I Carried a Gun, and It Was Heavy

[groovedaddy]

AS the families of James E. Holmes’s victims continue to deal with this senseless tragedy, anti- and pro-gun groups are exchanging their standard barbs on gun control in America. Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, recently suggested that if this incident had occurred in his state, where many citizens carry concealed weapons, the crazed shooter could have been quickly terminated. I wonder if the congressman considered the confusion and terror that occurs in a real-life firefight?

I spent over 30 years as a police officer in the Chicago area, and I was required to carry a weapon both on and off duty. A few years after 9/11, laws were extended to allow officers to carry their weapons across state lines and retired officers to continue to be armed, the logic being that those men and women had been screened and trained and knew when and how to use their weapons in emergencies. Excluding our brave military personnel, police officers are probably the only individuals who rush toward the sound of gunfire.

I’ve faced people with guns many times and arrested violent, armed offenders for such crimes as robbery and homicide. Although my gun often left its holster on those occasions, I am grateful that I never had to shoot anyone. I never lost sight of the responsibility of carrying a weapon. Despite what many people think, it’s not something to be taken lightly.

Illinois is the only state that does not allow ordinary citizens to carry concealed firearms. A few years back, I was visiting my father at the laundromat where he worked, when one of the regulars, who knew I was a cop, asked if I was “strapped.” When I said yes, he complained that he should have the right to carry a gun, too, since he was “a law-abiding citizen.” I’d heard this knucklehead spout off about minorities on numerous occasions and didn’t think he was a good candidate to be packing a weapon in public, though in many states, he could have been. The Trayvon Martin case shows the consequences of an untrained person with a gun. Police officers must go through psychological screening and a lot of training before they’re allowed to carry a weapon, and even then problems sometimes arise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/armed-but-not-so-safe.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120726

[HALO141]

1. Rank and file LEO opinions usually

run fairly parallel with the prevailing climate of the area they grew up. None of this is at all surprising coming from a cop in Chicago. You'll likely get very different opinions from LEO's in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, etc.

The most egregious, most dangerous conduct I've ever seen exhibited was by off-duty police officers at gun ranges. One case escalated into aggravated assault committed by the off-duty officer upon an employee of the range. (Fortunately for that officer the employee had a cooler head. If he wanted to, he could have broken the LEO in half with his bare hands.) If we're going to use anecdotal information as a basis for who should or shouldn't be allowed to carry a weapon then police would be at the top of my "prohibited" list.

[Jumping John]

2. 2nd amendment to the constitution states that a citizen has the right to

keep and bear arms.

So if Illinois has a law that forbids a person to carry a firearm, it would seem to trample on the constitutional right of the individual.

Am I right?

[PavePusher]

3. Yes, you are.

And there are groups working on that problem.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. There's alot to be to said about the confusion of a firefight in a dimly lit movie theater.

The noise, screams, lack of good lighting, fleeing bystanders... all very tough to deal with, even for trained law enforcement. The casual gun carrying citizen will have the odds stacked against him, for sure. I shoot in pistol competitions occasionally and even the pressure of competition, a shot timer, and penalties for misses is enough to throw one off their game. I couldn't begin to understand how debilitating someone shooting AT ME might be.

That being said, if YOU were sitting in a theater rapidly being transformed into a shooting gallery by some psycho... wouldn't you at least want the chance that the gunman could be stopped by someone else (or yourself) shooting back and hitting him? I mean, certainly even a slim chance is better than no chance.

And not a dig at cops in general (I have alot of respect for them), but I do agree with the poster above... alot of rank and file officers and beat cops are going to have their opinions and mentality formed by their local political environment. I'm not surprised a Chicago or NYC cop would oppose civilian carry. As they say, what works in the city doesn't usually work for the suburbs or BFE.

[groovedaddy]

6. As you said, it's an extremely difficult circumstance. In such a circumstance, drawing

a handgun could just as easily get you shot by someone else who is trying to do the same thing as you, but thinking you are the perp.

[HALO141]

8. Shit happens.

"What if" games are useless. For every scenario I might invent to support my case, someone else can invent a contrary one.

In the unlikely event I were to find myself in such a situation, I reserve the right to decide my own course of action.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. Perhaps. Only once being in such a situation can you determine the best course of action...

But one thing is for certain... having the means to respond on a similar plane of force provides me with more OPTIONS. Just because responding with gunfire is not a wise decision, does not mean the ability to do so is not valuable. The same goes for using a pocket knife, random heavy objects, pepper spray or unarmed fighting ability; it may not be the right choice in all situations, but they are certainly valuable options when hiding might not work.

But, as you state in your OP, knowledge and training in knowing when and how to effectively use your gun is even more important than simply having a gun to use. I think we agree moreso than we may disagree.

[ileus]

10. Which reminds me...take my sig instead of my LCP to the movies...

it's has night sights.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. I prefer a 10mm and point shooting drills...

Point shoot drills like putting masking tape on the the sights and shooting out to 10yds. You shouldn't need sights until about 25-30 feet for defensive center of mass shooting. Muscle memory plays a large role in scoring hits quickly and low light scenarios. Muzzle flash will ruin any chance of sight reaquisition on followup shots - night sights or not. If you ever get a chance, go to a "Lights and Lasers" shooting match (indoor shooting match performed in the dark).

The 10mm? Well that's just in case anything gets in the way of the target. I keep trying to tell the IDPA RO that I can actually hit "targets" through the "table" and "wall" obstacles... but for some reason they keep penalizing me. Bullshit!

"10mm Auto... Turning cover into concealement since 1983"

Another one of my favorites:
"There's no such thing as good cover, only indequete caliber"

[ileus]

14. I sold my G20 with night sites to my boss.

earlier in the year kinda wish I hadn't...

[Starboard Tack]

5. +1 Thanks. Very thoughtful, well reasoned article.

As the writer says
"The pro- and anti-gun groups need to sit down and let common sense rule."

[Missycim]

7. Good luck with that

Well what happens if the anti-gunners dont agree with common sense? Cause in the anti-gunners mind common sense always means restrictions and or bans and if you dont agree you are a RUDE TOTER.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Obviously we'll need good luck with an attitude like yours.

If people can't arrive at a consensus, then they are not using common sense. That's why it's called "common".
You use such a generic broad brush term like "anti-gunner", of which there are so few they are irrelevant. "RUDE TOTER" is an inflammatory term used by extremists to describe other extremists. Are you on one of the extreme sides of the discussion? Do you oppose all gun ownership, one extreme, or do you think it's OK to carry a loaded gun everywhere, the other extreme?
If you are somewhere in the middle, as most folk are, then we can have a discussion.

[Simo 1939_1940]

13. The problem with "common sense" is that when it comes from the restriction

groups, it makes no sense at all -- being informed by emotion rather than facts.

Classic example is the failure demonstrated by ballistic microstamping. Those who spoke the simple truth -- that it was worthless, feel-good legislation were smeared as crazed disciples of the NRA.

Oops. Turns out the pro-rights team was correct.

[Starboard Tack]

16. "pro-rights team" Give me a break!

If you dismiss the common sense approach then you are an extremist and discussion is pointless.

[gejohnston]

17. you can't hear the dog whistle?

the other side says "common sense" "reasonable" and "sane" without ever defining them nor knowing what current laws are. DC and Chicago bans have been described, by "anti rights team" as reasonable and moderate, which they are not.

[Starboard Tack]

18. In a way, both sides are right

The bans are common sense, but they infringe on supposed rights as determined by SCOTUS. So, the bans may seem unreasonable in the context of the current interpretation, by SCOTUS, of 2A. Plus, they may seem unreasonable because they are localized and not universal. All these things need to be discussed by reasonable people who weigh the rights of the individual to protect himself against the rights of the public to live in a safe, gun-free environment, if they so choose.

[gejohnston]

19. they are unreasonable regardless simply because

they infringe on those who are not the problem. In the Enlightenment idea of liberal democracy, the individual trumps the group and corporations.
The gangsters and drug dealers have no problem getting them even in the UK, they are the ones who are the problem. Did you wear a bullet proof vest as a bobby? They do now. That is not common sense. There is no such thing as common sense. Common sense is simply an illusion made up of ones own prejudices.
Your proposal is not reasonable because it is "heads I win, tails I lose" gun bans do not make you safe. There is not evidence gun laws make a difference either way. I felt safer in DC than the UK. I felt safer in "awash in guns" Florida than I do in UK or Manila.
The bans are not common sense because there is no evidence that they actually prevent bad people from getting them. They are unreasonable because I am penalized for a problem I do not contribute to. Once again, the fucking drug culture get a pass because it is easier to scapegoat someone who isn't the problem.

Gun free does not mean safe. Jamaica is gun free, as is UK. You are safer in Vermont than Scotland. So is DC and USVI. How is that working? Mexico? Singapore, but that is a police state. Japan is because of culture, nothing to do with gun laws. Reasonalbe people operate off of empirical data, and your side loses that fight. That is why people don't support it. Reasonable people do not make demands and have "heads I win tails you lose"

As far as the "current SCOTUS", have you ever wondered why they didn't ban machine guns instead of passing the NFA? Because FDR's AG, and other supporters, thought a ban would be struck down. In Miller, the lower court did before the State appealed to SCOTUS, who kicked it back.

[gejohnston]

21. This reminded my of your post

God I missed this guy when he left Air America

&feature=g-all-u

[Starboard Tack]

22. I thought you understood me a little better.

The only bans I support are total, universal bans (that means everybody, no exceptions).
These are the top 10 things I would ban if I ruled the world.

1. Nuclear weapons.
2. Capital punishment.
3. Poverty.
4. International borders and fences.
5. War on drugs.
6. Private prisons.
7. Military contractors.
8. Corporate run healthcare.
9. Profiteering from exhaustible resources.
10.Any device designed exclusively or primarily to hurt humans.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Well, this is incorrect hyperbole.

"Excluding our brave military personnel, police officers are probably the only individuals who rush toward the sound of gunfire."

Simply wrong.

[Union Scribe]

20. Cops always think they're exceptional.

Yeah, that's the author compensating for a small penis, as I've learned on DU. Looks like he'd qualify for gun nut status here. But hey, it's okay for cops, just not dirty commoners.