imported post
It is usually from law enforcement officers who really don't appreciate civilians rights to bear arms. It usually goes something like this, "If people are allowed to or choose to carry firearms openly, it is much more dangerous and harder for us to do our jobs." I read this type of comment constantly and hear it regularly. I haven't had an opportunity to discuss it with someone who feels this way as of yet.
Is there anyone on this forum who can explain this logic to me? From my perspective, if an officer responds to an incident and sees openly holstered firearms isn't the opposite true? Say for example, an officer comes into a situation where a crime has been reported (lets say a Kmart for example) and he finds 20 people in the location. Say he finds 3 people with openly holstered firearms. Isn't that better for him than the same three people hiding/legally concealingtheir firearms? At a glance he has more information then when he is still in the dark as to who may be armed. The situation isn't any different. There are still three people with firearms.
I would assume they are taught to assess the situation from the moment the call comes through arrival/approach. Isn't more visible information better? How can approaching a group of people and not knowing who is armed be better for them? I can't see a single reason, other than they wish all people were unarmed. I am sure they cannot assume a person to be unarmed because they cannot see a firearm so shouldn't the way they approach all parties be the same (as if they are armed?)
I really am not concerned with the training policies. I just would like some insight as to why not knowing who is armed (ie. mandated concealed carry)aids police.
It is usually from law enforcement officers who really don't appreciate civilians rights to bear arms. It usually goes something like this, "If people are allowed to or choose to carry firearms openly, it is much more dangerous and harder for us to do our jobs." I read this type of comment constantly and hear it regularly. I haven't had an opportunity to discuss it with someone who feels this way as of yet.
Is there anyone on this forum who can explain this logic to me? From my perspective, if an officer responds to an incident and sees openly holstered firearms isn't the opposite true? Say for example, an officer comes into a situation where a crime has been reported (lets say a Kmart for example) and he finds 20 people in the location. Say he finds 3 people with openly holstered firearms. Isn't that better for him than the same three people hiding/legally concealingtheir firearms? At a glance he has more information then when he is still in the dark as to who may be armed. The situation isn't any different. There are still three people with firearms.
I would assume they are taught to assess the situation from the moment the call comes through arrival/approach. Isn't more visible information better? How can approaching a group of people and not knowing who is armed be better for them? I can't see a single reason, other than they wish all people were unarmed. I am sure they cannot assume a person to be unarmed because they cannot see a firearm so shouldn't the way they approach all parties be the same (as if they are armed?)
I really am not concerned with the training policies. I just would like some insight as to why not knowing who is armed (ie. mandated concealed carry)aids police.