Previous  1 ... 25  26  27  28  29  30  31 ... 33  Next

Thanks for the feedback, DrCaleb.

I was initially under the impression that wildlife/wilderness protection workers were issued ATC-2 permits (gun must be visible). I've also wondered about police detectives and private investigators. I believe these are professions (at least for a police detective) where carrying a concealed weapon is required. Would a permit be exempt in this case as well?

   

I'm not a cop, so I don't know if they carry off duty, or if they do what allows them to. But the plainclothes cops can carry concealed on duty without a CCW or ATC permit. It's part of their job, and the legislation exempts law enforcement from CCW, from my understanding.

   

I have an 'expert' on gun laws at my disposal, and he insists that their ability to carry was due to legislation, not permits. It's only civillians that need permits.



PIs I believe do need a permit. Detectives do not, thats in the legislation.

   

Wow. If the only training you want for CCW permit is the same as what police get, then I am firmly AGAINST CCW being granted. Most police weapons handling and knowledge is sorely lacking.

No offense to any police out there,(EB).

   

Not to pick a fight, but what evidence do you base that on?

   

In some parts, Police training goes like this:

Dude1: Son, come down to the Station and I'll get ya to work.

Dude2: Ok cousin, I'll get there.

Dude1: See ya there Brother.

Dude2: Sure thing Uncle.

   

Maybe in Canada but in the USA every state has a Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification process of some sort that is required for sworn officers. Note that Community Service Officers (CSO) do not have to complete a POST and can, indeed, be employed just as you said. But they cannot carry a gun, perform arrests in the course of law enforcement, and etc.

The days of Joe Bob getting hisself dep-yoo-tized and becoming a law-man are long over.

   

That is reassuring. It only makes sense that a law enforcement officer has extensive training, not only in firearms, but in the law itself. The officer needs to be familiar with the laws before he can enforce them. I'd be really hard for someone with no training to assume the duties of a police officer, unless they have a photographic memeory and can memorize all of the laws and regulations by simply glancing at them.

   

I guess you and I have very different views of what constitutes as evidence.

   

In general, most jurisdictions won't hire someone as a cop unless they have a degree in administration of justice or qualifying experience in the military. For instance, my military experience allows me to work as a reservist but I'd need a POST to be full-time (and I don't care to do that).

And forgive me if I disagree with you a little bit and say that some people are immensely and naturally suited to law enforcement work and that the 'proper training' essentially ruins them by getting them to stop using their natural abilities and instead doing the same stupid sh*t everyone else does. There's a few of these people I've met over the years and if I had my way they'd wear a badge and a gun and they'd be outstanding cops all on their own.

   

It depends on what your standard is 2Cdo. I can only speak for Ont but the legislated training is good. Is it CF infantry good? I don't think so. There is a role difference here. The CF's role is to kill enemies of the State. Police have a much different role and they don't do guns 24/7 like you guys. I'm confident that my guys are safe and proficient with their pistols but I don't think they could handle taking a village held by Terrence.

   

Correct but in the wrong direction most people that daily carry a firearm are much better trained and far more experinced than the police are with their service weapons.

The police training for firearms is very much lacking outside of their tactical units.

For proof look at reports of when the police are in shootings. Rarely do you read about the police firing two shots and hitting both times killing the criminal. I'm sure someone has totaled the numbers and come to a conclusion, but I've yet to find such a report.

The training and testing already required for Canadian firearms ownership is more than enough for concealed carry license. If you wanted to add something I'd suggest a class on legal use of firearms for self defence.

   

So... if I read this correctly, you have zero proof to back up you claim again?

There's that crazy Xort again.

What's your stats for shooting at a moving target again?

   

Another subject you appear to know fuck-all about.

   

Wow, I'm a bit shocked at some of the opinions of modern police training here. As a former Sgt. with the LAPD, I can tell you that most medium and large agencies in the US train their academy students for anywhere from five to six months - then on-duty training with a specialized field training officer for about four months after that before being fully authorized for independant service.

That's the better part of a year and a good chunk of classroom weapons training revolves around the use of lethal force concepts, tactics, limitations and obligations. A military vs. police comparison is moot as the force objectives are completely different. Any contest between an infantryman and a police officer will result in the police officer with much higher pistol scores and the soldier with much higher assault rifle scores. American states that have concealed carry permits have rather adequate handgun qualifications and background check requirements.

Anyway - my real interest was what appeared to be an insinuation that Canadian police officers are not allowed to be armed unless on duty. Is this true? CAN this be true? Somehow, I think not but if it is - it's a shocking and fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of law enforcement.

   

Previous  1 ... 25  26  27  28  29  30  31 ... 33  Next