Are police really more qualified?

Ken-1122 said:

I don't think the attitude is that police are better at using guns, but that they trust the police with guns who is under constant scrutiny over some stranger they know nothing about who could be mentally deranged.

Ken

Click to expand...

To me the police are often strangers I know to be mentally deranged.

Vylo said:

To me the police are often strangers I know to be mentally deranged.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Remember when the motto used to be protect and serve? I haven't seen that on a cruiser in a very long time.

Vylo said:

To me the police are often strangers I know to be mentally deranged.

Click to expand...

So true. I think I've known two officers that were worthy of trust and respect on the job. While others demonstrated a penchant to have applied to be wearing the badge rather than on the other side of it as it put them behind bars.
It's like they wanted to be lawful criminals so they could get away with more.

And to think how many thousands of police there are in America. And among that number how many can we trust?

Videos that show the worst kind of cop seem to be the lucky shots that were captured to show us what to be afraid of. While those we never see for whatever reason are still out there.

:o

miniverchivi said:

Are police really more qualified?

Click to expand...

Nope. Just the other day I almost slid into an intersection, accidently and a police car came threatening to pull me over.

Man makes mistakes because it is man.

God is the only good.

*it was on snow and ice, incase anybody is wondering.

Man fails apart from God.

What then is to be said about those cops who profess themselves to be Christian and yet behave in despicable ways while wearing the badge?

Lovely Jar said:

What then is to be said about those cops who profess themselves to be Christian and yet behave in despicable ways while wearing the badge?

Click to expand...

We don't need no stinking badges! - YouTube

My youtube clip is better than your youtube clip.

Police really are more qualified.
If I had a shooting range at work and was required to use it, I would be highly proficient in using my weapon. They have constant and repetitive training on how to use their weapons.

Though police have guns, I don't feel that can respond quick enough for me to not need a gun.

Why do we keep talking about lions, tigers, bears, and foxes trying to get into your chicken coop? What does this have to do with CCW? This is a red herring.

As is the idea that many CCW holders are better qualified than cops to carry because they went to Appleseed training for 2 days and learned to fire a longarm at range. How on Earth does that translate to the issues of CCW? I realize there is great training available for CCW holders and some holders are serious about being prepared, but it's not a standard and most aren't anywhere close to skilled gun owners. The lowest common denominator is at issue here.

What many Democrats don't like to hear, is that guns are really easy to use. You don't need a degree in jam clearing to know to remove a stove pipe. It really only takes a little training and you are pro.
If guns were confusing, they wouldn't sell well. The facts are is that gun manufactures pride themselves on how easy their guns are to fire and maintain.

Guns aren't like rockets. They don't have thousands of moving parts. Guns aren't like clocks, they aren't full of springs, levers and coils. Guns are simple and easy to use.

Boondock_Saint said:

What many Democrats don't like to hear, is that guns are really easy to use. You don't need a degree in jam clearing to know to remove a stove pipe. It really only takes a little training and you are pro.
If guns were confusing, they wouldn't sell well. The facts are is that gun manufactures pride themselves on how easy their guns are to fire and maintain.

Guns aren't like rockets. They don't have thousands of moving parts. Guns aren't like clocks, they aren't full of springs, levers and coils. Guns are simple and easy to use.

Click to expand...

Scalpels are pretty easy to use, too, but I wouldn't want any moron to be allowed to be a surgeon.

You do realize, don't you, that there's a little more to operating a firearm than just knowing how to pull the trigger?

iluvatar5150 said:

Scalpels are pretty easy to use, too, but I wouldn't want any moron to be allowed to be a surgeon.

You do realize, don't you, that there's a little more to operating a firearm than just knowing how to pull the trigger?

Click to expand...

Operating it or being proficient at it. Because all he was saying is they are clean, simple and easy to use. Which they are. You pull the trigger, the hammer hits the igniter and bullet flies. Being proficient with it is more complicated obviously but I don't think that was his point.

Saleena said:

Operating it or being proficient at it. Because all he was saying is they are clean, simple and easy to use. Which they are. You pull the trigger, the hammer hits the igniter and bullet flies. Being proficient with it is more complicated obviously but I don't think that was his point.

Click to expand...

Then why say, "what Democrats don't like to hear"? What's the point of that comment if not to challenge the common Democrat desire for greater training and/or other restrictions on firearm possession?

Because reasons? Who knows. I see liberal this, librul that flung all around here. As well as republican this, republican that. People just do things. Duh. Or maybe it just happens in this case to be democrats being the leading force behind regulation. I consider myself pretty liberal myself. However I am for guns. Because guns are awesome. Guns are practically inappropriate content.

iluvatar5150 said:

Then why say, "what Democrats don't like to hear"? What's the point of that comment if not to challenge the common Democrat desire for greater training and/or other restrictions on firearm possession?

Click to expand...

My concern about rising levels of control regarding weapons is that the controls make no distinction between the reasons people might want to possess or carry such a weapon.

The thug using a big knife in town to encourage people to hand over their wallets is very different from the hiker using a knife to cut wood for a fire. The thief using firearms to raid a jewellery store is very different to the householder who just wants to even the balance a little if they wake in the night to find half a dozen people in the house, who in turn is very different from the farmer wanting to keep a firearm to drive animals away from his crops or the person keeping chickens who wants to be able to deal with foxes.

It's easy to argue that people don't need to carry a firearm (concealed or open) in a very urban area, but the law that restricts the city dweller from taking his pistol from McDonalds to Starbucks will also restrict the country dweller from taking his pistol for a walk in the woods. The law that prevents the city dweller from carrying a Rambo-style hunting knife will also prevent the long distance hiker/camper from carrying a comparable knife for hunting and wood cutting.

Here in the UK the most powerful weapon I am allowed to own is an air rifle with limited power. Technically speaking if a single pellet from my air rifle leaves my land I could face a fine up to £5000 (about $8000), facing prosecution under firearms legislation.

Unless you want to end up there, consider how weapon control laws are likely to develop.

SnowCal said:

Why do we keep talking about lions, tigers, bears, and foxes trying to get into your chicken coop? What does this have to do with CCW? This is a red herring.

As is the idea that many CCW holders are better qualified than cops to carry because they went to Appleseed training for 2 days and learned to fire a longarm at range.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that's all Appleseed does?

Why do you assume it's limited to two days?

Second, for that matter, why does it matter if non-police are more qualified? Does the 2nd Amendment apply any more or less, depending on one's skill with a gun?

contango said:

Here in the UK the most powerful weapon I am allowed to own is an air rifle with limited power. Technically speaking if a single pellet from my air rifle leaves my land I could face a fine up to £5000 (about $8000), facing prosecution under firearms legislation.

Click to expand...

Wait...what?

The British government thinks your BB gun is a firearm?