A question directed at law enforcement professionals.

[Big Daddy]

This is a simple question and if only law enforcement professionals answer it, it should stay civil. Direct family and friends are okay as long as you can be civil.

How do law enforcement professionals feel about the fact that most anybody can obtain a firearm and the fact that there are no real controls on them? Do you feel safer or less safe knowing that untrained citizens are able to own guns? How do you feel about the ease of getting carry and conceal permits?

Everybody please keep it civil. This is not a discourse on the 2nd amendment. I know that a lot of police officers have many additional weapons besides their service piece. They have been highly trained in it's use. I know that a lot of gun owners are also well trained in the use of their guns. There are also a lot that aren't, so I'm curious how Cops feel about it.

 

[valmom]

My SO is a police officer. I think part of the problem is city gun owners vs country gun owners. VT has no gun laws. Everyone is assumed to have at least one. Everyone hunts, and has from a young age. Everyone is well versed in gun safety. For some reason, guns just aren't too much of a problem up here.

Now, AK47s in the city (well, or the country)- maybe overkill? Why does anyone need cop killer bullets? Guns have a purpose, and I don't agree with taking them away, but there really does need to be some common sense about it. I'm really glad we don't live in a city.

 

[k0xxx]

My brother is an officer, so I asked him what he thinks about the issues. Just for general reference, he is an officer in a suburban municipality of about 80 - 100,000 residents. He is also one of the local Range Safety Officers.

This is a somewhat long response. I wanted to try to be sure that he covered all of the points. I also asked him about the concerns brought up by valmom about AK47's and "cop killer" bullets.

"How do law enforcement professionals feel about the fact that most anybody can obtain a firearm and the fact that there are no real controls on them?"

In his job, he approaches each situation as though there may be a weapon involved and is accordingly vigilant, until he knows otherwise. (He addresses this a bit more in the next response - k0xxx)

"Do you feel safer or less safe knowing that untrained citizens are able to own guns?"

He generally feels that there are many more people out there driving, that have no real training in handling a car, than there are carrying guns out in public. He does feel that there are individuals out there that, due to their lack of good judgment, should never own a gun (or be allowed to reproduce, for that matter).

"How do you feel about the ease of getting carry and conceal permits?"

He doesn't feel that there is a lot of "ease" involved in the process, at least in his state (Louisiana). He said that the training is good and that the background checks are comprehensive.

In closing he said that the general perception that he gets from his fellow officers is that they very much support private gun ownership. He is a Life member of the NRA and he knows of at least eight other Life members on the force, as well as regular dues paying members.

AK47's and "Cop Killer" Bullets

He said that as far as he knows, no violent crimes are on record in his jurisdiction where one was used. Also, he said that he would rather face some one with a civilian (semi-automatic) AK type weapon than a few of the higher power rifles, that are generally used for hunting and competition target shooting. He says that the so-called "assault weapons" are labeled as such strictly on the way that they look, and not on any real meaningful criteria.

He chuckled when I asked him about "cop killer" bullets and said that they are a myth. His department did some testing with various manufacturers and calibers of teflon coated bullets (cop killers) 25 or thirty years ago. Not one round ever penetrated a vest deeper than a standard round and most never arrived at the vest with its' coating intact.

I also asked him about the Winchester Back Talon ammunition, which also received the "cop killer" moniker. He said that this was another myth. The Black Talons were known for their extreme expansion, and the fact that the expansion left sharp edges extending outward. They did not penetrate vests and were not measurably more "deadly" than a standard hollow point. He said the all of the hubbub was due to great marketing (too great, as Winchester was forced to stop manufacturing them for the US civialn market).

He said that true "cop killers" are small, high speed rounds and large caliber wounds such as .308, 30-06, etc. He stated as an example, the .22 magnum, which would penetrate a lot of the early ballistic vests.

Thanks for asking the questions. This was the longest conversation that I have had with my brother in quite some time. It was very enjoyable.

 

[Beekissed]

This is not a discourse on the 2nd amendment

It seems to be the beginning of an opinion piece on the subject, seeing as how some of the other threads have revolved around this subject lately.

Its a provocative and always hot topic on any forum, so questions of this nature will surely end in a "discourse on the 2nd ammendment". It seems like all these politically-based topics always generate hostile remarks and feelings. I'm curious as to why they are repeatedly re-introduced.

Are you trying to garner support from law enforcement to bolster your opinion that guns should be controlled?

Isn't it enough to know that some of us feel strongly that the level of the government's participation in our private lives~ especially in regards to owning firearms~ is not warranted nor desired?

Isn't it also enough that we know that you feel otherwise?

Do we have to keep flogging a dead horse and create further tension on a forum whose main focus is self-sufficiency, which by its nature, includes becoming less dependent on government and money controlled systems?

I hope that sounded civil, as I was certainly trying to be as civil as I can be about this subject.

 

[Big Daddy]

This is not a discourse on the 2nd amendment

It seems to be the beginning of an opinion piece on the subject, seeing as how some of the other threads have revolved around this subject lately.

Its a provocative and always hot topic on any forum, so questions of this nature will surely end in a "discourse on the 2nd ammendment". It seems like all these politically-based topics always generate hostile remarks and feelings. I'm curious as to why they are repeatedly re-introduced.

Are you trying to garner support from law enforcement to bolster your opinion that guns should be controlled?

Isn't it enough to know that some of us feel strongly that the level of the government's participation in our private lives~ especially in regards to owning firearms~ is not warranted nor desired?

Isn't it also enough that we know that you feel otherwise?

Do we have to keep flogging a dead horse and create further tension on a forum whose main focus is self-sufficiency, which by its nature, includes become less dependent on government and money controlled systems?

I hope that sounded civil, as I was certainly trying to be as civil as I can be about this subject.

No it didn't sound civil. The 2 posts before yours did however. I am actually interested in how Cops feel about the issue. So if you have some constructive input. IE a family member is a Cop. Then please feel free. I would prefer if you not introduce the 2nd amendment it is definitely a dead horse and I for one have heard enough about it as well as governments interference in everybody's life. Leaving all that at the door would be a pleasant change.

 

[Beekissed]

I agree whole-heartedly! Please follow your own advice!

 

[me&thegals]

My husband married a sheriff (now retired recently). I will pose these questions and see what he says about it. It's an interesting perspective to understand it from.

 

[Wifezilla]

He does feel that there are individuals out there that, due to their lack of good judgment, should never own a gun (or be allowed to reproduce, for that matter).

I am from a small town in Northern Wisconsin (32,000 people). I think just about everyone owned a gun when I was living there. At my high school, trucks with gun racks and shot guns in them was a normal site.

In 4th grade, we all had to go to camp and take a week long hunter's safety course.

Cops shot during the 19 years I lived there... 0.

An armed Wisconsin was a very polite Wisconsin

 

[hoosier]

This is not a discourse on the 2nd amendment

It seems to be the beginning of an opinion piece on the subject, seeing as how some of the other threads have revolved around this subject lately.

Its a provocative and always hot topic on any forum, so questions of this nature will surely end in a "discourse on the 2nd ammendment". It seems like all these politically-based topics always generate hostile remarks and feelings. I'm curious as to why they are repeatedly re-introduced.

Are you trying to garner support from law enforcement to bolster your opinion that guns should be controlled?

Isn't it enough to know that some of us feel strongly that the level of the government's participation in our private lives~ especially in regards to owning firearms~ is not warranted nor desired?

Isn't it also enough that we know that you feel otherwise?

Do we have to keep flogging a dead horse and create further tension on a forum whose main focus is self-sufficiency, which by its nature, includes become less dependent on government and money controlled systems?

I hope that sounded civil, as I was certainly trying to be as civil as I can be about this subject.

No it didn't sound civil. The 2 posts before yours did however. I am actually interested in how Cops feel about the issue. So if you have some constructive input. IE a family member is a Cop. Then please feel free. I would prefer if you not introduce the 2nd amendment it is definitely a dead horse and I for one have heard enough about it as well as governments interference in everybody's life. Leaving all that at the door would be a pleasant change.

It seemed civil to me.
When you pose a question on an open forum, you may get responses from other people than you requested.

 

[FarmerChick]

This is a simple question and if only law enforcement professionals answer it, it should stay civil. Direct family and friends are okay as long as you can be civil.

How do law enforcement professionals feel about the fact that most anybody can obtain a firearm and the fact that there are no real controls on them? Do you feel safer or less safe knowing that untrained citizens are able to own guns? How do you feel about the ease of getting carry and conceal permits?

Everybody please keep it civil. This is not a discourse on the 2nd amendment. I know that a lot of police officers have many additional weapons besides their service piece. They have been highly trained in it's use. I know that a lot of gun owners are also well trained in the use of their guns. There are also a lot that aren't, so I'm curious how Cops feel about it.

My best friend Barb----her sister is married to a cop. We chatted about this one time. He is for hunting rifles and all that for use as recreational target shooting, hunting of course etc. He is not for AK 47s and semi automatic weapons "that are overkill" for what a normal use of a gun might be, like hunting and target shooting.

But he felt that citizens have the right for protection and own a gun in their home for that purpose.

More guns are in the hands of criminals then the good citizens....this is always going to be the way....it won't change anytime soon, if ever.





And I agee with your post, everyone should answer the post as directed. You asked for law enforcement opinions, not just any opinions, so the posts should stay on track.

And you have the right to post threads you want.