If in this case the bad guy was a regular concealed firearm carrier (and not somebody who randomly stuck a handgun in his pants that day) then you should not assume the deputy was better trained. In CCL world, it’s generally accepted that you typical cop has less training and less experience with his firearm than the typical CCL holder. They are considered to be notoriously bad shots.
This makes sense because a firearm enthusiast is going to practice his favorite hobby often, but the cop just sees practice as an annoying part of the job. I would say an armed citizen is likely to have done better than the police in this case.
Can you provide any kind of cite for this? Georgia is a shall-issue state and I don’t think you need any training at all to carry concealed there. You also don’t need any license to purchase, etc.
The other thing they don’t seem to have thought through is the aftermath. Suppose their dream scenario plays out, Good Guy with a gun takes out Bad Guy with a gun. Moments later the cops arrive to a “shots fired” call to find someone down on the ground bleeding and someone else standing over him with a pistol in his hand. “No! Wait! I’m the good—” >blam< >blam< >blam<
Heck, in strict-gun-laws Massachusetts, you need to take a five-hour safety course – which does NOT require any live-fire training. I went through the course, the background check, and emerged with a Class A CCW permit that allowed me, who’d fired a gun maybe twice in my life, to walk into a gun store and buy any kind of weapon they were legally allowed to sell, no proof of competence required.
Being no fool, I hired the course instructor to teach me how to shoot and take care of my shiny new .22. It’s true, one time when I was at the range a local cop came in to practice for his qualifying test, and was a worse shot than me or my equally amateur cousin (both of us ladies of a certain age), also he managed to jam his weapon after a few shots, couldn’t get it cleared, and when we left he was still there, still struggling.
However, in practice, the “good guy” shooter is likely to be safe from law enforcement so long as he is of the “right” race. (Probably better to be male than female, too–police will respect a White Man carrying out White Man duties, but will be suspicious of a lady, who may have her monthlies and therefore be dangerous and in need of being taken down.)
This is the actual thinking™ behind “good guy with a gun” theorizing, by the way. Those who advocate it never envision it applying to a dark-skinned person—who by definition cannot be a Good Guy.
We’re having reverse maskholery at work now.
Corporate suddenly decided this week that fully vaccinated people no longer need to wear masks, and that unvaccinated people should use their own discretion. And amazingly…most of the unvaccinated are now wearing some manner of face covering.
I was at a shopping mall in Iowa last weekend where signs on the door urged unvaccinated people to wear masks. Maybe one percent of the shoppers inside were masked, leading me to conclude that the area either has an unbelievably high vaccination rate, or an equally high maskhole percentage.
I’ve seen the opposite: A fairly high percentage of folks wearing masks where they are only required if not vaccinated. Like WolfpackJeep kindof implied, I wonder if it’s now a FU to the “sheep” that got vaccinated.
I don’t know if my area is “pro mask” but we had very high compliance when masks were required. Almost 100% by my observation. Now that they’re “encouraged for non-vaccinated,” I see only about 10% wearing masks. So, no social pressure to keep masking in my area. Seems like we’ve decided to be done with the whole thing, for better or for worse.
That is not where I live! I live on the ID/WA border and on the ID side, seeing someone wearing a mask was a shock. On the WA side, where it was mandated, they were normal.
We avoided shopping in ID, even though often more convenient, during the last 1.5 years.
That guy’s too funny.
