Guns make people overconfident.

[HighKick]

The years I spent as a cop, hanging around other cops and having cops as friends had a major effect on my ideas of threat analysis and self defense. Any martial artist regardless of skill is still the underdog against a knife attack. I always have a knife(s) and a cane with me outside the house, but I'm under no illusion I could prevail in such situations.

A concealed firearm is the best weapon for defense normally available to the average civilian. One should never under any circumstances allow those around him to discover he's "packin' heat". There are those who would then push the carrier just to see what it would take to make him pull the pistol. Anyone who carries needs to know they'll likely have to take abuse in this situation, up to and including a fist. Since a firearm should never be drawn unless it is to be fired or the decision to be ready to fire it already made, it is vital that life or severe injury be at stake. Otherwise prosecution/jail time awaits. Being so armed is like being presented with the "nuclear option". What would it take to turn (words/threats) into life or death.

I agree with a concealed weapon being the best weapon for the average, non-trained civilian. But I also agree, this can be where things can go wrong, and some people get a false sense of over-confidence without understanding the consequences.
In contrast, a person with good MA's, SD, or combat experiences has a much better understanding of the consequences. At the very least in the short term.

Can most any person be trained to carry responsibly? Yes, I think so. Are there outliers in virtually everything? Absolutely. Something we cannot 100% factor out no matter how hard we try to regulate through government action, etc...
I often see this in programming. The more complicated the process, the greater the possibility for unexpected results.

Worrying about 'taking abuse' is very much the counter-logic to concealed carry being better than open carry. If a person carrying concealed is going to get rattled just because someone discovers they are carrying, then maybe they should not carry in the first place. Or they need more training, experience, and/or reason to carry.

There is a deep, deep responsibility when carrying, far more than the 'opinion' of others. You make a great point about when a gun should be drawn, but there is an immense difference between carrying and drawing.

And let's be real, carrying a weapon is Not analogous to a nuclear option.

 

[HighKick]

There are those people who can handle firearms responsibly. I believe they're the exception rather than the rule.

I own guns. Been around them all my life. Carried long guns and pistols as part of my job. I'm a collector. Love guns.

I do not choose to arm myself outside my home. The reason is that I don't need to.

I agree with you here Bill.

We grew up borderline subsistence living. Hunting was a large of our daily intake, along with raising a large garden and livestock. We even ground our own flower and corn meal.

I was a LEO for some time, so I am comfortable with carrying a sidearm.
I taught MA's for over 30-years and always emphasized the stark dividing line between injury when using SD and killing.

Carrying a longarm is still more natural to me than carrying a pistol. But, of course walking around the mall with a longarm would be a bit of an inconvenience and one h*** of a distraction. Not to mention the consequences.

I have had a carry permit since I left law enforcement (even though most states do not require it anymore), but I seldom carry. It is very situation dependent since I live in a relative safe part of the country (but it is definitely getting worse).
For example, If I buy something off Marketplace and know I am going to a sketchy area to pick it up, heck yes, I carry.

BUT, I practice shooting regularly and keep my shooting/carry skills up to date. This is one difference and Yes, one requirement that should be federally mandated for carrying. Qualification should be an annual requirement. IMHO

 

[gyoja]

one requirement that should be federally mandated for carrying. Qualification should be an annual requirement. IMHO

I agree with everything but this.

 

[Hot Lunch]

BUT, I practice shooting regularly and keep my shooting/carry skills up to date. This is one difference and Yes, one requirement that should be federally mandated for carrying. Qualification should be an annual requirement. IMHO

93% of self-defense shootings occur between 3 to 7 yards. Police officers and military are more likely to be in situations in which they'd have to shoot from longer distances, because they're actually in pursuit of people who may be armed. Civilians are not. A gun qualification requirement makes more sense for LE and military than for civilians.

 

[Dirty Dog]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

I'm going to put this in simple terms so there can be no misunderstanding.
Political debate is not allowed here at MartialTalk.
If you want to discuss what IS/IS NOT allowed, that's fine. But if you want to discuss what SHOULD/SHOULD NOT be allowed, then it's time to take it elsewhere.
This thread is on the verge of being locked and, potentially, action being taken against accounts. I strongly suggest all political discussion end right now.

Mark A. Cochran
@Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator

 

[drop bear]

I agree with everything but this.

Which I find fascinating. This staunch defence of irresponsible carry.

 

[gyoja]

Which I find fascinating. This staunch defence of irresponsible carry.

Which is clearly your opinion, and not a fact. As per the moderator, I agree that this thread has drifted into the realm of politics, so I will leave it.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I need to vent about this because I've been noticing this mentality way too much. At least in the us there is a concerning amount of people who seem to believe that they are invincible the moment you put a gun in their hands or at the very least have a inflated sense of over-confidence.

Saying things like "Smith-wesson made men equal" no they didn't, not against people who actually know what they are doing. All it's done is given you a false sense of security.

Plus there the fact that bullet proof clothing is getting better and better as well as knowing how guns work and what their general weaknesses are.

This just feels like another case of people who want power but aren't willing to put any effort into doing so. You are not anybody's equal just because you have a gun, if someone really wants to hurt you and they know you got that, all that means is they they have to plan ahead.

It just seems short sighted and ignorant.

You are partially right in that most people who own guns in the USA aren't competent with them even if they think they are, and this includes lots of police officers and military personnel who you would think would be more competent then the average person. The fact of the matter though is in the USA, lots of people will buy a gun, buy some bullets, shoot maybe one box of ammo at the range, and then stash it in their closet where it will collect dust and they will think they're all set. Most American gun owners fall under the category of U.I. which stands for Unintentionally Incompetent, they're incompetent and they don't know it. Too many people just don't get the proper training.

 

[HighKick]

You are partially right in that most people who own guns in the USA aren't competent with them even if they think they are, and this includes lots of police officers and military personnel who you would think would be more competent then the average person. The fact of the matter though is in the USA, lots of people will buy a gun, buy some bullets, shoot maybe one box of ammo at the range, and then stash it in their closet where it will collect dust and they will think they're all set. Most American gun owners fall under the category of U.I. which stands for Unintentionally Incompetent, they're incompetent and they don't know it. Too many people just don't get the proper training.

Granted, we are talking about a lethal weapon, but how is this different from any other skill?

UI is a courtroom saying that has not proven itself out as a defense.

I cannot agree with your comment about LEO being as untrained as the average person.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I cannot agree with your comment about LEO being as untrained as the average person.

Just because they're more trained than the average person doesn't mean they're competent.

 

[HighKick]

Just because they're more trained than the average person doesn't mean they're competent.

For sure, but the availability and requirements of training is going to significantly increase the average for competency.
You can expand your train of thought to things done daily. Almost every adult drive a vehicle, but some are surely better than others even though they both get the same amount of 'training'.

 

[Dirty Dog]

For sure, but the availability and requirements of training is going to significantly increase the average for competency.
You can expand your train of thought to things done daily. Almost every adult drive a vehicle, but some are surely better than others even though they both get the same amount of 'training'.

I'm not sure the highlighted statement is really true. As with other activities, many (most?) people who are on the right hand side of the bell curve are there specifically because they've made an effort to be there. And I suspect that the further out from the "average" one gets, the more likely this is to be true.

 

[PhotonGuy]

For sure, but the availability and requirements of training is going to significantly increase the average for competency.
You can expand your train of thought to things done daily. Almost every adult drive a vehicle, but some are surely better than others even though they both get the same amount of 'training'.

There are more adults that drive vehicles than there are that shoot guns and I don't know what the exact percentage is but Im not sure if most adults have even fired a gun much less gotten any formal training. Therefore you could say that the average person gets close to zero if not zero firearms training. To be a police officer it does require some firearms training but the mandatory training they do receive is very marginal. There is so much more stuff you've got to know if you're going to be a police officer so you're not going to get much mandatory firearms training as there is so much other stuff that you have to be taught.

Take for instance the recent shooting in Charlotte, North Carolina where four officers were killed by a gunman. Although they did get the gunman they did so at the cost of four of their own. This was really sad and my condolences go out to the friends and family of the officers but I do wish they required more firearms training at their departments. Extra firearms training should especially be required in a city such as Charlotte which is one of the roughest cities in the USA, if not the world.

 

[gyoja]

There are more adults that drive vehicles than there are that shoot guns and I don't know what the exact percentage is but Im not sure if most adults have even fired a gun much less gotten any formal training. Therefore you could say that the average person gets close to zero if not zero firearms training. To be a police officer it does require some firearms training but the mandatory training they do receive is very marginal. There is so much more stuff you've got to know if you're going to be a police officer so you're not going to get much mandatory firearms training as there is so much other stuff that you have to be taught.

Take for instance the recent shooting in Charlotte, North Carolina where four officers were killed by a gunman. Although they did get the gunman they did so at the cost of four of their own. This was really sad and my condolences go out to the friends and family of the officers but I do wish they required more firearms training at their departments. Extra firearms training should especially be required in a city such as Charlotte which is one of the roughest cities in the USA, if not the world.

Charlotte is not even close to one of the roughest cities in the world. You should visit Mogadishu.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Just because they're more trained than the average person doesn't mean they're competent.

What do you consider competent? And what qualifies you to make that determination?

 

[HighKick]

There are more adults that drive vehicles than there are that shoot guns and I don't know what the exact percentage is but Im not sure if most adults have even fired a gun much less gotten any formal training. Therefore you could say that the average person gets close to zero if not zero firearms training. To be a police officer it does require some firearms training but the mandatory training they do receive is very marginal. There is so much more stuff you've got to know if you're going to be a police officer so you're not going to get much mandatory firearms training as there is so much other stuff that you have to be taught.

Take for instance the recent shooting in Charlotte, North Carolina where four officers were killed by a gunman. Although they did get the gunman they did so at the cost of four of their own. This was really sad and my condolences go out to the friends and family of the officers but I do wish they required more firearms training at their departments. Extra firearms training should especially be required in a city such as Charlotte which is one of the roughest cities in the USA, if not the world.

Your argument certainly has merit, but for example, how do you say, "that is enough training"? How do you train every server (which is sometimes a civilian's role) the same as say the Marshall's task force?
The N.C. incident was a terrible occurrence, but a good example of what LE officers sign up for (to protect and serve). And something Way too many people have forgot or have never known.
There is a very, very factual 90% - 10% law in law enforcement; 90% of the time you may not appear be doing very much work, but that 10% can truly be life or death in the drop of a hat.

I wasn't there, so I am certainly not going to throw stones about how it went down, but clearly, the assailant was reinforced and barriered in and prepared for an encounter, and mentally ready for the confrontation.

Too often, people who have never been to war or studied history enough have a grasp of first line of defense and the steep increasing odds of severe encounter, just have no sense of the high-risk duties of an officer. Even when they are off duty or 'just' serving a warrant.

 

[HighKick]

I'm not sure the highlighted statement is really true. As with other activities, many (most?) people who are on the right hand side of the bell curve are there specifically because they've made an effort to be there. And I suspect that the further out from the "average" one gets, the more likely this is to be true.

I clearly did not say it very well, but what I meant with the driving inference was that every driver is getting real world experience and 'training' every day. Yes, that would be a self-learning experience, but we do have traffic laws and police to guide us.

I fully agree with the extra effort it takes to be on the right side of the curve.

 

[Steve]

Your argument certainly has merit, but for example, how do you say, "that is enough training"? How do you train every server (which is sometimes a civilian's role) the same as say the Marshall's task force?
The N.C. incident was a terrible occurrence, but a good example of what LE officers sign up for (to protect and serve). And something Way too many people have forgot or have never known.
There is a very, very factual 90% - 10% law in law enforcement; 90% of the time you may not appear be doing very much work, but that 10% can truly be life or death in the drop of a hat.

I wasn't there, so I am certainly not going to throw stones about how it went down, but clearly, the assailant was reinforced and barriered in and prepared for an encounter, and mentally ready for the confrontation.

Too often, people who have never been to war or studied history enough have a grasp of first line of defense and the steep increasing odds of severe encounter, just have no sense of the high-risk duties of an officer. Even when they are off duty or 'just' serving a warrant.

I appreciate your post and what you’re saying. But you swerved a lot at the end. Do you think cops are at war? That’s a pretty alarming proposition.

 

[drop bear]

I appreciate your post and what you’re saying. But you swerved a lot at the end. Do you think cops are at war? That’s a pretty alarming proposition.

In that context he has a point. Because to win a war you go in battles you can win.

Which cops notoriously don't. And that is how things escalate

 

[HighKick]

I appreciate your post and what you’re saying. But you swerved a lot at the end. Do you think cops are at war? That’s a pretty alarming proposition.

Certainly not!!! But many of the precepts overlap.

Maybe I would have worded it better if I had used the words physical confrontation instead of war.