Thread: Why frontline cops should be armed

Originally Posted by Banana

Carrying weapons for defense is exactly what you're advocating, just for a select group of people only.

Absolutely, but the select group of people has been through no end of vetting, trained in the use of firearms, law surrounding firearms and have had their decision making tested under pressure. This select group is the group that is called to go into dangerous situations and deal with some of the most dangerous people on a regular basis, at a moments notice and on the offenders territory. This group is also under constant scrutiny and are readily hung out to dry when they do wrong.

Select group, absolutely, general public, don't know.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Absolutely, but the select group of people has been through no end of vetting, trained in the use of firearms, law surrounding firearms and have had their decision making tested under pressure. This select group is the group that is called to go into dangerous situations and deal with some of the most dangerous people on a regular basis, at a moments notice and on the offenders territory. This group is also under constant scrutiny and are readily hung out to dry when they do wrong.

Select group, absolutely, general public, don't know.

Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe. Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe. Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.

Heaven forbid this comes in. There's enough dickheads shooting each other in the bush let alone allowing them to carry pistols wherever they like for 'defence'. Defence against what?

I've read this discussion with interest.

My view, for what it is worth, is that our police have sufficient access to firearms at present and I don't want them to always be carrying a firearm.

In my view if all officers carry then this will lead to an escalation (in reaction) from those who confront police. If you expect police to be armed then you're going to be armed if/when you confront them.

If police reach for a firearm before pepper spray or taser then there will be more 3rd party casualties, accidental shootings, ricochets etc will happen.

I don't want our police officers hurt in the line of duty, but I don't believe further arming is an answer.
If it is the answer then the wrong question is being asked.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Firearms license holders are a select group with all the attributes you describe. Nobody is arguing that the non FAL general public should be allowed concealed carry.

A FAL holder goes through as much vetting as a Police Applicant?! Care to quote your sources?
Trained in the law? S39,40,41,48 and 62 of the Crimes Act?
Trained in the use of a firearm? Don't remember that being a requirement to getting a FAL
Decision making tested under pressure? When? Where? What kind of scenarios?
Called to go into dangerous situations? Really?! Is there a blanket phone number for the nearest FAL holder?
Constant Scruitiny? I don't think so, not unless they do something to draw attention to themselves.

FAL holders do not hold the same attributes.

Like I said, concealed carry for the public is a separate issue.

The public are not FAL holders. FAL holders are a subset of the public that have more training than the wider public. I take your point that FAL holders may have less training that the police, but that is not always true either is it? Many FAL holders have screeds more firearms experience and practicable use than the general police (non-specialised) although legal training will be distinctly lacking.

From my time, the guys I worked with were all useless. I cleaned up everyone all the time with pistols and rifles and I am no pistol shooter. If I saw a policeman coming to protect me with a firearm I would get completely behind him, lie down and play dead, and I still wouldn't guarantee my safety.

Originally Posted by Savage1

A FAL holder goes through as much vetting as a Police Applicant?! Care to quote your sources?
Trained in the law? S39,40,41,48 and 62 of the Crimes Act?
Trained in the use of a firearm? Don't remember that being a requirement to getting a FAL
Decision making tested under pressure? When? Where? What kind of scenarios?
Called to go into dangerous situations? Really?! Is there a blanket phone number for the nearest FAL holder?
Constant Scruitiny? I don't think so, not unless they do something to draw attention to themselves.

FAL holders do not hold the same attributes.

FAL holders (b endorsed in particular) hold the required attributes for the purpose of CC, and any deficiencies can be made up through classes and training. Concealed carriers wouldn't be getting the power and responsibility of a police officer, so directly comparing attributes is pointless.

Like I said, concealed carry for the public is a separate issue.

I think it's the exact same issue. The only gain police are getting from full time arming is immediate access to a firearm for their own self defense. Why should only the police be afforded that ability. Increased risk doesn't make their life any more valuable.

I think if Police were armed it would be for self defence but it would be mainly to have the tools with them when needing to protect others when going to jobs. The delay in going back to get firearms could cost someone their life.

They are required to deal with crimes when they occur, which put themselves in danger. So therefore they would probably need the tools to protect themselves and others.

Whereas, you, and members of the public would run away from the danger, whilst Police go towards it. So why would you need firearms to protect yourself because you wouldn't go into a house to deal with a domestic or violent assault.

You are thinking of self preservation as a reason for having a firearm, yet Police want them to better enable themselves to protect others. Quite a difference I think.

Originally Posted by Banana

FAL holders (b endorsed in particular) hold the required attributes for the purpose of CC, and any deficiencies can be made up through classes and training. Concealed carriers wouldn't be getting the power and responsibility of a police officer, so directly comparing attributes is pointless.



I think it's the exact same issue. The only gain police are getting from full time arming is immediate access to a firearm for their own self defense. Why should only the police be afforded that ability. Increased risk doesn't make their life any more valuable.

Crazy.

Originally Posted by Banana

FAL holders (b endorsed in particular) hold the required attributes for the purpose of CC, and any deficiencies can be made up through classes and training. Concealed carriers wouldn't be getting the power and responsibility of a police officer, so directly comparing attributes is pointless.



I think it's the exact same issue. The only gain police are getting from full time arming is immediate access to a firearm for their own self defense. Why should only the police be afforded that ability. Increased risk doesn't make their life any more valuable.

Massiveattack directly compared them stating FAL holders carry the same attributes, as I was merely pointing out he was a long way from the truth.

I know a lot of FAL holders that most certainly don't hold the required attributes, but then that is just my personal opinion, just as your ideas on what attributes are needed are just your opinion.

It's not the same issue at all, I see it as a selfish argument the 'Police shouldn't be armed because I can't'. It's got nothing to do with you being armed, it's about whether they need to be armed or not.