What makes some people think all criminals are bad shots?

I think Pax nailed it; people like simple answers, and they want to reassure themselves.

Others brought up critical points, too. Underestimating the enemy's capabilities is poor tactics, and poor strategy. I don't know any military that preaches the minimization of the enemy's abilities when training. They may try to dehumanize the enemy, so that troops find it easier to pull the trigger, but if anything, they portray the enemy as a monster, not a hamster.

Sun Tzu also nailed it. Don't underestimate the enemy; don't overestimate yourself.
 
I don't know what to believe any more

There is the much touted survey of prison inmates that said that the number one thing they fear is an armed citizen - I believe the NRA uses this study frequently.

That certainly seems to conflict with:

Criminals, particularly gang members, are normally not frightened of being confronted by a citizen with a firearm

But I also have read 2 news stories recently where a criminal and or gang members were not frightened off by a homeowner brandishing a gun - or even firing warning shots.

It would seem to contridict the idea that the sound of a shotgun being racked sends criminals fleeing.

I think the statistic still is that in 85% of cases criminal break off an attack at the sight of a gun - but like all statistics this applies generally to situations across the board. So those statistics include attempted muggings where the attacker is armed only with fists or a bludgeon, rapists armed similarly, car theives where the owner walks out armed while they're attempting to wire the car... I'm not sure anyone has narrowed down the statistics to see how they apply to those attacks by violent gang members, or those cases where the attackers are armed with high capacity / major caliber weapons.

convicts often have nothing better to do to keep busy in prison but to practice taking guns away from you by distracting you and executing well-rehearsed moves

IMO, another argument against firing a warning a shot, the time you take your weapon away from target and discharge it may be all the time the attacker needs to cover the ground between you and grapple with you / make your weapon inoperable or take it away from you.

The last thing I want to address is this idea that criminals are or are not afraid of me as an armed citizen.

I really don't care. I hope that no one cares if a criminal is either afraid of them or not and I hope no one is intimidated by the prospect of a criminal not being afraid of them.

It really doesn't matter. If I am in a situation - the gravest extreme - where lethal force is required, I don't intend to cow the attacker into submission by brandishing a weapon, or making verbal threats, or firing warning shots. I intend to stop the attacker by disrupting vital tissue until the aggression stops.
 
I think television dramas over the years have repeatedly shown the good guys mostly comming out of gun fights without a scratch and the bad guys almost always getting wounded or killed. Sure, as adults we know this is not always true but when you repeatedly see the same senario over and over again with the same outcome it's bound to eventually influence how one thinks. On shows like Criminal Intent, NCIS LA, Law and Order, The Mentalist etc. it is almost comical how the "bad" guys with automatic weapons always miss their targets but the good guys take them out with pistols, sometimes at huge distances.
 
^ I think Hollywood has had a HUGE impact on self-defense / justifiable homicide laws.

It's led to important misunderstandings on the part of judges, juries, and lawmakers, about violent confrontations I have found that the people who vehemently oppose Castle Doctrine usually believe in one or more of these Hollywood generated myths about firearms. The people who came up with the duty to retreat doctrine had no realistic idea of what violent attackers actually do or how they act, how a normal human responds while being attacked or what happens in a violent confrontation.

I wish the NRA would take on these myths when they are propogated by the media.
 
The people who came up with the duty to retreat doctrine had no realistic idea of what violent attackers actually do or how they act, how a normal human responds while being attacked or what happens in a violent confrontation.
Those people need to watch the movie "In Cold Blood" (or read the book) Even when the criminals are executed, you don't feel good about it even tho' they deserved it by anybody's definition -- just maybe numb or a little sick.
 
The constant use of "Bad Guy" to identify and describe a particular person is in itself ignorant. Are they bad as soon as they wake up or is this something that only applies during particular activities? If someone has a job but does bad things on the weekend are they bad 24/7 or only on Saturday and Sunday?

Is there a card someone must carry in their wallet identifying them as a "Good Guy?" (Oh, my Good Guy card? It's right here next to my driver's license, CCW permit, and my TFL screen name.)

Second, bad guys are lazy- otherwise they would have jobs.

I'm lazy and I'm laid off for the winter, so does that mean I'm in danger of loosing my Good Guy status?



I know everyone likes a good "Us vs Them" but life isn't a college football game. The guy who is fixing your transmission might be the guy selling your kid dope later in the day. The young vet that you just got done telling "Thanks for your service" could very well be the one to stick a pistol in your back later this evening.
 
Willie Lowman said:
The constant use of "Bad Guy" to identify and describe a particular person is in itself ignorant. Are they bad as soon as they wake up or is this something that only applies during particular activities? If someone has a job but does bad things on the weekend are they bad 24/7 or only on Saturday and Sunday?

It clearly applies to a person who is or has committed a crime. They're pretty "bad" guys.

How would you prefer that we refer to this person? Suspect? Person of Interest? Convict? Criminal? Wrongly convicted, poor, innocent guy who only robbed the store because his mom was mean to him?

They're "bad guys". Referring to them as such is hardly ignorant.:rolleyes:
 
So, if someone commits armed robbery, they are a bad guy. I think we are in agreement.

What If they committed several armed robberies five years ago, they now own their own business and support their wife and two kids. Are they still a bad guy?

What if they sell dope but they help stop a burglary? Good bad guy?
 
Completely outside the context of the use of the word in this discussion. I'm confident we're not talking about the marksmanship of a former bank robber who found Jesus.

Context is your friend.
 
While some may not be, the majority of them in Washington, DC appear to be.

Plenty of 'shots fired' with no affect.

That would tend to indicate they are not very good shots.

Unless they are illegally practicing with their illegally possessed guns?

The problem is that at 'bad breath distance' you do not need to be all that good a shot, and a lot of 'events' likely end without shots even being fired (from good or bad guys).

I know how many rounds I fired learning to move and shoot and hit movig targets.

The number of hood rats with similar training and practice is most likely vanishingly small.

Distance, movement, cover.

Even against a good shot they are all your friend.
 
some bad guys even shoot better than your average cop.

Damned with faint praise.

I used to shoot IDPA mini-matches at a local range. There were a couple of cops that shot there regularly (sometimes even using their duty rig). They were GOOD.

...and then once, a cop showed up "to brush up for qualification" and shot the match...... tea-cup grip, came down on the target on each shot, glacial times and would have been more accurate if had thrown rocks ..... the regular shooter cops remarked "Hey at least he fired the thing between Quals!"
 
IF the bad guys were "all" such good shots, why is it that 10-25% of the victims seem to be innocent bystanders?

"Because, Statistically Speaking, the most dangerous thing you can do in life is be standing on the street/sitting in a car (in a crappy part of town between the hours of 1 and 3 AM), "Minding Your Own Business"."

That's why.
 
Prepare, yes, but ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a gunfight, I'd rather be lucky than good.

Fate doesn't care how much you've trained.

Why bother to waste all that time preparing if Fate determines the outcome? Heck, why are you even in a gun fight at all. Fate will determine whether you live or die so why bother with unnecessary things like preparation, training, or even owning a gun? Come on. Fate? Really?

I know how many rounds I fired learning to move and shoot and hit movig targets.

The number of hood rats with similar training and practice is most likely vanishingly small.

Sure, but you are likely an exception to most gun owners who are lucky to get to the range once a year to practice. Many of the bad guys may not practice as much as you, but more and more are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan as combat hardened and US military trained soldiers. Of course, this isn't a new problem.
 
Back
Top