hangglider
Moderator
Think little girls aren't a potential threat? http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012...e-students-arrested-weapons-cha/?breakingnews
What makes some people think all criminals are bad shots?
- Thread starter nate45
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
The issue isn't with name calling, but name calling that mischaracterizes the threat. I know it makes us all feel better to make it an US against THEM where we are all that is good and right with the world and they are all that is wrong with it, but classifying bad guys as lazy is a great way to underestimate their abilities.
Funny thing. When we find "easier" ways to make money legally, we call it being smart. When bad guys do it illegally, we call them being lazy. We also call them cowards despite often being involved in very aggressive violent acts. They are cowards for choosing targets that they can most easily overwhelm to accomplish their goals, often in sneaky ways. When the military does this, we call it being strategically smart.
BlackFeather
New member
Double Naught Spy said:
Yeah, this is exactly it. I've seen both sides, and in the end that is what it amounts to.
Well, people liked to think bullies suffered from poor self-esteem, too; yet recent studies show they actually suffer from self-importance and self-entitlement, and in fact rarely have low self-esteem.
Victims, OTOH, have a host of self-esteem issues.
But even a hard-working and astute bad guy is still, by his choices and actions, a bad guy.
Victims, OTOH, have a host of self-esteem issues.
But even a hard-working and astute bad guy is still, by his choices and actions, a bad guy.
That's also an oversimplification. The bank foreclosing on your property, unpopular as such an action may be, is still a legal transaction. The local ganglord (not likely in the US at the moment, but done in economic disaster areas like Argentina during the economic meltdown) deciding that he's going to use your house as his HQ so he clears you out (fatally or by eviction at gunpoint) is comparable only at the most basic level. One is a legal (likely distasteful) action, the other is a violent crime.
I think the definition is that anyone who is committing or attempting to commit a violent crime against me is a bad guy. He can sing in the choir, he can have 14 kids that he's having trouble supporting, he may be a member of the clergy - but if he's trying to break into my house or threatening me or anyone else, he's a bad guy. Any attempt to equate him (or her) with people performing legal acts is giving the violent person a legitimacy that they do not deserve.
I think the definition is that anyone who is committing or attempting to commit a violent crime against me is a bad guy. He can sing in the choir, he can have 14 kids that he's having trouble supporting, he may be a member of the clergy - but if he's trying to break into my house or threatening me or anyone else, he's a bad guy. Any attempt to equate him (or her) with people performing legal acts is giving the violent person a legitimacy that they do not deserve.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This as wandered way off topic - bring it back or we have to close it.
Because we watch fiction on television.
If we watched news on television we would realize that good or bad, they hit plenty of cops and other people whom they choose to prey upon.
In all of my life, I don't think I've ever heard of a case in which attempted homicide meant that the bad guy simply missed his intended target.
If we watched news on television we would realize that good or bad, they hit plenty of cops and other people whom they choose to prey upon.
In all of my life, I don't think I've ever heard of a case in which attempted homicide meant that the bad guy simply missed his intended target.
Master Blaster 2
Moderator
Sorry.
I know it is old but I couldn't resist.
I know it is old but I couldn't resist.
I think in most places the gun laws are oddly skewed in that the consequences to law abiding citizens are fairly severe while the impacts to criminals are relatively minor.
In Illinois the sentence for possesion of a firearm by a felon is 2 to 10 years, but if the charge isn't plead for cooperation - they usually only get a 4 year sentence.
There are are plenty of examples where guys get out of prison - go back to doing what they were doing, and in the case of drugs - they're engaging in an illegal activity that can get them 30 years - so what is the disincentive to use a firearm?
There have been plenty of examples of police responding to a report of gunfire, and when they investigate the scene, it turns out gang members were practicing in an abondoned building or something.
I do wish the NRA had something like what Mothers Against Drunk Driving has - where they would lobby for tougher sentencing and tougher laws for felons using guns.
I do think that law-abiding citizens shoud have an advantage in that we have the ability to go to ranges and training schools and practice, whereas - in Illinois at least, unless criminals are forging FOID cards, they can't go to the range. And if sentences were tougher, it would be much riskier for felons to practice with their firearms.
In Illinois the sentence for possesion of a firearm by a felon is 2 to 10 years, but if the charge isn't plead for cooperation - they usually only get a 4 year sentence.
There are are plenty of examples where guys get out of prison - go back to doing what they were doing, and in the case of drugs - they're engaging in an illegal activity that can get them 30 years - so what is the disincentive to use a firearm?
There have been plenty of examples of police responding to a report of gunfire, and when they investigate the scene, it turns out gang members were practicing in an abondoned building or something.
I do wish the NRA had something like what Mothers Against Drunk Driving has - where they would lobby for tougher sentencing and tougher laws for felons using guns.
I do think that law-abiding citizens shoud have an advantage in that we have the ability to go to ranges and training schools and practice, whereas - in Illinois at least, unless criminals are forging FOID cards, they can't go to the range. And if sentences were tougher, it would be much riskier for felons to practice with their firearms.
m&p45acp10+1
New member
I would never ever, and I mean ever ASSUME that a bad guy with a gun can not, or will not shoot it effectively enough to hit me. Truth be told most times they attack from distances that are hard to miss from, and do not care if they miss with a couple of shots. They do not care about stray shots, they do not care if they hit bystanders.
Truth be told few if any would be in the front running for an IDPA, or IPSC competition. That does not mean they would miss someone if they were shooting at them.
Truth be told few if any would be in the front running for an IDPA, or IPSC competition. That does not mean they would miss someone if they were shooting at them.
As many have rightly noted, the whole idea behind this thread was not under estimating ones advesaries.
It wasn't to glorify criminals, or try to make assumptions about how many, LEOs, military personal, etc turn to crime. Nor to subscribe to them top notch shooting abilities.
In my view though too many people assume all,or the very vast majority of criminals are ineffectual with firearms.
Below is a story that appeared today on Drudge.
Three teenagers shot in Southeast D.C., one near school
We don't know the details of distance, weapon used, number of shots fired etc, but two not seriously wounded and one in serious condition.
No one was killed, but they were all hit and DC isn't known for being an area where people can easily practice, or have access to large supplies of ammunition.
It wasn't to glorify criminals, or try to make assumptions about how many, LEOs, military personal, etc turn to crime. Nor to subscribe to them top notch shooting abilities.
In my view though too many people assume all,or the very vast majority of criminals are ineffectual with firearms.
Below is a story that appeared today on Drudge.
Three teenagers shot in Southeast D.C., one near school
We don't know the details of distance, weapon used, number of shots fired etc, but two not seriously wounded and one in serious condition.
No one was killed, but they were all hit and DC isn't known for being an area where people can easily practice, or have access to large supplies of ammunition.
as far as criminals shooting ability , I believe they are like anyone else. Some lazy and rob up close and personal. Some dont ever shoot and couldnt hit the broad side of a barn if they had too. Some civilian and leo are the same. Cant hit nothing, dont ever practice or anything and then there are those who do practice and are awesome. Leos, civilians and gangbangers. Its basically the same in all walks in life, THE QUESTION IS, WHICH ARE YOU?
I have the ability to go to training camps, participate in competitions and practice every day if I want to.
Most criminals don't have complete unfettered access to those training resources. I think they do train but they do so at the risk of being caught by the police - either trespassing on someone's land or shooting in an abandoned building.
I wouldn't say they are bad shots, but I think it's fair to say that they don't have the opportunity to train like a law abiding citizen can ( I'm not counting NYC or Chicago).
Here is my other point. The anti-gun crowd is always talking about stricter gun laws - but they NEVER talk about stricter sentencing for repeat offenders and felons using firearms. And I don't remember the NRA really pushing it either.
I think if a felon wants to practice with a firearm they're not supposed to have in the first place - then they should do it at the risk of going to prison for 20 years if they're caught.
There are always going to be criminals who aren't deterred period - no matter what. I don't know what school of criminology came up with the classification of the incorrigible criminal - I've seen it in Gary Kleck's writings. I’m not arguing that more gun laws are going to deter criminals who are already breaking laws – including gun laws. But maybe felons who are determined to arm themselves should just be incarcerated period. It seems that Florida implemented similar laws and they seem to have improved things.
Most criminals don't have complete unfettered access to those training resources. I think they do train but they do so at the risk of being caught by the police - either trespassing on someone's land or shooting in an abandoned building.
I wouldn't say they are bad shots, but I think it's fair to say that they don't have the opportunity to train like a law abiding citizen can ( I'm not counting NYC or Chicago).
Here is my other point. The anti-gun crowd is always talking about stricter gun laws - but they NEVER talk about stricter sentencing for repeat offenders and felons using firearms. And I don't remember the NRA really pushing it either.
I think if a felon wants to practice with a firearm they're not supposed to have in the first place - then they should do it at the risk of going to prison for 20 years if they're caught.
There are always going to be criminals who aren't deterred period - no matter what. I don't know what school of criminology came up with the classification of the incorrigible criminal - I've seen it in Gary Kleck's writings. I’m not arguing that more gun laws are going to deter criminals who are already breaking laws – including gun laws. But maybe felons who are determined to arm themselves should just be incarcerated period. It seems that Florida implemented similar laws and they seem to have improved things.
Pardon me if this has been said, but--
Violent criminals who use firearms routinely in COMBAT SITUATIONS will likely be better shots under stress. I have no extensive training, never served, never been in a gunfight- and while I remain a pretty good shot, I know the there's no way in hell I'd be able to outfight anyone with training or experience. Especially the latter.
As I said, I am no expert- far from it. But it would seem like, to me, that the more experienced you are the more calm and levelheaded you are during gunfights. I wonder how much experience you need to use the full extent of the accuracy you produce when not in combat.
Violent criminals who use firearms routinely in COMBAT SITUATIONS will likely be better shots under stress. I have no extensive training, never served, never been in a gunfight- and while I remain a pretty good shot, I know the there's no way in hell I'd be able to outfight anyone with training or experience. Especially the latter.
As I said, I am no expert- far from it. But it would seem like, to me, that the more experienced you are the more calm and levelheaded you are during gunfights. I wonder how much experience you need to use the full extent of the accuracy you produce when not in combat.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
All sorts of speculations about what criminals can do. Thing is that it's just guessing based on stereotyping.
hangglider
Moderator
Another shooting with assault rifle: http://timesfreepress.com/news/2012/jan/13/chattanooga-man-shot-eastdale/?breakingnews