If we’re talking a volunteer group, no. Why would they need guns anyway? If they are doing their job correctly, THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE INTERACTING WITH THE SUSPCIOUS ELEMENT.
I put that in caps because I’ve been to CW meetings and they only tell you this like a million times.
Armed security guards OTOH, who have ongoing training on a weekly/monthly basis would be fine.
I saw an interview once with a SWAT instructor. He had been an instructor for 20 years. I can’t remember how, but he had hurt himself and was off the job for like two or three months. He said once he got back to the job, it took him at least as long as he was off to get his skill set back to where it was before he got injured.
The take away from this was that being apt with a gun, especially in tense confrontational situations, isn’t like riding a bike. It takes an ongoing commitment to training.
There is certainly nothing wrong with calling the police if you see something suspicious. Of course “suspicious” usually means “black or Hispanic person”.
If some civilian comes up to me and questions me about what I’m doing, he can suck a dick.
I voted “Safer without armed patrols” but the important words in the OP, for me, were “self appointed” - My neighbourhood is, in fact, patrolled by armed patrols which are not the police, but those are professional security guards appointed by the CommunityImprovement District, and also armed response patrols from the alarm/security companies, not neighbourhood watch. We have NW as well, but we/they are not armed (except with Maglites, I suppose).
I voted safer without armed patrols, but at the same time, I don’t want self-appointed yahoos. However, unless there’s been increased crime or a natural disaster where it makes sense, I don’t see the need for some self-styled local militia, which is essentially what the OP makes it sound like they would be.
I voted “safer without armed patrols” although that is not a problem here. Our city back in California has a police force and I would much rather pay higher taxes for additional professional policemen to patrol the area instead of people like Mr. Zimmerman.
I think the kind of person who would want to participate in armed civilian patrols is exactly the kind of person I do not want armed and patroling my neighborhood.
The more I read the Zimmerman trial pit thread, with people claiming their right to punch complete strangers without cause, the more I think I’d like armed patrols around me. At least if I live somewhere near those people.
I am curious what “CCW/CHL/whatever” has to do with anything. Except in some particular urban areas, a person can walk around with a pistol visible on their hip without any special dispensation or license from the state. If a person can buy a gun, they can wear it about.
I have guns of my own. I don’t need untrained assholes like George Zimmerman, who in a just world would be rotting in jail for the rest of his goddamned life, deciding that to shoot me because I look dangerous,.
Right. And he is deciding whether or not the person is like Zimmerman, apparently, based on how he looks.
So if you appear white, you are a racist, cop wannabe, potential murderer. If you appear black, you are a racist, gangsta wannabe, potential burglar. If there is a difference between these two attitudes, I don’t see what it is.
Well, if you don’t care what the jury said, and you apparently aren’t basing your opinions on the evidence, then what is it? Zimmerman shot a black kid who attacked and tried to kill him. Why should he go to prison - because he is white/Hispanic?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
He wasn’t found innocent. He was found not guilty.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it matters. Skald apparently thinks Zimmerman shot Martin because he thought Martin looked dangerous. Maybe he’s right about that - I am sure Martin looked different from underneath while he was trying to smash Zimmerman’s head in.