That's funny. So you're occasionally taking lessons learned by LE to heart, however you're inferring that I'm fantasizing about belonging to such groups by asking a somewhat rhetorical question which suggested that the average civilian is in a much worse position than the average cop. So it would make sense to be better trained than most armed civilians are (who mostly aren't trained at all except maybe a few hours that are mandatory to obtain a CHL despite having a huge amount of shooting schools and courses being both available and affordable in most States) and being better armed than many other civilians are (with a low capacity belly gun with no reload) ... okay, lol.
There's some overlap between armed civilians and civilian law enforcement. But no, not everything that they do applies to armed civilians nor do I think that armed civilians should try to emulate law enforcement in every way. Not the same focus or goals (other than trying to survive once the first shots are fired).
To state that anyone who points out what overlap there is somehow engaging in some sort of fantasy role playing is ludicrous, you're more than welcome to engage in such assumptions if you wish though.
In the wake of violent criminals are often a trail of people who didn't think that anything could happen to them. For instance while many shooters may have heard about the Miami Shootout (I referenced the two robbers/murderers earlier), the two dead FBI agents and the changes that it started for law enforcement what most often haven't heard about is that the two dead bank and armored car robbers were supplying themselves with getaway cars and guns by murdering target shooters in the Florida Everglades. Or at best they're mentioned as a footnote. The car that Platt/Matix were driving that day belonged to a man named Jose Callazo who was car jacked, had his gun stolen and who was then shot and left for dead. At least one other man wasn't as lucky and he was murdered instead of being shot in the head and left at the scene.
Miami Shootout Anniversary (*Click*)
But rather than identifying with the target shooters out for the day in a rural area (something that I've done quite often and the exact situation where I and a friend were once shot at) or thinking about what the armored car guards might have done differently (a job that I also did for a short time while I was in EMT school) I'm fantasizing about being an FBI agent. Lol, okay.
I suspect you and I agree on many things. However, the limited text interaction here is not as fully interactive as a live (and lively) discussion in person. Perhaps some day we'll meet and have that discussion...but dang it, you're in Texas and I'm back and forth between SC and VA all the time!
Of course we should study the lessons learned by the various law enforcement agencies and agents. However, part of that process is realizing the fundamental differences between civilians and agents of government law enforcement (and military).
For example; nobody here, I believe, would seriously disagree with the concept that "more is better" when it comes to how much ammunition one should carry. But if one wishes to use law enforcement (or military) as an example to explain why one should carry X amount of ammunition as a civilian, they're missing a very fundamental difference between the two. Namely, it is the duty of law enforcement (and military) to seek out and engage bad guys, whereas it is the duty of the private citizen to protect his own (or another in imminent danger) life by stopping the attack and/or disengaging from it.
So, with respect to how much ammunition is "enough"...you can argue the point with statistics, but those statistics have to be relevant to the circumstances in order to be meaningful.
This means if you want to evaluate how much ammunition is enough for a servicemember, you have to look at the circumstances the servicemember is in. If he's on gate guard duty at a stateside base, that's different than if he's topside sentry on a submarine pierside, different than a soldier on combat patrol in Afghanistan, different than a SEAL team member deploying from a SEAL Delivery Vehicle on a submarine, and different than a sniper in the jungle somewhere.
If you want to evaluate the ammunition needs of a law enforcement officer, you likewise need to consider the circumstances the LEO will be operating in.
Likewise for a civilian.
You don't base the ammunition needs of a combat soldier on those of a law enforcement officer or civilian, so you certainly shouldn't base the ammunition needs of a civilian on the soldier or LEO.
We CAN consider analogies, but they should always be adapted to the circumstances at hand.
I am a civilian. Many, if not most, here on THR are also civilians. I do not actively seek out bad guys, and when my situational awareness alerts me to a potentially bad encounter I work to avoid it entirely. If I MUST use deadly force, I will only use it up to the point in which the attack stops or I successfully disengage. These are my legal (and moral) limitations.
LEO and military have different limitations and rules of engagement.
THAT is my point.
People do not have to convince me that "more is better". I get that concept. But the "justification" for any given quantity should be within the scope of what a civilian's particular (perceived) needs are, not those of LEO or servicemembers.
