Any EDC CCW'ers?

[brian64]

That wasn't directed toward Warren. It's just a statistic that stuck in my head from some time in the past.
I didn't post it "gleefully"; it's sad.

Oh yes, I understood all that completely.

And I was really just joking around of course...but I do expect those comments won't sit well with him, regardless of how accurate they may be. He'll probably want you to post peer reviewed studies on that...or maybe just some CNN fact checking or something lol.

My two cents: a lot of cops probably have some degree of PTSD, either from police experiences or because many of them are probably combat vets.

And then some are just bad apples. There's also sometimes a culture of corruption within LE...especially some big city depts. Primarily a result of the "war on drugs".

See, now you've got me to comment, so Warren will likely bypass you guys and go straight for me.

Well played.

 

[warren]

I can only respond with the observation, certain professions, teaching, law enforcement, banking, medical, politics, judges, to name just a few, attract people who want to dominate others, not serve them. Some localities do a better job of excluding these folks than others. It's simply a fact of life.

"Pre-hire" screening steps, psychological testing being a primary one, can detect many applicants who are applying for all the wrong reasons. But, such screening must be rigorously applied. Some, smaller jurisdictions have little to no screening procedures in place due to costs or lack of interest. That is indefensible. So, I can't defend that cited anomaly, and they are such.

 

[Brad H]

My two cents: a lot of cops probably have some degree of PTSD, either from police experiences or because many of them are probably combat vets.

indeed you are correct. 86%ish?? was a study I saw from last year I believe.
In a given 3 year period of employment the PTSD manifests in most officers. 5 Years in, is about when a lot of officers become numb and lose their sense of caring. Get 20 years in, you become numb to almost everything including death.

 

[warren]

There is probably some truth in the above. I prefer cynicism or jaded to PTSD. Very few death investigations affected me. Death is simply a fact of life for all of us. Child involved deaths made me sad, sometimes angry but, a birth simply means a death is owed. My upbringing allowed me to, many times, attribute much of what I saw,experienced to, "God's Will". An escape mechanism to be sure but, useful for one's sanity.

But, as I've said before, I keep/kept my expectations of humans and our behavior low. I find the people most susceptible to PTSD, a term very easily and generally (indiscriminately?) applied these days, the psychological fad of the day as it were, are people who are faced or experienced situations totally opposed to the beliefs/expectations they were brought up with. (God! That was clumsy sentence!) All of my observations on the subject are based solely on anecdotal evidence based only on personal experience and observation. My reality as it were. Studies rarely attract more than a passing interest. TMI? I'm guessing ... yes!

 

[brian64]

I can only respond with the observation, certain professions, teaching, law enforcement, banking, medical, politics, judges, to name just a few, attract people who want to dominate others, not serve them.

100% correct...unfortunately.

What percentage of cops are of that type, I have no idea.

There is probably some truth in the above. I prefer cynicism or jaded to PTSD. Very few death investigations affected me. Death is simply a fact of life for all of us. Child involved deaths made me sad, sometimes angry but, a birth simply means a death is owed. My upbringing allowed me to, many times, attribute much of what I saw,experienced to, "God's Will". An escape mechanism to be sure but, useful for one's sanity.

But, as I've said before, I keep/kept my expectations of humans and our behavior low. I find the people most susceptible to PTSD, a term very easily and generally (indiscriminately?) applied these days, the psychological fad of the day as it were, are people who are faced or experienced situations totally opposed to the beliefs/expectations they were brought up with. (God! That was clumsy sentence!) All of my observations on the subject are based solely on anecdotal evidence based only on personal experience and observation. My reality as it were. Studies rarely attract more than a passing interest. TMI? I'm guessing ... yes!

I agree "PTSD" is over-used, as are many other alleged psych terms and conditions these days...but in my view the legitimate PTSD issues are the result not of just observing things, but of direct physical involvement in extremely violent situations resulting in severe physical trauma or loss of life...such as war combat or some police experiences. I'm sure it doesn't affect everyone to the same degree.

My perception is that most cops probably never experience these things to that degree...I don't know what percentage actually do...but I suspect the ones who suffer from legitimate PTSD are more likely the combat vets than those who got that way from police work.

 

[warren]

A very respected Criminal Psychologist advised my class at the FBI National Academy that, "psychology is not an exact science, more of an art form." An observation which has stuck with me for many years. One which I've found no reason to doubt.

 

[Jacob74]

Psychology is practiced in a scientific way, but psychology as a discipline doesn't meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: quantifiability, clearly defined terminology, reproducibility, controlled experimental conditions, and predictable testability.
One easy way to understand this would be to study happiness. Happiness has no rigorous, scientific definition. Happiness isn't quantifiable. If you don't have quantifiability or even a scientific definition, it is unlikely that one would be able to meet the other requirements.

Granted, there are varying degrees of scientific rigor present in the field of psychology, some of them very respectable. However, it's effectively impossible to define psychology as a science if meeting the 5 basic requirements of science are necessary to be defined as such. Of course, psychologists will disagree, saying "It's a science because we use the scientific method". However, to be science, we must demand that results of the scientific method, rigorously applied be objective, falsifiable, and repeatable. That's just not the case with psychology.
In my opinion, defining psychology as a science is simply redefining what a science is, in order to give the academic field a cache it doesn't deserve.

 

[SmokingInTheWind]

Most shotguns aren't drop safe, a very serious reason to consider keeping a round out of the chamber until ready to destroy something (especially if you have cats).
In my military career, I carried Mossberg 500 series shotguns, and we always carried them magazine tube fully loaded, no round chambered, safety off. If you were the breacher carrying the shotty, you'd carry it without a round in the magazine, then when you deployed the weapon for breaching a door, you'd fire your last round and leave the weapon off safe with the expended shell in the chamber. Next time you wanted to breach, you'd do like all good soldiers, pump and go.
When well trained and drilled, you can run a pump action shotgun plenty fast. Bad guys won't be thinking "ah ha! He's exposed his position!" they'll be thinking, "why am I so sleepy?"

@Jacob74, I have been offline for a while and I am just now seeing your post. Your post prompted me to do some research and I learned a lot about shotguns and drop safe. Drop safe and negligent discharge are things that must be seriously considered in a shotgun home defense plan, especially in an apartment situation. It‘s not the same as carrying a loaded shotgun afield while hunting.

While doing my homework I found the article below by an author l read frequently on a revolver blog. This article and your experience have me rethinking how l will handle my home defense shotgun in the future. Two ready condition options are explained. I am leaning towards Cruiser Safe. I generally use handguns for nightstand duty, but the model 500 Turkey gets the nod and comes out of the safe on occasion.

Cruiser Safe - a change in the pump shotgun's ready condition - American Cop - https://americancop.com/cruiser-safe-a-change-in-the-pump-shotguns-ready-condition/

I hope @krizzose has read your response affirming his choice.

 

[warren]

It‘s not the same as carrying a loaded shotgun afield while hunting.

In what way? It is exactly the same as hunting except hunting animals is usually done in daylight.. You must identify your target, kin?, intruder?, bear? or, fellow hunter/ brother officer?. Stalking a suspect/perpetrator is hunting. Very serious hunting, often done in the semi-darkness, at close quarters.

 

[woodsroad]

Psychology is practiced in a scientific way, but psychology as a discipline doesn't meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: quantifiability, clearly defined terminology, reproducibility, controlled experimental conditions, and predictable testability.
One easy way to understand this would be to study happiness. Happiness has no rigorous, scientific definition. Happiness isn't quantifiable. If you don't have quantifiability or even a scientific definition, it is unlikely that one would be able to meet the other requirements.

Granted, there are varying degrees of scientific rigor present in the field of psychology, some of them very respectable. However, it's effectively impossible to define psychology as a science if meeting the 5 basic requirements of science are necessary to be defined as such. Of course, psychologists will disagree, saying "It's a science because we use the scientific method". However, to be science, we must demand that results of the scientific method, rigorously applied be objective, falsifiable, and repeatable. That's just not the case with psychology.
In my opinion, defining psychology as a science is simply redefining what a science is, in order to give the academic field a cache it doesn't deserve.

But what about the Social Sciences?

 

[SmokingInTheWind]

In what way? It is exactly the same as hunting except hunting animals is usually done in daylight.. You must identify your target, kin?, intruder?, bear? or, fellow hunter/ brother officer?. Stalking a suspect/perpetrator is hunting. Very serious hunting, often done in the semi-darkness, at close quarters.

Warren, I understand where you are coming from and l appreciate your feedback. I am talking about home defense, not law enforcement duties. A shotgun with a loaded chamber when hunting in the field should be under control at all times. This is not the same as a shotgun with a loaded chamber propped up in the corner of an apartment bedroom.

Would the time it takes to rack a shell in the chamber give you time to wake up and identify an intruder vs. family member? Do cops generally have a loaded chamber in their shotguns and rifles in the cruiser? Just playing devils advocate. Let me know your thoughts. I am open minded.

I have never taken a defensive shotgun class. I should rectify that. I wonder what is the most popular ready condition taught? I am talking defensive not law enforcement.

I am not going to be hunting bad guys. I will defend me and mine and hopefully they go away. If they do I will not follow. We have a very conditional second amendment and I am not going to test it beyond what is necessary.

That said, I think we would be on the same page concerning a semiautomatic pistol being carried with an unloaded chamber in a CCW situation.

 

[warren]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with use of a firearm, local laws cover that. A home defense weapon creates questions which need answers. Are there children residing in the home? Are you prepared to take a life or, is the weapon only there as a visual/audible deterrent? Do you have cover or concealment available. They are not the same thing. Night sights and/or flashlight? Many folks think they can kill. They will never know for sure until faced with that decision. and so forth. My finger is never on the trigger until I face the threat. But, my weapon is "hot", always. If you think racking the weapon might be useful, rack it! I might consider doing so if approaching a perp from his/her backside. But, I'd be racking a shell out and another in. I wouldn't recommend doing so when finding yourself face to face with an armed intruder.

I've not found many CCW courses that address the psychology of "shoot-don't shoot" situations much less how to prepare one's brain/autonomic responses, Most only cover applicable laws and actual use of the fire arm. I taught rookies and veteran officers attending my "Officer Survival" classes to, whenever convenient,"play out" in one's head various scenarios so to train the "reflexes" to respond in a "proper" manner, not in panic.

Keep in mind that I carried a gun every day of my adult life and practiced with it often. Do do your homework. It sounds as though your are. Good on you!

 

[SmokingInTheWind]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with use of a firearm, local laws cover that. A home defense weapon creates questions which need answers. Are there children residing in the home? Are you prepared to take a life or, is the weapon only there as a visual/audible deterrent? Do you have cover or concealment available. They are not the same thing. Night sights and/or flashlight? Many folks think they can kill. They will never know for sure until faced with that decision. and so forth. My finger is never on the trigger until I face the threat. But, my weapon is "hot", always. If you think racking the weapon might be useful, rack it! I might consider doing so if approaching a perp from his/her backside. But, I'd be racking a shell out and another in. I wouldn't recommend doing so when finding yourself face to face with an armed intruder.

I've not found many CCW courses that address the psychology of "shoot-don't shoot" situations much less how to prepare one's brain/autonomic responses, Most only cover applicable laws and actual use of the fire arm. I taught rookies and veteran officers attending my "Officer Survival" classes to, whenever convenient,"play out" in one's head various scenarios so to train the "reflexes" to respond in a "proper" manner, not in panic.

Keep in mind that I carried a gun every day of my adult life and practiced with it often. Do do your homework. It sounds as though your are. Good on you!

I mentioned hunting as that is the bulk of my experience when it comes to shotguns.

I am in learning mode on the home defense shotgun, gathering new information. Trying to overcome my deep seated habits and complacency.

 

[Jacob74]

But what about the Social Sciences?

I feel the same way about calling anthropology or sociology a science as I do psychology. It's often practiced in an academically rigorous way, using the scientific method...but it isn't science, (at least as defined by bearing the five requirements of science).
Deep down where they don't like to talk about it, every sociologist knows that bleak winter of the soul that occurs when a chemist or physicist snickers when a sociologist describes themselves as a scientist.

Hell, my academic training is as an historian. But it doesn't hurt my feelings when the science department shows up with their snooty attitudes and their objective claims on secular truth. Without me and my crew, no one remembers their names!