Freedom and Security

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We both know that depends on what law enforcement agency they work for, stop lying.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are they a dichotomy?

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

Huh? Did you mean "over" individual freedom?

I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.

 

[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 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.

LE cannot afford to outfit every officer/deputy/agent with the same weapons available to the civilian population. Keep in mind, LEO's will need to be trained in the operation of special weapons and how such firearms are to be used in the use of force policy and qualify quarterly; the agency will need to buy such weapons, maintain such weapons, and purchase ammunition so the use of such weapons can become familiar to the LEO.

Small special weapons teams are so equipped; that does not aid patrol.

 

[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.

We both know that depends on what law enforcement agency they work for, stop lying.

That's true. I'm reporting on what I did when I was assigned recruitment and training. I know that it is (mostly) true in California, at least with the agencies with whom I collaborated.

 

[dblack]

Are they a dichotomy?

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

Huh? Did you mean "over" individual freedom?

I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.

I don't think it does. In fact, if you believe government's primary responsibility is to protect individual freedom, it's flat out contradictory.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are they a dichotomy?

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

Huh? Did you mean "over" individual freedom?

I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.

It makes sense to ignore freedom in order to protect me from my decisions? How?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

LE cannot afford to outfit every officer/deputy/agent with the same weapons available to the civilian population. Keep in mind, LEO's will need to be trained in the operation of special weapons and how such firearms are to be used in the use of force policy and qualify quarterly; the agency will need to buy such weapons, maintain such weapons, and purchase ammunition so the use of such weapons can become familiar to the LEO.

Small special weapons teams are so equipped; that does not aid patrol.

Strange, that is not what you said the first time.

Come to think of it, it doesn't even apply to what I said, which was that, as far as I am concerned, police should be allowed to carry anything they want, just like anyone else. The people that have the biggest problem with that are the politicians that make up rules about what guns are, and are not, allowed. Once again, take that up with them, don't whinge to me about it.

Strangely enough, most civilians can't afford to carry gold plated Desert Eagles either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

We both know that depends on what law enforcement agency they work for, stop lying.

That's true. I'm reporting on what I did when I was assigned recruitment and training. I know that it is (mostly) true in California, at least with the agencies with whom I collaborated.

Big cities tend to use them more than smaller cities. I know one guy that got into the academy in El Paso that had no business being a cop in the backwoods of Arkansas.

 

[asterism]

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?

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.

I never fear getting shot at gun shows and those guns are EVERYWHERE!

I think bureaucrats on the fringes of law enforcement get a little too policy crazy when they try to engineer safety. Also, I think you're overstating the screening law enforcement gets. When military rejects get ushered right onto the patrol force it's not all that stringent.

Law enforcement is an honorable profession and it generally works well, the field has more than it's proportional share of true heroes despite the defects.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Huh? Did you mean "over" individual freedom?

I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.

It makes sense to ignore freedom in order to protect me from my decisions? How?

I'm thinking in terms of policy, the Selective Service Act, for example; establishing rules of the road too which limit your freedom to drive as fast or as recklessly as you please.

 

[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.

I never fear getting shot at gun shows and those guns are EVERYWHERE!

I think bureaucrats on the fringes of law enforcement get a little too policy crazy when they try to engineer safety. Also, I think you're overstating the screening law enforcement gets. When military rejects get ushered right onto the patrol force it's not all that stringent.

I don't know that this is true. Our policy was clear, and all agencies with whom I collaborated followed similar policies. No one was hired and put on the streets with a gun without a thorough background, complete psychological, physical and several interviews.

Law enforcement is an honorable profession and it generally works well, the field has more than it's proportional share of true heroes despite the defects.

In addition to what I posted above new LEO's are assigned a Training Officer and on probation for at least a year. They can be terminated at anytime during this period and have no right to know why (though they usually have a good idea).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Huh? Did you mean "over" individual freedom?

I suppose that's true and when not taken to the extreme makes sense.

It makes sense to ignore freedom in order to protect me from my decisions? How?

I'm thinking in terms of policy, the Selective Service Act, for example; establishing rules of the road too which limit your freedom to drive as fast or as recklessly as you please.

It makes sense to the government, it doesn't make sense to the brigades of African Americans that were used as cannon fodder during Vietnam.

 

[asterism]

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?

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.

I never fear getting shot at gun shows and those guns are EVERYWHERE!

I think bureaucrats on the fringes of law enforcement get a little too policy crazy when they try to engineer safety. Also, I think you're overstating the screening law enforcement gets. When military rejects get ushered right onto the patrol force it's not all that stringent.

I don't know that this is true. Our policy was clear, and all agencies with whom I collaborated followed similar policies. No one was hired and put on the streets with a gun without a thorough background, complete psychological, physical and several interviews.

Law enforcement is an honorable profession and it generally works well, the field has more than it's proportional share of true heroes despite the defects.

In addition to what I posted above new LEO's are assigned a Training Officer and on probation for at least a year. They can be terminated at anytime during this period and have no right to know why (though they usually have a good idea).

I think you are overselling this a bit.

Regardless, being an LEO is much more than being an accurate shot in a stressful situation. Most of the training is in procedure, whether you admit it or not, and if a cop is terminated their rights to own weapons stay intact. Many of those end up in the fringes like bounty hunters, private investigators, and security with access to the same types of weapons.

 

[midcan5]

Freedom doesn't exist and security can exist whether there is freedom or not. Is that a paradox. And guns have nothing to do with freedom or security. A gun is merely a tool, even a prisoner or a person who lived in a rigidly ruled place would not be determined to be free or secure based on having a gun. Guns only make sense with their use. Freedom is a concept that only makes sense in context; security can be any number of things. If I am sensibly rich, or have social security or some other ways in which my basic needs are met, am I secure. I may or not be as many other factors enter into the situation. Suppose I find I have a illness that requires great expense, am I still secure. Or suppose I have lots of weapons and so does my neighbor does that make me secure. Many people feel secure and free in the most rigid societal structures, others would never feel secure or free as they live in their minds and the outside is seen through it.

Is freedom real? http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

Parable to understand politics. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/265505-freedom.html

 

[dblack]

Freedom doesn't exist ...

Does slavery exist?

This claim that freedom doesn't exist is specious sophistry and adds nothing to the conversation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freedom doesn't exist and security can exist whether there is freedom or not. Is that a paradox. And guns have nothing to do with freedom or security. A gun is merely a tool, even a prisoner or a person who lived in a rigidly ruled place would not be determined to be free or secure based on having a gun. Guns only make sense with their use. Freedom is a concept that only makes sense in context; security can be any number of things. If I am sensibly rich, or have social security or some other ways in which my basic needs are met, am I secure. I may or not be as many other factors enter into the situation. Suppose I find I have a illness that requires great expense, am I still secure. Or suppose I have lots of weapons and so does my neighbor does that make me secure. Many people feel secure and free in the most rigid societal structures, others would never feel secure or free as they live in their minds and the outside is seen through it.

Is freedom real? http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

Parable to understand politics. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/265505-freedom.html

Remember all those times I berated you for using quotes instead of actually making posts?

I take them all back. This is, quite simply, the most incoherent thing I have ever read, it probably reduced my IQ by 15 points just to read it.