So pro-gun people, are you afraid to carry because the cops will shoot you on sight, no questions asked these days?

I think you will find most of the pro-gun crowd have the magic Lack of Melanin which causes law enforcement officers to act polite and professional towards firearm carriers...;-D...

Sorry, I can't embed the Stewart-Wilmore video on the subject.

Well,  my melanin-challenged friend.  That is partly true.  However, if you and I, in our dilapidated Saturn and Kia respectively,  had a gun in our glove compartment, OR God forbid, our person?  I think the cop would automatically FINANCIALLY profile us and see that we don't have the lawyer power to man up and cause a rukus when he decides to shoot first and ask questions about why later.

Poor and white is almost as bad as black.  NOT AS BAD. But close.   Shoot first, but not until you financially and racially profile.  That is the talent these days for cops with guns. 

I find it hilarious that the melanin-challenged, gun worshipping crowd did not figure that part out beforehand.

BUT YOU MAKE AN EXCELLENT POINT.  FER SURE.

You're going to have to run the logic of that by me one more time.

You assert cops willl shoot you on sight, regardless of whether you are packing or not. So, how is packing going to deter them from shooting you?

I don't get it.

#Stepperlogic

@Stepper -- Sorry, I'm still not getting it.

In order to deter a police officer from shooting you (and, if you're outnumbered, you're toast), you would have to pull out the weapon before the officer in question pulls out his (or hers). At which point you've committed the crime of threatening someone with a gun. So, even assuming the officer backs off and doesn't attempt to take you out, you are at that point a wanted alleged felon, and it's pretty sure that the law enforcement agency will use its considerable resources to arrest you (or flash-bang your face off while you're sleeping at home).

So, you are either trolling, you haven't thought this through completely, or...well, I'm not going to go to the less-charitable assements of your stance.

Pard, OS... I am sure Stepper wants your input over mine since you are Old School and I am just, well, Sharonna....

1st Paragraph, Step:  So, I'm actually asserting that cops will shoot me on site, no questions asked, if I'm not packing, because they love killing people who can't defend themselves, and I would be a person who can't defend myself. Therefore, I pack.

ME:

Okay, twisted as that may sound at first read, I am following the sarcastic logic of it all.  The point is, the cops may see you as defenseless, but you will remain defenseless using your logic.  And add insult to your injury.  

So WHY add insult to your already lost case by pilling a reason for them to come out smelling like roses while you not only look dead, but dead and a criminal? You will lose on more counts this way, not less and you certainly will not LIVE to tell.

Reasoning:   If you have a gun and try to defend yourself against a cop?  You are dead.  Remember?  Say that gun stays in the glove compartment.   The "police officer"  goes into your glove compartment and finds a weapon to put in your hand after the fact.  I mean he accidentally dropped his live web cam of course.

So, as ludicrous as all this sounds, where do you get any ANY ANY ANY leverage by having a gun to protect yourself against being defenseless here?

I think this is enough.  We don't need to go to the next paragraph yet, dear.

The lowly Shat..

What am I, chopped liver? 

About to that point.

Seriously, what can we do? An average citizen even if we had a gun would never even consider firing at an officer even if it was in defense because we all know what would happen.

I had an encounter with the police once while packing a legally registered weapon. I find it's best that you just don't tell them about it and allow them to find it on their own. lol I laugh, but I'm actually serious.

Nobody died, nobody went to jail.

I honestly forgot it was in the car until I saw the lights behind me. lol After running my license, they asked me to step out of the vehicle... as they always do. I did, even let them search the car. They put the clip in the glove-box, put the gun in the center console and after what seemed like an hour, I was free to go.

Course, I didn't jump out of the car waving it around like: "Oh by the way, I have gun in here." They tend to flip out when you do that. I simply never reached in the direction of it while I was in the car. lol

@Stepper -- Let me preface this by saying I support your right to own a gun and use it within the context of the law. I am personally against concealed carry laws (while I favor open carry), but if you're doing it legally, well...that's the society we live in.

That being said, I think you are engaging in a MASSIVE amount of rationalization of whatever your real reasons for carrying a gun are.

You say deterrence is not an issue. I accept your claim.

That leaves distraction, for which you don't need a gun. There is copious evidence cops will shoot at ANYONE (especially dark-skinned people) whom they perceive as a "threat" (Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, and on and on and on). If you're loud and boisterous and verbally abusive or threaten violence with ANYTHING, a cop will likely fire. A gun is a superfluous addition to the situation.

Next you claim drawing second will somehow either cause the officer to arrest rather than shoot you, or you'll somehow win the shootout while at a major disadvantage. I suppose it's possible I'd beat LeBron James at a game of one-on-one (if he somehow just happened to miss every shot he took), but it's not the expected outcome.

Finally, you speak of finanical recompense. That makes NO sense. If you can show me an example of a case where a person pulled a gun on a law enforcement officer, was shot by the LEO as result, and the gun-puller obtained a legal or financial judgement is his favor as a result...well, it will be the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.

Finally, just because you have different values/priorities than I do does NOT mean I cannot understand what those values/priorities are. My ex-wife divorced me because we have different values/priorities. But I understand her and she understands me. So far, you have not offered a comprehendable explanation for your gun-carrying, because the scenarios you assert might occur do not correspond to observable reality.

As I said, If you like to own/carry a gun, that's your right under the law. But whatever your real motivations are, you have yet to explicate them.

Step, I just read you last sentence and nothing OS said, so I am wondering what this has to do with anything you started out saying?   WHAT?  What does this have to do with your value priority when you are just going to get shot and worse by carrying a gun when a cop is involved. 

I highly doubt if OS is attacking you.  Maybe an idea you are presenting. Not you. 

We actually shared a laugh about it. I taught them about an obscure law on the books that allows convicted felons to carry if they've been off parole, without incident, for 10 or more years and they informed me that the clip needed to stay separate from the gun while in the car.

Mind you, I've had encounters with certain officers who couldn't be appeased by any level of reason or politeness. Even some that were undeniably corrupt. Just so happens these particular officers weren't like that.

Are you saying that we should give up our rights because law enforcement shoots people without just cause??? Seriously? How about demanding that they be held accountable for unjustified shootings? How about demanding better training, that investigations be handled by an outside agency and not the department responsible, as well as more transparency regarding all cases of police misconduct?

Btw, law enforcement are not "protectors", nor do they have any legal obligation to be, except in very limited circumstances. This has been upheld not only in federal circut courts, but by the SCOTUS, as well, on at least three occasions:

Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)

In fact, in some states answering emergency calls or providing police protection are considered “discretionary” functions.

A study in the mid-1990s found that over 95% of the time police were dispatched, they were too late to either stop a crime or arrest a suspect.

As Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.”

https://fee.org/articles/just-dial-911-the-myth-of-police-protection/

Disarming the public is not the answer to criminals/murderers with badges.

It is difficult for me to understand the thinking that one the on hand vilifies guns and gun-owners while simultaneously wondering why LEOs are so extremely hostile to them. For me it's one of those crap or get off the pot things. We can't regard gun collectors as crazy or gun carriers as potential mass-murderers and then sit surprised when agents of a govt. being petitioned to crack down on them treat them as such in the field. It's a weird idea to me.

I cannot wrap my mind around it either, Fork.