I'm asking you a question, first I have heard of it and you? You felt the need to interject it into an unrelated topic so you obviously feel strongly about it.
Your assumption that open carry is intended to intimidate is by your perception, which means you are intimidated by open carry. Why would someone be intimidated by a visual of a firearm? I would think people would find concealed carry more intimidating, since you don't know who is carrying. Sort of like knowing where a spider is, when you know there is one...
you don't feel strongly about it? wow, most that watch the video have a very strong reaction you asked me a question, I replied with an example, simple
Criminals don't carry openly. And if an officer can see a gun he knows the person is armed and can interact accordingly, whereas a concealed firearm in the possession of a criminal is a much more of a danger to officer safety.
Don't kid yourself there are a large number of anti-gunners who want LEO's disarmed because they are purported to be too intimidating to certain segments of society.
Not really, in many departments the training is the minimum required and the qualification test is a joke.
That means people who can't afford a pistol or can only attain competency with a rifle (pissibly due to dissability) will be barred from exercising their right to bear arms. Unless, of course, we make it legal to conceal rifles... On a side note- do you think uniformed police officers are trying to intimidate people by carrying openly? Should they all be mandated to carry concealed as well? It should also be noted that 'brandishing' is an objective and defined legal term that precedent has repeatedly confirmed that just because you can see someone's firearm does not mean they are attempting to intimidate you with it.
What sort of training serves to ensure an individual will not engage in criminal activities at some undetermined point down the line in the future? What is preventing any law enforcement officer from opening fire with live ammunition into a crowd when such is not actually justified?
Just watch the countless number of videos of armed robberies out there, they clearly demonstrate such, criminals carry concealed because they do want any interaction with law enforcement and have the element of surprise, they know as a criminal carrying openly, they have a much better chance of being stopped for a Field Interview, where their background and the firearms serial number will be run through NCIC, and the results of that records check could be very inconvenient for them.
Actually most of the time the shooter is not moving, and still the majority of rounds they fire miss the intended target. LEO's at the street level are not trained in using firearms much at all.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...hootings-by-police-expose-training-shortfalls Accidental shootings by law enforcement have happened in recent years at agencies small and large and at all levels — city, county, state and federal — across the U.S., an Associated Press investigation found. They’ve caused hundreds of injuries to officers, suspects and bystanders, and sometimes they’ve caused deaths. Experts say it’s because officers don’t get the training they need to handle their guns proficiently, especially in life-and-death situations. The methods used to train officers with their firearms “create the illusion of learning” but are inadequate for the demands of today’s policing, said Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Illinois-based Force Science Institute, which provides research and training to law enforcement agencies. “The training has to match the shooting challenges on the street,” he said. “We don’t do enough street training connected to actual skill and decision-making that’s required of officers in this type of encounter. Some officers only handle their guns once a year.” Officers are most proficient with their guns immediately after graduating from a police academy, experts say. After that, most are tested only once or twice a year in “qualifications” that measure a minimum level of firearms proficiency. There are no federal guidelines for these tests so there are thousands of different standards across the county. No one tracks these shootings nationwide, so the AP collected media reports and surveyed agencies across the country through public records requests. The review was not comprehensive, due to the sheer number of U.S. law enforcement agencies and a lack of reporting requirements for such shootings. But it provides a snapshot of the problem, documenting 1,422 unintentional discharges since 2012 at 258 agencies, and uncovering detailed reports on 426. The tally includes any incident in which a gun went off and the officer did not intend it to, whether they were cleaning or unloading a weapon or surging with adrenaline while responding to a call. Some shootings occurred because of involuntary muscle reflexes, experts said, or because the officer simply tripped. While countless law enforcement officers safely perform their duties every day, some experts say even a small number of accidental shootings is unacceptable because they are preventable. “Ninety-nine out of 100 times, there is not something wrong with the gun,” said Paul Markel, a former police officer and firearms instructor in Mississippi. “It’s the person holding it.”
Not a problem. Below is the test all LEO's in Florida must qualify on, once every two years, to be allowed to carry a firearm. Forty rounds at 80% is not even close to what is needed to accurately demonstrate proficiency hitting a paper target, nor less one that is shooting back at the officer, with innocents in the background on both sides!
So the 200lb rapists should be protected from intimidation from the 98lb girl? Are these intimidated politicians the same ones that push gun laws while enjoying the luxury of armed security?
