Cleveland Police Ask For Emergency Suspension Of Open Carry Laws During Rep. Conv.

[*Nately120*]

(07-17-2016, 05:39 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I thought gun free zones made people less safe.

Exactly.  I see America lovin' Americans in those pics.  You know what I don't see in those pics?  ISIS.

[*Nately120*]

(07-17-2016, 06:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is kind of like when you're deployed. When you enter a secure location you clear your weapon. When you are outside a secure area you lock and load. 

BTW did you type campi for the plural of campus?

Is the singular form of scampi "scampus?"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

You guys know I'm a pro 2A person. You also know I've been consistently against open carry since forever. To me it serves no purpose, at all. The advantage a civilian carrying a firearm has is that the person trying to victimize them has no idea that they are armed. A person open carrying is basically asking someone to victimize them and not only getting their money but also their firearm. It is far quicker to act than to react. The guy with a AR, AK of whatever slung on his shoulder, or whatever handgun carried in an open holster on his hip isn't going to be able to do shit when a person puts a gun in his face. I've come close to being victimized in my private life a few times, never to the point that it actually happened because I know how to respond to the initial "feeler" questions these assholes typically use. If I'd had a gun visible in any of those situations I'd have absolutely been victimized because a firearm is guaranteed money for these guys, it's the first thing they want to steal. Bottom line, open carry is in your face and stupid. I don't live, and don't want to live, in Mogadishu.

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2016, 12:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You guys know I'm a pro 2A person. You also know I've been consistently against open carry since forever. To me it serves no purpose, at all. The advantage a civilian carrying a firearm has is that the person trying to victimize them has no idea that they are armed. A person open carrying is basically asking someone to victimize them and not only getting their money but also their firearm. It is far quicker to act than to react. The guy with a AR, AK of whatever slung on his shoulder, or whatever handgun carried in an open holster on his hip isn't going to be able to do shit when a person puts a gun in his face. I've come close to being victimized in my private life a few times, never to the point that it actually happened because I know how to respond to the initial "feeler" questions these assholes typically use. If I'd had a gun visible in any of those situations I'd have absolutely been victimized because a firearm is guaranteed money for these guys, it's the first thing they want to steal. Bottom line, open carry is in your face and stupid. I don't live, and don't want to live, in Mogadishu.

Well said.

"Excuse me Sir.... do you have the time, or a cigarette, light, a quarter, or know of the nearest gas station ?"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2016, 01:04 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Well said.

"Excuse me Sir.... do you have the time, or a cigarette, light, a quarter, or know of the nearest gas station ?"

My friend and I were coming out of the liquor store on Willoughby and Cahuenga (ish) around 10 pm and this kid came up and asked what time it was.  I went off on him, told him he had his people confused and to **** off and I'd better never see him in the area again.  He stopped, looked stunned and then turned around and left.  Most robberies begin with a question to determine, by your reaction, how difficult a victim you'll be.  A strong response pretty much always ensures a non-event.


Also, open carry is stupid. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2016, 12:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You guys know I'm a pro 2A person.  You also know I've been consistently against open carry since forever.  To me it serves no purpose, at all.  The advantage a civilian carrying a firearm has is that the person trying to victimize them has no idea that they are armed.  A person open carrying is basically asking someone to victimize them and not only getting their money but also their firearm.  It is far quicker to act than to react.  The guy with a AR, AK of whatever slung on his shoulder, or whatever handgun carried in an open holster on his hip isn't going to be able to do shit when a person puts a gun in his face.  I've come close to being victimized in my private life a few times, never to the point that it actually happened because I know how to respond to the initial "feeler" questions these assholes typically use.  If I'd had a gun visible in any of those situations I'd have absolutely been victimized because a firearm is guaranteed money for these guys, it's the first thing they want to steal.  Bottom line, open carry is in your face and stupid.  I don't live, and don't want to live, in Mogadishu.

Open carry makes you appear as a harder target. There's a local liquor store I go to to get my soda pops and every employee open carries. I can only assume they do this to discourage someone who would attempt to rob them.

Also in the Military we open carry to let you know ours is bigger than yours. 

Do I open carry as a civilian? Nope. Do I hate on those that do? No

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2016, 01:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Open carry makes you appear as a harder target. There's a local liquor store I go to to get my soda pops and every employee open carries. I can only assume they do this to discourage someone who would attempt to rob them.

Except you're not a harder target, you're a guy with a gun I know I can steal because I know you're armed.  You can't open carry and brandish, a criminal will carry concealed and then shove his gun in your face.  You have almost zero chance as an open carrier to react in a favorable way.  Simple physics, it is faster to act than react.

Quote:Also in the Military we open carry to let you know ours is bigger than yours. 

Yeah, in a potential combat zone open carry is duh.  I'd think the uniform, number of companions and heavy equipment might also be a clear clue as to your being a soldier and all.  Not quite the same situation in civilian life I'd hope you'd agree.

Quote:Do I open carry as a civilian? Nope. Do I hate on those that do? No

Hate on them?  No.  I think they do more damage to the 2A cause than they help, by far.  I think they are misguided and I also think they operate on a completely false principle.  I don't hate them though.

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2016, 01:11 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My friend and I were coming out of the liquor store on Willoughby and Cahuenga (ish) around 10 pm and this kid came up and asked what time it was.  I went off on him, told him he had his people confused and to **** off and I'd better never see him in the area again.  He stopped, looked stunned and then turned around and left.  Most robberies begin with a question to determine, by your reaction, how difficult a victim you'll be.  A strong response pretty much always ensures a non-event.


Also, open carry is stupid. 

I'm surprised I haven't been mugged and shot.
I would give them the time and when they'd whip their weapon out, I'd grin like an evil shark.
I don't know why I respond to things in that manner, but I just do.
It happens a lot when I see certain cops (depends on body language, ect..), too.
As a LEO, what is your instinct when a guy looks at you like that ?
Am *I* secretly a sociopath ?
I am being serious here, not trying to sound like an internet tough guy, ect...

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2016, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 1)Except you're not a harder target, you're a guy with a gun I know I can steal because I know you're armed.  You can't open carry and brandish, a criminal will carry concealed and then shove his gun in your face.  You have almost zero chance as an open carrier to react in a favorable way.  Simple physics, it is faster to act than react.



2)Yeah, in a potential combat zone open carry is duh.  I'd think the uniform, number of companions and heavy equipment might also be a clear clue as to your being a soldier and all.  Not quite the same situation in civilian life I'd hope you'd agree.



3)Hate on them?  No.  I think they do more damage to the 2A cause than they help, by far.  I think they are misguided and I also think they operate on a completely false principle.  I don't hate them though.

1) I didn't say which is a harder target, just simply said which makes you appear as such. Sorta like the example you used with telling the kid to scram. Presence is important.

2) Not the same situation; however the principle is

3) Replace hate with harshly critique.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2016, 01:32 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm surprised I haven't been mugged and shot.
I would give them the time and when they'd whip their weapon out, I'd grin like an evil shark.
I don't know why I respond to things in that manner, but I just do.
It happens a lot when I see certain cops (depends on body language, ect..), too.
As a LEO, what is your instinct when a guy looks at you like that ?
Am *I* secretly a sociopath ?
I am being serious here, not trying to sound like an internet tough guy, ect...

If you do this job for a significant amount of time you become an excellent student of human behavior.  I will certainly not say that I've never been wrong but I can tell within 98% accuracy whether the person in front of me is a criminal within one minute of talking to them.  I know there are those among us who are already seething with the idea that I'm prejudging or predetermining whether someone is guilty or not based on my "feeling".  To which I'd explain it's not just feeling, it's everything else plus my experience honed over many years.  I certainly won't say I've never been wrong, but I'm right a huge percentage of the time.

As to whether you're a sociopath, there's simple tests to take that will tell you this.  Do you lack empathy or flat out not conform to the norms of human behavior?  Does the suffering of others mean nothing to you?  It seems likely there are other issues at work for you.  You do get guys who react the exact opposite way you'd expect a "normal" person to react.  If you're good you vary your approach to that guy.  If you're not, prepare for a fight. 

(07-18-2016, 01:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) I didn't say which is a harder target, just simply said which makes you appear as such. Sorta like the example you used with telling the kid to scram. Presence is important.

I got that, I just disagree totally.  Having an obvious firearm in a non-ready position doesn't make you any safer than an unarmed person if someone decides to victimize you.  Your standard criminal does not expect his victim to be armed, hence concealed carry is a plus.  If they know you're armed they will simply make disarming you their first priority.  I can't tell you how much criminals look forward to stealing guns.  When robbing or burglarizing the order is thus; 1. Guns 2. Cash 3. Jewelry (gold) and 4. Cell phones then any other valuables.

Quote:2) Not the same situation; however the principle is

Again I'm forced to strongly disagree.  projecting military force is not at all the same as a lone guy walking with his AR.  A platoon, or more, of soldiers is a huge threat, one to either overwhelm with superior force or to avoid entirely.  A lone guy with an AR is an easily stolen long gun.

Quote:3) Replace hate with harshly critique.  

Eh, not to parse hairs, but not even that.  I just don't see the point, at all.  There are several of us on this board that CC, there is a definite advantage to it.  I honestly only carry about 30% of the time, usually when I walk my dog at night or very early morning.  I don't carry when I'm going to visit my sister as she has no secure place for me to store my sidearm and she has a five and three year old.  I don't carry when I go out as I'm almost certainly going to be drinking, even with dinner I always have at least one beer.  Drinking and CC is a hard no.  I've never had to fire it, only pulled it twice in sixteen years and one was to potentially shoot at a coyote pack that was stalking me and my 13 pound jack russel at 5 am.

Lastly, for those interested, I carry a CZ RAMI BD in 9mm in a nice IWB holster at 3 o'clock for CC.  I prefer hammer fired pistols and am a huge CZ fanboy.  A bit heavier than your polymer pistols but I prefer the low sight picture and I'm not a small guy so the weight doesn't bother me.

[NATI BENGALS]

GOP took our guns? Wtf.

Plan. Im going to rob somebody.

Option A. Dude has a shotgun.
Option B. Dude doesnt have a shotgun.
The guy with the shotgun would get selected 98% less often than the guy without one. Just making up stats here. But I know they are right.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2016, 06:05 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: GOP took our guns? Wtf.

Plan. Im going to rob somebody.

Option A. Dude has a shotgun.
Option B. Dude doesnt have a shotgun.
The guy with the shotgun would get selected 98% less often than the guy without one. Just making up stats here. But I know they are right.

They aren't as I explained above.  An open carrier cannot legally have his fire arm in a position of immediate use.  Option A just has another thing I can steal from him that I value more than money.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I do have a firearm, but I never carry it, except on occasion to the range. Never felt the need to carry it, in fact only felt like it would just invite trouble rather than prevent it. If you're a law abiding citizen and CC, it's fine with me but these idiots that go around open carrying look like monumental D-bags IMO. And the only reason they do it is to intimidate, and make people feel uncomfortable and of course because they can. The only time in my life that I open carried was while standing watch in the Navy.

Trying to stay on topic I think it's a reasonable request police are making. No reason people need to be walking around with firearms on display in a very intense, volatile, and politically charged atmosphere. It's politics, emotions will already be running high, why would you want to add fire arms to the mix?

[Au165]

The issue here isn't the idea, I actually agree with it, the issue here is the precedent. If you are willing to suspend certain rights on request, where is the line drawn? If you are willing to suspend rights at the request of a specific political party, where is the line drawn?

I am actually anti 2nd amendment as I don't think it fits in our world today. I am however pro constitution, and I think you can't start randomly trying to decide when to suspend and enforce constitutional rights through. It's a slippery slope we can't start down.

[McC]

(07-18-2016, 12:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: The issue here isn't the idea, I actually agree with it, the issue here is the precedent. If you are willing to suspend certain rights on request, where is the line drawn? If you are willing to suspend rights at the request of a specific political party, where is the line drawn?

I am actually anti 2nd amendment as I don't think it fits in our world today. I am however pro constitution, and I think you can't start randomly trying to decide when to suspend and enforce constitutional rights through. It's a slippery slope we can't start down.

I'd say qhwn public safety and the greater good is at stake.  This is hardly a move toward fascism.

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2016, 02:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you do this job for a significant amount of time you become an excellent student of human behavior.  I will certainly not say that I've never been wrong but I can tell within 98% accuracy whether the person in front of me is a criminal within one minute of talking to them.  I know there are those among us who are already seething with the idea that I'm prejudging or predetermining whether someone is guilty or not based on my "feeling".  To which I'd explain it's not just feeling, it's everything else plus my experience honed over many years.  I certainly won't say I've never been wrong, but I'm right a huge percentage of the time.

As to whether you're a sociopath, there's simple tests to take that will tell you this.  Do you lack empathy or flat out not conform to the norms of human behavior?  Does the suffering of others mean nothing to you?  It seems likely there are other issues at work for you.  You do get guys who react the exact opposite way you'd expect a "normal" person to react.  If you're good you vary your approach to that guy.  If you're not, prepare for a fight. 

Nah... I pass all of those tests.
I care about people and go out of my way to resolve conflict.
I guess I just have hyper-vigilant perception and pick up on a person, like you described, and my machismo kicks in...lol
I'll back you up on reading people.
It's something that comes with experience and working with the public.
I could be a killer used car salesman.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 02:07 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you do this job for a significant amount of time you become an excellent student of human behavior.  I will certainly not say that I've never been wrong but I can tell within 98% accuracy whether the person in front of me is a criminal within one minute of talking to them.  I know there are those among us who are already seething with the idea that I'm prejudging or predetermining whether someone is guilty or not based on my "feeling".  To which I'd explain it's not just feeling, it's everything else plus my experience honed over many years.  I certainly won't say I've never been wrong, but I'm right a huge percentage of the time.

Just curious, but how do you know the criminal history of every person you speak with?

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2016, 12:26 PM)Au165 Wrote: The issue here isn't the idea, I actually agree with it, the issue here is the precedent. If you are willing to suspend certain rights on request, where is the line drawn? If you are willing to suspend rights at the request of a specific political party, where is the line drawn?

I am actually anti 2nd amendment as I don't think it fits in our world today. I am however pro constitution, and I think you can't start randomly trying to decide when to suspend and enforce constitutional rights through. It's a slippery slope we can't start down.

What if it were not viewed as suspending the 2nd amendment, but declaring temporary martial law in a small sector, for public safety ?
I'm not sure if that's a feasible thing, but....

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 06:05 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: GOP took our guns? Wtf.

Plan. Im going to rob somebody.

Option A. Dude has a shotgun.
Option B. Dude doesnt have a shotgun.
The guy with the shotgun would get selected 98% less often than the guy without one. Just making up stats here. But I know they are right.

Actually the guy with the shotgun will probably get robbed more often because criminals like to steal guns.


Here is another situation for you. You are about to commit a mass shooting. Who do you shoot first, the gun with the shotgun or the guy with no gun?

[Au165]

(07-18-2016, 01:01 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: What if it were not viewed as suspending the 2nd amendment, but declaring temporary martial law in a small sector, for public safety ?
I'm not sure if that's a feasible thing, but....

What if we need to declare martial law in the name of public safety down the road? What rights are we going to be okay with suspending temporarily? We have already seen this to some extent with the NSA. I think if you start creating loopholes to meet one specific need you open the opportunity for the next.

I actually tend to be the guy not scared of the big bad government, but I think the idea that someone can ask, and then can suspend whatever right they want is a bad idea. You can literally use public safety to justify almost anything.