MSP Retired,
Sir, nobody is claiming that you don't have a very demanding and important job. I don't believe anybody here is claiming that police are uncecessary. Nobody is questioning your training or disputing the fact than an armed presence is a great deterrent against crime/terrorism.
The major bone of contention is that this law creates multiple classes of people before the law (this is the major problem with hate crimes/speech laws as well). Whether or not a police class would make us "safer" is irrelevant.
What makes this bill even more scary is that the favored class of people described in this law work for the government, leaving us with the potential for one law for the ruled and one law for the rulers.
Multiple classes of people before the law is a bad idea.
A government, or agents thereof, that is above the law is a bad idea.
This law contains elements of both, making it a bad law. Please note that I am criticizing a law, not you personally or police in general.
The examples of negative encounters with the police a related as evidence that not all folks who wear the badge have the ability to handle their responsibility over others; and probably shouldn't have this carry privilege extended to them.
I have in front of me a 1989 printing of Bill Jordan's "No second place winner". Near the end of Chapter one Jordan writes about alibi guns and "hypothetically" planting them on persons accidentally shot to save one's own a$$. He also writes about a shooting on a bridge during which the shootee loses his fired weapon over the bridge. Other LEO's throw weapons matching the suspect's over the bridge. These guys planted evidence just to save one of their own, the truth be damned. As a law-abiding citizen I find this kind of conduct to be deplorable.
Because of examples like this many of us in the general public worry about how effectively police organizations police their own ranks.
Nobody is questioning your integrity, sir, we just recognize that nor everyone who is an lEO is ethical. We worry that otherwise ethical LEO's will look the other way. I believe that the police are the good guys. They are only the good guys as long as they obey the law. We are a nation of laws. The first duty of our governments (and all its agents) is to obey the law. Surely you would agree that the people who enforce the law should be able to obey it? (I am quite sure that the vast majority of LEO's do obey the law.)
Another reason I don't like the "The police are trained argument' is because that argument has been repeatedly used to limit firearms ownership to the police. Once again, this is not and indictment of police, it is a problem with the argument. The reason I don't like the argument is that Policemen are armed to deal with what is ostensibly a threat to citizens and themselves. If police need weapons to deal with this threat than so do citizens.
Myself and every cop I know are for private ownership of firearms, it's the politcians in the Chief of Police groups who talk about restricting gun ownership, not the street cops.
Good, I am a little surprised, but unbelieveably glad to hear it.
Rummer