On Jan 10, 11:38*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Jan 10, 1:01*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:



I once pulled a handgun to stop two dogs from making lunch of out of son's
legs. There was no risk to anyone but the two dogs. Unfortunately, the owner
stopped them before I could dispatch them.

Unfortunately...? *You wanted to shoot the dogs? *Interesting. *I've
never threatened a dog, but I have told the owner I would be punching
him in the face unless he controlled his dogs.

You can't generalize. All civilian gun confrontations are theoretical until
they actually happen.

Don't take this the wrong way, but those last two sentences have no
information in them. *Everything is theoretical until it happens.
Everything. *It doesn't change the scenario I presented. *Guy with a
gun ready to die, and scared people with guns shooting back - some
might hit the gunman and some will hit other people.

R

R-

I believe your "innocent bystanders hit by random shots from armed
citizens " is a near zero probability event.

If such a thing happened, it would have be reported in the news over &
over again.

It is my opinion (based on very little data) that armed citizens
responding to bad guys are much more careful shooters.
They lack the "legal cover" that police officers enjoy. A cop can
empty his gun at a target and few question it.

In a suburb of LA, LA County Deputy Sheriffs (10 of them) fired 120
shots at a guy in a Suburban.
He turned out to be unarmed, luckily they only hit him with four shots
but they did manage to hit one of their own.

Total lack of fire discipline...
maybe cops should go back to revolvers, with fewer rounds they might
be more careful or at the very least have fewer total misses.