LEOs = Super Human? think not!

marshaul · Mar 7, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Here's the thing: if you've been in combat, you understands SA. If you've been in a doughnut shop after running a speedtrap, it's not quite the same thing. The opinion of one step from Mall Ninja cops on OC is a matter of complete indifference to me.

I really think I want to put this in my signature. Best post I've read all day. :lol: Especially in light of posts like these:

LOLcop said:
As an "out of State student" on a Police Officer forum, this is your opportunity to learn from the experts, not challenge them. Obviously in a gun battle, it's imperative to get off the first shot with deadly accuracy, and that is usually obtained by having a tactical advantage.

LOLcop2 said:
So because you have a badge you know more than everyone else?

LOLcop2 said:

On some things, yes. Not because of the badge itself but because of the training and experience that comes with it.

Nobody would dispute that a brand new fighter jet pilot knows more about flying than the kid in his basement who's played Microsoft Flight Simulator for 2,000 hours. We'd all laught at the presumption of the kid for trying to tell the pilot the best way to land on an aircraft carrier at night, right? See the analogy?

Click to expand...

Of course we all know about cops and "deadly accuracy". :lol:

Recently published Metro-Dade Police 1990-2001 shooting datav shed more light on issues seen elsewhere. During that 12-year period, Metro-Dade Police fired about 1,300 bullets at suspects, and missed more than 1,100 times. This suggests that Miami police fared no better than a 15.4% hit ratio, even though many of these incidents involved suspects who were later determined to be unarmed.

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

PracticalTactical · Mar 8, 2011

There's a range in AZ where the number of firearms accidents by LEOs was greater than all other accidents combined.

The range management started requiring that all LEOs go through the same basic safety orientations as anybody else and the problem went away.

In my experience in law enforcement, I think the problem lies in attitude. They treat guns like a contractor would treat a cordless drill they hang on their belt at work. They forgot how nervous they were the first time they shot a gun.

Once you lose the respect for that gun, it has a way of reminding you, with a humiliating experience at best and tragic results at worst.

SavageOne · Mar 8, 2011

protect our rights said:
Please post a link to a thread in which there is proof of a BG targeting a GG for his gun, or stole the gun from a legal carrier and used it against him. Let-alone me comment on such a thread. I'm sure this MAY have happened in the history of Legal carry. until I have seen evidence I'm not going to say it has happened for SURE.

I notice you have added some qualifiers to your request.

Here's the link to a man OCing being targeted in NM.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1982974.shtml?cat=500#

Here's a link to thread I started about it

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87546-Man-attacked-while-OC

Here's a link to another thread about, one you commented on.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87691-New-Mexico-open-carry-arrests

The fact that the man was mentally unstable does not preclude him from being defined as a BG. He entered a restaurant where a man was sitting with an openly displayed gun. He targeted the man and attacked him. The man lost control of said gun during the struggle. The fact that a third party took possession of the gun, does not change the fact that the man was stripped of his main means of self defense.

I suppose it is possible that you did not read the article before commenting. I hope that is not the case.

Long before you joined this forum, those who oppose OC would suggest that doing so would cause someone to be targeted or attacked for it. Many(myself included) would respond "show us an example". Now, we have just such a case, and instead of accepting that, in fact, it has happened and pointing out the rarity of such an incident, there are some who wish to add "qualifiers" before they will accept this as proof. I think this will backfire on us. Our opponents will use this tactic against us to say we refuse to see the facts.

The fact is that a man OCing was attacked by a BG because he had an openly displayed gun. I can also find at least one example of a man CCing being robbed of his gun. So what! If we are honest and admit this and point out just how rare of an occurrence this is, we limit the augments of those who oppose OC. We also show honesty and integrity. I hope this is the course we take.

Gunslinger · Mar 8, 2011

SavageOne said:
I notice you have added some qualifiers to your request.

Here's the link to a man OCing being targeted in NM.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S1982974.shtml?cat=500#

Here's a link to thread I started about it

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87546-Man-attacked-while-OC

Here's a link to another thread about, one you commented on.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?87691-New-Mexico-open-carry-arrests

The fact that the man was mentally unstable does not preclude him from being defined as a BG. He entered a restaurant where a man was sitting with an openly displayed gun. He targeted the man and attacked him. The man lost control of said gun during the struggle. The fact that a third party took possession of the gun, does not change the fact that the man was stripped of his main means of self defense.

I suppose it is possible that you did not read the article before commenting. I hope that is not the case.

Long before you joined this forum, those who oppose OC would suggest that doing so would cause someone to be targeted or attacked for it. Many(myself included) would respond "show us an example". Now, we have just such a case, and instead of accepting that, in fact, it has happened and pointing out the rarity of such an incident, there are some who wish to add "qualifiers" before they will accept this as proof. I think this will backfire on us. Our opponents will use this tactic against us to say we refuse to see the facts.

The fact is that a man OCing was attacked by a BG because he had an openly displayed gun. I can also find at least one example of a man CCing being robbed of his gun. So what! If we are honest and admit this and point out just how rare of an occurrence this is, we limit the augments of those who oppose OC. We also show honesty and integrity. I hope this is the course we take.

I'm missing your point. On the one hand, you have several links to the same incident. One incident is statistically meaningless when put over the denominator of tens of thousands (or more) OC events. I asked for an example of an OC'er "taken out" by a BG. I'm still waiting, as this turned into a non-event in the final analysis. And in the context of the cop forum and their "educated" opinions--what the thread is about, it's non sequitur. As to a CC'er being robbed of his gun, nonstarter for this discussion.

Gunslinger · Mar 8, 2011

marshaul said:
I really think I want to put this in my signature. Best post I've read all day. :lol: Especially in light of posts like these:

Of course we all know about cops and "deadly accuracy". :lol:

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

Scary but hardly surprising. The question is where do the 8 out of 9 bullets go that miss the BGs?

protect our rights · Mar 8, 2011

SavageOne said:
Long before you joined this forum, those who oppose OC would suggest that doing so would cause someone to be targeted or attacked for it. Many(myself included) would respond "show us an example". Now, we have just such a case, and instead of accepting that, in fact, it has happened and pointing out the rarity of such an incident, there are some who wish to add "qualifiers" before they will accept this as proof. I think this will backfire on us. Our opponents will use this tactic against us to say we refuse to see the facts.

The fact is that a man OCing was attacked by a BG because he had an openly displayed gun. I can also find at least one example of a man CCing being robbed of his gun. So what! If we are honest and admit this and point out just how rare of an occurrence this is, we limit the augments of those who oppose OC. We also show honesty and integrity. I hope this is the course we take.

So you saying that the Mentally Handicapped are BGs? A BG and a guy with a cognitive deficiency I believe, are two different things. Without knowing this guys background, I would say that he was acting out some delusional fantasy in his mind.Now like I said when you bring me a BG with true BAD intentions that takes a OCers gun and uses it against him, then I will then switch to the fact that it happens but is rare.

eye95 · Mar 8, 2011

The argument has always been that a BG will grab your gun or a BG will target you first if you OC. That still has not happened--at least not that I know of.

If someone says that you shouldn't OC because a nut might do something nutty, he would now have a real-life documented case to support it. For that argument, we should point out the rarity and remind everyone to maintain SA and to practice retention techniques.

BTW, this was not a successful gun-grab. Clear-thinking folks ended up with the gun and secured it until the cops arrived.

SavageOne · Mar 9, 2011

Gunslinger said:
I'm missing your point. On the one hand, you have several links to the same incident. One incident is statistically meaningless when put over the denominator of tens of thousands (or more) OC events. I asked for an example of an OC'er "taken out" by a BG. I'm still waiting, as this turned into a non-event in the final analysis. And in the context of the cop forum and their "educated" opinions--what the thread is about, it's non sequitur. As to a CC'er being robbed of his gun, nonstarter for this discussion.

My post was in response to protect our rights post asking me to post a link to an example of it happening and of his commenting on it.

You also seem to be doing exactly what I was talking about. Have you always asked for an example of where an OCer was "taken out" by a BG or have you only recently added that qualifier? Do you mean "taken out" of commission, "taken out" of existence, or perhaps some other usage if examples of these should ultimately surface? I sincerely doubt that those who oppose OC will agree with your fine lines of proof. I think it more likely they will simply call it evasive and ignore any more of your "facts" after that.

If you care to go back and read my other posts on this subject you will see that you and I agree on the fact that it a rare occurrence. The difference is I am willing to admit it has happened. I don't need to prove OC is 100% infallible to consider it an effective form of carry.

The reason I added the comment about the CCer was to show no form of carry is absolutely foolproof and that rare occurrences can happen in any situation.

SavageOne · Mar 9, 2011

protect our rights said:
So you saying that the Mentally Handicapped are BGs? A BG and a guy with a cognitive deficiency I believe, are two different things. Without knowing this guys background, I would say that he was acting out some delusional fantasy in his mind.Now like I said when you bring me a BG with true BAD intentions that takes a OCers gun and uses it against him, then I will then switch to the fact that it happens but is rare.

So the guy who did the AZ shooting is not a BG? The guy who shot up VA Tech not a BG? How about the guys who shot President Reagan and John Lennon? The prisons are full of people who have been diagnosed with some form of mental illness, some quite severe, should we not consider them BGs?

SavageOne · Mar 9, 2011

eye95 said:
The argument has always been that a BG will grab your gun or a BG will target you first if you OC. That still has not happened--at least not that I know of.

If someone says that you shouldn't OC because a nut might do something nutty, he would now have a real-life documented case to support it. For that argument, we should point out the rarity and remind everyone to maintain SA and to practice retention techniques.

BTW, this was not a successful gun-grab. Clear-thinking folks ended up with the gun and secured it until the cops arrived.

From the reports we have, did the BG attack anyone else prior to attacking the guy who was OCing? I do have to admit even though the reports specifically state that the guy attempted to grab the OCer's gun. He(the OCer) may have simply dropped it or perhaps thrown it to the ground. Hell, it may have simply leapt from his holster of it's own volition. Those are just as plausible as denying it happened all.

So, what do we call a person OCing a firearm being denied that firearm due to the actions of someone who apparently meant them harm?

Gunslinger · Mar 9, 2011

SavageOne said:
My post was in response to protect our rights post asking me to post a link to an example of it happening and of his commenting on it.

You also seem to be doing exactly what I was talking about. Have you always asked for an example of where an OCer was "taken out" by a BG or have you only recently added that qualifier? Do you mean "taken out" of commission, "taken out" of existence, or perhaps some other usage if examples of these should ultimately surface? I sincerely doubt that those who oppose OC will agree with your fine lines of proof. I think it more likely they will simply call it evasive and ignore any more of your "facts" after that.

If you care to go back and read my other posts on this subject you will see that you and I agree on the fact that it a rare occurrence. The difference is I am willing to admit it has happened. I don't need to prove OC is 100% infallible to consider it an effective form of carry.

The reason I added the comment about the CCer was to show no form of carry is absolutely foolproof and that rare occurrences can happen in any situation.

I'll settle for 'taken out' of a situation where the transfer was his gun to a BG who used it against him. I've never submitted OC to be 100% anything. The balance of my comments are res ipsa loquitur.

protect our rights · Mar 9, 2011

SavageOne said:
So, what do we call a person OCing a firearm being denied that firearm due to the actions of someone who apparently meant them harm?

Your words do not match up. First you say he IS a BG, and that he DID grab the gun and have possession. You also stated that he DID intend the GG harm. Does it make the most sense that if you mean someone harm, and have a gun in your hand to throw it down. I would not look at them as BGs, the guys you made reference to. They should be classified as poor delusional misfits. Now like eye95 said, you are debating something else entirely. Let me put it this way, people with these issues will target anyone for many different reasons, this just happened to be a gun. This was no robbery, no rape, nothing but some guy, that was not all there entirely, who was acting out like I said some delusional fantasy.

SavageOne · Mar 9, 2011

protect our rights said:
Your words do not match up. First you say he IS a BG, and that he DID grab the gun and have possession. You also stated that he DID intend the GG harm. Does it make the most sense that if you mean someone harm, and have a gun in your hand to throw it down. I would not look at them as BGs, the guys you made reference to. They should be classified as poor delusional misfits. Now like eye95 said, you are debating something else entirely. Let me put it this way, people with these issues will target anyone for many different reasons, this just happened to be a gun. This was no robbery, no rape, nothing but some guy, that was not all there entirely, who was acting out like I said some delusional fantasy.

I, of course, was referring to the OCer dropping his gun. I have fixed my post so as to hopefully prevent anymore confusion of my intent.

So if the attacker was only acting out some delusional fantasy and is only a poor delusional misfit, should he be charged or convicted of a crime?

protect our rights · Mar 9, 2011

SavageOne said:
I, of course, was referring to the OCer dropping his gun. I have fixed my post so as to hopefully prevent anymore confusion of my intent.

So if the attacker was only acting out some delusional fantasy and is only a poor delusional misfit, should he be charged or convicted of a crime?

(Depending on the severity of the mental illness) I'd say no. He needs to be evaluated and given medication. Without knowing the facts, I'd say this may be an example of the Government failing another mentally handicapped individual.

eye95 · Mar 9, 2011

I will endeavor to make the point one more time and then move one.

There is an argument out there that we should not OC because a BG, a criminal, will target one us because he sees the gun, that he will attempt to grab the gun or to shoot the carrier first.

This was not that kind of incident. Apart from the attempt (failed) to grab the gun, this bears no relationship to those reasons argued that we should not carry. This was a nutjob acting in an irrational way. Pointing to this incident in no refutes the assertion that there are no documented cases of a BG, a criminal, grabbing the OCed gun or taking out the OCer first.

Now, it is a case that would support the argument that OC is more susceptible to a nut doing something nutty with your gun, but that is not the argument that is out there. Perhaps it should be. But, then, I'd simply ask, "Out of all the millions of times folks have left the house OC, how many times has a nut attempted to do something nutty with the OCed gun, let alone succeeded at the attempt?" By my count, one and zero.

Let's remember why we keep asking for examples of real life incidents: to refute two very specific anti-OC arguments. To date, I know of no incident that supports those two very specific anti-OC arguments.

Moving on.

since9 · Mar 14, 2011

marshaul said:
And anyway, there are threads posted here where bad guys take an OCer's gun all the time.

In California, they call it an (e) check.

Good one!

Except they're not really BGs. Just MGGs (mis-guided guys), especially with respect to Open Carry.

marshaul · Mar 14, 2011

since9 said:
Good one!

Except they're not really BGs.

So, what do you call someone who intentionally and willfully assaults citizens' civil rights under color of law, if not a "bad guy"?

Dreamer · Mar 14, 2011

It is true. Only the police are trustworthy enough to carry guns. Because they ALWAYS obey the law, and NEVER engage in any sort of illegal or questionable actions. They are SOOO much more law-abiding and trustworthy than "citizens"...

Especially in places like Maryland...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ce-are-trustworthy-enough-to-carry-guns-in-MD...

Gunslinger · Mar 14, 2011

marshaul said:
So, what do you call someone who intentionally and willfully assaults citizens' civil rights under color of law, if not a "bad guy"?

A cop.

protect our rights · Mar 14, 2011

Gunslinger said:
A cop.

Agreed.

LEOs = Super Human? think not!

Campaign Veteran

Attachments

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member