Paranoid cops in Texas? Open-Carry violation.

[garren]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah3a7dQqyZI


No probable cause to detain him or disarm him. He was just walking with is his rifle. It's his right to carry a firearm in this country. Don't care if the cops got "a call" or not. False arrest as well.

[Wolferz]

Saw that one some time ago. Cops knew they were in the wrong and invented an excuse to haul the guy off.
I would love to see a follow up on the incident.
Have you ever noticed that a lot of police out west wear brown shirts even when the uniform is blue?

[Armistead]

I've watched them all. I open carry all the time when detecting, been stopped and sometimes harassed, but I don't carry a rifle to make a statement on youtube.

[Ducimus]

Yeah I saw that one awhile too. If memory serves correctly, I think the story I read was he was participating in some Boy scout activity, and was not in any urban area at the time of the incident. The video would seem to collaborate some of that, because there didn't look like there was a lot of people around, and he looked like he was on some country road, with day hiking equipment on.

Anywho, i think his biggest mistake was he lost his cool. The instant you pop off to a cop, it will all go downhill from there. Once he gave them an attitude, the outcome was predetermined.

As an aside, unless im at the range, or out in BFE target shooting, or actively hunting, i don't open carry because I just don't normally carry a rifle or shotgun otherwise. As for handguns, I have a IWB holster and a CFP if i feel the need.

[CaptainHaplo]

This goes back to the whole responsibility thing on firearms ownership....

There are people that do this JUST to interact with le and create videos - and you know what - in doing that they are acting irresponsibly. A firearm is a right AND a responsibility - and they are showing they are not up to that side of it.

There is no purpose in it other than to try and get harassed. Guess what - if you go looking for trouble, trouble will find you. That doesn't mean the cops were in the right, but he was just as much in the wrong.

Open carry is a legal right in many states. Then again - carrying whether OC or CC is generally done for defensive purposes or to exercise your 2A rights. Those are fine - but doing so just to get a youtube video ..... :down::/\\!!

[garren]

This goes back to the whole responsibility thing on firearms ownership....

There are people that do this JUST to interact with le and create videos - and you know what - in doing that they are acting irresponsibly. A firearm is a right AND a responsibility - and they are showing they are not up to that side of it.

There is no purpose in it other than to try and get harassed. Guess what - if you go looking for trouble, trouble will find you. That doesn't mean the cops were in the right, but he was just as much in the wrong.

Open carry is a legal right in many states. Then again - carrying whether OC or CC is generally done for defensive purposes or to exercise your 2A rights. Those are fine - but doing so just to get a youtube video ..... :down::/\\!!

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right. So tired of cops stopping people and asking them for their papers. This is not Nazi Germany and if there's no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police. They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

[Red October1984]

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right. So tired of cops stopping people and asking them for their papers. This is not Nazi Germany and if there's no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police. They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

+1

Firearms are too much automatically associated with crime. Sadly, I don't see that changing.

[CaptainHaplo]

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right.

Yes it is - but every right we have should be exercised with responsibility and consideration.

So tired of cops stopping people and asking them for their papers. This is not Nazi Germany and if there's no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police.

The fact that they received calls may give them probable cause under the law (depending on what the calls report). While we agree can it shouldn't - it does and we have to deal with the situation we have vs wishing for what should be.

They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

I agree - but your expecting the police to teach the public what the law is - and that isn't their job. Heck, many le's don't even know what the laws are when it comes to carrying firearms. A sad thing to be sure.

As a gun owner who does carry - its important to exercise our 2A rights in a responsible way that does not further reinforce the negative image of firearms and those of us who do choose to carry. Wandering around to make a video interacting with leo's and being an asshat is not. If we don't want society to look at us as if ownership and carrying automatically make us suspicious, then we ought to conduct ourselves in a more respectful and responsible manner. People who fear firearms and those of us who carry them see idiots like in the link and we all get associated with being disrespectful morons - who own guns... No wonder there is a negative stereotype.

[Red October1984]

Yes it is - but every right we have should be exercised with responsibility and consideration.



The fact that they received calls may give them probable cause under the law (depending on what the calls report). While we agree can it shouldn't - it does and we have to deal with the situation we have vs wishing for what should be.



I agree - but your expecting the police to teach the public what the law is - and that isn't their job. Heck, many le's don't even know what the laws are when it comes to carrying firearms. A sad thing to be sure.

As a gun owner who does carry - its important to exercise our 2A rights in a responsible way that does not further reinforce the negative image of firearms and those of us who do choose to carry. Wandering around to make a video interacting with leo's and being an asshat is not. If we don't want society to look at us as if ownership and carrying automatically make us suspicious, then we ought to conduct ourselves in a more respectful and responsible manner. People who fear firearms and those of us who carry them see idiots like in the link and we all get associated with being disrespectful morons - who own guns... No wonder there is a negative stereotype.


I have to +1 this post too.

Gun Rights need to be promoted in positive ways.

[garren]

Yes it is - but every right we have should be exercised with responsibility and consideration.



The fact that they received calls may give them probable cause under the law (depending on what the calls report). While we agree can it shouldn't - it does and we have to deal with the situation we have vs wishing for what should be.



I agree - but your expecting the police to teach the public what the law is - and that isn't their job. Heck, many le's don't even know what the laws are when it comes to carrying firearms. A sad thing to be sure.

As a gun owner who does carry - its important to exercise our 2A rights in a responsible way that does not further reinforce the negative image of firearms and those of us who do choose to carry. Wandering around to make a video interacting with leo's and being an asshat is not. If we don't want society to look at us as if ownership and carrying automatically make us suspicious, then we ought to conduct ourselves in a more respectful and responsible manner. People who fear firearms and those of us who carry them see idiots like in the link and we all get associated with being disrespectful morons - who own guns... No wonder there is a negative stereotype.

I can agree with most of that. I don't think this guy in this particular video was trying to be a problem to the police however. He was on a hike with his kid and was smart enough to record it with his camera. He could have tried to remain more calm than he was but he was pissed and I can't really fault him for that because they did screw up badly with him. But it didn't make his situation any better with the cops being mouthy with them either. It's one of those things where you're best of just letting them violate you with your mouth closed and obedient to their commands. Then you sue the hell out of them when you got an attorney on your side.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Actually the police have the right to stop and ask anybody anything they want. I could be walking down the street in broad daylight and a cop has the right to stop me and ask me questions. They call them "field interviews". They can't ask me for certain things unless they plan to arrest me but based on these suspicions he has the right to "detain" (asking me to stay usually, not necessarily cuffs) me and ask me questions to confirm or calm his suspicions. I had a cop do one the other day because i was walking down the street at midnight. He was being annoying but he was in the right.

Justification for Conducting a Field Interview Law enforcement officers may stop individuals for the purpose of conducting a field interview only where reasonable suspicion is present. Reasonable suspicion must be more than a hunch or feeling, but need not meet the test for probable cause sufficient to make an arrest. In justifying the stop, the officer must be able to point to specific facts which, when taken together with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the stop. Such facts include, but are not limited to, the following:


The appearance or demeanor of an individual suggests that he is part of a criminal enterprise or is engaged in a criminal act;
The actions of the suspect suggest that he is engaged in a criminal activity;
The hour of day or night is inappropriate for the suspect's presence in the area;
The suspect's presence in a neighborhood or location is inappropriate;
The suspect is carrying a suspicious object;
The suspect's clothing bulges in a manner that suggests he is carrying a weapon;
The suspect is located in proximate time and place to the alleged crime; or
The officer has knowledge of the suspect's prior criminal record or involvement in criminal activity.

Suspicious object in this case is a firearm. The officer has the right to ask you if you have your license to carry and own a firearm, especially rifle-caliber. When dealing with individuals carrying firearms its really annoying but necessary to detain the individual and/or separate him from his weapon until the interview or arrest is over.

The guy was also being loud and getting angry with the officer, which does nothing for anybody except get the cop pissed off. Realistically you should always keep your cool and be cooperative. Know EXACTLY what you're doing before you refuse to cooperate with certain orders, make absolutely sure you're exercising your rights correctly.

[mookiemookie]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[Platapus]

So lemme see if I understand the point under discussion.

If the police receive calls from a citizen reporting a suspicious person carrying a firearm; and when the police arrive they see a person carrying a rifle, we really don't want the police to stop and ask this person questions because the state has open carry laws?

I want the police to ask questions. We are a long way from "let me zee your papers". But there has to be some moderate middle ground between two undesirable extremes

1. Police can not talk to citizens without legal probable cause. There is a huge difference between arrest and field interrogation.
2. Police demanding to see citizenship papers and having the citizens dragged away in a dark van.

A field interrogation is not the same as a custodial interrogation which has a much higher standard of probable cause. This is why, when being talked to by the police, one can (and should), politely ask the officer, "am I free to go?"

If the answer is no - you are in custodial interrogation.
If the answer is yes, you are in a field interrogation.

Unfortunately, depending on the jurisdiction, statements you make during a field interrogation may be used in legal proceedings. In other jurisdictions they are not. This is an area of much debate.


You do not have to stay during a field interrogation. However, the reality is that it may be a lot easier to defuse the situation by cooperating. The fact of life is that if you piss off a cop, they WILL find "something" to justify their actions. Unfortunately, the courts usually side with the actions of the police officer when it comes to a "he said, he said" argument.

It ain't right, it ain't fair

I have been "field interrogated" several times, and in all cases, I cooperated and the situation ended right there.

Was I "kow-tow-ing" to The Man? Probably. But at least I did not end up in a holding cell waiting for a lawyer. :D

[garren]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

So people shouldn't practice their rights? ... But didn't you just do that with your comment here (freedom of speech)? You know, there's more danger in words than guns after all. A gun never started a war, but speech certainly has. So perhaps if people shouldn't carry guns they shouldn't talk either? I mean, this is your feeling after all... right?

[garren]

So lemme see if I understand the point under discussion.

If the police receive calls from a citizen reporting a suspicious person carrying a firearm; and when the police arrive they see a person carrying a rifle, we really don't want the police to stop and ask this person questions because the state has open carry laws?

I want the police to ask questions. We are a long way from "let me zee your papers". But there has to be some moderate middle ground between two undesirable extremes

1. Police can not talk to citizens without legal probable cause. There is a huge difference between arrest and field interrogation.
2. Police demanding to see citizenship papers and having the citizens dragged away in a dark van.

A field interrogation is not the same as a custodial interrogation which has a much higher standard of probable cause. This is why, when being talked to by the police, one can (and should), politely ask the officer, "am I free to go?"

If the answer is no - you are in custodial interrogation.
If the answer is yes, you are in a field interrogation.

Unfortunately, depending on the jurisdiction, statements you make during a field interrogation may be used in legal proceedings. In other jurisdictions they are not. This is an area of much debate.


You do not have to stay during a field interrogation. However, the reality is that it may be a lot easier to defuse the situation by cooperating. The fact of life is that if you piss off a cop, they WILL find "something" to justify their actions. Unfortunately, the courts usually side with the actions of the police officer when it comes to a "he said, he said" argument.

It ain't right, it ain't fair

I have been "field interrogated" several times, and in all cases, I cooperated and the situation ended right there.

Was I "kow-tow-ing" to The Man? Probably. But at least I did not end up in a holding cell waiting for a lawyer. :D


NO! I do not support the practice of cops harassing people practicing their constitutionally protected rights to walk around freely with a firearm.

Don't allow the fear mongering government and the paranoia crowd scare you into giving up your rights. That's exactly what they want you to do.

Criminals want guns banned. Because criminals don't care about laws in the first place so they will still have guns and knives on them. They want to make sure you are unarmed so it's easier to steal from you, rape you, murder you.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am definitely with Garren on this one - a right not exercised is to often subverted.

Look at how 2A has been continually misconstrued by the left who claim it only is for a "militia" and not for the People - even though it says "the People" in it. There is a large number of quotes from our founding fathers that show that the intent was to keep an armed populace for defense - individual and collective (whether from an oppressive government or a foreign invader).

[garren]

I am definitely with Garren on this one - a right not exercised is to often subverted.

Look at how 2A has been continually misconstrued by the left who claim it only is for a "militia" and not for the People - even though it says "the People" in it. There is a large number of quotes from our founding fathers that show that the intent was to keep an armed populace for defense - individual and collective (whether from an oppressive government or a foreign invader).

Well, I'm glad I'm right at least some of the time. :haha: Shows I'm just like everyone else and not perfect. Never claimed to be.

[mookiemookie]

So perhaps if people shouldn't carry guns they shouldn't talk either? I mean, this is your feeling after all... right?

I can tell I'll have fun with my "spot the GT poster's logical fallacy" bingo cards.

First sign you have a crappy argument: you have to resort to strawmen in order to defend it.

[u crank]

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country. It's a constitutional right.

So what you are saying is that anyone, including criminals can walk the streets with an AR 15 strapped to their back and this is not a cause for concern. When this happens then you will really have cause to be worried about your constitutional rights.

no reason to suspect the person carry the weapon has committed a criminal offense there's no probable cause to stop them and doing so if a violation of that persons rights and is actually a criminal offense by the police.


So until I walk through the bank door and level my weapon at the teller I'm above suspicion? Wouldn't that be great?

They should tell these people who call to complain that it's a right to carry a firearm in this country and inform them that if they have witnessed the person committing a crime then that's a different matter.

There are lots of things that arouse the suspicion of the police. Carrying an automatic weapon should be one of them. The day when it is normal for people to walk around with automatic weapons and the police do nothing is the day your country becomes Somalia.

[Platapus]

Look at how 2A has been continually misconstrued by the left ...

The entire left? Every one who identifies as the left all feel this way. No exceptions? Wow. :D

Sure you don't mean that some people/some groups of people misconstrue it?:yep:

I have a co-worker who is more liberal than anyone else I have met. He is wayyy out there like where fricking Pluto used to be. And he is a strong proponent of the second amendment.

My father is a scary conservative. I mean Yikes, like you can't have a conversation with him scary. And he is anti-gun and has been for the 50+ years I have been his son.


You can't group people in to "the left" and "the right" and understand their viewpoints. :nope:

Anytime one uses generalizations like "the left" or "the right" as if they are finitely defined and homogeneous groups with only one opinion, credibility in the argument is lost. :yep:

There is no "the left" or "the right". There are people, each with opinions which may match or not match up with the opinions of other people.

[Wolferz]

Mistakes were made by all involved.

1. The guy for packing an assault rifle, tactical style while hiking.
If he needed it for protection from the varmints that roam free in Texas, a shoulder strap would have been sufficient and much less threatening in appearance.

2. The police officer for being a bully about it by invading his space and grabbing for his weapon.
The officer could have been a little more polite during his field interview of a citizen exercising his rights.

Many people in Texas pack heat, so I don't think the alleged citizen complaint was valid. Just an excuse used to hassle a law abiding veteran who was doing something stupid. After all, the Army didn't hire mental heavyweights.
At least until they hired me for six years.:03:

[garren]

So what you are saying is that anyone, including criminals can walk the streets with an AR 15 strapped to their back and this is not a cause for concern. When this happens then you will really have cause to be worried about your constitutional rights.

Criminals already carry firearms illegally and will continue to do so if we (law abiding citizens) lose our rights to carry them. So this point is invalid and been debunked about a zillion times already. There will be less criminals shooting people if more people carry firearms. Notice how they shoot up people in places that are "Gun Free Zones" most of the time, and notice how most victims of gun violence were unarmed? They tend to shoot people who can't shoot back. Guns deter violence just like Nukes deter war.



So until I walk through the bank door and level my weapon at the teller I'm above suspicion? Wouldn't that be great?


I bet you wouldn't do that if you knew that most bank tellers were armed and that you'd never be able to kill more than one before getting killed yourself. Not too many people barge into police stations and shoot at the cops either unless they have a death wish. The same would be true if banks armed all their tellers and it was well known that you'd never get out of the bank alive with any money.

There are lots of things that arouse the suspicion of the police. Carrying an automatic weapon should be one of them. The day when it is normal for people to walk around with automatic weapons and the police do nothing is the day your country becomes Somalia.

I don't believe that at all. Remember, there's a difference between automatic and fully automatic. Most pistols today are automatics and not revolvers. Many hunting rifles are magazine fed semi-automatics as well and don't require bolt or lever action.

I can understand fully automatic weapons being banned for the common citizen but automatics, or semi-automatics, are fine with me. I can understand a cop having questions about the make and model of certain types of weapons. I saw a video recently of a guy carrying a H&K MP5 submachine gun. His was modified however to be semi-auto only and did not have the 3-round burst or fully automatic capabilities that the military and police SWAT teams have, so he was fine to carry it. I have no problems with cops questioning those weapons but they seem to be questioning any gun, even shotguns (and Biden told us we could have those didn't he?) which is ridiculous and nothing more than government harassing the people of this country for practicing their rights.

[CaptainHaplo]

The entire left? Every one who identifies as the left all feel this way. No exceptions? Wow. :D

There I go generalizing again.... Yes, not all "on the left" are anti-gun and not all on the right are pro 2A. However, the generalities exist because the above - as well as your examples, tend to be outliers rather than the norm.

Criminals already carry firearms illegally and will continue to do so if we (law abiding citizens) lose our rights to carry them.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. A criminal has no respect for the law so he won't follow it. All gun control does is take guns out of the law abiding person's hands.

Notice how they shoot up people in places that are "Gun Free Zones" most of the time, and notice how most victims of gun violence were unarmed? They tend to shoot people who can't shoot back. Guns deter violence just like Nukes deter war.

I have yet to meet someone who is anti-gun who is willing to have a sign that says "This Home is a Gun Free Zone." in their yard. Why? Because criminals and psychopaths always go for soft targets.

I bet you wouldn't do that if you knew that most bank tellers were armed and that you'd never be able to kill more than one before getting killed yourself. Not too many people barge into police stations and shoot at the cops either unless they have a death wish. The same would be true if banks armed all their tellers and it was well known that you'd never get out of the bank alive with any money.

This is why more teachers should be taught how to handle firearms and then be armed in schools. It is why - in Aurora - had a few patrons of that theater been armed, a lot less people would have been killed or injured. The list of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" goes on and on - while more and more law abiding people die.

Take Chicago - where the death toll continues to rise (though at a slower rate than last year). Think gangbangers would hesitate a little if they knew everyone in sight was going to start throwing lead their way if they tried a driveby? Not all criminals are dumb - they want to stay alive like everyone else - so they aren't going to intentionally make themselves a big ole target.

If anyone doubts the reality that increases in gun ownership deter crime - then research Kennisaw, Ga and learn how the requirement for every head of household to own a firearm has cut crime rate by ~50% TOTAL even though it population has more than quadrupled.

[garren]

There I go generalizing again.... Yes, not all "on the left" are anti-gun and not all on the right are pro 2A. However, the generalities exist because the above - as well as your examples, tend to be outliers rather than the norm.



If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. A criminal has no respect for the law so he won't follow it. All gun control does is take guns out of the law abiding person's hands.



I have yet to meet someone who is anti-gun who is willing to have a sign that says "This Home is a Gun Free Zone." in their yard. Why? Because criminals and psychopaths always go for soft targets.



This is why more teachers should be taught how to handle firearms and then be armed in schools. It is why - in Aurora - had a few patrons of that theater been armed, a lot less people would have been killed or injured. The list of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" goes on and on - while more and more law abiding people die.

Take Chicago - where the death toll continues to rise (though at a slower rate than last year). Think gangbangers would hesitate a little if they knew everyone in sight was going to start throwing lead their way if they tried a driveby? Not all criminals are dumb - they want to stay alive like everyone else - so they aren't going to intentionally make themselves a big ole target.

If anyone doubts the reality that increases in gun ownership deter crime - then research Kennisaw, Ga and learn how the requirement for every head of household to own a firearm has cut crime rate by ~50% TOTAL even though it population has more than quadrupled.


Amen.

[Platapus]

It is why - in Aurora - had a few patrons of that theater been armed, a lot less people would have been killed or injured.


I am not sure that is accurate. Certainly if there were one armed citizen at the theater, and it was understood that there was only one baddie, than it is reasonable to presume that there would be a good likelihood of the "goodie" shooting the "baddie" before too many more bystanders were killed.

Armed citizen sees armed baddie doing bad things, so the target selection is pretty clear.

But

When you add multiple armed citizens, is this presumption really reasonable?

One can not assume that there is only one baddie.
One can't assume that good guys and baddies may be dressed exactly alike.

Now we have multiple people shooting, in which an unknown number are baddies and an unknown number are good guys. In a very few seconds, the N+1 armed citizen has to make a decision of how many people are shooting, how many of them are baddies, how many of them are good guys, all the while people are getting shot. Cops have a hard time making these decisions (and sometimes make the tragically wrong decision)

So you are in a crowded theater. Shots have been fired. You draw your weapon. You see someone in the theater with their weapon drawn and pointed at someone. What are you going to do? You have about a second to decide.

What about that other person who now suddenly notices another person (you) with a weapon drawn.. possibly pointed at them! He or she has about a second to make a decision. What are they going to do?

It is not like in a video game/ hollywood where all the baddies are dressed alike and are all on one side of the room. :nope:

And this is not even addressing the skill level of your average armed citizen who probably has never been in a combat situation. Shootin pieces of paper, even when they move, is not good at preparing people for combat shooting situations.

I am sure I am not the only one, at the range, who has noticed that many shooters miss targets that just stand there that are more than 10 meters away. And that is in good light, they have plenty of time to aim, and with no one shooting back!

Stand at the firing location of any established range and look up and down. Count the number of bullet holes about a foot down range. :o

So having multiple armed citizens that are

1. Misidentifying who is or are the baddies
2. Missing the target they are aiming at

Does not bode well for the claim that less people would be killed. I think in the confusion the likelihood of MORE people getting hurt is higher.

There may be an instance where a baddie fires off one round and dives for the ground and watches all the responding armed citizens start shooting everyone else. :nope: That would suck.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am not sure that is accurate.....

When you add multiple armed citizens, is this presumption really reasonable?

Yes - but lets break it down....

One can not assume that there is only one baddie.
One can't assume that good guys and baddies may be dressed exactly alike.

True (though both were the case in aurora). One can however assume that the baddie is shooting indiscriminately - because when he starts firing, he has no way of identifying all the armed folks...

Now we have multiple people shooting, in which an unknown number are baddies and an unknown number are good guys. So you are in a crowded theater. Shots have been fired. You draw your weapon. You see someone in the theater with their weapon drawn and pointed at someone. What are you going to do? You have about a second to decide.

Whoa there, my good lad. If my firearms coming out - I have already identified the target that needs to be neutralized. You reach for your firearm because you have a target, not before!

What about that other person who now suddenly notices another person (you) with a weapon drawn.. possibly pointed at them! He or she has about a second to make a decision. What are they going to do?

In the above scenario - the person above is only going to do one thing. Die. Because in a situation your describing - the only reason I have my gun pointed at them TO START WITH is because they have been identified as the (or one of the) target (s). If they were not shooting innocents at the outset, they were not identified as one of the initial targets, so I am not going to point anything at them. Doing so would be idiotic.

Think about it - whether you have 1 or 5 shooters, they are all going to start firing at about the same time. Human reaction time means that for the armed civilian, by the time the first shot rings out your looking at them having to process what is happening, locate the source and determine whether to confront or retreat. At that point they identify the target(s) and act or they retreat. Your looking at 3-5 seconds at LEAST. And this is going through every single armed civilian's mind. That time frame - built in due to human reactions - is what allows for the targeting of the "bad guys". Sure - some folks are getting injured or killed during that time - but there is no way to remove the reaction time and it would be unwise to do so anyway.

And this is not even addressing the skill level of your average armed citizen who probably has never been in a combat situation. Shootin pieces of paper, even when they move, is not good at preparing people for combat shooting situations.

No one said it was.....

I am sure I am not the only one, at the range, who has noticed that many shooters miss targets that just stand there that are more than 10 meters away. And that is in good light, they have plenty of time to aim, and with no one shooting back!

And how many of those "shooters" would carry at all times if they could? You see, your assuming that every redneck with a gun is going to go packing. Nothing is further from the truth. If you had experience with those of us who carry - whether concealed or open (where legal) - you would recognize that we are by far the most concerned about the LETHALITY of what we carry - and thus take its responsibility most seriously.

Stand at the firing location of any established range and look up and down. Count the number of bullet holes about a foot down range. :o

Which is why they are at the range - to improve. I'd rather them improve their skill in a safe, monitored environment than to need that firearm to protect their wife/hubby/child/themselves and not be able to hit the broad side of a barn with it. Making fun of people who are being responsible and putting forth the personal effort to learn how to properly aim their firearm is hardly a compelling argument against firearms.

If anything - I WANT the people who can't shoot to show up at the range and learn how to do so more accurately!

So having multiple armed citizens that are

1. Misidentifying who is or are the baddies
2. Missing the target they are aiming at

Does not bode well for the claim that less people would be killed. I think in the confusion the likelihood of MORE people getting hurt is higher.

This only follows if you make the assumption that the armed citizens do not take their responsibility as armed citizens seriously - and you can't just assume that when your only example of "things to fear" has been people who have chosen to expend time and money learning to improve their skill in a safe and responsible way.....

There may be an instance where a baddie fires off one round and dives for the ground and watches all the responding armed citizens start shooting everyone else. :nope: That would suck.

Again - you assume so wrong on this. You identify the danger, target it and THEN pull out your firearm. Not in any other order.....

[Platapus]

A complex issue with differing viewpoints. :up:

[CaptainHaplo]

A complex issue with differing viewpoints. :up:

Indeed it is.

The biggest issue with firearms is safety. I think that we can all agree on that. Its why I fully support programs like the NRA teaches in some elementary schools. Building good safety habits in children is the best way to insure that as adults, they maintain their ownership, use and carrying of firearms safely. As a parent, I teach my children about firearm safety - though we only use a bb gun right now.

If we can teach kids sex education in elementary schools "for their safety", why shouldn't we do so with firearms?

Edit - I really like your sig quote - doesn't it apply in this case?

[garren]

I am not sure that is accurate. Certainly if there were one armed citizen at the theater, and it was understood that there was only one baddie, than it is reasonable to presume that there would be a good likelihood of the "goodie" shooting the "baddie" before too many more bystanders were killed.

Armed citizen sees armed baddie doing bad things, so the target selection is pretty clear.

But

When you add multiple armed citizens, is this presumption really reasonable?

One can not assume that there is only one baddie.
One can't assume that good guys and baddies may be dressed exactly alike.

Now we have multiple people shooting, in which an unknown number are baddies and an unknown number are good guys. In a very few seconds, the N+1 armed citizen has to make a decision of how many people are shooting, how many of them are baddies, how many of them are good guys, all the while people are getting shot. Cops have a hard time making these decisions (and sometimes make the tragically wrong decision)

So you are in a crowded theater. Shots have been fired. You draw your weapon. You see someone in the theater with their weapon drawn and pointed at someone. What are you going to do? You have about a second to decide.

What about that other person who now suddenly notices another person (you) with a weapon drawn.. possibly pointed at them! He or she has about a second to make a decision. What are they going to do?

It is not like in a video game/ hollywood where all the baddies are dressed alike and are all on one side of the room. :nope:

And this is not even addressing the skill level of your average armed citizen who probably has never been in a combat situation. Shootin pieces of paper, even when they move, is not good at preparing people for combat shooting situations.

I am sure I am not the only one, at the range, who has noticed that many shooters miss targets that just stand there that are more than 10 meters away. And that is in good light, they have plenty of time to aim, and with no one shooting back!

Stand at the firing location of any established range and look up and down. Count the number of bullet holes about a foot down range. :o

So having multiple armed citizens that are

1. Misidentifying who is or are the baddies
2. Missing the target they are aiming at

Does not bode well for the claim that less people would be killed. I think in the confusion the likelihood of MORE people getting hurt is higher.

There may be an instance where a baddie fires off one round and dives for the ground and watches all the responding armed citizens start shooting everyone else. :nope: That would suck.


This is why I believe in "gun control" - which to me means that a person takes the time to identify their target before they discharge their weapon at it.

In places where there's a large group people together (i.e. movie theater) then I do think weapons should have to be checked in with the movie theater and locked up. But I believe the movie theater should provide ample amounts of armed security to protect the masses of people in their establishments.

This would be to avoid potential "O.K. Corral" wild shootouts where lots of innocent people might just start shooting at one another not knowing who's doing the shooting or who's bad or good.

But anyplace where there's large groups of unarmed people, there has got to be some sort of armed security and camera systems to protect the masses - especially schools.

[Platapus]

Edit - I really like your sig quote - doesn't it apply in this case?

I believe it does. :yeah:

[u crank]

Criminals already carry firearms illegally and will continue to do so if we (law abiding citizens) lose our rights to carry them. So this point is invalid and been debunked about a zillion times already.

Yes, criminals do carry firearms illegally. What they don't do is what the guy in the video was doing. Yet. What you're suggesting,

Nobody should be getting stopped by the police at all for simply carrying a firearm in this country.

..would help them to do just that. I'm simply saying that the police have a duty to check this guy and anybody else who does something similar. Now if they knew the guy and were familiar with his routines then I would say that they have no need to question him.

There will be less criminals shooting people if more people carry firearms.

That's debatable. See CaptainHaplo and Platapus in above posts. Good discussion guys. :up:

..and notice how most victims of gun violence were unarmed? They tend to shoot people who can't shoot back.


A hardened criminal would have no problem shooting you armed or unarmed to get what he wants. If everybody can carry a weapon without question, you'd be dead before you could do anything. And so my point, yes, carry your gun in public if it's your right, but don't be upset if you are ask some questions about it. Doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Remember, there's a difference between automatic and fully automatic.


:har: Yea, I knew that. Classic mistake. :oops:

Actually, I've learned a lot about guns right here at SubSim. :D

[Wolferz]

Putting all the "what if" scenarios aside...
The officer in this video was making numerous mistakes during the encounter.
1.He never un-holstered his side arm.
2. He didn't order this gentleman to clear his weapon. Which could have defused the situation and made the officer a little more comfortable by verifying that the weapon was indeed unloaded. An AR 15 has a small spring loaded door on the breach ejection port that flips open when the charging handle is pulled back and any chambered round or spent brass gets ejected. This gives you a clear view of the breach to verify that there is no round chambered.
3. The officer chose to play the bad-ass by attempting to take the man's weapon by force, when a simple request to see the weapon would have sufficed to make sure the rifle wasn't a fully automatic version, via visual inspection of the selector switch on the reciever.
4. He let his emotions take over by becoming angry when the gentleman threatened to file a complaint against him. That was when the officer decided the man was going to jail, just to punish him for his audacity.
He's not the first.

Perhaps if more police officers were trained in the concept of catching more flies with sugar and not brainwashed into thinking they are the ultimate authority in any situation...:hmmm:

I'm sure this veteran was testing the rumors of Nazi America he'd been hearing upon his return to the states and I think, sadly, he found it.:nope: