Clarification for: “And this is because (collectively on a nation wide basis) police encounter more situations daily where their ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’ is involved – where the ordinary citizen gun owner is restricted by mostly the desire to not have to shoot someone unless its absolutely necessary and adherence to the ‘law’ defining ‘deadly force use’ for them which makes, collectively, ordinary citizen gun owners more ‘law’ abiding than (collectively) police are overall. ”

Police, where ‘deadly force’ is concerned, are required to also follow the law -BUT! – they have an exemption from it except in the most egregious circumstances. Their exemptions are where their ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’ is involved.

Ok, brandishing a firearm (AKA drawing your firearm) is (broadly) considered a use of, or depending on the situation a part of or threat of use of, ‘deadly force’ even if you did not fire. The applications in the law to how serious the brandishing was in relation to the situation may determine that a brandishing was or was not an application of actual deadly force. For the ordinary law abiding armed citizen there are very few circumstances under which brandishing is permitted, basically, the threat has to be almost on top of you before you can brandish. So basically an ordinary law abiding armed citizen, in relation to firearms use, is not permitted that which police officers have and that is ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’. So police officers draw their firearms a lot more than ordinary law abiding armed citizens do and are permitted to do it using their own ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and its so routine (collectively, nation wide) that its not even mentioned or considered in anything unless, basically, someone got actually shot. This is just not, say, police officers in a city, its the the entire law-enforcement community (federal, state, county, local).

This gives a false impression that law-enforcement overall are more ‘safe’ with firearms compared to the ordinary law abiding armed citizen. In reality, overall ordinary law abiding armed citizens are greatly more safe for firearms use, because, overall, two reasons: First, they do not employ a ‘self judgement perception’ of ‘personal safety’ like law enforcement is permitted to do for ‘officer safety’ and draw their firearms because they ‘I feelz’ (and not saying there are not situations where law enforcement doesn’t need that). Second, they do not have a culture of ‘‘self judgement perception” allowed them. —- or overall, in short, overall ordinary law abiding armed citizens are greatly more safer for firearms use than law enforcement is simply because ordinary law abiding armed citizens don’t draw their firearms for ‘‘self judgement perception” but rather for actual active threat. This is not to say every person is perfect all the time, there are some who are not as safe as others with firearms just as there are those who, for example, are not as safe with driving a car as others may be.

clarification correction for : “..and for some reason they never define clearly a gun owner is more likely to shoot someone accidentally because they are not ‘trained’ (and from their arguments, implied not trained as police officers are).”

The anti-gun argument never defines clearly their claim a gun owner is more likely to shoot someone accidentally because they are not ‘trained’ (and from their arguments, implied not trained as police officers are).

Its a bogus and disingenuous argument used to paint a deceptive picture.

correction for: “…is that a trained police officer is less likely to shoot a criminal ’cause training’”

should have been…

“… is that a trained police officer is less likely to shoot someone accidentally, including a criminal, ’cause training’…”

That’s true but its not true too (while at the same time being true broadly) – you did a sort of unintentional apples vs oranges thing there, both are fruit but each is a different kind of fruit.

Its true that gun owners only actually pull the trigger less than 5% of the time when they draw the gun, but in the overall of annual defensive gun uses about 90% did pull the gun and brandish preparing to defend causing the bad guy to run off so didn’t need to fire. But also, there is a difference in perception police have to their advantage the ordinary citizen gun owner does not have.

But at the same time, although police actually pulling the trigger “is about as rare” (comparatively to number of ordinary citizen gun owners) as gun owner firing police do draw their firearms (on a collective basis) more than gun owners would. For example, officers had their firearms drawn but did not actually fire but when its looked at no where in the report is it mentioned the officers had drawn their firearms in public – in other words, the point is: Police (collectively) draw their firearms (without firing), on a comparative nation wide basis with the number of ordinary citizen gun owners defensive use, actually more than ordinary citizen gun owners defensive use yet its not reported but if an ordinary citizen gun owner were to do it in public its plastered all over the news. And this is because (collectively on a nation wide basis) police encounter more situations daily where their ‘self judgement perception’ of, broadly, ‘officer safety’ and ‘qualified immunity’ is involved – where the ordinary citizen gun owner is restricted by mostly the desire to not have to shoot someone unless its absolutely necessary and adherence to the ‘law’ defining ‘deadly force use’ for them which makes, collectively, ordinary citizen gun owners more ‘law’ abiding than (collectively) police are overall.

But this brings up another point though. One of the vague ’emotionally based’ arguments that anti-gun make sometimes is that a trained police officer is less likely to shoot a criminal ’cause training’ and for some reason they never define clearly a gun owner is more likely to shoot someone accidentally because they are not ‘trained’ (and from their arguments, implied not trained as police officers are).

For accidentally shot by police vs. ordinary law abiding armed citizens:

* Handguns: Less than a 0.0004% probability a person will be shot accidentally by an ordinary law abiding armed citizen, a little more than a 6% probability a person will be shot accidentally by law enforcement.​

* Rifles: A 0.0005% probability a person will be shot accidentally by an ordinary law abiding armed citizen, a 4.7% probability a person will be shot accidentally by law enforcement.​
​
When near misses (‘others’ not actually hit) and personal injury ‘negligent discharge’ types are factored in …​
​
* Handgun: law enforcement slightly over 7% probability – ordinary law abiding armed citizen a little over 0.0004% probability.​

* Rifle : law enforcement – 5.2% probability – ordinary law abiding armed citizen a little over 0.0003% probability.

Very well said. He’s justifying his superiority to the ignorant readership

“Most of the day is spent on finding ways to remove myself from a dangerous situation before things escalate. Can I run? Can I hide? Running and hiding are not cowardice; they mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address.”

Running and hiding are not cowardice, that’s true. But it does not “mean taking the higher moral ground of avoiding confrontation in a situation where the person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address.”. Its a good thing to avoid confrontation when you are armed and you should but you don’t do it for ‘moral high ground’ but rather its survival instinct motivated in sane people, not a moral high ground. And that’s where his problem lies, his desire to reach a ‘moral high ground’ instead of survival and in that few seconds or less that considering ‘moral high ground’ and not recognizing the need for survival can get you killed. A “person seemingly threatening you might be drunk, or off their meds, or simply confused about which is their car or the right address” will not hesitate to harm you if they so desire no matter what you do – he thinks these are not threats because he can have a ‘moral high ground’ – he doesn’t see the reality that these, in his scenario, are threats even though he has stated “seemingly threatening” – either they are threatening or not, there is no ‘seemingly’. He thinks its something over which to achieve a ‘moral high ground’ – a threat is a threat until its proven otherwise, he doesn’t understand that and not understanding that can get you killed. And sure, some people do make mistakes or act wrongly just as some people do for or with anything – for example, drunk drivers.

See, that’s a problem with this guy and even states it without realizing it by saying “My education as a liberal gun owner…” – that, right there, that ‘liberal’ part. Liberals have trained their selves to look at the world in terms of ‘moral high grounds’ that suits them, that are self-satisfying, and he is still trying to apply that to defensive gun use and that’s not what defensive gun use is about at all.

you just described anti-gun people.

The embedded video above is laughable. Whenever I’ve taken newbies for shotgun fun (whether steel target or some rounds of clays), I always start off with an empty shottie to discuss proper buttstock placement. Meat of the muscle, never the crook of your shoulder joint…that’s a great way to cause an uncomfortable injury. And then I load a single low-power birdshot shell. After firing it, if they don’t like it, then the gun is now “empty” and safe, as compared to still containing more shells.

Only two people (both ladies of smaller stature) didn’t like it, but upon switching to smaller 20-ga, loved it.