Cop - Soldier - Law-Abiding Citizen...What's the Difference Where Weapons are Concerned?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I had this thought the other day, when reading another thread, and some posters were stating that if someone is not a cop or in the military, they don't need certain types of weapons. So, I attempted to discover their motives as to why they feel that way. Can you help me to understand?

Why do some feel that it is OK for LEOs and the military to possess or have access to certain types of weapons, but can't seem to apply their own logic to the average citizen?

Is it the training? Is it the oath? Is it the heirarchy involved, or the level of organization? The uniform? Is it the fact that they are controlled by some branch of Govt.? Why can a cop or soldier have a fully automatic M-16 in the trunk of their patrol car or HMMWV, but for the average law-abiding citizen, it must be unacceptable?

I'm curious why some see the military and law enforcement in a different light than any other Patriot?

Then I tried to consider what law enforcement and members of the military would feel about the subject and came up with this...


Picture this...If you were charged with protecting the citizens of a particular area, and were trained and armed and paid, to do so, would you feel slighted, if your bosses, suddenly fired or relieved of duty, 80% of your co-workers?

Now, apply this across the board. The police and the military, MUST have some notion that a law-abiding gun owner, is not just a benefit to their ability to perform their jobs, but a necessity! How many times have the cops been pulling their hair out, trying to reduce crime, only to have the bad guys, slip away into the night? Now, how refreshing must it be, for those same cops, to see a civilian stop a threat, or assist in the apprehension of a wanted felon? If we are disarmed, won't the streets be MORE dangerous for law enforcement???

Now, what if the US was invaded? I know, far fetched, but indulge me...Would our military feel better knowing that the average American would stand by their side in defense of our Country? How would they feel if 100,000,000 potential soldiers were relieved of the ability to assist them?

Please tell me what you think..... I'd like to hear from LEOs and current and former Military, as well as those against "assault weapons" being owned and possessed by regular law-abiding people in the US...






edit on 1/19/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: sp




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
It's normalization. That's all it is.

We're all taught from birth that a cop with a gun is normal and anyone but a cop with a gun is not.

Funny enough it has been my experience that most people wont even notice a gun on the hip of a non-cop. They just dont look for it.

Dress like a cop and nobody will give you a second look. Dont dress like a cop and nobody will notice anyway.

They only get upset after the fact because they're oblivious to begin with.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


It's the mentality of the moocher class. They want the government to provide for their every need. The government supplies LEO's and soldiers and is therefore good. Any source other than the government is bad.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Here's a little story that lends some credence to your question:

I was at a dinner with friends, and there was a woman there who I had never met and I got to chatting with her. She was an Air Force Master Sergeant, been in the AF for something like 15 years and is in a management position after having been a radar operator on AWACS for a number of years. We got to talking about weapons and I asked her what the AF issued her, and she could not tell me. She knew that the pistol was a 9mm but that was all. I asked her if she had to requalify periodically and she told me yes, but that she was not very good with the rifle and a little better with the pistol but not by much. I know the answers but I was curious if she did.

So I am here to tell you that being in the military does not necessarily mean that you have any special skills or knowledge when it comes to possessing weapons.


edit on 19-1-2013 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

So I am here to tell you that being in the military does not mean that you have any special skills or knowledge when it comes to possessing weapons.


Nor does being a cop. I shoot with a lot of them who hate their guns and never touch them unless they have to qualify that once a year.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   
As a Former LEO officer of several years...I think every American should have one..LEO was never supposed to be the GREAT PROTECTOR of the masses.....In fact it's a little known thing by alot of people...police officers have no duty to protect you...so the better you can protect yourself. better things are as a whole..



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I agree on both counts...And these are not isolated stories, either. Here in my county, deputies are required to shoot 100 rounds every year for their re-qual...I shoot that in 10 minutes at the range!

But, why, other than conditioning, would a person ignorant of these facts about LEOs and Military members, not even consider that regular citizens might have umpteen times the training and weapons discipline, of those whose JOB requires the use of a weapon?




edit on 1/19/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: s



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


With any hope.Their response to this message could be the reason.




edit on 19-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
I had this thought the other day, when reading another thread, and some posters were stating that if someone is not a cop or in the military, they don't need certain types of weapons. So, I attempted to discover their motives as to why they feel that way. Can you help me to understand?

A society where everyone is armed are "accidents" waiting to happen.
Instead of fists, there will be guns.
I don't use fists [either], but apparently a lot of people do.



Why do some feel that it is OK for LEOs and the military to possess or have access to certain types of weapons, but can't seem to apply their own logic to the average citizen?

If someone is to Enforce the Law when tough guys are not behaving, and are probably armed in any way they can, it would be good to be able to respond to that as a Law Enforcer, no?



Is it the training?

That should be expected too, yes.



Is it the oath?

That should be expected too, yes.



Is it the heirarchy involved, or the level of organization?

No.



The uniform?

That should be a part of it yes.



Is it the fact that they are controlled by some branch of Govt.? Why can a cop or soldier have a fully automatic M-16 in the trunk of their patrol car or HMMWV, but for the average law-abiding citizen, it must be unacceptable?

Because "average law-abiding citizens" turn out to run into trouble eventually. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the public. Look at the fans at any hockey game. They can't all have criminal records?

And because soldiers go to war and...well, kill with the weapons as instructed.


I'm curious why some see the military and law enforcement in a different light than any other Patriot?

You truly cannot see the difference between military and the common man?



Then I tried to consider what law enforcement and members of the military would feel about the subject and came up with this...

But... You just wondered why some people think that only LE-people should have guns. Or are you suggesting that they are the [only] ones "protesting"?



Picture this...If you were charged with protecting the citizens of a particular area, and were trained and armed and paid, to do so, would you feel slighted, if your bosses, suddenly fired or relieved of duty, 80% of your co-workers?

Picture this, you are a LEO and arrive to a scene of shooting, where civilians have joined the gun-fight to "get the bad guys".
Good luck assessing the situation.



Now, what if the US was invaded?

Other countries seem to have figured it out.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


With any hope.Their respounce to this message could be the reason.




edit on 19-1-2013 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)


Rocky, the video brings up a valid point!

Were those who took the oath, to do what is requested of them in the video, would that make anyone open their eyes? I would think, yes! But, how would those actions be any different than what regular citizens are doing RIGHT NOW, and we are being chastised for it....Does this make any sense???


edit on 1/19/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: I edited it...



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

But, why, other than conditioning, would a person ignorant of these facts about LEOs and Military members, not even consider that regular citizens might have umpteen times the training and weapons dicipline, of those whose JOB requires the use of a weapon?



Ignorance. They all think that a cop is out 20 hours a week doing force on force training. Or at least it appears that way.

They also have no clue as to the type of training opportunities that are available to non-cops and non-military.

They dont know things like this exist and that many of us participate for both the educational and the fun factor:

Sig Academy
Thunder Ranch
Frontsight

And dozens more all across the country small and large training side by wide with LEO and military.

The whole problem is just ignorance and unfortunately there is very little or no desire on the part of the ignorant to learn.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


I actually tried to start a thread a few days a go about this weird (to me) belief that regular folks are somehow dangerous if they have an assault rifle, but I suck in putting my thoughts in writing so I gave up.




Picture this...If you were charged with protecting the citizens of a particular area, and were trained and armed and paid, to do so, would you feel slighted, if your bosses, suddenly fired or relieved of duty, 80% of your co-workers?


I personally know both police officers and military veterans and they all feel this way. I even know a guy that works on a armored truck and he thinks that a concealed carry bystander has more chances to stop a heist than he or a armed security guard does because of the surprise factor.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think the fundamental difference would be the mental health side of the issue, since you can be law abiding and have a firearm but also mentally unstable. Cops and soldiers are subject to mental health checks and are constantly surrounded by people who are able to spot something should an issue with their co workers mental state.

You can have never committed a crime, be a loner and totally insane - this is the potential danger.

The only thing that should be done with the gun issue, is a mandatory mental health check every X years to retain your license. Perhaps also if anyone living in the same home has potentially dangerous mental health issues, additional restrictions on how the gun and ammo is stored for the licensed owner.

Some would argue that would be an invasion in their lives and another way to bleed gun owners of their money and time, but its really purely about general safety. Guns are for safety after all, right?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 

Like I said we can only hope.
That people in power can join our cause.When more people in power acknowledge,we are under attack.More people will listen.Many of us have the will.But we sure could use people with training and tatics.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





We're all taught from birth that a cop with a gun is normal and anyone but a cop with a gun is not.


Another thing I find ironic is that most of the people that think only law enforcement officers need guns are the same people that get nervous when a cop pulls up next to them on a highway.
edit on 19-1-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
If the citizens are armed and handle situations themselves..in increases the odds that I will be going home to my family at the end of my shift...

example..1.

911 call...woman home alone with kids, suspect kicking in door....I am currently 15 miles away...If I drive fast enough...I might get there in 7-8 minutes depending on traffic....if I don't get in an accident....


example 2. 911 call....women home alone with kids has shot and killed suspect that kicked in her door, would like an officer to come by and removed the perp from her floor...at my own pace...



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


I appreciate your attempt to answer my questions, but it seems that you merely offered a bunch of hypotheticals, and really didn't answer them, at all!



A society where everyone is armed are "accidents" waiting to happen.
Instead of fists, there will be guns.
I don't use fists [either], but apparently a lot of people do.


This is false. I have been in two situations since I started carrying concealed, that force was required of me. Neither time did my pistol enter the equation. One instance, even led to the police being called, and at no time were they even aware that I was packing...Next?





You truly cannot see the difference between military and the common man?



NO! I can't! ALL cops and soldiers are just regular people like you and I. The difference between your opinion and mine, is that I don't believe in calling someone "common". This is a term, normally reserved for someone who resides in a European country, and has been conditioned to consider themselves a subject to be governed...
Whereas, an American, a true Patriot, maintains a sense of Sovereignty. That's about as plain as I can put it!




Picture this, you are a LEO and arrive to a scene of shooting, where civilians have joined the gun-fight to "get the bad guys".
Good luck assessing the situation.


Picture this...When the LEO arrives on the scene, and orders everyone to drop their weapons and get on the ground, the ones that immediately comply, are going to be the good guys....




Other countries seem to have figured it out.


??? Do you mean that NO country has experienced an invasion, after enacting strict gun laws? Perhaps, it's because the threat is already within their borders...


edit on 1/19/2013 by GoOfYFoOt because: sp



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 





Picture this...When the LEO arrives on the scene, and orders everyone to drop their weapons and get on the ground, the ones that immediately comply, are going to be the good guys....


And that is exactly how it works!!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 




You can have never committed a crime, be a loner and totally insane - this is the potential danger.


There are many, many people like that and from time to time they do totally insane things like This, and this and many more other insane things that we have no control of. We should be able and willing to lookout for ourselves and others.

Just like it's a good idea to have as many people as possible trained to do CPR and/or The Heimlich maneuver walking around the streets and shopping malls, it is a good idea to have as many as possible trained and be able to defend yourself and/or others.

A criminal only becomes a criminal when he commits a crime. And for that they do not need any gun at all.



The only thing that should be done with the gun issue, is a mandatory mental health check every X years to retain your license. Perhaps also if anyone living in the same home has potentially dangerous mental health issues, additional restrictions on how the gun and ammo is stored for the licensed owner.


I personally don't think it would make anybody any safer. I feel safer when I am walking at night on a crowded sidewalk than if I'm the only one there. Putting people on a crazy list doesn't do it for me, more good people around me does.
edit on 19-1-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Biigs
I think the fundamental difference would be the mental health side of the issue, since you can be law abiding and have a firearm but also mentally unstable. Cops and soldiers are subject to mental health checks and are constantly surrounded by people who are able to spot something should an issue with their co workers mental state.

You can have never committed a crime, be a loner and totally insane - this is the potential danger.

The only thing that should be done with the gun issue, is a mandatory mental health check every X years to retain your license. Perhaps also if anyone living in the same home has potentially dangerous mental health issues, additional restrictions on how the gun and ammo is stored for the licensed owner.

Some would argue that would be an invasion in their lives and another way to bleed gun owners of their money and time, but its really purely about general safety. Guns are for safety after all, right?



Forgive me, but I am trying to understand your point of view...
Do you feel, that all people who have mental health issues, are potentially violent or dangerous? Do you feel that anyone with a mental health condition no longer has the right to defend themselves or their loved ones?
Do you honestly believe that ANYONE on the planet could effectively differentiate between non-violent mental health issues, potentially violent ones, and absolute guarantees that a person will commit a violent act, because of their mental state?
Where would you draw the line, to ensure that those who have the right to self defense, and those who have the right, but should be restricted in their means, are properly identified?

Please, I'm not badgering and my questions are sincere...

Who should be in charge of identifying those who should be restricted? And, how should we determine who to render helpless at a time when they need help the most?





new topics
top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join