Long Beach PD rescues UOCer from Park Police on Independence Day!!

[pullnshoot25]

Re: Long Beach PD rescues UOCer from Park Police on Independence Day!!

Is adding a number illegal?

Sorry, that eould be "altering" and is obviously covered in the law.

Even the thought of firing a gun in a large park with large crowds is nuts.. No one would be safe. Thats a time you let them rob you and live to figh

I have to agree with you. NO LEO or military personel should ever carry their firearm in a crowded area. IT's just not a safe thing to do.

I'm not sure that you realize that many LEOs and military personel have relatively little experience with firearms. Many have less experience and training then many civilians.

Plus, cops aren't required to protect people.

[a.tinkerer]

You won't see any sort of sincere apology from me here.
Your disrespect for the guy who carried in public is implicit.
My disrespect for your voice on the issue is more clear.
I feel my side of the fence is more honorable.

I've done far more than my share of pushing 2A issues, for years, from my neighborhood all the way through the federal level, not to mention introducing new shooters to firearms.

Tinkerer, this is where you apologize for the "pantyNancy" remark. I may be opposed to UOC but I don't start throwing crap like that around here. I can accept contrary opinions, however heated, from the guys on this board. But I'll be damned if I let you disrespect me for my views on this issue.

...and use granted rights as a political tool only?
Oh please...

Bummer about the park police being clueless about UOC. That said, I can't believe you felt it necessary to UOC at park jammed full of kids on a holiday. What kind of reaction did you think you were going to get?

This is a classic example of *my* problem with UOC. I'm fine with it as long as it's used as a political tool, as a means to the end of improving access to CCW. I am *not* fine with it if it's used "because I can", without any real or perceived need.

This really pisses me off because I've written letters and even met with my Assemblyperson to discuss UOC/CCW. But when this kind of thing happens at park full of kids, I completely understand why they want to just ban the whole frakkin thing!

You own your position.
I don't have to like it and I don't have to respect you for anything to start, much less your position on this issue.



Cheers
Tinker

[CalCop]

Even the thought of firing a gun in a large park with large crowds is nuts.. No one would be safe.

My shooting must not be as bad as yours.

Thats a time you let them rob you and live to fight another day.

Not me.

Also the risk that had that gone down hill, you could have been killed. Look at the bart trial.

Did you really just write that?!

Not saying also your oscar grant.

As if Grant did something wrong? Come on, dude, bad example.

I'd say chalk this up to lessons for both sides....

Sure....
Lesson for cops: UOC is legal.
Lesson for UOCer: some cops know it's legal.
Huge lesson for crowd of bystanders: Next time you see a normal looking dude with an openly carried gun on his hip...don't bother calling the cops.

[lrdchivalry]

I have to agree with you. NO LEO or military personel should ever carry their firearm in a crowded area. IT's just not a safe thing to do.

I'm not sure that you realize that many LEOs and military personel have relatively little experience with firearms. Many have less experience and training then many civilians.

According to gunfacts.info:

Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection

Fact:

About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by

citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
person are less than 1 in 26,000.279 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes
almost 2,500,000 times every year.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...5.1-screen.pdf

The officers at my department only qualify once every three months and there are officers that shoot only good enough to qualify (minimum score). My agency does not allow its officers to practice off duty with our service weapon (I know it's crazy, they can carry it off duty for protection but cannot practice with it) and a lot of the newer officers do not own another handgun, therefore, they do not practice on their own, which, in my opinion lends credence to the above info.

If this fact is accurate, as an innocent bystander you are more likely to be killed by the police than a law abiding citizen.

As an leo and a citizen I am a firm believer in the 2A. If CCW is out of the question for now I have no problem with UOC.

Anyway kudos to LBPD for knowing the law and protecting the OP.

[hill billy]

According to gunfacts.info:

Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection

Fact:

About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
person are less than 1 in 26,000.279 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes

almost 2,500,000 times every year.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...5.1-screen.pdf

The officers at my department only qualify once every three months and there are officers that shoot only good enough to qualify (minimum score). My agency does not allow its officers to practice off duty with our service weapon (I know it's crazy, they can carry it off duty for protection but cannot practice with it) and a lot of the newer officers do not own another handgun, therefore, they do not practice on their own, which, in my opinion lends credence to the above info.

If this fact is accurate, as an innocent bystander you are more likely to be killed by the police than a law abiding citizen.

I have met a lot of newer cops who had never even held a gun until the academy. I asked one guy if he had a Glock 22 in his holster and he told me, "No, it's a 40 cal."

[CalCop]

I asked one guy if he had a Glock 22 in his holster and he told me, "No, it's a 40 cal."

Did you laugh out loud?

[Meplat]

The tone of this discourse is getting a bit too strained. I am surprized you two have not been chided by the mods already.

You won't see any sort of sincere apology from me here.
Your disrespect for the guy who carried in public is implicit.
My disrespect for your voice on the issue is more clear.
I feel my side of the fence is more honorable.









...and use granted rights as a political tool only?
Oh please...







You own your position.
I don't have to like it and I don't have to respect you for anything to start, much less your position on this issue.



Cheers
Tinker

[hill billy]

Did you laugh out loud?

No, I've seen more than one LAPD boot who was lucky to be pointing the right end downrange. I'm not disparaging them, they just had zero gun experience before the academy.

[lrdchivalry]

I have met a lot of newer cops who had never even held a gun until the academy. I asked one guy if he had a Glock 22 in his holster and he told me, "No, it's a 40 cal."

I shouldn't laugh but that was funny. What is more scary though is I used to work with an officer who admitted that they would not use their gun for any reason.

[FastFinger]

The officers at my department only qualify once every three months and there are officers that shoot only good enough to qualify (minimum score). My agency does not allow its officers to practice off duty with our service weapon (I know it's crazy, they can carry it off duty for protection but cannot practice with it) and a lot of the newer officers do not own another handgun, therefore, they do not practice on their own, which, in my opinion lends credence to the above info.

Not to take this off on a tangent... What possible reasoning does your dept use to prohibit practicing with your service weapon? Wear and tear?

I've seen and heard some stats on LEO shootings, and from what I recall they need all the practice they can get. I'd think that it'd be in the departments' and public's interest to have the LEO as proficient as humanly possible.

[hill billy]

Not to take this off on a tangent... What possible reasoning does your dept use to prohibit practicing with your service weapon? Wear and tear?

I've seen and heard some stats on LEO shootings, and from what I recall they need all the practice they can get. I'd think that it'd be in the departments' and public's interest to have the LEO as proficient as humanly possible.

I have come to the conclusion that this results from watching the suspect as they are shooting rather than the sights or the gun. I think it's perfectly understandable in a situation like that. Not right necessarily, but understandable why it happens.

[lrdchivalry]

Not to take this off on a tangent... What possible reasoning does your dept use to prohibit practicing with your service weapon? Wear and tear?

I've seen and heard some stats on LEO shootings, and from what I recall they need all the practice they can get. I'd think that it'd be in the departments' and public's interest to have the LEO as proficient as humanly possible.

You would think that, however, that is not always the case. My understanding of the reason why they no longer allow officers to practice with their service weapons is money. We had a few IMHO stupid officers who would practice on their own (not a problem) but then submit an overtime card and try to get paid for practicing on their own (the stupid part) and when the agency refused their overtime cards they filed a union grievance. What was the agency responce? Officers are no longer allowed to practice with their service weapon or even do maintainance on their own time.

I hope this doesn't turn into a thread hijack.

[Maestro Pistolero]

If some criminal opens fire in a crowded area, the last concern is what a law abiding person might do to stop him. On one hand, a criminal is intentionally murdering people wholesale. On the other, you have someone looking for a opportunity to stop him with minimal collateral damage. Placing both individuals in the same category as a public safety risk in foolish and naive. There is no comparison between the two.

[Meplat]

That is scary! I wouldn't work with him/her very long!

I shouldn't laugh but that was funny. What is more scary though is I used to work with an officer who admitted that they would not use their gun for any reason.

[N6ATF]

I shouldn't laugh but that was funny. What is more scary though is I used to work with an officer who admitted that they would not use their gun for any reason.

Then they either are carrying it for their coworkers as a BUG, or need to paint a blue gun black and carry it instead, so if it gets taken away, no harm no foul.