MyE28.com

BDK wrote:"Rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells"...

Matt wrote:Arm the good guys; teach them to stand up to the bad guys. .

Now theres a picture I find offensive.

giantdouche.jpg

ldsbeaker wrote:

BDK wrote:"Rally around the family, with a pocket full of shells"...

Matt wrote:Arm the good guys; teach them to stand up to the bad guys. .

He's from down the street from me.

turbodan wrote:Now theres a picture I find offensive.

giantdouche.jpg

Sorry. Couldn't stop myself.

Matt wrote:

bojangles wrote:I appreciate your explanation of what I was trying to say in too few words.

But to add just a few more.... "Shoot first, ask questions later" is pretty different than "innocent until PROVEN guilty"

Even the bad guys are not always bad. I bet most of the (enraged, drunk, high, "poorly raised" or other problems) would prefer to have been given a second chance.

If you shoot a person you dont know... how is that any differnt than them shooting you? (except you might live instead of them)

Right. Now that we've established your point of view and explained it better, I'll come back with:

I think you're wrong

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the agents of the state who are attempting to determine what is going on without the time pressures of a life-threatening crime in progress.

If there is an active shooter the cops don't hesitate to start blasting anything and anybody.

If I see a guy who's about to double-tap an officer who is face down on the sideof the road, I'm going to assume that the officer was at least a little bit of the good guy, and that the shooter is the bad guy.

Officers don't have magic moral authoirty in my world; hell, many of them are considerably less moral than I am.

LIke I said, I understand people who don't feel comfortable making judgements in dicey situations; I understand people who do not clearly see good and evil through a monochromatic lens.

I also think that they are wrong and dangerous to the rest of society

People who are holding an innocent person at gunpoint don't necessarily get a second chance. I don't care about their upbringing or chemical habits or anything else. There is a black and white line and if you hop onto the other side of it, you're done for this world.

My preference would be to arm absolutely everyone, give them some remedial training in right vs. wrong, and then wait. My contention is that the people with poor impulse control, unstable mental states, bad tempers, etc, who draw or use their weapon inappropriately, would end up getting killed by groups of armed citizens who were on the scene already.

This would die down (ha ha) after a few months. And it would be a good thing for everyone.

I expect people to behave appropriately and responsibly, and I expect people who cannot abide by that to be corrected quickly and with extreme prejudice. And I will tolerate no restriction of the rights and priviledges of free people in an attempt to make the broken/damaged people less dangerous.

Ideally, the cops would sit around with nothing to do, because people stopped being stupid in public, and the people that didn't get stopped in-situ, and if they survived (many of them will, since shots wont even be fired), hopefully that serves as their "come to jesus" moment and they stop being stupid in public in the future.

Arm the good guys; teach them to stand up to the bad guys. Then its Miller time.

I like the way you explain things.

If anyone has ever gotten to know any Swiss guys living in Switzerland, they would lean this:
EVERY living Male between the ages of 18 and (55?) must report to military service. They are paid by their employer during their training and after (xx) months they return to their workplace. They again must return for annual training and keep up their skills and knowledge.

Crazy guys are weeded out during this, and at the end of the first training, EVERY SANE male returns home with a fully automatic weapon, and ammunition.
The effect is that virtually every single house, - every window in an appartment tower, city, suburb and countryside is fully armed with automatic weapons.

This is the other side of the coin, nearly100% automatic weapon ownership.

Crime and gun issues are low there... and the bad guys dont have access to guns. The military has complete authority over gun ownership. you must have military approval to have hunting weapons too.

I just dont like the "everyone git a gun and fend fer themselves" - I prefer a level of control over the gun use, not reckless renegades.

As far as concealed carry, I strongly recommend it to anyone who has the legal ability to. Most people will never need it... but it only takes once not being prepared for it. I like .380 personally. When I'm wearing a jacket I carry a Beretta 84FS, and in the summer months I carry a Sig P238. Right after I got the P238 they announced the P938 though... which is pocket pistol of almost identical size in 9mm. I'll be upgrading whenever I get the money.

I've only needed a gun for human repellent once, and didn't even fire a shot. The site of a gun is enough to make most perps back off.

As far as coming to the rescue of a cop... I'd highly discourage it. Unless you're in some sort of official uniform then you're just another guy with a gun. I'm not saying you should never help a cop... but most of the time you're going to be better off letting them handle their own business.

WildKarrde wrote: As far as coming to the rescue of a cop... I'd highly discourage it. Unless you're in some sort of official uniform then you're just another guy with a gun. I'm not saying you should never help a cop... but most of the time you're going to be better off letting them handle their own business.

The whole "rescue a cop" scenario is a little far fetched. In retrospect I should have kept my mouth shut re. my thought, as I drove by, that the cop look awful darn lonely.

I believe strongly that one should wargame all high tension scenarios tho. You're going to ask a girl on a date, you wargame scenarios. You walking down the street with your kid, you wargame a pitbull coming out of no where scenario(*). You live in our society, you wargame various thug scenarios.

The reason a person should wargame scenarios is that should something along those lines actually occur, you can start doing something useful faster. Having already wargamed a similar scenario helps you speed thru the "standing there with your jaw agape" phase when something happens. Maybe it's the girl you've been eyeing, to your shock walks up to you and says "hello". Or maybe you are driving by and see a car racing away from a downed cop, which again is a pretty low probability scenario.

As someone said, cops, for their own safety, must take complete control of their area. So if one is wargaming "aid the cop", you have to be outside of their, lets call it a "zone of concern". If you are inside that zone than you become something for them to be concerned about, and that's no help.

The zone of concern is situational. Maybe its 30m, maybe it's 60m, you just have to make a judgement call. If the cop is down, maybe it would work to run towards him with weapon drawn. But if the cop is conscious, running towards him with a gun drawn will just get you shot. That would be Evolution weeding knuckleheads out of the gene pool. If the cop is down chances are the bad guys are busy E&Eing and the most useful thing you could do is get on your cell phone or his radio and ask dispatch for some help.

If any scenario where the cop is unhurt but in some danger, the likelihood that they would want your armed help is pretty close to zero. To the cop you'd be just some unpredictable wildcard in a situation where they're trying their damndest to gain control. That's why, when wargaming "help the cop", you stay back far enough away that you're not a concern.

(*) The pitbull attack that comes out of nowhere happened right in front of me 7-8yrs ago. A lady and her little kid were walking down our street with their leashed dog. That sort of thing happens all day long around here. Renters a couple doors down had a friend visiting. Friend brought pitbull. Pitbull came flying out of no where and attacked the 3, mostly the dog. I'd ever seen a more ferocious dog than that pitbull. It was trying to kill the leashed medium sized dog. Was pretty damned frightening. I've never forgotten how entirely useless I was when that occurred. Of course I was unarmed. But what I'd have needed was a baseball bat, not a pistol. Then again, a baseball bat might have just made it mad. I think I would have had to hit that pitbull with a truck to really slow it down.

bojangles wrote:

Matt wrote:

bojangles wrote:I appreciate your explanation of what I was trying to say in too few words.

But to add just a few more.... "Shoot first, ask questions later" is pretty different than "innocent until PROVEN guilty"

Even the bad guys are not always bad. I bet most of the (enraged, drunk, high, "poorly raised" or other problems) would prefer to have been given a second chance.

If you shoot a person you dont know... how is that any differnt than them shooting you? (except you might live instead of them)

Right. Now that we've established your point of view and explained it better, I'll come back with:

I think you're wrong

Innocent until proven guilty applies to the agents of the state who are attempting to determine what is going on without the time pressures of a life-threatening crime in progress.

If there is an active shooter the cops don't hesitate to start blasting anything and anybody.

If I see a guy who's about to double-tap an officer who is face down on the sideof the road, I'm going to assume that the officer was at least a little bit of the good guy, and that the shooter is the bad guy.

Officers don't have magic moral authoirty in my world; hell, many of them are considerably less moral than I am.

LIke I said, I understand people who don't feel comfortable making judgements in dicey situations; I understand people who do not clearly see good and evil through a monochromatic lens.

I also think that they are wrong and dangerous to the rest of society

People who are holding an innocent person at gunpoint don't necessarily get a second chance. I don't care about their upbringing or chemical habits or anything else. There is a black and white line and if you hop onto the other side of it, you're done for this world.

My preference would be to arm absolutely everyone, give them some remedial training in right vs. wrong, and then wait. My contention is that the people with poor impulse control, unstable mental states, bad tempers, etc, who draw or use their weapon inappropriately, would end up getting killed by groups of armed citizens who were on the scene already.

This would die down (ha ha) after a few months. And it would be a good thing for everyone.

I expect people to behave appropriately and responsibly, and I expect people who cannot abide by that to be corrected quickly and with extreme prejudice. And I will tolerate no restriction of the rights and priviledges of free people in an attempt to make the broken/damaged people less dangerous.

Ideally, the cops would sit around with nothing to do, because people stopped being stupid in public, and the people that didn't get stopped in-situ, and if they survived (many of them will, since shots wont even be fired), hopefully that serves as their "come to jesus" moment and they stop being stupid in public in the future.

Arm the good guys; teach them to stand up to the bad guys. Then its Miller time.

I like the way you explain things.

If anyone has ever gotten to know any Swiss guys living in Switzerland, they would lean this:
EVERY living Male between the ages of 18 and (55?) must report to military service. They are paid by their employer during their training and after (xx) months they return to their workplace. They again must return for annual training and keep up their skills and knowledge.

Crazy guys are weeded out during this, and at the end of the first training, EVERY SANE male returns home with a fully automatic weapon, and ammunition.
The effect is that virtually every single house, - every window in an appartment tower, city, suburb and countryside is fully armed with automatic weapons.

This is the other side of the coin, nearly100% automatic weapon ownership.

Crime and gun issues are low there... and the bad guys dont have access to guns. The military has complete authority over gun ownership. you must have military approval to have hunting weapons too.

I just dont like the "everyone git a gun and fend fer themselves" - I prefer a level of control over the gun use, not reckless renegades.

Just to make sure all the information is being presented correctly, yes the Swiss males are given a firearm (Swiss Arms makes really cool arms BTW) but no, they are no longer issued ammunition. They can buy it subsidized though.

Another thing to note is the SG550 they are issued IS fully automatic.

On another note, when people say all the swiss have automatic weapons in their homes, well that isn't the case either. Here are the numbers:

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the USA.

RangerGress wrote:

WildKarrde wrote: As far as coming to the rescue of a cop... I'd highly discourage it. Unless you're in some sort of official uniform then you're just another guy with a gun. I'm not saying you should never help a cop... but most of the time you're going to be better off letting them handle their own business.

The whole "rescue a cop" scenario is a little far fetched. In retrospect I should have kept my mouth shut re. my thought, as I drove by, that the cop look awful darn lonely.

I believe strongly that one should wargame all high tension scenarios tho. You're going to ask a girl on a date, you wargame scenarios. You walking down the street with your kid, you wargame a pitbull coming out of no where scenario(*). You live in our society, you wargame various thug scenarios.

The reason a person should wargame scenarios is that should something along those lines actually occur, you can start doing something useful faster. Having already wargamed a similar scenario helps you speed thru the "standing there with your jaw agape" phase when something happens. Maybe it's the girl you've been eyeing, to your shock walks up to you and says "hello". Or maybe you are driving by and see a car racing away from a downed cop, which again is a pretty low probability scenario.

As someone said, cops, for their own safety, must take complete control of their area. So if one is wargaming "aid the cop", you have to be outside of their, lets call it a "zone of concern". If you are inside that zone than you become something for them to be concerned about, and that's no help.

The zone of concern is situational. Maybe its 30m, maybe it's 60m, you just have to make a judgement call. If the cop is down, maybe it would work to run towards him with weapon drawn. But if the cop is conscious, running towards him with a gun drawn will just get you shot. That would be Evolution weeding knuckleheads out of the gene pool. If the cop is down chances are the bad guys are busy E&Eing and the most useful thing you could do is get on your cell phone or his radio and ask dispatch for some help.

If any scenario where the cop is unhurt but in some danger, the likelihood that they would want your armed help is pretty close to zero. To the cop you'd be just some unpredictable wildcard in a situation where they're trying their damndest to gain control. That's why, when wargaming "help the cop", you stay back far enough away that you're not a concern.

(*) The pitbull attack that comes out of nowhere happened right in front of me 7-8yrs ago. A lady and her little kid were walking down our street with their leashed dog. That sort of thing happens all day long around here. Renters a couple doors down had a friend visiting. Friend brought pitbull. Pitbull came flying out of no where and attacked the 3, mostly the dog. I'd ever seen a more ferocious dog than that pitbull. It was trying to kill the leashed medium sized dog. Was pretty damned frightening. I've never forgotten how entirely useless I was when that occurred. Of course I was unarmed. But what I'd have needed was a baseball bat, not a pistol. Then again, a baseball bat might have just made it mad. I think I would have had to hit that pitbull with a truck to really slow it down.

I definitely agree with running wargames through you head, I do this often. I think it's a big part of being prepared, whether you're armed or not.

I also strongly agree with being situationally aware at all times. Many confrontations can be completely avoided if you see them coming ahead of time.

WildKarrde wrote: I also strongly agree with being situationally aware at all times. Many confrontations can be completely avoided if you see them coming ahead of time.

That's a good point. My wife, for example, isn't aware of squat. We'll get into the car after a walk down a darkened street and I'll mention something like "did you note the guy eyeballing us from across the street", and the answer is always "no".

Everyone should get bullied and beat up a lot in school. It teaches you to pay attention to your surroundings.

People are becoming a lot easier to prey upon these days thanks to their face always being buried in a smartphone.

This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the ploice do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational. See this could have been in the Guns Sub-forum and I would never have read it. But here it is a third gun thread in the General Discussion forums on a vintage BMW Forum.

I can understand how the title "concealed carry discussion" would have been confused with a thread that would discuss E28-specific items.

wkohler wrote:I can understand how the title "concealed carry discussion" would have been confused with a thread that would discuss E28-specific items.

Why is it on a BMW forum at all? I thought the sub-forum was a nice idea so the gun boys would have their own little corner to play.

m-racer wrote:This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the police do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational.

I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

How about we just quit bitching? It's there. Remember, it's "General Discussions about E28s and the people who own them." RangerGress owns an E28 unlike many here. How about instead of giving birth to a herd of cattle, you just ignore it? These threads only escalate and go on for pages because people come in and spew inaccurate statistics and other inflammatory comments that insult the intelligence of those who appreciate firearms.

I do not wish to be rude, but I am really getting tired of this. This place is really no longer fun. There was no need to go all political by post number four of the thread about the CT shooting, but some people cannot control themselves, apparently.

I can't remember where I found or who wrote this; but it fits this thread very well:

People ask why I carry a gun.

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because my sex organs are too small.
I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

RangerGress wrote:

m-racer wrote:This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the police do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational.

I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

You just don't seem to get it. You are not back-up. They do not want or need your help. You are an unwanted third party. The police themselves do not identify with your zone of concern. How's that?

Mark 88/M5 Houston wrote:I can't remember where I found or who wrote this; but it fits this thread very well:

People ask why I carry a gun.

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because my sex organs are too small.
I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose for which they were intended for a good long time to come.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

I didn't see anything about I carry a gun because I am delusional enough to think the police want or need my help.

m-racer wrote:You just don't seem to get it. You are not back-up. They do not want or need your help. You are an unwanted third party. The police themselves do not identify with your zone of concern. How's that?

At least not until they're getting their asses kicked and being shot with their own weapon.

m-racer wrote:

RangerGress wrote:

m-racer wrote:This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the police do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational.

I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

You just don't seem to get it. You are not back-up. They do not want or need your help. You are an unwanted third party. The police themselves do not identify with your zone of concern. How's that?

Cop is laying on the ground bleeding. You get out of your car and go help, or drive away? Not your business. He probably doesn't have kids.

I think we're envisioning different scenarios. "back-up" isn't the right idea. Observing from a distance isn't back-up. Helping the guy if he's down on the ground bleeding isn't back-up. And since one certainly can't approach a cop when he's already dealing with a scary situation, the down on the ground bleeding scenario is pretty much the only one that plays.

wkohler wrote:How about we just quit bitching? It's there. Remember, it's "General Discussions about E28s and the people who own them." RangerGress owns an E28 unlike many here. How about instead of giving birth to a herd of cattle, you just ignore it? These threads only escalate and go on for pages because people come in and spew inaccurate statistics and other inflammatory comments that insult the intelligence of those who appreciate firearms.

I do not wish to be rude, but I am really getting tired of this. This place is really no longer fun. There was no need to go all political by post number four of the thread about the CT shooting, but some people cannot control themselves, apparently.

Good advice. Gun threads do not belong on this forum. That's my opinion and I don't care if anyone agrees. I mentioned this site to an e24 friend who is doing a re-build because it has been very helpful to me. His response was that mye28 was a bunch of rightwing gun nuts. I corrected him because I do not think it is true and because again, I think people here, including you give great advice. I do however, think people get that impression pretty easily and I do think there should be a Guns Sub-Forum.

RangerGress wrote:

m-racer wrote:

RangerGress wrote:

m-racer wrote:This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the police do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational.

I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

You just don't seem to get it. You are not back-up. They do not want or need your help. You are an unwanted third party. The police themselves do not identify with your zone of concern. How's that?

Cop is laying on the ground bleeding. You get out of your car and go help, or drive away? Not your business. He probably doesn't have kids.

How about another scenario. The police are in a dangerous situation and you get one of them killed because you interject yourself into the situation and they take their eye off the ball because they do not know your intentions? I can give you counter-point all day, but most importantly, you ignore the advice of the actual police. I respect your service. I come from a military family. You are not a police officer.

RangerGress wrote:

m-racer wrote:This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the police do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational.

I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

You just don't seem to get it. You are not back-up. They do not want or need your help. You are an unwanted third party. The police themselves do not identify with your zone of concern. How's that?

I got it the first time.

m-racer wrote:

RangerGress wrote:

m-racer wrote:This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the police do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational.

I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

You just don't seem to get it. You are not back-up. They do not want or need your help. You are an unwanted third party. The police themselves do not identify with your zone of concern. How's that?

Settle down.

You also don't speak for all police, all of the time.

The number of instances where an armed citizen arrived and saved the life of a cop is non-zero. You going to tell those citizens their actions weren't wnated? You going to bury the cops?

The police aren't magical fairy people. If you've got track time, you're probably a better driver than the average cop. If you're a gun nut with gobs of range time and IDPA or similar events, you're a much better marksman, under pressure, then the average cop.

Odds are good that you might be _smarter_ than the average cop -- many police departments reject applicants who do too well on tests.

I think it is clear at this point that everyone understands that cops usually don't want civilian help. Until, every once and a while, suddenly they do. In those cases, maybe it's nice to have another good guy around -- even if he isn't wearing a uniform.

Matt wrote:

m-racer wrote:

RangerGress wrote:

m-racer wrote:This thread is another good reason this forum needs a sub-forum for gun discussions. I thought the initial post was troubling. My initial thought was cops are cops. You are not. I decided to call my former assistant's (from when I lived in ATL) husband who is a State Police officer with 15 years experience in your state. His response back to me was that he woud have had called in another officer to neutralize you which would have turned a traffic incident into something more threatening and more expensive. They don't want your help. They do not understand your licence plate code and they do not know if you are sincere in your wish to help or if you are a nutjob with a gun. His final words were "let the police do their work. Third parties get police officers killed." You are not back-up. If he wants back up, he will call for it.As for me, I think your post is irrational.

I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

You just don't seem to get it. You are not back-up. They do not want or need your help. You are an unwanted third party. The police themselves do not identify with your zone of concern. How's that?

Settle down.

You also don't speak for all police, all of the time.

The number of instances where an armed citizen arrived and saved the life of a cop is non-zero. You going to tell those citizens their actions weren't wnated? You going to bury the cops?

The police aren't magical fairy people. If you've got track time, you're probably a better driver than the average cop. If you're a gun nut with gobs of range time and IDPA or similar events, you're a much better marksman, under pressure, then the average cop.

Odds are good that you might be _smarter_ than the average cop -- many police departments reject applicants who do too well on tests.

I think it is clear at this point that everyone understands that cops usually don't want civilian help. Until, every once and a while, suddenly they do. In those cases, maybe it's nice to have another good guy around -- even if he isn't wearing a uniform.

I am settled down. I don't speak for any police. I just happened to know one in the OP's state and thought I would actually pose the question. You are a smart guy. That represents an educated opinion by an expert. Sure. I may well be a better driver and a better shot than the average police officer. Lots of people might be. So what? I am not trained to interject myself into a police action. Neither are most people Unless you can quote a reliable source, I am not sure about your non-zero comment. I cannot think of a single analog, though it is certainly possible. One might think that the more apparent issue is the mindset of someone who wonders if they should carry a gun incase the police needs their help.

A more appropriate place for a thread like this with some interesting views;
http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-101265.html

RangerGress wrote:I guess that whole "zone of concern" idea was lost on you. You tell the cop buddy that in the scenario the citizen was too far away to be an issue? If you turn my scenario into something different, than you own it, not I.

Let's look at it from a slightly different perspective. How far away do you suppose is outside an officer's "zone of concern" when he's approaching a potentially dangerous person he's just pulled over? He's probably going to notice another vehicle pulling off the road if it's within his visual range. Is 75 yards far enough? 100 yards?

What I'm driving at is if you're far enough away that the cop doesn't give you a first look, let alone a second, you're most likely too far away to have a reasonable chance of hitting your target with a handgun. I'm not saying you're a bad shot, you're probably a very good one. You must know that'd be a very difficult shot at that range with no sandbags or bench rest.

Having a CCW permit for purposes of lending aid if needed is noble enough, I won't say you're wrong in that. But in your scenario you're going out of your way to provide that aid and trying to play cowboy a bit. That's probably not a good idea. If a situation arises where you need the weapon it's nice to have it, but don't go intentionally putting yourself in places or situations where you shouldn't be or wouldn't already be if you weren't carrying.

m-racer wrote:Unless you can quote a reliable source, I am not sure about your non-zero comment. I cannot think of a single analog, though it is certainly possible.

Here's one:

http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas-gu ... shoot-out/