The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

There are quite a number of good instructors out there that have done considerable study on best practices for success in various senarios. We have tested many suggested tactics and found some work better than others. But the biggest factor from my experience is training and the confidence that comes from it...I train frequently and am always looking for suggestions from others with experience. I believe in training through as many potential senarios as possible, preferably in force on force courses. The more you train, the more a kind of core intuition develops that can transfer to new situations. But, rather than just reading about different techniques, I like testing them as much as is possible and learning both my skills and my limitations (the latter, being the most important). The one thing that is difficult to predict is the impact of adrenaline on performance which is why we like working with simunition in force on force senarios; while non lethal, it still gets the adrenaline flowing and that type of training can prepare you and help mitigate the effects. One aspect of CQB in elite teams is continual training not so much that every action becomes mechanical, but training the mind to be calm and adaptable under stress.
One thing sure to happen when you get instructors together is a great deal of sharing, discussion, teaching and learning...always more to learn. I just happen to run into the following article this morn...

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/getting-the-gun-into-the-fight/

Latherty, I watch movies too. I figure at some point I will be able to do the Matrix dance and to curve bullets around corners... just need to find the right teacher or take the right pill.

 

Except for the fact that it is an accurate assessment of facts. If you believe otherwise, if you truly believe that those who hold valid concealed carry permits are among the most dangerous individuals in society, then present your evidence for review.

 

I love this subject. In my self defense classes, often we replicate the most frequent scenarios. Most gun fire exchanges happen at less than a few feet with just a few shots fired. We teach techniques that distract the gunman, allowing time to block the gun from the surrender, also known as the hands up position, draw, and shoot. From close up, with your hands up, your hands may be less than one foot from the gun. With practice, this is easily achieve in under 1.5 seconds.
When the distance gets a little further to where you cant block the weapon, the lateral movement that you talk about here is the standard method taught by instructors. Practicing the draw is imperative for successful defensive uses. Action is always faster than reaction. With practice, shooting first against a gun that has already been drawn can and has been be successful.

 

Which ultimately means nothing whatsoever. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight whatsoever, and cannot be cited over majority opinions.

Then present these cases that supposedly follow the precedent set by Miller that you refer to.

It is not necessary to demonstrate every single instance of what you claim. A mere handful of instances would be sufficient to prove a pattern of misconduct exists, and the rest unravels from there However you have yet to demonstrate even one example of such.

 

The internationally accepted term for violent crime is the sum of homicide, attempted homicide, manslaughter, robbery (both armed and unarmed), sexual assault, and assault with bodily injury. You have to add the corresponding crimes for AUS to get the AUS violent crime rate, the USA violent crime rate from the FBI UCR is already computed in the UCR tables.

 

what does that matter?

 

Yup it is

 

Are they defined and counted in the same way? Hint: NO

 

why are you arguing about crime rates when the stuff you want to pass is only designed to harass honest gun owners?

 

Nor will they change minds. Most people make a decision based on their individual circumstances and long held beliefs. However, the interesting thing to me is when those among the BM, or Hillary or Obama, fear monger, more people realize the Feds not only do not protect them, they can't and then more and more opt for a modicum of protection and take on the responsibility for themselves and acquire guns. The liberal media pounces on every gun related killing or shooting and it is spread through their ranks like wildfire to both generate profit and to push fear that they hope will result in people getting on board the left's agenda. Every time there is a whacko that goes off the deep end and some leftist uses the incident to push fear and call for gun control like the other attempts, just mentioned that fear results in more gun sales. Obama has been one of the best marketers for the gun industry. The NRA pales in comparison. All the stats in the world won't convince more people they should give up their guns. If people feel threatened, they won't wait for the government, they will not only seek their own remedies but look to ease any restrictions that impede them from doing so. Much of the legislative landscape easing restrictions has occurred during Obama's Administration; Obama's crocodile tears during his speech about Sandy Hook wasn't so much about the children, but he couldn't get support for one of his major Presidential objectives... increasing gun control.

 

This has been gone over many times in the forum. The "violent crime" rate in the AUS crime reports are not to the accepted standard. You have to go by the definitions of the crimes (not labels) in each nations reports, add the equivalent crimes to get a comparable metric.

And no matter how much you want to disbelieve that AUS is more violent than the USA per capita, you cannot refute the fact that in AUS crime skyrocketed when the gun ban went into full effect.

 

According to who? Who's standard? Yours? LOL

 

The FBI standard, which follows the standard used internationally when comparing Western nations crime rates. You don't like it because it blows your 3rd party propaganda arguments out of the water.

 

I just don't think it is accurate

 

I think the correct statement is you don't BELIEVE it is accurate because it hurts your agenda

 

I would suggest that there are correlated issues, such as urbanization and poverty

Presumably, its not the permitted users that are the problem. I find it difficult to imagine a criminal going to the effort to get a permit. The main risk arising from permitted users is that they lose their guns to criminals.

Having said that, the licensed users and their immediate family are far more likely to commit suicide https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

 

You mean me? I haven't claimed to be a firearms expert, and what is the basis for your other assertions?

 

Right, so to be clear, what you are claiming is that Australians are more violent people but have lower murder rates. Wouldn't that actually prove my case?

By the way, do you have the link to where the Aus data has been harmonized?

 

When Australia outlawed guns to a large extent, crime rates soared. This was responded to by a massive increase in the number of police.

 

Which has not happened to any significant degree. There are countless stories being posted that show successful uses of firearms in a self defense role. But there have been no such accounts of those with concealed carry permits having their firearms taken from them by criminals. It is simply not happening. Even if it is happening, it is to such a rare degree, that it is regarded as an insignificant rate.

Such has been discussed at length long before you ever decided to get involved in the matter pertaining to suicide. The argument being presented is flawed and false. One simply does not commit suicide out of the blue with no warning whatsoever. There is no such thing as a spontaneous act of suicide. If someone chooses to end their own existence, they have been contemplating such for a significantly long period of time, and has concluded that such is an acceptable course of action.

 

The CDC stands for center for disease control. Gun violence is not a disease it is a criminal activity which is why the FBI handles those statistics. The CDC needs to concentrate on diseases and quit trying to politicize science.

 

Murder is only one component of violent crime. Australia's murder rate is low but its robbery and assault rates are high.

My claim is that the AUS gun ban made AUS a more violent nation - and that's very clear from the data. In 1996, almost every crime rate increased - murder, robbery, assault, kidnapping, blackmail, auto theft. All those rates were decreasing before the ban.

While Australia went with a gun ban, the USA went the other direction with relaxed state & federal gun laws, increased gun ownership, and more guns in society. While AUS became more violent, the USA became less violent.

 

It's the liberal clacks in Congress that figured they could gain support for gun control by trying to repackage gun violence as a disease, get the CDC to legitimize their rational, and try to cloak gun control as a health issue rather than a crime issue. It was a clever bit of political calculation and misdirection. However, the CDC 2012 released study, funded, not by Confress, but the Administration, didn't support the Administration's narrative and they have done their best to let the findings die by both the Liberal Politicians and leftist media not reporting on it, but continuing to quote trap like Kellerman. Oops.

 

By defending innocent lives.

 

The NRA has not blocked gun research. The CDC is not the appropriate agency to do so.