After 40 years on the job, this cop has something to say about armed citizens that everyone should hear

On Gun Owners Radio, host Michael Schwartz brought on Dr. Roy Taylor with a pretty direct goal: get an honest law enforcement perspective on armed citizens that isn’t just bumper-sticker talk.

Schwartz introduced Taylor as a criminal justice and security consultant with over 40 years in law enforcement management across federal, state, local, and even private chief roles, plus deep experience in training, use-of-force, and firearms instruction.

Taylor didn’t come in acting like a TV tough guy. Talking with Schwartz and co-host Dakota Adelphia, he came across as calm, detail-heavy, and focused on what works in the real world, not what plays best in a political clip.

Early on, Schwartz asked what Taylor was most proud of. Taylor surprised the audience by going straight to his time in the U.S. Army, describing a deployment to Iraq where, during an ambush, he said he was able to save a life instead of take one.

That detail matters because it framed the rest of the conversation. Taylor’s whole theme was basically: the point is safety and survival, and sometimes the best outcome is the one where nobody has to die.

Police Hit Rates And Why That Matters

One of the biggest moments in the interview came when Taylor brought up police marksmanship in actual street encounters.

Taylor told Schwartz and Adelphia that the average law enforcement hit rate is about 20%, meaning officers miss roughly eight out of ten rounds in real shootings. He asked the question a lot of citizens ask too: if those rounds don’t hit the threat, where do they go?

He argued that this reality should push everyone to take training seriously, not just cops. Taylor said he used to teach civilian concealed carry, but stepped away partly because he thought the standard course was too minimal for the responsibility it creates.

Taylor described an example standard as an eight-hour course with 30 rounds fired at no more than seven yards, and he said it’s not hard for many shooters to pass at that distance. His bigger concern was what happens after someone passes once and then carries for years without any real follow-up.

Dakota Adelphia pushed back in a smart way. She pointed out that even with huge numbers of concealed carriers in the U.S., the country doesn’t see concealed carriers routinely shooting the wrong person, and that mistake appears “much more rare” than law enforcement mistakes in shootings.

Taylor agreed with her general point. He said he had been skeptical decades ago that expanded concealed carry would lead to more shootings, but that it largely hasn’t, and he credited that to the typical permit holder being responsible and careful.

Still, Taylor kept coming back to the same idea: a simple re-check every few years is reasonable, especially as people age. He even shared a personal story about his father having Alzheimer’s while still technically holding a valid permit, using that as an example of why a “paper-valid” permit doesn’t always match real-world capability.

Why Armed Citizens Often Avoid Trigger Pulls

Dakota Adelphia raised another point that doesn’t get enough airtime: a lot of self-defense outcomes don’t involve firing at all.

She noted that many defensive gun uses end with the attacker breaking off once a gun is presented. That matters because it lowers the odds of stray rounds, mistaken targets, and chaos, and it helps explain why “civilian hit rate” debates can miss the bigger picture.

Taylor agreed with that logic too, and he added something that felt honest: there are “great stories” where an armed citizen stops an encounter, but he said the national news often doesn’t pick them up, which leaves the public with a skewed sense of how often lawful carry prevents harm.

At the same time, Taylor didn’t pretend every armed citizen is competent. He told Schwartz and Adelphia a story from a range where a man took a carry course using a rented .22 revolver, then immediately bought a much larger handgun and carried it without really knowing how to operate it.

That story landed because it’s believable and unsettling in a very normal way. It’s not “bad people,” it’s “unprepared people,” and those are different problems that require different solutions.

Here’s where I think Taylor’s point hits home: the gun debate often treats training like an insult, as if suggesting practice means you’re questioning someone’s rights. In reality, practice is respect – respect for bystanders, for the responsibility, and for the fact that real life doesn’t come with a pause button.

LEOSA, Reciprocity, And The Double-Standard Question

Michael Schwartz steered the talk into the area that drives a lot of tension between gun owners and law enforcement leadership: who gets what rights, and why.

Taylor explained LEOSA (the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act), signed after 9/11, which allows qualified active and retired law enforcement to carry concealed across state lines if they meet certain requirements. Taylor said he’s grateful for it because it lets him travel armed legally.

Schwartz contrasted that with the civilian experience and brought up HR 38, the national concealed carry reciprocity push that would treat carry permits more like a driver’s license across states. 

He also noted that organizations like the International Association of Chiefs of Police have opposed reciprocity, which fuels resentment among law-abiding gun owners who feel blocked by the very institutions they often support.

Taylor didn’t try to speak for those organizations. Instead, he said part of the resistance could be bias, ignorance, or lack of education, and he argued that a rational presentation of facts can sometimes win people over.

He also suggested that national organizations – he used the NRA as an easy example – can help by pushing coordinated pressure on Congress, especially around elections when votes matter most. Whether someone loves or hates the NRA, the practical point was clear: law changes when enough organized people demand it.

Taylor then told a story that showed how messy the legal patchwork gets even for police retirees. He described a retired North Carolina officer who stopped a robbery in Connecticut, only to be handcuffed, jailed, and charged with felony concealed carry and felony hollow-point possession, despite having LEOSA protection.

According to Taylor, the concealed carry charge was eventually dismissed, but the hollow-point charge stuck until instructors traveled to testify about North Carolina qualification rules. Taylor’s message was blunt: even when you’re in the right, you can spend a fortune proving it.

That story also explained why he urged people to consider legal protection plans or insurance, and why he warned that anyone who uses a gun – even lawfully – should expect to be treated like a suspect at first, at least until everything is sorted out.

Traffic Stops, Policies, And A Culture Change

The most useful part of the interview, in my opinion, was Taylor’s practical guidance on how police should treat lawful armed citizens during routine encounters.

Taylor told a North Carolina example where a permit holder notified an officer about a gun, and the officer had the driver hand it over, then returned it disassembled and damaged. Taylor said that incident became such a controversy that it triggered mandatory training, with the key lesson being: if someone is legally carrying and compliant, officers generally have no reason to disarm them during a basic traffic stop.

He advised citizens not to argue on the roadside, but to comply and file a complaint later if the officer behaved wrongly. That’s not a glamorous answer, but it’s the kind of advice that keeps people alive, which is the whole point.

Dakota Adelphia added that many lawful carriers try to be mindful during stops – hands visible, slow movements, clear communication – because they understand officer safety concerns. She also pointed out how personal bias or outdated knowledge can lead to lawful carriers being treated like criminals anyway, and she referenced examples like Chicago officers allegedly arresting permit holders due to confusion or bias.

Taylor agreed that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” for officers either, and he argued departments should retrain or remediate officers who get it wrong. He also said departments might be smart to settle legitimate claims to avoid expensive lawsuits.

Taylor zoomed out even further and argued that there’s no consistent national standard for how police agencies handle armed citizens, partly because there are thousands of departments and no binding federal guidance. 

He said groups like the IACP, Police Executive Research Forum, and private policy providers like Lexipol can offer model policies, but agencies still have to choose to adopt them.

He also made a point that ties everything together: the country lacks standardized reporting on armed citizen encounters and defensive gun uses, so people end up “scouring the news” for stories instead of having clean data. If you can’t measure it, you can’t argue about it honestly, and you definitely can’t fix it.

To close, Taylor talked about rebuilding public trust through community policing and personal contact, sharing examples like “Adopt a Cop,” eating lunch with kids at schools, and using programs that create normal, friendly interaction. He said the public wants to know officers as humans, not just as uniforms showing up on a bad day.

That idea applies to armed citizens too. If police departments treat lawful carriers like predictable partners instead of potential threats, and if lawful carriers act like responsible adults instead of trying to “win” traffic stops, the temperature drops fast.

And honestly, that’s what Taylor’s view sounded like after 40 years: the safest future is the boring one – clear rules, decent training, less ego, and a shared assumption that lawful people aren’t the enemy.