A matter of perspective when citizens choose guns for self-defense

[shadowrider]

Montana - -(AmmoLand.com)- It is a matter of record that too many members of professional law enforcement, especially administrators, simply do not trust citizens to be armed and enabled to defend themselves from criminal attack.

Notwithstanding this too-common attitude among some law enforcement administrators, many street cops understand that they can rarely be present to stop a criminal attack – to interpose themselves between a criminal and his intended victim — no matter how they sincerely wish to protect people.

--snip--

This unique perspective is influenced primarily by three factors:

1. The clientele they deal with are not a cross section of the population. The people subject to their work are primarily ne’er-do-wells of one sort or another, conditioning some in law enforcement to grow to believe that anyone not a police officer and not in jail just hasn’t been caught yet committing his or her special crime.
2. Their peer associations tend to be limited to their narrow circle of co-workers, so they don’t have the level of everyday exposure to usual citizens that those not in law enforcement have.
3. Their mission has changed. The primary mission of the people hired to wear badges and guns used to be to keep the peace in the community, and to prevent the strong and mis-intended from preying on the weak. They were called “peace officers.” Their title has gradually changed and they have come to be called “law enforcement personnel.” Along with that change in descriptor has come a change in mission. Their primary mission has come to be enforcement of government edicts of one sort or another.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/03/16/perspective-when-citizens-choose-guns-for-self-defense/

[rfranklin]

1. I was with until "government edicts..."

Amazing how revealing a choice of words can be.

[shadowrider]

2. Actually, I agree with that term

A government edict says you can't grow or sell a particular flower, so your home or place of business is invaded by armed SWAT officers to enforce that law (gov't edict).

This HAS happened.

[old mark]

3. The article states that "Police administrators" are disturbed by armed

private citizens defending themselves. I believe there is a vast differenct between administrators and police officers on the job, who generally support gun ownership except on TV programming.


mark

[shadowrider]

4. I agree

But it's the administrators, I believe, that set local policy regarding ownership, ccw etc.

You may be a member of the military and not agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the "administrators" set the policy in those areas and the military gotta do it.

[old mark]

13. I remember it well.....nt

[jeepnstein]

5. Your post...

has more to do with what is wrong with law enforcement as a career than how it affects my civil rights.

Too many young guys identify themselves too deeply with their jobs. They tend to wall off outsiders and only socialize with peers within the LEO community. I have found that the best cops I know tend to have lives outside of the job. That isolation that many of them experience is self-inflicted.

The mission of a police officer hasn't really changed in the U.S. The self-image of many police officers has but their job is essentially the same as it was since the founding of the country. There is an expectation in certain circles that they be some kind of warrior class that protects citizens from themselves but that isn't really based in reality. Laws have changed and some would argue become intrusive but the role of the peace officer is the same as it ever was. They identify and apprehend people suspected of crimes and hand them over to the courts and wait further instruction.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. A key point is that cops rarely interact with regular citizens, socially or on the job

The result is the working assumption that all of us are a threat to them and are some kind of perp. Its better in small towns but your basic city cop *knows* you are a threat and a punk regardless of your age, gender, race, social status etc. Their higher ups are cover it better but the attitude remains the same.

[aikoaiko]

7. My best argument against the 'only police should have guns" argument is that ...

... if police need guns to protect themselves from these criminals, then civilians do too because those criminals are usually victimizing civilians (non-police residents).

And of course, there is the 2nd Amendment.

[shadowrider]

8. My "Protector"

/>

[katandmoon]

9. Unrec.

[aikoaiko]

11. I happily counter your unrec with a rec.

[cowman]

15. I don't git it

if you so dislike guns, why are you here? Are you some sort of sadist?
Inquiring minds want to know

[Old Codger]

10. Their Primary

Mission is to come in after the fact, take statements and write a historical document detailing what happened, if you tell them you have been threatened they will tell you there is nothing they can do unless a crime has been committed, and undocumented words are not proof of intention.

[shadowrider]

12. Exactly correct

"If he/she hasn't broken a law, there's nothing we can do" (Except come back later that night, walk gently amongst the blood, call the coroner, the meat wagon and question potential witnesses.)

[spin]

14. If only the police have guns then you live in a police state...

Some here will of course jump up and down and cry that if my statement is accurate than England is a police state.

The United Kingdom is felt by some to be moving in the direction of a police state,<11> with biometric identity cards,<12><13> mass surveillance and detention without trial all having been introduced by the government. The UK has been described as "the most surveilled country" in the world.<14> Protests within a half-mile radius of the Houses of Parliament are illegal in the UK unless authorised by the Metropolitan Police.<15> Leading politicians have been arrested under conditions of secrecy.<16> Claims of police state behaviour have been dismissed by the UK government.

To be fair I should continue the excerpt.

The United States has also been characterized as moving towards a police state. On June 27, 2002 U.S. Congressman Ron Paul said in the House of Representatives:

"...'Is America a Police State?' My answer is: 'Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching.'"<18>

There has also been criticism of the US over the use of mass surveillance. 'Compulsory' vaccinations (not required by law but enforced as such) are also in use and it has been argued that this constitutes an infringement of individual liberties.<19><20><21>. The ability of law enforcement officials to search, detain, seize, incarcerate without mirandizing, along with secret trials and denial of legal defense team access to prosecution's evidence are also noted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Examples_of_police_state-like_attributes

Unlike the U.K. we still have RKBA. We just have to make sure that we keep it.