• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

National Geographic: Guns in America

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
I think it is great that they finally touched on the "Assault Weapons" idea more in depth than just an "Assault Rifle". I used to teach improvised weapons, and I have been in the martial arts for a majority of my life. So that would put me in a catagory where the most mundane things that we use in our every day lives would be considered "Assault Weapons" and should be banned. I would not put it past some activists to ask that my hands and feet be removed because they can be used to hurt someone.

There is also the point that is made about police officers being trained to handle guns and they should be the ones carrying, the problem is that the qualification standards for police is set high enough, but in my personal experience most officers who fail to quualify will just keep shooting the course with no correction on their abilities until their final score is sufficient to pass and qualify. I have been, in fact, just talking on another forum about that very problem over the last few days.

It took me 2 years to get my girlfriend to even look at a gun, and less than a year ago I finally got her shooting, and I would put her up against several of the police officers that I have seen "Qualify".

There is this grand idea that is expressed in that documentary that because someone is a police officer, they are automatically expert marksmen. But the sad truth is that this is an ideal that is only held by those that don't have the background or experience to see that weapons training is one of the least important skills for law enforcement.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I would not put it past some activists to ask that my hands and feet be removed because they can be used to hurt someone.

They'd probably want my head, as the pen is mightier than the sword...

There is also the point that is made about police officers being trained to handle guns and they should be the ones carrying, the problem is that the qualification standards for police is set high enough...

It doesn't sound like National Geographic considered the fact that many, perhaps most, of the people who OC/CC are former military or law enforcement, so that argument doesn't cut for those of us in that category. I doubt it cuts it for many of those who aren't in that category, either, as many of them have taken classes, sometimes advanced classes, and almost all spend plenty of time at the range.

It took me 2 years to get my girlfriend to even look at a gun, and less than a year ago I finally got her shooting, and I would put her up against several of the police officers that I have seen "Qualify".

Accuracy, even accuracy under fire, has a lot more to do with inherent aptitude and a few key skills than one's profession. Throughout my 20 years in the military, the scores of the average airman didn't differ materially from those of the airmen who were in law enforcement. I for example, have always scored expert, although less than half of those from LE did so in any initial or requal course.

There is this grand idea that is expressed in that documentary that because someone is a police officer, they are automatically expert marksmen. But the sad truth is that this is an ideal that is only held by those that don't have the background or experience to see that weapons training is one of the least important skills for law enforcement.

You bring up a good point: A firearm alone doesn't turn a potential victim into an absolute non-victim. It is, however, the single most effective step anyone can take, a fact known far and wide not only back when our nation was founded, but in today's times, too. Law enforcement personnel receive considerably more training than your average citizen:

criminal law
criminal investigation
crisis management*
crisis resolution*
interviewing
communications*
critical thinking*
legal ethics
criminal report writing
evidence handling
criminal psychology*
human relations*
stress management
psychology*
criminal behavior monitoring

and the two in question...

marksmanship
weapons retention

Last time I checked, I didn't see any of those skills being taught at the local shooting range, yet the ones marked with an * can be very helpful in avoiding or handling potential conflicts, long before the use of deadly force might be needed.

Thus, National Geographic's comment about police officers being trained to handle firearms ignores the fact that many of us have had as much, if not more training than your average LEO. What we haven't had are all the additional courses. However, those are designed for LE's responding to various conflicts, so they can hopefully resolve the conflict, at least to the point where they can make the appropriate arrests, instead of simply blowing away their suspects.

Most of those skills, however, are simply not helpful for your average citizen who carries firearms in accordance with their 2A right to do so.
 

CalicoJack10

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
559
Location
Arbor Vitae
crisis management*
crisis resolution*
communications*
critical thinking*
criminal psychology*
human relations*

These are all things that I touch on im the courses I teach to those that look to me to help with their choice to carry. I live by the military "Escalation of Force" scale. But still, some very valid points made. The majority of those that carry do have a higher level of training. Mostly because (in my opinion) we have a much heavier cross to bear if we end up having to defend ourselves.

Years ago when I was teaching martial arts in NJ, I would lecture my students on the idea that a black belt is nothing more than the ability to take one serious a$$ kickin. Ironically the same thing applies to carrying a firearm. More because a firearm is not so much a solution to a problem, but is instead a final outcome.

I find it really Ironic that the program left out things like that "Pistol Packin Momma" Melanie Hain from penselvania that was carrying all the time (even to her kids soccer game) and at the point in time when she needed it, she did not have it. Because that story tells the real truth behind our choice to carry a firearm. We are armed for the same reason we have spare keys, just in case. Because there is no telling where, when or if that threat to our lives will come.

They made a point to cover this police officer who was shot, and as unfortunate as it is, it still shows an extreme Anti-Gun case. They pointed out (and sent far less time talking about) the man in TX that shot the people robbing his neighbors house. They left out things like the story of Melanie Hain, because it is too Pro-Gun, and left out all those who's lives have been saved by their rite to carry for the same reason.

The truth is that this would be what I would call "Covertly Anit-Gun"
 
Top