Open carry during a ride along.

[Five-0]

The above is spoken like someone that has played it out in his mind on how not to get shot. Why would I know?

[MacLean]

I guarantee there are more constitutionalists and gun rights supporters in the police station than there are in city hall and congress.

This.

[Xiphos]

I guarantee there are more constitutionalists and gun rights supporters in the police station than there are in city hall and congress.

This.

Douchebag Exhibit 1:

In the wake of the horrific massacre in Aurora, Colo., early Friday morning, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been one of the few high-profile American politicians speaking out in favor of tighter gun restrictions.

On Monday, he took his case to “Piers Morgan Tonight,” where he argued that police officers in particular should throw their support behind gun control. “I don't understand why the police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, ‘We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you. Unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe,’” he said.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,6820833.story

[Cornfed1100]

These 3 different departments were all able to separate good guys from bad guys.

Home » Content
Op-Ed: When Guns Stopped A Massacre
printable page
Submitted by cbaus on Wed, 08/01/2012 - 15:00. National Politics Guns in the News Gun Grabbers
by Dick Morris

On February 12, 2007, a lone gunman, Sulejman Talovic opened fire at the crowded Trolley Square shopping mall killing five bystanders. Armed with a shotgun with a pistol grip, a 38-caliber handgun with rubber grips, and a backpack full of ammunition, he set forth on his rampage through the Mall.

But he did not get as far as he had hoped. He was stopped when off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department who was at Trolley Square having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his pregnant wife. When they heard shots, she called 911 and he drew his weapon and confronted Talovic. He was joined by Sgt. Andrew Oblad of the Salt Lake City Police Department. They pinned down Talovic, stopping further deaths, until a SWAT team from the Salt Lake City Police Department killed him.

Hammond, a man with a weapon, was credited with saving "countless lives."

In Aurora, Colorado, there were no armed bystanders and Holmes was unimpeded in his deadly rampage. Gun control advocates use the grizzly story of the Aurora movie theater to push their cause. But common sense tells us that it is easier to put guns into the hands of law-abiding citizens and to instruct them in their use than to keep them away from the insane or evil people who perpetrate these shootings.

If the movie-goers in Aurora had one or two armed and trained men or women, the shooting would have gone the way of the Trolley Square massacre, not the bloodier outcome in Aurora.

Click here to read the entire op-ed at DickMorris.com.

» 448 reads


Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[Cornfed1100]

The officer from a different department and SWAT all were able to separate good guys with guns from bad. This is a great example of LEO using the training. I'm confident a good guy with a gun does not automatically make the responding department shoot every one holding a gun.
Home » Content
Op-Ed: When Guns Stopped A Massacre
printable page
Submitted by cbaus on Wed, 08/01/2012 - 15:00. National Politics Guns in the News Gun Grabbers
by Dick Morris

On February 12, 2007, a lone gunman, Sulejman Talovic opened fire at the crowded Trolley Square shopping mall killing five bystanders. Armed with a shotgun with a pistol grip, a 38-caliber handgun with rubber grips, and a backpack full of ammunition, he set forth on his rampage through the Mall.

But he did not get as far as he had hoped. He was stopped when off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department who was at Trolley Square having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his pregnant wife. When they heard shots, she called 911 and he drew his weapon and confronted Talovic. He was joined by Sgt. Andrew Oblad of the Salt Lake City Police Department. They pinned down Talovic, stopping further deaths, until a SWAT team from the Salt Lake City Police Department killed him.


Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[MacLean]

Who are you arguing with and what are you arguing?

[Cornfed1100]

http://www.guns.com/texas-gun-owner-...out-10236.html



Civilian jumps in to help LEO.


Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[Cornfed1100]

I've lost the cohesion of this thread but basically saying an extra gun on scene does not equate to police instantly shooting a good Samaritan.


Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[121Traffic]

We aren't talking about an "extra gun". The initial point of this thread was citizen carry on a ride along, then evolved into whether citizen carry in a police station is a great idea, which it arguable is not.

I'm sorry, but the examples you have provided do not help your argument. The mall shooting massacre guy was assisted to the next world by OFF DUTY cops, not just citizens carrying firearms. The distinction here is training that I'm willing to bet those officers received on how to act during an armed encounter when the blue suits arrive to take over. That training was also surely tempered with real world experience of actually working as a police officer, and gameplanning how they would want an off duty to react if it was them responding to the scene. That's what ensured their safety, and it is something that the average citizen isn't mandated to think about.

The second story is about a guy helping from inside of his own house, 165 yards away. He was NOT standing around and waving a gun in the air in the middle of the gunfight when the police arrived. A very different situation indeed.

While there are probably some documented instances of citizens being armed, assisting the police during an arrest or shooting, and not getting greased by responding back-up, you just haven't produced them here. They're few a far between, simply because the situation you described is rare indeed. No one is denying you your constitutional right to carry, nor are you being denied government service. If you don't like the rules of participating in the privilege of riding along, you are more than able to decline the opportunity. If you don't like not being armed in a police station, we are more than happy to come to you to take your report or speak with you about a matter in a neutral setting. Keep in mind that if you OC, your permanent 2A rights might be superceded by the officer's temporary and situational need to ensure his own safety. Not saying me personally, but it's an officer's discretion to disarm you or not. If it's a non-consensual encounter, you most likely WILL be disarmed. If it's consensual and the officer asks you to disarm, and you make a stink over it, he'll probably just be on his way. We all have priorities, and if you wish to make your 2A rights priority #1, all the time, even when you're speaking to a police officer about something innocuous, even if it's not part of a government master plan to disarm the populace, but rather just to put a man's mind at ease who just wants to go home to his family safe at EOW, well there's always the phone. You can OC and phone it in all you want.

[ChesCopPodz]

Who are you arguing with and what are you arguing?

This. You seem to be arguing a point that nobody else is arguing against.

And if thats the direction you're taking the conversation, I'd argue that it is the armed citizen who needs training on what to do when the cops arrive, not the cops needing training identifying the armed citizen. I cant think of a single blue on blue shooting, or a single instance of police arriving to an armed encounter where the police shot the good guy, where the victim didn't do one of two things: 1- turn towards officers with the gun absentmindedly when they noticed that officers had arrived (where the head goes, the body usually follows), or 2- not respond to commands to put the gun down, probably due to tunnel vision and auditory exclusion.

[lewisipso]

I would feel so much better if every gun owner, say like yourself if you have, would be responsible enough to get a gun, and then GET TRAINING WITH IT. Not that how I feel means dick in the grand scheme of things. However, carry concealed if at all possible. Get training and a damn permit. Problem solved. Can't get a permit? Fine, open carry. It's just not a smart idea. The black helicopters and men in black suits are not going to descend on houses because a permit shows them where the guns are. The simplest of solutions are usually the ones that are rejected first.
Training in most of our area is just this side of a joke and would make most of you cringe. However, I trust MOST of the cops I am surrounded with because I know they had to pass at least a minimal standard of TRAINING. There is no such standard for civilians. Have gun will travel. If any of the officers I am associated with are to stupid to adhere to simple standards, like keep your trigger finger off the trigger, then I send them in the door first. I don't want to be shot in the back. (I know a guy like this) Since I just chased a rabbit there my emphasis was that all people should be trained with a firearm if they wish to carry.
Also, on that note, your "Cop training" comment is no guarantee that I will know the bad guy from the good guy in an actual incident. In fact I could possibly place you in a very simple basic training scenario that would make you retract that "cop training" comment. I failed it myself. If I run up on an active shooter incident and see a person, gun in hand, I have no choice but to see that person as a possible threat no matter who they are. Even if they are an off duty officer. Even, perhaps, if that person does not fit the description of the active shooter. Any one with a gun I can't immediately identify could easily be an accomplice. While I'm engaged with a well meaning legally armed citizen the actual shooter engages me while my attention is diverted. I've walked in a civilians shoes all my life so I get the civilian side of this. And while I admire you standing up for your rights, seriously try walking in our shoes. I do not want to disarm any legal citizen. I just want the citizen to exercise sensible weapon usage and carry. As far as open carry... unless a permit cannot be obtained, it is a primary example of "just because you can doesn't mean you should." These are just my ramblings and opinions. Feel free to disagree.

[Cornfed1100]

Funny how the trained professionals proceeded my having a gun confuses officers.

I have confidence and trust the officers training to identify who is who in a gun fight. Isn't that part of the training?



Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

We arrive to a reported shooting or hear a shooting and see YOU with your gun in your hand, not identified by uniform or badge, yeah...my focus is now on you regardless of your good intentions. Target has been identified until convinced otherwise. If you haven't taken out the shooter and he's still active, I've taken critical focus off of my true target to a distraction. Could get me or you killed. Explain to me how I identify you as a good guy in that scenario if I don't already know you.

Plain clothes officers, even when waving badges or screaming out to ID themselves to responding cops have been shot.[/QUOTE]

This is the point. There are two of you saying guys with guns will get hurt despite their intentions. One of you says the training is key. My argent is here are two recent stories where good guys made a difference with out wearing a duty belt and badge on their chest.
Your turn to post where good guys helping became collateral damage. It's good to be armed with specific events over emotion.


Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[Cornfed1100]

[QUOTE=121Traffic;597803]We aren't talking about an "extra gun". The initial point of this thread was citizen carry on a ride along, then evolved into whether citizen carry in a police station is a great idea, which it arguable is not.

I'm sorry, but the examples you have provided do not help your argument. The mall shooting massacre guy was assisted to the next world by OFF DUTY cops, not just citizens carrying firearms.


Off duty cops = citizens




Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[Cornfed1100]

[QUOTE=121Traffic;597803]We aren't talking about an "extra gun". The initial point of this thread was citizen carry on a ride along, then evolved into whether citizen carry in a police station is a great idea, which it arguable is not.

The point is I should not be disarmed during a ride along, police station, movie or post office. My having a weapon exposed should not make me an automatic threat to LEO. It's truly a perception issue. It's been trained into LEO brains if there is a gun minus a uniform that's the bad guy. They teach LEO to yell, "GUN" if you see one. This reinforces the paranoia of a man with a gun.
The point of my links support that even not dressed as an office civilians can help without being shot.

It's been comments here saying the training would force LEO to shoot such people not in uniform with a gun on scene. My argument is that's not true.




Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[Jks9199]

I've walked in a civilians shoes all my life so I get the civilian side of this. And while I admire you standing up for your rights, seriously try walking in our shoes.

On that particular note, let me recommend a book: Force Decisions: A Citizen's Guide by Rory Miller. I'm a little prejudiced by acquaintance -- but I think that he's done a good job giving insight to how cops think and why we do what we do. I don't agree with everything in it (I think the points of disagreement are street cop vs. correctional officer things) but it's solid.

[Xiphos]

Off duty cops = citizens

Off duty cops = off duty cops. We are bound by oath, ethics, and training to act for public safety. You aren't.

It's been comments here saying the training would force LEO to shoot such people not in uniform with a gun on scene. My argument is that's not true.

Yes it is. Every year, off duty or plain clothes cops are killed because they have a gun out in a fight or disorder. A cop in NY was just cleared of shooting an off duty federal agent. There is no magic good guy filter on our gun sites.

[ChesCopPodz]

It's been trained into LEO brains if there is a gun minus a uniform that's the bad guy

They teach LEO to yell, "GUN" if you see one

I'm sorry. I guess I missed the part where you've been through an academy and several years worth of inservice and elective training to be able to know what you're talking about.

I've never been trained to think that someone carrying a gun = bad guy. And the two states I've been a cop in are Virginia and Colorado. Two states where people carrying guns are quite common.

The point is I should not be disarmed during a ride along

Sure you should. Not because you're a threat to me, but because your training would be unknown to me, and I don't want that liability.

[Xiphos]

Sure you should. Not because you're a threat to me, but because your training would be unknown to me, and I don't want that liability.

Also, a ride along is not a right, it's a privilege not all departments offer. A condition of it is to not bring a gun. For a variety of reasons that are all perfectly reasonable and legitimate.

[Cornfed1100]

Don't rights trump a privilege? My right to self defense should trump your ability to disarm me. Otherwise, whats the point of offering the right. If we can revoke the rights at will what good are rights?
Do ride alongs lose other right due to the privilege of being a rider? What other rights does a rider lose? 4th, first?

Disarm, get in and shut up because it's safer.

I argue my rights exist to keep these kinds of things from happening. Rights should be valid until we prove we are not worthy of Having them.

Do we defend our country to revoke rights at will? Where does this mindset come from? We hear, " I will die for your rights". Then follow it with," I'm going to suspend one because I know what's good for you." let me decide what's good for me. Then let me be accountable for my actions.

The bigger issue is truly accountability. If I'm a jack wagon that makes a situation worse hold me accountable let the burden of my ignorance fall on me. Not the officer I ride with. Let me be accountable for my own safety. Don't revoke my right under the guise of knowing what's the correct right to revoke.


Tapatalk requires no training for things like spelling, accuracy, clarity, cohesiveness or manners.

[Xiphos]

You have the right to walk down the street armed. You don't have the right to sit in my car at work armed. Sitting in my car at work is not a right, it's a privilege. And my department and I get to stipulate the rules when you want to sit with me at work. If you don't like the rules, don't ride.