Why Cops Carry Guns
Law Enforcement Firearms
with Richard Fairburn  


“This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental. — John Steinbeck


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suppose part of getting older is the eternal cycle of accusing the latest generation of being a bunch of wimps compared to their predecessors. Still, kids nowadays in the “X” or “Y” (or whatever they call themselves) generation are pretty different.

A few years ago, when I ran an academy firearms training unit, one of the range officers walked into my office and announced that Cadet “Smith” refuses to shoot a gun ... she wouldn’t even pick one up. “We’ve tried everything," he said, "even explaining she’ll be terminated from the program.  But she won’t touch the damn thing.”

So, Cadet Smith was ushered into my office. She was an obviously bright young lady, not much older than my daughter, but damn certain she wasn’t going to shoot a pistol. She thought that as a police officer, carrying a gun would be optional. Why goodness, gracious, she could never bring herself to harm another human being, so why would she want to carry a gun? Her goal, she explained, was to work with children or perhaps investigate internet crimes.

Putting aside my desire to ask several politically incorrect questions, I settled on conducting a polite little background examination. “What did you do before coming to the police academy?” I quizzed. She had been a social worker for Family Services. “OK,” I continued, “why do you want to be a Police Officer?” Her answer was simple and direct, “Cops make a lot more money ... but I will never fire a gun.”

At one point, the young lady made the argument that she should be able to choose whether or not to carry a gun. “After all,” she continued, “if I get myself killed for not carrying a gun, that’s my choice.”

WRONG ANSWER.

If we allowed the young lady to place herself in mortal danger by not being armed while on duty, other officers might need to risk their lives to save hers. By not carrying her fair share of the load, other officers could die. That is not a choice she is entitled to make.

True to her word, she never fired the gun. A short time later she resigned before being fired, returning I presume, to the world of social work. Surprisingly, we have encountered a similar mindset in other young trainees, all of whom eventually came around. We have seen variations of this in a handful of older officers when they are sent to Rapid Deployment training. The idea of charging into a school to hunt down an active shooter curdles the blood of a few experienced officers. Most officers embrace active shooter training and remember the “serve and protect” oath they swore, but a few claim they simply didn’t sign on to go into what they deem to be a “SWAT-only” environment.

The discovery of these misguided souls who manage to get past the screening process prompted me to develop a half-hour lecture for all new trainees I entitled “Gun-fighting 101.” If you train new recruits, you might find it handy for getting their attention.

1. We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now.

2. The firearm is merely a tool we use to make the bad guy stop. A firearm is nothing more than a long-distance, chemically-powered cordless drill. They come with different size drill bits (I like .45 caliber, personally), but they all accomplish the same end. The cordless drill does its job by letting stuff run out the hole it creates. Generally, blood runs out. Sometimes the suspect’s life runs out, too. Sorry, but stopping sometimes requires killing, even deliberate killing with a head shot if that is our only option. Better him than me, or my partner, or an innocent victim. So, if you’re not mentally prepared to kill, you shouldn’t carry a gun. If you don’t carry a gun, you can’t be a law enforcement officer. Not being willing to kill doesn’t make you a bad person. Hell, you might be a better person than me. You’re just not cut out to be a cop — no shame in that. I suggest social worker, firefighter, or paramedic — noble public service professions, all.

3. Shooting a firearm is primarily a mental exercise. Some basic physical skills are also needed, but mastery requires the proper mindset. Part of that mindset is pre-deciding that you are capable of killing another human being under the proper legal and moral conditions. Get over the idea of the “Thou shalt not Kill” commandment. It was mistranslated in the King James version. The original language of the Commandment prohibited murder - an unjustified killing. Since before the days of King David, killing those who need killing is indeed God’s work. As Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch stated so eloquently on an episode of 60 Minutes II; “Some people just need to be shot!”

So, we need to strike a balance when new recruits are trained in deadly force. We need an officer who is willing to kill without hesitation, but would much prefer to never see that day come. There are some among us who WANT to kill someone; they live for the day. We need to screen them out, too. We must reach a delicate equilibrium between confidence in our ability to use deadly force, if we must - and those who WANT to or DREAD to use deadly force. It will never cease to amaze me that some individuals go through the entire law enforcement application process without giving a thought to the “dark side” of our profession. If law enforcement officers can’t wrap their mind around the concept of using deadly force, then they are not truly armed, even if they do carry a gun.


Dick Fairburn has had more than 26 years of law enforcement experience in both Illinois and Wyoming. He has worked patrol, investigations and administration assignments. Dick has also served as a Criminal Intelligence Analyst, and as the Section Chief of a major academy’s Firearms Training Unit and Critical Incident Training program. He has a B.S. in Law Enforcement Administration from Western Illinois University and was the Valedictorian of his recruit class at the Illinois State Police Academy. He has published hundreds of articles and a book titled, Police Rifles.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/firearms/articles/1716565-P1-Exclusive-Why-Cops-Carry-Guns/

Quoted: Quoted: Why Cops Carry Guns Law Enforcement Firearms with Richard Fairburn   1. We carry and train with firearms because police officers have a sworn obligation to save lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act. Our goal is to stop, and we would like to be able to stop them without the possibility of killing them, but we don’t have a Star Trek “phaser” to set on stun. Yeah, I know, we have an array of less lethal options for those cases where they are a viable alternative, but gunpowder and lead is the only certain way we have to stop the bad guys, for now. Its a decent un-refereed article geared for those in the law enforcement community. Bullet point #1 is eronious. I believe its been decreed in Supreme Court statute that the police have no moral/professional/responsible obligation to use deadly force to "save lives".

The courts have ruled that an individual is not granted police protection on single basis unless there is some type of special attachment, LEO's are here to protect lives as whole.

Quoted: True story - I was once interviewing with a federal corrections facility (a very l-o-n-g time ago).  Part of the face to face interview was to probe me about my willingness to use deadly force and to shoot a person in the center of mass should the situation require it.   I answered appropriately..."Blah, blah, blah...as trained, etc."  But they kept going on about it... I said "Captain, you have a copy of my DD-214.  Beyond that and explaining to you what I just have, the only other possible way I know to prove this to you is to drag your shittiest inmate into the yard and allow me to use him for target practice."   They looked at each other and then back at me, ok that's fine, but you might want to tone it down before you talk to the shrink.   I turned down the job and went into sales instead.

Exactly what kind of answer were they looking for?

Quoted: Cops in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't cops in America?

Citizens in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't citizens in America?

Quoted: Quoted: Cops in England get along just fine without guns. Why can't cops in America? I'll give up mine, if you'll give up yours. No? Well, there you go... Who told you that cops in England dont have guns?

Quoted: Good article. I would like to add that I feel that I have a moral obligation to protect the lives of my wife and child. To paraphrase the author "We carry and train with firearms because parents have a moral obligation to protect their children's lives and sometimes deadly force is the only way to stop a terrible person from committing a terrible act." What I don't get is why some libs and other people don't understand why a father and a husband is just as justified in carrying a firearm (in a safe and responsible manner) as a police officer.  Not only that, but I personally feel that for someone who knows how to carry and operate a firearm in a safe manner to NOT carry one when out with the family is a violation of their responsibility as a husband and father (or mother).  YMMV. eta:  Bama, I'm not saying you don't agree with this or that the article doesn't.  I just wanted to throw that out there.  Good article.  You wouldn't think someone trying to go into law enforcement would be so dillusional.   If cops didn't carry guns, then how do you stop crime?  Stop!  Or I'll yell stop again! The girl student in the article reminds me of a libtard.  Wants to feel morally superior to everyone but doesn't care whether or not they actually are.  If all cops didn't carry guns, law enforcement would be 100% ineffective.  I guess she is too good for that and can duck out on her duty, better then all the men and women who are keeping her safe by being armed.  I doubt she wouldn't want ALL cops to be disarmed, because then she wouldn't be safe to continue her dillusion of moral superiority. “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Apparently we can add "stupid people" to the list of those who sleep peaceably thanks to others.

I'm good with all responsible citizens carrying firearms.

Quoted: Why cops carry guns Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement.

That video gives me chills.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why cops carry guns Turn the sound up. If you're not convinced after this, then you're too fucking stupid to be in law enforcement. That video gives me chills. I take it the Deputy didn't survive. I hope that piece of shit got a needle in the arm. Was the deputy returning fire? Having the gun doesn't do any good unless you use it.

The deputy had been reprimanded the week before for pulling his sidearm. He should have shot the man the minute he saw the carbine.