Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 26 Aug '12 14:34
    http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/bystanders-wounds-in-new-york-shooting-caused-by-2442495.html

    Veteran cops who admit to never having their gun out of its holster on duty, and probably skipped training and qualifying.
  2. 26 Aug '12 14:38
    Armed citizens won't skip training and qualifying? Don't you think that if the police is ill-trained in the use of firearms, they should be better trained?
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Aug '12 14:41
    Well trained police are safer than armed citizens at what?
  4. 26 Aug '12 15:02
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Armed citizens won't skip training and qualifying? Don't you think that if the police is ill-trained in the use of firearms, they should be better trained?
    The incentives say they wont. Cops operate under a protective shield of legal responsibility much more so than ordinary citizens. Lots of armed citizens spend thousands of their own money to attend schools which make them expert at firearms and the legal aspects of self defense or crime prevention.

    To be fair a few cops do as well, but my experience is that veteran cops take great pride in not ever using their gun.
  5. 26 Aug '12 15:03
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well trained police are safer than armed citizens at what?
    I am not going to play your word games.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Aug '12 15:04
    Originally posted by normbenign
    http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/bystanders-wounds-in-new-york-shooting-caused-by-2442495.html

    Veteran cops who admit to never having their gun out of its holster on duty, and probably skipped training and qualifying.
    Your thinking is always bizarre. IF trained policemen can wildly shoot and wound 9 bystanders when confronting one gunmen, what would you expect the result to be with armed citizens opening fire?
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Aug '12 15:05
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The incentives say they wont. Cops operate under a protective shield of legal responsibility much more so than ordinary citizens. Lots of armed citizens spend thousands of their own money to attend schools which make them expert at firearms and the legal aspects of self defense or crime prevention.

    To be fair a few cops do as well, but my experience is that veteran cops take great pride in not ever using their gun.
    On this forum, on more than one thread, you've reserved the right to turn your gun on people like the police if you personally deem it necessary and if you feel the need to do the "unpleasant but necessary job" - as you put it - of killing state or federal employees. In light of this, are you comfortable with the police being well trained?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Aug '12 15:06
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I am not going to play your word games.
    No word games, normbenign. It's just the question in your thread title directed back at you.

    Safer than armed citizens at what?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    26 Aug '12 15:15
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The incentives say they wont. Cops operate under a protective shield of legal responsibility much more so than ordinary citizens. Lots of armed citizens spend thousands of their own money to attend schools which make them expert at firearms and the legal aspects of self defense or crime prevention.

    To be fair a few cops do as well, but my experience is that veteran cops take great pride in not ever using their gun.
    Yeah the average armed citizen is a superman.

    I guess we could save the $700 billion we spend on the armed forces; our "expert" ordinary citizens can probably shoot better than a Navy Seal according to this "logic".
  10. 26 Aug '12 15:43
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your thinking is always bizarre. IF trained policemen can wildly shoot and wound 9 bystanders when confronting one gunmen, what would you expect the result to be with armed citizens opening fire?
    Most likely, more restrained and accurate.
  11. 26 Aug '12 15:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    On this forum, on more than one thread, you've reserved the right to turn your gun on people like the police if you personally deem it necessary and if you feel the need to do the "unpleasant but necessary job" - as you put it - of killing state or federal employees. In light of this, are you comfortable with the police being well trained?
    I am quite comfortable with well trained cops, as long as their training includes an understanding of their limitations under the Constitution.
  12. 26 Aug '12 15:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yeah the average armed citizen is a superman.

    I guess we could save the $700 billion we spend on the armed forces; our "expert" ordinary citizens can probably shoot better than a Navy Seal according to this "logic".
    Most of those special forces operatives become ordinary citizens when they finish their tours of duty.
  13. 26 Aug '12 15:46
    Originally posted by FMF
    No word games, normbenign. It's just the question in your thread title directed back at you.

    Safer than armed citizens at what?
    Think about it. You'll figure it out without me holding your hand. There is nothing mystical here.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Aug '12 15:48
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I am quite comfortable with well trained cops, as long as their training includes an understanding of their limitations under the Constitution.
    Well their understanding of your take on the Constitution probably means they are fully aware that there are people with your mindset who reserve the right to kill them for a reason and at a time of your own choosing.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    26 Aug '12 15:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Think about it. You'll figure it out without me holding your hand. There is nothing mystical here.
    So you mean that it is safer for civilians to shoot people they deem to be criminals than it is for the police to handle it? Or are you just talking about civilians who are "special forces operatives [who have] become ordinary citizens" and comparing them to some police who haven't shot anyone or have skipped training? From this you get Well trained police are [NOT] safer than armed citizens?