[solidsnack9000]

Oh come on, they really are. Think about it: they typically retire in the area where they've been a cop. Criminals know who they are and where they live, and have for years -- and criminals never retire. Cops should definitely be allowed to carry concealed in all 50 states.

That no one else has that right maybe tells us we should expand CCW reciprocity. It's already something like 35 states.

[learc83]

>Criminals know who they are and where they live, and have for years

I'd need to see some stats on how often retited police officers are retaliated against by criminals before I'll buy that this is anywhere near likely enough to worry about.

[mandelbrotwurst]

Even if the answer is zero that doesn't prove what you're hoping it would because as has been discussed, in reality those retired cops still have their weapons and criminals are aware of that.

[learc83]

So the hypothesis is that criminals want to kill retired cops, but they don't because they know the cops still have guns? I'm not buying that. If someone really wants to kill you, and they know where you live, a gun in your house or in holster isn't going to stop them. You can't be constantly on alert.

[Alupis]

What's the problem, really?

How many retired law enforcement officers go on binge shooting sprees?

Or should we oppose them having a legally purchased firearm just because?

[learc83]

I don't think there really is that huge of a problem, but the justification for these special rules seems a bit absurd. If you want to treat retired cops differently and give them special privileges, just say so. Stop positioning as something that retired cops need because of all the criminals out hunting them down.

[dsfyu404ed]

>What's the problem, really?

The double standard!

[Alupis]

Perhaps that means we should do away with the double standard... But not in the way a few might hope.

[mandelbrotwurst]

I'm saying that it seems likely that there is at least some deterrent effect, yes. I'm not sure what the magnitude of the effect is, but I can't imagine that knowing someone inside is armed has no deterrent effect against would be invaders or that being armed provides no defense advantage should they do so.

[learc83]

We're not talking about your normal criminals who have some economic motive, we're talking about people who are already acting against their own self interest and to take revenge.

Either way assuming that being armed doesn't provide a 100% effective deterrent, statistics should still help us here. Even assuming a very high deterrence rate, you would still expect to see at least a handful of revenge murders of retired cops every year if this was a significant problem at all.

>provides no defense advantage should they do so

This one should be very easy to determine. How many times each year do armed retired cops thwart revenge attacks?

From what a quick Google search tells me both of these things basically never happen.

[jeffdavis]

Are you saying that there's a difference in deterrent effect between a 2013 glock and a 2019 glock?

If not, how are these police privileges remotely relevant to any need beyond that of a normal citizen?

[ryanlol]

Elsewhere in the world retired cops do not have weapons.

[solidsnack9000]

Everywhere else in the world? How do you know that?

[ryanlol]

Are you trying to discredit gun rights advocates?

[solidsnack9000]

What countries are you referring to in your reply? Pretty tough to fact check “elsewhere”.