Made a stupid statement...or not....
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Made a stupid statement...or not....

  1. Made a stupid statement...or not....

    I just pulled a stunt generally reserved for most antigun liberals. I made a "factual" statement based on undocumented assumptions and personal opinion.

    I explained to someone who tends to be somewhat anti-gun that there are more accidental discharges/shootings caused and more crimes commited by police officers, than CCW holders. I even stated that there are more CCW holders than active duty police officers so you would think the CCW holders would have more problems. The gist of the discussion was that there is no reason to assume a police officer is any more responsible or trustworthy in carrying a concealed weapon than any CCW holder.

    The big question is, are there any studies backing that statement up or did I pull a typical liberal stunt?


    "Figures don't lie but liers figure..."


    Bret

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    If you combine the numbers of CC holders from all states that issue licenses/permits, they will surely outnumber sworn LEO in the U.S.

    As for police causing more ND incidents (notice I said "ND" as in "Negligent Discharge" versus "AD" as in "Accidental Discharge"), I'm not aware of any particular studies, but it seems that the media reports more LEO involved incidents than they do citizens.

    Strongly anti-gun folks are difficult to debate with mostly because they only see things "their way" and don't have a very open mind with regard to firearms. After sharing a few simple facts, I usually find that it's a lot easier to cut my losses and save my energy for larger "undecided" majority.




    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,675
    As tempting as it is to say that you should do or say whatever it takes to silence an anti, it really matters not what side of the debate you're on; if you don't have any solid facts to back up what you're saying, don't say it. Do research on your own time so that you'll have facts to back up what you're saying in case this comes up again. Making statements not backed up with facts makes you no better than the most rabid antis. Do us a favor and don't hurt our side like this.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  5. #4
    You could never verify that statement. You here about more LEO nd's but in most cases they are required to report( and someone is often watching them). With the rest of us, if we have a nd we don't want anyone to know or at least see no reason to tell about it. And we are often alone. Nd's often happen because the person was "playing" with the firearm ( because they were bored or it was a new gun or a new holster). When I taught class I urged permit holders to carry the guns empty ( or at least empty chamber) at home until the "new" wore off and wearing the gun was just like wearing pants. When you wear a new gun or holster you find yourself touching it often ( to get it to a more comfortable spot, or check the safety, or check the release on the holster, or just to see if its there, to draw attention to it( look its NEW), whatever. We all do it. Thats why I say to wear it empty for awhile in the safety of your home. Most people that shoot alot are going to have an ad or nd at some point in their life. I've had two that I remember( both times guns were pointed down range). Once in the winter I was shooting a new pistol of mine and my gloved finger was to big for the triggergard. The other time the gun had a bad sear and went off with just the slightest touch( I didn't know until it happened! I fixed the sear before shooting it again). Of course no one was hurt either time. But it does happen.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    As tempting as it is to say that you should do or say whatever it takes to silence an anti, it really matters not what side of the debate you're on; if you don't have any solid facts to back up what you're saying, don't say it. Do research on your own time so that you'll have facts to back up what you're saying in case this comes up again. Making statements not backed up with facts makes you no better than the most rabid antis. Do us a favor and don't hurt our side like this.
    I agree with you 100%. However I have come to realize that even arguing facts with the libs is pointless because they tend to discount inconvenient facts as NRA propaganda anyway. I don't bother with them anymore. The exception to this is non-libs who have a faulty perception of firearms, thanks to the MSM. These folks tend to have a more open mind I have found.
    The Avatar is my Great-Great Grandaddy, CPL Samuel Francis Bondurant, Co. D, 4th Alabama, Law's Brigade, Benning's Division, 1st Corp, Army of Northern Virginia, shot through right thigh 2 JUL 1863.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    As tempting as it is to say that you should do or say whatever it takes to silence an anti, it really matters not what side of the debate you're on; if you don't have any solid facts to back up what you're saying, don't say it. Do research on your own time so that you'll have facts to back up what you're saying in case this comes up again. Making statements not backed up with facts makes you no better than the most rabid antis. Do us a favor and don't hurt our side like this.
    Hehehehe....I realized that when I said it in the heat of the moment. We are good friends but when someone questions my capacity to carry (he did not do it outright), I get a bit defensive. I preach to my students all the time about admitting if they do not understand or know something as fact (military E.O.D.) or it can get them, or worse, their team mates killed. That is why I prefaced this post with "I made a stupid mistake". Trust me, I have been trying to find some sort of factual basis for my argument after the fact and feel it is a good one so will keep trying. Just need to keep my mouth in check or as I said in my first post, I am no better than the typical liberal anti-gunner.

    By the way, I intended to say more accidental shootings. Not necessarily discharges. Will keep looking however.

  8. #7
    I think you pulled a liberal stunt and you can get any kind of study to back up any kind of figures you want. As for CCW holders outnumbering LEO I don't know. I know that if you add up all LEO in an area it will shock you hao many there are. Next is I would assume (not facts to back it up) that at least 95% of all LEO carry a gun. I expect that less than 10% of all CCW holders carry a gun on them at all times. Even if you adjust those figures, take into account the number of hours each carries stc. I think that you will find that the number of hours that guns are carried by LEO greatly outnumber those carried by CCW holders.

    Now add into that the number of people that carry guns without a CCW such as OC folks and hunters, combine into all of that the number of AD, ND and willful shootings and I have no idea what you would come up with because you would have to add into it the number of times a LEO has to use his gun.

    It was a nice argument that you made and I am sure that you can find facts to back it up but in the end I don't think it actually means anything.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I think you pulled a liberal stunt and you can get any kind of study to back up any kind of figures you want. As for CCW holders outnumbering LEO I don't know. I know that if you add up all LEO in an area it will shock you hao many there are. Next is I would assume (not facts to back it up) that at least 95% of all LEO carry a gun. I expect that less than 10% of all CCW holders carry a gun on them at all times. Even if you adjust those figures, take into account the number of hours each carries stc. I think that you will find that the number of hours that guns are carried by LEO greatly outnumber those carried by CCW holders.

    Now add into that the number of people that carry guns without a CCW such as OC folks and hunters, combine into all of that the number of AD, ND and willful shootings and I have no idea what you would come up with because you would have to add into it the number of times a LEO has to use his gun.

    It was a nice argument that you made and I am sure that you can find facts to back it up but in the end I don't think it actually means anything.
    I am afraid I will have to agree with you on everything you said.

    For what it's worth, according to the DOJ statistics website, there were over 800,000 (in 2004) sworn police officers. According to other CCW and pro-gun sites, total licensees among the "Shall Issue" states is over 3,000,000. So the numbers are certainly larger in that regard alone. However, there are numerous sites which show that ccw holders are far less likely to commit crimes than the average population.

    I have plenty of info showing crime rates amongst ccw holders as a percentage. Just want to see crime rates amongst LE officers. Not doing this to question the integrity of LE officers. Just want to use the information to show CCW holders are at least as trustworthy as police officers in that respect. Look at it this way, this is at least one simple fact they could not use against us...although saying that, since when do they acknowledge facts counter to their views???

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Lets not forget, true hard core libs don't let the truth get in the way of their agenda. Another fact with hard core libs is conservatives do not have first amendment rights if you disagree with them.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  11. #10
    Well, I tell a lot of people that Barack Obama and Barney Frank are secret homosexual lovers. If the National Inquirer can do that, why can't I? Especially now that the government doesn't really care about facts anymore, you, I, or the media can say just about anything we want.

    Ain't this fun? Guess what I know about Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer? (Film at 11!)
    -= Piece Corps =-

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast