[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by mheisig

Like I said, I certainly respect your decision and none of this is an attempt to argue anyone into doing something they don't want to do.

Likewise, thanks.

Originally Posted by mheisig

I agree it's possible (not necessary) that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.

Laws affect all people, so you can't look at a specific situation to prove the rule. Across the entire population, there is a 100% certainty that there are unintended consequences to owning a firearm.

Originally Posted by mheisig

Can you tell me how that differs substantially from the possible unintended consequences of driving? Or flying? Or having cleaning fluids in a house full of kids? Or having a gas stove? Or having matches? Or walking down the street? You've got the risk of danger and harm to you and your loved ones all around you, all day long, why is a gun so much different?

That's a strawman argument, but it seems to come up often, so allow me to debunk it. The natural use of any of those other items is non-injurious to anyone. The natural use of a gun (and by use I mean firing it) is injurious.

Originally Posted by mheisig

With respect to comparing a police officer and a gunowner, I staunchly disagree, and feel I'm pretty well qualified to speak on the subject having been a civilian gun owner and a police officer at one time.

As discomforting as this is to many of you, the VAST majority of police officers are absolutely NOT expert marksmen or even close. They are moderately competent, some far worse. I had 80 hours of firearms training in the police academy, which is about 3-5 times what the state required minimum is in most states. In other words I got 80 hours, and most departments get a LOT less. Of that 80 hours, 1/3 was probably spent milling around wasting time and waiting for your turn to shoot.

I can unequivocally state, after being trained in a highly respected law enforcement academy, and having seen hundreds of other officers shoot, that I know more civilians who are better shots than police officers.

The perception that officers have some incredible level of skill with firearms is preposterous and likely perpetuated by ignorant people or the departments themselves.

A 5-day course at a place like Gunsite or Blackwater or any of a dozen schools throughout the country will leave your "average Joe" as prepared or better prepared than the vast majority of officers I encountered, and I'd stake my reputation and a large sum of cash on that.

First, I still don't agree that "training taking over" is going to get you through this situation 100% of the time in the manner you intended (I found this interesting article that appears to support neither of our positions, or both - I can't tell). The risks just aren't worth it in my house.

Second, the flaw with the "gun safety by training" arguments in this thread is that they focus on the top 10-20% (and I am being extremely generous with that guestimate) of the gun-owning population. Given the amount of training that you have gone through and your background, I have no reason to doubt that you are a better marksman than the average police officer. I would venture to guess that the gun-owners with which you associate are like-minded in their view of the importance of vigorous training.

However, this argument ignores the fact that the vast majority of people who own guns do not take the time to get the training that you describe. If this training were made mandatory, then I might be a little more comfortable with the idea.