Man says he was harassed while carrying gun at airport

[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.