Additionally, these supposedly highly trained officers were firing at the perp from less than 40' away and with perfect light conditions with which to see their target.  

         What good is it when the police can barely hit their targets ( from point blank range ! ) and still end up shooting nine innocent bystanders ?  

                                               So who do you rely upon then ?

A lot of police do not have frequent occasion to fire their weapons, and do not maintain a safe standard of marksmanship. It sucks and we should change it.

Additionally there is phenomenon in the anyone except army soldiers, and even them too sometimes, where the brain will sabotage attempts to kill another human being. Especially with guns, which are so easy to throw the aim off completely if you shake it even alittle bit.

We really need better trained police everywhere, since, in reality, getting rid of guns is pretty much out of the question in America.

Right, cos when someone starts shooting a gun in a crowded area and everyone pulls their own weapons as soon as they hear gunfire, everyone's immediately gonna know who the asshole starting the firefight was and no one will make the mistake of shooting at the guy who was in fact defending the victim of the attack and shot the criminal.

Well trained at what, an actual firefight? Going to the range to shoot at a target doesn't do a damn thing to stop you from panicking like hell when there's bullets flying around you.

  You are absolutely right. 

  Shooting paper targets ( or reactive targets ) is to build a foundation of basic marksmanship.  Learning to hit what you are aiming at is the first step. ( I have abandoned the typical "one eye closed" target style aiming procedure and now only shoot both eyes open. )

 Here in the States there are schools that for a fee will instruct a student on purely defensive /  combat oriented tactics.   Static shooting will not be on the main menu, instead tactics and proper procedures will be taught.  Shooting / reloading on the move, clearing weapon malfunctions, the difference between "concealment" and "cover", etc.

The instructors are almost always ex-military and ex-law enforcement.  

 Of course any student can go back and re-enter the training cycle which is also rated as to the students previous level of training.  All it takes is commitment.

And opportunity and money.  If the nearest school is 500 miles away, many people will not be able to afford to go or to get the time off the job.

You are absolutely correct that in order to accurately fire a weapon in a situation like that, you need more practice than shooting at stationary targets.  And if we could ensure that everyone who owned a gun, had that training, we could all breathe easier.

I once had a friend whose father died.  Her mother, in her late 60s, had never handled a gun before in her life.  But she wanted to get a pistol for "protection."  I told my friend I doubted she would able to learn to handle a gun well enough given the mother's physical disabilities.  And that she should tell her mother to be sure to set aside some redecorating money.  If she ever managed to shoot someone inside the house, she would need new carpets and the room repainted at the very least.  Her mother decided not to get a gun and we all breathed a sigh of relief.

The problem with having most everyone carry is you have no idea who can't hit the broad side of a barn.  And people will either freeze or shoot wildly.  Make it a requirement that anyone who owns a gun has to attend one of those combat oriented schools, and I will be more willing to support "conceal and carry" laws.

     The reason I cited this example of police shooting innocent bystanders is in response to persons like yourself who are against civilian self-defense using fire arms.    Okay, keep them out of civilian hands as you would prefer, now what ?     You've done nothing but shift the responsibility to a very, very small number of peace officers who may end up killing you by mistake.  Given the example I have provided does that sound like a good trade off to you ?

                     Life is full of risks.  Fight back or run and hide, it your choice.

I think it would pose more of a risk for civvies to be defenseless with only poorly trained police on the scene.

Who do you rely on to prevent a drunk driver from smashing into you at 120kph? A FAR more likely occurrence than someone pointing a gun at you.

The world is neither safe nor controllable. Accept it and move on. Giving everyone a gun will simply make it more dangerous.

Because you resort to emotion instead of logic. But don't worry, I never expected you to understand the simple logistics of a thousand confused, scared, and untrained civilians opening fire on a crowded street surrounded by office towers or houses.

Which is why I said thousands instead of tens of thousands.

There's plenty of people arguing we'd be safer if almost everyone had a gun.

The only person who has even a small chance to stop it by trying to get out of the way, me. If I see a vehicle being controlled erratically I try to avoid it. The cops generally arrive AFTER the vehicle already crashed into me, I would prefer to avoid that. 

Sensible

Giving? I'm not for giving anyone anything. But yeah, they can purchase a gun. Allowing everyone to purchase a car simply makes the world more dangerous too. Allowing everyone to purchase booze makes the world more dangerous. Allowing humans to live makes the world a little more dangerous. But as you put so well a moment ago,

We're talking downtown NYC. Within two blocks of the Empire State Building, during business hours, I'm quite sure there are a good 50k people in the area. Give them all guns and you have a war zone, not a few civilian sharpshooters.

"Why don't you take your own advice and stop trying to control the world by outlawing guns? I accept it, take what small steps I can to protect myself, and move on. "

Right wingers amuse me. If I was ever for banning guns, it was many years ago. I haven't argued to ban all firearms.

I have absolutely no problem with cops getting better training. In fact it is desperately needed, and in more areas than marksmanship. But noone has ever provided a credible argument for arming the masses.

I am all for people deciding for themselves, I do think it is a really good idea for everyone to at least have a gun in their home, but I will not force it on anyone. I don't particularly care if everyone carries guns- it would certainly make society much more polite. But the reality is that on a small portion of the population will choose to carry.

Police cannot effectively prevent crimes or effectively stop crimes in progress, in the vast majority of cases police arrive after the crime is committed and attempt to determine who is guilty, track them down and arrest them. I do not like the idea of living in a country where the police force is so large that there is a police officer nearby. I would prefer to defend myself, and the police take care of sorting things out after the fact. 

People can choose whether or not to carry themselves. Anyone who chooses to carry has a responsibility to know how to safely handle their weapon, just like anyone who drives a vehicle has a responsibility to learn how to drive it safely. I don't see what the big deal is. Personally, I don't think you even need a CCW license, just allow people to carry and punish anyone who poses a danger to others, but I am willing to concede to license requirements because I am a decent compromising person like that. As long as the licensing requirements are not so strict as to make it impossible or ridiculously difficult for a citizen to get one. 

Let's take god, up in the sky. Waves his hands and sends lightening bolts down and strikes people dead.... Colorado has a concealed carry law, not everyone in the theater was carrying, NO ONE in the theater was carrying. This fear that everyone is going to run around with guns shooting at each other just because you legalize concealed carry is completely baseless. There simply are not that many of us that wish to carry and even many of us who carry do not carry 100% of the time. You might as well argue that because cigarettes are legal, everyone in the country is a smoker. 

In Ohio it is fairly easy to get a CCW, how many have one? Approximately 250,000 people, that represents 2% of our population. Other states that track CCW permits see similar rates. 

Completely legalised firearms is arming the masses. Which is not to say everyone will have a gun, but I (and many others) would sure as hell buy one if they were completely legal, just to try and protect myself from everyone else who has one. Since they aren't, I don't have to. It's exceptionally unlikely that anyone will point a gun at me.

But... who is even saying that guns should be completely legalized and have no regulations?

Even that is hardly arming the masses. Arming the masses would be the government handing out weapons and ammunition.

I thought we were discussing a specific incident, and our beliefs about it (and gun ownership)?

How am I supposed to defend someone else's belief that hadn't even been part of the discussion until you whipped it out?

Forgive if I just reply to those points I feel need clarified.

As far as I am aware, in the US, in every state, no classes of any kind are required.  Gun regulations are state by state here, not national.  So it can get confusing.  I do know the discussion of requiring some sort of class has been brought up in some states, but it has been shot down.  Part of my frustration is that the responsible people do take classes, do practice, do not mind other safety requirements - trigger locks or locked storage.  It is the irresponsible people who shoot up movie theaters, etc.  And those irresponsible people are within their legal rights to own those weapons.

BS and others have made the point that there are irresponsible people driving, drinking, smoking, getting high, etc.  I am not arguing with that.  And yes, a vehicle can be a lethal weapon that can kill many people all at once.  It just occurred to me that maybe we need weapon insurance, similar to car insurance.  You have to have insurance for every weapon you own.  The insurance companies would quickly figure out the actuarial tables for type and number of weapons.  That would be a limit on it for some people.  Sure, there would be people without weapon insurance, just like there are people without car insurance.  But it would put some brakes on the problem.

No, I did not mean that everyone should be issued a weapon like in Switzerland.  I meant that if we are sure that more people carrying would mean less crime, maybe if everyone carried we would be too scared to be anything but on our best behavior.  If 2% (BS' number) are armed, then surely 99% would be best?  Maybe I'm being sarcastic, and maybe not.  I haven't made up my mind.

Sorry, I mentioned her in another post.  She was pushing 70 and had never owned a gun before, never shot one before.  Her husband died and she was thinking about getting a pistol "for protection."  I don't know about you, but the idea gave me the willies when my friend told me about her mom. 

Other grandma's might be okay with a gun.  My grandmother-in-law grew up in Nebraska in a sod house.  She could handle a pistol and was a dead shot, even in her 70s.  She refused to have one in the house.  She had been a nurse all her life and knew all about gunshot wounds.  When she wanted protection, she put a flooring hammer by her bed where it was easy to swing up and hit an intruder with the pointy end.  Vicious.

Well, this is where I was responding more to BS or PDW than you.  (Can't remember which said it, and I'm too lazy to go look)  He said (paraphrasing) that the perpetrator shot his ex-boss in an office.  And if someone in the office had had a weapon, maybe the perp could have been stopped right then and there.  Which led to my rather sarcastic response.  I just have a hard time seeing how that might work.

I am not intending it to be a strawman or a slippery slope argument.  It just seems logical that if you are going to argue that the fact that 2% of the population carry a weapon and that makes people safer, then surely, more people carrying would be even safer yet.  (See above) 

I don't see how carrying a weapon makes you safer at all.  How does having one in the house make you safer?  "Excuse me, my gun is in the bottom of my backpack/purse somewhere.  Would you mind holding off robbing me until I can get it out?"

And before anyone jumps on the bandwagon - yes, I have had weapons in my house in the past.  Yes, I have gone target shooting and hunting in the past.  No, I am not particularly squeamish about handling them or shooting someone else under the right conditions. 

For gun ownership you are correct. For the right to carry concealed you are not. The only thing that will currently prevent you from legally purchasing a gun is failing the FBI background check. Currently you are disqualified if you are a convicted felon, convicted of domestic assault, dishonorably discharged from the military, not a citizen, indicted for a felony, mentally ill, or have any outstanding warrants.

What I have been talking about is the right for a citizen who already legally owns a gun to carry it in public. In most states, classes are required to get the permit to do so. Off the top of my head, the only states you can carry concealed without taking any classes are Vermont, Alaska and Arizona. (At least you used to be able to, not sure if the laws remain the same today and too lazy to look pre-coffee. Although if other states classes are as much fluff as Ohio's class was, well required classes don't give me a lot of confidence in a person's ability to use the weapon in a high stakes situation. Government classes are simply crap whether it is driving, insurance licensing or concealed carry. 

Interesting idea, I wouldn't be completely opposed to it depending on the details of course. 

The point of carrying is to have your weapon accessible. There are several carrying methods which allow for complete concealment and quick access to your weapon. The only time I may not have time to draw and fire my weapon is if the attacker already has a gun pointed at me, at which point he better be willing to pull the trigger, because his time is extremely limited. With practice (and you should practice your draw a lot) most people can learn to draw and fire their weapon in about 3 seconds. If you are a gun nut and practice a lot you should be able to get it to under 2 seconds.