[wakawaka28]

>The world is BIG, bullets are small and- there's lots of room to run and/or hide.

You're talking about an object moving at least 1000 feet per second, one with many friends, in most cases, and aimed by someone who probably has a basic understanding of how to hit a human-sized target.

>Few can shoot a firearm, >- fewer can shoot accurately, >- fewer still can shoot moving objects, >- fewer still can shoot a fleeing person and >- next to none can kill/disable a fleeing person.

You truly don't know what you're talking about. Handguns are not the only threat, and they are not so hard to use. Rifles and shotguns are far easier to aim.

>The average police officer can expect to serve out his entire career w/o having to draw his service revolver in self defense.

Again you prove your ignorance. Almost no police carry revolvers due to the fact that technology has improved. A revolver typically holds 5 or 6 rounds and is difficult to reload. There are many inexpensive handguns that can fire 3x as many rounds minimum.

>I am fairly certain that few police officers/veterans understand probability in the real world. But they are good men (mostly) and women and a (somewhat selected) cross-section of society. They, for the most part, pay attention to where they are directed.

Yeah you're gonna go lecture combat veterans to tell them how their lame af EV is good, and they don't have to worry about getting hit by one of 10 to 50 bullets fired at them because probability is on their side. Get your head out of your backside man.

[giardini]

wakawaka28's post (above) is sadly uninformed with a number of errors, and was likely made in anger. So I apologize to everyone: I sometimes bring out the worst in some people. Some notes:

- Yes, I did date myself by my use of the term "service revolver" instead of the better "sidearm", etc.

- My original post was not limited to handguns. I used the term "firearm", which includes all modern guns (rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc.). [Perhaps English is not your native language?]

- I do prefer ICE to EV. Not for any additional protection from the roving bands of 50-(or 500)-round-carrying Deadeye Dick hombres that wakawaka28 ndoubtedly encounters in his paranoid patrols but b/c I'm more familiar with ICEs.

wakawaka28 says >"getting hit by one of 10 to 50 bullets fired at them because probability is on their side"<

Yeah, this happens all the time! Why, just the other day I was walking my dog past wakawaka28's house and, before I could scoop the poop, wakawaka28 jumped out with an AR-15 and (accidentally I'm sure) emptied a magazine into his front lawn and neighborhood. Luckily it was wakawaka28 (who, like most shooters, can't shoot worth a doggy bag full) and his firearm jammed twice, so nothing of value was hit (at least, AFAIK). After I lit my second cigarette, I loaned wakawaka28 my walking stick extension so he could ram it down the barrel and clear the jam. [I wanted to suggest that he ram it somewhere else but I was standing too close and knew that, for once, probability was not in my favor.]

Firearms are better than ever these days but

- probability still holds and

- statistics still prove that

Firearms can be deadly, but firearms encounters aren't nearly as deadly as many, if not most people imagine.

Takeaway: don't be scared by fearmongers!8-))

[wakawaka28]

First off, here's some probability for you. I am likely the only one reading your nonsense at this point. There are often hundreds of comments on posts and people rarely read far into the comments after a post is more than a day old. So, from the jump, you've been talking to a crowd that simply doesn't exist.

Secondly I am not promoting fear of guns. You should get as many guns as your heart desires. You in particular need to go out and see the cool stuff that's on the market. I'm guessing you read a blog post about why a cop can't reliably "just shoot for a leg" or something. That is valid in a particular way, but does not in any way prove that guns are super hard to use. If they were, cops might actually just run away and they'd be issued something else besides a gun to defend themselves.

I never said that firearm encounters are overwhelmingly fatal. However, you continue to lecture people who know more than you in condescending tone, even to the point of presuming you know better than people who are literally trained to be in gunfights. It does make me angry to be talked down to by someone with such an ignorant mentality. Your attitude is not at all rare. There are tons of people out there who think that their idle ruminations and irrelevant credentials cancel out actual experience, and these people are a menace to society.

Have you seen a cop lately? They routinely wear body armor these days. Presumably because they are afraid of stray bullets. After all, they are more likely to get hit by lightning or a galloping horse than a criminal with a $300 handgun that can fire ~18 bullets. Why worry?

You are kinda funny in this reply, if insulting, but truly you suffer from delusions of competence and have added nothing of value to this conversation.

Takeaway: I suggest you reflect on the fact that people with direct experience might actually know better than you.