IGX

Like Garm said, at this point, I only bother to carry if I know I'm going somewhere questionable. Yes better to have and not need etc...but I've been to many many dodgy places without being armed and did just fine.

Thanks, BD. Food for thought.
With appendix carry & a sweatshirt, it would be almost impossible for someone to detect that I'm carrying. But I could be wrong.
And I almost never go somewhere where I think I need to be carrying.

johno wrote:Thanks, BD. Food for thought.
With appendix carry & a sweatshirt, it would be almost impossible for someone to detect that I'm carrying. But I could be wrong.
And I almost never go somewhere where I think I need to be carrying.

I continue to exercise a lot of poor judgement. It's a bit of a hobby. When I was in Philly with some hours to spare couple year ago, I tried to get around to several of these.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news- ... -2011.html

I'd be thinking, I need to be carrying…a shotgun.

johno wrote:I'd be thinking, I need to be carrying…a shotgun.

I love going to really shitty parts of ugly places. Lago Agrio, Ecuador, Mexico City, Camden, NJ. Unless you travel courtesy of the US Gov, modern travel is pretty insulated. Everything feels like a bit of a playground. Easiest way to get the feel for a place is to find its open air blackmarkets.

johno wrote:Anyone been stopped by a cop because they detected that you were carrying? Any lessons learned or recommendations?

Once and only because the two cops wanted to talk guns and I was open carrying. I was walking down a road to a clear cut in a WA state forest and had a rifle slung. They stopped me to talk guns and hunting. While this was going on they happened to see my Ruger Redhawk and wanted to take a look. Get this, the Sheriff deputy pulls his service hand gun out and we traded guns to take a look at each other rigs. I'm 100% confident that this was not a department approved procedure.

In the gun community, carrying concealed and showing is called printing. Most printing is due to a bad holster or too large of a hand gun and or carrying outside the waist band. A proper IWB (Inside the waist band) holster and correct clothing should conceal most pistols from almost everyone. I know guys that carry full size 1911s IWB and you wouldn't even know. In their case it helps to be big and with some girth.

In the case of compact single stack & even double stack 9mm, 40 S&W and .45ACP pistols; you should be able to carry concealed and never have a cop stop you.

As a CO, LEO, and PO I carried daily rather working or not. When I worked corrections I open carried a Glock 19 when doing transports or road crew stuff and carried the same gun off duty with IWB holster. That's a midsized gun and at that time I was a smaller guy only weighing around 170. Never visible carried that way. As an LEO we carried a Glock 22 for years and switched to the Glock 31 my last year there. Same size frame different caliber. I've concealed both of those off duty IWB at 180-190lbs with no issue. On duty I also carried a Glock 26 strapped to my vest underneath my uniform shirt. It wasn't visible at all. I've carried a Ruger LCP, Keltec P3AT, and a Beretta Tomcat in gym shorts before with a pocket holster undetectable. It's really a matter of finding the correct gun/holster to fit your chosen attire. I rarely carry these days because I mainly work from home and workout at home. Most of my travel is taking and getting my kids to school and trips to the store. If traveling out of town I always have the Glock 22 in a lock box with extra magazine and IWB holster if I feel the need to carry it. If I'm alone I never carry, if I'm with my family I normally always have one in reach.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: I continue to exercise a lot of poor judgement. It's a bit of a hobby. When I was in Philly with some hours to spare couple year ago, I tried to get around to several of these.

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news- ... -2011.html

I grew up in the city of brotherly love and burglaries with the owners still at home, now called home invasions, weren't uncommon in the part of town I came from. There was a rare exchange of gun fire between my father and some of the city's finer denizens (who I suppose must have accidentally went to the wrong house).

Off topic, but before I was past single digits in age, I knew how to barricade myself and my sisters into a room, sitting in the corner, gun propped between my legs, and empty the cylinder into the center of exposed mass of whatever came through he door. The IGx left is always good for a giggle with their 'just wait for the police to come and do their jobs.' You've got yourself one crackerjack fucking police force if they can respond and handle the situation on the sub-minute time scale needed for an intruder to make his way to your kids' rooms. If they're really fast and the intruder timid, the best you can hope for is a hostage situation. Some may want to check out the training levels of their local negotiators and SWAT teams before having this as a "plan."

If the intruder means you no harm, he'll beat feet out as soon as he knows he's been compromised. You just have to leave him a method of egress. If he doesn't there are no other rational explanations why he'd remain other than he has the will or intent to do harm.

On the street, if I carry, and I usually don't, it's when I'm with family. I can avoid trouble and get myself out efficiently if I need to. Not always so with kids.

I carry all the time because at one time I was prohibited by CA law from doing so.

Since I wasn't a high ranking politician or well connected, I had absolutely zero chance of being issued a CA carry permit. Yeah, some municipalities might give you one after you had been threatened or if you were a victim of domestic abuse. However, it was always after a long series of violent altercations, that you had to be lucky to survive. Lucky for me, I eventually moved to a part of CA where the local Sheriff was more lenient in handing them out and the last couple of years in CA I was able to carry concealed.

Having been prohibited from exercising my unalienable right to be armed outside of my home and having to put up with the petty tyrants of CA for such a long time; I now carry just out of spite, because I can and because I'd rather be armed than unarmed.

I have no issues with those that carry for whatever reason they may have. AZ has Constitutional carry. Yet there are no gunfight at the OK corral shoot outs going on at the intersections and 7-11s. Just about every act of gun violence here in Tucson is in the rougher parts of the city (no clear dividing line in a city this small, however) and is drug or gang related. Usually with illegal firearms.

Go north of here, and posted along the interstate are signs warning to stay in your vehicle as it's a known high drug and human traffic route. That's the US gov't telling folks that they are incapable of securing the border from foreign intrusion. Of course, if you're concerned it says, you can dial your local police. Yet the Feds shot down the AZ law permitting local law enforcement to check for papers. Reason enough to carry for many. When I go off on multi-day trips into the desert, I carry. Rifle and pistol.

Batboy2/75 wrote:I carry all the time because at one time I was prohibited by CA law from doing so.

Since I wasn't a high ranking politician or well connected, I had absolutely zero chance of being issued a CA carry permit. Yeah, some municipalities might give you one after you had been threatened or if you were a victim of domestic abuse. However, it was always after a long series of violent altercations, that you had to be lucky to survive. Lucky for me, I eventually moved to a part of CA where the local Sheriff was more lenient in handing them out and the last couple of years in CA I was able to carry concealed.

Having been prohibited from exercising my unalienable right to armed outside of my home and having to put up with the petty tyrants of CA for such a long time; I now carry just out of spite, because I can and because I'd rather be armed than unarmed.

CA's gun laws are fucking garbage as well as NYC.

Sua Sponte wrote:I have no issues with those that carry for whatever reason they may have. AZ has Constitutional carry. Yet there are no gunfight at the OK corral shoot outs going on at the intersections and 7-11s. Just about every act of gun violence here in Tucson is in the rougher parts of the city (no clear dividing line in a city this small, however) and is drug or gang related. Usually with illegal firearms.

Go north of here, and posted along the interstate are signs warning to stay in your vehicle as it's a known high drug and human traffic route. That's the US gov't telling folks that they are incapable of securing the border from foreign intrusion. Of course, if you're concerned it says, you can dial your local police. Yet the Feds shot down the AZ law permitting local law enforcement to check for papers. Reason enough to carry for many. When I go off on multi-day trips into the desert, I carry. Rifle and pistol.

When I was still a cop I worked with a shit load of guys that thought only cops and soldiers should have rights to arms. It always pissed me off. Unless you're a felon, psycho, or plain fucking idiot I think you should exercise your rights to own and carry. I think everyone should own a shotgun, rifle, and sidearm at a bare minimum. JMO. Criminals don't fuck with armed citizens nearly as much

What is the reasoning behind police who believe they are the only citizenry who should be allowed firearms? Clearly if they want them they believe there's danger to be faced somewhere and, since they mostly respond to calls for help, they can't be the only ones in possible danger. Does this just make it easier to say "if he has a gun, he's a criminal and I'm OK to shoot"? assuming of course, as in the example above, they can respond in the vanishingly short period of time needed to be effective.

Most of the shootings in the 'officer friendly' thread are, from my perspective, less about sufficient training in situational decision making and de-escalation, although there is that, but insufficient firearms training for police. What's the running view amongst police there-do they beleive they're truly proficient?

Sua Sponte wrote:What is the reasoning behind police who believe they are the only citizenry who should be allowed firearms?

Easy: A lot of them take the job because they enjoy having power over others. They can't get off pulling the wings off flies or rubbing the neighborhood retard's face in dog shit anymore, but can't get away with pushing competent adults around without a gang behind them. So they obtain their amulet of power and bond to their group. Since power is relative, they don't want you to have any.

Almost the same dynamic with liberals, who think they are better than you. Since we are stupid, they need to make our decisions for us. Since we don't know what's good for us, they require the ability to issue force. The sadistic heart is the only effective difference between lefty and righty - identical results from subtly different motivations.

The first explanation squares well with what ex-cops I knew in the service said.

The second squares only with those "real" liberals who declare themselves as liberals to everybody in hearing range and tell you how they always vote straight Democrat. As if it put them on the same moral plane as finding the cure for baldness. Then again, you'll never find a "real" liberal in a dangerous situation. They show up after the fact telling you how deeply offended they are that you didn't handle the situation in some way of which they approve.

Agree on how little fundamental difference there is between the extreme right and left. Full circle applies here.

I think Garm is accurate for about 85 or 90 percent of LEO's I know. The other remaining were either if the same thought process as me, or they were just afraid of their own shadow. I was involved in two officer involved shootings. One I was only witness and the other I was the one shooting. Most officers think they are handy with guns, most aren't. It's easy to shoot expert on paper under no stress when people are shooting at you, coming at you with a weapon, or trying to run over you it's a different world. A lot of the bad shootings come down to ego or just panic and poor decision making. Gun play should always be last result and lots of guys either forget that or think they can get away with anything. In some areas, maybe most, that's true.

Pretty sad, that. On proficiency, this is why I believe BB earlier said that SWAT should recruit from mil spec ops. Not cause of some ninja, voodoo myth shit but because the requirements for selection and training for that mission set are so extensive most cops will never get there in the course of their career (except for perhaps some big city SWAT teams-just perhaps). Even a baby Ranger will get 1000's of rounds through his carbine in all sorts of high stress, day and night scenarios, and get punted if he can't perform, before being allowed on a platoon night raid. For beat cops, if they're gonna recruit from the military, and I see no real advantage in doing so, it should be from units that are hearts and minds types-civic affairs, cultural teams. Uniformed cops should go back to .38 Special revolvers...show me the patrol dude who thinks he *needs* a Glock and I'll show you where the mindset of 'serve and protect' has become 'self-serve and and oppress.'

Sua Sponte wrote:Pretty sad, that. On proficiency, this is why I believe BB earlier said that SWAT should recruit from mil spec ops. Not cause of some ninja, voodoo myth shit but because the requirements for selection and training for that mission set are so extensive most cops will never get there in the course of their career (except for perhaps some big city SWAT teams-just perhaps). Even a baby Ranger will get 1000's of rounds through his carbine in all sorts of high stress, day and night scenarios, and get punted if he can't perform, before being allowed on a platoon night raid. For beat cops, if they're gonna recruit from the military, and I see no real advantage in doing so, it should be from units that are hearts and minds types-civic affairs, cultural teams. Uniformed cops should go back to .38 Special revolvers...show me the patrol dude who thinks he *needs* a Glock and I'll show you where the mindset of 'serve and protect' has become 'self-serve and and oppress.'

I never stated SWAT should recruit from the military. I stated that compared to the military Spec Ops ( a group LEO SWAT tries to emulate) or even average Infantry types, SWAT was sadly lacking in skills etc. I also stated that most of them are cold blooded murders and or thugs.

Yeah, close enough. Memory. Old.

I give bats hell about special ops but in all honesty I think for SWAT and other tactical based teams they should most definetly recruit former special ops guys. It makes the most sense and they are a whole hell of a lot better trained than any LEO. No question. As far as uniformed guys, patrol, beat cops, etc, special ops could do the job with ease. It's all about being able to adapt to wearing different hats and thinking in ways other than combat. But for the most part I don't think the uniform guys need to have any military experience but it could be useful at times. The specialized units should be recruited from special ops. Most of uniform job is bullshit, aggravation, boredom. The way the job should be done and the way it is done are two different things most of the time. There are exceptions, there are honest decent cops, just very few and far between. I can't stand cops most of the time and I used to be one.

Sua Sponte wrote:Yeah, close enough. Memory. Old.

I agree with your assessment though.

We need more level headed Sheriff Andy's and a lot less Deputy Barney Fife's with delusions of grandeur.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Sua Sponte wrote:Pretty sad, that. On proficiency, this is why I believe BB earlier said that SWAT should recruit from mil spec ops. Not cause of some ninja, voodoo myth shit but because the requirements for selection and training for that mission set are so extensive most cops will never get there in the course of their career (except for perhaps some big city SWAT teams-just perhaps). Even a baby Ranger will get 1000's of rounds through his carbine in all sorts of high stress, day and night scenarios, and get punted if he can't perform, before being allowed on a platoon night raid. For beat cops, if they're gonna recruit from the military, and I see no real advantage in doing so, it should be from units that are hearts and minds types-civic affairs, cultural teams. Uniformed cops should go back to .38 Special revolvers...show me the patrol dude who thinks he *needs* a Glock and I'll show you where the mindset of 'serve and protect' has become 'self-serve and and oppress.'

I never stated SWAT should recruit from the military. I stated that compared to the military Spec Ops ( a group LEO SWAT tries to emulate) or even average Infantry types, SWAT was sadly lacking in skills etc. I also stated that most of them are cold blooded murders and or thugs.

The only thing I would slightly disagree with is the cold blooded killer part. I would say half of them are like that, about a quarter of them want to be killers but don't have it in them, and the remainder are padding a resume.

Most, not all, of the spec ops guys I know who went law enforcement later didn't hang around long. Many complaints about missing the quality of people, the mission-centric mindset, and camaraderie born of hardship-believing that's what they were gonna get and it just not being there.

I don't think my kids were ever taught to go to a policeman if they had a problem like I was as a kid.

I have some knowledge of a county-level LEO group.

They are a bunch of goofball cowboys with the moral compass of a drunken Shaf on Friday night.

T>1200 wrote:I have some knowledge of a county-level LEO group.

They are a bunch of goofball cowboys with the moral compass of a drunken Shaf on Friday night.

From my experience this accurate. County seems less competent than most city guys. I've done both and noticed that the county had a lot more good ol boys who were idiots.