Originally posted by FMF
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?

I will not take bait where you suggest what I mean. I mean what I wrote. Deal with it.

Originally posted by normbenign
I do think that most cops ought to take carrying more seriously, just as most of the licensed civilian I know who carry do.

Something systematic can be done to ensure that police are well trained. What about licensed armed citizens who need to take carrying more seriously? How can that be achieved?

Originally posted by normbenign
I will not take bait where you suggest what I mean. I mean what I wrote. Deal with it.

It was a question. I was asking you to clarify what you meant.

Originally posted by normbenign
How about legally armed?

Apparently the shooter brought the gun in Florida legally in 1991. Moreover:

“I can’t think of a current gun law that would have banned the weapon that was used in this shooting,” said Daniel Webster, a director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/nyregion/gun-used-in-shooting-at-empire-state-building-is-known-for-its-deadly-power.html

Of course, he did not have a concealed carry or residential gun permit so his possession of the gun was illegal in NYC, but you have previously bitterly complained about the anti-gun attitude of the "gun grabbers" in NY State. Surely you don't support such laws?

Originally posted by FMF
Something systematic can be done to ensure that police are well trained. What about licensed armed citizens who need to take carrying more seriously? How can that be achieved?

It already is, by mandatory training, and by the legal systems almost certain assumption of guilt on the part of the legal user of deadly force. Anyone carrying without proper training is just silly.

Originally posted by FMF
It was a question. I was asking you to clarify what you meant.

No you reworded or made a suggestion about what I meant.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Apparently the shooter brought the gun in Florida legally in 1991. Moreover:

“I can’t think of a current gun law that would have banned the weapon that was used in this shooting,” said Daniel Webster, a director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/nyregion/gun-used-in-shooting-at-empire-state-b ...[text shortened]... the anti-gun attitude of the "gun grabbers" in NY State. Surely you don't support such laws?

I can't think of a law either. Some things are not preventable. Life is full of risks.

Originally posted by normbenign
No you reworded or made a suggestion about what I meant.

It was a question. Take a look again. It was a question inviting you to clarify what you meant, not a statement. You're all over the place on this thread; asking you what you actually mean seems perfectly reasonable.

Originally posted by normbenign
Anyone carrying without proper training is just silly.

Does this mean there ARE or there ARE NOT any armed citizens who need to take carrying more seriously?

Originally posted by normbenign
It already is, by mandatory training, and by the legal systems almost certain assumption of guilt on the part of the legal user of deadly force.

Is the "mandatory training" for civilians better than the "mandatory training" for police?

Originally posted by FMF
It was a question. Take a look again. It was a question inviting you to clarify what you meant, not a statement. You're all over the place on this thread; asking you what you actually mean seems perfectly reasonable.

No it was a suggestion of what I meant. I meant what I said, and I will not take your bait. When you distort what I say, you get no reply except.....LIAR.

Originally posted by FMF
Does this mean there ARE or there ARE NOT any armed citizens who need to take carrying more seriously?

Of course there probably are people who could take their responsibility more seriously. There are also cops who seem a bit frivolous about their special job and its consequences.

Originally posted by FMF
Is the "mandatory training" for civilians better than the "mandatory training" for police?

It is different. A sworn officer has a duty to pursue and arrest felons. An armed citizen may defend himself or others but has no obligation to stop or pursue felons.

There is training available at cost to both police officers and private citizens which is far beyond what most local departments provide for officers.

Originally posted by normbenign
Of course there probably are people who could take their responsibility more seriously. There are also cops who seem a bit frivolous about their special job and its consequences.

So on this thread, you are seeking to compare those civilians who might well be good with a gun to those police who might be bad with a gun?

That's a question by the way; I'm looking for clarification from you.

Originally posted by normbenign
There is training available at cost to both police officers and private citizens which is far beyond what most local departments provide for officers.

I'll try again; sorry if I was unclear. Is the "mandatory firearms training" for civilians better than the "mandatory firearms training" for police?