I would like to point out that it repeatedly stated that people
without firearms training were the issue. They said that they used people with varying degrees of training but then only compared people with no training to police officers. What about the citizens with a good amount of training? People like myself, who carry a gun on a regular basis but also have years of training not only in using the firearm but in handling those kinds of situations, would most likely react more like the officers.
Of course throwing someone with no training into that situation would be bad. The same thing would happen if you threw someone with no experience driving into a high speed chase then compared them to a cop in a high speed pursuit.
Also, many cities with strict hand gun laws (including entire bans) have loads of gun related violence. Then when guns are allowed in those cities the gun violence seems to go down. Here are some articles about the decrease in violence in Chicago since enacting a concealed carry law:
http://www.illinoismirror.com/one-year-after-concealed-carry-chicago-homicide-rate-plunges-to-56-year-low/
http://truthinmedia.com/crime-rates-in-chicago-plummet-after-il-implements-concealed-carry/
The idea always seems to be that if someone is pro-gun they are pro-buy-as-many-guns-as-you-want-and-don't-register-them-or-bother-training-with-them. That's not true. The average person who wants to carry a gun wants to train with it and know how to use it.
If a person isn't willing to train with a gun then they shouldn't be allowed to carry it. That is what I got out of that article and I couldn't agree more.
