Wry Catcher
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #1
Are they a dichotomy?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Are they a dichotomy?
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?
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.
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?
Are they a dichotomy?
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.
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.