This is topic Opinions on Conceal Carry Permits? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005183
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2007, 02:11 AM:
Anyone have opinions they would like to share about conceal carry permits? This is not meant to spark any political debate over gun ownership. I'd really like to hear from any F-T members that have carry permits or gun owners without a permit.
FWIW, I do visit a couple different firearms related forums. Some questions regarding carry permits can be met with macho sounding responses, "just get one, bitch!" I guess I'm looking for some different perspectives.
I've been seriously considering getting a conceal carry permit for more than a year. But up to this point I've only talked about it with close friends who are on the fence about the issue as well.
I have legitimate reasons for getting a permit. Aside from that, Oklahoma is a "shall issue" state. Anyone with a clean record who fulfills the requirements (and pays around $200 for various fees) gets issued a 5-year license. This week, and especially today, the notion of getting a permit has weighed heavier on my mind. We've had some really disturbing shit happen in my town lately.
Yesterday afternoon (Friday), two young women, ages 18 and 20, were shot to death in what the police think was a home invasion robbery. The victims were in a nice house in a nice neighborhood on Lawton's west side, murdered in the middle of the freaking day. The police don't have any suspects at this point.
From Sunday through Wednesday, Joshua Muller, a suspect wanted for double murder in Tulsa was on the loose, eluding police east of Lawton near where my aunt lives. Thankfully Muller was finally caught and taken back to Tulsa. FYI, last Saturday night, the suspect shot up a SUV in what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. Some people beat up Muller's wife at a bar. He saw a SUV in a parking lot that he thought held the culprits. So he riddled the vehicle with semi-auto rifle fire. Muller wound up killing two children and critically injuring a third child inside the vehicle. Muller fled to relatives in Lawton. His family called the cops, who ended up chasing the guy through trees, brush and creeks for days.
This past March a street gang related murder happened near Lawton High School within a half mile of my home. The shooting occurred in early afternoon while kids were still in class.
Lawton, OK isn't known for being a very dangerous town. Relatively speaking it still isn't anywhere near as rough as some of America's real combat zones. Nevertheless crime rates here are rising at an uncomfortable pace.
In 2004, Lawton had only 2 murders. Last year the city had 9 homicides. If this year's pace continues we could end up beating the 1973 record of 18 murders. In 2006, Lawton had a record number of rapes, 82, a 2-fold increase from the 41 reported in 2005. The rates of robbery, larceny and assault are all showing significant increases.
The most plausible theories on why the crime rate is spiking upward in Lawton is street gangs are growing and users of illegal drugs have grown desperate. Meth used to be very plentiful in SW Oklahoma. Many users made their own dope. The crackdown following the murder of OK State Trooper Nick Green changed that. The only meth on the street these days is stuff imported from Mexico. A lot of people have switched over to using crack cocaine, which is more expensive. The violence now happening in Lawton reminds me a little of how New York City was in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
On the issue of home defense citizens in Oklahoma don't need a permit for having firearms in the home. But any gun owner would be advised to know the self defense laws for their respective state.
Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 07-28-2007, 02:37 AM:
I have one - for use in car and home. In one sentence - hey, it sure beats not having one!
On a side note - legalized conceal carry dramatically reduced carjackings in Texas - the crooks don't know if you're going to blow their brains out ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-28-2007, 03:19 AM:
I have had a carry permit for many years. (Cue wisecrack from Phil.) Some people will tell you that there is no purpose for it because virtually every business these days has that sign at the entrance "no firearms permitted" (including the one at the front entrance of most theaters), but if you check the lawbooks those signs carry no weight whatsoever and so long as you aren't carrying in a school, hospital, business that makes 51% of it's profits on the sale of alcohol, etc you are totally free to carry it right past those signs.
In carrying a loaded firearm for many years, I have only come close to pulling it once. However you can never predict when that rare time that you will need it will occur, and I was quite happy to know it was only about a second's reach away that night.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-28-2007, 04:04 AM:
Not reflecting on the merits of the permits (it's a subject that's also come up at our place):... But, if you carry past a private business owner's notice that he doesn't want firearms in his building, don't you risk being (legally) ejected?... assuming someone finds out? The law may not have a problem with the fact that you're carrying legally, but I can't imagine that would force anyone to knowingly admit you. Outside cheeseburgers and KFC are legal, but we didn't let that stuff in, either. ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Brian D. Whitish (Member # 825) on 07-28-2007, 04:29 AM:
Despite my comfort with firearms I would feel better with pepper spray or mace. Perhaps these are not realistic substitutes. I do keep a handgun at home ready.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-28-2007, 07:50 AM:
Jack, yes I think the business owner could kick you out legally. However if the need arises where a person needs to pull out their gun, I don't think watching/finishing the movie is going to be the topmost priority at that time. Otherwise the business owner never needs to know.
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-28-2007, 08:13 AM:
The keywords are "Concealed Carry." Nobody needs to know you have a gun until you need to use it. In fact, in my state, it is not difficult to get a carry permit, but brandishing the weapon is a serious offense.
I've had a carry permit for nearly 15 years and while I have no illusions that it makes me invulnerable, being able to have a gun with me does help even the odds. When I walk to work from my car, I pass an alley where a woman was brutally attacked (the story was even in Reader's Digest). Long ago, I decided I didn't want to be that woman. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 07-28-2007, 08:47 AM:
I have fired handguns, rifles, machine guns and a grenade launcher. I'm actually quite good at it. However I personally do not feel the need to own a weapon. I have never been a situation where I felt my life was at danger.
If you threaten my life I will either fart in your general direction, sit on you or run the other way.
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-28-2007, 09:18 AM:
I've never owned or carried one, but it's more because I'm not very good with them.
A friend of mine who was practicing for his concealed carry permit took me shooting with him once. I never once hit the target, but we did hear a ricochet off the barn to the right of us, proving I COULD hit the broad side of a barn, so long as I'm aiming away from it. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-28-2007, 09:35 AM:
I grew up around guns... my dad and several other relatives were cops and then later my dad was part owner of a gun shop. I've spent more time at shooting ranges and know more about what loads/bullet combinations go the fastest and so on. I also am a crack shot with both hand gun and rifle as a result... but no where near as good as my dad is. I eventually grew sick of guns but after moving out here decided that I needed a sizable gun when venturing into mines and caves because of Mountain Lions. So Smith and Wesson .357 it is. I've never had to fire it to protect myself in a mine or cave as of yet.
As for concealed weapons its not a bad idea for the right person... or a person such as was in Hillary's position. For me its un-necessary and the .357 is really too large to carry concealed... at least comfortably. So I never bothered. The nice thing about having a permit in Utah is that many other states reciprocate with Utah and vice versa so you can also carry your gun concelaed in those states unannounced as well. List of reciprocal states.
In reality those that think they are disturbed by the daily goings on around them are probably the worst candidates for even owning a gun let alone also a concealed permit. Those are the folks that always seem to end up shooting themselves in the leg or foot. Things generally happen so fast that they never have the time to make a calculated move to either defend themselves or someone else safely without damage/injury. The concealed carrier can be held liable for any damage injury he causes!! You don't need a concealed permit to protect your home. If I were around when some crime happened I would be more concerned in aiding the injured than going after the thugs.
quote: Brian D. Whitish
Despite my comfort with firearms I would feel better with pepper spray or mace. Perhaps these are not realistic substitutes. I do keep a handgun at home ready.
Pepper spray and mace is just about usless unless you make a direct hit with the stuff. You also risk the stuff blowing back at yourself... Then you too can be incapacitated! All police academy graduate candidates out here are required to be sprayed with Pepper Spray to experience what it does to the body....
Mark
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-28-2007, 11:31 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
I have legitimate reasons for getting a permit.
What are you doing or where are you going or who are you associating with, that you would feel you need to carry a deadly weapon? I'm just asking.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-28-2007, 12:52 PM:
If I understand Bobby's post correctly, he's especially worried about two incidents (the burglary/shooting and the wanted criminal who shot at the SUV) in which there was no previous link between the attacker and the victim, i.e. they were targeted entirely at random. Furthermore, these incidents both took place in areas that had previously been thought of as safe. So while, as you say, one can normally keep out of trouble by staying away from dodgy areas and criminal circles, that didn't save the lives of these victims.
It's a valuable point, I think: and if I were living in Lawton, I'd be worried too. A couple of years ago there was a fatal stabbing about 300 yards from my flat, at the junction of Bootham and Exhibition Square in York. A yob from one of the sink estates outside town had gone drinking, staggered out of a pub with various substances in his system (not just alcohol), asked a complete stranger in the street for a cigarette, and when he discovered that the stranger didn't have any, stabbed him to death there and then. The guy was a teacher, and left a widow and two children. The spot where this happened is right by the ancient city walls, so all the tourists go there. It's not considered a dodgy part of town by any means.
The worst part is that when they caught him, he claimed diminished responsibility on account of being under the influence of drugs, was only charged with manslaughter and was sentenced to eight years (which means that he'll actually serve around four).
Gun ownership for private citizens is effectively illegal here: kneejerk reactions in response to the Hungerford and Dunblane shootings resulted in the law being tightened to the extent that apart from farmers with shotguns, it's virtually impossible for a private citizen to get a firearm licence any more.
FWIW, my own position on this is that banning private citizens from having guns only works if the law enforcement services are effective enough for citizens not to need to make their own arrangements. In Britain this clearly is no longer the case: in particular, since the post-Dunblane legislation, the number of illegal firearms in circulation has increased fivefold. One particular problem has been the Czech Republic's entry into the European Union - apparently they manufacture about a fifth of the world's handguns, and now they can be transported to Britain with no meaningful customs inspections. Only yesterday this incident took place, and we now read stories like this in the papers almost daily. We're basically in a situation whereby professional criminals can get hold of guns cheaply and easily, but honest citizens cannot.
Personally I'd feel very uneasy about carrying a gun - probably because I've always lived in a society in which private gun ownership is virtually unheard of. I don't believe I've ever seen or handled a real one. My biggest fear would be, in the heat of the moment, making the wrong decision and shooting someone who didn't pose a serious threat to me. Whatever Bobby's decision, I hope that the police in Lawton are able to get the violent crime increase under control. From both low level crime (e.g. groups of teenage yobs pestering women traveling alone) to incidents like the stabbing in Exhibition Square, it makes our lives a misery and needs to be dealt with by the law enforcement services we pay our taxes for.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2007, 12:54 PM:
My reasons for considering a permit:
1. I work in a large manufacturing business located in an industrial area of town not far from a low income neighborhood. There isn't a lot of vehicle traffic simply passing by this business during the day. Fairly often, I'm the last person to leave the office (I have to lock it, set the alarm, etc.). Sometimes I'm leaving well after dark. On some occasions, I'm there on the weekend working alone. There's quite a few valuable items in the office and the adjacent manufacturing buildings.
2. I drive a vehicle some would find desirable to steal or car jack. It's not a Toyota or Honda. But this is Oklahoma and sporty pick up trucks are popular. Half the time I have valuable equipment in the truck with me (photography equipment, my own notebook computer or a company notebook, etc.). Sometimes I'm using that photography equipment to take early evening or night time photos of electric signs. At times that draws unwanted attention.
3. There's that very slim chance I could be in the wrong place at the wrong time and would like to be prepared just in case. Armed robberies in banks and convenience stores are on the rise across the nation. That's especially true here in Lawton. If I'm eating in a restaurant and some nut job decides he wants to execute everyone in the building, I'd at least like some chance to defend myself and others in the building.
4. I'm concerned about leaving the gun at home. I certainly don't want any would-be burglar to get it and then use it on a crime spree. It would be harder for any burglar to steal the thing if I have it with me all the time. My Sig P226 came with a heavy duty cable lock (you feed it through the mag funnel and ejector port) and orange plastic firing pin block. I'll probably get a gun safe soon (especially if I buy any more weapons), but even those can be hauled out of a house unless they are bolted through the floor.
quote: Leo Enticknap
FWIW, my own position on this is that banning private citizens from having guns only works if the law enforcement services are effective enough for citizens not to need to make their own arrangements.
Having been robbed before, I know from personal experience that the police do not come to the rescue and prevent specific crimes from happening.
The reality is the police are there to take interviews, collect evidence and investigate after the fact. They work to catch the suspect after he has committed the crime. Whether you survive the crime or not is out of the control of police. Ultimately private citizens can only depend on themselves to protect themselves. There simply isn't enough police to function as 24 hour body guards for everyone all the time. That's one of the fundamental reasons why I believe law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves.
Sometimes the police get lucky. But more often than not even when they get a lucky break and catch the criminals quickly, the crime has already happened. Just look at the home invasion robbery-murder that took place this week in Connecticut. One of the victims was able to signal a bank teller when the robbers took them there to make a big withdrawal. The cops wound up catching the bad guys. But they caught them too late. The husband escaped with serious injuries. His wife and two daughters were murdered.
While I believe in self-protection, I also strongly believe anyone who is going to buy a handgun should take some self defense and safety classes.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-28-2007, 01:19 PM:
Points taken, especially in relation to the police being mainly there to detect crime after the event rather than prevent it from happening in the first place. By 'effective enough', I meant in the sense of deterrence, i.e. (i) have a high success rate in catching offenders, and (ii) that offenders, when caught, are sentenced appropriately. In other words, that the people doing this shit will know they are very likely to get caught, and that if they are caught, they can expect a sentence which makes it not worth their while committing the crime in the first place.
If I were in Bobby's situation, I think I'd want the gun.
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 07-28-2007, 01:26 PM:
No we cannot count on the police to protect us before the fact.
Before I decided to own and carry a gun, my own life was threatened by a person with a history of mental illness and gun ownership. He was a regular customer where I worked, and became fixated on me. He started to leave phone messages. When someone from another store in my mall sought me out to warn me about this threat, I called the police.
I was told emphatically that they can do nothing until he acts. The stalker law at the time only considered people who had prior relationships, and that was definitely NOT the case with this scumbag and myself. It was then and there that I realized I was responsible for my own protection, and took all the legal steps toward gun ownership. Before that, I was quite anti-handgun, but like the Reagans with stem-cell research, it often takes a personal experience to change one's mind on the subject.
Most people are under the impression that a handgun must always be fired in self-defense. A very reputable study by Dr. Gary Kleck discovered that between 1 and 2 million people prevent a crime against themselves merely by displaying their gun to their potential attackers. Those numbers are far higher than the statistics of those accidentally shooting themselves or losing their guns to their attackers.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-28-2007, 04:16 PM:
Jack, I think Joe and Hillary essentially answered your question, but my entire point is that there are people who seem to think that just because they put a tiny sign by the front entrance to their theater that their complex is gun-free. HARDLY! Anyone with a concealed carry permit knows which signs mean nothing and it won't stop a single one of them. This is nothing more than a false sense of security (sort of like TSA) of theater owners, employees and uninformed patrons who are simply scared at the mere idea of having a gun around. That sign isn't stopping anyone and more importantly, you will never know for yourself just how many people that sign didn't stop until something actually does happen because concealed carry permits don't allow people carrying to let you know they have one on their person (unless they have to use it).
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-28-2007, 05:03 PM:
While I can certainly understand Bobby's concern for his personal safety, the actual "packin'" of a handgun may present more risk than safety.
I have thought about carrying a pistol many times whenever I see the news about some of the senseless carjackings, robberies, freeway shootings, etc. Even though one keeps clear of the "undesirable" areas, there are low-life POS assholes all over. It may be just a matter of luck...being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm not sure that if I was confronted with the "THREAT" of crime that I could actually pull the trigger to kill another human. That sure is a hard decision. BUT! As the saying goes...If you carry a handgun you MUST be prepared to use it. If you hesitate, you may be the one killed.
Like Mark, I also have a .357, but I keep it at home. If some POS would break into my house or take a shot at me, assuming they would miss at the 1st shot, I definitely would shoot them dead. I think it's important to kill them... if ya don't, they and the defense lawyer probably would sue you for pain and suffering and make the jerk look like a saint and you Satan. ...Poor babies! HA!
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 07-28-2007, 05:26 PM:
quote: Phil Hill
I'm not sure that if I was confronted with the "THREAT" of crime that I could actually pull the trigger to kill another human. That sure is a hard decision. BUT! As the saying goes...If you carry a handgun you MUST be prepared to use it. If you hesitate, you may be the one killed.
There's surely a threat in the other direction, too: that, in the heat of the moment, you would pull the trigger when there wasn't a threat.
In particular, one incident happened to me that caused me to think about this. I was on a train from Glasgow to York in the summer of 2003, and had sat in the 'quiet carriage', in which you're not supposed to use mobile phones, iPods, etc. There was a bloke sitting at the next table who received three phone calls in succession. After his phone rang the third time, I went up to him, pointed out the 'No mobiles' sticker on the window and said, 'I'm really tired and could do with a couple of hours' peace from the bleeping noise. Any chance you could switch it off or move to the next carriage?'. His response was to take a flick knife from his pocket, show it to me, and suggest that if I bothered him again I would require the assistance of the National Health Service (or worse).
I was so angry that if I'd had a gun, I'd have shot him there and then. I really am not joking - I'd have pulled the trigger without a second thought, and probably more than once. The night after the incident, I remember trying to get to sleep and thinking, 'if only I'd had a gun'. This guy was a yob and a moron and he deserved to be held to account for what he did (which he eventually was). But after calming down and thinking about it, I don't think he really intended to use the knife on me, and in any case he certainly didn't deserve to die. But if I'd have had the concealed gun in my pocket at the time of the incident, I honestly think I would have shot him. Speaking purely personally, and not wanting to apply that experience to a society I've never lived in or experienced day to day, it made me see at least a little bit of logic as to why the law never let me carry a gun around in the first place.
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-28-2007, 05:33 PM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
There's surely a threat in the other direction, too: that, in the heat of the moment, you would pull the trigger when there wasn't a threat...I was so angry that if I'd had a gun, I'd have shot him there and then.
I totally agree Leo. That is another realistic consideration.
(Although in that particular incident, he DID threaten you with a weapon. I would have probably shot him or at the very least showed him my handgun and tell him to fuck off!)
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-28-2007, 06:28 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
Having been robbed before, I know from personal experience that the police do not come to the rescue and prevent specific crimes from happening.
Then you probably already know that he wold also get your gun as well!
quote: Hillary Charles
He was a regular customer where I worked, and became fixated on me.
Hillary.. I have to admit that I've been fixated on your member photo for many years ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
.
quote:
think it's important to kill them... if ya don't, they and the defense lawyer probably would sue you for pain and suffering and make the jerk look like a saint and you Satan. ...Poor babies! HA!
Right on Phil! If you miss the first shot and just wound him go back for another round and make sure he's cold. NO one's going to prove otherwise. I'm sure that there are many cops that go by this rule... they also save countless millions in court costs on what are generally worthless scum bags.
quote: Leo Enticknap
If I were in Bobby's situation, I think I'd want the gun.
And if I were truely a valualable employee I'd be after the company to move to safer grounds or I'd be looking for some place else for employment. One should not have to go through unsafe territory to get to work.
Mark
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-28-2007, 07:07 PM:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
And if I were truely a valualable employee I'd be after the company to move to safer grounds or I'd be looking for some place else for employment. One should not have to go through unsafe territory to get to work.
Dunno about that Mark. While that sounds good in theory, most of us lowly employees have NO say as to the location of the company. Location is a combination of financial issues and convenience for the owner and customers.
For a long-time employee, it's also impractical to change jobs cuz of the company's location. If I we're happy with all other aspects of employment, I would not give up my seniority and benefits for some perceived threat.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-28-2007, 07:13 PM:
quote: Phil Hill
As the saying goes...If you carry a handgun you MUST be prepared to use it. If you hesitate, you may be the one killed.
This is one of the reasons why people have to take classes to get a carry permit and also why additional self defense classes are recommended.
Lots of people have misgivings about what they legally can and cannot do in using a firearm to defend themselves, even in their own home.
In Oklahoma, we have what some refer to as a "make my day law." Many believe that law gives them the freedom to automatically shoot any intruder who breaks into their home. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. For instance, if the guy is trying to escape from your house and you shoot him in the back that can get you into very deep trouble.
The "make my day law" is meant to legally protect home owners from a very real and dangerous scenario: A criminal breaks into your home while you are there. He appears to be unarmed. But you have a gun. So the guy rushes at you. Some people may think they don't have the right to shoot since the adversary doesn't have a gun. But that's not true. If the intruder overpowers you he could kill you with your own weapon. Therefore, you do have the right to use force, even deadly force to keep the potential attacker at bay.
Here's the text from Title 21 § 1289.25. of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act of 2005:
quote: OK SDA Law Book 2005
PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
B. Any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, against another person who has made an unlawful entry into that dwelling and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant of the dwelling.
C. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including but not limited to deadly force, pursuant to the provisions of subsection B of this section, shall have an affirmative defense in any criminal prosecution for an offense arising from the reasonable use of such force and shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the reasonable use of such force.
D. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.
quote: Leo Enticknap
There's surely a threat in the other direction, too: that, in the heat of the moment, you would pull the trigger when there wasn't a threat.
Again, this is why classes are important.
Essentially, private citizens are subject to the same restrictions police have to observe in the reasonable use of deadly force.
This is also why just about any state that grants conceal carry permits has certain restrictions on where concealed weapons cannot be carried.
In Oklahoma, it is against the law to carry a concealed weapon onto school property or into a government operated building or even into meetings of government officials even if the meeting is taking place on non-government property. You certainly cannot carry a concealed weapon into a bar. Professional sporting events are off limits, and so are places where "pari-mutuel wagering" takes place (I assume that means a horse racing or dog racing track or an off track betting place).
There are many punishable offenses for irresponsible, reckless gun use -some of which are felony offenses.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 07-28-2007, 07:21 PM:
quote: Brad Miller
but if you check the lawbooks those signs carry no weight whatsoever and so long as you aren't carrying in a school, hospital, business that makes 51% of it's profits on the sale of alcohol, etc you are totally free to carry it right past those signs.
If your theater has a policy of "no outside food/drink" that doesn't override the fact that people are legally allowed to bring food around with them; there obviously is no law against people carrying food. But if you bring the food in and they catch you, you would have to either leave or be arrested for trespassing.
And the same thing applies to guns. Yes, the sign itself doesn't legally obligate you to get rid of your weapon. But your right to have a weapon doesn't mean that they have to let you be there with it.
quote:
my entire point is that there are people who seem to think that just because they put a tiny sign by the front entrance to their theater that their complex is gun-free. HARDLY!
Completely agree. This is the same idea as putting a sign up at schools saying it is a "Drug-Free Zone" and thinking that the kids are suddenly only smoking pot everywhere else...
Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 07-28-2007, 08:27 PM:
I have an degree in Police Science and have recieved extensive firearms training. I never thought about getting a permit to carry until I got robbed at gunpoint in a suburban theatre in IOWA no less. I seriously wish I had one that night, especially when I was escorted from the office alone by the perpetrator. Yes I feared for my life, and yes if I had one I would have killed the SOB. He still has never been caught.
Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 07-28-2007, 08:51 PM:
Because you're asking "should I get a permit", you're clearly conflicted.
Do a balance-sheet: "pro" vs "con."
You've cited several reasons why you'd feel more comfortable with a weapon (unless I've missed it, you didn't state whether you picture mostly carrying it on your person, or keeping it in your vehicle). Now list reasons why you might not want to carry. Here are some ideas:
I know myself, and I think I might tend to feel entirely too bold as time passes, and venture too freely into places where I might be in danger (carrying is no guarantee that you won't be hurt or killed anyway).
I would have to remember not to carry in places I didn't used to go (schools, etc) without thinking.
Just because I'm allowed to carry legally doesn't mean that the presence of my weapon won't intimidate friends, or provoke strangers.
What do respected gun store owners/employees suggest? (I'm sure you can sort out the braggadocio from the advice that comes from experience).
What does my Significant Other say?
--------------
Make your own list - make a decision and proceed with confidence. And remember the advice the Master gave Kwai Chang Caine: "Rather than kill, injure. Rather than injure, resist. Rather than resist, run away."
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-28-2007, 09:00 PM:
In Montana, there are more guns than people, but hardly any murders. We're ranked 44th in the nation in murders per 100,000 people. I don't know if that's because there are so many guns, or in spite of it.
There has never been a gun-related murder in my hometown in my lifetime that I know of...not much action around here. I'm not sure what the concealed-carry laws are around here...one friend of mine has a permit (ex-cop) but nobody else I know has one, or feels the need to I guess.
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-28-2007, 09:51 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
We're ranked 44th in the nation in murders per 100,000 people.
Are there even 100,000 people in Montana? I thought I had counted them all up on my last run through there.... I was at 783.
Mark
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-29-2007, 01:40 AM:
quote: Wayne Keyser
Just because I'm allowed to carry legally doesn't mean that the presence of my weapon won't intimidate friends, or provoke strangers.
If your friends are able to see the weapon then you obviously are not doing a good enough job on keeping it concealed. There's a lot of different ways how one can keep a gun out of sight. Inside the pants gun holsters are a pretty good solution.
This issue also comes down to carrying the right kind of weapon for conceal carry purposes.
I own a Sig Sauer P226R. The "R" part of the term means it has a tactical "rail" for attaching things like gun mounted flashlights, lasers, etc. But it's a full size "commander" style pistol not really well accustomed to conceal carry use. With a permit, I'd have no problem packing that gun away in my truck or taking it with me to work, etc.
I believe Sigarms makes some of the highest quality firearms anyone can buy anywhere. The only thing better is custom made product from a legendary gunsmith. There's a multitude of law enforcement agencies and military organizations in the United States who swear by Sig Sauer pistols. The Navy Seals, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Air Marshalls, The Secret Service, Texas Rangers, Texas Dept. of Public Safety, Virgina State Patrol, Ohio State Patrol, Delaware State Police and many more carry Sig Sauer firearms as their duty pistols. They cost twice as much as a garden variety Glock. But they work with a much greater degree of reliability.
Still, I'm thinking about getting a more compact kind of a sidearm. I'm not into Glocks very much. In fact, I think Glocks are just shit. Lots of people love them though. But I've heard lots of problem stories regarding them as well. Our own local police dept. uses .45 caliber Glock pistols as their standard duty sidearm. Most of the officers don't like them for various reasons.
If I have to buy an additional pistol, I'm leaning toward getting a sub-compact Heckler & Koch semi auto handgun. Something like a P2000 SK perhaps. Costs a lot. But if I can't carry a Sig, then a H&K would probably be the next best choice.
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 07-29-2007, 03:45 AM:
just remember Bobby, a gun will not protect you from fire, car crash or flood! But, I think that if you feel that you will feel safer with a gun, then get the proper training and get the go a head for a permit. I carry a small knife (which probably wouldn't do me much good in a gun fight...) but it's just mainly for opening boxes. (knock on wood that I won't have to use it for anything but that)
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-29-2007, 03:56 AM:
quote:
a gun will not protect you from fire, car crash or flood!
Wrong!! If you fire a powerful gun at the exact moment you crash your car, the recoil will reduce the momentum and effect of the car coming to a stop so quickly and it could save your life. If you have a gun that can shoot thousands of bullets a second continuously, then you can fire at the base of approaching flood waters. It will splash up and back onto itself indefinitely and you will remain dry forever. In a fire if you shoot the flames, they will be sad and the fire will go out right away.
Posted by Wayne Keyser (Member # 2420) on 07-29-2007, 06:20 AM:
Joe ... sniffing FilmGuard is not a good idea ... clearly.
Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 07-29-2007, 06:53 AM:
Remember; never draw until you have already made the decision to fire. Louis
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-29-2007, 09:12 AM:
quote: R. Andrew Diercks
I have an degree in Police Science and have recieved extensive firearms training. I never thought about getting a permit to carry until I got robbed at gunpoint in a suburban theatre in IOWA no less. I seriously wish I had one that night, especially when I was escorted from the office alone by the perpetrator. Yes I feared for my life, and yes if I had one I would have killed the SOB. He still has never been caught.
Well, The Iowa farmers that are not doing so good still have to eat too .
Mark
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 07-29-2007, 01:15 PM:
quote:
Wrong!!
Thats right Joe, I totally forgot that we lived in the Matrix world! haha
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-29-2007, 03:33 PM:
quote: Louis Bornwasser
Remember; never draw until you have already made the decision to fire.
Exactly! This is why much of this discussion is foolish. A gun carrying person won't let you know he has a gun in the first place, so good luck in kicking him out of your theater. Secondly, by the time you actually SEE that gun, whoever it is about to be pointed at a split second later is probably going to be gunned down with several shots just to make sure he/she is dead (because in the US people are sue happy and firing to the point of death is about the only way gun carrying owners have a good chance of protecting themselves legally).
Moral of the story, you never know who is packing, so don't threaten anyone to the point of them possibly interpreting it as a threat to their life or someone else. That could get you legally killed.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 07-29-2007, 10:07 PM:
What we need is for everybody to carry. How many armed robberies would there be if the potential bandit knew his victim had a gun? A small grocery where I used to repair cash registers was robbed on a regular basis until the owner put a visible, loaded .38 on the hip of every employee from the cashier to the floor sweeper. Everybody there had a gun. An attempt was made a couple weeks later and the bandit drew 3 fatal rounds. Not even an attempt in the 20 years since.
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 07-29-2007, 11:17 PM:
I have a permit, and hardly ever carry a gun. I do keep one in my vehicle, and feel better about having it.
I think you have a good reason for getting a permit. I think the classes are a good idea. I also think practice is very important. I go to the range often, as much as once a week. I have many guns, most I use for hunting, but practice shooting my handguns every time I'm at the range.
I realize the possibility of ever using a gun for self-defense is very unlikely, but having it available and knowing how to use it gives me a sense of security.
I think many people get the wrong idea about concealed weapons, they get the permit, buy a gun and carry it around with them. You should definitely practice often and be very familiar with shooting in any situation including in the dark and with the wrong hand. The more you are acquainted with the gun, the better. Then you will be ready to carry.
As for the signs banning firearms... all state laws are different, obviously airports, banks and courthouses are bad ideas. You definitely need to know the laws in your state and exactly when and where you can carry a gun. Just because my permit for ND is acceptable in MT and SD, does not mean the laws are the same. My employer has a policy banning firearms on the property. I doubt I could get into legal trouble, but they could fire me and I would have little recourse. It would be a good idea to check if there is a policy at work, but I wouldn't tell anyone of your intentions to carry. If you are at work or leaving work and the need to use a weapon arises, are you going to risk your job or life?
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 07-29-2007, 11:47 PM:
quote: Wayne Keyser
I know myself, and I think I might tend to feel entirely too bold as time passes, and venture too freely into places where I might be in danger (carrying is no guarantee that you won't be hurt or killed anyway).
I highly doubt that. When I was younger I thought once I turned 21 I would get my CHL and then not be afraid of anyone and tell people off that were acting like idiots at wherever.
The exact opposite happened when I finally did get one. The realization of knowing that if I get into an altercation it could lead to a point where if I feel my life is in danger someone could die made me even less confrontational.
Say what you want about how perectly safe the world is and that there is no need for an average citizen to proctoct his or herself, but I live in a different part of the world. I feel perfectly safe about 99% of the time. If I am out during the daytime I don't carry. However, if I know I am going to be out at night or working overnight in an unsecured building I definitely carry.
I have a 9mm in my bag that rarely sees the light of day. I take it out occasionally to pull the clip and inspect, but other than that it sits in its pocket. I've never even come close to having to use it (and I am sure if I ever do really need it I won't be able to get to it in time) but occasionally when encountering "roadrage" on the highway I will take it out and set it in the seat just in case some idiot tries to run me off the road. I don't wave it at them or anything like that.
As for Bobby's question, I would say get the permit and then decide if you want to carry a gun. At least if you have the permit when you do decide to carry, you can.
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 07-30-2007, 02:30 AM:
quote: Bill Enos
What we need is for everybody to carry.
Oh yes, what a wonderful idea! Human emotion sometimes overpowers common sense.....in those times people do irrational things. If everyone was packing heat then there'd be senseless shootings all of the time.
I'm not against handguns, but one simple truth exist: The only purpose of a handgun is to kill PEOPLE. There is no need for ANYONE other than servicemen, security or law enforcement to carry them. You'll find a better chance of being killed by driving home from work, than being shot by some random guy trying to rob you.
If you feel insecure enough to need to pack a gun during your everyday life, perhaps a lifestyle change is in order. As Chris stated, the gun will not provide courage. If only everyone was as responsible about them.
Just my 2 cents.
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 07-30-2007, 03:23 AM:
I see it now. I was completely wrong before. I had never thought that the police and federal government were better to protect myself than me. I think we should all surrender all forms of self defense and put our lives at the mercy of our governments. Remember, they only have our safety and best interest in mind when making decisions.
The entire reason for owning firearms is to be able to protect yourself against the government and its police forces when they try to overstep their bounds. Do I believe that my S&W would protect me against a dozen cops or a squad of Marines, of course not. However, there are more average citizens with guns than their are troops on all the armed forces combined. I know this sounds like paranoia, but governments of the world have used force against their own people in the past, and will do it again in the future.
That is an interesting theory about there being senseless shooting over who gets the last donut, but the truth is that it just has not happened. I get into arguments with Brad all the time and it has never come down to duel in the projection booth.
The truth is that all of the wrong people already have guns and always will. Someone who takes the time and goes through the proper procedure for owning a gun legally is probably not going to go off half cocked. Although it could happen.
We need to focus on keeping guns out of the WRONG hands, not all hands. If you were to live in a world where only the police and servicemen had guns you would be in a far more dangerous world than you are now. I'd take my chances fighting against some crack head over Uncle Sam any day. You really should look into the history of gun control...
Posted by Tristan Lane (Member # 1169) on 07-30-2007, 04:22 AM:
quote: Chris Hipp
I think we should all surrender all forms of self defense and put our lives at the mercy of our governments.
All me to reiterate my above comments, since I get the impression that you think I was suggesting we give up our guns....
I own guns. I've hunted for most of my life, enjoy trap shooting and sporting clays, and I shoot for recreation from time to time. I do not currently own any pistols due to a personal choice. The reasons for my choice are due to my own opinions, and I don't expect else to share my opinion. I do feel that my shotgun adds security to my home, but I don't keep it loaded and sitting next to my nightstand at night, I just don't see the point. I used to consider guns a hobby, but now live in a place that isn't very good to the sport. There's not much public land to shoot on nearby.
You don't need to tell me why the Bill of Rights entitles citizens the right to own and bear arms, as an educated American I can understand and appreciate why our forefathers included that right. I would not trust a government that tried to take that away.In regards to handguns: I doubt I would support legislation that would disallow citizens to own and carry, even though I personally don't like them.
Bobby was asking people's opinions, and I gave mine. You may not agree. Perhaps my view may be somewhat naive, but I'm happy with it.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-30-2007, 04:44 AM:
I do not own a gun, and I feel quite secure in my every day life. However I would not be opposed to owning a handgun and having a conceal-carry permit. I've fired many guns before, and I've even been mistakenly placed under arrest for felony menacing. Thanks to the experience with my high school debate team I was able to get them to drop the case (all true... well except maybe for the debate team part). But like someone previously said, it's better to have the tool and not need it rather than need it and not have it. Why don't I own and carry a gun? Just lazy, I guess. And kind of a cheap-ass.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-30-2007, 07:33 AM:
What's all this wussy crap about CONCEALED weapons? THAT's exactly the problem...sneaking them in pocketbooks and pockets. No one knows who's got one and who doesn't so the bad guys feel safe in shooting anyone because there is no obvious warning sign DON'T MESS WITH ME, I GOT A GUN.
I say, we need to go back to the way it was in the frontier days. Make the concealed weapon against the law, but if you feel you need to carry a gun, you have to wear it on your belt, strapped to your leg like in the western movies. Be like Randolf Scott, not sneaking around like some coward, afraid to let anyone know you are someone to be reckoned with. Bad guys would be a lot less likely get pushy with granny if they see she's got a Smith & Wesson strapped to her crotch.
Then there's the obvious question: you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon, so does it follow that if you keep your gun out in the open, then you don't need a permit for it? There's no permit needed for an UNCONCEALED weapon, is there?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-30-2007, 09:32 AM:
quote: Frank Angel
There's no permit needed for an UNCONCEALED weapon, is there?
In Montana you can carry around all the guns you want without a permit, as long as they're in sight.
I've never seen anyone other than a cop or a hunter carrying one.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-30-2007, 06:29 PM:
I talked with a couple friends of mine at a civic club meeting today about what they do when carrying. One simply has the permit so he can have it at the ready in his vehicle. Another hauls a full size .40 S&W Heckler & Koch USP in his briefcase. What I might be able to do is keep my P226 in a camera equipment back pack. For something holstered, I may get a compact or sub-compact weapon I won't care so much about scuffing and scratching with holster use.
quote: Tristan Lane
I'm not against handguns, but one simple truth exist: The only purpose of a handgun is to kill PEOPLE. There is no need for ANYONE other than servicemen, security or law enforcement to carry them. You'll find a better chance of being killed by driving home from work, than being shot by some random guy trying to rob you.
That sounds like it is veering off topic into anti-gun political territory.
Handguns are used for purposes other than killing people. The vast majority of handgun owners simply use them for the sport of shooting holes through paper targets. Some do it competitively. Others might get a .22 LR pistol and cheap ammo for lots of casual "plinking." It's pretty fun.
While I strongly support the right for citizens to own guns, I will also say that gun ownership isn't for everybody. A lot of responsibility come with it. Carrying a concealed weapon for personal protection adds a great deal more responsibility. No one should get a carry permit unless they are confident with their weapon.
quote: Frank Angel
What's all this wussy crap about CONCEALED weapons? THAT's exactly the problem...sneaking them in pocketbooks and pockets. No one knows who's got one and who doesn't so the bad guys feel safe in shooting anyone because there is no obvious warning sign DON'T MESS WITH ME, I GOT A GUN.
Just my opinion, but in general I think carrying an exposed weapon is a very risky idea. It will certainly scare some people. But it could make you a target to others. They just hatch their plan, wait and then ambush you. I would very much prefer people not have any idea I was carrying a gun.
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-30-2007, 07:35 PM:
Nevada is like Montana in that you can legally carry a gun in plain sight. I imagine the cops would seriously harass anyone doing that in the 'Vegas or Reno/Carson City metro areas, but out in the sticks or in any of the other "cow counties" I don't think anyone would care.
Concealed works the opposite way - the weapon must truly be concealed, no telltale bumps or bulges. Otherwise you will be arrested for brandishing or displaying a weapon.
I've gone through the training, but I don't have a CCW. Never particularly felt the need for one. I own a High Standard Victor .22LR pistol for plinking, and also keep a Remington 870 shotgun in the house for social work. Lots of home invasions and increasing numbers of meth labs in this area lately.
Posted by Jeffry Wilde (Member # 4514) on 10-13-2007, 09:30 AM:
All for cc!
Posted by Mike Sellars (Member # 4042) on 10-13-2007, 11:54 AM:
Florida does not require one to keep your weapon in your car in a snapped holster... I drove 80 miles one way to work for three years, and when people would ask me why I carry it in my car, I always said "You never know that tonight might be the night some asshole decides to try to change the course of my and my familys' life... and that's not gonna happen"!
Got pulled over for speeding once... told officer I had a pistol in glovebox, would he like to hang on to it until we are done, he did... but all we did was talk about ammo for 15 minutes, he stripped a round of his service ammo of of a spare mag and handed it to me saying, "Check this out".... that was cool as hell.
Mike
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-13-2007, 06:22 PM:
I'm one step closer to getting the carry permit. I bought a handgun specifically designed for conceal carry use, a Springfield Armory XD-40 subcompact:
The Springfield Armory XD line of handguns has been gaining a great deal of popularity. They're built well, don't cost a fortune, have all the design advantages of a Glock but with a number of improvements. The grip angle and ergonomics are better. There's additional safety enhancements, such as a 1911 .45 style grip safety, a loaded chamber indicator and a cocked striker indicator. It has a higher quality hammer forged barrel. The slide is CNC machined from high grade steel (instead of stamped or cast) just like guns costing twice as much. Some police departments are trading their Glocks for XDs.
The XD subcompact is also the smallest handgun to also include a "rail" for mounting accessories, like tactical lights and laser aim pointers.
The subcompact I bought is chambered in .40 S&W. 9mm is popular (mainly for the cheaper ammunition and slightly higher magazine capacities). But .40 S&W has better stopping power and the bullets don't cost too much more than 9mm. I also bought a .40 S&W barrel for my Sig Sauer P226 so I can practice shooting it at a more affordable level. .357 Sig ammunition is expensive. It costs nearly twice as much as .40 S&W.
Springfield Armory throws in a number of extras with their XD pistols. The subcompact came with two magazines, one of which is an extended model for higher capacity and a full size grip. You also get a magazine loader (which does come in handy because those magazine springs are pretty stout), a magazine holder for your belt and a plastic belt holster. The plastic holster sucks, but it's better than nothing. I'll get a high quality shoulder holster and/or an inside the waistband holster. Here's a photo of it alongside my Sig P226:
A friend of mine and I will probably take the conceal carry class together. A couple places here in Lawton offer the class. Another thing you have to do is get your fingerprints put on file at the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. Normally, most people get their fingerprints taken at the County Sheriff's dept. But OSBI often rejects lots of fingerprints after taking their sweet time to review them. I figure making the appointment directly with OSBI in Oklahoma City will speed things up a good bit. They'll at least tell you the same day if the prints they took are good or not.
BTW: I do have a "Series 4 Deatomizer": an Ithaca Model 37 Featherlight shotgun.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-13-2007, 06:43 PM:
Bobby -
I just got a Kahr PM-9 for the same reason, except my ankle is the resting place. I did not find an inside-the-pants holster I liked; I could never get a combination of comfortable with the ability to grab the grip quickly.
I looked at the XD quite a bit and I did as much research as I could and decided on the PM9 with Trijicon night sights. I tossed the difference back and forth between the .40 and the 9mm, but in the end decided on the 9mm because with it being such a small gun, I wanted to keep recoil to a minimum. When I shot the XD it definately felt to me like it had more recoil. I hope it shoots real well for you. Does it have the 200 round break-in period the Kahr does? If I had the money, I would have bought them both and let practice make my decision for me.
Posted by Ray Faultless (Member # 903) on 10-13-2007, 07:23 PM:
Guys how much are these guns selling for now and how much are the bullets.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-14-2007, 12:44 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
Does it have the 200 round break-in period the Kahr does? If I had the money, I would have bought them both and let practice make my decision for me.
Springfield Armory gives the XD a lifetime warranty. Their customer service is very good. If anything is wrong with the gun they will fix it (provided you haven't been doing something stupid with it, such as shooting it without any lubricant on the slide, etc.).
The XD is a nice gun. The most important selling factor for me is that the XD grip fit my hand very nicely. I love the grips on factory SigSauer and Springfield XD pistols. They're both fairly similar. I can't stand how the Glock feels; the angle just seems wrong. And the finger separators on the grip just screw up things even worse. As much as I admire Heckler & Koch for their quality standards on making handguns, I don't really like how their grips feel in my hands. FWIW, their newest pistols (the H&K P30 and H&K 45) have interchangeable backstraps to adjust for differing hand sizes. The problem is those pistols cost a LOT and aren't widely available.
quote: Ray Faultless
Guys how much are these guns selling for now and how much are the bullets.
I bought my Springfield Armory XD-40 subcompact for $530 (including sales tax) at a recent gun show here in Lawton. Not too bad for the "two tone" model. The main gun store in my area of Oklahoma (located in Duncan) sells the same gun for nearly $100 more.
SigSauer pistols are definitely more expensive. The venerable P226 in a standard all-Nitron blued finish currently lists for $853. My P226 has Meprolight night sights, which brings up the list price to $920. I originally purchased it chambered in .357 Sig, based on research of incident reports from various law enforcement agencies. The Texas Rangers, Texas Dept. of Public Safety and Virginia Highway Patrol recorded a high degree of "one shot stops" when using their department issue P226 pistols chambered in .357 Sig. (and jacketed hollow-point ammunition). The Navy Seals, US Marshalls and US Coast Guard carry SigSauer P226 and P229 pistols.
.357 Sig ammunition is expensive. But it is growing in popularity due to its high velocity and intense stopping power. You'll pay around $20 or more for a 50 round box of Winchester White Box practice ball ammo in .357 Sig. The price per 50 round box has gone up a good $5 over the past year. It now literally costs nearly double that of .40 S&W.
Wal-Mart sells 100 round "value packs" of Winchester White Box practice ball ammo in .40 S&W for around $20. You'll shoot $2 to $4 cheaper when loading up with 9mm. But 9mm doesn't pack very much of a punch at all. Basically it's the old .38 slug on a shorter cartridge built for higher capacity magazines.
If you can't tell already, I don't really care much at all for the 9mm round. Our troops in combat have been having to deal with the wimpy factor of 9mm in their standard issue Beretta 92F pistols loaded with 9mm ball ammo. It's against NATO regulations and the Geneva Convention for soldiers to have pistols loaded with hollow-point ammunition. There's some exceptions, but generally you have to play by those rules.
Ball ammunition is only designed to punch little holes through paper targets. Nothing more. It's practice ammo. Not hunting ammo or self defense ammo. The slugs are not designed to expand much at all when impacting into a target. You could literally empty a magazine through an assailant and he may still be healthy enough to still get to you and kill you before he is able to bleed to death -if that even happens at all.
The pansy ass-hats out there try to ban the use of hollow-point bullets as if they are less humane. Here's a news flash to those guys. Any cop, soldier or person who has gone through some self defense training knows you keep shooting and continue shooting until the threat is neutralized.
So what's more humane? Shooting a bad guy just once? Or emptying an entire magazine into him and them pistol whipping the shit out of him if he's still alive and wants to strangle the hell out of you?
My SigSauer P226 is my home defense gun. I have it loaded with .357 Sig caliber Speer Gold Dot jacketed hollow-point bullets. If I hit an intruder "center mass" in the torso within a few yards, he is going to drop like a sack of dead weight. If I have the same gun loaded with ball ammo, he may get to me, take my gun away from me and beat me to death with it. Sure, shot placement, even with ball ammo, can be enough to get the job done. Still, you must be using the right kind of ammunition for the given purpose.
Naturally, self defense ammunition costs a good bit more. But not too much more. I got a 50 round box of Speer Gold Dots in .357 Sig from an Internet based law enforcement seller for around $24. You also tend to have to order more exotic types of self defense rounds (Glaser Safety Slug, Hydra-Shok, etc.) off the Internet if you want the best price.
Posted by Ray Faultless (Member # 903) on 10-14-2007, 11:11 AM:
Thanks Bobby.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-15-2007, 12:25 PM:
Well thankfully this magnificent invention is now a reality for shotgun owners so they can accidentally kill their family when they hear a noise in the middle of the night and are half awake.
Seriously, who sleeps with a shotgun at their bedside???
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-15-2007, 08:23 PM:
OMG. Is that actually a serious product offering or is it just a joke?
FWIW, I do have a pump shotgun in my bedroom closet that can be used to convince someone trying to kick their way through my front door that they don't really need to do so. But that's only provided I have enough time to get up there and rack the pump so the would be intruder can hear that mechanical noise of a shotgun being loaded and made ready to fire. In reality, you probably won't have time to do all of that. Which is why I have the SigSauer P226 loaded with .357 hollow points in my nightstand. I figure I'll only have enough time to grab the weapon and aim.
No worries about shooting family members since I am single. Pretty much it is Quake death-match rules: "frag anything that isn't you."
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-16-2007, 12:28 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
No worries about shooting family members since I am single.
Plus, the idea of anti-gun people saying "But you're more likely to accidentally kill a family member" is bullshit.
When they announce data that says that gun deaths usually involve people who know each other, they include gang-related crimes. Plus, even if they didn't include gang crimes, they're using data on crimes simply involving acquaintances as opposed to accidental deaths; a man killing a "friend" for sleeping with his wife clearly says nothing about the prevalence of accidental family deaths.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 10-16-2007, 10:18 PM:
If your weapon of choice is a shotgun, the Backup looks like a
good idea to me. If you can't get your hands on it, you can't use it.
I have some friends who live in a very rural area and about half a mile off the road. About 18 years ago while he was away on business she and the 3 kids saw a car come in the drive a little after mid night and a man got out and came to the door and demanded to come in. They didn't recognize him or the car, she fired two rounds thru the door, he left in a hurry. The sheriff was called but nothing ever came of it, good thing for the .357!
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-16-2007, 11:12 PM:
The mere threat of getting shot is usually enough to scare away any would be home invader. Even if you have to eject an unfired round from the chamber, it may still be worth it to rack the pump on your shotgun within earshot of an intruder. That noise is definitely enough to give anyone with any lick of sense a feeling of fear.
Still, you have to be prepared to deal with the fact most criminals are either sociopathically insane or just plain dumb as a rock and intent on entering your home regardless of the threat you pose to them.
The anti-gun crowd is really good about vomiting out anecdotal statistics about how a home owner's gun is often taken from him and used against him.
The anti-gun crowd is also very quick to bring up stories of people getting killed in gun related accidents.
In one respect I can kind of agree with those ass-hats, but my motivations on gun use and gun rights are far different. They just want to ban guns. I merely want people to use common sense. Our society uses all kinds of very dangerous tools even without any requirement of certification or competence with the tool. Hundreds of people are killed using chainsaws every year. It's arguably the most dangerous tool you can buy from a hardware store. Chainsaws are even sometimes used to deliberately kill other people. But I don't see any noises being made to ban chainsaws, or nailguns, baseball bats, knives or anything else that can be misused for sinister purposes.
My own opinion is Americans do have the right to bear arms, but if they choose to do so they need to do so responsibly. That last part is the big problem. I think people take more care in a new chainsaw purchase than they do when buying a gun.
Lots of people buy guns in a casual manner and then don't take the extra steps to truly learn safe use of the weapon and practice using the weapon. They don't sign up for classes on safety, marksmanship and self defense. They don't visit the gun range regularly to hone their skills. Instead, they just leave the loaded gun in their dresser and figure that alone will be enough if some really threatening incidents happens. Unfortunately, an intruder breaking into your home will likely be more prepared to deal with you than you are with him -especially when you're bleary-eyed, jarred awake by the sound of the intruder kicking in your front door. Being unprepared or simply hesitating in the face of the threat can be deadly.
Shooting accidents are far easier to prevent.
I contend nearly all shooting related accidents involve violation of one of the four cardinal rules of gun safety. If you religiously obey the four cardinal rules, you won't have a tragic accident involving firearms.
The Four Rules:
1. The gun is always loaded.
2. Never point the barrel at anything you don't wish to destroy.
3. Never put your finger on the trigger until you're ready to fire.
4. Identify your target and what is behind it.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 10-19-2007, 08:56 PM:
quote: Ray Faultless
Guys how much are these guns selling for now and how much are the bullets.
The 9mm has the cheapest cartridges, but they can get pricey. A box of 100 practice rounds will run you $18 at Wal-Mart, but a box of 20 Federal Hydro-Shok Jacketed HP will run you $18 as well. The Kahr PM9 cost me $549, used through Gunsamerica.com, with Trijicon night sights installed. It is made in America.
I'm not sure what anyone's hang-up is with the 9mm. Of course there are more powerful rounds, but if you want to get in a pissing match just buy a 10mm and be done with it. With the risk of getting into technical mumbo-jumbo better left for a gun forum, the 9mm+P is every bit as powerful as the .40 anyway and most every gun chambered for the 9mm can also shoot the +P. The 9mm bullet, actually, is the exact same projectile as the .357 sig shoots, only the .357 sig is moving faster. The .40 S&W (Short and Weak according to some) is a tamed down 10mm, which was too hot for many to handle, so it got weakened into the .40. The 9mm rounds also weigh less, which can make a big difference if carrying concealed for an extended time.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Our troops in combat have been having to deal with the wimpy factor of 9mm in their standard issue Beretta 92F pistols loaded with 9mm ball ammo.
The problem, as you detailed so well, is the bullet, not the caliber. Ball ammo was never intended for self-defense. A recent study by the Illinois State Police showed their 9mm to be 87% lethally effective.
quote: Bill Enos
If your weapon of choice is a shotgun, the Backup looks like a good idea to me.
In home defense, a shotgun is always the best idea. A handgun, by definition, is a back-up weapon, chosen only for its concealment and portability. In close quarters, take the shotgun over a hand gun every time. You have a much greater margin of error and a heck of a lot more power with a shotgun than with any handgun. If your situation allows it, I would leave the shotgun close at hand and likely never need the handgun.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-26-2007, 12:30 PM:
Let's see...
I've got a Rem. 870 under the bed, loaded with tactical buckshot.
There's a Glock 19 (9mm.) in the nightstand.
There's an FAL in the gun safe inside the closet.
There's another Remington shotgun in the downstairs closet under the stairway.
My wife carries a Baretta in her purse.
She can hit a target smaller than the size of a standard CD/DVD (4 inch.) from 25 feet away 10 times, virtually as fast as she can pull the trigger.
I can hit a 6 inch bullseye 7 out of 10 times with a rifle from 100 yards away... Offhand. Using no rest. I'm not quite as good with a handgun as my wife is. She practices more with the Baretta. I practice with the rifle.
Simply put: If you walk into my house, uninvited, you won't be walking when you leave.
In Pennsylvania, you do not need a permit to carry a firearm as long as it is not concealed. You have the right to take your guns from your home to a place of legal use, such as a firing range or gunsmith. You may carry one in your car as long as it is properly secured. (e.g. Locked in the trunk.) Within certain limits, you may openly carry a weapon as long as you are not brandishing it or carrying it in a dangerous/threatening manner.
Certain cities and townships have ordinathences against carrying a weapon without a permit but they range only from a summary offense to a misdemeanor offense, except when in the commission of another crime. Some cities and towns have ordinances against the discharge of a weapon within their limits unless it is for protection of life.
My wife has a permit because she carries her handgun in her purse or in a concealed holster. (Along with an industrial-size can of 18% pepper spray.)
I don't have a permit because I don't need one. I can carry whatever weapon I need, whenever I need it. Because I work at a college, carrying a weapon there is illegal and ill-advised. It's not safe to keep one locked in my car, unattended.
I don't have a permit because I don't want my name on some government list of people who have guns. However, if I traveled or had to go places where a gun might be needed, I would go get a permit as soon as possible.
Just because you have a permit, doesn't mean you have to carry all the time.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-30-2007, 07:53 PM:
Check out this awesomeness.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-30-2007, 10:34 PM:
That's one hell of a gun.
But it would also be a hell of a thing to have that old stunt marksman as a security guard. That's the same guy who holds the record for shooting the most hand thrown clay targets from the air with a shotgun. He's so freaking good at shooting it makes me sick.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-31-2007, 11:52 PM:
Check out the RECOIL from that thing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUiTBC0AfVE
But my question is, How do you get a holster big enough for concealed carry?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2007, 03:38 PM:
I overlooked this earlier post, but had to respond to a few points:
quote: Chad Souder
I'm not sure what anyone's hang-up is with the 9mm. Of course there are more powerful rounds, but if you want to get in a pissing match just buy a 10mm and be done with it.
Gun companies are phasing out 10mm. Good luck on finding ammo in 10mm. Get ready to pay some $$$ if you do.
I think the choice is simple. If you just need stopping power in a semi-auto pistol, get one chambered in .45 AUTO. If you need effective stopping power and high capacity, get something chambered in .357 Sig.
9mm has two advantages, if you can really call them advantages: cheaper ammunition and higher magazine capacity. You may end up needing those extra bullets. .45 AUTO and .357 Sig are far more proven to deliver "one shot stops."
quote: Chad Souder
the 9mm+P is every bit as powerful as the .40 anyway
This overlooks the fact there's a wide variety of choices in .40 S&W ammunition, including hollow point rounds up to 180 grains in weight.
Some .40 S&W pistols can easily swap barrels for .357 Sig. I have both .357 Sig and .40 S&W barrels for my SigSauer P226. You don't have to change recoil springs and the magazines will hold both types of ammunition. Pretty nice to have that kind of versatility in just one gun.
quote: Chad Souder
The 9mm bullet, actually, is the exact same projectile as the .357 sig shoots, only the .357 sig is moving faster.
The slugs have roughly the same diameter, but vary on weight. 9mm slugs can weigh from 95 to 147 grains and have a variety of different charges behind them. Most .357 Sig slugs weigh 125 grains but are seated on a necked down .40 caliber shell casing.
Contrary to what some claim, not all 9mm pistols are designed to fire +P loads. The .357 Sig cartridge can deliver more power and velocity than a +P 9mm load. Some .357 Sig ammunition is nearly as powerful as .357 Magnum. Pistols originally chambered for .357 Sig are designed to handle the extra stress of the .357 Sig round.
quote: Chad Souder
The 9mm rounds also weigh less, which can make a big difference if carrying concealed for an extended time.
Weight differences between identical pistols loaded either in 9mm or .40 S&W are very minor. Keep in mind a pistol chambered in 9mm will hold at least a couple more rounds of ammunition than a pistol chambered in .40 S&W or .357 Sig. Fully loaded, that 9mm gun could end up weighing a little more, not less. If that difference is really an issue, then that person needs to step down to a smaller gun.
quote: Chad Souder
The problem, as you detailed so well, is the bullet, not the caliber. Ball ammo was never intended for self-defense. A recent study by the Illinois State Police showed their 9mm to be 87% lethally effective.
The caliber definitely has something to do with the issue, along with the type of bullet being used.
American military service people are confined to using ball ammunition with few exceptions allowed. 9mm is ineffective for personal defense (as are a number of other bullets near that size in FMJ loads). 230 grain ball ammunition in .45 AUTO can be an effective man-stopper. This is why many in the military are campaigning hard to do away with the Beretta 92F as the standard military side arm.
Many commanding officers have already had their troops switch out to .45 caliber weapons. Some are using classic 1911 style pistols. Others are using newer models from SigSauer (the P220) and Heckler & Koch (the USP 45 and the new H&K 45). The "Joint Combat Pistol" trials have still not been settled. H&K, SigSauer, Smith & Wesson and a few others are competing to provide the American military with one standard pistol for combat troops. One thing is absolutely certain: the winning pistol will not be chambered in 9mm. It will be a .45. If they could hollow point ammunition they would probably go with .357 Sig. More and more law enforcement agencies in the United States are adopting .357 Sig.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-01-2007, 09:51 PM:
Nobody is arguing against the effectiveness of any other caliber. Of course there are more powerful choices, but if that is really your hang-up, go away from pistols and switch to revolvers completely. Get yourself a 500 and have the ability to (cue the Kurt Russell voice) turn a head into a canoe, because you don't want someone dead, you want them really, super-duper dead.
For years cops got by with a .38 service revolver as their side-arm. They somehow managed back then. Maybe the drugs are better now.
I think it has less to do with numbers on paper and more about what you're comfortable with. This thread was originally about concealed carry, which are typically smaller framed guns, which would make you lean toward a round with less recoil, which may be a smaller caliber like a 9mm. The reason the 10mm didn't catch on was becasue trained professionals couldn't keep it on target. A gun doesn't do you much good if you can't hit something with it. Again, its all about what you're comfortable with. I have never seen a .45 or a .357 Sig that I would feel comfortable carrying on my ankle. There are different guns for different applications.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-02-2007, 12:25 AM:
I do agree that, in most cases, a 9mm round should be your lower limit for self defense. But you've got to remember that it's not JUST caliber and velocity that determine stopping power.
You've got to consider bullet expansion and weight retention.
A bullet that doesn't expand upon impact does not impart as much of its energy into the target. Rather, it pierces a hole then just slides right on through but never gives up much of its energy. Basically, you're left with a through-hole wound that doesn't knock your assailant down.
A bullet that doesn't retain much of its weight may not penetrate deep enough to do lethal damage to the assailant.
You want a bullet that stays together long enough to go deep into the assailant then to expand (mushroom) and give up it's energy.
Thus, if you had a round of .45 cal. ball being tested (in ballistic gel) against a 9mm jacketed hollow point, you might find that the .45 goes clean through where the 9mm goes in a few inches then leaves a large cavity.
Velocity, bullet weight and caliber DO have a lot to bring to the party but you've got to keep in mind what the happens when the freight train hits the end of the line too.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-02-2007, 12:38 AM:
quote: Chad Souder
Nobody is arguing against the effectiveness of any other caliber. Of course there are more powerful choices, but if that is really your hang-up, go away from pistols and switch to revolvers completely.
Actually I am arguing the effectiveness of certain calibers. For high capacity semi-auto handguns 9mm just isn't good enough especially when compared to alternatives like .357 Sig or going .45 AUTO when limited to using ball ammunition.
Revolvers have lost much of their appeal for purposes of self defense. Modern semi-auto handguns are far more reliable than they were a couple decades ago. They have higher capacity, reload much faster and have a longer sight radius that translates into more accurate shot placement.
A large "hand-cannon" revolver such as the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum or a Ruger Super Redhawk is impractical for most purposes of self defense. They're better used for hunting medium to fairly large sized animals. Someone might be able to use something like that for home defense. Just don't let an attacker get close enough to grab that long gun barrel.
Some women have to use smaller revolvers, such as a 38 special that can also load .357 Magnum cartridges. It takes a certain amount of strength to rack the slide on a semi-auto handgun, hand strength some women just don't have. The revolvers they have to settle on using often have pretty heavy double action triggers and often need to be modified.
quote: Chad Souder
For years cops got by with a .38 service revolver as their side-arm. They somehow managed back then.
I can point out cases where they didn't manage. A .38 revolver sucks it big time. Specifically, I recall the late 1980s case of Elanor Bumpers, a large lady who lived in a New York City apartment building. While wielding a butcher knife she ran down a main hallway at two NYPD officers. Both officers emptied their .38 revolvers into the lady and she was still able to jump on the officers before finally bleeding to death. The public was outraged she was shot 12 times. Few understood the bullets hitting her had little stopping power.
quote: Chad Souder
I have never seen a .45 or a .357 Sig that I would feel comfortable carrying on my ankle.
Who says you have to carry the gun on your ankle? Most guns, even something like a Walther PPK, are impractical to carry there.
There's lots of ways how you can conceal carry "full power" semi auto pistols with compact and subcompact sized frames.
Also, it should be noted that many people obtain a conceal carry permit just so they can legally keep a loaded pistol in their car.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-02-2007, 02:17 PM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
A large "hand-cannon" revolver such as the Smith & Wesson .500 Magnum or a Ruger Super Redhawk is impractical for most purposes of self defense.
Ruger makes an Alaskan with a barrel shorter than 3" that handles either the 500 or the .44. It is specifically designed for self defense. Most conflicts happen within 12', so sighting is not as much of an issue as you would think.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Some women have to use smaller revolvers, such as a 38 special that can also load .357 Magnum cartridges.
Its the other way around. A .38 can't load a .357, but any .357 can load a .38. A revolver disigned only for the .38 is considerably smaller than one that can carry the .357.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Who says you have to carry the gun on your ankle? Most guns, even something like a Walther PPK, are impractical to carry there.
I say. That's where I want to carry it. Most guns are indeed impractical to carry there and that's the whole point. Find something that works with what you want.
quote: Bobby Henderson
There's lots of ways how you can conceal carry "full power" semi auto pistols with compact and subcompact sized frames.
No, there are not. If you wear dress pants, a dress shirt and tie, but no jacket, you are limited to only inside the pants or your ankle, unless you care to sport a fanny pack all day. Inside the pants holsters can be very uncomfortable, or quite comfortable, depending on your body and the gun. For Mark on page 1, a .357 is too big to carry concealed and that is OK. Some off duty cops tend to wear fanny packs, but most wear casual enough clothing that they can leave their shirt untucked with a high sitting, outside the pant holster. For me, I couldn't get an inside the pant style to quit digging into my hip bone. My Galco ankle lite holster is very comfortable.
Maybe some day if you actually get a permit to carry concealed you will become aware of some realities associated with the process, but until then, take the word of some of us that have been doing it awhile.
Would Brad, Hillary or anyone else that actually carries concealed care to disclose what they carry and where they carry it?
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-02-2007, 03:13 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
Ruger makes an Alaskan with a barrel shorter than 3" that handles either the 500 or the .44. It is specifically designed for self defense. Most conflicts happen within 12', so sighting is not as much of an issue as you would think.
Sure. Sighting won't be an issue with short barrel big bore revolver. The person trying to use it will be wincing instead of aiming due to fear of heavy recoil. A short or snubby revolver in .500 is a laughably stupid weapon to own. Revolvers, generally speaking, have no remaining advantages over semi-auto handguns for self defense purposes.
quote: Chad Souder
Maybe some day if you actually get a permit to carry concealed you will become aware of some realities associated with the process, but until then, take the word of some of us that have been doing it awhile.
Don't talk down to me like I am some newbie at handling guns. Just because you want to carry a pistol on your ankle doesn't mean everyone else has to do so. Most people I know who carry don't carry there.
In case you believe the ankle is the only "correct" place to carry, look at the disadvantages of that method. First, you're stuck with tiny guns usually in wimpy ass calibers. Even still, there's a strong chance you're going to get "made" by other people when your gun still "prints" through your slacks or jeans. You might be able to get around that by wearing cowboy boots and boot cut jeans. But then the cowboy look is pretty stupid or even inappropriate in some places. Tactically speaking, it's downright stupid to have to bend down, stoop or crouch just to get your weapon. It takes extra time and places you in a vulnerable, off balance position.
Despite your own experience, there's several makes of inside the waistband holsters that work very well. The Crossbreed Supertuck and Comp-Tac "MTAC" models are among the most popular and are highly adjustable. Like all IWB holsters, they don't work when combined with the American habit of people wearing slacks and jeans that are too tight (due to them getting fat yet not wanting to buy new clothes). If your own physique just doesn't allow for IWB, then that's your own problem. Not mine.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-05-2007, 10:22 AM:
I really don't want to keep this going and I apologize in advance for the long post, but I don't want any other Film-Tech members to casually read this and get misleading information. Bobby, I don't understand why you ask to "hear from any F-T members that have carry permits" just so you can bash what people respond with. If you ask an opinion, don't badger it and answer your own questions. I feel I must clear up some of your inaccuracies for the benefit and safety of others:
quote: Bobby Henderson
They cost twice as much as a garden variety Glock. But they work with a much greater degree of reliability.
quote: Bobby Henderson
But I've heard lots of problem stories regarding them as well. Our own local police dept. uses .45 caliber Glock pistols as their standard duty sidearm. Most of the officers don't like them for various reasons.
What reasons? Please be more specific. Glocks are great guns. MUCH greater degree of reliability? That's just plain wrong. What evidence do you have to support that? Glock recently became the best selling pistol of all time, with fewer than 10,000 destroyed due to unrepairable failure. That is a great, low number. They are extremely reliable, which is why so many other companies, including your XD, have mirrored their usage of polymer. If anyone reading this is considering buying a Glock and finds it comfortable (the only complaint I've heard is that some don't like the grip angle or the grip), buy with confidence.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Gun companies are phasing out 10mm. Good luck on finding ammo in 10mm. Get ready to pay some $$$ if you do.
Not really. 10mm has a passionate, cult following. Its not going anywhere. Right now on doubletapammo.com (where I shop), you can get 50 10mm for $28. Your beloved .357 sig ammo is $26, or $24 in bulk. That's a difference of around $.04 per round. I guess that really breaks your bank. .357 is just as exotic as 10mm and the only reason its cheaper is, and I repeat here, it is EXACTLY the same projectile as the 9mm. Not "roughly" as you said, exactly. If cost is that much of an issue where $.04 is going to get you, look into reloading where you can save a bunch.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Many commanding officers have already had their troops switch out to .45 caliber weapons.
That's true, but do you know why this course of events even happened? In case you or don't or anyone else is curious, I'll tell you. Due to its slow speed and large size, .45 ammo in WW2 was bouncing off German kevlar, so they started testing 9mm. Smaller and faster moving, the 9mm bullets would penetrate the vest. By the time our government's speed got the change out on the field, the vests had caught up to the 9mm as well, so it became a moot point, but that was the initial reason. When Clinton was elected President, he ordered all guns to be destroyed that were not in service. Bush lifted that order and gave officers the choice for their men to carry whatever they wanted. Many switched away from the 9mm for obvious power advantages. The Navy Seals, however, still use 9mm. Why? I don't know, but I'm thinking they have a pretty good reason.
quote: Bobby Henderson
In case you believe the ankle is the only "correct" place to carry
I don't believe that and I've never said anything to indicate that. Whatever works best for you. For me, ankle is the best. For Hillary, it may be a purse. Whatever.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Revolvers, generally speaking, have no remaining advantages over semi-auto handguns for self defense purposes.
Not true. There are two advantages. Only two, yes, but two nonetheless. 1: A revolver can't jam. Even if its one-in-a-million, it can't jam. If there is a misfire, you just pull the trigger again. No breaking your sight-line and changing your hand position to work the slide, just pull the trigger again. 2: Bigger calibers in a smaller frame. Grip size is not an issue with revolvers, so a lady can carry the SP101 for example, which has a nice small grip and can shoot a .357 mag. Just point and click, so to speak.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Don't talk down to me like I am some newbie at handling guns.
I don't think you are a newbie at handling them, just about carrying concealed, which, by your own admission, you've never legally done.
quote: Randy Stankey
Thus, if you had a round of .45 cal. ball being tested (in ballistic gel) against a 9mm jacketed hollow point, you might find that the .45 goes clean through where the 9mm goes in a few inches then leaves a large cavity.
I don't know much about ballistic gel, but in a person they should actually be the other way around, due to diameter. You're absolutely right, Randy, regarding expanding upon impact. Assuming we're not talking about hollow points, the .45 is so fat and slow that it distorts and blobs around, leaving all its energy in the target, making it an excellent choice for self-defense. The 9mm is very fast and small and will go clean through people if it doesn't hit a bone. Once it hits, it can carom off in any direction the path of least resistance takes it, making it a good choice only if you have concerns about recoil, weight, control, money, or shooting through doors.
quote: Bobby Henderson
If your own physique just doesn't allow for IWB, then that's your own problem. Not mine.
That's xactly right. If it is a problem, look at an alternative option.
My point with all this is not to spew out information to make others think I know a lot, but rather to suggest to people considering carrying concealed to DO THEIR HOMEWORK. This is a very serious decision, not something to make you feel cool. It is VITAL to have a gun that you are comfortable with, not something that just looks good on paper. You can get away with something you're not comfortable with at the range, because the target won't hurt you back. Whatever works best for you, that's the right choice.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-05-2007, 10:22 PM:
quote: Chad Souder
Bobby, I don't understand why you ask to "hear from any F-T members that have carry permits" just so you can bash what people respond with.
You may have missed what I wrote on page 1 to begin this thread.
Most gun owners I personally know, as well as gun owners I talk to on various firearms forums on the Internet, are very conservative and often pretty macho in their attitudes about issues like gun ownership and conceal carry. It's difficult to get the more "middle of the road" point of view from those sources.
As to my bashing of responses please look at your insistence of 9mm and carrying a gun on your ankle as being the best solution.
quote: Chad Souder
What reasons? Please be more specific. Glocks are great guns. MUCH greater degree of reliability? That's just plain wrong. What evidence do you have to support that?
I know the Lawton Police Department armory has lots of Glock 21 pistols with broken or defective parts. The Oklahoma Highway Patrol has standardized on the Sig P226 chambered in .357 Sig (just like the Texas DPS officers). Glock's plastic magazines aren't great. Overall, the quality control at Glock has slipped over the years. Quite a few LPD officers hate Glocks but have had their requests denied to use other types of .45 caliber pistols. Since the early 1990s Glocks have had numerous problems. Here's one link for some documented examples:
http://www.thegunzone.com/glock/problems.html
Glocks are more prone than a lot of other pistols to a "kB!" or "kaBOOM!" -basically where the round explodes in the gun and risks injuring the shooter seriously. There have been lots of confirmed "kB!" incidents in larger caliber Glocks, but only a couple in 9mm models. One reason Glocks are more prone to "kB!" is because the chamber is not fully supported. Bar-Sto has after market custom barrels for Glock pistols to combat that design flaw.
quote: Chad Souder
They are extremely reliable, which is why so many other companies, including your XD, have mirrored their usage of polymer.
The use of polymer can be argued to be a cost cutting measure, not something that actually improves quality over guns with alloy frames. The frame and grip is all one piece (unless the frame has interchangeable back-straps to adjust grip like the Sig Pro and newer H&K pistols) Most new SigSauer pistols and modern 1911 style .45 pistols have both their slides and frames precision CNC machined, not stamped or molded. Such guns are arguably more durable and reliable. The process definitely makes them more expensive than polymer framed pistols.
My XD-40 subcompact is indeed a "tupperware gun." I think it has all of the advantages of a Glock and few drawbacks. SigSauer doesn't have a true subcompact model, and certainly nothing in the price range of the XD. I'm not going to mind so much in scuffing and scratching up a $500 handgun with holster use as much as I will a $900 gun. My Sig P226 remains my first option for home defense. And with the carry permit, I'll likely carry the P226 in my truck as well.
quote: Chad Souder
Not really. 10mm has a passionate, cult following.
"Cult following" can also be translated into: very few people buy it.
quote: Chad Souder
The Navy Seals, however, still use 9mm. Why? I don't know, but I'm thinking they have a pretty good reason.
The Navy Seals are no longer exclusively using the SigSauer P226 "Navy" 9mm model. They have been transitioning to a number of different .45 caliber pistols, including the SigSauer P220, classic 1911 style .45 pistols and the expensive Heckler & Koch Mark 23 pistol complete with a threaded barrel and custom made suppressor. The Navy Seals are currently evaluating the H&K .45, a new SigSauer P220 Tactical model and a number of other pistol designs. They are not sticking with 9mm.
Regarding the previously mentioned gun caliber history, politics, particularly being friendly to certain European interests, played a big part in the US DOD adopting 9mm.
quote: Chad Souder
I don't believe that and I've never said anything to indicate that.
When I said "there's lots of ways how one can carry a full power caliber pistol" you said "no, there is not." In the context of that last post it certainly sounded like you insisted the ankle is the only place to correctly carry a concealed handgun.
quote: Chad Souder
A revolver can't jam. Even if its one-in-a-million, it can't jam. If there is a misfire, you just pull the trigger again.
Most modern semi-auto handguns are much better in quality than older semi-autos, particularly ones in the $500 and up price brackets. They're far less likely to jam from design flaws. Many have precision CNC machined parts unlike cast and stamped parts in guns of the past. My P226 has never jammed. Couple that with ammunition capacity double that or more than a standard revolver. That combination is difficult to beat. Very few law enforcement agencies in the United States carry revolvers anymore. That's a good enough example for me.
A common cause of a gun jam is poor shooting form. A weak or limp wristed hold can interfere with the recoil operation of the gun, robbing backward momentum of the slide. You can have a failure to extract, failure to feed or even a "stovepipe" where the empty shell casing is stuck in the ejector port.
quote: Chad Souder
Assuming we're not talking about hollow points, the .45 is so fat and slow that it distorts and blobs around, leaving all its energy in the target, making it an excellent choice for self-defense. The 9mm is very fast and small and will go clean through people if it doesn't hit a bone.
Some of that speed difference depends on the load of the 9mm round. If a JHP round is used, it is far less likely to over-penetrate. 115 grain ball ammo in 9mm clocks at around 1100fps. Heavier 147g 9mm ball ammo isn't nearly as fast (and won't penetrate as much either).
Depending on the material being hit, sometimes a slower (and sometimes heavier) bullet actually penetrates better. The Mythbusters TV series demonstrated how slower handgun bullets can effectively penetrate ballistics gel under up to several feet of water. High powered rifle bullets shatter when hitting the water surface, including a .50 caliber 600 grain bullet fired from a Barrett sniper rifle. This test was to "confirm" the myth of movie characters being able to swim underwater away from gunfire without getting hit. It also makes one of the early action points in Saving Private Ryan (soldiers underwater getting shot and killed) at least somewhat questionable.
quote: Chad Souder
My point with all this is not to spew out information to make others think I know a lot, but rather to suggest to people considering carrying concealed to DO THEIR HOMEWORK.
I've been doing that for quite some time -particularly in studying Oklahoma's current self defense statutes and cases where people have legally defended themselves with firearms. I hope I'm never in a position where I have to defend my life with deadly force. But I want to be prepared in case I am forced to do it.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-06-2007, 01:41 AM:
Randy -
I was incorrect in my analysis of the .45 vs. the 9mm earlier and for that, I sincerely apologize. After some quick research, the .45 holds its line much better and does indeed penetrate ballistic gel deeper and so it presumably also penetrates a human target deeper and perhaps continues clean through as you suggested. I was thinking in terms of hard targets, such as vests or metal, not in terms of soft tissue. The 9mm, being so light, caroms and squirts around upon impact with "soft tissue". My bad. Forgive me?
For proof of the reliability of Glocks, check this out . I have never seen video of another handgun taking such a stupid amount of heat and stress and continuing to function perfectly. This is the Glock 18, a fully auto that most civilians can't get their hands on.
For the end all of stopping power, go here . Note the part where the guy gets called a big sissy when he decides not to hold it one-handed. Fun stuff.
[ 11-06-2007, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Chad Souder ]
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-06-2007, 11:40 PM:
The .60 caliber pistol video is hilarious. My father e-mailed me a copy of it a few months ago.
Regarding the Glock video, every reputable gun manufacturer has ads and videos of various extreme torture tests to show the toughness of their pistols. It's basically a current marketing fad.
Here's just a couple of others I found very quickly searching YouTube:
"Firepower TV" torture test of Sig P220 Combat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpl0ZJkikNA
German language documentary about Heckler and Koch, including video of their guns getting buried in mud, frozen or put under water yet still being able to fire afterward.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FcsY0zaL3j4
There's lots of others. If anyone searches enough I'm fairly certain they'll find similar videos for just about any good quality make of handgun.
While visually interesting, those torture test videos don't represent real world, long term use of firing many thousands of rounds through a gun.
The test videos can be argued to be ridiculous because no one is going to smack their gun around with a baseball bat, run over it with a bulldozer, drag it on a chain behind a pickup down a dirt road, drop it out of an airplane or freeze it in a solid block of ice and then fire the gun.
Now if anyone really wants the absolute toughest, most dependable, no compromise semi-auto handgun money can currently buy you shouldn't have to look any farther than the Karl Lippard Combat NCO .45 ACP pistol -as long as you have $5000 to spend.
Karl Lippard, a former Marine, is one of the world's most highly respected gunsmiths. He creates custom handguns, rifles and shotguns for customers ranging from CIA agents to heads of state. Some are highly ornate (and very expensive) while others, like the Combat NCO pistol, are made purely for function. Lippard is associated with Joseph Brazier Gunmakers, a very high end British gunmaking firm first established in 1827.
The metal parts of the Combat NCO pistol are machined to extremely precise levels, mostly from S7 vacuum arc remelt steel (extremely strong, yet expensive stuff). The pistol can be ordered in compact, full size and longslide versions. The gun can also be fitted with a suppressor that attaches through a unique frame extension instead of a threaded barrel. The gun's "Lippard Link" has a patent pending and is a big improvement over the barrel link systems found in other 1911 style .45 auto pistols. That extends normal barrel life from the usual 10,000-20,000 rounds fired to over 100,000. The pistol has a number of other unique features making it much easier to use one-handed with either left or right hand. Lippard was wounded in Vietnam during the battle of Cam Ne and had to defend himself with a regular USMC issue Colt 1911 .45. His experiences led him to improve and further refine the original John Browning 1911 A1 designs into what the Combat NCO pistol is today.
Lippard primarily makes the Combat NCO pistol for active duty Marines, other members of the military and people serving with various government and law enforcement agencies. Many of the models he sells to military personnel have to be "cloaked" to look like a standard issue .45. It is illegal for military personnel to use personally owned weapons in combat and they can get into some serious trouble if some bureaucratic type finds out and gets his panties in a twist.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-08-2007, 02:15 AM:
Chad,
No need to apologize. I was talking about theoretical extremes.
A jacketed HP round versus ball ammo isn't necessarily a fair comparison. Neither can one say that my scenario would play out as I said it would. There are just too many variables.
I was just trying to point out that, even though most people are substantially correct in their belief that a .45 is a more powerful gun, given the correct conditions, a test such as I illustrated could give counterintuitive results.
The whole exercise was to get people thinking about the fact that what happens at the receiving end of a bullet is just as important or even MORE important.
When you get right down to it, we can argue about theoretical extremes all day. What really counts is whether you can put two rounds into a target accurately and consistently enough to stop a would-be attacker before he can hurt you or the people around you. We all know that the average in-home self defense shot is taken at less than 25 feet. (More like 10.) Take an old CD disk and put it up on the backstop 25 feet away. If you can put 7 out of 10 rounds into a circle that size (12 cm / 4 in.) you can shoot well enough to do the job.
If the first two don't knock the bastard down, I've got 13 more where they came from. And, if THAT doesn't work, there are 8 loads of tactical buckshot waiting for him!
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-08-2007, 10:56 AM:
quote: Bobby Henderson
The pistol has a number of other unique features making it much easier to use one-handed with either left or right hand.
Wow, sounds like a heck-of-a gun. What other unique features does Mr. Lippard add to make that sucker cost $5k? I had been saving up for a 1911 by Bill Wilson. His are around $2300. What does Lippard do special to warrant the more than double the cost over Wilson's? I had also looked at getting a Richard Heinie, but he was booked for the next 10 years.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-12-2007, 09:36 AM:
More information about the Karl Lippard Combat NCO pistol can be found here.
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 11-13-2007, 07:33 PM:
This thread is about the most surreal I've ever read here. Otherwise sane and intelligent people seriously discussing the best equipment for killing other people.
I know in the US that civilian gun ownership is very common etc, but it still chills me to the bone.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-13-2007, 10:11 PM:
The United States is a very different country than any in Europe. The culture is very different. Individual freedom is a cornerstone of that. And our popular culture tends to glorify all the bad things, especially violence. How dare anyone allow little 8-year old Timmy to accidentally be able to find material that lets him see a naked pair of female breasts. But little 8-year old Timmy can disembowel opponents in bloody glory in his favorite video game. When he hits puberty he can roll like a O.G. "original gangsta."
I don't endorse the sick nature of America's popular culture or even the negative core values for that matter.
However, I don't have any obligation to be a defenseless, pacifist target for the many bad people in this country either. This week one of my friends talked about an old friend in Frederick, Oklahoma falling victim to a home invasion and beaten within an inch of his life and home ransacked. That right there is reality in America. It isn't going to change if I turn over my guns to the police. As long as I have the right to legally defend myself, I am going to do it. I certainly don't ever want to have to shoot anyone in self defense. But I'm not going to get murdered or severely beaten while totally defenseless either.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-13-2007, 11:09 PM:
Governments have a vested interest to indoctrinate irrational fear about guns into the general population.
If they teach you to fear guns they don't have to work as hard to keep you from having one or even wanting to have one in the first place.
The constitutional right to own firearms is simply another form of "checks and balances" on government. A government which knows its people could rise up and throw them out of power if it doesn't satisfy the needs of the majority of the constituency will be kept in check and prevented from overstepping its authority to rule.
The true meaning of the Second Amendment has comparatively little to do with protection and self defense. Keeping the government in check is its more important function.
And, Andy, for all the blustering I do around here about the firearms I keep, you have very little to worry about. The solution is simple: If you come to my house, ring the doorbell!
I'll come to answer the door and, if I think you're okay, I'll let you in. I guarantee you'd never even know the difference if I didn't tell you.
Posted by Scott McGuire (Member # 4508) on 11-14-2007, 12:31 AM:
Since this asks for my opinion then here it is. If everyone in the country had the opurtunity for conceal carry then no one would ever know who had or did not have a gun on them. I think that this alone would drop crime. Because right now the criminals run around with illegal guns and the rest of us have to go through the proper procedure to just buy them. Imagine some guy trying to rob you with a gun he doesn't even know how to use and seeing his face when you pull one right back at him.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-14-2007, 12:59 AM:
There was a funny story in the local news a few years back:
Some stupid dirt bag walked into a pizza shop brandishing a stolen H&K P7. He waved it around for a while then tried to fire a round into the air to scare the guy behind the counter.
The stupid shit didn't know that the P7 has a squeeze-cocking lever in the grip and it won't fire if you don't pull the lever back.
Well, the gun went "Click... Click!"
About 0.68 seconds later, the clerk jumped over the counter and called for his buddy, in the kitchen, to come back him up. Those guys beat the tar and feathers out of that bastard!
When the cops got there they were repeatedly bashing that fucker's head into the counter! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-14-2007, 08:01 AM:
The idea that, today, citizens keep firearms to make sure the US goverment keeps it's place seems a bit ludicrous. Certainly, it made sense in the 1700's, maybe up until the late 1800's, but not today. If the goverment wanted to 'take over' the country somehow and could get the armed forces to go along with it (next to unbelievable, but let's assume) I don't think regular small arms are much of a match for mortars, RPG's, tanks, or even air strikes with rotary cannons, let alone dropping bombs from aircraft, howitzers, etc. Even if a foreign country tried to take over ("Red Dawn" style) the citizens in either case would still be reduced to fighting guerrilla-style with less effective weapons.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-14-2007, 10:02 AM:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We the people are the militia being referred to, not the military. The entire constitution was based around protecting us against our government, second amendment included. This amendment also allows us a homeland defense against invasion by another country. It doesn't matter how likely or unlikely any of this seems, that was the intent. It is not outdated and does not need to be removed.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-14-2007, 11:14 AM:
I think if the framers of the constitution had any clue about the types of weapons that would be available today, they would have reworded the Second Amendment and made it a lot more clear. It's too vague for today's world.
I also think many people don't notice the words "well-regulated" in there. (Or they don't think it applies to them.)
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-14-2007, 01:32 PM:
quote: John Walsh
I don't think regular small arms are much of a match for mortars, RPG's, tanks, or even air strikes with rotary cannons, let alone dropping bombs from aircraft, howitzers, etc. Even if a foreign country tried to take over ("Red Dawn" style) the citizens in either case would still be reduced to fighting guerrilla-style with less effective weapons.
If the government broke the Posse Comitatus Act, I think that would signal the beginning of the end for the government and our way of life in general.
Further, I think you could use Iraq as an example of how effective guerrilla-style tactics are against a force with clear technical superiority.
Civil was is not a fun thing to think about even as a gedanken experiment. However, the framers of the Constitution seriously considered it as an option in case the government they were building got too far out of control. They were not afraid to shed blood... even their own... to ensure this. There are plenty of quotes from the likes of Washington and Jefferson, et. al., to this effect that can be found all over the internet. I won't bore you to death with them because it's easy enough to find them. Suffice to say, there was plenty of sentiment among the Framers that summarized as, "A little bloodshed in defense of Liberty is a good thing."
I think that, if they had such weapons as we have now; automatic rifles and bombs and tanks and Howitzers, etc., they would have used them. A visit to the Springfield Armory in Massachusetts was enough to convince me of that.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-14-2007, 01:58 PM:
Mike, on this one you are dead wrong. Almost nothing in the US Constitution is worded poorly. In fact, it is one of the most carefully worded documents...it is just amazing at what is interpreted out of the wording.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear actually...The right of the people to keep and bare fire arms shall not be infringed. Note, it does not say that the militia has the right to the arms, just the people.
This is a document written at a time where the government (UK) was being removed and the people wanted to ensure that similar problems that caused our revolution did not happen again (learning from one's mistakes in order to not repeat them).
The government was NEVER intended to have more firepower than its citizens. The 2nd ammendment was to ensure that the people could overpower or defend itself from its goverment.
The Constitution of the US was also never to be so rigid that it could not adapt to changes in the US way of life but also not so loose that it was easily changed. If you want to be consistant with the thought behind the 2nd ammendment, then it would be worded such that the government could never lawfully use any fire-power greater than that which the citizen could have. The US constitution is about restricting the government, not about granting powers to the government or even restricting the rights of the people. Laws restrict the people (hopefully to have a more harmonious society). However, all laws need to be checked against the constitution to verify their legality...and hence the court system.
You want a real scary thought...think about what would happen if today's US politicals held a Constitutional Convention (the other way to change the constitution)...everything would be on the table, so to speak...what would happen to it then?
In America, it would be bad to remove the 2nd Ammendment, in my opinion. I have no problem with Conceal and Carry Permits...in fact, I think that it should be taken care of in a Federal Level or even consitutionally to drive the point home more. But that is but one person's opinion...and that is what this thread asked.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-14-2007, 02:46 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
The 2nd amendment is quite clear actually...The right of the people to keep and bare fire arms shall not be infringed. Note, it does not say that the militia has the right to the arms, just the people.
Well there you go. Just the fact that you and I don't agree about what that sentence means is proof that it's poorly worded. Many people think that "militia" means the military, while others think it means the general public.
Also note that it doesn't say "fire arms," just "arms." Anything from a knife to a stick can be an "arm."
Please note that I'm not against gun ownership or concealed-carry or any of what goes with it. I'm from Montana, where everybody either has a gun, or has a best friend with one. I just think that if the 2nd amendment was more clear, the country wouldn't be in the pro-gun/anti-gun debate we're in now.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-14-2007, 04:43 PM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Well there you go. Just the fact that you and I don't agree about what that sentence means is proof that it's poorly worded.
It isn't a matter of agreeing on what the sentence means...there is no ambiguity about it. The part about the militia is called a preamble. It is cut and dried about what the PEOPLE have a right to do. Rights are not privileges...there are no "if you do this, then you have that" with them...they are "Certain Inaliable". The only means to deny a citizen of the US his/her rights is with due process, period.
The wording on the 2nd ammendment is quite clear and no matter how you dance about it, it says in exactly as many words, "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." Nowhere does it say only certain arms (sticks, rocks, muskets...etc). Putting such specifics in a constitutional document would make each right listed way too restricted to a time period. An arguement could easily be made that people can keep nuclear arms too. It would be a scary thought for most and I suspect that the Supreme court would "interpret" the constitution as to not allow it (rightly or wrongly...to debate that would turn this thread political...and that is against the rules). However, there is nothing that would stop an ammendment to the constitution that would refine ammendment #2 to place restrictions on the right...if done in such a manner that would provide a limit on the firepower of the arms to exclude nuclear...that would probably pass very fast if needed...however, once you get it down to most anything hand held...you will get into some arguing for/against for whatever reason.
But the only reason that you would read the 2nd ammendment as anything less than a right to keep and bare arms is simply a matter of not being able to read...it is quite clear. With so few words it would seem almost impossible to be confused by them. Again, when reading the US Constitution, the words were carefully chosen and ment to be taken quite literally (which might, in some cases, seem silly in today's world). They were written by people that just fought a war to separate themselves from a government that did not want.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2007, 05:47 PM:
quote: John Walsh
Even if a foreign country tried to take over ("Red Dawn" style) the citizens in either case would still be reduced to fighting guerrilla-style with less effective weapons.
God have mercy on any foreign force fool-hardy enough to invade the United States mainland and try to hold it. The ferocity of guerrilla style warfare would be unprecedented. Red Dawn did nothing to show the depth and scale of just how bad an American grass roots insurgency would be.
Of course, countless thousands of Americans would get killed while waging a guerrilla war against an invading foreign power. But that foreign power would quickly get mired in a quagmire far more nightmarish than anything previously seen in modern history.
Just look at what happened in the Battle of New Orleans. Andrew Jackson and a small rag-tag "army" defeated the British military, regardless of being very much out-manned and out-gunned.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-14-2007, 06:30 PM:
quote: Steve Guttag
But the only reason that you would read the 2nd ammendment as anything less than a right to keep and bare arms is simply a matter of not being able to read...it is quite clear.
I can read quite well, thanks, and I see your point. But we'll have to agree to disagree here. I think it's vague, you think it's clear. I must have a valid point, otherwise a lot of lawyers and other "experts" would be out of work.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-14-2007, 07:34 PM:
Are you kidding? Lawyers go out of their way to make things unclear out of clear things. Most of what gets the law ugly is when judges try to make law from the bench rather than merely interpreting the law (their actual job). Normally when lawyers come into play are on things that are deliberately written vague...this is not the case with the Constitution...is was deliberately written clear. Normally when things get to the Supreme Court, lawyers are fishing to apply the Constitution in a sideways means of a "Because of This, That amendment applies" not so much of a frontal assault.
In the case of the 2nd Amendment...where lawyers/judges can come in to play would be over say gun registration...can the government require you to register? Well the 2nd amendment is silent on that...all it says is that you have the right to have one and the government can't deny you that (unless you have been given due process for the loss of that right). One would have to look elsewhere to see about if registration is constitutional or not and hence the lawyers, interpretations and opinions. But to read the 2nd Amendment and not understand the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is to simply not understand English or the Constitution. It doesn't even limit the people to guns...the right to own arms is there without any restriction on the type. They could have said knives, muskets, bows and arrows...you name it but no they left them ALL available as a right of the people. Again, the framers of the Constitution just separated from England using warfare and one of the things that ticked the people off was quartering the military in their homes.
The US Constitution is one of the most brilliant writings of all time, at least in my opinion.
You may not like or agree with the words, but the words have specific meaning. What is there to disagree about? The words are the words and have no more or less meaning in them than their actual meaning. Again, there is nothing vague there. What could you possibly think that amendment says? Remember, it was such an important amendment that it is #2...only behind Free speach...heck it even beat out the privacy amendments. It was pretty darn important andfar reaching by design.
Steve
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-14-2007, 08:46 PM:
The whole vagueness comes from the way that sentence is worded. If the second half was a sentence unto itself, then there would be no argument. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's simple and direct.
But when you add that first part, "A well regulated Militia being necessary...." it implies that the militia is what's referred to by the second part of the sentence. The whole argument is over what's really meant by the word "militia." If it means the general public, then why doesn't it say "A well-armed population" instead of "A well-regulated Militia?"
The Constitution is not perfect, nor did the writers consider it to be perfect -- if they did, they wouldn't have made it possible to amend it.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-14-2007, 09:22 PM:
For the same reason they didn't use We the Population...it is We the People. The Constitution defines the people's rights. The first part can be considered nothing more than a justification of the second part...and introduction. The first part could have said something as off the wall as: Being that the world needs to concern itself with global warming, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. The first part has zero binding on the second part. The First part is not a right but a preamble to the second part.
And yes The Constitution has never claimed to be without flaws. And yes that is indeed whey it is changable...that is yet one of its many greatnesses. But in order to change any part that is perceived to be a flaw or no longer in the country's best interest, some procedures must be followed...difficult procedures, but procedures none-the-less. Heck, we have had two amendments over the consumption of alcohol alone! And that is one that will NEVER satisfy this country for everyone....some things seem to best not be handled constitutionally.
Steve
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-15-2007, 09:50 AM:
Hold on there, Chad ... I never said the "right to bare arms..." part of Amendment II should be removed. Congress can't get important stuff passed, let alone removing stuff. Besides I do agree that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws ... etc. So, I agree, it’s OK right the way it is, but I still think it is outdated for the ‘defense against the our own government’ concept.
Amendment II: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I agree with Mike in that the wording is somewhat, well, strange - at least compared to today's manner of speech/writing. But, no matter *how* anyone writes anything, someone else can pick it apart.
When I mentioned a "Red Dawn" type of take-over, I meant a situation where the US military had been defeated, and the citizens were fighting guerrilla style. How effective this is depends on how far one is willing to go. Comparing past battles is not always a indicator of what would happen today. Guerrilla fighting was effective at New Orleans, Korean and Vietnam because there were limits what the superior side could do. Guerrilla fighting was not effective during WW2. The Nazis had no limit, lining up every 10th man in a village and shooting him or wiping a town off the face of the earth.
Guerrilla fighting is quite effective in Iraq because of the limits imposed on the armed forces. The guerrilla fighters have no limits. They have RPGs, grenades, explosives, weapons not allowed to the average person in the US, and don’t care about blowing up 20 of their own people, so long as they can get a one US guy. So I still feel if a foreign country tried to take over the US, the citizens would lose.
Wow, we’re a ways away from the original point of this topic, carry permits! Just so I can start a fresh argument, I feel anyone who wants a weapon should be required to pass a safety course. It’s a safety issue, not a registration issue.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 11-15-2007, 10:36 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
it implies that the militia is what's referred to by the second part of the sentence
Yes, it certainly does, but I think the problem is many people's definition of the word militia. A big, big issue with modern constitutional interpretation is that definitions of certain words change over the years. You have to do some research to find what the original authors meant. One example is "liberty". A dictionary search now will tell you it means pretty much the same thing as freedom. Well, that changed. They already had the word freedom back then, so why use liberty? Liberty meant the freedom to do what is right . The definition has changed so that now when people see, "liberty and justice for all", they think it means freedom and justice. That's wrong.
The same holds for militia . Militia meant an army of citizens rather than professional soldiers, usually called in a time of emergency. Many people see the same root word between it and military and assume it is the same, when it is clearly not.
Mike and John - If we can agree on the definition of militia , I think we'll be a lot closer on agreeing on the modern validity of the second amendment in its entirety.
Steve is right - the US Constitution is one of the most beautifully written documents in the history of man. That is why there has only been 15 amendments in 200+ years and some of those don't even belong. Reading it you will see that it is indeed to protect the people from the government. The second amendment emerged from a big debate between the founding fathers. Some wanted a free-standing professional army at all times. Others wanted to get rid of that army during peace-time. The compromise was the second amendment.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-15-2007, 10:55 PM:
quote: John Walsh
I feel anyone who wants a weapon should be required to pass a safety course. It’s a safety issue, not a registration issue.
You have to have a license and pass a safety test before you can drive a car but, even if you factor for the number of cars on the road vs. the number of guns in the hands of private citizens, there are still five times more people killed in automobile accidents every year than die by gunfire.
This includes all men, women and children who are shot. This also includes people killed by law enforcement in the line of duty.
Furthermore, more children die in accidents in swimming pools every year than die from guns... by a factor of ten. But there are all kinds of ordinances and permits and safety regulations that you have to satisfy before you can install a swimming pool over a certain size. How do those rules prevent children from dying? No, they don't. They just make us feel better about it because we're trying to "do something".
The "safety" argument is specious, at best.
So, in short, if you want to pass more regulations about gun use and ownership than we already have, I want you to pass a law decreeing all swimming pools be torn down or filled with sand and capped with concrete.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-15-2007, 11:24 PM:
The difference there is that some nutbar can't take a swimming pool into a school or a mall and kill a dozen people with it.
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 11-16-2007, 12:26 AM:
But he can speed through the school parking lot and run people down with his car or drown your kids in the school swimming pool.
I don't know the statistics, off hand, but I can guess that there are nearly as many vehicular homicides in the U.S. as there are gun homicides. I'm sure we can look it up.
There was a couple of nutjobs in Erie who stole a bunch of bowling balls from a bowling alley and took them to a highway overpass and dropped them on passing cars. A direct hit went through the windshield of the car, causing a multi-car collision and multiple deaths. Miraculously, the driver lived but she will be severely crippled and disfigured for life.
Should bowling be otlawed?
No, the truth of the matter is that guns are more visible... or is that audible? They make lots of noise and they scare soccer moms into thinking that their children are in danger.
You know what? To a certain extent, this is true. Guns ARE dangerous things. But they are no more dangerous than many other things. We just pay attention to guns more.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2007, 12:39 AM:
quote: John Walsh
Just so I can start a fresh argument, I feel anyone who wants a weapon should be required to pass a safety course. It’s a safety issue, not a registration issue.
At least in terms of carry permits, most states which grant such permits require the applicant to take a class and pass a written exam on issues regarding self defense and use of deadly force. The applicant must also demonstrate in front of a qualified instructor they can safely handle and fire their weapon. Oklahoma has separate carry permit categories for revolvers and semi-auto handguns.
As for other people, I kind of agree anyone wanting to purchase a gun of any kind should take safety courses. But I doubt if that sort of thing would ever be mandated. Most people who are serious about the subject pay serious money for all sorts of self defense and safety course; some even go farther and obtain CLEET certifications (even though that's overkill unless you intend to work as a security guard).
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2