Thread: Cahill gone

In reality the job he had was to advocate for the members of his organisation - which he did somewhat ruthlessly and without much worry about who he stepped on in the process. The unfortunate thing with the Police, is that they deal with crims and crims don't really want to deal with the Police. That means that certain elements of the criminal world are willing to go to extreme measures to dissuade the Police from doing their jobs - and we as firearms licence holders are jammed right in the crossfire of that.

It's worth noting that Police by their doctrine are a paramilitary organisation - they use weapons with the intention of presenting them at humans not firearms for the peaceful purpose of sporting use target shooting or for hunting or animal husbandry purposes as firearms licence holders do. This "weapons vs firearms" mindset seems to roll into everything Police do around firearms regime management. It's the core reason why a lot of us have formed the opinion that Police are not a good fit as firearms regime administrators, and it would be more comfortable with a fully standalone organisation tasked in this role. It seems to align with the role Cahill performed, and would explain why his actions in doing so offended so many firearms licence holders (the interpretation of firearms vs weapons).