Retired Cops not subject to restrictions on guns?

[Tom]

Active police aside, has anybody yet given a good reason as to why a RETIRED police officer should have 15 rounds while a regular joe civilian shouldn't? He's really no more a target than a regular civilian. Is it because retired cops are really terrible shots so they need twice the ammo, what is the reason? A retired cop is a similar target to a civilian and shouldn't be given the ability to defend himself more capably.

The reasoning that occurs to me is their ability to defend, which is still there to a degree even when their off-duty or retired.

I don't see any great distinction between active on-duty and off-duty, retired, in respect to their suitability to be armed.

 

[xj0hnx]

you completely miss the point about what training is and why law enforcement and the military are respected.

It doesn't come from a firing range.

You completely miss the point that a lot of civilians are retired/separated military. Does your ignorance extend to Coast Guard? They don't do a lot of "training" with firearms. What about Air Force? You probably don't know this, but there are a lot of civilians that have a lot more training than some military, and most police.

 

[BoberFett]

So your argument is everyone with their CCW permit is an expert marksman and gun enthusiast. My argument is that is flat out false.

By your logic everyone with a gym membership is a fitness guru.

So your argument is that every LEO is an expert marksman? That's a ridiculous assumption.

CCW holders are gun enthusiasts for the most part, they enjoy firing guns and do it regularly. LEOs carry guns because it's a part of their job. Do you consider McEmployees to be burger experts?

 

[mchammer187]

So your argument is that every LEO is an expert marksman? That's a ridiculous assumption.

CCW holders are gun enthusiasts for the most part, they enjoy firing guns and do it regularly. LEOs carry guns because it's a part of their job. Do you consider McEmployees to be burger experts?

No I am saying they both probably suck (neither is an expert) but on average law enforcement maybe slightly less because they are required to carry a gun every day and go through training twice a year.

 

[Zebo]

I'll take a outdoorsman country boy/girl over all those scrubs.

 

[xj0hnx]

No I am saying they both probably suck (neither is an expert) but on average law enforcement maybe slightly less because they are required to carry a gun every day and go through training twice a year.

As opposed to civilians that want to carry and go to the range twice a week, or month? lol

 

[Zebo]

So your argument is that every LEO is an expert marksman? That's a ridiculous assumption.

CCW holders are gun enthusiasts for the most part, they enjoy firing guns and do it regularly. LEOs carry guns because it's a part of their job. Do you consider McEmployees to be burger experts?

This I do 3-Gun and can bun through 6000 rounds in one weekend. That's more than most cops shoot in 10 years.

 

[mchammer187]

As opposed to civilians that want to carry and go to the range twice a week, or month? lol

Sure there are some just as there are some gun enthusiasts among the police/ military.

You make it sound like I trust cops. I trust them like anyone else. There are excellent ones and crap. I am just challenging the notion that ccw holder = Rambo. I am saying most people suck at most things.

 

[mchammer187]

This I do 3-Gun and can bun through 6000 rounds in one weekend. That's more than most cops shoot in 10 years.

So you are saying the average ccw permit holder can shoot as good or better than you?

 

[Phanuel]

No, he's not. But the average cop goes to the range twice a year for qualification and then otherwise in the course of his or her duty NEVER TOUCHES THEIR FIREARM AGAIN.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Absolutely I am. I still cringe when I'm in the community I used to work in. People do hold grudges. Some more than others.

That being said do I think it's absolutely necessary to have those type of exceptions? No, not in most cases. But the possible risk IS, in my experience, above those of any "normal" citizen.

Any proof of that or is this yet another baseless claim? I'm probably more at risk.

 

[mchammer187]

No, he's not. But the average cop goes to the range twice a year for qualification and then otherwise in the course of his or her duty NEVER TOUCHES THEIR FIREARM AGAIN.

So I will admit he is better than the average cop at handling firearms I don't think that was ever a point of contention though.

I'm saying piece of paper vs a badge both have very little meaning at demonstrating proficiency.

I am also saying he is far from the representative case when it comes to your typical CCW permit holder because this was my point the entire time.

 

[Phanuel]

Your average CCW permit holder is probably just as qualified as a peace officer is with his or her firearm. This is the point we're trying to make. Police officers aren't magically more qualified than civilians despite what you appear to think.

Just look at the cases of abuse you read in the news and all of the legislation aimed at restricting civilians rights when it comes to taping and recording officer behavior.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your average CCW permit holder is probably just as qualified as a peace officer is with his or her firearm.

Two points. First the difference isn't anything that is backed by any data, but then most gun restrictions aren't. This is simply a gift to those who in LEO, a freebie.

Second, the whole 7 round limit is ridiculous. That limits a great many firearms which aren't good for "killing hundreds of people per minute" as someone here says. It makes a good many garden variety guns illegal, and that is the sole reason for it. Emperor Cuomo says that 7 is a magic number and so shall it be.

 

[ArmyVet88]

As an Airborne Combat Engineer who was attached to a Special Forces Group for my 4 years on Active Duty, i will state that yes most CCW are much more equipped with their own weapons then that of on duty police officers. Military does not train everyone. Air Force holds a rubber duckie (Fake M16) when they do their little warrior week event. Navy only trains their boarding crew team, Master of Arms, Seals, and Seabees. Army and Marines train all the time. Just because someone has held a firearm does not mean they are an expert most people cannot shoot. Another point for the hunters is just because you can shoot your rifle does not mean you can handle an AR, "Kentucky windage" does not apply when shooting an AR. I think we need to educate every single person on firearms to some extent. Just my input

 

[NoStateofMind]

And I'll add they swear an oath.

LMFAO! Oh boy! I feel so much safer


HAHAHAHA!

 

[Smoblikat]

We(normal people) aren't at war with the police or the military. There's a perfectly valid reason for the exception, training.

So you are saying that if a civilian gets training they can have no restrictions either?

And yes we are..................

 

[NoStateofMind]

So you are saying that if a civilian gets training they can have no restrictions either?

And yes we are..................

He's basically using training as the qualification for certain gun/magazine ownership. Fortunately for us the Constitution makes no reference to training for self defense as its pretty obvious what you do when attacked.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I'm probably more at risk.

Maybe try being less of a dick then.

 

[Lithium381]

So we still haven't figured out why RETIRED LEO gets to bypass the ban, or why active-leo gets to purchase "banned" weapons(at least in CA, see Christopher Dorner) . . . . If alls it takes is an oath to serve[the state] and protect[the states bank-account] then i'll take an oath, now let me carry beyond the legal limit!

 

[Chuck_v]

The simple answer to this question is no, they do not. Not many "normal" citizens are directly responsible for gang members, drug dealers, murders etc... being put in prison. The playing field in that regard is not level.

As a law abiding citizen unless you are armed you are never on a level playing field with criminal trash. The issue is being able to defend yourself when predatory criminals attempt to perpetrate harm. My life, my well being is just as precious to me as a police officers life is precious to them. In addition I do not want an even playing field with the criminal trash, I want over whelming superiority if I should have to deal with criminal trash. My wife and I are alive today because I carry concealed and was very much ready to deal with two POS when they confronted us. They had no idea I had a weapon until I used it and that is how it should be.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe try being less of a dick then.

If that's the case you are most likely in need the most. I know the whole "facty thingy" doesn't go in your favor, but what's new? Certainly not that, and yes I'm more likely because of what I do to be harmed than a retired cop. Then again you probably don't see how Emperor Cuomo could have done any wrong anyway.

 

[Chuck_v]

No I am saying they both probably suck (neither is an expert) but on average law enforcement maybe slightly less because they are required to carry a gun every day and go through training twice a year.

Who in the hell shoots criminals with hamburgers? I prefer shooting them with a .45 ACP that way it breaks the repeat offender cycle almost instantaneously. By the way accuracy goes to hell in a gun fight for the average person. You have to practice often and intently to maintain focus and situational awareness for a gun fight and most gun fights do not last much longer than four or five seconds in the civilian world.

 

[Tom]

You completely miss the point that a lot of civilians are retired/separated military. Does your ignorance extend to Coast Guard? They don't do a lot of "training" with firearms. What about Air Force? You probably don't know this, but there are a lot of civilians that have a lot more training than some military, and most police.

I included retired military so what's your point ?

I find it highly unlikely that there's many civilians that have the training I'm talking about in a greater degree than law enforcement and at least some military.

Because I'm not talking about firearms training per se, the training I'm talking about is dealing with situations.

And I'm not arguing in favor of restricting civilians, I'm pointing out the rationality of the other side of the issue which is relying on the training and experience of retired and off-duty cops and others who have a lot of experience.

 

[xj0hnx]

I included retired military so what's your point ?

I find it highly unlikely that there's many civilians that have the training I'm talking about in a greater degree than law enforcement and at least some military.

Because I'm not talking about firearms training per se, the training I'm talking about is dealing with situations.

And I'm not arguing in favor of restricting civilians, I'm pointing out the rationality of the other side of the issue which is relying on the training and experience of retired and off-duty cops and others who have a lot of experience.

Let me explain something to you, I am ex-military, been trained for war, been to war, and the training you get, and situations you face do not translate to the civilian world. Something you don't seem to be aware of is that those "situations" they "train" for, military and LEO, involve the fact that they have either a partner, or back up with them, or coming. And whether you accept it or not, most enthusiast and civilians that buy, and carry shoot more than even Army soldiers fire their weapons, and those "situations" and how they are handled as more dependent on the individual. I've seen trained soldiers freeze up, miss everything they shoot at. Nothing guarantees even trained personal will perfectly react to a given situation, as evidenced by the MANY uncalled for shootings by police that seem to happen almost every day.