Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: I dislike drawing parallels between citizens open carrying and police open carrying

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    I dislike drawing parallels between citizens open carrying and police open carrying

    I've spoken similarly in the past (see "natural carry") but I want to bring it up again with this specific application. It seems fairly common for open carry advocates to try and draw parallels between citizens openly carrying a handgun and patrol officers openly carrying a handgun. I think that this quickly becomes counter-productive. I think that it leads to false conclusions about why patrol officers carry unconcealed and also false conclusions about why citizens should carry unconcealed. Non-undercover police officers do not "open carry" for crime/violence/attack deterrence, even if the fact that they're armed has that effect... They carry unconcealed because it is the most natural way to carry a handgun and there has never been a reason for them to transition to the very specialized form of carry that is concealed carry.

    This leads into my next point which is that open carry does not have "advantages" over concealed carry.. The "advantages" aren't advantages of openly carrying over concealed carrying, rather, the opposite are disadvantages that concealed carry has as the specialized form of carry. Open carry is the default. The advantages are not advantages of open carry, they're the natural results of carrying a handgun naturally. Carrying a handgun in the most natural way is the standard. Concealed carry is compared against this standard and the disadvantages that concealed carry has versus "open carry" should be viewed from the perspective that these are disadvantages to this specialized form of carry. In some cases there is great value in concealment, such as in undercover police work. In those cases, the benefit of concealment outweighs the disadvantages that come with the specialized form of carry which is concealed carry, namely less ease of access and slower deployment.

    But it doesn't end there. Drawing a parallel between a patrol officer and a citizen openly carrying could lead to a whole host of false and negative conclusions because this will naturally lead a listener to consider what else about the patrol officer and the citizen parallel when the reality is there is actually very little parallel and common false parallels are detrimental to open carry advocacy. For instance, take the gun grab issue. While gun grabs are like unicorns in the citizen open carry world, police officers do get killed with their own firearms. This doesn't parallel with citizen open carry at all for a whole host of reasons, but as soon as you open that parallel box many will inevitably consider this false parallel. Another is that police officers typically use retention holsters, which again is for reasons that don't necessarily cross to citizen open carry world, but this inevitably leads to "well open carriers should have to use retention holsters."

    So, there it is. I cringe a little when open carry advocates try to draw parallels between citizen open carry and patrol officer "open carry," especially when they aren't prepared to put the brakes on further false parallels. Agree? Disagree?
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Non-uniformed (detective), or undercover cop don't have to carry all of the stuff that a uniformed cop has to...ergo, OC.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    The primary difference is that of intent.

    The job of individuals is to defend. They strive to avoid, escape, mitigate, and use deadly force only as a last resort.

    The job of law enforcement is to engage. Their approach is the same, but with different intent: Observe, approach, contact, decide, detain, arrest, and use deadly force only as a last resort.

    At the point of deadly force, however, should that ever become necessary with either civilians or law enforcement, the interaction with the threat is precisely the same: shoot to stop.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    They carry unconcealed because it is the most natural way to carry a handgun and there has never been a reason for them to transition to the very specialized form of carry that is concealed carry.
    If I decided to carry all the stuff a uniformed cop usually carries I would have one of those big utility belts too, which are not conducive to CCing. A uniformed cop does not enjoy the liberty to pick and choose the stuff he needs to carry to do his job...this decision is made for him before he hits the street. A non-uniformed cop may also be burdened with not being able to choose OC vs. CC.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,192
    To throw a wrench in when I was working, I did both my duty weapon was out in the open my BUG was concealed.

    There's a natural way of carrying a handgun?

    Now it is how ever I feel like at the time, in the winter it is almost 100% concealed. I am not going to special efforts to put a belt out side my cold weather gear.

    In AZ its open carry unless I want some type of outer ware on I gave up worrying about it with proper law changes.

    In some places one still has to worry about it.
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

  6. #6
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Firearms Iinstuctor View Post
    To throw a wrench in when I was working, I did both my duty weapon was out in the open my BUG was concealed.

    There's a natural way of carrying a handgun?

    Now it is how ever I feel like at the time, in the winter it is almost 100% concealed. I am not going to special efforts to put a belt out side my cold weather gear.

    In AZ its open carry unless I want some type of outer ware on I gave up worrying about it with proper law changes.

    In some places one still has to worry about it.
    Well, that is a good point. I guess what I really mean when I say unconcealed is, without any special equipment or effort to conceal, i.e. carrying in the most natural manner. For most this will mean carrying in an OWB belt holster. In some circumstances this will result in the pistol being partially or wholly concealed just by coincidence, even though no special effort has been made to conceal it.

    Another interesting point about intentionally concealing a BUG.
    Advocate freedom please

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Beat cops used to carry their roscoes in the back pants pocket. Their blackjack/sap was either in the other back pocket or a special one made in the trouser leg. Handcuffs were hung on the pants belt at the smal of the back. Their uniform jacket covered it up. That was intentional.

    Nowadays cops carry (at least theoretically) to project the force and majesty of the law - because merely wearing the King's uniform no longer works. If you or I did that we'd be accused of being Billy Badbutt out looking for an excuse to shoot someone. (But come to think about it, I do OC to project force - so far it's worked to let BGs know that attacking this old cripple is going to be harder and more dangerous than picking on someone without a gun. At least I don't include demanding "respek for my author-it-ay".)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I wonder who degraded respect for the kings uniform?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I wonder who degraded respect for the kings uniform?
    No you don't. Your mind is made up and you're quite convinced the whole blame rests on police officers or the "gubment".

    I believe that police misconduct has helped degrade respect for the police. I think an overly intrusive government has helped play a role.

    But I also believe that the media and a few race hustlers have very deliberately worked to stoke the flames of racial discord for ratings and to maintain their power, respectively.

    I think a general lack of respect in society is also to blame. When and where I grew up, it was rare for anyone to lock their home and car keys tended to get left in cars no matter where they were parked. There is no need to lock something if your fellow members of society respect your property. Now, I recognize that violent crime in this nation is at 50 year lows. But I also recognize that a lot of property crimes and just general incivility have not decreased likewise. Whether it is theft, vandalism, road rage, any regard for what others hold sacred, or even how youth conduct themselves toward adults (including teachers and parents), society is suffering from a severe lack of respect. Even on this site that so often quotes Heinlein about a polite society, we have those who proudly thump their chests and say they don't respect anyone until that respect is earned. That is backwards because in most cases, respect should be given until it is lost.

    What to blame for the lack of respect in society is way off topic, but 50% out-of-wedlock birth rate and similar rates of children being raised without fathers, coupled with pop culture, might be interesting places to start looking.

    Most notably, the root causes of lack of respect would not only manifest as a lack of respect for cops by the general populace, but also a lack of respect by cops towards the rights of the general public.

    I believe we are not likely to solve any problem unless and until we can properly identify that problem. So while overly simplistic answers like "it is the cops' fault" might make a few immature provocateurs happy, the real answer is, sadly, more complicated, I think.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Politicians certainly do not make a cop's job easy. Lawyers muddy the waters and judges constantly stir the muddied waters. When the life of a cop is placed before the life of a citizen, as the default premise, Terry v. Ohio, the waters will likely remain muddied long after we have turned to dust.

    Cops have every right to defend themselves from bodily harm. If a citizen is faced with bodily harm from a cop that citizen enjoys no such consideration.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    I do OC to project force - so far it's worked to let BGs know that attacking this old cripple is going to be harder and more dangerous than picking on someone without a gun. At least I don't include demanding "respek for my author-it-ay".
    Similarly, I've found that ignoring my armed condition and interacting with others in an affable and disarming fashion works wonders.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •