Rob Pincus (ICE) and James Yeager (Tactical Response) on Open Carry

[the1kidd03]

... says the *monkey*.

 

[the1kidd03]

I don't know -- you're the one who brought it up. On what did you base your statement? Rectal extraction? I was hoping that there was SOMETHING behind your statement, or something more than, "Gee, I think I'd be less careful if were CCing, so I'm going to project that CCers are less aware, in general..." If that was it, ok, but could have been phrased better. It's normally the OCers slamming the [anti-OC]CCers for posting "facts" that actually have little or no data behind them.



Just a point for the future, make a note that it was an OC-activist who compared OCing to gay rights. For the record, I'm all for both, but neither is MY choice.

Had a 1st Sgt that liked to walk by Pvt's and ask, "How's that rectal cranium insertion going for ya? Did you get it fixed yet?"

LMAO...the look on their faces was priceless. Then after a second or two of trying to figure out he would say, "It means get your head out of you a**!" Every time, never failed.

 

[JetGirl]

... says the *monkey*.

 

[the1kidd03]

Wow, that's a very "human like" monkey face/smile. LOL

 

[Hayseed_40]

Of course, cops are routinely killed by their own firearms each year due to the retention issues inherent in OC. As others have posted, tradition and the nature of uniformed carry explain police OC. However, as a nonuniformed carrier, I personally prefer CC. You never hear of someone properly CCing who loses retention of their firearm before they can present it. If they did...well they wouldn't have been CCing.

Also, I'm OCing right now...at home. Because a home invader should expect that I am armed anyway, thus losing key benefits of CCing.

According to the FBI, between 1994-2003, 661 LEOs were killed. Of that 52 were killed with their own gun (that is 8%).

Now they did not measure at what point the gun was taken (while in retention or after presentation) but it seems to be while in the holster.

 

[the1kidd03]

According to the FBI, between 1994-2003, 661 LEOs were killed. Of that 52 were killed with their own gun (that is 8%).

Now they did not measure at what point the gun was taken (while in retention or after presentation) but it seems to be while in the holster.

8% of officers KILLED. Measure that number (52) against total officers to get a realistic comparison of the likelihood of it happening. Also, statistics are incredibly skewed anyhow. We don't know the circumstances surrounding those numbers. "Killed with their own gun" could have been suicide for all anyone knows. That is the problem with specific statistics. Regardless, 52 officers out the probably Millions in the country is hardly sufficient enough risk to use as basis argument against OC. Even more so because officers are targeted by criminals because of the nature of their behavior, they already hate them so wearing the uniform makes them a target, not necessarily the gun.

Additionally, those numbers are over a NINE years span!! Depending on how many LEO's there are in the country, I would assume that you have less than 1% chance of being targeted for your gun (EVEN LEO's.) Translating into a 99.9% chance of never being attacked for your firearms.

 

[Hayseed_40]

Agreed - statistics can be over rated and can be used to make any point you want look good - even yours

 

[the1kidd03]

Agreed - statistics can be over rated and can be used to make any point you want look good - even yours

Be my guest?

 

[Hayseed_40]

Be my guest?

Are you inviting me to dinner? I do not understand your question.

 

[the1kidd03]

Agreed - statistics can be over rated and can be used to make any point you want look good - even yours

Are you inviting me to dinner? I do not understand your question.

I wasn't clear on what you meant regarding "my" statistics because I have not quoted any here. I was "inviting" you to elaborate on your statement. Assuming you meant you had a point to disagree with mine?

 

[Hayseed_40]

I wasn't clear on what you meant regarding "my" statistics because I have not quoted any here. I was "inviting" you to elaborate on your statement. Assuming you meant you had a point to disagree with mine?

Ok good - I thought maybe you were hitting on me...

Did not think you quoted any statistics - meant the general "you" can use statistics to prove any point you want.

 

[Caleb]

Are you inviting me to dinner? I do not understand your question.

I think he is telling you to prove your point

 

[Hayseed_40]

I think he is telling you to prove your point

What point? Did not know we were arguing a point?

Somebody asked for proof about LEO and their own guns. I posted a statistic. It is what it is - you can use it to further your point or you can dispute it to further your other point.

 

[the1kidd03]

Ok good - I thought maybe you were hitting on me...

Did not think you quoted any statistics - meant the general "you" can use statistics to prove any point you want.

Ah! Agreed.

But I think there is quite a bit of value to be gotten from them, it's just important to remember all the possibilities when reviewing them as well as WHO created them and what they're based on.

 

[KG1]

I would just like to say that there is no point to this post and I have no statistics to back it up.

 

[88GT]

But why did Cops START open carrying in the first place?

I'd argue that LE has ALWAYS OCd. In part because it was a societal norm. It wasn't just limited to LE. Even the lowly plebes were "allowed" to OC without fear of intimidation or scathing judgment by their fellow man. The only reason LE continues to OC now is because the recognized benefits of doing so have been an acceptable justification for exempting LE from the "oh, hide yer guns" craze.

I was, myself, wondering how many OC'ers (or even CC'ers) were alienated by the video; enough so as to not take any of their classes. Probably no good way to measure it.

You can count me as one.

 

[the1kidd03]

What point? Did not know we were arguing a point?

Somebody asked for proof about LEO and their own guns. I posted a statistic. It is what it is - you can use it to further your point or you can dispute it to further your other point.

Let's play with the numbers a tad. *This is not actual numbers/statistics. Merely a hypothetical representation to skew EXISTING statistics in FAVOR of the CC argument.*
By the numbers you provided (52 officers killed with their own gun) and a quick google question (800,000 LEO in the US), lets consider the very vague possibilities. For ease of numbers lets round that 52 to an even 100, and base the figures off of a SINGLE year. This will DRASTICALLY alter the numbers IN FAVOR of the CC argument. We will however subtract say...20 to account for the possibility of other factors (deviation from criminal attacking the officer for his gun.) This gives us 80 LEO's killed PER year with their own gun weighted against 800,000 LEO's in the US. That is roughly 1/100th OF A SINGLE PERCENT chance of being targeted for your OC sidearm. Now, consider that LEO's are targeted for wearing a badge rather than their gun specifically. What this means is that in REALITY, an average citizen has GREATER than a 99.9% chance of NEVER being targeted specifically for OC'ing a sidearm, no matter HOW you look at it.

There is simply NO sufficient evidence to support this argument.

 

[KG1]

Let's play with the numbers a tad. *This is not actual numbers/statistics. Merely a hypothetical representation to skew EXISTING statistics in FAVOR of the CC argument.*
By the numbers you provided (52 officers killed with their own gun) and a quick google question (800,000 LEO in the US), lets consider the very vague possibilities. For ease of numbers lets round that 52 to an even 100, and base the figures off of a SINGLE year. This will DRASTICALLY alter the numbers IN FAVOR of the CC argument. We will however subtract say...20 to account for the possibility of other factors (deviation from criminal attacking the officer for his gun.) This gives us 80 LEO's killed PER year with their own gun weighted against 800,000 LEO's in the US. That is roughly 1/100th OF A SINGLE PERCENT chance of being targeted for your OC sidearm. Now, consider that LEO's are targeted for wearing a badge rather than their gun specifically. What this means is that in REALITY, an average citizen has GREATER than a 99.9% chance of NEVER being targeted specifically for OC'ing a sidearm, no matter HOW you look at it.

There is simply NO sufficient evidence to support this argument.

Well just to play devil's advocate here I believe one could argue that a CC'rs chance of being specifically targeted and killed for and with their own firearm would be even less than an OC'er.

But on the other hand I know that you are just supplying numbers to prove that statistically an OC'ers chances are quite minimal as well. Therefore that argument against OC does'nt carry much weight.

 

[the1kidd03]

Well just to play devil's advocate here I believe one could argue that a CC'rs chance of being specifically targeted and killed for and with their own firearm would be even less than an OC'er.

But on the other hand I know that you are just supplying numbers to prove that statistically an OC'ers chances are quite minimal as well. Therefore that argument against OC does'nt carry much weight.

I understand. I was merely trying to show how WORTHLESS that entire point is for either side of the fence. Thanks for the help in that though.

 

[Caleb]

What point? Did not know we were arguing a point?

Somebody asked for proof about LEO and their own guns. I posted a statistic. It is what it is - you can use it to further your point or you can dispute it to further your other point.

Let's play with the numbers a tad. *This is not actual numbers/statistics. Merely a hypothetical representation to skew EXISTING statistics in FAVOR of the CC argument.*
By the numbers you provided (52 officers killed with their own gun) and a quick google question (800,000 LEO in the US), lets consider the very vague possibilities. For ease of numbers lets round that 52 to an even 100, and base the figures off of a SINGLE year. This will DRASTICALLY alter the numbers IN FAVOR of the CC argument. We will however subtract say...20 to account for the possibility of other factors (deviation from criminal attacking the officer for his gun.) This gives us 80 LEO's killed PER year with their own gun weighted against 800,000 LEO's in the US. That is roughly 1/100th OF A SINGLE PERCENT chance of being targeted for your OC sidearm. Now, consider that LEO's are targeted for wearing a badge rather than their gun specifically. What this means is that in REALITY, an average citizen has GREATER than a 99.9% chance of NEVER being targeted specifically for OC'ing a sidearm, no matter HOW you look at it.

There is simply NO sufficient evidence to support this argument.

...this point. Funny thing is, my mom and sister went Columbus PD citizen gun training class, and was told they should never OC a gun because... *gasp* ...you might terrorize people and get your gun taken from you. Question...do you or have you personally known anybody who got their gun taken from them and used against them(or stolen) while it was holstered on their person? The media being anti-OC(or anti-guns for that matter), report anybody who opened carried had their gun stolen and/or used against them while was holstered?

In recent history, I can't recall any cases...