Galloism wrote:Actually, the given justification was so we would be in a position to stop violent crimes in progress that we may happen across, and to give aid and assistance to uniform police if necessary. Things I can still do as a legal CCW permit holder.
Also, I think you may have gotten the wrong impression (perhaps because I was following two thought trains close together). I worked traffic most of the time, and I was never a detective.
Well, I think that's a crap reason to force people to carry a gun. I'm not surprised that an American law enforcement whatever would hold that opinion, but it's unusual, to say the least.
And I did get the wrong impression, although really, I don't suppose it makes a difference.
WestRedMaple wrote:So you think that if someone is shooting at you, not shooting back is the preferred method of defense. You think that if someone is up close trying to harm you, that you should needlessly give them more opportunity to do so by intentionally using less effective methods, such as a knife or pepper spray.
By all means, though, explain how your alternatives would require less preparation.
You seem to be reading someone else's posts entirely. I've never mentioned appropriate responses for if someone is actively trying to harm you, though yes, "shoot back" is not always the right response, and yes, often a gun is not the best weapon.
And if it's not readily apparent how "run at them" is less preparation than "draw your gun, remove the safety, aim and fire" I don't know what to tell you.
Galloism wrote:Well, I have a friend that carries a knife for really short range, a scimitar for short to medium range defense, a taser for disabling at short range, a few rocks for medium range, and a crossbow for long range.
He gets stopped by the police a lot.
Har har - obviously I'm not suggesting you carry enough different weapons to run a self-defence class, I'm saying you're generally better off with your hands than a gun in most situations. I do like how many people took this seriously, though.
WestRedMaple wrote:The statement is ludicrous to anyone with the slightest clue about the topic.
Okay, great. Until you start explaining why that's the case, I'm not sure why I should bother reading your posts.