Do police officers -generally- endorse citizens to carry and/or own firearms?
829815
I'm a police officer, and I am all for law-abiding citizens owning guns, on one condition: If you're gonna have a gun, learn how to use it. If you don't learn how to use your gun, don't practice with it regularly, don't keep it clean and operational, then it will be more of a danger than a protection.\n\nAny person who is considering gun ownership should take a firearms safety course, which are offered by many different organizations, including many police departments. It's also important to practice with a firearm regularly, because, as with any other skill, if you don't use it, you lose it. Having a gun does no good if you can't hit what you're aiming at. Equally important is proper care and maintenance of the gun, which really just comes down to periodic cleaning and oiling. And of course, if you're going to have a gun, just make sure you follow all the local guidelines to ensure that you have all the necessary permits.\n\nIf a law-abiding citizen learns gun safety, practices with their gun, and keeps it in good working order, than I have absolutely no problem at all with them having a gun. In fact, I've seen more than one life saved because the "victim" had a gun and knew how to use it.
25697
But if you're not talking about private security, then no.  Law enforcement officers derive their authority from the State in which they are employed, and the State doesn't contract with private citizens in a freelance mode.\n\nYou might also Google bounty hunters, as they do what some people consider enforcement, though it isn't law enforcement so much as it is armed debt collection.
1030602
i don't own a gun.....  and don't want one...  but i respect the right for any citizen to own one if he or she wants to!!!!!
779860
This is guided by Arms Act in which categories of weapons have been identified requiring licence from govt.Some weapons such as .38, 9mm revolvers/pistols can not be possessed by citizens except members of Armed Force and Police.Air guns(both pistols and guns) do not come under this category.You are free to buy and use it for peaceful purpose.But you cant intimidate others by this.Also hunting by any means is a penal offence.
571821
Many countries have police officers that do not carry guns, but Japan is NOT one of them.  They carry .38 special revolvers, not the high-capacity 9mm handguns often toted by the American police.[110] No officer would ever carry a second, smaller handgun as a back up, as many American police do. Policeman may not add individual touches, such as pearl handles or unusual holster, to dress up their gun. While American police are often required to carry guns while off-duty, and almost always granted the privilege if they wish (even when retired), Japanese police must always leave their guns at the station. Unlike in the United States, desk-bound police administrators, traffic police, most plainclothes detectives, and even the riot police do not carry guns.[111]\n\nInstead of using guns, the police rely on their black belts in judo or their police sticks. Indeed, police recruit training spends 60 hours on firearms compared to 90 hours on judo, and another 90 on kendo (fencing with sticks). (The number of hours that Japanese police recruits do spend on firearms training is larger than what most of their American counterparts receive; that the Japanese are so thoroughly instructed in a weapon which they are expected to use in only the rarest of circumstances testifies to the highly cautious approach of the Japanese police towards firearms.) After police school, few officers show any interest in further firearms training, while continued judo and kendo practice is frequent. Annual police martial arts contests are important events. Sixty percent of officers rank in one of the top judo brackets. Beer bellies are non-existent. In contrast, many American policemen, if confronted with deadly assault, have no combat technique to use except gunfire.[112] The American police's heavy reliance on guns serves, intentionally or not, to legitimise a similar attitude in the rest of the population.\n\nThe link below gives the history of guns and gun control in Japan.
988155
They can now and here in Florida it is legal for a person to shoot if they feel that they are in danger for their life. And you know what, if someone bashed my door down I'd shoot first and ask questions later. I think this may be very bad for all the police trying to do their jobs. What in Gods' name were they thinking? Some idiot right wingers may think this is OK but heaven help the cops.
924427
First off, I am a police officer, so consider that when you read this.\n\nI believe that the authority to shoot at a vehicle and its occupants is a necessary evil in modern law enforcement.  Of course, very few situations truly require deadly force.  i have been a police officer for 11 years and have never fired my weapon in the line of duty.  I have had several close calls, several situations where deadly force could have been used, but I have always found a way to resolve the situation without deadly force.  \n\nThat being said, if a vehicle is truly being used as a weapon, deadly force may be required to prevent injury to the officer(s) or the public.  Every situation should be considered on its own merits and, not knowing exactly what happened in the NY shooting, I don't know if the shooting was justified.\n\nI have long had the opinion that some police shootings are justified and others are only justifiable.  \n\nIn my opinion, a justified shooting is one that is a clear cut, clean shooting - such as when the police shoot a man who is armed with a gun, firing rounds at them or the public.  One where deadly force is truly the ONLY good option.  The best example I think of is the bank robbery that occurred in LA five or so years ago - the one when the two suspects were walking down the street firing automatic weapons at police and passers by. \n\nOn the other hand, once again in my opinion only, a justifiable shooting is one that, when viewed by the public, is questionable but that the police department says in justified.  Let's say a shooting when the suspect reaches for something and the police fire only to find out that the suspect was reaching for a phone.  The state of mind of the officer that the suspect was reaching for a gun, and depending on the totality of the circumstances, likely makes this a shooting that the police department will say was a good shooting even though it will appear to the outside world that the shooting was not justified.\n\nIt always sounds bad when the police shoot 30, 40, 50 or more rounds at an unarmed person, but I suppose we should wait to hear the whole story until we form an opinion as the legality of this shooting.
847460
YES THEY DO!  And they feel justified in doing so!  I used to be a police dispatcher.  You should hear how the "peace officers" talk back on station.  it would make you sick.  \n\nPolice officers have about as much business with a taser as a 5 year old!  About as much restraint and good judgment too!\n\nI think you are correct to be afraid.  Talk to your state representative about curtailing police use of tasers.  Each taser use should be investigated as heavily as a gun shot.\n\nHere where I live wh have had people, citizens severely injured by police over tasing.  I know of one fellow how is now brain damaged, (yes they can when over used) another how is permanently disfigured because he hit the pavement so hard after being tased.  Another guy has second and third degree burns from taser.  We have Had a couple prisoners hearts stopped because of tasing!\n\nFolks these are not harmless weapons.  If you have never seen one in Acton, seen what it does to a person you really can't understand it.  \n\nYes it is great for criminals BUT in our country you are not guilty till  you are proved guilty in a court of law.  Tasers are being use on kids who are committing pranks at night, people who are angry about a traffic stop, not violent just angry.  People who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.  \n\nYOU are right to be afraid!!!!
257753
as compared to our "normal" police force?\n\ncompare:  both are enlisted to control mobs and maintain order.\ncontrast:  a hired mercenary knows his trade.  Our "badge and gun" officers don't care.  Unfortunately, we have too many "badge and guns" walking their beat.
246643
Bottom line....an armed public are citizens,an unarmed public are subjects.If that's too deep for you,check out a little history.In everycase,gun control,or outright confiscation preceeded a totalitarian government.
5023
I respect the police at most of the places, ones where they have done or atleat have tried to do good work. \nBut mostly I have heard (ya , just heard) negative stories about how police man have used their position for undue favours. I would certainyl hate such a class. \n\nBut then, I think we need them, we depend on them. They mostly do a good job, or atleast their presence is a comfort to the common man.
390366
I am not in favor of taser use with the police department. it is totally absurd. Here in the part of kentucky i live in they just recieved tasers and they are using them way more often than necessary. i guess since it is not as lethal as a gun they feel free to go on a power trip with them. but it is wrong and they should not be able to torture the citizens they pull over with these things. this is crazy to me.
613954
The ramifications are huge -- not only for law enforcement but for the common everyday person too.  There are a lot of very unstable people walking around freely and some of them are medicated to the point of intoxication.  Consealed Carry has the potential of putting innocent people at greater risk and that alone is cause for concern.  If a private citizen/person has the right to carry a fire arm it should be exposed.\n\nIn the United States, concealed carry (a.k.a. CCW) is the right to carry a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner. In some states, it applies only to the carry of firearms as all other weapons are expressly not covered by the right. Even as the number of states adopting legislation permitting this has grown, it has met with opposition. Currently, 48 U.S. states permit adults who have applied, have no criminal record, and (in some cases) meet training requirements to carry one or more handguns in a concealed manner. In some states the same permit may be used to openly carry a handgun. In others open carry is prohibited even with a permit. A few states do not require a permit to carry openly.\n\nIn 39 of these states, issuing officials may not arbitrarily deny a permit application, a practice known as Florida-style "shall issue." A further eight states have "may issue" laws; typically specific "need" must be established, but in practice, this is often a mechanism to prohibit most people from carrying.\n\nThese "may issue" states range from "shall issue" in practice (Alabama and Connecticut are examples) to "at the whim of local officials" (such as New York, Massachusetts, and California; rural officials in those states liberally issue permits but officials in urbanized counties generally are more restrictive) to "almost non-issue" in states such as Maryland where even documented death threats are sometimes not sufficient to convince officials to issue permits and to "never-issue" Hawaii, where permits are never issued under any circumstances.\n\nTwo states, (Vermont and Alaska), allow any non-felon who has reached the age of 16 or 21 respectively, to carry without a permit of any kind. However, Alaska residents may still obtain a completely optional, non-required permit so as to receive reciprocal carry rights in other states, or to gain exemption from the NICS background check.\n\nAs of 2006, only two US States—Wisconsin and Illinois—have no provision whatsoever that would allow for the legal concealed carry of firearms by "ordinary" citizens. There are currently movements in each of these states to pass concealed-carry laws; legislation was passed in 2004 and again in 2005, but vetoed by the respective governors. It is expected that Wisconsin will have a signed Concealed Carry law by the end of 2007. The Kansas legislature over-rode the governor's veto to pass CCW on March 23rd, 2006.\n\nReciprocal recognition of concealed carry privileges vary by state to state, are negotiated by each state with each other state where reciprocity exists, and additionally depend, in some cases, on the residency status of individuals holding each state's concealed carry license. Presently, a license from most states, held by a resident of that state, is recognized in approximately 30 other states. In contrast, a license from most states, held by a non-resident of that state, is recognized in slightly fewer than 30 other states at present. Attempts have been made in the US House to pass legislation to force all states to recognize all other state's concealed carry licenses, much as driver's licenses are recognized in all other states besides the one where issued, but no corresponding attempts at such legislation have occurred in the US Senate.\n\nCarrying a weapon is an enormous responsibility. Training courses spend a considerable amount of time discussing the many aspects of liability should one actua
385103
Ugh!!!  Don't even!  They are usually overtly nice because if something is to come up...that's the topic.  Cops always pick on the people that are pointing guns, robbing etc...black, white whatever.\n  As in everything there are some bad apples.
959041
Officers....\n\n You know, you don't have to be a law-breaker to ask questions like this.   Maybe he just dislikes cops, like I do - the way good parents dislike child predators.    I coin a new term here: civilian predator.  Different from criminal.\n\n However, I  agree with some of you that you  deal with the worst elements in our society.  Although you put your lives on the line every day, statistically most of your firearm deaths are actually suicides.\n\nUnfortunately, the stress from the job cultivates an antisocial personality in yourselves. \n \n That is why the public dislikes and distrusts you more and more each day.  I've personally never been arrested, but I have been harassed, and I can't let it go.\n\nGueroes and other civilians here, you will have to disregard many of the answers that are still to come from responding police officers.  By their remarks, they will display to you their rude, childish attitudes.  Please ignore the more  vulgar comments.
280486
I firmly believe that common citizens should retain our right to firearms.  However, I also believe in waiting periods, background checks and law enforcement when it comes to weapons.  There is no need for civilians to have assault weapons, so I think limiting it to pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc. would be fine.  More gun safety education is needed.  I come from a hunting family and we had to have firearm safety before we could ever hold a gun.  There were always guns kept in our house, never locked and the ammo was nearby but my younger brother and I knew not to touch them and all of the safety precautions to use when we did touch them because that was what we were taught from a young age.  Education is the key to EVERYTHING.  \n\nFR
895441
The gun you use in the police academy is usually the one you will use on duty unless the department issues you a gun for the mere fact you have to "qualify" in order to be able to carry that type of weapon later on. Qualifying means you hit a certain percentage of bullets in the "correct" area on the practice target. Most officers carry either a .40 or .45 handgun...although some agencies who do not require a particular type of gun will allow officers to carry any type they can qualify with..for example one my fellow officers carry a .357 colt magnum revolver on duty...