He argues, as do others, that there are four: fight, flight, posture, and submit.
That is consistent with Peterson's research as well.
He argues, as do others, that there are four: fight, flight, posture, and submit.
10 years as a criminal investigator. I talk to them to find out not only what they did, but why they did it and details about why they selected certain victims
That is an odd way to say you were or are a LEO
If you were or are a LEO investigator then it would tend to reason that you were a patrolman for years prior to that
IMHO, one does what is appropriate for the setting. I don't wear a tux to go fishing. and I don't wear waders to the symphony. Both would be legal, but not appropriate.
I open carry in the field, hunting or fishing. I CCW in town.
I agree, awareness and the element of surprise tend to be more favorable than the opposite.For whatever it is worth, I don't object to people exercising their rights to open carry but I do believe concealed carry is the wiser option for several reasons.
While I am burning up city resources...
If a criminal wants to commit a crime and they know you are an armed citizen, you will be the first they are going to deal with/take out.
I hear this all the time and its not invalid, but I wonder why no one ever seems to mention the other side of the coin. IF concealed carry means that criminals aren't certain, and therefore sometimes don't commit crimes due to that, (the evidence seems to support that idea), then there are also criminals who won't commit a crime (or commit it near you) when they ARE certain you are armed.
Also hear constantly about how they bad guys are going to bushwack you and get your gun, never seem to hear the odds on their being shot, trying to get someone's gun.
I do agree, concealed carry is a better choice, when you are in our urban jungles, BUT we need open carry allowed as well, because everyone doesn't live where there are hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.
I don't just carry concealed because of "hordes of people scared spitless by the mere sight of someone with a gun.". That seems like a bit of a strawman. I do believe open carry should remain a right.
I have some question about the legal basis for "The police will be obligated to respond." I know that the S.O.P for probably every department in the country is that they WILL respond to a call about a man with a gun, but are they actually "obligated" to do so? I respectfully submit that they are not obligated to do so, and that we need to do a better job of educating the police, the media, and the populace to eradicate what I believe to be a false belief.Reloadron said:This will only lead to a collection of scared but well intention citizens calling 911 about a man with a gun. The police will be obligated to respond ...
My friend Spencer Keepers summed up the issue of open carry in the best way that I’ve heard: “I support the right, not the practice.” I agree with him 100%.
I have some question about the legal basis for "The police will be obligated to respond." I know that the S.O.P for probably every department in the country is that they WILL respond to a call about a man with a gun, but are they actually "obligated" to do so? I respectfully submit that they are not obligated to do so, and that we need to do a better job of educating the police, the media, and the populace to eradicate what I believe to be a false belief.
D: What is the person doing with the gun?
C: He's ... he's .. he has this BIG GUN in a BLACK holster on his belt!!!!!
D: Okay, but is he doing anything illegal with the gun, like waving it around or pointing at people?
C: Well, no, not yet. But, but ... it's a GUN! Please send the SWAT team as quick as you can!
D: M'am, it's legal to carry a gun in this state. Unless he's doing something illegal, we have no reason to waste our officers' time investigating. Have a nice day.