Well trained police are safer than armed citizens, or are they?

Originally posted by FMF
I am not twisting anything; I am trying to extrapolate what you mean. I am "mixing posts" because I believe what you are saying across different posts does not add up and/or amounts to a rather clumsy disingenuousness, which you appear to be trying to disguise by spreading it across these different posts.

What do former "special forces operatives" have to do ...[text shortened]... s or responsibilities of police on account of how much "safer" you claim they are?

I started the thread with a simple question, which you ought to be able to read.

Originally posted by normbenign
I started the thread with a simple question, which you ought to be able to read.

The question marks are over several of the things you have claimed and said in the meantime. Clearly.

Originally posted by FMF
I am not twisting anything; I am trying to extrapolate what you mean. I am "mixing posts" because I believe what you are saying across different posts does not add up and/or amounts to a rather clumsy disingenuousness, which you appear to be trying to disguise by spreading it across these different posts.

What do former "special forces operatives" have to do ...[text shortened]... s or responsibilities of police on account of how much "safer" you claim they are?

"What do former "special forces operatives" have to do with ordinary armed citizens? "

They are often one and the same.

"What do former "special forces operatives" have to do with well trained police?"

They also are sometimes one and the same.

"In what precise way is their "understanding of their limitations under the Constitution" relevant when comparing "special forces operatives [who have] become ordinary citizens" and police using firearms in the line of duty?"

You might ask that of the Delta Force guys, the FBI hostage response group, and BATF in regards to the assault of the Mt. Carmel church near Waco, TX.

"Do you think "licensed CCW holders" should assume - to any degree - some of the roles or responsibilities of police on account of how much "safer" you claim they are?"

The law allows them to do so, if they determine it to be what a reasonable man would do.

Originally posted by FMF
The question marks are over several of the things you have claimed and said in the meantime. Clearly.

Try taking a position on the original OP, or try debating something instead of baiting me with stupid leading questions.

Originally posted by normbenign
Try taking a position on the original OP, or try debating something instead of baiting me with stupid leading questions.

Let me ask a question that I suspect gets to the heart of the reason for you starting this thread. You consider yourself to be an "ordinary armed citizen", presumably. So, do you reckon you yourself would be "safer" than a well trained police man or woman to counter a situation where firearms were being used in the carrying out of a crime?