Interesting is the CA shooters used AR's. I may do an informal FB poll and gather some more opinions.randy wrote:I ran your theory about the "shoot on sight" between an AK and an AR in this type scenario past a friend of mine in LE. He thought a second and said if he saw the AR, he would probably at least challenge you prior to opening up.CombatController wrote:I like the AK as a cheap truck gun but I am better with AR controls under stress, it doesn't have a curved and therefore "shoot on sight" mag, etc, etc. I'm not going to war with it, if I have to get into the trunk and grab it and my body armor things have gotten hairy. Either active shooter hairy and I feel like tucking in (so there is a chance folks think I'm a cop) or "help! Help! We're all gonna die!" and then it doesn't matter.
He didn't specifically state what he would do on spotting an AK, but I got the impression that shoot first, ask questions later would be the response.
(He also one time stated that he would be happy to testify as a character witness should I ever be accused of attempted murder, because he would know that the "attempted" part would be a damned lie)
EDIT TO ADD- I asked 8 current or former law enforcement types, all in South LA, New Orleans area.
1. Former USMC, current LEO- "How can they be an instant target? For lack of a better term, no rules of engagement have been met. Simple open carry of any weapon is not grounds for engagement."
2. Former LEO, Current US Army officer- "It would make my butt hole pucker a bit more."
3. Current LEO, former Civilian Contractor with DynCorp- "...it depends on the person perceiving the ar/ak toting individual. From a professional such as the people you are polling, we are only going to see that he is carrying a long gun (of course we are going to see what kind it is but that is just data gathering), to a libtard...they are going to say he/she is at fault no matter what they are carrying just because they are carrying a gun. To your soldier of fortune couch warrior... Yes I think he is going to see an ak as more of a negative than the ar.
4. Former LEO- "Hell the fuck no. Assess the person and gauge intent. The type of gun is irrelevant."
5. Current LEO, current US Army Reserves- "Wolverines!"
6. Current LEO and 10 year SRT commander- "Moar Dakka."- Just posted pics of Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Charlie Sheen with Ak's. "Of course good guys use AK's"
So, of the 6 with law enforcement experience that answered only one could even a little perceive an AK carrying person as an increased threat simply because of the AK. It is worth noting that he is a currently serving officer in the Army with deployments to the sandbox, and did not mention shooting instantly.
I posed the question to some folks at work while waiting for answer from those guys-
1. Former Seabee Officer with recent deployments- "I can't see where the type of weapon would be a deciding factor in a shoot/no shoot situation."
2. Former USAF Armorer (Ret)- approx 60 years old and thought "A person carrying an AK would deserve more immediate scrutiny"
I'm really beginning to believe this is a generational thing. I think that guys who were serving during or shortly after Vietnam are going to be far more likely to make that association despite the idea that an AR-carrier may or may not be a LEO. I think guys who got their shooting starts in the early 90's and afterwards are far more open to the concept that a weapon seen as a symbol of evil just a few years before is now just another tool in the toolbox.
Again, completely unscientific, informal poll conducted in a messenger app. It's worth every penny you paid for it.
