Carrying a concealed gun provides little more than an illusion of safety,,Sarcasm ON

:banghead:

http://special.registerguard.com/web/opinion/28152397-47/concealed-handgun-safe-county-lane.html.csp

Open Carry relevant, last paragraph. Still not a friendly article to all of "us" CC OC people who are paranoid about being safe.:cuss:

An artical from a retired LEO who wants more LEO but not more CPL holders. Who's shocked?

That article was, in my opinion, just another scare tactic to get more money for more cops on the streets. Not to mention an attempt to keep the money coming for increased job security for the cops already on the streets and protecting the pensions of cops already retired. But this time, instead of using the "scary bad guy" as the boogyman, the author used "your scary stupid untrained dolt neighbor that carries a gun" as the boogyman.

Bikenut said:

That article was, in my opinion, just another scare tactic to get more money for more cops on the streets. Not to mention an attempt to keep the money coming for increased job security for the cops already on the streets and protecting the pensions of cops already retired. But this time, instead of using the "scary bad guy" as the boogyman, the author used "your scary stupid untrained dolt neighbor that carries a gun" as the boogyman.

Click to expand...

Oh come on guys, we know this retarded, oops sorry retired LEO is right, every non police gun owner is just like this guy -

[video] http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DHMY6Q6qRMOU&v=HMY6Q6qRMOU&gl=US[/video]


Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

Oh, come off it, you guys.
Officer Friendly is just trying to allow you to keep your "innocence" and is sacrificing his own to accept the onus protecting you. He's volunteering to let you have "downtime" at home without the worry of having to be armed, by staying armed even when he's at home - that just tells you how dedicated he is to your safety.

Of course, if he fails to protect you or your loved one, or is taking a coffee break, well... them's just the breaks, y'know?

I love this part, "...As context, note that the New York Police Department reported in 2008 that over a 10-year period, officer-involved shootings had a 34 percent hit ratio. In other words, 66 percent of their bullets ended up hitting something other than their intended target (http://rgne.ws/LIxsVf)..." I wonder if he researched what the hit percentage of the average lawfully armed citizen is in comparison? I'll lay odds and money that the lawfully armed citizen is Much less likely to kill an innocent person that is an enforcer of the law.

http://actionamerica.org/guns/guns1.shtml

Rather than dismissing the premise of the article why not take what you can from it? I firmly believe that people who carry firearms are more prone to attempting a firing solution when they could just follow the '3 S rule', escape, evade, not participate (in road rage), try other options.

Though you have a formidable way to deal with aggression, I think it's prudent to try everything possible before going to your firearm, almost to the point of 'forgetting' you have it (figuratively).

sawah said:

Rather than dismissing the premise of the article why not take what you can from it? I firmly believe that people who carry firearms are more prone to attempting a firing solution when they could just follow the '3 S rule', escape, evade, not participate (in road rage), try other options.

Though you have a formidable way to deal with aggression, I think it's prudent to try everything possible before going to your firearm, almost to the point of 'forgetting' you have it (figuratively).

Click to expand...

Well, yes the gun should be the last line of defense. However the speed at which the "last line" catches you may not allow for a "3 S" situation, and may proceed directly to the other "3 s" 3 shots 3 seconds 3 feet.

I would not simply dismiss the article either, I accepted that what the author was saying was his way of thinking and he believes he is right and his way is the better way. I simply disagree.

sawah said:

Rather than dismissing the premise of the article why not take what you can from it? I firmly believe that people who carry firearms are more prone to attempting a firing solution when they could just follow the '3 S rule', escape, evade, not participate (in road rage), try other options.

Click to expand...

Is this a belief based on data: if so, please cite. Imho, the fact that millions of people carry daily without incident makes this belief questionable.

sawah said:

Though you have a formidable way to deal with aggression, I think it's prudent to try everything possible before going to your firearm, almost to the point of 'forgetting' you have it (figuratively).

Click to expand...

No argument from me... nor most likely with the vast majority of gun owners who carry day in and out.

DrTodd said:

Is this a belief based on data: if so, please cite. Imho, the fact that millions of people carry daily without incident makes this belief questionable.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said 'based on comments made on OCDO', and 'slightly more prone to considering a firing solution or a brandishing solution' instead of my cut and dried comments. I think it's possible that some very few carriers are emboldened by the fact they have their firearm with them. HOWEVER, as you have pointed out, millions carry daily without incident, so I could be wrong and I'm having a bit of a central tendency by reading somewhat reactionary posts here.

I appreciate your input and I think you made a good point.

Inevitably, in any group, there are the few that 'push the envelope' by creating scenarios and asking the general readers 'Can I shoot?'

Although I suspect most are an attempt to gain greater understanding of the nuances of self defense law, they do tend to come off as someone a wee bit too eager to engage in a firing solution. I suspect that they have not completely thought through the ENTIRE scenario; they should not only ask 'Can I shoot?', but also 'Who's a good attorney?', 'Do I have the resources for a prolonged legal battle?', 'Where can I find a good mental health professional who can help me with the emotional aftermath?'

I don't believe they help with the public image of gun owners in general, and OC/CC folks in particular.

The 3S process absolutely improves your odds of returning home with all your ammo and bodily fluids, and takes place well before the situation arises. If you have to think through it in a SD situation, you've done it way too late.....

sawah said:

Perhaps I should have said 'based on comments made on OCDO', and 'slightly more prone to considering a firing solution or a brandishing solution' instead of my cut and dried comments. I think it's possible that some very few carriers are emboldened by the fact they have their firearm with them. HOWEVER, as you have pointed out, millions carry daily without incident, so I could be wrong and I'm having a bit of a central tendency by reading somewhat reactionary posts here.

I appreciate your input and I think you made a good point.

Click to expand...

Well, you have a point. This is a gun oriented group, and a lot of thought is on the tool and not over much on the tactics. Many do feel that feeling of confidence that is given when they carry a firearm in public for the first time. Some are over confident, some under confident some "just right". Some do feel "emboldend by the the fact they have a firearm", some for the right reasons and some for the wrong reasons. I would say most for the right reasons, whatever those reasons are.

And yes, the reactionary posts are certainly in abundance and the information that is passed from one person to another is usually very positive!