A thought.

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.

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).

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

There's expert marksmen everywhere, both copsand civilians. And there's some I wouldn't want standing 300 feet in front of me while shooting, some cops, some civilians.

Butif you are around a critical incident going down and you have to fire.... and you hit an innocent bystander.... which would you rather be, a cop or a civilian?

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).

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

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

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.

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.

imported post

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/04/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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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..

Click to expand...

Tell me about it. I think I'm starting to become a gun snob.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:

They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property.

Click to expand...

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?

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Devils Advocate wrote:

They have absolutely NO legal obligation or responsibility to "protect you" while you enter the property.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

Yeah, Lifes scarry. What's that ol saying? "Lifes a bitch.....and then you die."