• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Guns: Why Not Non-Concealed Carry?

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, at least that wouldn't immediately have consequences as bad as Rick's "DRT" approach when he draws his weapon.
I can't speak for Rev. Rick, but if his posts on this issue are any indication, then I seriously doubt he would notice two guys following him out of a store, start running, and then pull a gun on them. I have met a fair number of individuals with this approach (draw and fire), and I know a few of them fairly well. Most of those I know have worked as law enforcement and/or in high-end security. If this happens to you:
As you leave the store two scruffy plain clothes guys start following you. You get nervous and try to get away. They run after you. At this point all you know is you have done nothing wrong and have to scary looking guys running after you.
you shouldn't be carrying a firearm. If you are nervous enough at the idea of two people following you after leaving a store that you start running such that they have to run after you, then either it is dark and there is nobody around (in which case it is odd that you were just in a department store which had at least two security officers), or you have handled the situation extremely poorly. And if it is dark and there is nobody around, and two scruffy looking security guards chase you in this dark, deserted area without ever identifying themselves, then ask yourself what you are doing in the middle of Bosnia.

I've worked security, from the bottom positions as a rent-a-cop to other contract work, and have trained others and trained with various security groups and private investigation groups. Many companies, including department stores, hire P.I. groups to work undercover, not only to identify shoplifters but also frequently to spy on their own employees. They may hire P.I.'s as fake employees to work undercover. I never worked as an undercover spotting shoplifters, but I have a hard time imagining that a department store would have two such employees (internally employed or hired as outside contractors) with the go ahead to run down and tackle a shoplifter. Maybe it's a Canadian thing or something. However, even if the store told them they could do this, I find it extremely hard to imagine that the officers would exit the store following someone, wait until they started running, and then simply chase after them. And again, unless we are talking a chase outside in the dark where no one is around (rather than some kind of mall or busy public place during the day, which is when most stores are open), such that the individual being chased could not go into another store or ensure they were in plain view of a large number of people rather than pulling a gun, I can't imagine why one would resort to using one's carry weapon.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
So in your mind, are there never any situations where, in that split-second when you decide whether or not to use deadly force, you might either misinterpret something as an attack or threat when it's actually not, or you decide that lethal force is necessary when a less extreme response (i.e. anything from a less-lethal weapon to simply getting out of there) would have done the job?

You should ask Trayvon Martin.

Oh wait, you can't. Try Reeva Steencamp. Maybe Tyler Giuliano.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
interesting that you did not answer the question.

What question? Penguin's question? That was my answer. I gave three examples of gun owners misconstruing innocent people as threats and killing them. All the folks I named are dead.
 

McBell

Unbound
What question? Penguin's question? That was my answer. I gave three examples of gun owners misconstruing innocent people as threats and killing them. All the folks I named are dead.
after going back and re-reading the exchange I have found that I am in fact in error because I misread the mostly Penguins post.

My apologies.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
after going back and re-reading the exchange I have found that I am in fact in error because I misread the mostly Penguins post.

My apologies.

No problem. :) we've got too many gun threads going for me to keep track. Thought I missed something! I should try to sleep anyway. Had too much coffee today.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
After reading several pages, I'm not going to go back and hunt quotes, but for 9/10th, yes, I would support a requirement for all carry guns to be holstered or in some kind of protective case designed for gun carry. There are note book holsters and special designed gun purses which would be acceptable to me as well.

The important thing is that the trigger has a protective guard of some kind.

The next issue I want to address is this scruffy guy thing. I would not run, I would turn and face them and ask if they have a problem. If they identified themselves as security, I would suggest we go back in the store and resolve any issues with the manager.

Same thing if they where chasing and tackled a woman. I would ask them what was going on.

Neither party should have a problem if I called the police to sort this thing out.

In all these instances, no gun should be pulled.

Now, what if the scruffy guys where not security. They would most likely run and that would be fine, or they would become aggressive. At that point, you tell them to BACK OFF.

If they attack you, you pull, otherwise you do not pull your weapon and call the police.

You should never pull your weapon unless you intend to fire it, but many times if thugs see the gun being pulled they might run which is fine. It's not our job to arrest people and if they run you let them.

The same thing with a robbery. Unless they point a gun at you or start shooting, it would be best not to fire upon them and just let them leave with the money.

The whole idea here is to live to see another day not act like the sheriff.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
That sounds very reasonable, Rick. I have no problems with that, although you still might want to leave your gun at home if you are visiting Canada and don't want people to think you're peculiar. ;)
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Well, at least that wouldn't immediately have consequences as bad as Rick's "DRT" approach when he draws his weapon.

Jesus Jeff, I said I would stand my ground and ask them if there was a problem in that situation. I don't point a gun at people. I am getting older, but I can handle myself without a weapon.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Interesting take on blaming the victim, except you should know that usually, when an incident ends with one person dead and the other not, the presumed victim is the dead person.
And you would be wrong. They teach us in CCW class to state from the very beginning of an investigation that we are the victim. The next thing they tell you is to say, you believed your life was endangered. This is very important, you don't want to say your life was endangered, you want to say "you believed" your life was endangered.

Criminal court will most likely NOT be an issue, but the civil case will be hell no matter how justified the shooting was. It is much harder to prove what you thought than what actually happened. Say the man who pulled a gun on you had a BB gun for instance.

The law in my state says you must believe your life or others where in eminent danger.

You cannot for instance shoot someone breaking into your car.

There is one exception, if someone is trying to start your house on fire, you can shoot them on the spot.
 
Top