When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. If I ordered a pizza and called the cops, guess who would show up 1st.

i think that a lot of people think that a big and complicated gun is an assault rifle. If the police wanted to instill fear into criminals, then using very intimidating equipment is actually genius. Physically, it isn't necessary due to the fact that they can kill as easily as a handgun, which teens can get; rather, psycologically, it is a deterent to common criminals who are just starting out.

Agree with the statement, police are on our streets and facing our dangers.

Except that these are not "assault rifles".

I know but, most people refer to them as such so that's how I worded it. I'll try harder next time.

i never said they were, i said that people assume that it's an assault rifle and that having a big gun (like some assault rifles) would instill fear into criminals who saw it

IMO, if the police cannot guarantee my safety and security (and they cannot - I've had leo's tell me that my personal safety is my responsibility), then the law has no standing when I defend myself, with or without a weapon. Legal "practitioners" will of course disagree.

The common man will disagree, actually. At least how you worded it. "If the cops can't always do their job all the time for everyone, including the people that they can't reach easily, then its every man for himself!" Baloney.

So the common man must wait for the cavalry and be victimized in the process? Maybe some common men disagree, but I doubt they all will.

No, i'm saying that the idea that the regulations for protecting ourselves are invalid because the law can't guarantee your protection is completely ridiculous. If you think that you can break the just because the law can't control everything is something a radical would say.

Perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly. The police cannot guarantee your protection. That is not justification for breaking laws willy nilly. At the same time, if as a citizen in the normal course of your life you find yourself in a situation where it becomes necessary to defend yourself from bodily harm, cries of illegality are invalid regardless of the method you use. What difference does it make if I obey the law, if I die in the process? I am not willing to sacrifice myself as obedient servant of the law. If I have to defend myself, I don't want hear any shit about it later from those who were not there and did not defend me. Survival comes before the law.

It's actually quite legal for one to defend themself, I might add.

I don't think that you would have anything happen (depending on the case). If its a home intrusion or something of the sort, then it would be justifiable. We have a militia for a reason

You aren't properly trained, so you should have to bend over and let the criminals have their way with you, right? I mean those wonderful cops riding their white horses will arrive in time to save you, for sure.

Then what was your meaning? Be concise. People run into the same threats as police sometimes, but don't have the proper training to deal with it. So are they supposed to not defend themselves and wait for people with the proper training to show up? What do they do in the mean time?

The average civilian 'good guy vs. bad guy' shooting has less overall shots fired, and more hits. Unfortunately for most police, training ends when the academy graduates. Most police I know give their monthly training ammo to friends and family to use.

Did you know there are up to 3 MILLION defensive uses of guns every year in the United States (per CDC stats) that directly counter crime, stopping it or deterring it from happening?

Average gun owner has years more training and experience than an average Police Academy graduate or police rookie, if the graduate never had firearms experience as a civilian.

Because I'm involved in that world. I am happy to answer any questions you may have on this subject. Not to change your mind, but to give you the information you may not have access to normally, and then you can make up your mind as an informed individual.

More importantly I know the minimal training requirements and the testing requirements of police academy graduates. I like to give that test to some of my better beginner students, and after they pass it, I let them know that they just passed the police academy graduation shooting requirements.

I can tell you that civilian CCW classes are a lot more rigorous and advanced than the LEO classes, even through requirements for passing the civilian CCW in CA are very easy. But I'm not harping on LEOs, they just have A LOT more to cover than just shooting.

disagree

if I can only own a baton, the police can do the same.

Average person - no. Average firearm enthusiast - yes. The only reason our police officers shoot as well as they do (on average) is because they started training when they were civilians. You take away their civilian training and they got nothing.

I took two visiting LEOs from Russia to the range. This was the only time in my life I was scared to be around people with firearms. They had enough training to gain confidence, but they didn't even know the basics of safety or range etiquette. This is all the stuff that you learn in depth in civilian courses, but it gets glossed over in LEO courses so that they could rush to teaching tactics.

You're comparing training to application. Application for civilians is the same as it is for LEOs. Which is why training for civilians needs to be the same as it is for LEOs. And for people who listen to my advise, it is.

Of course they do. Because they actually go to the places where shit is going down and they seek out the criminals. There's no argument there. But that doesn't change anything I said. If I'm going to train to jump with a parachute just once in my life, I don't want to train less rigorously than if I plan to jump on the daily basis, because undertraining even for just that one event is a matter of life or death.

not always cops have to do drug busts civs dont

So are you suggesting every one carries around AR-15s at all times just in case? Not only is that stupid it's impractical.

how a n word strolling through a park like this armed to the teeth

That isn't "armed to the teeth". He has only 2 guns and barely any ammunition. My rig has nearly 500 cartridges, and 2 more guns.

but he looks armed to the teeth, bruh you talking like someone with a rifle strapped to their chest and a glock and a vest for carrying gun stuff wont alarm anyone because he dont have a lot of mags bruh

Maybe people should be alarmed. Maybe being alarmed would help to apply a desperately needed correction in our society.

He's also got a badge. The only people who should be alarmed are the ones he's coming for.

That vest he's wearing - it's soft body armor, only designed to protect against handgun rounds. His rig is minimal. I carry 2 Glocks on my rig....and his handgun is not a Glock (the grips aren't round like that and glocks don't have hammers)

I've been shooting and building handguns and rifles my whole life (since I was 10 at least) which gives me 34 years of experience....you might consider me an expert.

And the ones who often get shot by the police without committing a crime...

Pffft that ain't armed to the teeth.

he looked armed to the teeth to me i see fancy vest and i think packing heat

True to some people including you he does, imo tho not even close, for one thing that vest probably can't stop anything bigger than a 9MM, he's not holding very much ammo (I think I see about 3-4 magazines) only two weapons and not even wearing a helmet

Against the civilian world, he is armed to the teeth. What on earth would he need more than 3-4 magazines for? He's a cop, not some marine about to storm fallujah. I'm super pro-2nd but anyone saying the guy isn't armed to the teeth is lying to themselves. If you discount not having a pack and only talk combat equipment he's wearing more kit than a vietnam infantryman and not too far behind a modern one. "Only two weapons" is this a joke? Blue lives matter, but arming our police like this is absurd and those of you who support 2A should be disgusted, not cheering.

yeah i wasnt really considering helmets he just looked like a fully armed person

do you understand how stupid your logic sounds. Just because somebody looks armed to the teeth doesn't mean they are and it doesn't mean they're dangerous. Police look that way to intimidate criminals, but they should be a beacon of hope to those who follow the law

hey im not a gun expert im just saying bruh

Neither am I. I simply did my research