BS: Solution to the gun problem-??

Subject: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 08:11 AM

Do some reading. check out Public law 108-277

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 02:16 PM

I can't believe how little interest this gets!

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 02:23 PM

Kendall,

Note the date- you should KNOW anything done by Bush must be bad, just as anything done by Obama must be good. I have been told that often enough here...

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 02:35 PM

As a UKer, it's none of my business, but I don't see how in any sense it is a solution to the gun problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 03:37 PM

Maybe people who'd like to comment can't locate the law you're referring to.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: gnomad
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 03:49 PM

I would echo DMcG's comment above, and add that "the gun problem" is defined quite differently by different groups.

One lot seem to believe that every 5 year old should take weapons training, and a couple of concealed handguns when visiting the school cafeteria.
Others apparently believe that the coyote visiting Ma Olsen's chicken coop forty miles from a paved road will be deterred by a feather duster.

Until the two groups each start to at least acknowledge that the other group is not a mob of idiots hell-bent on the destruction of all civilisation (and damn commies to boot) then a solution seems well out of reach. Yes, I am aware I have exaggerated the positions, it is done to make a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 03:53 PM

So read the law, then comment! I'm asking for opinions, so it doesn't matter if you are American, British or whatever. I think it's a good idea. Probably the only one Bush ever had.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 03:53 PM

gnomad,

what exaggeration???

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 03:59 PM

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ277/html/PLAW-108publ277.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: kendall
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 04:06 PM

Thanks for posting that BB.

What that would do is put thousands of armed unpaid officers on the streets, in theaters, grocery stores, wherever people gather.

Of course it's not a real solution, I forgot the question mark, but it would be better than what we have now, untold numbers of whackos looking to do harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 04:10 PM

I had, of course, read the law before I commented. On my reading, it does not (normally) affect who can carry what but only affects concealment; in the other cases it allows certain people to carry weapons even if the state decided they shouldn't. As I say, I can't how that constitutes a solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 04:35 PM

Does anybody else see the flaw in the concept of putting thousands of superannuated ex officers with failing eyesight, hearing and/or reflexes, not to mention memory, on the street as volunteer gunslingers?

I, for one, would not feel safer on thoose streets. Quite the reverse in fact.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 04:54 PM

The problem stems from much deeper cultural issues. The solution to the gun problem is not thinking the gun is the solution to problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 05:35 PM

This law is just another loophole for ex-cops to have fewer restriction on gun ownership...

Not sure how this is supposed to fix anything...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 05:40 PM

Read it and don't really see how it solves any problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 06:02 PM

When you consider the the number of alcoholics in the ranks of retired (and not-retired) cops, I'm not sure that a blanket concealed-carry ok for them is such a swift idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 07:00 PM

You begin with a FALSE supposition...."there is a gun problem".

Next...every USA law officer I know "carries" while off-duty. There are thousands of stories.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

I need to stop dropping into your stink hole down below.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem
From: Charmion
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 09:45 PM

I have been out of uniform for a very long time.

Back in the day, I was more than competent with a FN-C1 service rifle, actually rather good with a Browning 9-mm pistol, and freakin' dangerous -- to myself, mostly -- with a 9-mm Sterling submachine-gun. However, if someone handed me an FN or a Browning today, I would require a long stretch of range time before I would consider myself safe to carry that weapon among people not wearing body armour and covered by the Supplementary Death Benefit.

I believe I am far more the rule than the exception.

To expect retired military and law-enforcement personnel to accept the responsibility of carrying weapons in middle and old age is to impose on them a burden of care that I, for one, would not be willing to bear. If properly implemented, it would mean requiring these folks to train and submit to fitness testing -- do you want your purblind uncle toting a gun? -- long after they have been released from active service.

I wish people would get it through their heads that bearing arms is not glamorous or amusing, but an onerous duty that one should be grateful to avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 10:24 PM

I trained on the FN-C1, too. (Never did know why it was taken out of service.) I can't and never have been able to shoot a handgun worth a darn, but I could use a rifle pretty well. It would take me a good hour to get familiar with the FN again, and as Charmion said, substantial range time. And as for

"I wish people would get it through their heads that bearing arms is not glamorous or amusing, but an onerous duty that one should be grateful to avoid.",

truer words were never spoke.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Songwronger
Date: 18 Jan 13 - 10:46 PM

This seems a good idea in general. Cops carry weapons on the job, so why shouldn't they continue to afterward? But then, I've known some cops who should never have been armed in the first place. Good in theory, problematical in application.

Didn't New York state, in their anti-gun hysteria, just slap the same rules on cops that they did on the peons? Should be some lawsuits from that.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 06:04 AM

""I need to stop dropping into your stink hole down below.""

Feel free to stop anytime. You rarely add anything of merit, as you seem to appear only when you want to add some crap.

And I don't recall seeing any interesting posts from you above.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 06:45 AM

I see a lot of anti cop rhetoric here. What's the matter, too many speeding tickets? That cop didn't give you a ticket, you earned it!

Naturally, any ex cop would have to qualify for a federal license to carry. We are not old, decrepit, blind cripples you know!
I expect there would have to be an age limit; damn few people are in the same condition I'm in at my age.

Or, we could just do nothing and all say OHMMMM real loud and hope the killing stops.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 06:53 AM

OHMMMM

I'm on it!

OHMMMM

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 06:57 AM

There is a brillant summary of the approach of many politicians to problems in the venerable BBC series "Yes, Minister"

1. We must do something
2. This is something
3. Therefore we must do it.

It is not really a case of introducing this law or saying 'Ohmmmm', is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 08:40 AM

"not glamorous or exciting".       That's the crux of the problem.    So many are convinced that it is glamorous and exciting.

And that they can defend their castles, in the time-honored macho way (at least in Westerns and similar genres) by blowing away anybody they don't like.

And not have to answer to anybody else.

They want the "every man his own militia" approach.

That's why "well-regulated" is the solution.   Just interpret the 2nd Amendment as the Founding Fathers intended it---which, as I've noted elsewhere, is what the NRA et al. keep whining about anyway (they constantly bitch and moan about how judges "make law rather than interpret it".    Fine, let's go along with the conservative insistance on strict constructionism--let's divine exactly what the authors of the 2nd Amendment had in mind at the time it was passed. It's not hard to do. At the time of the Bill of Rights the militia, yet again, was to substitute for a standing army.

So all gun owners, from now on, will have to show up for drill on a regular basis--just as the plan was back then.

Drill will not just be shooting your weapon, but also learning how to march, handle weapons in a uniform way, salute officers you probably think know less than you do, and be prepared to leave your state at a moment's notice to meet a danger you may not think exists.   By the way, you won't be paid for any of this.

I wonder how much enthusiasm gun owners will have then for the 2nd Amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: GUEST,Charmion's brother Andrew
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 10:26 AM

At my remove from wearing uniform of a dozen years, I would not want to have the carriage of small arms imposed on me--and I was an artillery instuctor, and a qualified range and safety officer (everything from .22" to air defence missiles) to boot! The management of a weapon is of constant concern for those on whom it is imposed. You must not carry anything on which you have not passed Tests on Elementary Training and range qualification. Range qualification takes time and money.

I loved shooting--and became a better shot than my sister, once I learned to leave the disengaged eye open, contrary to the Rule of Aim--but I was always happy to turn in weapons and relieve myself of the responisibility involved in keeping track of it and keeping it ready to be brought to bear. Keeping track of a weapon when you need to have a nap or a crap is not fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 10:40 AM

Andrew, this is a bit off topic, but you'd be the guy to ask. As a right-handed youngster I shot with my left eye closed. As a teenager I started keeping both eyes open (mostly for safety's sake: didn't want someone running from my left into my field of fire). Now it just seems 'natural' to shoot that way. My question is, is this a particularly Canadian thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 11:11 AM

I know Andrew's an expert, but I'm a non-Canadian. As an American, we were taught it's best to keep both eyes open, but I know it was hard for some to do, and I occasionally had to work at it. I had to keep telling my left eye not to let my right take over. We got the same advice when using microscopes and cameras.

I never carried a weapon around as a routine part of job, except once, and yes, it was a huge pain.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 11:20 AM

Never enjoyed firing a real weapon--lean more towards rubber darts.

From Army basic training the incident I most remember is when we were separated into scorers and "marksmen" (switching off).   They weren't happy with the scores so they went along the line telling the scorers to get the scores up.    They weren't talking to the "marksmen", just the scorers.

Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 11:35 AM

Solution: curtail the NRA or even dump it. Arrest LaPierre.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Pete Jennings
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 11:36 AM

Keeping both eyes open while taking aim is advised in the UK as well. I always find it difficult.

Back on topic, I don't see how Public law 108-277 provides any sort of solution to the gun problem. How many cops or ex-cops go shooting up kids in schools?

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: kendall
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 02:21 PM

It was a question!

Schools are not the only places where nut cases shoot people.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 04:57 PM

"I trained on the FN-C1, too. (Never did know why it was taken out of service.)"

$ and mobility and something that some may dispute BUT I will say it anyway. Experts will (at least one that I know of) post to this and say I am full of shit but the guy that told me this was a Golden Bullet RCAF Canuck Airman so... ya know what I'm sayin eh?... a 762 140 (the Russian 762 bullets are a different weight) whizzer (all of which are full metal jacket, of course) wounds as intended and agreed in the RsOE of the Geneva convention (yes, I know why) and so does the 556 55. However, the 556 fires in a FAR different pattern on full auto (or even in 3 burst for that matter) than the 762 even when the optional gas adjustment is turned to full and it does so in a fashion that KILLS because the bullets "tumble" - essentially, on full auto, you have a long range shotgun in your hands which delivers a wide pattern of 55g "shot" which, when not travelling in true "trajectory", can kill a man if it hits him in any majot joint or bone structure... or just about anywhere else. Such a burst is exceptionally effective in theatres in which western forces have been engaged since WW2.

"And that they can defend their castles, in the time-honored macho way (at least in Westerns and similar genres) by blowing away anybody they don't like."

Silly statement.

"So all gun owners, from now on, will have to show up for drill on a regular basis--just as the plan was back then."

Sillier. You miss the whole point of good gun laws and go straight to a position which you can NEVER accomplish, thereby wasting your time and breath. Can't you... any of you who say such silly things... understand that your position will only halt any and all progress that can be made by good gun laws because the guys with the guns HAVE FUCKING GUNS?! and they won't LET you take them away??? Who is gonna take those guns away from them? Not me. And CERTAILY not you. Wake the fuck up and start talking some common sense.

Oh... yeah... shit... I said I wouldn't say that again on any more gun threads on the last gun thread. WTF was I thinking? Common sense? Thing of the past... apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Charmion
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 06:20 PM

gnu, I don't believe Ron seriously expects gun owners to start parading with the National Guard. I think he's reiterating a point I have made myself, that the Second Amendment is a relic of a far-distant past and therefore ripe for repeal, or whatever it is Americans do with bits of their Constitution that have ceased to work as the founding fathers intended.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment is the foundation stone of all weapons-related law in the United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 07:13 PM

Charmion... I don't care what you believe. What he SAID was absolutely inane. It's WHAT HE SAID. It's in writing. It's not open to interpretation because that is WHAT HE SAID. And THAT is the problem.

YET AGAIN... when people say inane fucking shit... it IS inane fucking shit and THEY are a VERY LARGE part of the problem in moving forward with getting good gun laws in place, and until the gun nuts and the antigun nuts start talking commone sense, SFA is gonna get done and people are gonna die. THAT is MY point. And I have been trying to get SOMEond, ANYone, on EITHER side to understand it for years.

And, I have failed again. The 2nd amendment is fuck all. It's words on paper and those words can be AMENDED! fer fuck sake! But, one last time, they will never be amended by a bunch of idiots who couldn't organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a hand full of hundred dollar bills and a half dozen drunk sailors. WTF don't any of youse on either side GET about the very simple fact that you CANNOT take MILLIONS of guns away from MILLIONS of people? If that is the level of intelligence of anti gun nuts, WE will NEVER get ANYwhere.

Go ahead and whine about the (true & whacko) gun nuts and pontificate about how superior you are to ALL gun nuts but few of you actually demonstrate your "superiority".... rather, just the opposite. And that is why you will never be successful. Irrationality is only successful if you are well armed.... I have proof.... and so do YOUSE. Apparently, youse can't figure out that shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 08:27 PM

I think no one is trying to take guns away from millions--make that hundreds of millions--of people. But what's wrong with having to demonstrate you are competent with gun safety? Having to show you do not, due to mental disability/inability of one form or other, present a danger to yourself or others? Show you have never used a gun in the commission of a crime (misdemeanor or felony)?

I find the aforementioned to be reasonable, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jan 13 - 10:48 PM

9.... YES YES YES YES!!!!! I have been sayin that for ages regarding GOOD gun laws!!!! NOBODY LISTENS! NOBODY READS!!!! NO... NO.... NOOOOObody!

9... "I think no one is trying to take guns away from millions..."

???????? That is what I just QUOTED and written above and written in theread after thread! and I pointed out AGAIN and SO MANY times in the past as the inane bullshit that STOPS good gun laws from even having a snowball's chance in hell. Sweet JAYSUS! I give up. Youse can all let the guns that you apparentltly fear shoot yourselves in the foot. YOU are pulling the triggersssss. Have fun with that.

gnightgnu

Go ahead and shit on me after I leave... again. I really can't be arsed to respond any more. Youse deserve what you get on accounta yer the ones that cause it. Twits.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 08:27 AM

"what he said was absolutely inane"

Not that anybody ever uses sarcasm on Mudcat to make a point.   Of course not. Certainly not I.


Look, in the future I envision, gun owners will have a choice. Either they can show up regularly for drill, as the Founding Fathers intended (which would fit with their own insistence on strict constructionism--and drill will include all elements I mentioned earlier on the thread.) Or they can recognize that the 2nd Amendment has long since lost any imagined utility it ever had---and it had precious little at the time of passage. Its main thrust, that a "well-organized miltia" could substitute for a standing army (due to the, at least partially justified, fear of a standing army which dominated political thinking at the time) was an almost unmitigated disaster from the start. As recognized by people like Washington at the time.

And as I have been saying, on this and other related threads, since the day of the Newtown shootings.

If this whole hideous situation has any ghost of a silver lining, perhaps a possible one will be a rise in respect for the study of history. If the NRA and its brilliant defenders on and off Mudcat--including 5 of 9 Justices of the Supreme Court--had made any effort to study the history of the Bill of Rights period, perhaps they would not make quite so spectacularly stupid and ignorant comments on the 2nd Amendment.

Unless of course they intend to stay ignorant.   Interestingly enough, continuing ignorance is in fact their best defense.

One of the many ironies of the situation is the degree to which otherwise sensible people have swallowed the mythology that seems to support the NRA defense of the 2nd Amendment--especially the notion that the Revolution was won by "guys with guns".    Wrong.    Washington despaired uncounted times before 1783 that he was expected to win with a bunch of guys with guns against the world's top military power.   What he wanted was not guys with guns but an army. To a large, but not total, extent, he eventually got one.   And even so, it was a near thing.   1781 was the last chance, he was told by the French, and only the constellation of events leading to Yorktown made it work. Many people don't realize the danger the 13 colonies were under in 1781 to have a mediated solution imposed on them--which very likely would not have included a US of all all 13 colonies--or perhaps not independence at all.

Even after Yorktown, as I've mentioned earlier on Mudcat,, American independence was not a sure thing. Only the change in government in the UK made it possible.

History is worth studying--if only to be able to make informed comment on current events.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 08:32 AM

"well organized militia"

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 11:45 AM

Is the present or past state of someone's mental health sufficient safeguard?. Functional mental health issues can happen in somebody's life - something like 25% - 30% of the population? So, to protect the rights of gun owners, is it then reasonable for everyone in the UK to be psychiatrically assessed several times a year, or is that a greater intrusion on individual liberties? Otherwise how would one guarantee that a gun owner will not, at any time in the next 50/60 years present a danger to themselves or others? In the case of having used a gun for any crime, how do you make sure that those who do not have police or criminal records PROVE they they have never done so, anf will never do so in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 12:02 PM

Apparently, my question is not well received. Well, I did ask.

OHMMMMMM

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 12:06 PM

Ya don't SPB, but since guns ain't gonna go away, what do you offer as a solution instead?

Checking out people who own guns would certainly increase the public's safety level. In Twain's words, you can make something foolproof but you can't make it damned foolproof. In fact, similar things can be said of knives, bows, hammers, automobiles, etc. Life gives no guarantees.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: GUEST,999
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 12:11 PM

"Apparently, my question is not well received. Well, I did ask."

I think the question WAS well received. Many people have read the law and put in their two cents. Some folks don't see it as a solution, but the whole world ain't in lock-step.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Charmion
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 01:32 PM

Kendall, I read the law at the link posted by BBruce, and the related Wikipaedia article as well. I used my own experience to show both what I think of the value of the law and why I drew that conclusion. I understand that the law, as written, applies to retired law-enforcement officers, not ex-military personnel such as I, but I considered the two professions close enough at least in the area of weapons-handling practices to be comparable.

999, Jeri and my brother Andrew all addressed your point directly.

In choosing OMMM as the main alternative, you set up a false dichotomy. That's just bad logic and unworthy of a debater of your substantial calibre.

Pun intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 02:14 PM

That was sarcasm sweetie. :-)

Ohmmm and frustration.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 07:00 PM

I don't have any problems with the LEOSA, but I wonder whether it's worth the effort. On the face of it, it sounds like a way to put more trained, qualified law enforcers on the street. The problem is that cops rarely just happen upon a situation that requires their intervention, armed or otherwise. Outside of routine traffic stops, they usually respond to information that's relayed from a victim or witness, to a dispatcher, and then to their radio. When cops do happen across crimes in progress, it's usually in intensely patrolled high crime areas, not exactly the type of place where a vacationing or retired cop is apt to find himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Jan 13 - 07:01 PM

Nothing, it seems, will ever divorce Americans from their love affair with the means of destroying human life, because that is precisely what is being debated here.

Americans kill, with guns, nearly three times as many of their fellow humans as are killed by automobiles in the UK, and 268 times as many as are killed with guns.

They then kill astronomical numbers with automobiles in addition.

When somebody from the UK points out the simple equation:- NO GUNS = NO GUN DEATHS, he is called nasty names and told to mind his own business.

I'm sick of hearing that the World's foremost "CAN DO" nation CAN'T!

We did it, and it wasn't easy, and now even our police don't need guns for day to day work.

Are you Americans admitting that there are things we Brits can do, THAT YOU CANNOT?

That would certainly be a first.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 12:25 PM

Excellent post, Don. Maybe pride and shame will work.   Nothing else has.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 02:13 PM

Kendall, Olddude et al:

New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department's Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.

In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.

In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance. In Los Angeles, where there are far fewer shots discharged, the police fired 67 times in 2006 and had 27 hits, a 40 percent hit rate, which, while better than New York's, still shows that they miss targets more often they hit them.

Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect.

"When you factor in all of the other elements that are involved in shooting at an adversary, that's a high hit rate," said Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner. "The adrenaline flow, the movement of the target, the movement of the shooter, the officer, the lighting conditions, the weather ... I think it is a high rate when you consider all of the variables."
(N.Y. Times)

And these are trained officers who are required to requalify periodically. I can't see that retired cops, who are older, slower, and are not required to demonstrate proficiency on a regular basis, would do any better.

Subject: RE: BS: Solution to the gun problem-??
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Jan 13 - 03:31 PM

""When you factor in all of the other elements that are involved in shooting at an adversary, that's a high hit rate," said Raymond W. Kelly, the New York police commissioner. "The adrenaline flow, the movement of the target, the movement of the shooter, the officer, the lighting conditions, the weather ... I think it is a high rate when you consider all of the variables""

Hit Rate forty three percent from zero to six feet, for a fully trained officer whose proficiency rating is bang up to date.

Frightening,......for two reasons:

1). Where do the fifty seven percent of missed shots end up?
2). What would be the expected hit rate for completely untrained, but legally armed, citizens?

Don T.