Are Gun Owners Overconfident About Their Ability to Use a Gun in Self Defense?

https://www.vpc.org/studies/uninthree.htm

Too many things could go wrong and too many gun owners overestimate their skill with a gun. Sometimes even well-trained police officers make mistakes.The courts will generally give a police officer the benefit of the doubt if he/she ends up shooting someone. Prosecutors have an incentive to maintain a good relationship with the police department. An ordinary citizen, however, who makes a mistake will likely face civil/criminal charges. The three hour class that you take to get your carry permit does not prepare you for an armed conflict with a violent thug in the real world.

 

Well duh. That is one reason I carry SA/DA so I don't have to 'remember' to take it off safety.

Training doesn't prepare you either as you point out about police. Police also face criminal charges for making mistakes but then, they have to approach the criminal while citizens don't.

Are you arguing that citizens should not be able to protect themselves because a mistake 'could' be made? That would have to be carried to police because a mistake 'could' be made.

Heck, many citizens practice much more than most police do.

BTW, vpc is a well known gun control organization and will only show biased reports on how guns are bad.

 

I've had more extensive traing then an average joe but you are right in that use of fire arms is a depreciating skill that must be maintained. Even with my skill I still only maintain a shotgun at the ready for home defense. A shotgun cuts down on the chances of a miss and makes it lest likely to tear through a wall and hit an innocent. Like anything the more you practice the better you will be at handling your firearm.

 

Do you mean that real life isn't a Hollywood movie where you shoot people with one shot and they instantly fall?

I wonder how many families have been killed by fathers who think their gun will save the day. People are more likely to be shot if there's a gun in their home.

 

Especially criminals.

 

I practice with my carry weapon more than the police are required to. I doubt the average policeman practices more than he is required to. I do it because I enjoy it. They do it because they are required to. I would further argue that training is far more effective when the student actually WANTS to become proficient, rather than as a requirement of his job.

I am as prepared and confident in my abilities to use my weapon in a self defense situation as I can possibly be. My goal in carrying is to protect myself and my family. I'm not trying to be a hero. I won't protect you... that's your job.

 

Heck, the police aren't even required to protect you.

 

True - things can go wrong. If you're going to carry, or keep a gun at home for safety, go to the shooting range regularly and practice. Learn to clean and care for your gun as well.

Sometimes? The police, in general, are notoriously bad shots.

Law enforcement has to meet a lower standard, true, but if you're carrying or have a gun in your home for self-defense, and you are confronted with a potentially fatal incident, the last thing you should be thinking about is whether you'll be sued if you shoot a criminal who intends to harm you. Use common sense, however, don't shoot through the door when you don't know what's on the other side.

True, but it gives you an advantage you would not have if you could not defend yourself. No one deserves to be violently victimized by criminals.

 

Yep, gun owners are always can't understand when thay can use their guns and when they can't!
Imagine that person beat your girl, you can beat him with bare hands, but you will use your gun, because it's "less dangerous" and because of adrenaline!

 

Questionable validity regarding the source.

Quite correct. Even police officers make mistakes, despite all of their training. That in itself would suggest that mandating longer training times will yield no beneficial results.

There is also the fact that numerous state police precincts average a hit rate at or below forty percent. That breaks down to only four or less out of every ten bullets fired by police hitting the ended target. That is six or more bullets out of every ten bullets fired by police potentially striking and killing unintended targets, such as children, pets, or innocent bystanders.

It is a possibility, but not set in stone. Hence the reason for the push to implement stand your ground laws.

The class given is not to prepare you for engaging in a firearms fight with a potential threat. It is to educate you on the laws of your state of residence, and how they may apply to you.

Of note, however, is this citation in the article by the Violence Policy Center.

Would this not be considered an admittance how there is no guarantee that a magazine holding only ten rounds of ammunition is adequate? If the felons in the reports showed no indication that they had been hit, and will actually get back up off the ground, due to being on drugs or alcohol at the time, would that not suggest that the potential victim has a legitimate need for magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition?

 

Ayuh,..... Come on over some night, 'n kick in My door,....

Then We can decide whether My havin' been a Shooter for the last 4 decades has paid off, or not,....

 

A woman in Atlanta shot a man in the face 5 times as he was coming after her and her two children hiding in a closet in their own home. He was coming after them with a crowbar. She not only protected herself and her two children from being murdered but she got the satisfaction of watching the attacker beg her not to shoot him anymore.
So much for your argument. If you aren't confident to have a gun then don't get one but don't speak for other people who choose not to be victims.

 

In all fairness, the above case does confirm a point of the study by the Violence Policy Center.

In the referenced case, the woman shot the intruder five times in the head, face, and neck. He eventually got up and left, meaning being shot in the head did not kill him.

At the very least, that confirms the notion of tens rounds of being sufficient is inadequate.

 

Exactly correct. If she had missed even one of those shots he still could have been able to harm her and her children or even kill them. Either way, the gun saved her and children from harm and that is a fact.

 

For some that might actually be true but I would have to say for many the suggestions do not apply. I can only speak for myself, I was raised around guns and learned to use them properly as a child, I spent eight years in the Army and was a Mechanized Infantry Company unit armorer, meaning I worked on guns as my job and have run firing ranges for both Military and LE agencies. I have hunted all my life and have a range on my own property and shoot weekly and have many friends that do the same. I have used a variety of guns in combat and have averted more than one crime being committed because the criminal knew I was armed. I am more than confident in my ability to out think and outshoot any punk gangbanger that just got him a shinning new toy he is itching to use on someone, and if they do so with you or yours you will be darn glad if I or another trained shooter is around to deter them or do what is required to stop the crime from happening or continuing. Trying to paint with a broad brush only tends to make a big mess and get the painter covered in paint.
Oh and in case you did not already know, I am LEFT of Center politically.

 

are you sure you want to go there?

 

The same can be said that "bad guys" have a greater chance of being shot when there's a gun in the home!

 

If your premise is true, then why don't we see an epidemic of bystanders getting killed? Why don't we see an epidemic of people being charged and going to jail for misuse of their firearm?

Every state permits concealed carry, there are more guns in Citizens hands than ever before, firearms are used for self-defense anywhere from 200,000 to 3,000,000 times a year, yet rarely is a bystander shot by someone defending themselves. Rarely do people misuse their firearm.

In fact, successful defensive uses of a firearm far outnumber unsuccessful ones. For example, in the study authorized by obama's executive action after Sandy Hook, the CDC study found:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"

"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008"​

Despite the Violence Policy Center study, people seem to be doing just fine with their firearms.

And the VPC is a one man show (Josh Sugarman, formerly of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns) and is at least 85% funded by the Joyce Foundation. Joyce was the money behind almost all gun ban efforts, now Joyce shares the spotlight with former NYC mayor Bloomberg. Sugarman is an ideologue, unreliable, and a stooge for Joyce.

 

People are more likely to be killed in a plane crash if they fly.

 

people who swim are more likely to drown............

 

have some more koolaid.............

 

Yet, these gun owners still use guns to defend their lives.

Are some over confident? Absolutely.
Are there over confident people in any sect? Absolutely.

 

People are also more likely to die in an auto accident if they drive than of they take the bus. So, people are more likely to die of X if you participate in X.

Weird isn't it?

 

I think about what to do if... To ask if gun owners are over confident is covering too small a piece of that whole pie. There are things that a younger person might do that an older guy would consider foolhardy. When I've been in situations where there was the possibility of me having to kill a man, I've reflected on a quote from (I think) Bill Hickok: "You gotta' take your time, quickly". That's my approach, and that doesn't mean that it's the only right way.
As for shooting in darkness... It was an actual encounter that compelled me to install tritium night sights on my defensive hand guns. Expounding on that, I talk with people who run more advanced defense classes, and they're big into practicing "point shooting". That's a matter of muscle training, where you actually engage in practice enough to hit without having to aim. Anyone who has developed a degree of familiarity with his gun does that to some extent anyway. Most of us bring the gun up to the firing position, and actually use the sights just to "fine tune" on the specific point of impact. These things should be going through your head any time you practice.

 

I dispute that most police officers are well trained. in fact most CCW permit holders can out shoot civilian or military police. That has been proven time and time again in both competitions and actual street shootings. But I agree with you on one thing Merely passing a CCW shooting test is not proof of competency. That is why I shoot constantly and shoot under time pressure dozens of times a year, I carry constantly-24 years as a federal prosecutor and now as a private citizen. and I urge everyone who carries to practice practice practice