Comment

Self-Defense Statistics-When Stats Are Colored With Attitude

36
Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)6/04/2014 10:44:56 am PDT

re: #35 Rightwingconspirator

Calm down. It’s not necessarily that dishonest or nefarious. Or uncommon. The question was prompted after I learned how much more than police level training you suggests. CCW is included in police training, for off duty carry and detectives, and plainclothes officers.

I don’t get how you can think asking if something is deliberate obstruction isn’t dishonest. Why would you come to a conclusion that I wanted that level of training for any other reason than thinking that level of training is appropriate? Where do you get that from?

. The question was prompted after I learned how much more than police level training you suggests.

I am not suggesting more than police-level training. Police get trained for awhile before they go out into the field, but again, they’re trained continually, they’re out with other officers, and they have to actually use what they learn in real-life situations.

No look, I don’t challenge your statistical expertise, you have the training and education. You should keep in mind I trained in firearms for 15 years.

You do ‘challenge’ it regularly, actually.

You skipped a number of questions.

First, why look for an alternative if someone has bought a gun for self-defense and it turns out their risk of being attacked by a stranger in a way that a gun could help them is very, very low? Why shouldn’t they just get rid of the gun?

Second, do you accept that having a gun in the home is a risk?