Yet, from past experience we have seen that citizens are much less likely to have any 'collateral damage' associated with a defensive shooting than from the so-called 'professional' police who apparently have such training.
It's always better to have and not need than to need and not have. Will everyone be capable of effective use of arms in all given scenerios? Probably not, but some will. It's always better to have an armed citizenry than a disarmed one.
‘Yet, from past experience we have seen that citizens are much less likely to have any ‘collateral damage’ associated with a defensive shooting than from the so-called ‘professional’ police who apparently have such training.’
I think its statistics...the police are involved in more situations where shooting occurs. I think police are more prone to shoot when non-police would show restraint. Im not sure I could comment on that beyond it being an artifact of the type of training.
‘It’s always better to have and not need than to need and not have. Will everyone be capable of effective use of arms in all given scenerios? Probably not, but some will. It’s always better to have an armed citizenry than a disarmed one’
As I stated before I never said dont go unarmed. I said dont go armed and untrained. Yes, an armed citizenry can be good. However, the idea didnt stop there. The Founders were thinking along the lines of a TRAINED and armed citizenry. They also envisioned an generally well educated population too that was mentally engaged. Its not all about the weapons.