# Police weapons storage... from "London, Ont Officer killed"



## jbeach95 (9 Jun 2007)

see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63032.0.html


----------



## jbeach95 (9 Jun 2007)

Am I the only one who thought it was a legitimate question to ask (about weapons storage)?
I was not satisfied with Chief Faulkner's answer, but I don't blame him for not giving a detailed, well-reasoned argument, as he was dealing with two of his colleagues having just passed away.
Unlike what some people interpreted from my question, I do not yet have an opinion one way or the other as to whether the current policy is better than a common lockup as the military is familiar with, with signing out and in.
Therefore, I am seeking the opinions of members of this forum, especially those with insight into what requirements there are for police to access their firearms.


----------



## medaid (9 Jun 2007)

No you weren't but I think you should've started a new thread earlier, instead of doing so on the same thread. It's sensitivity JDBeach... people are hurting ATM.


----------



## jbeach95 (9 Jun 2007)

I apologize for starting the discussion in the other thread.


----------



## jbeach95 (9 Jun 2007)

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2007/06/09/4246715-sun.html



> *No changes planned: chief*
> Murray Faulkner said it's too soon after a murder-suicide to alter rules concerning guns.
> By RANDY RICHMOND AND KELLY PEDRO, SUN MEDIA
> 
> ...


----------



## MPIKE (9 Jun 2007)

JDBeach said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who thought it was a legitimate question to ask (about weapons storage)?
> I was not satisfied with Chief Faulkner's answer, but I don't blame him for not giving a detailed, well-reasoned argument, as he was dealing with two of his colleagues having just passed away.
> Unlike what some people interpreted from my question, I do not yet have an opinion one way or the other as to whether the current policy is better than a common lockup as the military is familiar with, with signing out and in.
> Therefore, I am seeking the opinions of members of this forum, especially those with insight into what requirements there are for police to access their firearms.



Okay hint #3?

Here is the opinion...  You've stated..


> I am not a police officer and I don't know what method of storage would be best for them.


Not what you want to hear ....But...you will likely have to go on wondering.. So dare I say "put your army hat on!" and think !!.  Would you discuss your armoury policies openly on a public forum after an incident  occurred on its  grounds??.. um no..  OPSEC comes into play also with the military part of para-military organization ..

bury it man....

Want to know more?


----------



## jbeach95 (9 Jun 2007)

I actually did hear a good argument outside of this public forum. I encouraged the individual to post it (they said nothing about OPSEC), as it was the type of discussion that I was looking for. This proves that it is possible to discuss it rationally. I wasn't looking for London police to defend or criticize their system, I just wanted to see what people's thoughts were, cop or not. Apparently no one is interested in making their views public. That's fine with me, I have my answer already. Consider the topic buried.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Jun 2007)

JDBeach said:
			
		

> This proves that it is possible to discuss it rationally. I wasn't looking for London police to defend or criticize their system, I just wanted to see what people's thoughts were, cop or not.


  
I call BS.  You are trying to stir up trouble and bad feelings.  Remeber when you typed this?



> I was not satisfied with Chief Faulkner's answer, but I don't blame him for not giving a detailed, well-reasoned argument, as he was dealing with two of his colleagues having just passed away.



Who the hell are you to say you are satisfied with a Chiefs response or not?  Yes, _we_ in the police family can discuss this rationally.  Don't expect anyone to invite you into that circle given your demonstrated lack of understanding and consideration.



			
				JDBeach said:
			
		

> Apparently no one is interested in making their views public. That's fine with me, I have my answer already. Consider the topic buried.



Just make sure you understand the answer you have gotten from here.  You have displayed yourself to be an insensitive outsider not worthy of a LEO's trust or to be included in part of a discussion.


----------



## medaid (10 Jun 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Just make sure you understand the answer you have gotten from here.  You have displayed yourself to be an insensitive outsider not worthy of a LEO's trust or to be included in part of a discussion.



Eeeek. Like I said before JDBeach, it's just the time and place for things. Sometimes... sensitivity takes precedence.


----------



## jbeach95 (11 Jun 2007)

zipperhead, I think you need to take what I write literally and stop trying to make assumptions about what my intentions are. How hard would it have been to ask me to clarify what I meant rather than jumping to conclusions?

As for the chief's *answers* to questions from the Free Press reporter, they were initially short and lacked reason to back up the arguments. When I said I wasn't satisfied, I was saying that I wanted to know more about it (to reduce my "lack of understanding"), not that I thought he was wrong. Read what I wrote literally.

As for the sensitivity, I thought that it was necessary to ask important questions before they are forgotten about (I doubt it will be an issue on here after the media finds something else to focus on).
Apparently, the majority do not agree and think that I was not being sensitive enough. I have respected this by moving this part to another thread and then trying to drop this topic entirely (I could have pushed the actual points further, but chose not to). In hindsight, I recognize that what I wrote would seem insensitive to some people. The thought did not cross my mind at the time, and I did not foresee the response to it. For this, I am sorry. There is no need to continue to harp on this point. If I could go back and delete that one line of my post, I would. But what's done is done.

However, I won't let unfounded criticism of me go unanswered. Just take things that I write literally, and this would avoid much of the problems we have been experiencing.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jun 2007)

Okay you are missing (or more likely choosing to miss) the point.  It isn't an important question.  It isn't even a good question.  It is the kind of bullshit thing you shove in someones face when they are upset and then hope for a volatile reaction.  That is what the media does.  Whether or not you are doing that is up for debate.  
How an individual department chooses to set it's firearm policy is none of yours or anyone elses business but the members within that department.  To create more rules governing something that doesn't need to be regulated is reactionary, poorly thought out and unreasonable.  You seem to have missed the point about suicide.  If someone wants to kill themself they will.  It doesn't matter what they use.  If that officer wanted to die by their own gun, they could just wait until they are on duty if the weapon is otherwise locked up.  Take away the gun altogether, they can do something else.  
Dentists have a higher suicide rate than police.  Is anyone rushing to keep access to sharp objects and medication from them.  Of course not.  
I strongly suspect you could have figured this out on your own, but have taken the opportunity to ramrod your ideas for the sake of being able to do so on this forum.  I hope you have enjoyed jamming your thumb into a raw wound as the opportunity presented itself.  As far as I'm concerned, your character is summed up and I eagerly look forward to crossing paths around the ASU at some point.  
Oh, don't read too much into that.  Just take what I am writing "literally".


----------



## Roy Harding (11 Jun 2007)

JDBeach:

Suck back and reload.

While you_ MAY_ have some valid points (not something I'm willing to concede at this point), what you're _missing_ is that two LEOs perished - their peers amongst the LEO (and CF and Firefighter and Paramedic and any OTHER service you may wish to name) are feeling their loss.  How their loss came about is immaterial - two Police Officers are no longer amongst us.  That causes some pain amongst the service community.

Let it rest.


----------



## jbeach95 (11 Jun 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I eagerly look forward to crossing paths around the ASU at some point.


I would also like to meet you at some point, and hopefully I can better convince you about my original intentions for this thread in a face to face meeting. It is obvious that it is not working here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you are saying that I am intentionally being insensitive and saying that the current policy is wrong. I am saying that I was simply asking for other people's views and am not advocating one way or the other. I don't know what more I can do to convince you of that.

I respectfully disagree with some of the points brought up by the previous posts, but I will not specify which points in order to avoid any more conflict. If there are lessons to be learned from this thread, I believe that they are that you shouldn't make assumptions and respond to what was actually written, and that when dealing with delicate issues, it is best to err on the side of caution to avoid further upsetting people. In my previous posts in this thread, I expressed my regret for my poor timing of starting the discussion. Learn from the mistakes of myself and others.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Jun 2007)

JDBeach said:
			
		

> I would also like to meet you at some point, and hopefully I can better convince you about my original intentions for this thread in a face to face meeting.



It is unlikely that would be the main thrust of the interaction. 



			
				JDBeach said:
			
		

> It is obvious that it is not working here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you are saying that I am intentionally being insensitive and saying that the current policy is wrong. I am saying that I was simply asking for other people's views and am not advocating one way or the other. I don't know what more I can do to convince you of that.



And it is obvious you are pursuing this for the sheer fun of being at the other end of a computer screen.  There is no need to discuss storage issues because a) it doesn't affect you b) it's none of your damn business and c) the law allows us to carry off duty.  It is the individual departments that set storage (or not) policy.  To bring this up in the face of a tragedy is to suggest that there is something wrong with allowing a police officer access to his issued weapons off duty and to further imply that we are not to be trusted.  
But keep poking the dog at the end of his leash.  It's fun to get strong reactions.  Very empowering.



			
				JDBeach said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree with some of the points brought up by the previous posts, but I will not specify which points in order to avoid any more conflict.



Cop out.  



			
				JDBeach said:
			
		

> If there are lessons to be learned from this thread,



It is actions have consequences.  I trust this thread is all the entertainment that you hoped it would be.  

I am done with this.


----------



## jbeach95 (11 Jun 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> It is unlikely that would be the main thrust of the interaction... And it is obvious you are pursuing this for the sheer fun of being at the other end of a computer screen... Cop out... I trust this thread is all the entertainment that you hoped it would be... I am done with this.



I did not have fun with this thread. I tried to end it two days ago. The only reason I continued was to respond to what I considered unfounded criticism of me. As for the "cop out," I believe it demonstrates that I don't wish to keep arguing about this. If I had mentioned specific points, the argument would continue on and on. It is unfortunate that I was not successful in getting you to see what I was trying to say. Believe it or not, I do support the police and their policies. I don't know of anyone more trustworthy than a police officer. I know it sounds hokey, but it's true. That is one of the main reasons I kept wanting to clarify my position, because some responses made it seem otherwise. I have already admitted my mistakes about the way I went about bringing up the topic, and there's nothing I can do to change that. I would still like to see you in person, as I am prepared to have a civilized discussion about this.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jun 2007)

If that is your honest sentiment, and this has run on two days too long, then I will end it for you and put this topic out of it's misery......LOCKED!

Good night.


----------

