In the thread about what you would do if you were held up at gunpoint, someone commented that you could run and rely on a bad guy's shooting to keep you safe. I've seen this brought up repeatedly in other areas. My question is why anyone buys into this stupid and dangerous belief?
It's been known for years that gangs infiltrate members into the military in order to receive weapons training. These become cadre for the gangs, and teach their skills. Gangs are also infiltrating police agencies (i.e. LAPD). Also, many criminals may have law enforcement/military backgrounds. Anyone remember the two perps who took out the FBI in Miami in '86? If I recall, both were ex-military.
A basic rule of combat is never underestimate the enemy. So, why do we persist in believing that the other guy can't shoot straight? They seem to be about as effective as the police, and they have a higher kill rate per round fired than the military.
With my luck, the first time I'm attacked, it will be by an ex-SEAL who got booted for excessive brutality and can't find a job. I know I'll never be trained enough to match him, but I want to be able to at least compete.
T
It's been known for years that gangs infiltrate members into the military in order to receive weapons training. These become cadre for the gangs, and teach their skills. Gangs are also infiltrating police agencies (i.e. LAPD). Also, many criminals may have law enforcement/military backgrounds. Anyone remember the two perps who took out the FBI in Miami in '86? If I recall, both were ex-military.
A basic rule of combat is never underestimate the enemy. So, why do we persist in believing that the other guy can't shoot straight? They seem to be about as effective as the police, and they have a higher kill rate per round fired than the military.
With my luck, the first time I'm attacked, it will be by an ex-SEAL who got booted for excessive brutality and can't find a job. I know I'll never be trained enough to match him, but I want to be able to at least compete.
T