Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
I completely failed to include a key point in my earlier post. Of the 90 shots fired by Geman police in 2011, 45 were warning shots. Professionally trained law enforcement personnel firing warning shots. That is my point. The American 'experts' insist that their way is the correct way.
Are you seriously suggesting that American police open fire without warning given any time at all? Would anyone in this country assume that a Cop ISN'T armed ?
Isn't it clear that if for the 200 years that we have been developing firearms in this country, if like R&D had been put into a parallel non-lethal technology that one could use to stop hostiles with minimal harm to innocents in the line of fire that this would be a good thing?
Well, to be realistic, lets limit this to the last 100 years, probably less. OK.... fired from firearms.... bean bags, rubber bullets... been around for years, useful to disperse crowds. But found inadequate to stop a determined adversary. It is useful to recall that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was armed with such non-lethal munitions when he was killed with one of Eric Holder's "Fast and Furious" rifles in the hands of a Mexican National in Arizona. Tasers? A remarkable tool, IIRC carried now by most Cops in this country, still haven't replaced firearms.
A third of the population either has guns in their home or has them concealed on their person in public.
Or both
Actually the fraction that chooses to carry a handgun concealed about their person is relatively tiny, less than 500,000 in Texas, about 4% or one in twenty-five of those eligible. Of those, most will not be carrying all the time. Many more firearms in vehicles though.
Nevertheless when **** happens, it happens. Usually with little or no response from the gun carrying public.
**** usually goes down very fast, without warning, and is over in moments, the assailants then flee the scene PRECISELY because a response will occur, from the public in genera not just armed ones. This besides the many incidents where nothing occurs BECAUSE a firearm is present (why else would Cops carry them?), there are numerous incidents that occur wherein a legally armed citizen prevents/interrupts a crime.
I don't expect to have much credibility with an ideologue like yourself, but I gave eight incidents involving people known to me personally over the last thirty years wherein a gun deterred a crime. I hardly think I am remarkable in that respect. Another poster here claimed to have personally deterred four crimes with a handgun.
Anyhow... for a compilation from actual news stories see....
http://www.nrapublications.org/index...ed-citizen-18/
Tell the truth, 90% of the time when someone shoots someone, 99% of the time when the shooter is a LEO, the shootee is either unarmed or armed with far less lethal potential than the shooter.
Please define "far less lethal potential". Virtually any fit, strong and reasonably skilled ex-convict within twenty feet of one's person can potentially inflict permanent physical injury or death within moments. It ain't like they operate by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.
With any blunt force trauma weapon (brass knuckles are commonly used by high school gang members around these parts) the potential for life-changing injuries or death goes up several-fold. In the England of my youth, steel toed Doc Martens were a common weapon of choice. Again twenty feet or less, a determined adversary with a knife is fully as deadly as one with a firearm, if not more so.
Mike