I never mentioned that that person, or any other person, or myself would get upset, impatient, or lose their temper over a legal, though unnecessary, stop. My point, simply, is that it was a waste of resources and of peoples' time.By the way, the stop only consumed a few minutes. If a concealed carry licensee isn't patient and even-tempered enough to put up with that (especially when he's just going to the gun store anyhow), he ought to rethink whether he's mature enough to carry.
Perhaps the dispatcher could be trained to ask if the person in question is threatening anyone, waving it around, anything that could remotely be construed as dangerous, or is the gun merely sitting in a holster attached to the person in plain sight? I would think if the dispatcher receives the call first and asks those questions, the "Man with a gun!" call could be taken care of without any trouble or inconvenience by the officers. They would be free to finish their donuts and the innocent CHL holder can get his groceries home before the milk gets warm.
Why does JM get your support while I get the explanation? We were essentially saying the same thing! Not that I have a problem with what you said to me because it's accurate and fair. I just think that MORE accurate and fair would be the dispatcher doing what they can to make sure they're managing those on patrol optimally. Would've spared me my experience to say the least. More importantly, it would BEGIN to educate those out there that guns should not equate to fear. I'm sure every LEO out there would rather deal with a calm person than a panicked one. To resonate that guns are only worth calling the police over if the person being called about is comitting a crime, it would calm the public a bit while helping to avoid the miscommunications that you accurately stated will occur as a byproduct of human imperfection.