Man says he was harassed while carrying gun at airport

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-02-2015, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It does seem the more we talk about different scenarios the more LEO's and Soldier's logic differ. For instance in a combat environment we are taught to present a "hard-target". Basically show them what you got. The enemy would much rather go after a target that appeared to be unable to put up a fight.

You scenario makes sense only if the bad guy is packing and packing something with some kick to it.

I actually never did respond to your other post and I should have because it was correct.  Soldiers in a combat zone live with the concept that they are likely to get shot at that day, therefore it comes as no (much less of a) surprise.  Consequently they are also shot at more often, hence they become accustomed to it.  Also, as you said, they have to conserve ammo because they have to hump it and resupply is never assured.  So yes, the professions are very different.

What you're not seeing in this instance is that criminals are not intimidated by open carry at all.  A person open carrying in a crowd of people will not be targeted just like anyone in a crowd of people would not be targeted.  A person open carrying alone, in a vulnerable position, is more likely to be targeted.  A criminals number one target for theft are firearms.  A person open carrying is essentially the same as a guy with a wad of $100 bills strapped to his forehead.  As xxlt, sarcastically, pointed out open carrying eliminates the element of surprise.  The same element of surprise that a criminal has, even against LEO's on occasion, when they pull a firearm.  Your AR15 slung over your shoulder might as well be in your gun safe when I have a glock 17 pointed at your chest because you didn't know I was armed and I knew you were.

Bottom line, open carrying in no way makes you safer, it demonstrably makes you less safe in situations in which you'd think being armed would cause the opposite and it only intimidates and discomforts the standard citizenry that aren't comfortable with guns in general.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-02-2015, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It does seem the more we talk about different scenarios the more LEO's and Soldier's logic differ. For instance in a combat environment we are taught to present a "hard-target". Basically show them what you got. The enemy would much rather go after a target that appeared to be unable to put up a fight.

You scenario makes sense only if the bad guy is packing and packing something with some kick to it.

I didn't think scouts were supposed to be seen let alone present any sort of target. 

[Bryan]

He was carrying an assault rifle. Why wouldn't the police question him?

[6andcounting]

This highlight's the TSA's belief that terrorist are out for vengeance on planes. Make sure nobody brings water or sunscreen on the plane because it might be a bomb, but don't worry about providing any security for the hundreds or thousands of people waiting in your hour long line that are compacted into a small place. They aren't in any danger, only the planes.

[*michaelsean*]

Man I hate people sometimes. Way to go tough guy. You sure showed them.

[Belsnickel]

I often wonder if people realize that doing things like this hurts their cause more than it helps. I mean, sure, he's going to be the recipient of many a back slaps and rounds of shit beer at his local watering hole because "he showed them." But the result for the majority of the country is viewing these folks as idiotic.

Just like many people like to lump the majority in with a vocal minority when it comes to religion and politics, responsible, reasonable, logical gun owners are suffering in the eyes of public opinion because of people doing things like this. Instigating confrontations with law enforcement all for the sake of proving some sort of point. If we could just leave it as only criminals do stupid things with guns purposefully, and then some accidents do happen, it would be great. But folks like this like to proclaim themselves responsible gun owners and then use their tool, because that is what a firearm is, as a prop. It makes all of us suffer when this sort of thing happens.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-03-2015, 01:01 AM)Benton Wrote: slightly off topic but made me think of it.

a few weeks ago we had a deputy carrying a non-govt issued revolver. It went off accidentally at a wedding and shot his mother in the stomach. This was a year or so after a high speed chase when the same deputy accidentally holstered his weapon and shot a fellow deputy in the foot.

I grew up in a home were firearms were openly used. I started shooting around 8 years of age. I've never shot anything except what I was aiming for. But some people, no matter how much training, can't work out their stupid.

(06-03-2015, 01:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Feel safer now?

No one feels safer with Coltsfan4ever around.

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2015, 05:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I didn't think scouts were supposed to be seen let alone present any sort of target. 

In conventional warfare you are correct; however, the current Afghanistan battlefield is far from conventional. Being seen is a part of what is required.

[Bengalzona]

(06-03-2015, 01:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Feel safer now?

Doesn't sound like he was "highly trained".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-03-2015, 03:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In conventional warfare you are correct; however, the current Afghanistan battlefield is far from conventional. Being seen is a part of what is required.

When was the last time it was conventional?

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2015, 05:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: When was the last time it was conventional?

Beginning of Desert Storm.

Thats why it took about 15 minutes.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-03-2015, 05:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Beginning of Desert Storm.

Thats why it took about 15 minutes.

A long, long time ago. . .

I thought so. 

Presenting a hard target must be an Armor thing. 

[Bengalzona]

(06-03-2015, 01:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually never did respond to your other post and I should have because it was correct.  Soldiers in a combat zone live with the concept that they are likely to get shot at that day, therefore it comes as no (much less of a) surprise.  Consequently they are also shot at more often, hence they become accustomed to it.  Also, as you said, they have to conserve ammo because they have to hump it and resupply is never assured.  So yes, the professions are very different.

What you're not seeing in this instance is that criminals are not intimidated by open carry at all.  A person open carrying in a crowd of people will not be targeted just like anyone in a crowd of people would not be targeted.  A person open carrying alone, in a vulnerable position, is more likely to be targeted.  A criminals number one target for theft are firearms.  A person open carrying is essentially the same as a guy with a wad of $100 bills strapped to his forehead.  As xxlt, sarcastically, pointed out open carrying eliminates the element of surprise.  The same element of surprise that a criminal has, even against LEO's on occasion, when they pull a firearm.  Your AR15 slung over your shoulder might as well be in your gun safe when I have a glock 17 pointed at your chest because you didn't know I was armed and I knew you were.

Bottom line, open carrying in no way makes you safer, it demonstrably makes you less safe in situations in which you'd think being armed would cause the opposite and it only intimidates and discomforts the standard citizenry that aren't comfortable with guns in general.

I was just watching a show the other day on the 1986 FBI shootout in Dade County. Eight agents got into a gunfight with two heavily armed murder/robbery suspects. One of the suspects (the other was incapacitated early in the fight) was able to keep the eight officers at bay by laying down accurate and high volume fire from a Ruger Mini-14 from his car. The suspects were eventually killed in the firefight, but two of the officers were killed and five were seriously wounded. Both of the suspects were former soldiers, one a former MP and the other a Ranger.

There was a storm of investigations after the event. The officers, who were armed with two shotguns, 3 semi-autos, and 7 revolvers, were found to be outgunned and under-armored for this type of situation. They also cited the difference in training: police have to be defensive, military is trained to be offensive.

There's been a lot of controversy lately about how heavily-armed some police forces have become. But situations like this and the infamous L.A. bank robbery are sometimes the alternatives. So, I suppose I'd rather have them more heavily armed than not.

[*bfine32*]

(06-03-2015, 06:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A long, long time ago. . .

I thought so. 

Presenting a hard target must be an Armor thing. 

Thanks for the lesson on TTPs

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-03-2015, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Thanks for the lesson on TTPs

Are you being facetious?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2015, 06:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I was just watching a show the other day on the 1986 FBI shootout in Dade County. Eight agents got into a gunfight with two heavily armed murder/robbery suspects. One of the suspects (the other was incapacitated early in the fight) was able to keep the eight officers at bay by laying down accurate and high volume fire from a Ruger Mini-14 from his car. The suspects were eventually killed in the firefight, but two of the officers were killed and five were seriously wounded. Both of the suspects were former soldiers, one a former MP and the other a Ranger.

There was a storm of investigations after the event. The officers, who were armed with two shotguns, 3 semi-autos, and 7 revolvers, were found to be outgunned and under-armored for this type of situation. They also cited the difference in training: police have to be defensive, military is trained to be offensive.

There's been a lot of controversy lately about how heavily-armed some police forces have become. But situations like this and the infamous L.A. bank robbery are sometimes the alternatives. So, I suppose I'd rather have them more heavily armed than not.

That and the North Hollywood shootout paved the way for the carrying of AR15's in some patrol cars.  I'm not a person who views having an AR15 as being heavily armed.  LAPD carries the Benelli M4 as their shotgun.  In an urban setting I'd much rather face an opponent with an AR15 than that Benelli.  I own one of each btw, so I can speak from personal experience.  Your average citizen, and this includes most legislators, don't know much if anything about guns.  The AR15 looks scary to them, therefore it most be more dangerous and military.  Ignorance is the reason for much of public opinion on this subject.

[*bfine32*]

[BmorePat87]

I would hate to be that paranoid. What an awful way to live your life.

[*bfine32*]

I am definitely a 2nd Amendment guy, but I will say this guy appears to be taking it to the extreme, However, he did say something very profound in an interview: "If you don't exercise your rights the government will take them away from you."

[GMDino]

(06-04-2015, 10:47 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would hate to be that paranoid. What an awful way to live your life.

Seriously though I'm just glad he wasn't shot and killed by the police just for carrying a gun.