Arcane NJ law prevents retired cops from carrying concealed weapon

[Zeke 5,504]

Holy shit! Jack won!

 

Cheers bro

[tattooo 220]

I got an A- in constitutional law and rules of evidence, what did you get?

He got an A+ in trollism from the Sweeney university

[High Exposure 5,668]

So, you can't find a valid contradiction to my assertions. Got it.

 

Should I also assume that you advocate disbanding America's police departments?

 

Or are you simply offering more proof that guns on the street are dangerous, even in the hands of state trained professional police officers, and allowing untrained hobbyists to carry them heightens that danger dramatically and puts the general public unnecessarily at risk?

 

Thanks.

 

AK, you need to stop. Your remarks are divisive and condescending. You are driving a wedge deeper between police and the people who are typically on our side. This helps no one.

 

Not all cops are death dealing gunfighters. In fact very few of them are. Most cops now have never been in a fight their entire lives, don't know what it is like to be scared, or have their nose pushed in. Hell, many cops don't own any gun except the one they are issued/bought for work and very few carry off duty religiously.

 

There are plenty of instances where cops and citizens screwed the pooch alike. You may not like it but it's true. For every citizen example, I can find a cop example. In fact, here ya go - a valid contradiction to your assertations:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18378370-cop-in-ny-shooting-that-left-hostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions

 

Keep in mind, I am a Sgt at a municipal police agency in Central NJ. I am also assigned to a regional tactical team for the county. I am the head firearms instructor at my agency and on the team, as well as a County Use of Force instructor and Taser instructor. I am also friends with quite a few folks on this forum that aren't LEO but are very pro cop - including Shane, and I regularly shoot competitions with a bunch of folks that post here.

 

I also agree with PK90. If I was going into a gunfight tomorrow, there are plenty of non-cops I would choose to be at my side before many brother officers. Not only do they shoot better, but a lot of them have a better grasp of tactics and Use of Force.

 

Caveat: Most of that is no fault of the officer. Agencies will spend tons of cash and OT on cultural diversity training, community policing, etc... But not one dime extra for firearms, tactics, etc...

 

If cops don't do it on their own, or are lucky enough to get tapped by their agency for advanced or sustainment training, it just doesn't happen.

 

Back to the original topic -

 

It sucks these guys are denied their retired carry privileges. It also sucks that everyone else who is not LEO and wants to carry is denied as well.

[njpilot 671]

AK, you need to stop. Your remarks are divisive and condescending. You are driving a wedge deeper between police and the people who are typically on our side. This helps no one.

 

Not all cops are death dealing gunfighters. In fact very few of them are. Most cops now have never been in a fight their entire lives, don't know what it is like to be scared, or have their nose pushed in.

 

There are plenty of instances where cops and citizens screwed the pooch alike. You may not like it but it's true. For every citizen example, I can find a cop example. In fact, here ya go - a valid contradiction to your assertations:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18378370-cop-in-ny-shooting-that-left-hostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions

 

Keep in mind, I am a Sgt at a municipal police agency in Central NJ. I am also assigned to a regional tactical team for the county. I am the head firearms instructor at my agency and on the team, as well as a County Use of Force instructor and Taser instructor. I am also friends with quite a few folks on this forum that aren't LEO but are very pro cop - including Shane, and I regularly shoot competitions with a bunch of folks that post here.

 

I also agree with PK90. If I was going into a gunfight tomorrow, there are plenty of non-cops I would choose to be at my side before many brother officers. Not only do they shoot better, but a lot of them have a better grasp of tactics and Use of Force.

 

Caveat: Most of that is no fault of the officer. Agencies will spend tons of cash and OT on cultural diversity training, community policing, etc... But not one dime extra for firearms, tactics, etc...

 

If cops don't do it on their own, or are lucky enough to get tapped by their agency for advanced or sustainment training, it just doesn't happen.

 

Back to the original topic -

 

It sucks these guys are denied their reitered carry privileges. It also sucks that everyone else who is not LEO and wants to carry is denied as well.

          Very well said Rick. Thank you!

 

Not that he'll care what your credentials are.

[njpilot 671]

Could a guy like this actually pass a psych eval? Woah, that's a disturbing thought

Been wondering that for weeks.

[tattooo 220]

AK, you need to stop. Your remarks are divisive and condescending. You are driving a wedge deeper between police and the people who are typically on our side. This helps no one.

 

Not all cops are death dealing gunfighters. In fact very few of them are. Most cops now have never been in a fight their entire lives, don't know what it is like to be scared, or have their nose pushed in.

 

There are plenty of instances where cops and citizens screwed the pooch alike. You may not like it but it's true. For every citizen example, I can find a cop example. In fact, here ya go - a valid contradiction to your assertations:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18378370-cop-in-ny-shooting-that-left-hostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions

 

Keep in mind, I am a Sgt at a municipal police agency in Central NJ. I am also assigned to a regional tactical team for the county. I am the head firearms instructor at my agency and on the team, as well as a County Use of Force instructor and Taser instructor. I am also friends with quite a few folks on this forum that aren't LEO but are very pro cop - including Shane, and I regularly shoot competitions with a bunch of folks that post here.

 

I also agree with PK90. If I was going into a gunfight tomorrow, there are plenty of non-cops I would choose to be at my side before many brother officers. Not only do they shoot better, but a lot of them have a better grasp of tactics and Use of Force.

 

Caveat: Most of that is no fault of the officer. Agencies will spend tons of cash and OT on cultural diversity training, community policing, etc... But not one dime extra for firearms, tactics, etc...

 

If cops don't do it on their own, or are lucky enough to get tapped by their agency for advanced or sustainment training, it just doesn't happen.

 

Back to the original topic -

 

It sucks these guys are denied their retired carry privileges. It also sucks that everyone else who is not LEO and wants to carry is denied as well.

[emoji106] [emoji106]

[Shane45 807]

AK, you need to stop. Your remarks are divisive and condescending. You are driving a wedge deeper between police and the people who are typically on our side. This helps no one.

 

Not all cops are death dealing gunfighters. In fact very few of them are. Most cops now have never been in a fight their entire lives, don't know what it is like to be scared, or have their nose pushed in.

 

There are plenty of instances where cops and citizens screwed the pooch alike. You may not like it but it's true. For every citizen example, I can find a cop example. In fact, here ya go - a valid contradiction to your assertations:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18378370-cop-in-ny-shooting-that-left-hostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions

 

 

 

 

Keep in mind, I am a Sgt at a municipal police agency in Central NJ. I am also assigned to a regional tactical team for the county. I am the head firearms instructor at my agency and on the team, as well as a County Use of Force instructor and Taser instructor. I am also friends with quite a few folks on this forum that aren't LEO but are very pro cop - including Shane, and I regularly shoot competitions with a bunch of folks that post here.

 

I also agree with PK90. If I was going into a gunfight tomorrow, there are plenty of non-cops I would choose to be at my side before many brother officers. Not only do they shoot better, but a lot of them have a better grasp of tactics and Use of Force.

 

Caveat: Most of that is no fault of the officer. Agencies will spend tons of cash and OT on cultural diversity training, community policing, etc... But not one dime extra for firearms, tactics, etc...

 

If cops don't do it on their own, or are lucky enough to get tapped by their agency for advanced or sustainment training, it just doesn't happen.

 

Back to the original topic -

 

It sucks these guys are denied their retired carry privileges. It also sucks that everyone else who is not LEO and wants to carry is denied as well.

 

 

  :imsohappy:        

[bhunted 887]

Nice job Rick! Keep owing you more apple fritters. [emoji57]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zeke 5,504]

Tis a worthy mountain to lie on, me doth think.

[Alex V 99]

Using your logic, Fresh Kills, most of the NYPD should not carry firearms since they seem to hit more bystanders than bad guys. Sorry dude, face palm all you want but you are a mental midget.

[brucin 923]

AK, you need to stop. Your remarks are divisive and condescending. You are driving a wedge deeper between police and the people who are typically on our side. This helps no one.

 

Not all cops are death dealing gunfighters. In fact very few of them are. Most cops now have never been in a fight their entire lives, don't know what it is like to be scared, or have their nose pushed in. Hell, many cops don't own any gun except the one they are issued/bought for work and very few carry off duty religiously.

 

There are plenty of instances where cops and citizens screwed the pooch alike. You may not like it but it's true. For every citizen example, I can find a cop example. In fact, here ya go - a valid contradiction to your assertations:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18378370-cop-in-ny-shooting-that-left-hostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions

 

Keep in mind, I am a Sgt at a municipal police agency in Central NJ. I am also assigned to a regional tactical team for the county. I am the head firearms instructor at my agency and on the team, as well as a County Use of Force instructor and Taser instructor. I am also friends with quite a few folks on this forum that aren't LEO but are very pro cop - including Shane, and I regularly shoot competitions with a bunch of folks that post here.

 

I also agree with PK90. If I was going into a gunfight tomorrow, there are plenty of non-cops I would choose to be at my side before many brother officers. Not only do they shoot better, but a lot of them have a better grasp of tactics and Use of Force.

 

Caveat: Most of that is no fault of the officer. Agencies will spend tons of cash and OT on cultural diversity training, community policing, etc... But not one dime extra for firearms, tactics, etc...

 

If cops don't do it on their own, or are lucky enough to get tapped by their agency for advanced or sustainment training, it just doesn't happen.

 

Back to the original topic -

 

It sucks these guys are denied their retired carry privileges. It also sucks that everyone else who is not LEO and wants to carry is denied as well.

I wish this forum had a like button because I couldn't like this post enough

 

Thank you sir ( High Exposure) for doing the job that you do and AK you could learn a lot from this gentleman. 

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

AK, you need to stop. Your remarks are divisive and condescending. You are driving a wedge deeper between police and the people who are typically on our side. This helps no one.

 

 

HE-

 

I cut your quote down to save space. Sorry.

 

Thank you!, Thank you! Thank you! for finally chiming in. I was waiting for you to be the voice of reason. Much appreciated. 

 

I find Arthur's attitude towards the public disturbing, but not unexpected depending on what agency trained him. His demeanor is not good for the public, nor his fellow officer's that have to work with him.

 

S.

[tattooo 220]

HE-

 

I cut your quote down to save space. Sorry.

 

Thank you!, Thank you! Thank you! for finally chiming in. I was waiting for you to be the voice of reason. Much appreciated.

 

I find Arthur's attitude towards the public disturbing, but not unexpected depending on what agency trained him. His demeanor is not good for the public, nor his fellow officer's that have to work with him.

 

S.

We dont even know for sure if he is a LEO ?

[Arthur Kill 0]

Sorry AK, but knowing PK90 personally, I can vouch for his credibility. That continues to leave you as the question mark, a BIG ONE. Your citing of single instances is absurd. I can find an example of just about anything out there. How about this, I need the right to defend myself because things happen in NJ like Officer Lutes running around with a full auto MP5 committing mass murder (In the town I worked in and the town I lived right next to). Obviously this is an isolated incident. But you seem unable to distinguish between the two.

 

http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lutes-edward.htm

 

Ill tell you what Arthur, Ill make it easy for you. Lets attend an IDPA match. If you do better than me, I will concede defeat in our debate. If I win, you admit defeat. But be advised I took 1st place in CDP the last two matches I shot. Must be from all that police training I never had. But hey its been a long while and Im pretty rusty. And before you jump to some snarky comment about what the class of other competitors were, be advised that one of the other competitors is a lead trainer for the US Air Marshals and the other a former trainer at Blackwater.

 

Again, no one is suggesting taking away your right to defend yourself – but if you want to do with a gun, you need to be adequately trained and vetted. 

 

Does this really sound SO crazy to you -- or anyone else here?

 

You challenging me to a target competition really reinforces every point I’m trying to make here.  There is so much more involved with carrying and using a gun in society than you could possibly experience while punching holes in paper with your buddies on Saturday afternoon, where a ¼ of an inch difference is your main stress factor.

 

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

Nonsense. I hate donald trump, but to call him a reality TV star as his title is a pretty far fetched liberal excuse to discount him. Like all you can think of is his TV appearances? That's all the guy has accomplished in his life?

 

Yeah, you’re right.  

 

We shouldn’t forget about those FOUR bankruptcies, Mr. I'm-a-successful-businessman filing FOUR different times -- where Trump robbed the life-savings of many hard-working, middle-class, bond-holders.  

 

Then, he gets up in front of America and brags about how rich he is -- the privilege he was born with allowed him to keep his daddy's money while he left others penniless.

 

So yeah, maybe instead of “reality-TV star,” a better title for Donald Trump would be just plain “scumbag.”  It’s so much more accurate.

 

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

Do you want an example?

 

According to the violence policy center. Since 2007, only 21 people were unintentionally killed by CCW holders.

 

I'm still looking for the number of accidental killing by police.

 

However, by any standard is 21 deaths in 8 years what you call a threat to public safety?

 

Apparently people think cops are just as much a threat that they even creating a website for

us.https://the7thpwr.wordpress.com/accidental-police-shootings/

 

 

FYI, the topic of the thread is CCW and the public, keep it on topic and relavant.

 

And if there was only one unintentional killing by an inadequately trained CCW holder, and that one was your kid, you’d agree, one is too many.  Because it is.

 

And I’m not slamming your source but it’s impossible to accurately track these events as they’re often buried for political purposes – so, I believe that number is MUCH higher.

 

Accidental and misguided police shootings happen, no one is denying that fact.  Clearly, American society as a whole, accepts the risk that mistakes happen as a result of having an armed police force.  So, by the constant criticism of the police that is presented on this board, are we advocating a “survival of the fittest” free-for-all society and where there is no law enforcement at all?  Or, are we suggesting that our police not be armed?  

 

Which is it?   

 

And if accidental police shootings are so bothersome to us that we have to mention them every chance we get, where is the rationale in having the potential for more accidental killing by adding untrained citizens to the mix?

 

This makes no sense.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

AK, you need to stop. Your remarks are divisive and condescending. You are driving a wedge deeper between police and the people who are typically on our side. This helps no one.

 

Not all cops are death dealing gunfighters. In fact very few of them are. Most cops now have never been in a fight their entire lives, don't know what it is like to be scared, or have their nose pushed in. Hell, many cops don't own any gun except the one they are issued/bought for work and very few carry off duty religiously.

 

There are plenty of instances where cops and citizens screwed the pooch alike. You may not like it but it's true. For every citizen example, I can find a cop example. In fact, here ya go - a valid contradiction to your assertations:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/20/18378370-cop-in-ny-shooting-that-left-hostage-dead-faced-split-second-decisions

 

Keep in mind, I am a Sgt at a municipal police agency in Central NJ. I am also assigned to a regional tactical team for the county. I am the head firearms instructor at my agency and on the team, as well as a County Use of Force instructor and Taser instructor. I am also friends with quite a few folks on this forum that aren't LEO but are very pro cop - including Shane, and I regularly shoot competitions with a bunch of folks that post here.

 

I also agree with PK90. If I was going into a gunfight tomorrow, there are plenty of non-cops I would choose to be at my side before many brother officers. Not only do they shoot better, but a lot of them have a better grasp of tactics and Use of Force.

 

Caveat: Most of that is no fault of the officer. Agencies will spend tons of cash and OT on cultural diversity training, community policing, etc... But not one dime extra for firearms, tactics, etc...

 

If cops don't do it on their own, or are lucky enough to get tapped by their agency for advanced or sustainment training, it just doesn't happen.

 

Back to the original topic -

 

It sucks these guys are denied their retired carry privileges. It also sucks that everyone else who is not LEO and wants to carry is denied as well.

 

I need to stop what exactly?

 

The “preposterous notion” that individuals who handle firearms ought to be adequately trained and vetted?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

And you’re confident that I’M the one creating the rift as you sit here reading this onslaught of anti-police tirades issued on this forum, and say nothing.  Instead, you feel the need to criticize me?  Wonderful.  Looks like your desire to be an LCD hero of the hobbyists trumps the oath you took.  I hear there’s one in every agency.

 

I wonder if you have to balls to get up at roll-call this afternoon and make the declaration about “going into a gunfight tomorrow" with your gun-club buddies "before many brother officers.”  Go ahead Barn, tell them that their training and practical experience means nothing to you -- especially when you can glean accolades on a hobbyist website.  Granted, you don't see much down there in Mayberry, but choosing an amateur over the training and experience of a professional is a decision that is not based in reality -- and has been stated only to fulfill a previously decided agenda.  Citizen carry means more guns on the street, more guns on the street means more gun/police interaction and more interaction leads to more police shootings.  Thanks for standing up, "brother."  Maybe you'd like to re-position your stance before I decide that you’re just a f’ing disgrace to the shield?

 

 

 

[Avalanche 42]

Most cops I know are not fit to carry by the time they retire.  They should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

[PK90 3,573]

Government mandated training for a right to own and carry firearms (keep and bear arms) is unamerican.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

[tattooo 220]

AK, in case it hasn't sunk in yet.....you have lost ANY & ALL respect for your views on here, this thread instead of a sensible conversation with opposing views became a pissing match between you & EVERYONE else including very credible & distinguished LEO's.... You probably aren't even LE & even if by some freak accident you are that doesn't make the shit you spew any more credible.....

[High Exposure 5,668]

AK, I agree with some of what you are saying. A trained person carrying a gun is more effective than an untrained one. Buying a gun doesn't make you a gunfighter any more than buying a guitar makes you Eric Clapton.

 

I believe in training. I train often with reputable people - Pat Rogers, Kyle Lamb, Joe Reidy, Jeff Gonzales, Spartan Group, Northern Red. I've been to HK, Blackwater, and Academy. I see more citizens at most trainings than I do cops - in our job that is a clue!

 

I wish every person that wanted to carry a gun was trained in marksmanship, gun safety, small unit tactics, first aid, anatomy, ballistics, and gun handling. I wish everyone took firearms training as seriously as I do - especially cops, but they don't.

 

My issue is with making training mandatory for permission to CCW. Once it is a mandatory requirement it can be used to prevent people from exercising their rights. Who determines what classes are approved? Who decides what skills are required? How often must training be required. Just once initially? Annually? Every other year? Once the legislators get involved the training loses its value.

 

A family that can't afford a week at Gunsight or a 3 day class with Pat McNamara should not be prevented from for the ability to protect themselves from the violent predators out there. If you think state sponsored "classes" will have the same training value as a professional instructor, you are nuts.

 

And firearms training is not just "shooting skills" and accuracy, as many "civilians" imagine. There is SO much more involved with carrying a firearm.

 

I agree, however cops aren't the only people privy to this info and training - and they shouldn't be.

 

Many citizens attend training in these fields. Many times the classes they are attending have better info and more thorough instruction than the twice annual departmental in-service training given by your firearms training unit.

 

Additionally, the citizens taking these classes are interested in being at the training and are engaged with the course material. They are not just watching the clock and hoping to get out early.

 

First, response under stress can absolutely be perfected with training.

As a firearms, tactics, and use of force trainer this statement is absulutly, utterly, 100% false. There is no training that can "perfect" response under stress.

 

Yes, you can condition yourself to anticipate and accept stress. Yes you can train to deal with psychological and physiologic stress responses. You can not "perfect" your response to stress. No way, no how.

 

Again, cops aren't the only people allowed to take the appropriate training to prepare themselves for a deadly force encounter.

 

There is so much more involved to carrying and using a gun in society than you could possibly experience while punching holes in paper with your buddies on Saturday afternoon, where a ¼ of an inch difference is your main stress factor.

Correct. There is also more to carrying and using a gun than you can possibly experience while attending your twice annual agency qualifications and use of force refresher training.

 

What do you do for your main stress factor? Have someone actually shoot at you? At most you may get some force on force or some FATS training.

 

I would posit that, if approached with the correct mind set (using proper TTPs with no regard to time or final standings), certain aspects of IDPA, IPSC, or even static and knockdown steel challenge competitions, have more intrinsic practical application than a 60 round Qual course from 25 yards and in, while stationary, and shooting on a Q target.

 

I need to stop what exactly?

 

The “preposterous notion” that individuals who handle firearms ought to be adequately trained and vetted?

 

Thanks for your input.

 

And you’re confident that I’M the one creating the rift as you sit here reading this onslaught of anti-police tirades issued on this forum, and say nothing. Instead, you feel the need to criticize me? Wonderful. Looks like your desire to be an LCD hero of the hobbyists trumps the oath you took. I hear there’s one in every agency.

 

I wonder if you have to balls to get up at roll-call this afternoon and make the declaration about “going into a gunfight tomorrow" with your gun-club buddies "before many brother officers.” Go ahead Barn, tell them that their training and practical experience means nothing to you -- especially when you can glean accolades on a hobbyist website. Granted, you don't see much down there in Mayberry, but choosing an amateur over the training and experience of a professional is a decision that is not based in reality -- and has been stated only to fulfill a previously decided agenda. Citizen carry means more guns on the street, more guns on the street means more gun/police interaction and more interaction leads to more police shootings. Thanks for standing up, "brother." Maybe you'd like to re-position your stance before I decide that you’re just a f’ing disgrace to the shield?

 

I love my job. I have respect for my people and the work we do. I have seen no anti cop rhetoric here. I see people offering their opinion that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Frankly, I don't disagree. I am glad I am permitted to carry, but I know it's not fair. I believe these guys should be able to carry. I also think regular citizens should be allowed to carry as well. Things are tough all over.

 

One in every PD huh? That's funny. I hear there is one in every agency that believes they are more important than the public they protect. That believe that they are a class above the Hoi Polloi. This is a mistake.

 

Decide what you want about me, means nothing. I am no hero to any LCD and my options aren't lionservice to anyone. Many of these "hobbyists" are more knowledgable, more proficient, and spend more time training/practicing in a year than most cops will spend on the range in their careers.

 

My guys have no illusions to their personal ability and what they are capable of with a firearm vs what I am capable of. There are some colleagues that are serious students of the gun, and then some that look at it as no more important than their pen. Most are in- between: proficient but not rock stars and on the border of the conscious incompetence/conscious competence level of achievement. They pass their qual and participate in training. They meet the lowest acceptable standard. They believe if they need to know it/own it then the Dept will give it to them.

 

I have brought civilian instructors in to teach my guys on a few occasions. I have also brought some of my more interested guys to outside training provided by non LEO instructors. They know there are people out there capable of burning them down on the street.

 

As far as your fear of "more guns on the street" - you have been in NJ too long. We are one of a handful of states that prohibit CCW by law abiding citizens to this extent. In almost every other state in this great country regular earth people (Some are mall ninjas, but most are as competent and capable as the majority of LEOs) have the ability to carry guns for self defense. If this was such a huge problem to law enforcement we would hear all about it - we don't. Another clue.

 

Finally, I don't know what world you live in, but how does supporting the second ammendmemt to the U.S.Constitution for all law abiding US citizens make me a disgrace to the shield?

 

You sir have forgotten your oath.

[Arthur Kill 0]

 

I wish every person that wanted to carry a gun was trained in marksmanship, gun safety, small unit tactics, first aid, anatomy, ballistics, and gun handling. I wish everyone took firearms training as seriously as I do - especially cops, but they don't.

 

 

 

 I find it odd that you don't mention the legalities of use-of-force and retention -- the two most glaring deficiencies in amateur carry.

 

Just wondering -- how does self-loathing effect other aspects of your life?

 

 

AK, in case it hasn't sunk in yet.....you have lost ANY & ALL respect for your views on here, this thread instead of a sensible conversation with opposing views became a pissing match between you & EVERYONE else including very credible & distinguished LEO's.... You probably aren't even LE & even if by some freak accident you are that doesn't make the shit you spew any more credible.....

 Dear Mr. tattooo,

 

You're mistakenly assuming that I could give 2-shits about about your woefully uninformed opinion.  Try not to make that mistake in the future.

 

Sincerely,

 

Arthur Kill

 

Government mandated training for a right to own and carry firearms (keep and bear arms) is unamerican.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and interpretations.  That's American freedom.

 

 

 

Most cops I know are not fit to carry by the time they retire.  They should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

 

@High Exposure

 

You want to chime in here, or no?  Here's your chance.

 

[Shane45 807]

HE has covered most point. But given the opportunity to provide you with some experience and wisdom I feel compelled to continue. AK, I am going to continue with my speculation that you are fresh out of the academy and young. Your Kool-Aid consumption position wreaks of it. You have been fed the red tasty drink by those administrators THAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND what we are talking about. These are the same types that enact policy like the one that can now be found in San Francisco.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/02/18/sf-police-told-to-shoot-twice-stop.htm

Ask ANY trainer worth his salt about said policy and I don't think you will hear a single positive response.

 

I see your position softening. It looks like you are back peddling and only advocating training. But as expressed, the danger for abuse on requiring training is there and real. It has already been used as a tool to deny. Research it, you will find it.

 

I think you miss the point about my challenge. The concern you expressed is proficiency. If you were to attend an IDPA or USPSA match I think you would have your eyes opened WIDE real quick. Why do I think that? Because I have watched MANY MANY MANY officers come to their first match full of confidence that the academy has trained them well enough for this endeavor. What happens? They get a brutal lesson how unprepared they are. They get an understanding of the helpful stress indoctrination that competition brings. The ones that are so embarrassed they couldn't even perform a reload under stress and never come back are the ones that lose out. The smart ones that return gain valuable experience. Why do you think it is that every switched on agency or trainer advocates competitions? Competition ECQC and FOF training are the things switched on people do, civilian or agency. What you are failing to recognize is that there is a ton of civilians out there that are dedicated to these concepts. I know that you want to believe that you are the special snowflake the academy has produced that has powers beyond those lowly civilians out there but, I'm sorry, it just isn't so. I know the trainors High Exposure trains with and I know some of the peers he trades notes with. These are people with DEEP resume's, many with more than a few gunfights under their belt and more than a few years at "front line" agencies. Why do you think they hold the same viewpoints we do?

 

The safety of you vs the safety of others. You believe that the safety of you and your family trumps the right of others to protect themselves and their families because you believe they are a direct threat to you. You realize you make this same trade every time you get in your car right? Do you really think passing your drivers license test prepares you for driving? How many people are killed every day due to another's poor driving skills? But you accept that danger of others operating 4000 pounds of machinery in extremely close proximity to you every day. Freedom isn't free. More on that later. So to flip the script on your precept for a second, why do I have to accept having the right to protect myself against 4 ex felons that decide to target me or some machete wielding  gangbangers at a train station restricted because it makes you feel unsafe? By your own "statistics" the odds of you having to be part of or near an interaction are slim to none!

 

Freedom isn't free. People say it. People hear it, but few understand it. Most think of soldiers fighting for our freedoms. And of course this is true. But there is another cost. The cost of having a free society. If you are going to have freedom of speech, you are going to have the Westboro Baptist church, or movements that call for the killing of officers (which in my opinion lead to a number of dead officers). If you are going to have freedom of religion, you are going to have religions here that call for the killing of Americans. Having the right to keep and bear arms means some will do so badly. And so on and so forth, I think you get the picture. The point is that THAT is the cost of a free society. You would do well to consider that your line of thinking leads away from that concept.

[Shane45 807]

"I find it odd that you don't mention the legalities of use-of-force and retention -- the two most glaring deficiencies in amateur carry."

You do realize the UOF, EOF, and ROE are DRAMATICALLY different for a civilian right? I hope you do because your own rules dramatically change when you retire.



"Just wondering -- how does self-loathing effect other aspects of your life?"

This is you turning sour because you are loosing your debate.....

[Shane45 807]

"

Avalanche, on 20 Feb 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:



Most cops I know are not fit to carry by the time they retire. They should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.



@High Exposure



You want to chime in here, or no? Here's your chance."


Again, I think you are uninformed. I have a news flash for you. New Jersey has decided LE is unfit to carry at age 75. That is NJ law.

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6

[tattooo 220]

I find it odd that you don't mention the legalities of use-of-force and retention -- the two most glaring deficiencies in amateur carry.

 

Just wondering -- how does self-loathing effect other aspects of your life?

 

 

Dear Mr. tattooo,

 

You're mistakenly assuming that I could give 2-shits about about your woefully uninformed opinion. Try not to make that mistake in the future.

 

Sincerely,

 

Arthur Kill

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and interpretations. That's American freedom.

 

 

 

 

@High Exposure

 

You want to chime in here, or no? Here's your chance.

 

Fresh kills.....You suggest my opinion is uninformed ? Please enlighten me how your opinion is any more informed than mine or of the distinguished LEO's that chimed in here.......The only mistake I made is wasting my time trying to explain to a wanna be LEO that nobody here wants to hear your dumb shit anymore.....it got real old real fast.

 

I find it odd that you don't mention the legalities of use-of-force and retention -- the two most glaring deficiencies in amateur carry.

 

Just wondering -- how does self-loathing effect other aspects of your life?

 

 

Dear Mr. tattooo,

 

You're mistakenly assuming that I could give 2-shits about about your woefully uninformed opinion. Try not to make that mistake in the future.

 

Sincerely,

 

Arthur Kill

 

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and interpretations. That's American freedom.

 

 

 

 

@High Exposure

 

You want to chime in here, or no? Here's your chance.

 

[High Exposure 5,668]

AK, you are correct. Use of force and weapon retention are two glaring omissions from my quick tick list of "wishful thinking" training that every gun carrying American had under their belt. They were not purposeful omissions. Keep in mind the LEO use of force and Citizen use of force are two different balls of wax. There is some overlap, but there are some pretty significant differences as well. They also vary from state to state and even city to city.

 

That being said, have you looked at what some of the cops that you know consider "quality" off duty retention holsters? How many officers train in weapon retention and use of force, or any of the other areas I listed above, outside the agency training they are mandated to attend.

 

You talk about LCD? Look at some of our brother cops first and how they approach training. That's not a dig, it's reality. Like most employees in most jobs, they do enough to pass or meet the standard, nothing more. There is little drive to excel or to surpass the minimum standard.

 

As far as self loathing - not an iota of it. As I said above, I love my job. I love what I do and I am pretty damned good at it. I also work hard to uphold the oath I took when I received my shield 13 years ago. Sometimes that involves taking a hard look at some ugly truths. It also involves being honest about our profession and where we need to improve.

 

If you care to look around this forum, you will see that I regularly go head to head with members here defending cops, explaining Use of a Force issues, refuting claims of "militarization" and "excessive force" or the erroneous belief that cops have to follow "Rules of Emgagement" v constitutionally approved use of force policies. I also understand that sometimes cops are wrong or make mistakes and I freely admit that here as well when I beleive it is warranted.

 

Most cops I know are not fit to carry by the time they retire. They should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.

I understand the sentiment. I agree that no one is "above" the law. However, in all professions there are lawful exceptions to regulations. In NJ, the law is written to give LEOs permission to carry a firearm. I did not write the law and I don't agree with the restrictions on CCW as codified in NJ. That doesn't mean I won't carry if I am permitted to and you are not.

 

I wish everyone that wanted to carry could. I support that 100%. That doesn't mean that LEOs shouldn't if the law allows.

 

Keep in mind, I carry off duty to protect you and your family as much as my own. If the balloon goes up, I will react to help as many people as possible.

 

As a thought exercise: As we are all proponents of 2A here, cop and citizen alike, should we work to eliminate the laws that allow cops to carry? Or to enact legislation that allows everyone to carry?

 

FYI: I know a lot of cops that don't carry off duty. I also know a lot of cops that retire and choose not to carry. It is what it is.

 

ETA: Shane is correct. After 75 no carry for retired LEOs. That's till leaves ~ 20 years of retired carry for most cops.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

And if there was only one unintentional killing by an inadequately trained CCW holder, and that one was your kid, you’d agree, one is too many. Because it is.

 

And I’m not slamming your source but it’s impossible to accurately track these events as they’re often buried for political purposes – so, I believe that number is MUCH higher.

 

Accidental and misguided police shootings happen, no one is denying that fact. Clearly, American society as a whole, accepts the risk that mistakes happen as a result of having an armed police force. So, by the constant criticism of the police that is presented on this board, are we advocating a “survival of the fittest” free-for-all society and where there is no law enforcement at all? Or, are we suggesting that our police not be armed?

 

Which is it?

 

And if accidental police shootings are so bothersome to us that we have to mention them every chance we get, where is the rationale in having the potential for more accidental killing by adding untrained citizens to the mix?

 

This makes no sense.

 

Your entitled to that opinion, but I feel that for the 2 accidental deaths by a CCW a year we can relax with calling it a public concern or pretending that it puts the general publics safety in danger. Any number of things can kill my family, about the last thing I'm worried about is a ccw holder. I have a greater chance hitting the lottery, literally.

If you want to claim it is much higher, then by all means have at it, but you also should consider that means many positive aspects of CCW go unnoticed as well.

 

Your making this an emotional issue and it isnt(if it were my kid). Statistically, I have a greater chance being the victim of a crime then the victim of a legal CCW holder. Based on actual logic and not emotion that tells me carrying is more beneficial then not.

[Shane45 807]

And here is why that is wrong:

 

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/5938713-Retired-Ky-chief-slain-in-revenge-killing/

 

"As a thought exercise: As we are all proponents of 2A here, cop and citizen alike, should we work to eliminate the laws that allow cops to carry? Or to enact legislation that allows everyone to carry?"

 

Agreed and the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread!

[Zeke 5,504]

The emotional driven agenda. Very sad to watch