Mandatory Training for OC and CC

[OC for ME]

Tasers were never intended to be used when only firearms would be authorized. It is considered an intermediate weapon, less than lethal, tool used to gain compliance of a subject who is actively resisting a lawful order of a police officer with the threat of harm to self or others. The taser, although painful, results in fewer injuries, and reduces the risk for catastrophic injury (breaking bones) and fewer deaths than other intermediate weapons such as OC spray and baton.

SO, do LEOs attempt to catch the perp being tazed so that they are not injured upon impact with the ground?

'attitude control problems'...I like the way you think....just the right attitude....

 

[OC for ME]

SO, do LEOs attempt to catch the perp being tazed so that they are not injured upon impact with the ground?

'attitude control problems'...I like the way you think....just the right attitude....

Edit: bolded portion directed towards JTHunter.

 

[OC for ME]

SO, do LEOs attempt to catch the perp being tazed so that they are not injured upon impact with the ground?

'attitude control problems'...I like the way you think....just the right attitude....

Edit:The bolded part directed towards JTHunter.

 

[RyanC1985]

Actually, you ARE.

If someone can't pass your "requirements" they don't get to "Keep and Bear Arms", correct?

If ONE person is denied, then you have disarmed "The People".

Training also does NOT guarantee proficiency. Note the number of bad drivers who have "training".....lol

We already disarm certain people, prisoners, people with psychological disorders that are prone to dangerousness, anyone is under in the influence of alcohol or narcotics are not allowed to carry.

I will give you props on the driver comment thought LOL

 

[SavageOne]

We already disarm certain people, prisoners, people with psychological disorders that are prone to dangerousness, anyone is under in the influence of alcohol or narcotics are not allowed to carry.

I will give you props on the driver comment thought LOL

Once again you are wrong. In the state of MO it not illegal to be under the influence of alcohol and carry a firearm. In MO you must ACT in a negligent manner while intoxicated to be in criminal violation.

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 571
Weapons Offenses
Section 571.030

Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.



(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense;

So your statement is once again incorrect. I would also point out you still haven't posted a cite for your claim about members of hate groups. Why do you wish to keep ignoring the rules of this forum?

 

[sawah]

1. Not really police have no duty to serve and protect.
Plus they usually come in force if the situation is any sort of threat at all and secure the area, this should minimize the chances of collateral damage.

Ask yourself this. If there's no duty to Serve&Protect, then why

...why do they have it on their cars?
...why do they try to do it on some occasions but not all with nearly identical circumstances?
...why do they go to stand-off situations where the area is secure, and in all cases (in many they do have patience) wait the subject out? Why do they break in doing no-knock warrantless entries when they know the guy usually goes out, half asleep on Friday morning to get a paper and do his laundry and nab him them with no violence?

It doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, there's pressure from above to end it quickly, there are some reasons...but a lot of time they rush in and people get hurt.

The underlying reason is why normal citizens have 'cop problems', I think. Something about 'Wise-men fearing to tread...', I'd wonder??

I thought their Prime Directive was 'Officer Safety' and 'going home at night'. (which are great PD's, btw)

 

[Venator]

I'd also like to point out that you can have a right that require certain conditions to be followed:

Example, we have the right to free speech, however, if that speech incites others to riot or commit violence it is no longer a right

we have the right to protest, but we cannot impede public roadways due to safety concerns for police, fire, and EMTs; many places also require obtaining a permit for a gathering of people over a certain number.

we have the right to practice any religion we want as long as it doesn't harm or restrict others in their belief. examples of certain religious stipulations would be no polygamy, no live sacrifices, and no underage marriage

we have the right to vote, but in order to vote men must sign up for the draft, and everyone must register before a certain deadline in order to particpate in the election.


Rights are inalienable, but with rights come responsiblity...requiring training doesn't infringe a right, it ensures everyone practicing their right does so with a firm foundation for safety and proficiency

These examples do not relate as we are responsible for our actions. Same with a firearm, if we cause harm with a gun then we are responsible. But we shouldn't need a permit or training for any of the rights you mention above.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Ask yourself this. If there's no duty to Serve&Protect, then why

...why do they have it on their cars?
...why do they try to do it on some occasions but not all with nearly identical circumstances?
...why do they go to stand-off situations where the area is secure, and in all cases (in many they do have patience) wait the subject out? Why do they break in doing no-knock warrantless entries when they know the guy usually goes out, half asleep on Friday morning to get a paper and do his laundry and nab him them with no violence?

It doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, there's pressure from above to end it quickly, there are some reasons...but a lot of time they rush in and people get hurt.

The underlying reason is why normal citizens have 'cop problems', I think. Something about 'Wise-men fearing to tread...', I'd wonder??

I thought their Prime Directive was 'Officer Safety' and 'going home at night'. (which are great PD's, btw)

http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/CopsDontProtect.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.

I have often wondered why cops have "to serve and protect" on their squad cars, when this is actually not the case. Perhaps it's to make us feel good?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

I thought their Prime Directive was 'Officer Safety' and 'going home at night'. (which are great PD's, btw)

"Prime Directives" are for thoughtless robots and zero tolerance bureaucrats.

 

[sawah]

These examples do not relate as we are responsible for our actions. Same with a firearm, if we cause harm with a gun then we are responsible. But we shouldn't need a permit or training for any of the rights you mention above.

For some reason people/LEOs consider firearms, carried by law abiding citizens to be FAR, FAR more dangerous than a car, truck, bus, tractor-trailer. LEOs take _huge_ risks daily driving in excess of 100mph to catch a traffic violator (many places have nixed this now, but it was quite prevalent).

But if they come up alongside some 45 y.o. lady in a parked car with a gun in a holster and, suddenly it's all drama queen, histrionics, and "'WARNING, WARNING' with arms flailing about, Will ROBINSON".

I don't know any LEO who goes on CAR forums and diatribes on more people taking advanced driving courses, or anything like it. It's simple why they do it differently. They consider having a firearm THEIR provenance.

 

[SovereignAxe]

This thread was a resounding success. Is there any popcorn left?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

This thread was a resounding success. Is there any popcorn left?

*passes the bowl*

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Better'n TV!

 

[gogodawgs]

The answer to your question.

NO.

 

[Elkad]

Firearms training should be mandatory. Starting in grade school, and continuing until adulthood.


But in no way should that training have any impact on our right to carry.

 

[xd shooter]

Originally Posted by xd shooter
Last I checked, these weren't enumerated anywhere in our Constitution. IOW, they are not RIGHTS.

That is a dangerous road to go down. We do not possess only those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Bill-of-Rights is much more of a "top-ten" than an all-inclusive list.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

For clarification, my point about "driving a car, driving a boat, motorcycle, but take hunter's safety test in order to hunt," not being rights is derived from the REQUIREMENT for a license and training for these activities.

Which of course is what WE on OCDO are typically against for the Open Carrying of a gun for self defense.

Fresh popcorn in the microwave!!

 

[ManInBlack]

For clarification, my point about "driving a car, driving a boat, motorcycle, but take hunter's safety test in order to hunt," not being rights is derived from the REQUIREMENT for a license and training for these activities.

Which of course is what WE on OCDO are typically against for the Open Carrying of a gun for self defense.

Fresh popcorn in the microwave!!

Just because something is, does not mean that it always must be so.

FYI, OCing requires a permit in some jurisdictions. It doesn't mean that OC'ing is no longer a right in those places; it simply means those jurisdictions have unconstitutionally chosen to violate the natural rights of their citizens.

Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

 

[MKEgal]

We already disarm certain people, prisoners, people with psychological disorders that are prone to dangerousness, anyone is under in the influence of alcohol or narcotics are not allowed to carry.

People who have been proven to be dangerous to self or society are disarmed for the protection of self or society. At least, that's the theory. When a judge says "don't do this", unless the person is caught doing whatever there's no way to enforce that whim.

And no, your guess about people with brain disorders isn't true. Read the 4473, read the explanation of the questions that comes with the form. If someone has been found not guilty of a crime due to mental disease or defect, or if they've been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they're prohibited from legally possesing a firearm. Doesn't mean they won't, just means they can't do it legally... if that info is available to the people doing the background check if they try to buy from a dealer.

But for your garden-variety citizens with brain diseases there's no prohibition, at least in federal law. This is one more area where we need nationwide standardization. Some states require people to waive their right to privacy in order to be allowed the privilege of self-defense. If you don't let the gov't snoop in your medical records, you can't have a firearm. That's wrong. Heck, if we're going to restrict self-defense tools based on medical problems, I'd want to ban people with epilepsy. They can't control their body, so can't control a gun, & that's unsafe. [It's an example. I don't really think that.]

And as others have pointed out, in some states it's legal to be in possession & have varying amounts of alcohol in ones body. Again, we need nationwide standardization.

 

[SavageOne]

People who have been proven to be dangerous to self or society are disarmed for the protection of self or society. At least, that's the theory. When a judge says "don't do this", unless the person is caught doing whatever there's no way to enforce that whim.

And no, your guess about people with brain disorders isn't true. Read the 4473, read the explanation of the questions that comes with the form. If someone has been found not guilty of a crime due to mental disease or defect, or if they've been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they're prohibited from legally possesing a firearm. Doesn't mean they won't, just means they can't do it legally... if that info is available to the people doing the background check if they try to buy from a dealer.

But for your garden-variety citizens with brain diseases there's no prohibition, at least in federal law. This is one more area where we need nationwide standardization. Some states require people to waive their right to privacy in order to be allowed the privilege of self-defense. If you don't let the gov't snoop in your medical records, you can't have a firearm. That's wrong. Heck, if we're going to restrict self-defense tools based on medical problems, I'd want to ban people with epilepsy. They can't control their body, so can't control a gun, & that's unsafe. [It's an example. I don't really think that.]

And as others have pointed out, in some states it's legal to be in possession & have varying amounts of alcohol in ones body. Again, we need nationwide standardization.

Nationwide standardization would mean putting it in the hands of the Feds. I can think of little that has ever done well in their hands. I don't want some East Coast left leaning bureaucrat setting standards for what they consider to be proper conditions for my possession of firearms. With that power residing at the state level it is local politicians who would have to go back to their constituents and explain why they make any changes.

Federal politicians don't mind playing the odds that their large voting pool won't actually come out and voice their displeasure at any particular action. At the State level however many State legislators realize they must walk a finer line and try to keep in step with what the majority of their constituents want(at least in the more rural areas like mine). If they don't it doesn't take nearly as large a movement to oust them come the next election cycle. It also doesn't hurt that with the term limits in place in my state, making enemies of the voting public won't help when legislators try to move to other political offices.

 

[Aknazer]

Nationwide standardization would mean putting it in the hands of the Feds. I can think of little that has ever done well in their hands. I don't want some East Coast left leaning bureaucrat setting standards for what they consider to be proper conditions for my possession of firearms. With that power residing at the state level it is local politicians who would have to go back to their constituents and explain why they make any changes.

Federal politicians don't mind playing the odds that their large voting pool won't actually come out and voice their displeasure at any particular action. At the State level however many State legislators realize they must walk a finer line and try to keep in step with what the majority of their constituents want(at least in the more rural areas like mine). If they don't it doesn't take nearly as large a movement to oust them come the next election cycle. It also doesn't hurt that with the term limits in place in my state, making enemies of the voting public won't help when legislators try to move to other political offices.

Well standarization is what we need, but the issue is the feds don't know how to properly govern. A standarization that LIMITS the GOVERNMENT is what is needed, but sadly politicians only ever try to grow their power. Aka a standard that prevents the government from trying to pry into everything that the citizen does. And by limiting the government we the people would actually have greater freedom.