I disagree.MeMelYup wrote:I think it makes sence, a little anyway. A police officer wants to go into a shooting situation with full knowledge the bad person is the only person with a firearm. They don't want the waters muddied by other people having a firearm so they won't have to think about their response. Look at most of the targets they use. If it has a gun you shoot, not is the target pointing the gun. If it doesn't have a gun don't shoot. In a possible shooting situation they don't want to have think.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Absolutely right! These folks are the first responders and because of absurd state laws, they unarmed first responders. That's a recipe for disaster.anygunanywhere wrote:In the case of the Va Tech shooter armed students and professors makes more sense than militarized cops who show up after the fact.
It amazes me that anti-gunners and some COPs can argue for full auto weapons on a school campus, yet argue that an adult student, teacher or professor with a handgun creates too large of a risk of collateral damage. When an argument is so devoid of any connection to reality, it is no longer a rationale for a position, it's a lie.
Chas.
No responsible agency trains its officers to shoot anyone with a gun because guns are used by criminals, law abiding citizens, and LEO's. There are no shortcuts to using good judgment.
Letting lots of people get killed during the first 5 - 10 minutes of an incident so the responding officers won't be confused instead of allowing someone who is already on the scene solve the problem immediately and make the scene safe before officers can arrive doesn't make any sense at all.