07:33 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,193
Liked 2181 Times on 1250 Posts
Likes Given: 1759

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleSix View Post
therewolf,

Can you list a link to your reference for the above statement. I'm very interested in seeing how the researchers determined this statistic and from which time frame....Thanks.
No. Everybody gets to do their own google.

I can, of course, become your research librarian for a fee...
__________________
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 02:43 PM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
EagleSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northeast,Arizona
Posts: 358
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 32

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewolf View Post
No. Everybody gets to do their own google.

I can, of course, become your research librarian for a fee...
I didn't ask to put on the spot, I would really like to have that information to make a point. It would appear from your response, you cannot substantiate your statement. Fair enough....

.
__________________
Best Regards.......Eagle Six
http://tactrain.net
EagleSix is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2011, 11:51 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1101 Times on 676 Posts
Likes Given: 2387

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewolf View Post
No. Everybody gets to do their own google.

I can, of course, become your research librarian for a fee...
You have been here long enough to know that stating something as "fact" means you damned well better be able to prove it. If its your impressions or your experience, that's fine, just state it as such. Its considered proper forum procedure here...
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 12:21 PM   #15
Moderator
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 16,194
Liked 4450 Times on 2348 Posts
Likes Given: 254

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmj View Post
quoted as FACT!

What i have never understood is why civies are more proficient than LEOs... imean c'mon. If i had ranges i could shoot for free, got paid to shoot, had paid for ammo etc. I would be pure hell on wheels, a crack shot extrodinare!!
Most agencies only have funding for one maybe two range sessions a year and then only for qualifications. The ranges i frequent have le there on their own dime quite frequuently. But that is likely not representative of the majority. Thee bigger agencies that are big enough for a swat type unit will tend to focus their training funds on that rather than general training for duty officers.

Not only does it cost the department money for ammo and range time but also training pay to get the officers in to shoot. There may be departments that have shoot all you want policies but i doubt its a large number.

Couple months ago the wife and i called the local pd to deal with a rabid racoon. Took em 5 shots to dispatch the critter and it wasnt shooting back.

Not everyone is a instant hero the second the rounds start flying. Its no more different in police than it is for civilians or military personal or even goblins. Its one thing to launch a bullet, being on the recieving end is entirely something else
__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 01:29 PM   #16
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Chainfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,037
Liked 982 Times on 633 Posts
Likes Given: 244

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fmj View Post
quoted as FACT!

What i have never understood is why civies are more proficient than LEOs... imean c'mon. If i had ranges i could shoot for free, got paid to shoot, had paid for ammo etc. I would be pure hell on wheels, a crack shot extrodinare!!
My theory to the answer to your question is: Almost all civies who are gunowners are "gun people". We shoot often because we enjoy shooting.

Some cops really aren't "gun people", they shoot because they have to. If they didn't have to qualify some would probably shoot rarely, if at all.

When I was taking my training to become a pistol instructor, I was teamed up with a big-city cop who was nearing retirement. I was intimidated in the classroom and dreaded having to shoot next to him. As it turned out, I qualified quickly and this poor guy took hours (if he completed at all). When I left the training, the instructors were going after a .22 target pistol to try to qualify him with. He could not shoot his service pistol.
__________________

"It is better to be too skeptical then too credulous"

Carl Sagan

Chainfire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 07:24 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
EagleSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northeast,Arizona
Posts: 358
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 32

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire View Post
~~ Some cops really aren't "gun people", they shoot because they have to. If they didn't have to qualify some would probably shoot rarely, if at all. ~~
A little bit of background....for several years I was the Training Sergeant for Phoenix Company, Arizona Ranger....the last "day job" I had was the Training Officer for Maricopa Country Protective Services Department, of Maricopa Country, Arizona.

The officers I served with, were not that different for those sworn officers I have trained with from Maricopa County SO, Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Butler Township PD, Montgomery County SO, and those officer we have trained at TacTrain, from DPS, Tempe PD, Scottsdale SWAT, MCSO, and others, as well as while at Gunsite with FBI, CIA, and Yavapai County SO.

In agreement with Chainfire's statement, those who were "gun people" tended to do better at shooting, than those who were not.

Also, in my experience, there are more "none gun people" going into law enforcement today, than in years past. When I was a teen, almost all "cops" in my community and surrounding towns, had some kind of hunting or shooting experience before their application would even be considered. Now, I am almost shocked how many kids get into the academy's who have never fired a handgun!

As for civilians, gun people, gun owners.....being better marksman or better shooters than cops.....I don't think so. It seems impossible to me how we could account for this fact, and that is why I wanted to get the background on "Therewolfs" claim he posted previously. out of gun owners in the US, which are "gun people" and tend to shoot more, I would think they are equally split with about the same percentage as are the cops, with good, and not so good shooters.

.
__________________
Best Regards.......Eagle Six
http://tactrain.net
EagleSix is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 12:28 AM   #18
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Soliferrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleSix View Post

As for civilians, gun people, gun owners.....being better marksman or better shooters than cops.....I don't think so.
i agree. its hard to put all cops/sheriffs/highway/constable/swat into a funnel and say average joe is a better shooter. all those tales of cops firing 40 rounds and hitting the perp twice, usually come from inner city police who, i agree, cant shoot for crap. of course the dumb new guy who cant hit the earth with a round is going to make the news, but the cop that was shot 4 times and took out 2 of them with a single mag never make the news.
__________________

<Insert overused badass Latin phrase about war, or something>

Any one that hates the government is not always a terrorist. Any one for a better America is not always a patriot.

Soliferrum is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 04:47 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Pasco Cty.FL
Posts: 6,193
Liked 2181 Times on 1250 Posts
Likes Given: 1759

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleSix View Post
I didn't ask to put on the spot, I would really like to have that information to make a point. It would appear from your response, you cannot substantiate your statement. Fair enough....

.
delete response to troll
__________________

Last edited by therewolf; 10-17-2011 at 09:08 AM. Reason: delete-
therewolf is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 09:03 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
EagleSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Northeast,Arizona
Posts: 358
Liked 10 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 32

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewolf View Post
The NRA magazines alone should give you a ton of verification.

Any Chris Cox publication. The Reader's Digest, many years ago @1977,

is where I saw it first. It's not exactly impossible to validate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by therewolf View Post
1)-It's been statistically proven that civilian gun owners

are generally more accurate than LEOs,
Your statement included "proven". That's pretty definitive. Beings how you also state "statistically" as a basis for this proof, I would really like to use that information. However, how could you, or those whom you have read, quantify that statement through statistics? You would have to have some type of recorded data detailing the accuracy of cops, and then some "like same" data type record of civilians! If you are speaking of open ended accuracy, the data could be developed at the range. You would need some method of randomly selecting the participates for the test. This selection process in itself would probably have a lot of holes in it, not having enough scientific controls to consider a valid statistical measurement. If you are speaking of police shootings, compared to civilian shootings, you have a comparison of apples to oranges and I really don't think there is a method of refining the data from both to make a reasonably defendable argument for either side.

The word you use which may cover some of the statistical data type mismatches is "generally". And, that is what I was most interested in getting a definition of. Would the variance involved in the classifier of "generally" be that which could defend your statement of "proven"?

If you state it is your opinion, I think that is fair and I certainly accept it, and "in general" may even go as far as supporting it. If you state your sources from which you have an opinion, that is even better.

I receive the NRA publications and there is nothing in them which would come even close to anyone forming an opinion of civilian verses police "in general" accuracy. Again, if there is, please point out which issue and article you base that statement.

When you reference Chris Cox, I assume you mean Chris W. Cox, the NRA-ILA Executive Director. I have reviewed quite a bunch of his work and still found nothing about the statistics comparing civilian and LEO accuracy.

I hardly think a Reader's Digest 34 years old from 1977 would have the credible information I seek. Nor, do I think it would be timely enough to be substantial. However I did do a search to find the text online, and could not locate the text or the index for the 1st edition.

I appreciate your reply as well as an opportunity to exchange the basis of your statement. Everyone has an opinion and I respect theirs and yours. I didn't appreciate your previous rude reply, which I felt was totally off base. Like opinions, everyone also has an ass, and yours certainly did show on that post. However your last post was civil and I appreciate your effort. As I stated earlier, I tend to agree with your "statistically proven" statement on a more specific and broader basis in "general". And if there was a believable developed statistic out there, I sure would like to get a hold of a copy.

.
__________________
Best Regards.......Eagle Six
http://tactrain.net
EagleSix is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
A lesson from a former enemy. JTJ Politics, Religion and Controversy 8 02-16-2011 04:16 PM
The Enemy Within opaww The Club House 11 02-16-2010 12:58 PM
Terrorists: Have we fought such an enemy before? themanbeau The Club House 27 09-26-2009 04:53 AM
The Enemy Within npbwbass The Club House 8 06-13-2008 10:00 AM