Police and Civilians

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 6, 2006.

  1. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    I recognize that police are technically civilians, and I used the title only for effect.

    It occurred to me while shooting with some of the posters here (see the photos from the "meeting" thread in General Events) that nobody got shot.

    Amazing, huh?

    Actually, I have never been at a gun range with civilians when somebody was accidentally shot. I am sure it happens, but in comparison, I have been at police gun ranges when people were shot. My first experience with police officers' negligence occurred when three people were injured during my police academy shooting qualification, which was also my first experience shooting with working police officers (first experience + first shooting = anecdotal evidence).

    The drum beat for "training requirements" for us packers is heard sometimes even from within our own quarters. Is there evidence of a difference between states with training requirements and those without?

    What about the difference between highly trained police and the untrained non-police? I do not want to turn this into a cop bashing thread, but it occurs to me that I am simply posting some facts:

    source for material http://www.claytoncramer.com/shall-issue.html#c34
     
  2. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    110
    63
    training

    whether a person has enough training, or is otherwise "safe enough" with a gun, depends on the circumstances under which he is carrying it.

    Most people think that just keeping a gun in your home for defense against burglars and home invaders requires no training at all. Most states do not have any such requirement.

    Most people do not think that shooting a gun on an established firing range, even in the company of other shooters, requires prior training. A few states have a training requirement to take a pistol to a range, but most do not.

    Most people think that hunting is a higher-risk activity, and they demand that that risk be addressed with mandatory hunter safety training requirements. These have been in place for more than 25 years in most states.

    Most people are nervous about the idea of untrained fellow citizens packing concealed handguns in public places, especially places where large groups of people gather. Such places may or may not legally qualify as "public gatherings" under Georgia law, but what counts is that most of our fellow citizens only tolerate us packing guns on a daily basis in some places and under some circumstances, but not others, in part because of a belief (perhaps mistaken, but nonetheless a firmly-held belief that they act upon) that cops are safe and effective gun-handlers because of their "qualifications" and "training" while Joe Blow down the block is just, well, Joe Blow from down the block. He's a guy with a gun, nothing more.

    Now in Georgia, a GFL-holding civilian and a LEO have some things in common. They both have no criminal history as to felonies or violent crimes. They do not have an extensive arrest record, period. They both had to apply for the State's permission to carry a gun, and they had to jump through the hoops that the State set before them. Both the cop and the GFL permit holder got their licenses conditionally, with a set of rules, and they are told that violation of the rules can result in revocation of the license by the State. Only the State can revoke their licenses or add more conditions on them.

    Is it such a stretch to suggest that if the State treats GFL-holding civilians and certified LEO's somewhat alike now, it would be a good thing to treat them MORE ALIKE? More training and documentation for the civilian, but then with carry-almost-everywhere privileges that are currently reserved for cops and other agents of the State?
     

  3. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    The thing is, while training is a good idea for someone who has absolutly no idea about guns, the police who have training are usually the ones who do the most stupid things with them.

    I think the police and others who do have extensive training get into a mindset that they know what they are doing and it is ok for them to do it. That is a bad thing when you get bad habits.

    I have no proof to back this up, but just looking at the news, the 2 groups with the worst gun handleing are people who do not know guns (first thing they want to do is pull the trigger) and LEO's.

    I think it boils down to respecting the firearm. Uneducated people do not know to repect them and some LEO's are so used to carrying them that they no longer properly respect them.
     
  4. Macktee

    Macktee New Member

    6,172
    0
    0
    Sounds a lot like motorcycle riders

    Most injuries and deaths occur not to rank beginners or very experienced riders, but to those who think they are experienced and know what they're doing...
     
  5. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    Re: Sounds a lot like motorcycle riders

    Riders? You mean like on motorcycles?
     
  6. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    Check the post subject: Sounds a lot like motorcycle riders :wink:
     
  7. ls1ssdavid

    ls1ssdavid New Member

    1,103
    0
    0
    I agree with the statments above about officers who are supposed to be "properly trainned". The average LEO is not special when it comes to there "skills" with firearms. But to defend LEO's or any personell who carry weapons everyday on the job. Since they have more contact with the weapons on a deadly basis, of course they have more chances for mistakes. But, Bottom line is that if you don't follow the weapons safety rules and become complacent bad things will happen.

    However the excuse to let LEO's carry more places may and probobly is because they have had "deadly force traning". But, MP has shown that simply because they have that training doesn't mean they make the correct decisions with it. I would like to see everyone with a gun get proper training with there weapons. But, I do not think it's the governments place to force people to get it. If you don't feel comfortable carrying a weapon then DON'T. I think most people understand that. And I think most people aren't going to go to a public gathering and start taking there pistol out there holster. And if an accedent happens your accountable for it. If you use your weapon in what you believe is a justified situation, and it turns out it's not then your responsible. So I don't see the problem with having GFL carriers having the same privleges as LEO's.
     
  8. ICP_Juggalo

    ICP_Juggalo Professional Troll

    1,926
    3
    38
    Yea, like the video of the DEA agent in front of the classroom telling everyone that he is the only one qualified in the building to handle a Glock 40 right before he shoots himself :lol:

    I didn't know that Glock had a model 40 in their product line #-o
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    Hey, look here! Can You Read This? Huh?

    The post subjects are so small I never notice them.
     
  10. asbrand

    asbrand Active Member

    1,530
    0
    36
    "Yes, officer, I know you have been "trained" for over 5 years with your sidearm. However, *I* have been trained since the day I could walk with every pistol and rifle within arms reach, and I continue to "train" with them all the time, not once a year. Care to go to the range and see who outshoots whom?"

    :shock: 8) *grin*