# An incident of a gun not being a magic wand



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 19, 2017)

Thought this was interesting:

VIDEO: Florida man armed with machete fends off robbers

Please note one of the bad guys is armed with a pump-action shotgun, which he chases the victim with - and then retreats as the victim arms himself with a machete and comes out swinging.

Seems to me he either didn't know how to use his weapon, it was non-functional (or empty) or he didn't want to pull the trigger and commit murder.

But he clearly expected the gun to be a magic wand, as many people (good people and bad people) seem to do.  They imagine if they just wave it around, everybody will do what they say to do.

Doesn't always work that way.  If you are not prepared to kill, waving a gun around is probably not that great of an idea.  And sometimes it's a bad idea even if you are prepared to kill.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Thought this was interesting:
> 
> VIDEO: Florida man armed with machete fends off robbers
> 
> ...


I think people in general put too much faith in a gun.  People who have guns assume that no one will get the drop on them, or that the person they aim at is a better shot.   I look at guns in the same light as martial arts.  Just because you have it doesn't mean it'll save you.  It may increase the chance of your survival, but that's not the same as guaranteeing your survival.

If police and soldiers with guns die from gun fire, then a civilian shouldn't be thinking that they are the exception to that.

As for the video.  I couldn't tell if the guy had some mechanical problems with the gun.  It looks like he gives a quick glance to the side of the gun but couldn't look down for too long because he had a guy swinging a machete.  Some criminals know the difference between robbery and murder. So they don't shoot.  I guess we won't know those answers until the trial and police details come out.  If they come out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 19, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think people in general put too much faith in a gun.  People who have guns assume that no one will get the drop on them, or that the person they aim at is a better shot.   I look at guns in the same light as martial arts.  Just because you have it doesn't mean it'll save you.  It may increase the chance of your survival, but that's not the same as guaranteeing your survival.
> 
> If police and soldiers with guns die from gun fire, then a civilian shouldn't be thinking that they are the exception to that.
> 
> As for the video.  I couldn't tell if the guy had some mechanical problems with the gun.  It looks like he gives a quick glance to the side of the gun but couldn't look down for too long because he had a guy swinging a machete.  Some criminals know the difference between robbery and murder. So they don't shoot.  I guess we won't know those answers until the trial and police details come out.  If they come out.


I wondered if he just had the safety on. That's a mistake I've seen people make at the range, when they aren't used to actually using their gun.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I wondered if he just had the safety on. That's a mistake I've seen people make at the range, when they aren't used to actually using their gun.



Could be, and of course there's the "Fifth Element" movie...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 19, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Could be, and of course there's the "Fifth Element" movie...


Nah, if he'd been by Corbin's place, he wouldn't have had the gun, at all, anymore. And he'd have been wearing a much different hat.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I wondered if he just had the safety on. That's a mistake I've seen people make at the range, when they aren't used to actually using their gun.


For carry duty, I've switched to guns without a safety lever.

That said, it's not anything that can't be trained.  There are people who have trained to flick off the safety of their 1911 who end up flicking off the non-existent safety on their Glocks too.  No harm, no foul.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 19, 2017)

lklawson said:


> For carry duty, I've switched to guns without a safety lever.
> 
> That said, it's not anything that can't be trained.  There are people who have trained to flick off the safety of their 1911 who end up flicking off the non-existent safety on their Glocks too.  No harm, no foul.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I had that issue when I switched back to a Glock after having a 1911 for a while (the 1911 looks and "feels" better, but I shoot dramatically better with a Glock for some reason).


----------



## lklawson (Jun 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, I had that issue when I switched back to a Glock after having a 1911 for a while (the 1911 looks and "feels" better, but I shoot dramatically better with a Glock for some reason).


I wouldn't call it an issue.  I see no problem with it whatsoever.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 19, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I wouldn't call it an issue.  I see no problem with it whatsoever.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Well, except that it annoyed me. Anything that annoys me is an issue, Kirk.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Well, except that it annoyed me. Anything that annoys me is an issue, Kirk.


Fair enough.

Some people might call it "training scars" because it is unnecessary on the Glock.  I think that it's fine because it does not harm you when using the Glock and, if you pick up a pistol with a thumb-downstroke safety, then you already have the automatic thumbswipe response and won't be that goober pulling the trigger but not knowing why it ain't going bang.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I wondered if he just had the safety on. That's a mistake I've seen people make at the range, when they aren't used to actually using their gun.



I don't know but it looks like he is also having trouble figuring out how work the action...so its a good chance he didn't have one in the chamber.

My bet is it was the tri-fecta....safety, no round in chamber, and unfamiliar with the action


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jun 19, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I don't know but it looks like he is also having trouble figuring out how work the action...so its a good chance he didn't have one in the chamber.
> 
> My bet is it was the tri-fecta....safety, no round in chamber, and unfamiliar with the action


Better than being on live leak titled "Guy gets face shot off in armed robbery."  It's good that things didn't get worse.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 20, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Better than being on live leak titled "Guy gets face shot off in armed robbery."  It's good that things didn't get worse.



I agree with you.  However, when I posted this, my intent was to demonstrate that the 'magic' power of a pointed firearm doesn't always work.  This armed robber discovered that; his posture was one of a person who wanted the gun to cause his victim to give up, but it didn't work out that way.  In such cases, plan B is generally to use the weapon as it was intended.  He didn't do that, for whatever reason, and the victim is indeed lucky he didn't.

But again, a gun is not a magic wand.  People think all they have to do is produce one and everybody calms down and does what the person with the weapon says to do.  This frequently does not happen.

The fault is with the logic that makes this assumption.  Guns are not magic wands.  They are weapons.  If you're going to point one at someone, you'd best be prepared to shoot and kill them; otherwise your weapon in your hands is a liability.

This is a point I keep trying to make to the guys who think going around with a gun (or stick, or knife, or flashlight, or pepper spray, etc) is some kind of deterrent.  It's not a deterrent.  It's not a magic wand.  If a person draws a weapon, the chances of the incident becoming one involving deadly force just went up significantly.  It doesn't mean people should not carry weapons or that they should refrain from drawing them; it means if they plan to draw, they'd best be prepared to kill; because that is frequently what happens next.

Magic thinking is that one can just wave the gun about like a talisman and everything gets better.  It doesn't.  As this video demonstrates.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 20, 2017)

And at least know how to operate it.

Leeroy Jenkins cop video






Backstory...guy walking down the street threatening people with a shotgun but couldn't figure out to release the slide to load a round in the chamber.  He finally figure it out and....Leeroy Jenkins.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 20, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> And at least know how to operate it.
> 
> Leeroy Jenkins cop video
> 
> ...



I remember seeing that on the news, along with some disparaging remarks from the anchor people.  They of course were not tasked with facing an armed man.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 20, 2017)

Bill,

I agree completely that a firearm is a tool, and one must not only know how to use it, but be committed to using it when the time comes.  But,

When I retired, I felt kind of naked without a concealed weapon on me.  I knew when it would be appropriate to use it and how, but suddenly I didn't have it.  Now I am not only more comfortable not having one, I am somewhat reluctant to put in to have one, even though I could do that.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jun 20, 2017)

What I wonder about from the video is if the guy has ever used a shotgun before.  Sighting down the gun barrel like that is a little unusual for a shotgun.  It isn't sometimes called a scatter gun for nothing.

What I really like about the video was the little black dog.  We have one about that size as well.  She will alert to any strange noise.  And as long as we are around she is the bravest thing on four legs.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 22, 2017)

This kinda reminds me of a video I saw a while back of some Russian guys who picked a fight with a motorist. The motorist got pissed off and pulled a gun on them, and they weren't deterred at all. I guess if you live in a society where guns are everywhere and everyone has them, the effect of them as a deterrent diminishes.



> The fault is with the logic that makes this assumption. Guns are not magic wands. They are weapons. If you're going to point one at someone, you'd best be prepared to shoot and kill them; otherwise your weapon in your hands is a liability.



This is how we treat them in the UK, particularly with our armed police officers. Our armed officers don't get much action (relatively speaking) but when they are brought in, they know they will most likely have to shoot to kill. 

London Bridge attack - everything we know

Case in point. 3 armed attackers started causing havok in London. Within 8 minutes armed police officers were on the scene and shot them on sight.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2017)

When I was a US Marine MP, we went to HMAS Sterling in Western Australia for a large training  exercise.  We worked in Perth side by side with the local police when the Marines got liberty. We were surprised to find they were not armed. They were surprised to find we were. No one got shot in any case.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Case in point. 3 armed attackers started causing havok in London. Within 8 minutes armed police officers were on the scene and shot them on sight.



Damn right too!

There was also a load of comments coming from the US mostly telling us that we needed to be armed because if we were these things wouldn't happen then. It misses the point though that in these terrorist type situations just carrying a weapon isn't good enough one has to be trained to *use it in these situations*.  Being able to shoot at a range isn't good enough I'm afraid. Our police and Spec Forces train specifically for these situations, I'm sure they do in the US as well, close to me we have a FIBUA  training facility ( Fighting in Built Up Areas) where the police and military alike train. *I'm not saying don't carry weapons* ( though in the UK you'll find few who want to) I am saying that in terrorist type situations it's a different kettle of fish compared to a robbery or burglary. Our troops  a while back were patrolling streets in Northern Ireland where a lot of the people had weapons, shooting back when shot at had connotations because people were in the way sometimes deliberately so.  Knowing when and where to shoot as well as being able to shoot quickly enough takes training.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Damn right too!
> 
> There was also a load of comments coming from the US mostly telling us that we needed to be armed because if we were these things wouldn't happen then. It misses the point though that in these terrorist type situations just carrying a weapon isn't good enough one has to be trained to *use it in these situations*.  Being able to shoot at a range isn't good enough I'm afraid. Our police and Spec Forces train specifically for these situations, I'm sure they do in the US as well, close to me we have a FIBUA  training facility ( Fighting in Built Up Areas) where the police and military alike train. *I'm not saying don't carry weapons* ( though in the UK you'll find few who want to) I am saying that in terrorist type situations it's a different kettle of fish compared to a robbery or burglary. Our troops  a while back were patrolling streets in Northern Ireland where a lot of the people had weapons, shooting back when shot at had connotations because people were in the way sometimes deliberately so.  Knowing when and where to shoot as well as being able to shoot quickly enough takes training.



I agree training is very important.

But if you are in a room and a barge is gonna barge in and try to kill you having a weapon even if you a poorly trained with it is better than being unarmed.  It might only increase your chances slightly....but a little is better than none.  That is a lot of our mentality on it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I agree training is very important.
> 
> But if you are in a room and a barge is gonna barge in and try to kill you having a weapon even if you a poorly trained with it is better than being unarmed.  It might only increase your chances slightly....but a little is better than none.  That is a lot of our mentality on it.



I did say I wasn't talking about those type of situations, my comments were specifically about terrorist type of attacks something I probably know more about and are more experienced in than most here.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Damn right too!
> 
> There was also a load of comments coming from the US mostly telling us that we needed to be armed because if we were these things wouldn't happen then. It misses the point though that in these terrorist type situations just carrying a weapon isn't good enough one has to be trained to *use it in these situations*.  Being able to shoot at a range isn't good enough I'm afraid. Our police and Spec Forces train specifically for these situations, I'm sure they do in the US as well, close to me we have a FIBUA  training facility ( Fighting in Built Up Areas) where the police and military alike train. *I'm not saying don't carry weapons* ( though in the UK you'll find few who want to) I am saying that in terrorist type situations it's a different kettle of fish compared to a robbery or burglary. Our troops  a while back were patrolling streets in Northern Ireland where a lot of the people had weapons, shooting back when shot at had connotations because people were in the way sometimes deliberately so.  Knowing when and where to shoot as well as being able to shoot quickly enough takes training.



I don't disagree with you.  I do believe that we live in different environments, so horses for courses.  In the UK, per-person gun ownership is quite low, especially as compared to the USA.  Not arguing the right or wrong of it, this is not about politics; simply stating facts.  When so many people are armed in the US, the police have little choice but to be armed (and trained).  In the UK, the situation is quite different and I get that.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Within 8 minutes armed police officers were on the scene and shot them on sight.


8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't disagree with you.  I do believe that we live in different environments, so horses for courses.  In the UK, per-person gun ownership is quite low, especially as compared to the USA.  Not arguing the right or wrong of it, this is not about politics; simply stating facts.  When so many people are armed in the US, the police have little choice but to be armed (and trained).  In the UK, the situation is quite different and I get that.



The terrorist type attacks have a commonality in whatever country they are carried out in. My point is that in whichever country this happens the police and security services are the ones trained to deal with it not the person who carries a weapon and isn't trained in dealing with terrorist attacks.



lklawson said:


> 8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time.



Not bad in a built up city of 6 million people. Police officers were on the scene in far less time than that. Long before they arrived though the terrorists were contained and not harming the general public though still very dangerous.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Not bad in a built up city of 6 million people. Police officers were on the scene in far less time than that. Long before they arrived though the terrorists were contained and not harming the general public though still very dangerous.


Response times for most places in the U.S. are between 3 and 6 minutes, though there are places with longer times as well.

That said, even 3 minutes is a horrifyingly long time.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Response times for most places in the U.S. are between 3 and 6 minutes, though there are places with longer times as well.
> 
> That said, even 3 minutes is a horrifyingly long time.
> 
> ...



When the excrement hits the rotating cooling device, the pucker factor makes every second seem like an eternity.

The taste of copper, the need to urinate and/or vomit, the conscious consideration of one's own mortality, all of these things are experiences most never have and glad they should be that they don't.

As some who defend the private ownership of firearms like to say, "_When seconds count, help is minutes away._"


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Response times for most places in the U.S. are between 3 and 6 minutes, though there are places with longer times as well.
> 
> That said, even 3 minutes is a horrifyingly long time.
> 
> ...



The response time from police officers was well within your parameters, what took longer was the armed response teams response. As I said the terrorists were contained well before the firearms teams arrived. One thing to consider is that the terrorists wore suicide vests, these were determined to have been fakes after the event but this wasn't known at the time. A high level of shooting ability is needed in these cases because you shoot a couple of times, miss or just injure then they 'press the button' and a bomb goes off similar to the one that killed so many in Manchester, multiple this by three and you have a bloody great crater in the middle of London and many, many dead. the Manchester bomb contained nuts, bolt, ball bearing and pieces of metal that can fly considerable distances after the explosion.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> 8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Maybe. The point is though that the armed officers didn't waste time waving the guns around trying to negotiate with the attackers, they just went in and shot to kill.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Maybe. The point is though that the armed officers didn't waste time waving the guns around trying to negotiate with the attackers, they just went in and shot to kill.



They had to didn't they, they couldn't allow them to detonate the bombs. I would suggest however that in the USA knowing that all police are armed as well as many civilians, the situation would be changed. There wouldn't be any attacks with knives or guns but a straightforward suicide bomb. Someone would walk into a place where there are plenty of people and simply detonate the bomb, no chance for anyone to stop them.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> A high level of shooting ability is needed in these cases


Less instruction, time, and practice than is usually required to get to green belt in most martial arts.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> They had to didn't they, they couldn't allow them to detonate the bombs. I would suggest however that in the USA knowing that all police are armed as well as many civilians, the situation would be changed. There wouldn't be any attacks with knives or guns but a straightforward suicide bomb. Someone would walk into a place where there are plenty of people and simply detonate the bomb, no chance for anyone to stop them.


Wellll... about that.

No.  

Guns and knives are still the common way of attacking, and, yes, it happens to us too.  Suicide Vests don't seem to be particularly common here yet.  I can't remember hearing of one, actually.

Conversely, we just recently had a Richard Cranium yelling Aloha Snackbar and stabbing a cop.  And terrorist shooting teams are around too.  They often use bombs but, so far, not many suicide vests.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Less instruction, time, and practice than is usually required to get to green belt in most martial arts.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yeah of course, very easy, in other words, for Americans it's just Brits who need psychologically tested, trained marksmen used to working in urban areas against terrorists instead of arming every Tom, Dick and Harry. 
*Specialist Rifle Officers (SRO)*
Specialist Rifle Officers are experienced AFOs who have been trained to use sniper/marksman rifles. They deploy rifle teams in support of SCO19 pre-planned operations, typically setting up overwatch at vantage points overlooking an incident.

Rifle team weapons include scoped H&K G3K semi-automatic rifles.


*CTSFOs (Counter Terrorist Specialist Firearms Officers)*

CTSFOs are another proactive element of SCO19. Their role includes counter terrorism and hostage rescue. Like TSTs, CTSFO teams provide firearms support to other Met specialist units and may operate in both an overt and covert manner. CTSFO teams are on standby to respond to a terrorist or major crime incident both in London and at the National level.

SCO19 CTSFOs are organized into 6 CTSFO Inspectors, an Operational Senior Manager and 7 teams. Each team consists of 1 Sergeant leading 15 Constables. [2]

CTSFO units may be called to storm buildings, planes, buses, trains and boats, both docked and underway. These operations requires that CTSFOs receive a higher level of training than the Tactical Support Teams. Like TST Officers, CTSFOs have served as ARV Officers before going through their own extensive selection and training process.

SCO19  - Weapons | Glock 17 | MP5 | G36 | Sig SG 516 | G3K

yep just like getting a green belt.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Wellll... about that.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...




I bow to your superior *anti terrorist* knowledge, obviously my 40 odd years of knowledge and experience in this subject is totally worthless. 

I'm not sure why you are being so snarky about this, London had nothing to do with you, your police deal with things differently that's it, doesn't make anyone else's police less efficient, less brave or less anything, just different.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Yeah of course, very easy, in other words, for Americans it's just Brits who need psychologically tested, trained marksmen used to working in urban areas against terrorists instead of arming every Tom, Dick and Harry.
> *Specialist Rifle Officers (SRO)*
> Specialist Rifle Officers are experienced AFOs who have been trained to use sniper/marksman rifles. They deploy rifle teams in support of SCO19 pre-planned operations, typically setting up overwatch at vantage points overlooking an incident.
> 
> ...


Look, believe me or don't.  It doesn't change the facts.

You claimed that it takes "A high level of shooting ability" to offer effective firearm response on a target with restricted targeting areas, specifically no shooting in the chest and a preference for making CNS hits (i.e.: Head Shots).

I have taken people with absolutely no experience with pistols and had them shooting "head shot" target sizes at combat distances in a few hours.  Add in moving target, (sometimes) moving shooter, stress, and background and it takes a couple dozen hours with competent instructors and maybe 50 or 60 hours of practice to make consistent head shots at combat distances.  How much time, practice, and direct instruction does it take you to get students to green belt?  I'm guessing the typical is 1.5 years at 2 two-hour classes per week or somewhere around 156 hours of instruction (maybe more).

Heck, British Pistol Instructor C.D. Tracy was teaching raw recruits to shoot this well in WWI with a frick'n Webley.

Mock if you want but the honest truth is that the requisite skills are not all that inaccessible.  What makes it difficult is if the prospective student doesn't have access to the instruction, tools, or places to practice.  Maybe they can't access instruction, tools, and practice because of cost (it can be expensive), or because of laws, or social stigma.  Whatever.  Regardless, it takes more training to get the skills of a green belt then the skills of a combat distance head shot with a pistol.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I bow to your superior *anti terrorist* knowledge, obviously my 40 odd years of knowledge and experience in this subject is totally worthless.


What the heck are you talking about?  I haven't discounted anything.  I said that 8 minutes as a sitting duck in front of rampaging blades is a frick'n eternity.  How is that, at all, controversial?

Then you wrote that, "I would suggest however that in the USA knowing that all police are armed as well as many civilians, the situation would be changed. There wouldn't be any attacks with knives or guns but a straightforward suicide bomb."  I replied that you are wrong.  I can see how that would make you pissy.  No one likes being wrong, but the simple fact is that the U.S. is NOT seeing suicide bomb terror attacks in preference to shooting and stabbing attacks.  Apparently your "40 odd y ears of knowledge and experience in the subject" didn't cover what is happening in the U.S.  



> I'm not sure why you are being so snarky about this,


From my perspective it looks like you are the one being snarky.



> London had nothing to do with you, your police deal with things differently


Did I say any different?



> doesn't make anyone else's police less efficient, less brave or less anything, just different.


Again, what the heck are you talking about?  I didn't write any of that.

Maybe you're reading in a bias that I didn't write.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

Yeah whatever. I'm not claiming anything, by saying this you are being confrontational. I have been an armed officer for many years including tours in Afghanistan ( instructing Afghan police who were just as likely to shoot us as any target) and other places, so what would I know about terrorism, suicide bombers etc etc.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I said that 8 minutes as a sitting duck in front of rampaging blades is a frick'n eternity.



Who was a sitting duck? I already told you the terrorists were contained until the armed officers could shoot them.
 I also told you about the training in working in built up areas, I'm not nor was I talking about police officers who carry 'everyday' weapons.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Yeah whatever. I'm not claiming anything, by saying this you are being confrontational. I have been an armed officer for many years including tours in Afghanistan ( instructing Afghan police who were just as likely to shoot us as any target) and other places, so what would I know about terrorism, suicide bombers etc etc.


Apparently your tours weren't in the U.S. because you are still wrong, and now deflecting, about there being a preference for suicide bombing in the U.S. over shooting and stabbing.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Mock if you want but the honest truth is that the requisite skills are not all that inaccessible.



The requisite skills to be a British specialised firearms officer? which of course is what I was talking about.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Who was a sitting duck? I already told you the terrorists were contained until the armed officers could shoot them.


The victims.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 22, 2017)

Yeah just shooting isn't hard to teach but when you start putting the tactics in with it is where it gets complicated and takes a lot of training.

Recognizing inward/outward opening doors, open door vs closed door, cutting the pie, etc... all while reading the layout of a structure as you move thru it and knowing the correct tactics to clear it is what takes time.

Add in tactical reloads, transition between rifle and pistol and clearing malfunctions under high stress also takes time.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> The requisite skills to be a British specialised firearms officer? which of course is what I was talking about.


I just re-read the post in question and it still does not seem to be specific to only that attack in Britain but, instead, your use of the word "similar" and repeated comparisons to the U.S. seem to imply a much more generic and general application.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Apparently your tours weren't in the U.S. because you are still wrong, and now deflecting, about there being a preference for suicide bombing in the U.S. over shooting and stabbing.



Bollocks, you haven't read what I said have you, I never said there was a preference for suicide bombs read it again.


Tez3 said:


> I would suggest however that in the USA knowing that all police are armed as well as many civilians,



Nowhere did I say there was a preference, I said I would 'suggest' so  you are wrong. it was a suggestion which you could have agreed with or disagreed with however it was not a statement so no I'm not wrong. You are on your high horse misunderstanding what I right just for an argument.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Yeah just shooting isn't hard to teach but when you start putting the tactics in with it is where it gets complicated and takes a lot of training.
> 
> Recognizing inward/outward opening doors, open door vs closed door, cutting the pie, etc... all while reading the layout of a structure as you move thru it and knowing the correct tactics to clear it is what takes time.
> 
> Add in tactical reloads, transition between rifle and pistol and clearing malfunctions under high stress also takes time.


Yes.  But still less time and direct instruction than is typically required to gain a green belt.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> I just re-read the post in question and it still does not seem to be specific to only that attack in Britain but, instead, your use of the word "similar" and repeated comparisons to the U.S. seem to imply a much more generic and general application.



You should know by now that I never imply I say what I think, to imply leaves it open for people to make their own interpretation and they are invariably wrong as yours is.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Bollocks, you haven't read what I said have you, I never said there was a preference for suicide bombs read it again.


Apparently you didn't read it either.  You specifically wrote, and I quote, "I would suggest however that in the USA knowing that all police are armed as well as many civilians, the situation would be changed. There wouldn't be any attacks with knives or guns but a straightforward suicide bomb."



> Nowhere did I say there was a preference,


I was being nice.  What you wrote was "there *wouldn't be any*."



> I said I would 'suggest' so  you are wrong. it was a suggestion which you could have agreed with or disagreed with however it was not a statement so no I'm not wrong. You are on your high horse misunderstanding what I right just for an argument.


You're kidding me, right?  I don't see how any reasonable reading of that could possible be interpreted that way.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> You should know by now that I never imply I say what I think, to imply leaves it open for people to make their own interpretation and they are invariably wrong as yours is.


Which is why I quoted you post: "I would suggest however that in the USA knowing that all police are armed as well as many civilians, the situation would be changed. There wouldn't be any attacks with knives or guns but a straightforward suicide bomb."


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2017)

Whatever. We've had these discussions before, like the last time you wilfully insisted I was handing out belts without grading the students. I'm not continuing with this as I have better things to do.
If you want to be an expert in all things policing in the UK fine, if you want to be the expert in all things fine. Just stop skewing what I write to fit what you want to write. You have deliberately misunderstood just the same as you usually do, only this time it's not carrying on over various threads and various arguments. It finishes here. I'm not taking this in the way you mean it to be taken, personally, so wind your neck in and carry on pontificating about someone else's words. I'm off to have my dinner.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Yes.  But still less time and direct instruction than is typically required to gain a green belt.



Disagree it takes a lot of training to be able to operate smoothly in high pressure circumstances.

You can show guys exactly how to clear a building and then put them under stress with simmunitions firing back at them and it is nothing how you showed them.

Takes a lot of training to get on the same page to where you can work thru a building and clear it properly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2017)

Well that escalated quickly.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Whatever.


Indeed.



> We've had these discussions before, like the last time you wilfully insisted I was handing out belts without grading the students.


Which, first, wasn't what I wrote and, second, irrelevant to this.




> If you want to be an expert in all things policing in the UK


Nice straw man you got there.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree it takes a lot of training to be able to operate smoothly in high pressure circumstances.


Define "a lot."



> You can show guys exactly how to clear a building and then put them under stress with simmunitions firing back at them and it is nothing how you showed them.


Yes, it requires training and practice.  How much is the current question.



> Takes a lot of training to get on the same page to where you can work thru a building and clear it properly.


How did we move from making reliable head shots at combat pistol distances under stress to team building clearing?


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Well that escalated quickly.


It happened when I wrote that 8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time for the victims and Tez seemed to believe that I was challenging all of Britain to a duel.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Yes, it requires training and practice. How much is the current question.



100s of hours



lklawson said:


> How did we move from making reliable head shots at combat pistol distances under stress to team building clearing?



I was pointing out that the training involved to be part of a specialized unit that responds to active shooters is probably more than just green belt level.  It's more than just being able to shoot a target.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> It happened when I wrote that 8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time for the victims and Tez seemed to believe that I was challenging all of Britain to a duel.



Why don't we all have a Fresca?


----------



## lklawson (Jun 22, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> 100s of hours
> 
> 
> 
> I was pointing out that the training involved to be part of a specialized unit that responds to active shooters is probably more than just green belt level.  It's more than just being able to shoot a target.


Working as part of a unit requires a lot more training and effort, I agree.  But accurate shooting of a dynamic target under stress doesn't require hundreds of hours.  OTOH, being part of a team that does that as one unit, I agree, does.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Working as part of a unit requires a lot more training and effort, I agree.  But accurate shooting of a dynamic target under stress doesn't require hundreds of hours.  OTOH, being part of a team that does that as one unit, I agree, does.



Being able to shoot someone may well be as easy as you say, but knowing when and who to shoot in a chaotic situation is another issue. Is it true that US police officers are issued a gun as soon as they graduate from the academy? (as little as 20 weeks training?) When you consider that in the UK, in order to even apply for an armed officer position you have to have been a regular PC for 2 years, it's quite a large difference.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 22, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Being able to shoot someone may well be as easy as you say, but knowing when and who to shoot in a chaotic situation is another issue. Is it true that US police officers are issued a gun as soon as they graduate from the academy? (as little as 20 weeks training?) When you consider that in the UK, in order to even apply for an armed officer position you have to have been a regular PC for 2 years, it's quite a large difference.



Yes if you pass the standards required to carry them.

But we have a culture where we are comfortable with guns and are experienced with them than ya'll are.

Prior to becoming a LEO, I had been handling firearms since I was 10 years old.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2017)

lklawson said:


> 8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time if you are armed as well though.

Holding off terrorists on your own with a pistol is a big ask.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I agree training is very important.
> 
> But if you are in a room and a barge is gonna barge in and try to kill you having a weapon even if you a poorly trained with it is better than being unarmed.  It might only increase your chances slightly....but a little is better than none.  That is a lot of our mentality on it.



Yeah. And conversely. I am not keen to hand a gun to every gumby who walks past and tell them.

"Only use this for terrorists"


----------



## drop bear (Jun 22, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Yes if you pass the standards required to carry them.
> 
> But we have a culture where we are comfortable with guns and are experienced with them than ya'll are.
> 
> Prior to becoming a LEO, I had been handling firearms since I was 10 years old.



Yeah but too comfortable. I mean we don't even sling them generally .Because someone could screw it up. A pro  gun guy in Australia would not walk in to an ice cream shop with a loaded weapon on his back.

Nobody would think a pistol that carries in a pocket is sensible.

And this comes from gun guys. Nothing to do with anti gun sentiment.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 22, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but too comfortable. I mean we don't even sling them generally .Because someone could screw it up. A pro gun guy in Australia would not walk in to an ice cream shop with a loaded weapon on his back.



That is not common.  That is a hand full of attention seekers.  In 40 years, I have never witnessed a person walking around with a rifle slung on his back.



drop bear said:


> Nobody would think a pistol that carries in a pocket is sensible.
> 
> And this comes from gun guys. Nothing to do with anti gun sentiment.



Whats wrong with a pistol that fits in a pocket?  How is that not sensible?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 23, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> That is not common.  That is a hand full of attention seekers.  In 40 years, I have never witnessed a person walking around with a rifle slung on his back.
> 
> 
> 
> Whats wrong with a pistol that fits in a pocket?  How is that not sensible?



How many times has your phone dropped out or slipped out of your pocket?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> How many times has your phone dropped out or slipped out of your pocket?


There are pocket holsters specifically designed to prevent that. And selecting pants (for the right kind of pocket) is also important. 

I've never been a fan of pocket carry, because I carrry too much **** in my pockets. I'd end up trying to shoot someone with my damned wallet.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 23, 2017)

If people in the UK started carrying guns the last place they'd put them is in their pants!!!  Yep I know you know what pants are here but I just loved the photo. It's an antidote to mardy people.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> How many times has your phone dropped out or slipped out of your pocket?



Never.  How does a phone/gun drop out of your pocket?  Do pockets in Australia not have bottoms?

I used to carry a Glock 27 daily in my back pocket....never had a problem.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 23, 2017)

Midnight-shadow said:


> Is it true that US police officers are issued a gun as soon as they graduate from the academy? (as little as 20 weeks training?)


Sometime yes, often no, and usually, "it depends."

Just graduating the Academy doesn't make you a cop.  You're not a cop until you're hired by a force or agency.  Depending on the State, that might be de facto or it might not.  In Ohio, where I'm at, it isn't.  In many States the Academy is kinda like "Trade School for Police."

Once you're hired, you might be issued a gun more-or-less right away.  Many agencies have one or a small number of gun models which they issue.  Some agencies, particularly cash-strapped rural sheriff's departments will give the officer a list of acceptable models and make the new officer (Deputy) buy their own.

In any case, a comparatively high number of officer/deputy candidates already own their own personal firearms.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> 8 minutes is a horrifyingly long time if you are armed as well though.
> 
> Holding off terrorists on your own with a pistol is a big ask.


Well, yes, and while that's part of the discussion, it's not what I was primarily going for.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jun 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but too comfortable. I mean we don't even sling them generally .Because someone could screw it up. A pro  gun guy in Australia would not walk in to an ice cream shop with a loaded weapon on his back.


Too comfortable?  Horse feathers.  Gun ownership is at an all time high in the U.S. while, simultaneously, murders and crimes with firearms, indeed violent crime over all, is at a low not seen in 30 years as well as the fact that accidental gun deaths is at, literally, the lowest point since the stats started being collected 114 years ago in 1903.  It is pretty clear that there is no positive corelation in the U.S. between an increase in the private ownership and carrying in public of guns to the rates of violent crime and accidental shootings.  In short the thesis that "more guns = more crime" in the U.S. is disproved.



> Nobody would think a pistol that carries in a pocket is sensible.


Lots of people do.  Depending on the study, somewhere between 13 and 15 million U.S. residents, crossing social, racial, and political lines, have "Concealed Weapon Permits."  And that does not include States where permits are not required.



> And this comes from gun guys. Nothing to do with anti gun sentiment.


You need to widen your circle of "gun guys."

But anyway, my intent wasn't to discuss whether or not Brits should be armed with firearms.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> How many times has your phone dropped out or slipped out of your pocket?


Almost never.  Pockets have one job: To hold the stuff put in them.  Guns are heavy and tend to drag down the pocket.  Even then, the vast majority of trainers, instructors, and advocates recommend in the strongest possible terms to always use a holster, even for pocket carry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 23, 2017)

Drop Bear, an ankle holster or a pocket holster are low concealment options.  There are specific holsters for both and no they are not going to drop out.  Where I live in Las Vegas where t-shirts and flip flops are the norm pocket carry makes sense.  Especially on a thin frame where hiding a firearm is challenging.  I would say that your "gun guys" are not that knowledgeable. 

Here is a great pocket holster:

DeSantis Super Fly Pocket Holsters : Cabela's


----------



## drop bear (Jun 23, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Drop Bear, an ankle holster or a pocket holster are low concealment options.  There are specific holsters for both and no they are not going to drop out.  Where I live in Las Vegas where t-shirts and flip flops are the norm pocket carry makes sense.  Especially on a thin frame where hiding a firearm is challenging.  I would say that your "gun guys" are not that knowledgeable.
> 
> Here is a great pocket holster:
> 
> DeSantis Super Fly Pocket Holsters : Cabela's



It happens. Is there a requirment to have a holster?

Gun goes off in movie theater after falling out of man’s pocket


----------



## drop bear (Jun 23, 2017)

lklawson said:


> Too comfortable?  Horse feathers.  Gun ownership is at an all time high in the U.S. while, simultaneously, murders and crimes with firearms, indeed violent crime over all, is at a low not seen in 30 years as well as the fact that accidental gun deaths is at, literally, the lowest point since the stats started being collected 114 years ago in 1903.  It is pretty clear that there is no positive corelation in the U.S. between an increase in the private ownership and carrying in public of guns to the rates of violent crime and accidental shootings.  In short the thesis that "more guns = more crime" in the U.S. is disproved.
> 
> Lots of people do.  Depending on the study, somewhere between 13 and 15 million U.S. residents, crossing social, racial, and political lines, have "Concealed Weapon Permits."  And that does not include States where permits are not required.
> 
> ...



So what is your reasoning for the massively higher rate of gun deaths than pretty much everywhere else in the world?

I am not really sugesting gun ownership is the issue. But gun ownership by morons.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It happens. Is there a requirment to have a holster?
> 
> Gun goes off in movie theater after falling out of man’s pocket



Unfortunately I was unable to open your link.

There is no requirement in the US to have a holster that I am aware of for a US citizen.  Obviously in certain professions you are going to have a required duty belt and holster.  This is going to sound cold but only amateurs carry without a holster.  A firearm without a holster has no protection for the trigger guard.  Without a holster protecting the trigger guard anything could get in and potentially pull or push on the trigger and cause an accidental discharge. Thus it is always important to have a holster to prevent an accidental discharge.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It happens. Is there a requirment to have a holster?
> 
> Gun goes off in movie theater after falling out of man’s pocket



Is something that happens .00001% of the time, really something to be concerned with?

Drinking too much WATER has killed 14 people, new research has revealed

More people have died from drinking water than killed by a gun falling out of someone's pocket.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 23, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> This is going to sound cold but only amateurs carry without a holster. A firearm without a holster has no protection for the trigger guard. Without a holster protecting the trigger guard anything could get in and potentially pull or push on the trigger and cause an accidental discharge.



I disagree.

I carry inside the waistband without a holster most of the time.  My leather belt actually covers the trigger guard on one side and my body covers the other side keeping everything outside and off the trigger.

Its common in undercover roles to carry this way.

Now I wouldn't suggest it to most people....but I wouldn't call it amateurish.  If you have to it can be done properly and with care with no problem.

And actually there are some guns that really you have no problem carrying in a pocket like the S & W Bodyguard


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 23, 2017)

Just because people carry without a holster doesn't mean it is not amateurish.  It is not safe and the firearm can move all over the place.

However, CB in your case your trying to fit in with a culture that carries this way.  So I can see that you need to carry that way.  In order to do the job.  However, relying on your belt and body to cover the trigger guard.  Well I hope that always works out for you.  But I do get it that you have to carry that way some times based on your profession.

Still, it is amateurish and potentially dangerous!  Having a holster protects your trigger guard and ensures that your firearm is exactly where it is supposed to be.  That means you can draw it reliably from the same place all the time.  

We will have to disagree on this one...


----------



## drop bear (Jun 23, 2017)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Unfortunately I was unable to open your link.
> 
> There is no requirement in the US to have a holster that I am aware of for a US citizen.  Obviously in certain professions you are going to have a required duty belt and holster.  This is going to sound cold but only amateurs carry without a holster.  A firearm without a holster has no protection for the trigger guard.  Without a holster protecting the trigger guard anything could get in and potentially pull or push on the trigger and cause an accidental discharge. Thus it is always important to have a holster to prevent an accidental discharge.



It is not cold. I think only amatures carry without a holster as well. It was basically my origional point, Too comfortable with guns and dont treat them with the proper responsibility.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 23, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Is something that happens .00001% of the time, really something to be concerned with?
> 
> Drinking too much WATER has killed 14 people, new research has revealed
> 
> More people have died from drinking water than killed by a gun falling out of someone's pocket.




Aparently not. And that is also my point. You have a level of gun responsibility you are happy with. It causes the damage you are happy with.

In this case yeah there is only a small percentage that being an idiot with a gun will result in an injury or death. 

it is a larger percentage that becomes a victim of terrorist attack.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 24, 2017)

drop bear said:


> dont treat them with the proper responsibility.



We will agree on this. 

 Lack of proper training + Lack of practice + Poor Handling = Potential problems.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 24, 2017)

Not using a shotgun as a magic wand:

Four people shot on Dauphin Island Pkwy, suspects identified

Text book....used only the amount of force needed.


----------



## Midnight-shadow (Jun 26, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Not using a shotgun as a magic wand:
> 
> Four people shot on Dauphin Island Pkwy, suspects identified
> 
> Text book....used only the amount of force needed.



This is honestly the hardest thing to do, particularly when guns are involved. It's very easy to use excessive amounts of force and end up causing more problems than solving them. As other people have said, learning to shoot is pretty easy, but learning when, who and why to shoot someone is hard. To me, the mark of a truely great officer is being able to de-escalate a situation without using force. Now of course there are times when force is necessary, but I feel that these days people rely on force to solve every problem, when there are better methods available. 

It's all a matter of judgement.


----------



## Buka (Jun 26, 2017)

I've carried a Raven 25 auto in my pocket for over thirty years, or a North American Arms 22. Trained drawing and shooting from there forever. Biggest drawback is it stinks up your clothes (don't go through TSA) And as gpseymour alluded to, I pick all my clothes for movement and pockets. I do not carry in my pocket for convenience, I do it as a tactical choice and for safety.

However - I do not, in good conscience, recommend this to anyone else. 

I've also gone swimming after eating and gone outside with my hair wet.

If a firearm ever fell out of my pocket, I'd stop carrying a firearm.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 26, 2017)

It all depends on your individual skill level.

I've been described as a Country Boy version of John Wick.......only by myself....but it still counts.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So what is your reasoning for the massively higher rate of gun deaths than pretty much everywhere else in the world?


My reasoning is to dispute your claim and to, additionally, point out the foolishness of trying combining all "gun deaths" into one lump, including suicides and legal justified deaths.  Pull those out and see what the numbers are.

So, no, the U.S. absolutely does *NOT* have "massively higher rate of gun deaths than pretty much everywhere else in the world" and even the rates you see are misleadingly inflated by including suicide, legal self defense, and legal LEO actions.



> I am not really sugesting gun ownership is the issue. But gun ownership by morons.


Depending on the definition of "morons," we probably agree.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

