An analysis of open carry problems

[briandg]

Glen said

It is assumed in the USA, at least, that officers are armed. Also, the gun for them is part of an authoritarian presence, which it is not for a civilian.

Open carry is also necessitated for the average officer given all the gear they also wear on their belts. A cover garment except for weather would be a handicap for all that stuff.

Detectives usually conceal as they don't wear the full rig.

Once identified as a LEO, it is a moot point about carry.

Also, note that 30% of officers are shot with their own gun.

All very correct.

I think that the only thing missing from this is the reminder that LE agents have nothing in common with civilian laws of this sort and very little in common with civilian proceedings.

Cops aren't only at risk from their own personal handguns. A memphis cop was attacked, the gun grab failed, but the bad guy nearly beat him to death with the cop's own flashlight. The officer had retained his weapon, he was on his knees with his skull smashed in and fired into the guys abdomen to stop the attack.

They are trained to keep their distance from people. civilians don't have that training, and won't think about the people who are standing in line behind him at the coffee shop. A police uniform acts as a deterrent to a certain extent, a person who would turn away from a cop and his gun may be tempted to clobber the seventy year old veteran who is carrying.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by briandg

They are trained to keep their distance from people. civilians don't have that training, and won't think about the people who are standing in line behind him at the coffee shop.

As a civilian, or a police officer, there are plenty of times where keeping distance isn't always possible. Police officers often have to go through store entrances and wait in lines like the rest of us. I can be trained and aware that being in close proximity to someone is an added risk, and still not be able to remedy the issue.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Leaf]

I'd have to agree with TunnelRat. But having said that, doing bar checks or similar while on duty as a uniformed police officer always made my a-hole pucker a bit due to human proximity issues even in otherwise peaceful situations. If present in a bar responding to a call reporting trouble, all the outside distance parameters then generally applied. I'd never (or at least VERY rarely) stand in lines for personal business when on duty.

After I retired I worked for a short couple months as a uniformed armed security officer in a Nevada casino. I never got comfortable with the close proximity while engaging in open carry in casino security work. I got out of that line of work fairly quickly. Personally, I think those guys and gals in similar working environments including banks should be carrying concealed as well.

[briandg]

As a civilian, or a police officer, there are plenty of times where keeping distance isn't always possible.

when it's not possible, it's not possible to do so, is it? so if you cant avoid people, anyone who carries a gun should exercise all possible caution, right? cops learn awareness and retention skills, but an ordinary civilian with a weapon has no training, his awareness is low, and that person is likely to mentally be in some other time zone. how many pockets are picked, phones stolen, purses snatched every day? bad guys like guns, too.

the hubris that i see in some carriers is dangerous, the gun doesn't make anyone safe, or even help a little bit. it can only help the carrier get out of danger. The simple fact is that it can also be what puts you in danger.

I feel as safe as anyone can possibly feel because I carry a concealed weapon, exercise good situational awareness, and I don't project as an easy mark.

It just keeps coming back to the same old thing. the gun won't be at fault if something goes wrong, it's going to be the fault of the carrier. The gun won't leap into the other guy's hands, the carrier is going to frankly offer it to the thief. "here, look, I have a gun and I'm busy watching your babe shaking her boobies to distract me from what you are doing. Come and take it!"

There are people who shouldn't handle weapons at all. there are people who shouldn't carry weapons. There are very few civilians who should openly carry a weapon in an urban area, especially a crowded one.

Here's a fact. Nobody can multitask. The brain cannot do it. The channels for information processing are dedicated to one task at a time.

If a person is reading a subway map or even pondering a menu, it is absolutely impossible for that person to be aware of his surroundings at anything but a very, very low level. Why do we have so many traffic accidents? Because our thoughts are often diverted. Why are phones, wallets, and purses stolen? because they are targets of opportunity, and a gun will be just as tempting.

[briandg]

After I retired I worked for a short couple months as a uniformed armed security officer in a Nevada casino. I never got comfortable with the close proximity while engaging in open carry in casino security work. I got out of that line of work fairly quickly. Personally, I think those guys and gals in similar working environments including banks should be carrying concealed as well.

With private security guards they carry guns for two reasons, the main reason is to deter petty crooks from testing their luck. A guy may hold up a store with a knife if the cashier is alone, but if a cop is in there, he's going to have to consider whether he will survive. Openly armed security forces and police do, in fact, form a deterrent. People will inevitably react differently to an authority figure than they will to a civilian.

the gun doesn't make anyone safe, or even help a little bit. it can only help the carrier get out of danger. The simple fact is that it can also be what puts you in danger

Going back to that, while a security guard or cop carrying a gun can deter crime to a certain level, that gun is still not going to be a panacea. There are people who will act anyway.

Now consider why we carry a concealed weapon. It is so we can engage in armed combat, and have the advantage of surprise. A concealed weapon performs no deterrence at all, the only thing that you can do with one is to shoot the bad guy, or wave it in the air and scare him.

deterrence is a much better policy than reacting to a potentially dangerous situation with armed force. So make sure that the good guys are clearly marked in some way, and armed if it is appropriate. Deterrence works at many levels. Would Danny Trejo need a gun to scare a bunch of teenagers?

[briandg]

a few years ago, there was a killing, two cops shot a guy who drew on them. the guy was gunked, and a bit nuts. He drew a BB gun on cops.

As they escorted the guy out, one led, one followed, they both kept at arms length. As the lead cop went past a table, he saw a butter knife on that table. he reached out and pushed it out of reach of the suspect as he passed it.

that is how you do situational awareness. You try to miss absolutely nothing will still keeping eyes and mind on the possible threat at hand. Since he had a partner behind him, he was free to devote some of his thinking to the path in front of him.

[TunnelRat]

Many of the police I've trained with don't have an extensive amount of awareness and retention training. If the argument is some is better than none I of course agree. My caution is I've seen people put police on a pedestal and then be shocked at a police shooting where of course the officer should have done the "right" thing. Even with the same training people can react completely differently.

I'm not disagreeing with what you said. I'm stating simply being aware is not a guaranteed solution. I've met people who think that because they are "aware" no one will ever get the drop on them. My point with the prior comment was I think that attitude can be both arrogant and dangerous (and I've seen it bite people in force on force). By all means be situationally aware and do your best to predict behaviors. But don't convince yourself that you are infallible (I am using you in the general sense here). Beyond the police we are primarily discussing private citizens. As a private citizen where I live I'm going to be in situations where people are close to me, even people that I haven't confirmed aren't a threat, as that can change quickly. Carrying openly when I am in close proximity to others is to me a concern, and then even with the training you mention above, and especially without it, I do all I can to minimize the amount I broadcast my possession of a weapon.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Leaf]

TunnelRat "Many of the police I've trained with don't have an extensive amount of awareness and retention training."

The idea and a good part of the training is learning how to look that way and I'm only half joking.

If you've noticed they've noticed you don't want to then put them in a nervous state.

On the other hand, so many of them (popo) tend to forget what they were taught and just become a few more dumb-dumbs out there packin.

[TunnelRat]

Fair enough. I don't want to miss the forest for the trees here. My point was less the amount of training police have and more that some scenarios, for both private citizens and police, involve close proximity to people that could potentially be a threat. In those scenarios open carrying, which is the main topic here, could potentially make you more of a target. And while situational awareness is of course important and no doubt helps, as private citizens we have the option of carrying concealed whereas a uniformed officer might not and doing so might be advisable.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[FireForged]

Many of the police I've trained with don't have an extensive amount of awareness and retention training.

how exactly are you qualified to judge what they are or are not? are you a LEO

[briandg]

I do not hold myself up as a great example of how a weapons carrying civilian should be, just as a person who has done everything possible to be that way. I have moments of lowered clarity just like everyone. The difference between myself and probably 8 in 10 people who I observe day to day is that the rest of them live a life of diminished clarity from the moment they leave the bed.

A person's driving tells more about them than ten years in therapy. Trust me.

[briandg]

We just had a police shooting here. a guy drew on one of our cops and was shot. It involved a stolen car, and the suspect was running after abandoning it. Our man stopped him without being injured.

amen.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by FireForged

how exactly are you qualified to judge what they are or are not? are you a LEO

I see this comment has triggered some folks, so let me clarify since again it wasn't the main point of my comment. How do I know? I asked them. I talked to them and that was their opinion. The guys I train with are often there on their own dime. Once out of the academy unless the department they're with has excess funds, and we're generally talking small towns, they don't get more training. They do get discounted training because of their LE backgrounds, but they make the time to do it. Many of the ones I've talked to rely on additional training, whether martial arts or otherwise, for close in defense. Again, does an officer have more than the average civilian? Yes, as I fully admitted above. But basically every officer I talked to stated they wished they had more when they got to whatever department they ended up with. The point wasn't that officers are deficient, it was that they aren't super human. I've also noticed that depending on the age of the officer there were likely different aspects of their training that were emphasized more or less heavily, as well as some information loss over time.

This isn't an attempt by me to disparage officers, and in fact the way I worded that sentence was specifically done to try to mitigate that impression.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[briandg]

I know people who expend thousands of rounds and thousands of dollars in training and practice. Not one is a cop that I can think of. Can everyone receive the high level of training reserved for swat and special unit officers? no, that's a ridiculous thought, isn't it? A patrol officer will learn enough to handle "ordinary" use of force scenarios. Only special teams will receive the training necessary to break down doors.

I must agree with this policy. what is best, to spend tens of thousands of dollars on ammo and training, or spend it on salary, better equipment, enhanced patrols?

I believe that for most cops, all of the expense put to training will be wasted as those people will not retain the training or learning.

Our department is at a crisis. We can't retain officers because pay levels are so low. We have beautiful streets, but our cops walk away and no new applications come in. Here we are, we have the states best academy and a crime lab at the university, but the graduates don't even consider staying her.

[FireForged]

Many of the police I've trained with don't have an extensive amount of awareness and retention training

How do I know? I asked them. I talked to them and that was their opinion

Let me share something with you about "training". Training is a good thing and most LEOs are certainly proponents of ongoing and advanced training.

That said, training is one thing and experience is something else. During any duty shift an officer will make hundreds of calculations regarding his/her personal safety. Each arrest, each citizen contact, every call for service, every use of force, every investigation, every hazardous circumstance is an exercise in awareness as well as those skills associated with officer safety.

Each incident is a learning experience and not many officers are going to claim that they have not had an offender attempt to get their weapon and I find it hard to believe that any officer who has any experience at all would suggest that they have low awareness and weapon retention skills.

Many would argue that Awareness and Weapon Retention are some of the most dominant considerations an officer can have. Its generally something that you never turn off.

I wont say that you are wrong but I am skeptical that you could have possibly developed enough meaningful data from a "conversation" to form a merited opinion.

[TunnelRat]

It's not my opinion. It was the opinion they shared with me. You seem to be taking this as a personal insult of the officers when really it was not, as I have repeated multiple times now. There's also a big difference between low awareness and retention and extensive awareness and retention. The officers I'm training with are generally more demanding of what they expect from themselves, which is why they're paying their own money on their own time. For people like that the response is often yes I want more training, so in fairness maybe I should have considered that. I also never stated and am certainly under no delusion that training is a replacement for real world experience. Training is meant as an aid for real world experience as a person acquires that experience.

I'm not sure what you want from me. If your experience differs from my own fair enough. If you want me to say that no those officers didn't think more training would be beneficial and I made the whole thing up, that's not going to happen. I see this issue as closed.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[ManyMag]

Interesting that this topic has been dominated my LEOs who, for the most part, are directed by their employers as to when, where and how to carry guns.
I speak only for myself when I say, as a civilian, I'm thankful ROE aren't part of my life.
As a member of the vast majority of civilians out there we face way different challenges daily. My decisions aren't guided by a pap manual and that makes me happy.
We do learn from you guys who live under a thumb because you do have better access to stats that just aren't as available to everybody. Why, I don't know.
Keep sharing. We'll take what we want and leave the rest.

[TRX]

> Greg E. lays out the risks and disadvantages of open carry. The issue not be the 'right' but the pragmatics.

He came to his conclusion first and cherry-picked some data points to support it.

Not persuasive.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How do you know that?

Find for me a well known or qualified trainer who thinks OC is optimal.

[briandg]

https://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf...s_da_made.html

This video circulated and got a lot of discussion. The guy who did the shooting was a 'trainer' and he was carrying openly, with the word 'trainer' on his shirt. He had the tough guy look going, shaved head, black glasses, black shirt, gun hanging out there, but he didn't have a clue as to how to handle a confrontation.

From the beginning, as this angry customer is complaining, this man with a gun right out there in front of god and the devil and everyone else, ignored him. He even stood right next to the guy, with his gun side open, and played with his wallet. He made a lot of mistakes, IMO, and it is a miracle that he survived. Any other situation such as this, he might have been disarmed and killed with his own gun.

I don't think that the open carry had much to do with the way it ended. Even under a denim jacket, no big deal, the aggressor only wanted to beat the shooter up, not steal his gun. He didn't give a moment's consideration to the fact that an armed man was standing right next to him, he even attacked an armed man with his bare hands.

In case anyone is wondering what my point is, it's that this guy was a 'professional' and right there, while hanging out at a stop & rob, he allowed a fight to start and escalate without making any efforts towards safety.

I can't believe that he just stood there fiddling with his money, over and over. Then, he goaded the guy even further by going out to check the tags, walking in full view of a crazy man.

[FireForged]

How do you know that?

Find for me a well known or qualified trainer who thinks OC is optimal

I doubt you will be supplied with any examples of LEOs, Tactical trainers, Experts in the field of SD or anyone knowledgeable is any sort of protective services that will be a proponent of OC as a individual self defense initiative.

I will exclude those in uniform or others openly/obviously working in a protective capacity. You may as well OC within that context.

Generally speaking, the more training a person has.. the less likely they are going to be a proponent of open carry in public spaces.

[shurshot]

Interesting video. Lots of colorful characters and egos in that store. Reinforces to me why guns should be concealed.

[FireForged]

There is so much wrong with that video incident, I don't even know where to start. That is the poorest excuse of an "attack" that I have seen in a long time. I am not going to allow someone to physically harass me and force would likely be necessary to change his channels but I cannot imagine pulling a gun let alone shooting a lone unarmed lumbering guy who in a dozen attempts has seemingly not managed to do anything other than push and pull at my shirt.

I tip my hat to the guy with the handtruck who got clear of chaos and never came back into frame.

[TunnelRat]

Really allowed himself to get backed into a corner. Was the fuel additive (my guess at the bottle) really that necessary that you stay in what is obviously a situation you don't want to be in? Leave, call the police, be a good witness. That and going back into the store. You have a vehicle I imagine, can't tell on the recording, that affords you some level of protection, certainly against a man with just fists, and the ability to get away. Why abandon that for a location where you don't know the exits or layout?

I've mentioned it before but in one force on force scenario I was part of a person is sitting at an open air cafe when two people come in, knock two people to the ground, kick them a few times, then walk around talking trash. Every person's interaction was recorded so we could analyze after the fact. Some people waited for an opportunity and bolted, others faded into the back of the crowd. Two students chose to get involved and drew their firearms. The problem was they had given no thought to what was next. They drew their firearms and expected compliance. When they didn't get it they ended up getting cornered and eventually shot the aggressors. The end result was two people assaulted and two people killed for an assault that hadn't originally been directed at the students that did the shooting. In the other cases the original two were assaulted and the aggressors left.

It was a real eye opener for the people that did shoot. One was a man and one was a woman. The man had been pretty vocal during the day about his shooting abilities and the woman was an NRA certified trainer. Obviously and thankfully it wasn't real, but there was some actual shock on their faces in watching the other videos. For anyone interested the course is put on by Todd Rassa both in Texas and New Hampshire and is called Active Shooter Response for the Concerned Citizen. Todd was in Balitmore, MD PD for 26 years. I get no kickbacks, I just like him as an instructor.

[Leaf]

Anyone reading this thread gets a lot of good input from several good perspectives from both "trained instructors" and those who have very good real world experience as well as a little of both to utilize in making their own informed decisions. Right on, Firing Line!