Strange thing at Starbucks


PDA






steverjo
September 8, 2009, 01:37 AM
I was in a hurry coming out of Starbucks today and as I was heading towards my car, i was approaching a guy from the rear. He was wearing a white long sleeve shirt, dark slacks and no jacket, with "odd suspenders" and was surrounded by a bunch of teenage, early 20's girls giggling, oohing and ahhing at him. As i got closer, i noticed the barrel of a hand gun pointing from his left side, parrallel to the ground aimed right at my mid section.

After quickly stepping sideways, i noticed as I passed him that he was wearing some sort police/sheriff badge on his belt. He appeared to be having fun with all the girls.

I have never really looked at shoulder holsters before, is it normal for the muzzel to point out the back at anyone who may be behind the person?

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange thing at Starbucks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kangspec
September 8, 2009, 01:43 AM
um, yeah so it can be easier to hold the handgun.

http://www.rack-n-hance.com/images/black%20concealed%20holster.jpg

steverjo
September 8, 2009, 01:59 AM
Just curious....... Why is it ok to point a loaded gun at someone this way?

N003k
September 8, 2009, 02:21 AM
It's generally assumed that the gun can't go off on it's own without human intervention...

Kinda like it's assumed that the guns pointing at you from the cases in a gun shop aren't a threat, or breaking any of the rules.

DougDubya
September 8, 2009, 02:40 AM
Just curious....... Why is it ok to point a loaded gun at someone this way?
The trigger guard is generally shielded from being tripped, it is secured against falling, and the retention strap makes the weapon's operation problematic.

armoredman
September 8, 2009, 04:24 AM
Goofy to use without a covering garment, though.

TimM
September 8, 2009, 04:39 AM
It's generally assumed that the gun can't go off on it's own without human intervention...
...as it assumed that a gun in a standard holster will not discharge and blow a hole in your leg or foot.

kd7nqb
September 8, 2009, 04:50 AM
I know several LEO's who are high enough up in the "brass" that they don't wear a traditional uniform and it would not be out of place for them to be dressed like that. Eventually they tend to fade to just a pistol a mag or 2 and some cuffs. Giving up the extras.

steverjo
September 8, 2009, 05:36 AM
It still seems kind of odd. In a traditional holster, it is your own leg or foot that gets the hole. This way, it is the person behind you that gets shot. And it just seems like an accident waiting to happen with teenage/20something girls fooling around with him.

NOO3K, guns in cases are usually unloaded. This was probably loaded.

smithmax
September 8, 2009, 05:38 AM
Steverjo, guns don't just go off, so you don't need to worry about a gun in a secure holster. It may be unsettling to see, but it's not a threat.

earlthegoat2
September 8, 2009, 07:06 AM
This has been going on for ages and it started way back when people had more common sense than they do now.

In a gun store, all the guns could be loaded in those cases and as long as no one ever pulled the trigger on one I bet there would never be a gunshot in the place.

SalchaketJoe
September 8, 2009, 07:39 AM
I thought a holstered weapon was considered a "safe" weapon. The shoulder holster safety thing was big in Iraq a couple of years ago in the military. People made the same complaint about the muzzle. They failed to realize that with a leg holster, which is also popular over there, when you sit down (like at the crowded chow hall) you are flagging people with the holstered pistol

KenWP
September 8, 2009, 07:52 AM
I would be more concerned about the gigglly girls then the gun.

Davek1977
September 8, 2009, 07:53 AM
Concerns about a gun just "going off" seem to be more at home among the anti's than among seasoned shooters. We all SHOULD know that it takes the trigger being pulled to fire a gun. A holstered gun, with the entire trigger mechanism covered, is not going to fire unless somone unholsters it and pulls the trigger. Too, with the way semi-auto pistols function, an accidental discharge while holstered in such a mannner is all but impossible. Shoulder holsters of this design are quite common, and if they had a tendency to cause accidntal or negligent discharges, I doubt this would be the case. Furthermore, i don't see how a group of people, regardless of age, "oohing and ahhing" at someone would somehow make their carry weapon any more likely to fire? Touching "close to" a gun doesn't make it go bang. Accidently brushing up against a holstered gun doesn't make it go off. Now, if one of the girls reached up, unsnapped the retention snap, and tried to get her finger around the trigger somehow, I'd certainly be looking at the situation differently. However, NO physical contact was mentioned of ANY kind, so I fail to see the issue here. Some people, it seems, look for things to worry themselves about, in many cases (like this one) needlessly

9mm+
September 8, 2009, 09:57 AM
I would be more concerned about the gigglly girls then the gun.

Same here. This seems a bit odd to me.

A holstered weapon is safe and no reason for alarm. It's not unusual for detectives to carry a pistol in a shoulder harness. Perfectly safe and perfectly acceptable.

DHJenkins
September 8, 2009, 10:22 AM
The most dangerous part of a firearm is the human holding it, which is why I don't consider it "muzzle sweep" unless it's in someone's hand.

If you follow the 4 rules, you should always assume that the guns in the display case are loaded. Following that logic, they are just as 'dangerous' as the safely holstered weapon in the shoulder rig - and the ones in the cases are usually at crotch level.:what:

There's a difference between gun safety, and gun paranoia.

TexasRifleman
September 8, 2009, 10:24 AM
Just curious....... Why is it ok to point a loaded gun at someone this way?

Despite all attempts by the media and the anti's to show otherwise, guns just don't "go off" by themselves.

eye5600
September 8, 2009, 10:51 AM
The most dangerous part of a firearm is the human holding it, which is why I don't consider it "muzzle sweep" unless it's in someone's hand.

I think this is the point. It's all very well to say the gun won't go off when it's (properly) holstered, but that's not necessarily the point. The worry is that the gun is not pointed in a known-safe direction when the human puts his grubby mitt on it. Guns do go off now and then when taken from a holster in an improper manner.

TexasRifleman
September 8, 2009, 10:54 AM
The worry is that the gun is not pointed in a known-safe direction when the human puts his grubby mitt on it. Guns do go off now and then when taken from a holster in an improper manner.

And again, this can happen with any holster type. As noted, many other holsters, especially the drop style, point at others when someone is seated.

If someone is wearing a shoulder holster and constantly taking the gun in and out of the holster I'd say we have a bigger problem than the holster type yes?

In fact, I find that when I've used a shoulder holster I touch the gun MUCH less often. At night, when removing it, I don't remove the gun I simply take the entire holster off like I would a jacket. Doing that, I'd argue that shoulder holsters are safer since there is really no need to remove the gun until you actually need to use it.

HGUNHNTR
September 8, 2009, 11:05 AM
+1 Texas Rifleman, and to emphasize your earlier point.

Guns don't just "go off".

If your gun discharges when you remove it from the holster, it is because YOU pulled the trigger, the gun didn't decide it was time to lose some weight.

Speedo66
September 8, 2009, 01:23 PM
Where I worked, shoulder holsters were considered "showboating" by the officers, and were against dept. rules.

Also, regs said "no go" for cross draw holsters, anything without a top strap, and in the waistband holsters. On duty or off.

Gun was never to be exposed except in uniform, so none of the above Starbucks display.

N003k
September 8, 2009, 01:30 PM
It still seems kind of odd. In a traditional holster, it is your own leg or foot that gets the hole. This way, it is the person behind you that gets shot. And it just seems like an accident waiting to happen with teenage/20something girls fooling around with him.

NOO3K, guns in cases are usually unloaded. This was probably loaded.

Rule 1: All guns are loaded.

Plus you say they're USUALLY unloaded? Well what if one pointing right at the entrance isn't unloaded. Somehow DID end up with a round in the pipe.....

So long as it's properly cleared when next removed because we follow rule 1, it's not a threat....because while in the case, like while it was in this guys holster, the gun wouldn't be firing.

Seriously now, like has been said several times, gun's don't go off by themselves.

DougDubya
September 8, 2009, 03:30 PM
Where I worked, shoulder holsters were considered "showboating" by the officers, and were against dept. rules.

Also, regs said "no go" for cross draw holsters, anything without a top strap, and in the waistband holsters. On duty or off.

Gun was never to be exposed except in uniform, so none of the above Starbucks display.
No IWB? How the heck does anyone carry concealed on that force, then?

Grey_Mana
September 8, 2009, 03:40 PM
Guns don't just "go off".

If your gun discharges when you remove it from the holster, it is because YOU pulled the trigger, the gun didn't decide it was time to lose some weight.

Well-made, unmodified guns don't just go off. Some idiot cuts a few loops from the spring to get a 2 ounce trigger pull, sand the sear, shave down the safety so it flicks so smooth, and maybe the jiggling forces of walking down the street will let the gun go off. Some moron jury-rigs to try to convert it to full auto, and maybe the shifting gravity of the moon will let the gun go off.

Mags
September 8, 2009, 03:45 PM
Wow, we have pro gun guys worried about handing a loaded gun to a buddy at a range, gun advocates bickering over OC at presidential events, and now we are worried about guns safely secured in a holster. Have we all digressed to antis?

9mm+
September 8, 2009, 04:09 PM
Wow, we have pro gun guys worried about handing a loaded gun to a buddy at a range, gun advocates bickering over OC at presidential events, and now we are worried about guns safely secured in a holster. Have we all digressed to antis?

I was thinking the same thing, Mags. I wonder if it's just a "slow news day"? ;)

MisterMike
September 8, 2009, 04:25 PM
Wow, we have pro gun guys worried about handing a loaded gun to a buddy at a range, gun advocates bickering over OC at presidential events, and now we are worried about guns safely secured in a holster. Have we all digressed to antis?


That strikes me as an oversimplistic--and nonresponsive--answer to a legitimate question. I hardly consider myself an anti, but there are certain holsters I won't use--most notably an IWB worn in the front of the waistband--because the consequences of a bobble include a high chance of a life-ending injury (muzzle pointed at femoral artery).

It seems that some folks defend every method of carrying in a holster without considering the point that the actual use of that weapon would require it to be withdrawn from the holster. If, at the moment of withdrawing the weapon, it is being pointed in an unsafe direction, I would argue that it's an unsafe holster . . . and, therefore, an unsafe method of carry.

GoWolfpack
September 8, 2009, 04:35 PM
If, at the moment of withdrawing the weapon, it is being pointed in an unsafe direction, I would argue that it's an unsafe holster . . . and, therefore, an unsafe method of carry.

So, how can you carry a gun safely if this is your position? IWB, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. OWB, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Ankle holster, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Vertically positioned shoulder holster, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Pocket carry, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Mexican style, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me!

If you're drawing your gun, it better be to point it at somebody with the intent of using it if necessary. Otherwise, you shouldn't be drawing it.

I have an idea for the perfect holster; never pointed in an unsafe direction. It attaches to the side of your head and keeps the gun pointed muzzle-up all the time. But you'll have to be sure you're always on the top floor of whatever building you're in. Looking silly is a small price to pay for safety.

MisterMike
September 8, 2009, 04:51 PM
So, how can you carry a gun safely if this is your position? IWB, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. OWB, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Ankle holster, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Vertically positioned shoulder holster, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Pocket carry, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me. Mexican style, I draw the gun, it's pointed at: me!

In most of your examples I don't see the problem. How, for instance, could an OWB-carried gun end up pointed at you when you unholster it?

I honestly don't understand your point, and I acknowledge that I must not be explaining myself very well . . .

I carry IWB almost all the time, sometimes OWB. My pistols are always in the 3 to 4:30 position, regardless of the holster. At the moment they're withdrawn--which strikes me as a pretty critical instant, because you're making initial contact with your grip, perhaps dealing with clothing that's in the way, and likely under a bit of pressure from the situation, the muzzle is pointed downward and not at any person (myself included). I'm willing to acknowledge that if I wiff it at that point, I might suffer a grazing wound, but an AD would likely strike the ground. It sure seems to me that until I bring that gun up to a point it, it's still safe.

As I mentioned, the holsters that freak me out the most are the front IWB holsters, because at the most critical point the muzzle is pointed at an artery. An AD will see you bleeding to death in a matter of a couple of minutes. Likewise, the shoulder holsters that position the gun horizontally give me the willies--not because I'm likely to shoot myself, but because the muzzle is pointed directly in back of me at the moment I'm pulling it out of the holster.

TexasRifleman
September 8, 2009, 04:53 PM
It seems that some folks defend every method of carrying in a holster without considering the point that the actual use of that weapon would require it to be withdrawn from the holster. If, at the moment of withdrawing the weapon, it is being pointed in an unsafe direction, I would argue that it's an unsafe holster . . . and, therefore, an unsafe method of carry.

Life is not an IDPA match.

How, for instance, could an OWB-carried gun end up pointed at you when you unholster it?

Draw from strong side, seated in your car, as if a perp is bashing the drivers window in. See how that works for you. Don't pretend you are at an IPSC match, pretend someone is about to bash your head in with a hammer. Can you do it without covering yourself at some point? Sure. Is it quick enough to stop an attack? Maybe, maybe not.

Life isn't always safe. If it were we wouldn't be carrying guns.

There is no foolproof, 100%, guaranteed safe, all bases covered method of carrying a handgun on one's person.

It's not the equipment that is the danger, it's the person. You can't depend on only using certain holster types to keep you from shooting yourself.

SharpsDressedMan
September 8, 2009, 04:59 PM
If I had the money and the resources, I would post a live feed of a loaded gun on a table, safety off, and stream it continuously day and night, so the anti's could tune in anytime and watch, and wait for it to go off. It would give them something to do.

TexasRifleman
September 8, 2009, 05:06 PM
If I had the money and the resources, I would post a live feed of a loaded gun on a table, safety off, and stream it continuously day and night, so the anti's could tune in anytime and watch, and wait for it to go off. It would give them something to do.


Here's one. Been up for years :)

http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

Not sure if it's live or not, but it's hilarious.

Paul82
September 8, 2009, 05:09 PM
^ Thats cool :) Guns dont kill people.

MisterMike
September 8, 2009, 05:14 PM
There is no foolproof, 100%, guaranteed safe, all bases covered method of carrying a handgun on one's person.


Sounds like an anti . . . :D . . . just kidding. Okay, I see your point in your hypothetical. I think it's possible to bring your weapon to bear without sweeping yourself, but I acknowledge that it's pretty likely that you'll do so. But, that still brings me back to my point, which you might agree on, that you need to consider the consequences of the fact that no method of carry is "foolproof." That being the case, I like to account for the possibility of my inner fool making an appearance as I'm unholstering.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Cosmoline
September 8, 2009, 05:34 PM
Shoulder holsters have been around for ages. The way you avoid a ND is by not pulling the trigger when you draw. Same as any other presentation.

Cooper's rules are not religious dogma. If you apply Rule 1 absolutely you would never be able to clean any firearm. Or load a musket for that matter.

Werewolf
September 8, 2009, 05:53 PM
As i got closer, i noticed the barrel of a hand gun pointing from his left side, parrallel to the ground aimed right at my mid section.

After quickly stepping sideways...

After reading the above as posted by the OP all I could think was do I really want to continue reading this thread? I imagined that the amount of proselytizing by the zero tolerance range nazi crowd, the 4 rule gospel guys, and the wadding of the panties people would just be - well - too annoying to bear. Move on said I. But being bored I jumped in with both feet prepared to wade thru all the pathetic wailing and gnashing of teeth.

<Best Gomer Pyle voice>

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise...

No wailing, no gnashing of the teeth, no wadded panties. Just reasonable responses filled with common sense comments.

<looks around to see if hell has frozen over - nope>

A good read this thread. Yep a good read.

ScottG1911
September 8, 2009, 05:59 PM
Wow, we have pro gun guys worried about handing a loaded gun to a buddy at a range, gun advocates bickering over OC at presidential events, and now we are worried about guns safely secured in a holster. Have we all digressed to antis?

Twas exactly my thoughts. the gun is not going to go off in a holster without human interferance. I will include that interferance to not properly setting up your holster. all the old polymer holster even say to clear your weapon before inserting into the holter, to make sure that your gun will not discharge while being holstered or drawn. so IF you do these precautions, your gun isn't going off, and you can stop crying like a buncha anti-gun sissy girls.

NavyLCDR
September 8, 2009, 06:22 PM
And only one almost anti-open carry comment so far! I am impressed!

ScottG1911
September 8, 2009, 06:25 PM
Thats cool Guns dont kill people.

Dad's with pretty daughters do

XTerminator
September 8, 2009, 09:31 PM
The guy couldn't have been a real cop anyway.


Starbucks doesn't sell donuts.


:neener:


Steve

Isher
September 9, 2009, 01:05 AM
There is no

"Known Safe Direction"

With tools (including knives hatchets and skilsaws),

Vehicles (including cars, jets, helos),

Weapons (including bows, spears, guns).

I am also unaware of any "Known Safe Direction"

In executing the daily affairs of my life.

isher

FROGO207
September 9, 2009, 02:29 AM
Now that this is about all talked over........:banghead: Come to think of it almost every time I go past my local Starbucks:what: I see something strange in there. :D

mcdonl
September 9, 2009, 09:10 AM
Just curious.... I wonder how many AD/ND's come when unholstering the gun. It seems that would be the only real risk... or re-holstering. I often pocket carry, and if for any reason I unholster the gun in my pocket (I do this from time to time so I am comfortable with the process I ALWAYS take the gun out, and the holster out so that I do not accidently get something in the trigger gaurd and shoot my self in the testicles.

Looking at that setup, it looks like the retention strap COULD get caught in the trigger gaurd if extrement care is not taken when reholstering.

Just my thoughts.

Badlander
September 9, 2009, 08:17 PM
If A sholder holster will attract 20 women I'm buying one.

rs999
September 9, 2009, 11:29 PM
Concerns about a gun just "going off" seem to be more at home among the anti's than among seasoned shooters.

Should gunners be concerned that anti's might release the break pedal at a full crosswalk?

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 03:53 PM
Sucks to be the person standing behind the guy and he tries to reholster it with his finger on the trigger or some piece of clothing gets caught in the trigger guard. Even more so if it's a Glock...

Yes, I know what a Glock is and I own and carry more than one, so save it.

rbernie
September 10, 2009, 04:00 PM
Let's not make something into something that it's not. A holstered gun is as inert as it can get (and still be a gun). A holstered gun will eventually point its muzzle at things that you do not intend to shoot, and we consider this OK because (see above) it's still as inert as it can get. Anyone reholstering in line for Starbucks is likely a danger to others - not because they are reholstering but because they unholstered their carry piece in line at Starbucks.

I'm more worried about the folks texting on their phone in traffic than I am about the guy with a shoulder holster in Starbucks. In the grand scheme of risk management, the dude at Starbucks doesn't even rate a mention.

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 04:03 PM
I was talking about anywhere. You know what I meant.

rbernie
September 10, 2009, 04:07 PM
The argument still makes no sense, no matter where Mr. Shoulder Rig is standing.

The sole risk identified so far in all of this is having MSR unholster and reholster. That's not a common occurance, and frankly isn't even a pimple on the backside of 'daily risk management issues'.

If it bothers you - stand to the side of him when he looks ready to unholster or reholster his gun. Outside of that - I'd advise that you simply ignore MSR as a non-issue and worry more about how much money you're payin' for something as simple as a cup of java.

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 04:12 PM
That's right...one can always see what a person around them is doing all the time...forgot about that. A person standing behind him could NEVER be facing 180 deg the other way... Or the guy reholstering would never be wearing a vest, sport coat...whatever. And that everyone behind him who didn't see him unholster in the first place would know later because shots are ALWAYS fired, right? :rolleyes:

The point was that it's potentially a BIT less safe than if someone were to have an ND when reholstering into a holster pointed at the ground as with IWB, OWB etc. The shot doesn't go directly across the room, courtyard, foyer, parking lot...you name it.

rbernie
September 10, 2009, 04:26 PM
A lot of things may seem 'potentially a BIT less safe', including getting out of bed in the morning. The thinkin' person's response to these perceptions would be to evaluate each potential risk and attempt to quantify them in terms of their probablility and their severity.

I would adjudicate this risk as potentially high in severity, but exceedingly low in probability - so low in probability as to not be worth the energy that you've expended in worryin' about it.

But that's just me.

Artiz
September 10, 2009, 04:38 PM
^^ I agree, even myself who doesn't see the average normal guy carrying around, it wouldn't bother me at the range, if it's holstered, it's holstered, I am more worried about people in general than people with guns. I have never heard of someone's gun going off while it was holstered, I have heard about people's gun going off while re-holstering, but the fact is that a gun doesn't go off by itself.

And again that's just me.

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 04:41 PM
I have heard about people's gun going off while re-holstering, but the fact is that a gun doesn't go off by itself.

Exactly...

Doesn't matter how the gun "went off" to the innocent bystander. Just that fact that IT WENT OFF.

rbernie
September 10, 2009, 04:48 PM
So help me out, scotthsi, and point me to at least one documented case of some 'innocent bystander' being shot when somebody reholstered their shoulder rig. Heck, I bet that I can come up with at least a hundred 'innocent bystanders' being run over in crosswalks by inattentive drivers for each one of your "reholstering a shoulder rig ND' stories.

So, are you prepared to lock yourself indoors now, to avoid the terrible risks of crosswalks? :rolleyes:

Or do you just have an inherent mistrust of anyone other than yourself who has a gun?

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 04:55 PM
Why don't you find me a link saying it's NEVER happened? I never said that it did. Only that it was a possibility. Why must you extrapolate a single incident to everything else that can happen in the world? :rolleyes:

rbernie
September 10, 2009, 05:02 PM
Since you were investing significant amounts of hand-wringing over the issue, I presumed that you had identified it as an actual risk as opposed to the product of an overactive imagination.

My mistake.

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 05:22 PM
Whatever. You're the moderator...you win... Protracted "debating" with a mod often gets people banned because you "have the power". :rolleyes:

Badlander
September 10, 2009, 05:40 PM
People on the ground get killed by airplanes falling from the sky. I don't lose any sleep about it.

rbernie
September 10, 2009, 05:43 PM
Whatever. You're the moderator...you win... Protracted "debating" with a mod often gets people banned because you "have the power". Nobody gets banned for engaging in adult, fact-based discourse with a moderator. Failing to act like an adult or confine your debate to factual data may, on the other hand, cause you issue.

It's silly to suggest that you can't debate the issue because I'm a moderator. It's far more factual to suggest that you cannot debate the issue because there is, in fact, no issue to debate.

===

ETA, to reiterate the points already made for those folk who haven't read the whole thread:

A holstered handgun is as safe as it can get. Unholstering and reholstering a firearm carries an inherent risk, and is not to be performed lightly. But a horizontal shoulder holster, with the weapon holstered as was observed in the OP, is no less dangerous to the customers of Starbucks than any other form of carry.

NavyLCDR
September 10, 2009, 05:43 PM
Sucks to be the person standing behind the guy and he tries to reholster it with his finger on the trigger or some piece of clothing gets caught in the trigger guard. Even more so if it's a Glock...

Yes, I know what a Glock is and I own and carry more than one, so save it.

The only thing I disagree with, scotthsi, is your reference to Glocks being more prone to ND than other guns. If an idiot can't reholster the gun without a ND, he probably wouldn't bother with an external safety anyway. Other than that, I really don't see a problem with your statement. But, whatever you say people are going to disagree with it and have reasons that are valid to them why they disagree.

And, please, don't anyone think that I am calling a guy openly carrying a gun in a shoulder holster an idiot, I didn't say that at all and had no intention of implying it either.

Artiz
September 10, 2009, 05:57 PM
scotthsi I agree that people re-holstering are more dangerous to bystanders with a shoulder rig, but when was the last time you saw someone holstering his handgun in public? I mean, it's not like he takes the gun out to take a look at it a few times a day, just for the heck of it, even at Starbucks (lol, imagine the scene). And I don't know if it's the case for everybody, but I have good trigger finger control.

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 05:59 PM
Navy LT, you're a smart guy. Read the last sentence in my post you quoted.

People on the ground get killed by airplanes falling from the sky. I don't lose any sleep about it.

Tell that to the families of those lost at the Pentagon. Pretty freakin' rare event, but I guess 9/11 didn't cause you to "lose any sleep", either, huh? :rolleyes:

scotthsi I agree that people re-holstering are more dangerous to bystanders with a shoulder rig.

Yup...again...

Artiz
September 10, 2009, 06:02 PM
You too can re-read my post, you missed the fact I stated about where people are usually holstering.

Don't quote people like kids do, without reading the whole post.

Don't compare terrorist attacks with accidents (negligeance, accidents don't happen, they are caused), the 9/11 doesn't have any ****ing thing in commonn with an airplane falling from the sky because of an engine failure (example). Please.

Badlander
September 10, 2009, 06:08 PM
scotthsi
You must worry A lot.
I don't think anyone else took my little remark as my not caring about 9/11.

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 06:10 PM
Artiz, I read everything. To include the fact that you're "somewhere in Canada". So, how often do you come into close proximity on a daily basis with people carrying legally (open or concealed) to even worry about something like this? Hmmm?

DocCas
September 10, 2009, 06:11 PM
This has been an interesting thread. It piqued my interest so I did a little experiment.

I carry concealed every day. I am presently sitting in my office with my suit coat off and my sidearm in a Don Hume holster at about 2.30 on my right side. As I sit here and look where the muzzle is pointed, I find that, if the gun goes off, the bullet will enter my right hip just above the hip bone, probably take the hip socket out, and exit through the extreme outside edge of my right buttock.

Now, bear in mind that I am my department's firearms instructor, an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, and a State of California Department of Justice Firearms Safety Instructor. And yet, here I am, with my muzzle pointing right at myself!

What to do!? What to do!? Well, NOTHING! The firearm is holstered in a retention holster with the trigger guard fully covered! The firearm is as safe as it can be made to be under the circumstances! I am safer sitting here than I will be driving home on the freeway. In 45 years of carrying firearms I have never had one go off "accidently" when holstered.

I teach the "THINK" rules of gun safety. The "N" stands for "never point a gun at anyone or anything you are not willing to kill or destroy." Well, I am partial to my right hip. I have had it for 63 years. But I am not going to change my common practice! This is life, not a gun safety class. Life is like that.

The holster makes the gun as safe as can be expected. I also have a shoulder rig. I never wear it anymore. Not because of the horizontal carry position, but because the thing is so uncomfortable!

Good grief! The gun is holstered! It's safe, already! It's safe! :)

Mags
September 10, 2009, 06:13 PM
Artiz, I read everything. To include the fact that you're "somewhere in Canada". So, how often do you come into close proximity on a daily basis with people carrying legally (open or concealed) to even worry about something like this? Hmmm? The guy at Starbucks was a Cop I am sure Cops can carry in Canada. Also non topic related attacks are pretty low. I don't see how someone being in Canada is even relavent. I think you just realize there are no facts to back up your argument so instead of answering questions head on you come up with counter question that add very little to the argument.

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 06:15 PM
Whatever blows your skirt up, eh...

Mags
September 10, 2009, 06:18 PM
Whatever blows your skirt up, eh...
Thus proving my point. Thank you.

Artiz
September 10, 2009, 06:24 PM
I just remember, last week I went to starbucks to (I **** you not we have Starbucks here) drink a coffee. Who was exiting the place, coffee in hand, when I came? The local Police Tactical Team. Yes, all navy blue, vest and everything, I don't remember the handgun they were carrying in their drop leg holster tho. When I went inside, there was no hole in the floor, there was not even a single person with a bullet in their foot. I mean... you DO know Canadians are allowed to own and use guns, right? We have ranges and everything, and no we do not walk around with snow shoes and cut trees all day long. The Ipod is still a myth tho... :D

scotthsi
September 10, 2009, 06:28 PM
Sure Mags... Cup o' Tim Horton's is on you. ;)

Mags
September 10, 2009, 06:31 PM
Here I will post this again in case some folks didn't read it on page 1 of this thread.

Wow, we have pro gun guys worried about handing a loaded gun to a buddy at a range, gun advocates bickering over OC at presidential events, and now we are worried about guns safely secured in a holster. Have we all digressed to antis?

-Mags

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 10, 2009, 06:33 PM
Tell that to the families of those lost at the Pentagon. Pretty freakin' rare event, but I guess 9/11 didn't cause you to "lose any sleep", either, huh?


I live so close to lower Manhattan that on 9/11 (and for a few days after) I smelled the smoke that filled the air. I didn't lose a wink of sleep.

A holstered handgun is perfect safe provided the person isn't playing with it or something. I can't believe it's been 3 pages and people who own and carry guns do not understand this.....

Badlander
September 10, 2009, 06:36 PM
Mags
Not all of us. seems like some are actualy afraid of life in general tho.

THE DARK KNIGHT
September 10, 2009, 06:38 PM
It has been an observation of mine from posting on a few different gun forums, that many people who are gun owners let the idea of self defense and home security completely supercede all aspects of their life. The general paranoia envelops them completely, they seem to be afraid of anything and everything around them and it's very sad.

Badlander
September 10, 2009, 06:50 PM
Scotthsi
All this from the guy who complained about Khar putting A safety and loaded chamber indicator on their guns. Don't safetys make them safer?
Yea I read your thread.

JohnKSa
September 11, 2009, 12:35 AM
Guns in holsters that cover the trigger guard are not subject to muzzle control rules. Otherwise you would never be able to wear a holstered gun on the second floor of a building or bend over with a holster without first checking to see if anyone was behind you.

The same with cased guns. If they're properly ensconced in a case that makes it impossible to fire the gun then the muzzle control rules do not apply.

Erik M
September 11, 2009, 01:08 AM
Yes that is the way certian types of shoulder holsters are made. The LEO did not have a special holster that held his weapon in an awkward manner. What is the point of this thread?

twofifty
September 11, 2009, 01:37 AM
When it comes to handguns, many folk take leave of their capacity to reason.

For example, while introducing a hunter friend of mine to handgun shooting, he was seriously worried that I was wearing a loaded & holstered gun.
I explained what many here have pointed out, and he was still concerned.

Jamie C.
September 11, 2009, 02:09 AM
All of this, over a horizontal shoulder holster... but I'll bet not more than a handful of people ever wonder how many guns are pointed at the top of their heads in the average multi-story office building. Or who's head their own gun may be pointed at when they're on one of the upper floors of the same kind of building. ( Does anyone know for sure what the bullet stopping properties of the typical building's floor/ceiling are? )

As has already been mentioned, we all walk around, every day, with all sorts of potentially life-ending threats just waiting to descend on us... but we're usually too busy or too distracted to even notice, much less think about 'em. It figures one that really isn't much of a threat at all would be the one to garner the most attention.

Anyway... I fully agree that a holstered gun is nothing to be concerned about. Or even one that's being re-holstered.

The ones that are being or have been UN-holstered are the ones that get my attention. ;)


J.C.

JShirley
September 11, 2009, 10:46 AM
So, steverjo, are you upset because of his holstered, covered-trigger weapon, or because this officer is (gasp!) surrounded by and talking to young ladies?

John

SuperNaut
September 11, 2009, 11:38 AM
If the guy wasn't taking the gun out of the holster I fail to see the problem. Guns don't just "go off" by themselves. We don't duck out of the way when passing a parking lot for fear of a car slipping out of gear and running us over, despite the fact that cars can do just that, way more often than guns spontaneously firing.

DeathByCactus
September 11, 2009, 12:21 PM
Sounds like you are too paranoid for your own good Stevo. It is a holstered weapon. Don't try and touch it and it won't bite you.

DHJenkins
September 11, 2009, 12:31 PM
If he was using his armpit to hold up the weapon, I'd probably have an issue with it; since it's properly secured in a holster, it's not an issue IMO.

ND's as a result of re-holstering are irrelevant to this issue or the OP's concern. The cause of an NG while re-holstering is the person doing the re-holstering, not the weapon or the holster.

This is much ado about nothing.

scotthsi
September 11, 2009, 12:34 PM
Yes, you're too paranoid Steverjo. NEVER EVER has sloppy use of a holster or a bad holster design caused a gun to be accidentally fired. That story where the trained Federal Flight Deck Officer (pilot) inadvertently put a hole through the side of his airplane when holstering NEVER happened. Apparently, people NEVER mess up when holstering and can't seem to understand that if that happens, when standing, it's a lot more likely a gun fired horizontally can potentially cause much more grief than one fired directly into the ground and/or the idiot user.

Guess DHJenkins has never heard of a BAD holster design, either. See above paragraph. :rolleyes:

TexasRifleman
September 11, 2009, 12:38 PM
. Apparently, people NEVER mess up when holstering and can't seem to understand that if that happens, when standing, it's a lot more likely a gun fired horizontally can potentially cause much more grief than one fired directly into the ground and/or the idiot user.

You just admitted what we're all saying, that it has nothing to do with the holster, but the guy holding the gun.

The holster didn't make the gun go off, the guy holding the gun did.

If some moron is standing in a crowd taking a handgun in and out of a shoulder holster he needs to be locked up for being an idiot. That doesn't make it the holsters fault.

Where do you guys run into these people that are taking guns in and out of holsters all day in public places?

That's not what the OP saw. The OP saw a gun in a shoulder holster that was NOT being touched by the carrier. Explain why that is a danger please.

scotthsi
September 11, 2009, 12:59 PM
If some moron is standing in a crowd taking a handgun in and out of a shoulder holster he needs to be locked up for being an idiot. That doesn't make it the holsters fault.

What about a cop re-holstering in a hurry to help another cop subdue a suspect on the ground? Sure, that's never happened... Like the time a cop accidentally got a toggle from his jacket in the trigger guard (Glock for the record) and fired it when he pushed it into the holster...yup, NEVER happened.

Yes, of course it was "operator error", but the fact is it STILL happened. Think he went to jail or was "locked up"? Nope... Quit assuming it always has to be some bumblef^ck playing with his gun/holster.

rbernie
September 11, 2009, 01:05 PM
What does that have to do with the OP? The OP was about seeing someone carrying a pistol in a horizontal shoulder rig, and how SEEING THE PISTOL CARRIED IN THIS WAY made the poster uncomfortable.

The universal response to that has been to point out that a loaded-yet-holstered-and-retained sidearm is of virtually no danger to anyone, and it only becomes a danger when it's removed from the holster.

Like the time a cop accidentally got a toggle from his jacket in the trigger guard (Glock for the record) and fired it when he pushed it into the holster...yup, NEVER happened.There is no doubt that accidents have happened, and will continue to happen. But that gets us right back to the whole 'how many times does it happen?' discussion that you punted on, some forty posts back.

You seem to be fixated upon a possible-but-remote occurence that has precious little to do with the thread, and are clearly willing to hijack somebody else's thread to make that point over and over again.

That's not what the OP saw. The OP saw a gun in a shoulder holster that was NOT being touched by the carrier. Explain why that is a danger please. The question was asked. Are you going to answer it, or continue to harp on issues that have nothing to do with the OP?

TexasRifleman
September 11, 2009, 01:10 PM
What about a cop re-holstering in a hurry to help another cop subdue a suspect on the ground? Sure, that's never happened... Like the time a cop accidentally got a toggle from his jacket in the trigger guard (Glock for the record) and fired it when he pushed it into the holster...yup, NEVER happened.

Yes, of course it was "operator error", but the fact is it STILL happened. Think he went to jail or was "locked up"? Nope... Quit assuming it always has to be some bumblef^ck playing with his gun/holster.

Again, ANY time a gun is in use there is potential for danger. I'm not sure why everyone continues to blame a holster type for gun mishandling. ANY time a gun is being handled there is potential for a mishap, with ANY type of holster.

Shoulder holsters don't make that worse or better.

And then of course there is reality. Shoulder holsters don't tend to be used by police officers who regularly draw and reholster their weapons. They have been in use for many decades and the dangers presented in this thread don't seem to have occurred. No stories of this happening, no real life experiences of anyone seeing this happening, nothing like that.

But let's not put any reality in here, let's keep going with the "what if" worst case scenarios. If you take the "what if" worst case to an extreme you will have to argue that no one should carry a gun, ever. Or own a car. Or leave their house. Or breathe.

But we're veering from the thread by arguing for or against shoulder holsters. They have plenty of problems, no doubt.

Bottom line, though, is that the OP was scared by a gun that was not being touched, and I asked why that was a danger. No one has answered that yet.

windsor311
September 11, 2009, 01:11 PM
Scotthsi, please do yourself a favor(and the rest of us) and re-read this thread from begining to end. While doing so, try to remove yourself as a participant. Imagine your posts were from somebody else. I know it sounds difficult to do but keep an open mind and give it a try. You will lose nothing and possibly gain something.

scotthsi
September 11, 2009, 01:51 PM
Sure, whatever...

DHJenkins
September 11, 2009, 04:23 PM
Yes, you're too paranoid Steverjo. NEVER EVER has sloppy use of a holster or a bad holster design caused a gun to be accidentally fired. That story where the trained Federal Flight Deck Officer (pilot) inadvertently put a hole through the side of his airplane when holstering NEVER happened. Apparently, people NEVER mess up when holstering and can't seem to understand that if that happens, when standing, it's a lot more likely a gun fired horizontally can potentially cause much more grief than one fired directly into the ground and/or the idiot user.

Guess DHJenkins has never heard of a BAD holster design, either. See above paragraph.

You prove my point right there - "sloppy use of a holster". Gun's don't use holsters, people do - sometimes sloppily; That's neither the fault of the weapon or the holster.

A bad design may be a bad design, but that's no excuse for the operator to shove his weapon into the holster without making sure any straps/obstructions are clear of the trigger; after all, it's their holster, they should know it's strong & weak points and train accordingly. If it has a flaw that would allow the trigger to be depressed while re-holstering, they should either fix it or discard it. Why? because it's their holster.

You seem to be missing a vital point of this discussion. No one is saying negligent discharges don't happen. What we're saying is that the 99% of the time, ND's are entirely the fault of the operator.

scotthsi
September 11, 2009, 04:33 PM
So, what's your definition of the other 1%?

DHJenkins
September 11, 2009, 04:39 PM
Manufacturing defect in the firearm or ammo, which is probably more along the lines of 0.001%, than a full 1%.

scotthsi
September 11, 2009, 04:42 PM
Then those instances are not NEGLIGENT discharges... Sorry, this still needs explaining. And, NG?

What we're saying is that the 99% of the time, NG's are entirely the fault of the operator.

DHJenkins
September 11, 2009, 04:45 PM
You are correct, in those rare cases, those would be accidental discharges, as the fault was not human in nature.

I mean ND - I don't know where NG came from...

TexasRifleman
September 11, 2009, 05:06 PM
Then those instances are not NEGLIGENT discharges... Sorry, this still needs explaining.

If you live in constant fear of a mechanical failure causing your gun to go off then perhaps guns just aren't your thing.

This is literally a one in a million type of failure. Documented cases of what you describe are extremely rare. Happening while a firearm is being carried concealed? I've never seen a single report of that.

So what is your point? Are you suggesting that guns shouldn't be carried in public since there is a ~.001 percent chance of the gun firing on it's own due to mechanical failure?

Are you suggesting that all carry methods should take that .001 percent chance into account? Maybe we should all wear steel bullet traps on our belts?

Or what exactly is your point here?

rbernie
September 11, 2009, 08:00 PM
Time to move on - the OP is long since forgotten.

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange thing at Starbucks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!