Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: A thought.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Midlothian, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    Ive been thinking, and I have come to the conclusion that most of us...shoot and practice more than most LEO's.. Now this is not cop bashing at all, let me finish.

    You have all of the anti's stating that we shouldnt be allowed to carry in places like malls, and gatherings and so on and so fourth, only police should be able to.

    We might "miss and kill someone innocent", I personally know many LEO's around me who only shoot when they have to whatever times a year to re-qualify.

    I really think this should be used to demonstrate that we should be allowed to carry everywhere a LEO can.. because there is always that possible danger situation.

    Take malls for instance, LEO's can carry, but most malls do not allow armed responsible citizens to carry... all of the mall shootings, if there were ONE armed person, it could be stopped.

    Now im going to stop because im starting to rant, but you get the point... We should be trusted as much as any LEO.

    And please......this is not cop-bashing in ANY way, just me thinking, so please do not turn it into that.

  2. #2
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    Assumptions shouldn't be made about any class of citizen. LEO or Non-LEO (and yes, I believe the two are for all intents and purposes two separate classes in our society).

  3. #3
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post

    KnightSG7 wrote:
    Ive been thinking, and I have come to the conclusion that most of us...shoot and practice more than most LEO's.. Now this is not cop bashing at all, let me finish.
    When you say us do you mean those gun owners who are not commissioned LEOs? Becasue if so, I doubt that "MOST" of us practice as much as you think. I know at least 2 people I work with who have shown me .38 cal revolvers that they own and asked for my help with cleaning them. They were both covered in dust, rust and/or gooked up gun oil and powder residue. Neither of these people had ever even fired these guns.

    I know several other gun owners who have pistols in their home for defense or who carry them in their vehicles but tell me they rarely if ever fire them. I carry daily either a Bersa .380 or one of my 2 Ruger P-89 pistols. Due to work, finances and plain laziness I havn't pulled a trigger in over a year.

    Yet when I worked as a Corrections Officer I was required to quailfy at least once a year on pistol, rifle and shotgun. Most LE agencies have annual or semiannual qualification requirements.

    I'm not sure of the particular crowd of people you hang out with but in my experiance "MOST" pistol owners aren't practicing or training with thier weapons any more than the LEOs who carry theirs on duty. Sure there are many 'gunnies' who go to the range pretty regularly but I strongly doubt they make up a majority.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    diesel556 wrote:
    Assumptions shouldn't be made about any class of citizen. LEO or Non-LEO (and yes, I believe the two are for all intents and purposes two separate classes in our society).
    I agree with Diesel.

    Assumtions make an "Ass" out of "U" and "ME". Not all pistol owners can afford the expense of allot of range practice that some say they do. I certainly can't. I do practice some, but I can't afford to go through 200+ rds a week (or a month for that matter).

    I think that there may be a misperception that just because someone does get in allot of range time and is pretty accurate at shooting still paper targets that you will have the same accuracy in a hot situation.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    This thread reminds me that I'm overdue for my self-imposed monthly trip to the range.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Holloman AFB, , USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    i reload just because buying ammo to go to the range on a weekly basis is so expensive. so do the guys i work/hang out with. We hit it up every saturday, unless one of us buys a new gun then we head out at our nearest convienience. If you carry it should be your responsibility to keep the rust off. you may not need to go as often as me and my buddies but, you should go as often as practical. just because it's a right doesn't mean that youshould be irresponsible with it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Holloman AFB, , USA
    Posts
    394

    Post imported post

    oh and btw i don't think annual qualifying should in any way count as keeping proficient. but, that's a personal opinion, educated or not.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BARR1138G6.DTL

    The San Francisco police chief almost got fired for not doing her required qualifications at the range for about 5 years - glad she was administrative and didn't need to use her gun out amongst the public.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    KnightSG7 wrote:
    Ive been thinking, and I have come to the conclusion that most of us...shoot and practice more than most LEO's.. Now this is not cop bashing at all, let me finish.

    You have all of the anti's stating that we shouldnt be allowed to carry in places like malls, and gatherings and so on and so fourth, only police should be able to.

    We might "miss and kill someone innocent", I personally know many LEO's around me who only shoot when they have to whatever times a year to re-qualify.

    I really think this should be used to demonstrate that we should be allowed to carry everywhere a LEO can.. because there is always that possible danger situation.

    Take malls for instance, LEO's can carry, but most malls do not allow armed responsible citizens to carry... all of the mall shootings, if there were ONE armed person, it could be stopped.

    Now im going to stop because im starting to rant, but you get the point... We should be trusted as much as any LEO.

    And please......this is not cop-bashing in ANY way, just me thinking, so please do not turn it into that.
    I see your point but it is flawed.

    Allow me to explain why.

    Many here assume that because they shoot more often at a range that they are somehow better than the police officer that qualifies only once a year.

    I actually shoot every week or at least every other week. Does this mean I am automatically better qualified with a firearm than a police officer? I doubt it. I am sure there is a police officer out there that can out-shoot me.

    An officer needs to be better qualified with his communication skills and decision making process than a gun. It is rare for a cop to ever have to draw and fire.

    I had an officer tell me that they qualify once a year as this is required by the state. They must pass or they cannot carry. Those that do not pass get more range time so they can sharpen their skills.

    They also attend other non qualification sessions throughout the year. Many officers go to the range on their own time and you just never know about it. I have met a few cops off duty at the range I go to.

    So I have to ask. Why does it matter how often you "qualify"? If the cop can shoot once a year and qualify expert then I doubt he or she needs to really attend the range that often.

    I suspect that it comes down to having the training and experience of knowing WHEN to draw and fire. Especially in the mall filled with people.

    I doubt the mall decided to ban us from going in armed because we "can't shoot." I think it comes down to liability. They are aware that every police officer has received the training and has experience to prove he or she is responsible enough to use a firearm.

    Citizens do not even have to qualify at all!!! We can buy a gun, strap it on, and go out in public. Who has verified that we can even hit the target? NOBODY! But somehow all citizens should be trusted because a few may go to the range more often than a police officer?

    So it is just easier to limit who they feel they can trust.

    I cannot fault them for that.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I am nota LEO nor do I play one or TV. I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I would like some input from any LEO's out there. Of all the things that a LEO needs to know, use and be aware of I really think that knowing how to shoot a gun and gun laws are just a small part of being a LEO. Basically being allowed to carry a gun in a mall because you can shoot better than a LEO at the range is about the dumbest reason I can think of.

    There are other reasons but this is not one of them.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran T Dubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Va, ,
    Posts
    892

    Post imported post

    KnightSG7 wrote:
    Ive been thinking, and I have come to the conclusion that most of us...shoot and practice more than most LEO's..

    Tell me about it. I think I'm starting to become a gun snob.
    "These are the shock troops (opencarry.org) of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
    Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Devils Advocate wrote:
    Citizens do not even have to qualify at all!!! We can buy a gun, strap it on, and go out in public. Who has verified that we can even hit the target? NOBODY! But somehow all citizens should be trusted because a few may go to the range more often than a police officer?

    In Tn citizens DO have to "qualify" to get our HCP. We may or maynot be held to quite the same accuracy standards LEO are held to, but we do have to show proficiency with a handgun before we apply for the pemit.

    I know, some states that are OC without a permit, and in those cases there is no "qualification" or proof of proficiency required.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Devils Advocate wrote:
    Citizens do not even have to qualify at all!!! We can buy a gun, strap it on, and go out in public. Who has verified that we can even hit the target? NOBODY! But somehow all citizens should be trusted because a few may go to the range more often than a police officer?

    In Tn citizens DO have to "qualify" to get our HCP. We may or maynot be held to quite the same accuracy standards LEO are held to, but we do have to show proficiency with a handgun before we apply for the pemit.

    I know, some states that are OC without a permit, and in those cases there is no "qualification" or proof of proficiency required.
    My friend got his CC permit. His proficiency was an online class.

    So "proficiency" means pretty much nothing.

    But as I said prior, this has little to do with marksmanship and is more about having training on when to deploy a firearm and when to fire. The police receive this training where we only talk about it on here learning from each other's experience.

    Have YOU ever attended a class that deals with when to deploy and then attend practical training to test your ability to decide?

    I know I have not. I have a good idea when I need to deploy my firearm but I have not ever been tested where I have to react to a situation. I am aware the police have far more training in this than I ever have.

    But it still falls back on the mall. If they like the idea of openly allowing more risk and making themselves responsible forfirearms use because citizens have qualified then so-be-it.

    Having signs up is a way out for them. If you are involved in a shooting and the victim wants to sue the mall, they can say "You were not supposed to be there and disobeyed the signs. Therefore they should not be held liable for your actions."

    In any case. It is up to the mall to decide what they like. Private businesses can make their own decisions.

    Next we can talk about howwe Open Carriers should get free donuts andcoffeesince we are providing a level of protection equal to the police. ha-ha!

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Devils Advocate wrote:
    Task Force 16 wrote:
    Devils Advocate wrote:
    Citizens do not even have to qualify at all!!! We can buy a gun, strap it on, and go out in public. Who has verified that we can even hit the target? NOBODY! But somehow all citizens should be trusted because a few may go to the range more often than a police officer?

    In Tn citizens DO have to "qualify" to get our HCP. We may or maynot be held to quite the same accuracy standards LEO are held to, but we do have to show proficiency with a handgun before we apply for the pemit.

    I know, some states that are OC without a permit, and in those cases there is no "qualification" or proof of proficiency required.
    My friend got his CC permit. His proficiency was an online class.

    So "proficiency" means pretty much nothing.

    But as I said prior, this has little to do with marksmanship and is more about having training on when to deploy a firearm and when to fire. The police receive this training where we only talk about it on here learning from each other's experience.

    Have YOU ever attended a class that deals with when to deploy and then attend practical training to test your ability to decide?

    I know I have not. I have a good idea when I need to deploy my firearm but I have not ever been tested where I have to react to a situation. I am aware the police have far more training in this than I ever have.

    But it still falls back on the mall. If they like the idea of openly allowing more risk and making themselves responsible forfirearms use because citizens have qualified then so-be-it.

    Having signs up is a way out for them. If you are involved in a shooting and the victim wants to sue the mall, they can say "You were not supposed to be there and disobeyed the signs. Therefore they should not be held liable for your actions."

    In any case. It is up to the mall to decide what they like. Private businesses can make their own decisions.

    Next we can talk about howwe Open Carriers should get free donuts andcoffeesince we are providing a level of protection equal to the police. ha-ha!
    You might get away with an online course in your state, but that won't fly here in Tn. We are require to take an 8 hour course (4 hrs class room-safe handling and legal use of deadly force and 4 hrs range work) . We are tested on what we learned in the class room and scored on our range shooting at different distances (30 ft max).

    No I haven't taken a tactical course in which we had to make decision about when to shoot and when not too. I think I can rely on my own common sense in that regard. Obvioulsy, I wouldn't attempt a shot at a BG with a crowd of innocents between him/her and me, nor would I want to draw fire towards myself with a crowd behind me. However, if a crazed shooter has already opened fire on random innocents I feel that I should shoot at the first clear oppertunity. But that's just me, I know. I would like to take such a course though, if for no other reason, to test my own decision making skills.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I am not¬*a LEO nor do I play one or TV.¬* I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night so I would like some input from any LEO's out there.¬* Of all the things that a LEO needs to know, use and be aware of I really think that knowing how¬* to shoot a gun and gun laws are just a small part of being a LEO.¬* Basically being allowed to carry a gun in a mall because you can shoot better than a LEO at the range is about the dumbest reason I can think of.

    There are other reasons but this is not one of them.
    I totally agree.

    Most departments in my area (NOVA) shoot two times a year at a minimum. In my department this involves going to a shoot house, shooting on the run, shooting from a car, shooting on the ground, standing, kneeling, one handed etc. All of this is timed as well to add stress. I highly doubt the average citizen is doing the same. On most departments an officer has two chances to pass the minimum qualificion score, if they don't, they are on desk duty with no gun. Again, if an average citizen does the same, they can still carry their weapon. Also, high shooting scores are required for advancement and higher pay. I totally disagree with the assumption of the original poster. I don't think the normal gun totting citizen is more proficient with their weapon. I would say just the opposite actually. Most citizens aren't held to a proficiency standard at all. I do agree that citizens should be able to carry in malls however (and anywhere else with very few exceptions.)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Nevada, USA
    Posts
    716

    Post imported post

    Devils Advocate wrote:
    But it still falls back on the mall. If they like the idea of openly allowing more risk and making themselves responsible forfirearms use because citizens have qualified then so-be-it.

    Having signs up is a way out for them. If you are involved in a shooting and the victim wants to sue the mall, they can say "You were not supposed to be there and disobeyed the signs. Therefore they should not be held liable for your actions."

    In any case. It is up to the mall to decide what they like. Private businesses can make their own decisions.
    If the mall decides to deny me the right to defend myself, then they are taking that responsibility upon themselves. If I am the victim of violent crime on their premises after they havedenied my right of self defense, then I will sue them for failing in their responsibility.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Gordie wrote:
    If the mall decides to deny me the right to defend myself, then they are taking that responsibility upon themselves. If I am the victim of violent crime on their premises after they havedenied my right of self defense, then I will sue them for failing in their responsibility.
    I have seen that argument on here before.

    They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property. You are not paying a fee upon entrance thatsuggests will be provided either.

    Same goes for your own property. If you make your friends keep their guns in their car to attend your partyyour friends can leave since they have no legal obligationto attend. It is OPTIONAL!!

    How can you expect something you are not even paying for?

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    Devils Advocate wrote:
    They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property.
    Kinda scary, isn't it? The courts have ruled that law enforcement also has no legal obligation to protect anybody as well, the reason being they can not be expected to be everywhere at the same time. Now strip the citizen of his open carry or concealed carry rightsby putting up signs at the entrance of the mall, and a citizen has no way to protect himself or his familyafter a criminal ignores the signage and walks in with a .357 magnum to do people harm. Strange and dangerous world we live in, eh?
    Yeah, Lifes scarry. What's that ol saying? "Lifes a bitch.....and then you die."

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    166

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    Devils Advocate wrote:
    They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property.
    Kinda scary, isn't it? The courts have ruled that law enforcement also has no legal obligation to protect anybody as well, the reason being they can not be expected to be everywhere at the same time. Now strip the citizen of his open carry or concealed carry rightsby putting up signs at the entrance of the mall, and a citizen has no way to protect himself or his familyafter a criminal ignores the signage and walks in with a .357 magnum to do people harm. Strange and dangerous world we live in, eh?
    Nobody is strippingus of any "rights" by putting a sign.Our attendance at the mall is voluntary.We have the right to NOT go there, ever!

    Big difference in the courts concluding the police have no obligation to protect you is thatthe citizens arepaying taxes that also go towards public service.

    There are some people out there that feel the police MUST protect them like personal body guards and we all know that this is not possible. The police do what they can to prevent crime but criminals are going to wait for the police to leave before they strike.

    The only way the police could possibly fulfill a duty to protect everyone is to assign a police officer to each person and follow them around. The people simply could not afford that level of protection.

    And it is a scary world.

    Being armed will not save you from every possible threat that is out there either. You have to do what you can to avoid crime. Having a gun is only one of many ways to do it. Another is to stay home or avoid malls that are known to be crime ridden.

  20. #20
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    Devils Advocate wrote:
    Sheriff wrote:
    Devils Advocate wrote:
    They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property.
    Kinda scary, isn't it? The courts have ruled that law enforcement also has no legal obligation to protect anybody as well, the reason being they can not be expected to be everywhere at the same time. Now strip the citizen of his open carry or concealed carry rightsby putting up signs at the entrance of the mall, and a citizen has no way to protect himself or his familyafter a criminal ignores the signage and walks in with a .357 magnum to do people harm. Strange and dangerous world we live in, eh?
    We have the right to NOT go there, ever!
    Amazon

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Devils Advocate wrote:
    Nobody is stripping¬*us of any "rights" by putting a sign.¬*Our attendance at the mall is voluntary.¬*We have the right to NOT go there, ever!
    Exactly right.

    While I admit to entertaining the idea of establishing a liability for gun-free zones, truthfully the better solution is for people to simply not patronize establishments who would ask their customers to be disarmed. (Why people are so intent to force others to take their hard-earned money is beyond me. I myself am perfectly intent to deprive businesses of my money if they don't want it.)

    If this means that most places get safer while "gun free zones" have more and more mass shootings, well then so bet it. It's not a big deal for me since I won't be in those gun free zones.

  22. #22
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    I just wish that all the theaters in my area didn't ban firearms (Regal, AMC). I really enjoy watching a good movie with the wife.

    You'll take my money, and you'll like it!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    diesel556 wrote:
    I just wish that all the theaters in my area didn't ban firearms (Regal, AMC).¬* I really enjoy watching a good movie with the wife.
    I have a solution for this. With a cable model and a couple hundred gigs of disk storage you can be well on your way to watching everything for free in as much quality as you can afford the equipment to reproduce, downloaded from any number of public or (preferably) private video sharing sites.

    The one I use is bittorrent-based, totally private, and focuses on the wonderful H.264 codec. There is both SD and HD content (at full resolution of the source but much in smaller file sizes), and a popular film downloads in as little as 20 minutes.

    "Intellectual property" can go **** itself -- the whole concept has been proven to be an intellectual fraud by the actions these legalized grifters. If the traditional distribution model wants to compete with this, they'll have to do a lot better than disarming me whilst selling me $5 drinks and hiring no ushers to usher-out the self-important morons who talk on their cell phones during the film.

  24. #24
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    714

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote
    I have a solution for this. With a cable model and a couple hundred gigs of disk storage you can be well on your way to watching everything
    Funny you should mention that. I actually upgraded my network server a few months ago.

    I agree that H.264 is cool stuff, and that DRM is in its own way very very similar to gun control.

    I do have a decent setup at home (1080 proj, 8' screen), but my wife and I still really enjoy going to the movies.

    Call me crazy.

    Sorry for going so far offtopic.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I really stopped enjoying going to the cinema when I moved to the Bay Area. Something about the wishes-it-was "urban culture" out here, I guess, but every time I see a film there is some ******* talking on his phone in such a way that it's clear that his primary purpose isn't to make conversation but to flex his imaginary muscle by blowing up at whoever has the balls to tell him to **** and GTFO.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •