Police officers carry firearms to protect themselves

R

Roybean

New member
Why do police officers carry firearms? I mean, really, why do police officers carry firearms? I would submit that they carry firearms to protect themselves. I would further submit they do not carry firearms to primarily protect you and I. If you think otherwise let me pose this question: If two criminals in close proximity are shooting, one at me and one at a police officer Which one do you think the police officer is going to try to shoot??? I would submit his concern is for his own safety, not mine. Self preservation is one of the strongest of all motivators.

Statistics recently released indicated that 61 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty last year and that six were killed with their own firearms. How many of the murder victims last year were killed with their own firearms? How many were armed when they were killed? Generally speaking most crime victims are not armed, they only have their physical ability and agility to protect themselves from the criminal who always get to choose or pick the time, the place the weapon and the victim.
 
I respectfully submit that the officer will engage his threat, then yours. Begining with your threat makes no tactical sense, and the end result is more than likely the death of you both.
 
I'm not sure I follow you. Do you have a bone to pick? Sure, cops have sidearms primarily for self-defense of their own person. They come in contact with a lot of criminals and thus increase thier odds of encountering deadly threats to thier lives.

Cops MIGHT also be able to save your hide, or mine, given the right set of circumstances. They will, as you mentioned, probably save thier own hide first. So what? That's tactically correct (Cops can't do much for you if they're dead, can they?) and also human nature. In reality, cops rarely roll up on the bad guys in mid-action. Makes great movie scenes, but they usually arrive 5-15 minutes post-action and collect evidence, put up yellow tape, etc.

The likelihood is real, real low that a cop will ever be in a position to do anything for you at the time of the actual crime. I have lot's to worry about in this world before I'm going to get too concerned about whether or not a cop is going to save his own skin first before mine.
 
My point is you can't depend upon the state for protection when you need it. Also it is important to note that the state is not liable if they don't come to your defense. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 U.S. Supreme Court Case decided in 1989. You are for the most part on your on. You must depend upon yourself. Therefore there is a need for the individual to have a viable means of self-defense and a firearm for me comes closer to providing that protection than another law on the book seeking to further restrict my right of self-defense.

I'm not anti-law enforcement, I'm far from it but those who think you can relie upon law enforcement for the protection they need should think again. The number of law enforcement officers to give the degree of protection many seem to demand would result to a police state.

A good book on the myth of police protection is: "Call 911 and Die"
 
I think part of his point is, that if cops carry a sidearm primarily for self-defense, why shouldn't we be responsible and carry a sidearm for our own self-defense. Why should the politicians take away our right to defend ourselves yet allow the police that right. We may have a lower contact rate with criminals than police, but that does not eliminate our risk of being attacked.

We cannot rely on the police to defend our lives all the time, everywhere. As Jack99 pointed out, police are historians, ussually showing up after the crime has been committed and having to piece together what happened. Instead the best way to reduce crime is to arm the potential victim. In this way, we are stopping crime at the source: the perpetrator-victim interaction in which the potential victim is armed and prevents the crime from happening.

I submit to you that the consequence of running into an armed victim is a far more effective means of crime deterrence than prison.

------------------
The first step is registration, the second step is confiscation, the final step is subjugation.
 
I wish more of the sheep understood this. Most think the cops are thier personal bodyguard service. If more people understood that nobody has responisibility for protecting you BUT YOU, I think we'd see attitudes on gun control change significantly.
 
It's already been ruled by the courts that the LEO's are not under anyrules that they are to protect you.

And people wonder why it took 4 hours for the LEO's to enter Columbine H.S. They were waiting for the shooting to stop.

Teacher bleeds to death, kids get massacred? Acceptable losses.

------------------
Satanta, the Whitebear
Sat's Realm: <A HREF="http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My" TARGET=_blank>http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html

My</A> Disability petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/DisbHelp/petition.html
 
I heard once that LEO's carry sidearms to 'terminate violence'. Think about it ... it's true.

And, it's the same reason you and I carry them. This isn't complicated.

Regards from AZ
 
What about when you can't get to a phone? The only time I have ever pulled a handgun in self defense was when a roaming pack of college kids were out to terrorize the area. I ran at least 1 block from them before even so much as punching two of them off their feet, but as more and more arrived, two of whom had baseball bats, I had no choice but to pull my gun and to tell them "Leave or die". I had no way to contact the police, and the only way they could have helped me is if they had shown up by chance. I can't rely on chance, and that night I didn't, and my friends were greatful for it, cause they could have killed us there were so many of them, and they weren't playing, so neither was I. Even if they had guns, the average thug is so incompetent compared to a trained user that I could have easily downed 5 or 6 of them faster than they could draw. I am safer with a gun even against gun users than I would be with my fists against that many fists. People sit there and shake their heads about how it can never happen to them, but it can and often does. I'm ready for it, they aren't. Sure, they may get me first, but I've got a lot better chance now, and all my friends have learned the lesson from that night, so even if they get me, they have armed friends of mine to deal with as well. We protect our own, and we protect ourselves, hell we'll even protect strangers, but the cops won't unless they just happen by.

------------------
I twist the facts until they tell the truth
 
Fact: LEO's carry firearms for their own protection.

Fact: A large percentage of LEO's are not proficient with their firearms and only carry them because they are mandated to.

Fact: When engaged by a "bad Guy" while you too are engaged by yet another "bad guy". The LEO will respond to the "bad guy" that is firing upon him first, tactically sound. You on the other hand are SOL if you are not returning fire yourself cause after the LEO eliminates his agressor he will ALWAYS breathe a sigh of relief befor attempting to engage your agressor, if he has any ammo left, see fact 2.
 
I agree that LEOs carry guns for their own protection, not the Citizens, and this is how it should be. BUT, I've had several anti-gun LEOs ask me "why do you need a gun? That's what we police are for!".

So, an LEO's gun is not primarily to protect the Citizen, BUT the Citizen doesn't need a gun because he has the police to protect him? I'm sorry, I must be confused :rolleyes:
 
Self protection is item 3 on the list of reasons a cop carries a gun. Reason #1 is as a symbol of authority; reason #2 is as an offensive tool to get obedience from suspects/subjects.
 
Gusgus,
As an LEO I must say that if an LEO told you that you did not need a gun to protect yourself they were an idiot. Seeing what we see everyday I don't know how an LEO can tell you that with a straight face. I hope these were new LEOs, you know the kind that they were able to save the world. It is impossible for all citizens to be protected by LEOs unless we hire millions of LEOs and assign one to each citizen as a bodyguard.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff, CA:
Self protection is item 3 on the list of reasons a cop carries a gun. Reason #1 is as a symbol of authority; reason #2 is as an offensive tool to get obedience from suspects/subjects.[/quote]


I was having roughly the same thoughts on this.



------------------

~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
I don't understand the big surprise that LEO's carry firearms to protect themselves (in part) and that in a bad situation they would first protect themselves and then the citizens in certain cases. As mentioned previously, this probably makes the best tactical sense.

Roybean - why have the topic listed as pertaining to guns and LEOs when your point isn't so much about their own preservation, but the fact that you don't feel protected by LEOs? Typically, I don't either. After all, most of their job is reactionary ... being called to situations after the crap has already hit the fan. The issue here isn't about firearms as much as it is about who and what is being protected in a given circumstance. Should the situation come up and an LEO arrives on scene and a single BG is holding you at gun point, you can be sure he will engage the BG. This makes tactical sense as well.

I submit that in a similar situation you suggested where you come into a situation where multiple BGs have your family at gun point and because you have just entered the situation one of the BGs points a gun at you (just like with the LEO), you will engage the BG pointing the gun at YOU first. It is what makes tactical sense. Should your wife or family fault you for NOT being able to protect them because you protected yourself first? No, because you can't protect them if you are dead. An LEO can do nothing for you if he/she is dead.
 
I am merely trying to point out what most of us know that LEO can't protect us and why we must be prepared to protect ourselves. For this very reason I always pack. When you are faced with a life or death situation you need help immediately. Two minutes may be to late.

LEO use the motto "serve and protect" but we all know that generally they are reactive, i.e., they investigate after the crime is committed and seek to arrest the culprit after the warrant is issued. By the same token we also know that "more guns equal less crime." In Israel for example it is easy for law abiding citizens to carry firearms and as a result crime is reduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top