Bobby. wrote on Dec 29
th, 2015 at 6:47am:
A Victorian policeman was asked once why cops carry guns -
his answer:
We never know who we might meet on our travels.
bobby,
Australia, 2015.
We either all [both, the police,
AND, every other citizen] live in a society where violent crime can occur at any time.
Or we don't all live in such a society [i.e. we all live in a society where violent crime is unlikely to occur.].
Which is it ?Google
australia, rise in violent home invasions
bobby,
I have to presume, that Australia today, is perceived
by police agencies, to be a society where violent crime and assault can occur at any time.
And, police officers are permitted [required?], to routinely have access to, and to carry
Glock pistols - FOR THE SAKE OF ENHANCING THEIR PERSONAL SAFETY.
Whereas, all other peaceful, law abiding citizens are PROHIBITED [in law] from even
possessing a firearm,
any firearm, .....for the purpose of personal defense [e.g. in the event of a violent home invasion, by criminals].
QUESTION;Does this evident circumstance [stated above], establish the fact, that the lives of police officers must be being regarded [by governments, and police agencies] as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of all other, peaceful, law abiding citizens ?
QUESTION;Should the lives and personal safety, of police officers be regarded as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of all other, peaceful, law abiding citizens ?
Is that a proper approach, to combating violence crime in our community ?
i.e.
To establish [in the laws governing police authority, over all 'other' citizens], that the lives and personal safety, of police officers are to be regarded as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of all other, peaceful, law abiding citizens ?
bobby,
QUESTION;Why shouldn't police officers be subject to the very same laws [as regard to the possession of 'dangerous' firearms] as other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?
QUESTION;Why do police officers need ready and instant access to, .....what have been deemed in law, to be prohibited and 'dangerous' firearms ?
Are these firearms really required, for their personal safety ?
QUESTION;Couldn't police officers rely upon
an alternative, and lawful means, for their personal self defense ?
For example,
any carpenters hammer is legal,
and a hammer is a lethal weapon. [and a lot cheaper than a Glock pistol!]
QUESTION;Why don't police agencies simply issue police officers with a hammer [with an appropriate holster], for their personal defense ???
That way, police officers could comply with our prohibited and 'dangerous' firearms laws.
i.e.
AS EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IS REQUIRED TO DO.
Or do police agencies believe that disarming police officers [of
Glock pistols], WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO POLICE OFFICERS ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST VIOLENT ASSAULTS ???
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1451092762/0#0
Quote:
QUESTION;Why shouldn't police officers be subject to the very same laws [as regard to the possession of 'dangerous' firearms] as other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?
QUESTION;And why should laws in some Australian states, mandate goal time [i.e. a more serious sentence] for assaults against police officers, .....BUT NOT mandate goal time, for the same type of assault, against an 'ordinary' citizen ?
QUESTION;Should the lives and personal safety, of police officers be regarded as being worth more, than the lives and personal safety of other peaceful, law abiding citizens ?
And if yes, then why ?
PLEASE EXPLAIN,
the reasoning.
QUESTION;Are police officers to be regarded as being a 'special category' of citizen, a citizen who is deserving of different [better] protections in law, and [better] citizen privileges, to other [lower status] peaceful, law abiding citizens ?
QUESTION;Should members of police agencies in Australia, .....BE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES [i.e.
not be subject to
the very same laws as every other peaceful, law abiding citizen] ?