Originally posted by Maverick
Last time I'll try to get this accross to you.
The ability to shoot, hit the target is not the main concept here. There is quite a bit more training that Officers go through than just learning to shoot. Learning when to and more importantly when NOT to shoot is far more important. That type of training is far more critical than learning how to shoot. The concept of being placed in a position to take a life and when to avoid being in that position is more critical. If your ccw trainers did not stress to you that the BEST option you have is to avoid being in a position to use deadly force you have not been informed correctly.
That counts far more than how much ammunition you expend. Those and other concepts that are drilled into Officers in training over a series of weeks are a part of the training that is not in the civilian CCW course due to time and other constraints. You simply cannot get all of it in a few evenings and a weekend at the range.
That and a career's worth of experiance makes the retired Officer better qualified to carry accross state lines than "the average joe".
First off, since you were a LEO, I'm interested in your opinion on this.
Secondly, you are saying that a cop's training makes him "more" qualified to move across a border. You back this claim by the weeks spent in the academy. Shoot/No Shoot. I took the training, I know of what you speak.
Point is, if I'm not qualified, for WHATEVER REASON to carry a weapon in another state, why then am I allowed and qualified to carry it in my own?
The two are mutually exclusive. Unless of course you are advocating that no private citizen should be allowed to carry. Is that your stance?
h