Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:02:17 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"l, not -l" wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25-Aug-2012, George > wrote:
> >>
> >> > If I was in that scenario I would not have emptied a clip into someone
> >> > if I was on a crowded city street. You are supposed to know what is in
> >> > the line of fire and what damage you can cause.
> >>
> >> Have you ever been in a firefight? Ever been in the line of fire? Until
> >> you have, you have no idea what you would do.
> >
> >Says someone with likely zero firearms experience or training.
>
> OK-- *I'll* ask, then. Have you (or George) ever been face to face
> with a loaded gun and had to use deadly force?

Fortunately not, though it came close once. Those making the claims that
a civilian couldn't shoot better than a cop however have mostly not even
ever fired a gun at a range. There are a number of studies that
consistently show that civilians have better hit ratios than police.
People want to think that police are highly trained marksmen, but that
is simply not the reality unless the particular cop is on a SWAT team.
That indeed is why SWAT teams exist, to provide a backup force with a
higher level of training.

>
> Jim
> [and yes-- *I* have-- thankfully not on a busy city street. Mine
> were in free fire zones so we didn't have to worry about collateral
> damage---- but I can definitely vouch for the difference between
> imagination and reality]

Military experience is really quite a different thing from city streets
with civilian populations. Not that it isn't valid combat experience,
but it is different enough to not be transferable in a meaningful way.