It's really clear in the UK where it is illegal to carry a gun in public unless very strict regulations are adhered to. Even an air rifle has to be carried unloaded in a sealed bag and cocked so it can't accidentally fire. Makes it very easy for the police, if you are carrying a firearm anywhere but private land they will shoot you.
Most of the police I saw there didn't have guns. Despite the lack of guns, they still had authority. I was impressed by that. Not sure how that would work over here.
No, still not carried routinely, but if anyone is seen carrying a gun the special response unit will be there in no time. I think the authority comes from respect and not being armed probably helps that. Very few people get shot by the police and an even smaller number get shot unnecessarily. There was the Charles de Menezes case but speculation was that he was killed by security forces, possibly SAS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
No different for LE than non-LE. Having been involved in 'sim-munitions' training with FLE (as the OpFor), I can attest that cops lack 'perfect aim' as much as anyone else. Some are marksman, some can't hit the broadside of a barn. Outside of specialized units like SWAT, the shooting qualifications are quite lax, with most departments allowing multiple repeat attempts to qualify. They can just keep trying til they pass mostly on luck. I had a full time veteren park ranger miss me with his entire magazine, standing still at approximately 20 feet, in an aggression assessment scenario. He went back on patrol after the training. TBC, I don't mean to pick on rangers, theres plenty of skilled marksman in all branches of LE. But don't expect a uniform and a badge to necessarily indicate any meaningful competency with firearms.
I understand. This isn't about shaming anyone, it's about the difference between how we think we'll react and how we actually do. I appreciate you providing that, and I imagine you've also seen many who were excellent shots and handled the sims like a pro. Maybe it would be good to use those simulations and even some psychological analysis to give people who carry a realistic sense of how they might react. I know I'd feel better if they did.
Those types of classes are available to the public in most areas. They're often pretty pricey. And yes, most LE are highly competent. You just don't know who's going to happen to show up first when SHTF.
He would also feel that innocent people should die, thus becoming part of the problem himself. You get that, right? The problem being, obviously, that gun massacres are not gun problems any more than knife massacres are knife problems or truck massacres are truck problems - they're all parenting problems, and that's way the hell outside NRA's bailiwick. More accurately, murderous anger such as motivates such massacres.
Had an opportunity to experience police sim training and now I know why they place more emphasis on training de-escalation techniques and maintaining control over the situation rather than actually firing their guns. Their guns are used to intimidate rather than to try and win a firefight which is why they will have their guns at the ready but not open fire unless someone else starts shooting. At least that was what I was told and it makes sense to me. If everyone was given the same opportunity I had the bovine excrement myth that guns are "protection" would be exposed. Waking up half asleep and without your glasses in bad lighting is reason enough to not be handling a lethal weapon. Too bad no one selling guns ever explains that reality.
Why didn't their guns save them, I thought more guns was deemed the answer by the NRA and the NRA gang followers?
That one scenario is not a reason to prevent other more common scenarios. If you have time to dial 911, you have time turn a light on and put on glasses. Responsible self defense never includes attacking a target you can't clearly see and identify. It would indeed be great if everyone were able to experience simulated combat and aggression assessment/de-escalation. It would also be incredibly expensive (though not as expensive as trying to enforce restrictions on widely popular and proliferated weapons, ftr).
Seeing the Nazis obviously felt the Jews weren't that innocent either, I don't know what your point is. Seems rather more Christian to me: Luke 6:43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Because that didn't fit the script writer's agenda, obviously.
