40ozflatfoot
New member
Interesting approach. But, I'm having trouble with a few points.
In a general sense I would have to take this on faith, since I have no way to confirm or refute it with facts. But, the question that comes to my mind is, what does this training entail? Does it involve the use of firearms in various tactical situations, or does it concentrate on the use of negotiation and, for want of a better term, "street diplomacy," in order to defuse a situation before it degenerates into a fire fight? The limited exposure I have had to such training showed me that the emphasis was on the latter. Shooting in various tactical situations was covered at the firing range.
On that note, my experience has taught me that not all law enforcement orgainzations offer such training to the general public, regardless if they have a CCW or not. It gives the impression that law enforcement does not want anyone else to "know the secret" to peaceful solutions to potentially dangerous situtations. Such restrictions nurture a separatist, "I'm better [trained] than you" attitude. Granted, there are many people for whom this kind of training is inappropriate, but the same can be said about firearm possesstion at all, much less possesstion of a CCW. The obvious examples have already been mentioned: felons, and the mentally ill.
Without resorting to the quibble about where the definition of duty comes from, the duty referred to here has been rendered tenuous by various lower court and SCOTUS decisions. As most of us know, LEOs are not legally bound to render aid or assistance to anyone in any situation, regardless of the circumstances that put them on alert to it. The duty referred to, therefore, cannot be a legal one.
If one is to believe that the duty to intervene is a moral one, then the question almost asks itself: why should such a moral duty be limited to a LEO? Does not a responsible, law-abiding citizen have the same moral duty? Of course he does, a conclusion proved almost every day throughout the nation by citizens using their guns to stop crime before it starts.
Interesting. I would like to see some examples of that allegation. I am confident that other examples of private citizens, armed and otherwise, doing the same can be produced. What's left is to determine the ratio of the frequency of occurrance of each case. Are there more of one than the other? Probably. But, it must be remembered that the average LEO oftentimes is posted in an area where such situations are more common than in most other places, and is therefore more likely to encounter them. That doesn't mean that the average, armed and prudent citizen wouldn't wait for reinforcements in what he would judge to be a situation too big for him to handle alone, but then how many of those citizens have the resources available to the LEO?
Few citizens can "call for backup" on a radio with the confidence that a LEO has that help is soon to arrive. They, therefore, should not be expected, for lack of those resources, to exhibit the same kind of courageous prudence.
I have read about many cases where armed criminals were stopped in the commission of their crimes by armed citizens that outnumbered the criminals, who then either fled, or surrendered. Many such examples are available on line for reading.
Hear, hear! I wholeheartedly agree. Combined with the Churchill Motivation, the approach is unbeatable.
I think there are quite a few anti-gun advocates that would disagree with you. However, I don't think that is a significant problem. What I think is a problem is the increased opportunity LEOs would have to enforce the laws of a state/area normally outside of his jurisdiction, thus putting more pressure on the citizens of the area, both law-abiding and otherwise, and effectively increasing the number of cops on the streets. Granted, this is a relatively small point that is subject to demographic and political factors, but it is there, and could result in the arrest and firearms confiscation of those that the locals would normally overlook as a matter of policy.
The tactics we have seen used by the anti-gun group are as related here. But, one thing may have been overlooked. That is the opportunistic side to their nature combined with their lack of adherence to the same "rules of discourse" that the gun advocates obey. We have already seen this in the highest profile possible, in the testimony of the President of the United States, where he chose to redefine, without just or reasonable qualification, the most common verb in the English language. It seems to me that it would be a simple matter for a Kenndy, or a Feinstein to say, in legislation proposals, that, since LEOs have permission, through HR218 to carry their weapons anywhere, there is no longer a need for carry permits anywhere, much less firearms. The people would be protected as never before, and therefore would not need their firearms for self protection, much less carry permits. The nonsensical side to this can be borne out by the same demographic and political arguements referred to above, but, as we all know now, professional politicians know when to take advantage of the technique that presents some of the facts, but not all of them.
We cannot afford to give them that opportunity. It is too tempting, and, as we all know, they do not resist temptation well.
HR218 as worded has more flaws than benefits. It should die on the judicial committee's doorstep.