Freedom and Security

[Wry Catcher]

Are they a dichotomy?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.

Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?

Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed? Would you feel more or less secure?

 

[Michelle420]

Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.

Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?

Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed? Would you feel more or less secure?

I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.

I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.

Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?

Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed? Would you feel more or less secure?

I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.

I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?

As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets. LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.

Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.

I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door. As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.

 

[Michelle420]

Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.

Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?

Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed? Would you feel more or less secure?

I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.

I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?

As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets. LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.

Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.

What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?

 

[there4eyeM]

So, this is not a philosophical question about freedom and security, but (again) about firearms?

Well, OK, here goes an attempt at both at the same time:

That freedom has to be protected is already arguable. Liberty, the right to movement and speech, can be constrained by others. If one is truly free, however, no other can take that away. For free means freedom from the constraints of error, falseness, an entrapped mind. Obviously, firearms are unneeded to protect such a state.

By contrast, the 'freedom' to carry firearms can easily lead to insecurity for the one carrying as well as those in the area. Having a firearm does not assure being the one to use it. And at precisely what point and in what kind of confrontation would one produce the arm? How does one decide? There are very few incidents when issues are so clear that a firearm would settle matters. Then, what happens when others also have weapons and, upon seeing a person pull out a lethal device, react in their perceived self defense?

That kind of freedom and security do not necessarily go together.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Unarmed people are neither free nor secure

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.

I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?

As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets. LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.

Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.

What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?

I don't think that's feasible.

 

[Michelle420]

As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets. LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.

Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.

What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?

I don't think that's feasible.

From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?

I don't think that's feasible.

From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?

LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.

And that's only part of it.

 

[Michelle420]

I don't think that's feasible.

From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?

LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.

And that's only part of it.

Ok you have listed what professionals must go through , it didn't really answer what I asked you though.

Is it your philosophy that no matter what training received even if identical to someone professionally trained, a citizen should not have guns?

or do you support citizens owning guns if they go through identical requirements and training as that of professionals?

 

[there4eyeM]

Being for or against firearms is a rather narrow perspective. Society should be developing rational, responsible participants. Such citizens could have hydrogen bombs and there would be no problem.

As stated elsewhere, I actually like precision machines such as pistols and rifles. I've owned, fired and carried them. I have no emotional feelings about them. I do see that the evolution of things in US history has brought us to a new place, and firearms are only a tiny part of what confronts us, a symptom at most.

 

[dblack]

Are they a dichotomy?

I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say they depend on each other. Freedom without security is living in fear, security without freedom is to live as a slave.

 

[Wry Catcher]

From a philosophical standpoint if they received the same training and passed the same criteria would you be ok with citizens owning guns?

LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.

And that's only part of it.

Ok you have listed what professionals must go through , it didn't really answer what I asked you though.

Is it your philosophy that no matter what training received even if identical to someone professionally trained, a citizen should not have guns?

or do you support citizens owning guns if they go through identical requirements and training as that of professionals?

I'm not opposed to citizens owning guns and don't believe they need the same vetting and training as do armed peace officers. Please read what I posted about the types of weapons now available for civilians to outgun peace officers.

BTW, I was watching the Niners beat Atlanta. Sorry about the delay.

 

[Michelle420]

LE background is extensive; each candidate is given a complete psychological evaluation, both written and oral - two interviews with a psychologist; at least two interviews with in-house staff, the first with first level supervisors, the second with management and then assigned a training officer who evaluates the candidate regularly for at least one year.

And that's only part of it.

Ok you have listed what professionals must go through , it didn't really answer what I asked you though.

Is it your philosophy that no matter what training received even if identical to someone professionally trained, a citizen should not have guns?

or do you support citizens owning guns if they go through identical requirements and training as that of professionals?

I'm not opposed to citizens owning guns and don't believe they need the same vetting and training as do armed peace officers. Please read what I posted about the types of weapons now available for civilians to outgun peace officers.

BTW, I was watching the Niners beat Atlanta. Sorry about the delay.

No worries, I just enjoy the discussion.

I read your concerns on weaponry and " laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets"

That is why I asked if they had identical training that professionals receive and are required to have would you still oppose it.

I suppose I wondered if it was citizens having high powered weapons that bothered you or the lack of training and requirement laws for citizens that professionals are required to have.

I don't have any weaponry myself but I don't mind if my neighbor has a collection.

I think it comes down to accountability and responsibility.

Did your team win?

 

[auditor0007]

Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.

Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?

Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed? Would you feel more or less secure?

Based on the simple fact that there are a lot of nuts out there, I would prefer less people had access to firearms, especially in public places. If everyone was packing, we would all learn to live with it, but to have the feeling that everyone would be more secure is not very realistic. In the end, it would probably prevent many of the mass killings we see, but we would also likely see more incidents where just one or two people were killed. I imagine every city would see a couple of homicides each day like this. Just think about driving. Someone cuts you off and nearly drives you off the road. You get pissed off, go after them, catch up to them, aim and fire. Even knowing the other person might be armed, you'd still take your shot. Now not everyone would react like that. Some people could control their emotions enough to avoid this scenario, but we all know there are some out there who could not.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are they a dichotomy?

The government always puts security of the country of individual freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lots of looks which is good but let me put the question in terms of a current event.

Would we as a people but more free and more secure if everyone had the right to carry any type of firearm?

Would you feel free to go to a mall if you knew each of the thousands of people there were armed? Would you feel more or less secure?

I am not a gun owner and to be honest about it I am not bothered if a private citizen owns a gun.

I am not sure why anyone needs big assault weapons, is there a reason for needing that?

As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to outlaw the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets. LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.

Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.

I don't care what they keep in their homes, but it would be nice to know what we faced before knocking on their door. As it stands now a LE officer must assume danger and be prepared for everything.

LEOs can carry anything a civilian can, unless the idiotic politicians restrict them. If you have a problem with what your bosses let you carry argue with them, don't take away other people's rights.

 

[hortysir]

I am secure with my freedoms

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As a retired member of the LE community I would like laws to prevent the civilian population from having greater fire power then the officers/deputies/agents on the streets. LE spends time and money recruiting and checking the background of candidates, training them and supervising them closely during their first years on the job, and making sure they understand the law and use of force policies issued by their agency.

Civilians get a cursory background check and very little training, no psychological examination nor are they supervised even one day after their purchase of a gun.

What if civilians who wanted a handgun went through the same training and background check, would you be in support?

I don't think that's feasible.

You don't think it is feasible for civilians to go through a bottom of the barrel firearms course?