News Open and Concealed Carry: Firearms

[nismaratwork]

First, I'd like to ask (cannot demand) that this stay civil. This is born of a debate between another user and myself in PM, which is probaby better served as a thread. Second, if at all possible, I'd love to treat this as a universal issue, and not just a "USA" issue... in other words, this isn't a debate about the 2nd Ammendment.

My intent in this OP, is to explore the advantages of each form of carrying a side-arm, one or the other, or a combination. There is no, "no guns" here, because in the context of this debate, the issue is purely: Concealed Carry, or Open Carry?... benfits?... drawbacks?

Third, and finally, I sent the following as a reply to a PM, so if it seems oddly disjointed... it's half of a conversation which (both parties) hope can be carried on here, with company and other views. I should emphasize, this has been a friendly debate, and if at all possible I'd love to see that remain the case.

OK... now, I'm generally against Open Carry (OC) for mostly practical reasons, but not always, and I'm just one person with limited experience. I also had to quit writing this before I finished, because the flexors in my left arm want to kill me.

Please forgive this, by definition, incomplete beginning to a thread.

In a general sense, I find it very hard to believe that a criminal who doesn't specifically want to kill you, or one who isn't divorced from reality due to drugs or mental illness... is going to avoid an openly armed individual. I think there's also a tacit implication that is quite ancient: "I'm armed, and I know enough about these arms to bear them openly as a warning." In theory, this is very sound; clearly it's very effective for police the vast majority of times. I think we'd agree that a properly wielded firearm is one of the most effective force multipliers on Earth that is available to civilians.

The problem then, is that while you and I understand the tacit threat to a criminal of OC, criminals tend to be pretty dumb and massively short-sighted. Given that, let's take two points you've made:

1.) CC = At least an added second to draw and acquire.
2.) OC = Granny with a gun has a big "buzz off" sign in the form of a pistol.

Here's the issue with that; most people who aren't naturally good with pistols and the Modern Method of shooting (MM) aren't going to go from "empty hands" to shooting at a target in a second. You can, and I

might be able to, although I come from the "accuracy is god" camp, given that most shots miss in practice. I really am a strong believer in the Mozambique: two to the center of mass (chest ideally), ride the recoil and re-acquire, one to the head. I know of no better method to ensure that what you hit will not be doing anything to you.

Still, I only practice that because of my nutty South African counselor when I was 12... so lots of target practice. Most people, including police it seems, are taught to empty their magazine and advance. If people want to OC, they need to back up the threat with skill, or the threat becomes a target: free gun.

In the case of your being taken down in Las Vegas, consider: if I were a criminal and hell-bent on robbing, I'd wait for a vulnerable target. Your point is that a guy sporting a gun is about a HARD a target as you get next to a cop or national guardsman with assault rifle.

Still, many crimes while rational in their motive are not so rational in their execution. For instance, I was robbed at "screwdriver" point... well... attempted robbery anyway in Philadelphia as a college student. I can't imagine even an obviously desperate addict doing that had I been OC'ing; as it happened I had no gun or LTC in PA, which could have gone very badly for me.

The thing is... what is your most valuable tool? Your gun?... or your training, and reactions to... your situational awareness? One is needed to properly use the other, unless OC is a nearly perfect deterrent.

If I'm a crook, have a gun or even a cudgel, and I see a woman walking with a gun OC, but clearly unaware of her surroundings... I'm knocking her head in and taking that gun. For that criminal, it just became Christmas, and in casing that joint, they'll note: older lady, openly carrying a gun, alone, unaware.

If they're wrong, that's one less criminal, and that has to be a VERY desperate, or very violent criminal, which is relatively rare (at least, that desperate and violent). Still, a rational response for a violent criminal in a world of guns, is pre-emptive action, and the irrational case is jumpy nerves and panic fire.

Thus far, I'm trying to explore every advantage to OC that I can imagine, without relying on anecdote... even trusted anecdotes. The thing is, if everyone can openly carry, you don't change dynamics of training,

or willingness to use that weapon. I believe that in practice, you may have failed to awaken in Nevada if you'd been armed. In essence, you remove the middle of the bell curve (violent, but non-lethal crime) leaving the outliers of nonviolent-cunning, and violent-stupid.

In short, if your OC does NOT deter, then you open yourself to death or injury without warning compared to the more usual non-violent encounter. In a way, it removes part of your ability to control the escalation of an event, as the price for speed on the draw and deterrence.

Now, to me the question is how to get the best of both worlds?

OC carry zones on the federal level: You analyze crime stats for rape, violent robbery, A/B, Murder, and in those areas (parking lots, garages, all of Las Vegas ) if you can CC, then you can OC; up to having

your gun in hand, or a clip-on holster. You don't create tension for police, nor do you change the dynamics of public discourse... it's a scientific approach to high risk. In regions where violent crime exceeds X threshold, that's an OC state.

This is not where I would choose to stop, but my left arm is telling me that I should, or hurt a LOT.

 

[drankin]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the points you make in your post. The only real problem with open carry is that most people are unfamiliar with seeing a gun in public on anyone but a cop in most cities of my country. Coupled with their own unfamiliarity with firearms in general. They see a gun on a civilian, they think they see a crime or an imminent crime. An incorrect perception but unsettling and very real to them. It's legal to do in my state but I don't practice OC just for this reason.

But, in the case of a natural disaster along the lines of Katrina or civil unrest along the lines of the LA riots, I think it is important to be able to OC without the authorities hassling you.

There are many countries like the UK to where most people would absolutely abhor the idea of even owning a handgun in the first place. So it's hard to say how applicable this discussion would be to them.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm pretty much in agreement with the points you make in your post. The only real problem with open carry is that most people are unfamiliar with seeing a gun in public on anyone but a cop in most cities of my country. Coupled with their own unfamiliarity with firearms in general. They see a gun on a civilian, they think they see a crime or an imminent crime. An incorrect perception but unsettling and very real to them. It's legal to do in my state but I don't practice OC just for this reason.

But, in the case of a natural disaster along the lines of Katrina or civil unrest along the lines of the LA riots, I think it is important to be able to OC without the authorities hassling you.

There are many countries like the UK to where most people would absolutely abhor the idea of even owning a handgun in the first place. So it's hard to say how applicable this discussion would be to them.

I think each people has the right to decide the fate of their nation, and sacrificing the capacity for violence on some scales has rewards... it also has restrictions.

Good point about natural disasters, but it really goes back to educating the pubic and police. The only problem there is that guns have become mystical to those who hate them, and love them. It's the practical middle that recognizes they're simply tools to be used, or not on a case-by-case basis.

With the politics of this (in the USA) being so entangled with interests and political parties, it's hard to get any signal through the noise, and that makes education VERY hard.

In principle however, that's still not a knock on OC. Personally, I like the ability to have more influence to de-escalate, but that's based in my own life experiences, and hence CC. I have heard from others here of times when OC may have been a potentially life (or butt) saving move.

 

[ThomasT]

Interesting discussion. I don't own or plan on using a gun in the future, but don't have any problem whatsoever with people owning guns for protection or sport shooting.
I don't see OC as ever becoming widespread. Even though certain governments might consider sanctioning it, the requirements and restrictions will rule out most people.
Wrt CC, a good friend of mine, also retired, just got his. Apparently it's much easier now to get LTC in Florida than it was, say, 35 years ago.
I asked him why he felt the need to CC. He mentioned that occasionally he can't avoid riding his bicycle (he's an avid bicyclist and surfer) through some 'bad' neighborhoods to and from certain destinations, and that he would just feel safer knowing the gun is there.

Afaik, there are pretty stict regulations associated with CC. Eg., just pulling the gun out can get you a few years in prison, and actually firing it can get you a lot more.

Anyway, I think that law abiding and qualified individuals should be allowed to carry firearms, and that CC is preferable to OC.

 

[nismaratwork]

Interesting discussion. I don't own or plan on using a gun in the future, but don't have any problem whatsoever with people owning guns for protection or sport shooting.
I don't see OC as ever becoming widespread. Even though certain governments might consider sanctioning it, the requirements and restrictions will rule out most people.
Wrt CC, a good friend of mine, also retired, just got his. Apparently it's much easier now to get LTC in Florida than it was, say, 35 years ago.
I asked him why he felt the need to CC. He mentioned that occasionally he can't avoid riding his bicycle (he's an avid bicyclist and surfer) through some 'bad' neighborhoods to and from certain destinations, and that he would just feel safer knowing the gun is there.

Afaik, there are pretty stict regulations associated with CC. Eg., just pulling the gun out can get you a few years in prison, and actually firing it can get you a lot more.

Anyway, I think that law abiding and qualified individuals should be allowed to carry firearms, and that CC is preferable to OC.

I agree (obviously), but I'd add, you're also correct about pulling out your gun. The crime is, "brandishment" and it's very much state by state... however, if you have a record... you're in deep dookie. Either way, you're almost certainly going to lose your license and NEVER get it back, along with community service and a big fat fine... best case scenario.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/08/oregon.intruder.911/index.html?hpt=C1

A man breaks into a house, then locks himself in the bathroom when the owner returns, police say
The intruder makes an emergency call
The owner also calls the police
The suspect is arrested without incident

Heh... this is nothing to do with OC/CC... but it makes a case for having a gun at home.

 

[IMP]

I believe that OC or CC should be up to the individual. One person might feel more comfortable concealing, another might feel more comfortable with open carry. Neither option should be dictated to the individual by anyone.

I do think that OC removes the element of surprise though. If you OC and the bad guy still decides you are his target, he knows what to expect. If you CC, you might look like easy prey to the bad guy, until he discovers you don’t like being a victim and are fighting back.

I would likely alternate between the two options depending on the circumstances, although if I did OC, I would always CC at the same time.

 

[Aknazer]

There are pros and cons to both OC (open carry) and CC (concealed carry). I'll try to go over both.

OC:
The visual deterrent alone can stop crime from happening. There have been several reports of various crimes that were prevented by the sight of the gun (so, near-crimes? not too sure what to call it exactly). With OC it is also easier to get your gun out if it's needed. And while it "can" be seen, that doesn't mean that the criminal actually saw it. This is especially true if a store is being robbed and you're not at the counter.

Now some cons. You have to be even more vigilent about your surroundings then other people. If you aren't then you could find yourself unable to react to a situation where you're specifically targetted due to your inattentiveness. You could also be targetted simply because of the gun (this is very rare but does happen). Also while you might avoid the crime, the criminal might still find someone else to rob (though overall crime will still be down some due to would-be criminals changing their mind after seeing a gun).

CC:
With this you don't have the visual deterrent, but you do gain something else; anonymity. That can help lower the overall crime in an area since the criminals aren't sure who has a gun (just see how overall crime has gone down in both D.C. and Chicago since the repeal of their anti-CC laws); but you yourself would be more likely to be a target of crime compared to OCing since the criminal didn't know you were the armed citizen. The anonymity also means that people who aren't used to guns being OCed won't question you (and this includes cops who don't actually know the laws or are just being bullies).

And then the cons. With the weapon being concealed it takes longer to get out should you need it. In an emergency that could be the difference between life and death. There's also the 21 foot rule. And while this also applies to OC, it affects CC more. The rule is that an attacker can close roughly 21 feet of space before you can draw your weapon and properly sight on a target. It can be somewhat negated with proper training. You personally don't get the deterrent of the gun until you have to draw it. And while drawing the weapon can (and does) stop criminals, OCing could have stopped it before it ever started.


Now some other things to look at when it comes to carrying. The first one being, what type of criminal are we dealing with? By nature most criminals are opportunistic and value self preservation. This means that if criminals see a gun they are more likely to go somewhere else. This also applies to if they know people in the area are concealed carrying. Now some people will say that this is simply redistributing where the crime is taking place, and that is partly true. But a lot of spontaneous criminals will also go "what was I thinking?" and flat out not commit their crime at all. Additionally if more people were to OC/CC then even the criminals who go somewhere else would have fewer potential targets.

The next type of criminal would be criminal gangs. While rare in most places, these types of criminals are generally more desperate than the previous type of criminal and often have something to "prove." This means that a lone OCer could be targetted specifically because of the gun if they don't pay attention to their surroundings as the criminal both has less fear for the loss of their life and senses a potential opportunity. But as a whole even this type of crime would go down and be mostly confined to gang vs gang and people who deal with gangs because the members still value their life.

Overly smart criminals and suicidal/psychotic criminals would be the last category I would make. These are a very small category of criminals but also the most dangerous. With the very smart/thought out criminals they can potentially neutralize gun carriers through various means (though you at least have a weapon to put up a resistance if the situation allowed; CC would be better here). With suicidal/psychotic criminals they don't care about their life at all which means that a gun isn't going to deter them; though it might stop them from hurting more people or anyone at all.


The final thing that you would need to look at is type of people carrying weapons (both OC and CC). If the person is a complete idiot then them carrying could be a danger to theirself and anyone around them. However most law-abiding-citizens that carry have at least some training and know weapon basics. If carrying of either type is to become more widespread then the people carrying would also need to properly train with their weapons. And for that it is about harboring a proper atmosphere that values the importance of training. Assuming the population at large had the proper training and enough people were carrying I would say that OC would be the way to go. The reason being that most any potential criminal would walk into an area that they wanted to commit a crime in, SEE 5+ guns (so 5+ people who could potentially kill him and just plain ruin his plans), and not commit the crime. Also even if the criminal went into a place where it was just the clerk they would know that the person is likely armed and could injure/kill them. So unless they were committed to becoming a murderer off the bat they now have to worry about their own safety.

But if the area doesn't have a lot of people who OC or you're just plain uncomfortable with OC, then it might be better to CC. This way you're still armed, the criminals know that there are armed civilians which reduces crime, but you don't directly highlight yourself. I don't think it would provide as much protection in most situations (again it depends on the type of criminal we're talking about; I'm talking about the most common type of criminal), but it also makes the carrier feel safer in that they're armed and don't think that they have a bullseye on their back.

An interesting cite that I found (outside of various forums) on this subject is a place called guncite.com. It seems to try to stay pretty neutral in terms of gun control vs gun rights but it does have an interesting article that I'll post at the bottom. In the article it compares the "Wild West" to the more "civilized" east coast and even to today. Outside of homocide by willing combatants (so think duels and alcohol driven fights between two willing people; things that are illegal now) the wild west actually had less major crime and nearly non-exsistant lower crimes. The article also states specifically which towns it used for all comparisons and it talks about crime per capita as well (which would allow you to do fact checking if you didn't trust them). While I will let you draw your own conclusions should you read the article, to me it clearly shows how firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens who knew how to use them clearly lowered crime back then even if Holleywood would have us believe every street back then was the OK Corral. Here's the article

http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

 

[nismaratwork]

There are pros and cons to both OC (open carry) and CC (concealed carry). I'll try to go over both.

OC:
The visual deterrent alone can stop crime from happening. There have been several reports of various crimes that were prevented by the sight of the gun (so, near-crimes? not too sure what to call it exactly). With OC it is also easier to get your gun out if it's needed. And while it "can" be seen, that doesn't mean that the criminal actually saw it. This is especially true if a store is being robbed and you're not at the counter.

Now some cons. You have to be even more vigilent about your surroundings then other people. If you aren't then you could find yourself unable to react to a situation where you're specifically targetted due to your inattentiveness. You could also be targetted simply because of the gun (this is very rare but does happen). Also while you might avoid the crime, the criminal might still find someone else to rob (though overall crime will still be down some due to would-be criminals changing their mind after seeing a gun).

CC:
With this you don't have the visual deterrent, but you do gain something else; anonymity. That can help lower the overall crime in an area since the criminals aren't sure who has a gun (just see how overall crime has gone down in both D.C. and Chicago since the repeal of their anti-CC laws); but you yourself would be more likely to be a target of crime compared to OCing since the criminal didn't know you were the armed citizen. The anonymity also means that people who aren't used to guns being OCed won't question you (and this includes cops who don't actually know the laws or are just being bullies).

And then the cons. With the weapon being concealed it takes longer to get out should you need it. In an emergency that could be the difference between life and death. There's also the 21 foot rule. And while this also applies to OC, it affects CC more. The rule is that an attacker can close roughly 21 feet of space before you can draw your weapon and properly sight on a target. It can be somewhat negated with proper training. You personally don't get the deterrent of the gun until you have to draw it. And while drawing the weapon can (and does) stop criminals, OCing could have stopped it before it ever started.


Now some other things to look at when it comes to carrying. The first one being, what type of criminal are we dealing with? By nature most criminals are opportunistic and value self preservation. This means that if criminals see a gun they are more likely to go somewhere else. This also applies to if they know people in the area are concealed carrying. Now some people will say that this is simply redistributing where the crime is taking place, and that is partly true. But a lot of spontaneous criminals will also go "what was I thinking?" and flat out not commit their crime at all. Additionally if more people were to OC/CC then even the criminals who go somewhere else would have fewer potential targets.

The next type of criminal would be criminal gangs. While rare in most places, these types of criminals are generally more desperate than the previous type of criminal and often have something to "prove." This means that a lone OCer could be targetted specifically because of the gun if they don't pay attention to their surroundings as the criminal both has less fear for the loss of their life and senses a potential opportunity. But as a whole even this type of crime would go down and be mostly confined to gang vs gang and people who deal with gangs because the members still value their life.

Overly smart criminals and suicidal/psychotic criminals would be the last category I would make. These are a very small category of criminals but also the most dangerous. With the very smart/thought out criminals they can potentially neutralize gun carriers through various means (though you at least have a weapon to put up a resistance if the situation allowed; CC would be better here). With suicidal/psychotic criminals they don't care about their life at all which means that a gun isn't going to deter them; though it might stop them from hurting more people or anyone at all.


The final thing that you would need to look at is type of people carrying weapons (both OC and CC). If the person is a complete idiot then them carrying could be a danger to theirself and anyone around them. However most law-abiding-citizens that carry have at least some training and know weapon basics. If carrying of either type is to become more widespread then the people carrying would also need to properly train with their weapons. And for that it is about harboring a proper atmosphere that values the importance of training. Assuming the population at large had the proper training and enough people were carrying I would say that OC would be the way to go. The reason being that most any potential criminal would walk into an area that they wanted to commit a crime in, SEE 5+ guns (so 5+ people who could potentially kill him and just plain ruin his plans), and not commit the crime. Also even if the criminal went into a place where it was just the clerk they would know that the person is likely armed and could injure/kill them. So unless they were committed to becoming a murderer off the bat they now have to worry about their own safety.

But if the area doesn't have a lot of people who OC or you're just plain uncomfortable with OC, then it might be better to CC. This way you're still armed, the criminals know that there are armed civilians which reduces crime, but you don't directly highlight yourself. I don't think it would provide as much protection in most situations (again it depends on the type of criminal we're talking about; I'm talking about the most common type of criminal), but it also makes the carrier feel safer in that they're armed and don't think that they have a bullseye on their back.

An interesting cite that I found (outside of various forums) on this subject is a place called guncite.com. It seems to try to stay pretty neutral in terms of gun control vs gun rights but it does have an interesting article that I'll post at the bottom. In the article it compares the "Wild West" to the more "civilized" east coast and even to today. Outside of homocide by willing combatants (so think duels and alcohol driven fights between two willing people; things that are illegal now) the wild west actually had less major crime and nearly non-exsistant lower crimes. The article also states specifically which towns it used for all comparisons and it talks about crime per capita as well (which would allow you to do fact checking if you didn't trust them). While I will let you draw your own conclusions should you read the article, to me it clearly shows how firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens who knew how to use them clearly lowered crime back then even if Holleywood would have us believe every street back then was the OK Corral. Here's the article

http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

I would tend to agree with you, and may I say, welcome to PF.

 

[Pythagorean]

I used to work in a little town here where everybody had revolvers on their hip and some had shotguns on their back (Black bear protection)

contrast that with lving on campus, where I have to check my guns into the cop shop.

 

[nismaratwork]

I used to work in a little town here where everybody had revolvers on their hip and some had shotguns on their back (Black bear protection)

contrast that with lving on campus, where I have to check my guns into the cop shop.

I'm not going anywhere without being escorted by an armed stranger who failed the psychological test to be a cop

I'd rather you carry that gun, than check it at the "front desk".

 

[Pythagorean]

These actually are cops that passed the test, though. Campus has it's own police station. Everybody's a drunk driver in Alaska. Or a domestic violence drunk. Or a friendly drunk. A really friendly drunk.

 

[DanP]

C
With this you don't have the visual deterrent, but you do gain something else; anonymity. That can help lower the overall crime in an area since the criminals aren't sure who has a gun (just see how overall crime has gone down in both D.C. and Chicago since the repeal of their anti-CC laws); but you yourself would be more likely to be a target of crime compared to OCing since the criminal didn't know you were the armed citizen. The anonymity also means that people who aren't used to guns being OCed won't question you (and this includes cops who don't actually know the laws or are just being bullies).

This doesn't hold water. Having the ability to OC in addition to CC does not mean that everybody will carry on sight. There is no telling who has a fire arm in a place where both OC and CC are permitted. You can have statistical data on what % of the population prefer one way or the other, but that's all. You can't infer from this whatever an individual does carry or not. Only that there is a chance of x% that you stumble on somebody with a gun. So I don't see this in any way as significant contributor to lowering overall crime.

 

[DanP]

The problem then, is that while you and I understand the tacit threat to a criminal of OC, criminals tend to be pretty dumb and massively short-sighted. Given that, let's take two points you've made:

No matter how dumb and shortsighted one is, a potential threat against your own well being will cause fear. It is not insight and dumbness which operates here, it's fear for your own precious being.

Just about everyone will choose as a victim somebody which is perceived as a low threat. A fire arm drastically changes this perception.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a physics forum, insane natter from right-wing gun-nut extremists doesn't belong here.

Here are your assumptions:

1.) Insantiy.
2.) This is physics forum (in fact, this is the P&WA sub-forum)
3.) The views here represent an exterme.
4.) You have some concept or say in what belongs in this forum, which you do not.

I'll repeat, feel free to leave, feel free to express a counter-argument, but don't continue to rant and insult.

 

[bonker]

Here are your assumptions:

1.) Insantiy.
2.) This is physics forum (in fact, this is the P&WA sub-forum)
3.) The views here represent an exterme.
4.) You have some concept or say in what belongs in this forum, which you do not.

I'll repeat, feel free to leave, feel free to express a counter-argument, but don't continue to rant and insult.

y'all want a rational discussion? Well I'm a rational human, that's why I don't need no gun:

1.) Insanity: Guns have one function - to kill other people. Killing people or submerging yourself in the culture of the tools of murder, raises questions of sanity. Group insanity is the hardest to percieve.
2.) This is called physicsforum.com - that's pretty self-explanatory
3.) See 1
4.) I'm just expressing an opinion.

 

[nismaratwork]

y'all want a rational discussion? Well I'm a rational human, that's why I don't need no gun:

1.) Insanity: Guns have one function - to kill other people. Killing people or submerging yourself in the culture of the tools of murder, raises questions of sanity. Group insanity is the hardest to accept.

Yes, guns are tools to kill or otherwise destroy. Your assumption that this leads to a culture of murder makes me question your objectivity and sincerity, but fair enough. Still, it's well off the mark for this thread, but if you'd like to make another, I'd be happy to participate. I'd add, it seems that "sanity" for you is a function of how much someone agrees with you.

2.) This is called physicsforum.com - that's pretty self-explanatory

That's inane, read the guidelines.

3.) See 1
4.) I'm just expressing an opinion.

No, you're raving, there's a distinct difference. By the way, I'm not from or living in the south... you'll need to find a better crude insult.

It's fine though, you're unable or unwilling to act in accordance with he guidelines of this site, and I'm more than happy to keep sending your posts on for examination.

One more time, do you have anything to support your views, or is this just what you were taught as a child, and you haven't had an original thought since?

 

[bonker]

Yes, guns are tools to kill or otherwise destroy. Your assumption that this leads to a culture of murder makes me question your objectivity and sincerity, but fair enough. Still, it's well off the mark for this thread, but if you'd like to make another, I'd be happy to participate. I'd add, it seems that "sanity" for you is a function of how much someone agrees with you.

Man, your analysis sucks. My point his this thread is about gun culture, it doesn't belong in a scientific discussion forum. It's an insult to rational pacifists.

 

[nismaratwork]

Man, your analysis sucks. My point his this thread is about gun culture, it doesn't belong in a scientific discussion forum. It's an insult to rational pacifists.

Then make your rational case in a thread you're free to make, or here if you must, and I'll respond. Diatribes and frankly railing against the rules of the site you just joined helps nothing. You're making a number of assumptions here, voiced and unvoiced... it seems like a shame that you're only fit or willing to flame, then leave.

I personally prefer pacifism myself, but not to an extreme of allowing myself or those I care for to be harmed. I don't hunt, for the simple reason that I don't want to kill an animal. Others here have military service that informs their views, or other experiences.

You've bypassed all of that in a vain polemic; why? I normally wouldn't respond, just report (don't get me wrong, I'm doing both), but you don't' have to take the tone or tack you have unless it's the limit of your expressive and intellectual capacity.

 

[bonker]

Then make your rational case in a thread you're free to make, or here if you must, and I'll respond. Diatribes and frankly railing against the rules of the site you just joined helps nothing. You're making a number of assumptions here, voiced and unvoiced... it seems like a shame that you're only fit or willing to flame, then leave.

I personally prefer pacifism myself, but not to an extreme of allowing myself or those I care for to be harmed. I don't hunt, for the simple reason that I don't want to kill an animal. Others here have military service that informs their views, or other experiences.

You've bypassed all of that in a vain polemic; why? I normally wouldn't respond, just report (don't get me wrong, I'm doing both), but you don't' have to take the tone or tack you have unless it's the limit of your expressive and intellectual capacity.

That's what you want man, then I'll just leave you all here to stew in your own juices. I'm off to a more civilized area of this forum to share my wisdom.

 

[IMP]

y'all want a rational discussion? Well I'm a rational human, that's why I don't need no gun:

1.) Insanity: Guns have one function - to kill other people. Killing people or submerging yourself in the culture of the tools of murder, raises questions of sanity. Group insanity is the hardest to percieve.
2.) This is called physicsforum.com - that's pretty self-explanatory
3.) See 1
4.) I'm just expressing an opinion.

1.) That is fairly bonkers in my opinion. Guns do not have the single function you mention. Guns can be used to kill animals, and they can be used for sporting events, among many other things.
2.) This is an "off topic" area.
3.) Bonkers I tell you.
4.) As are we all...

 

[Alfi]

nismaratwork
Thank you for a very well considered opening post.

My only obsevation;
One of the main differences I notice in the conversation is the difference between long rifles and Hand Guns.
IMHO - Long rifles are associated with hunting game to eat, Hand guns are associated with killing humans.
I see that this topic is not about 'food on the table' type of firearms.

as seen by the last two or three responses by ... Bonker, and IMP.
These type of responses are not on your topic, and should just be ignored.

Stick to the topic.

 

[Aknazer]

This doesn't hold water. Having the ability to OC in addition to CC does not mean that everybody will carry on sight. There is no telling who has a fire arm in a place where both OC and CC are permitted. You can have statistical data on what % of the population prefer one way or the other, but that's all. You can't infer from this whatever an individual does carry or not. Only that there is a chance of x% that you stumble on somebody with a gun. So I don't see this in any way as significant contributor to lowering overall crime.

I wasn't saying that everyone would start carrying. Though if more people did carry it would still help because the criminal would know that you "could" be carrying and lower level criminals would think twice before commiting the crime. Not knowing wouldn't stop people determined, but then again seeing a gun also won't stop people really determined. Also you have to take into account the overall population. If only a few people carry (open or concealed) then it's not going to be much of a deterrent by itself as the chance of running into a CCer would be small (though you would still be able to defend yourself should the need arise). But if a lot of people carry then the chances go up of running into them and crime would go down (though not instantly).

But once again this is all going off of the view that most criminals are opportunistic and value their life. So as it gets out into the public (and the criminals) that more people carry it would get overall safer even if crime doesn't go away 100%. In addition it would lower crime because people would be able to better defend theirselves, and defending yourself turns a crime into an unsuccessful crime. And that is lowering crime.

y'all want a rational discussion? Well I'm a rational human, that's why I don't need no gun:

1.) Insanity: Guns have one function - to kill other people. Killing people or submerging yourself in the culture of the tools of murder, raises questions of sanity. Group insanity is the hardest to percieve.
2.) This is called physicsforum.com - that's pretty self-explanatory
3.) See 1
4.) I'm just expressing an opinion.

1) They are a tool. The point of the tool in it's strictest sense is to kill. But you need to look at the intent of the kill. For some people it's hunting. For others it's to conquer. Then there's the use to defend one's self and others. But at the end of the day it is still just a tool and no more good or evil than the person using it. Don't forget that in places where guns are banned or harder to get that criminals turn to other weapons. Removing one weapon simply causes it to be replaced by another as has been going on forever. Further you could make an argument questioning the sanity of people who don't take their own safety into their hands but instead rely on people who are minutes away when seconds matter.
2) This is the "politics and world affairs" forum. NOTHING discussed in this forum is directly related to physics
3) Your view of guns and their insanity simply isn't logical.
4) Then you might not want to be so confrontational. The OP said he wanted to keep it civil and then you come out as highly confrontational.

nismaratwork
Thank you for a very well considered opening post.

My only obsevation;
One of the main differences I notice in the conversation is the difference between long rifles and Hand Guns.
IMHO - Long rifles are associated with hunting game to eat, Hand guns are associated with killing humans.
I see that this topic is not about 'food on the table' type of firearms.

as seen by the last two or three responses by ... Bonker, and IMP.
These type of responses are not on your topic, and should just be ignored.

Stick to the topic.

Very true, rifles are associated with either hunting or military style actions. Hand guns are a completely different category. They are more for personal defense (generally from other people, but also against unexpected wildlife in certain places). Given the nature of personal defense it would make sense that people are mainly killed with them. Also their ability to be concealed and how cheap/easy they are to get makes them favored by criminals. But with them simply "banned" criminals would still try to get them (since they don't care about the laws) or they would move to a different weapon. Several criminals have said they would simply move to SBSs (short barrel shotgun, aka sawed off shotgun; even more deadly than handguns). Even w/o switching to SBSs they would go to things like knives and blunt objects (bats, crowbars, etc) and you can see that in places like England.

But I digress from the OP, and that is which is better for personal protection? Open Carry or Concealed Carry, and why? I've given my views and would be curious to hear from other people as to which they think would be better and why.

 

[mugaliens]

Man, your analysis sucks. My point his this thread is about gun culture, it doesn't belong in a scientific discussion forum. It's an insult to rational pacifists.

I am, by nature, a pacifist. Years of being entrusted, "read in" if you will, underscore I'm a rational being, as well.

I hate war. So do you consider it irrational that I, a pacifist, joined a service of arms? I would argue it's not irrational at all, and that deterrence by means of carrying the bigger stick has proven quite effective in keeping the peace. In fact, it's the very foundation of every police department and military in the world, as well as the foundation established by our Founding Fathers when they added the Second Amendment to our Constitution.

That is why I, a pacifist, carry a firearm.

Many people are aware that Buddhism is devoted to peace. Few are aware the monks of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaolin_Monastery" are pragmatics, and prepare for war, hoping never to have to use it. The Dalai Lama himself said, on May 15, 2001, at the "Educating Heart Summit in Portland, Oregon: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

Those of us who carry firearms on a regular basis are of the same mind. I've had several meetings over the last year with between half a dozen and two dozen like-minded individuals, nearly all of whom open carry (OC). I've carried concealed for more than two decades, and I've open carried for more than a year.

OC or CC, none of us hope to use it. All of us hope we never have to. But if the time comes when we need to in order to protect self, family, or others, we're ready.

 

[nismaratwork]

nismaratwork
Thank you for a very well considered opening post.

My only obsevation;
One of the main differences I notice in the conversation is the difference between long rifles and Hand Guns.
IMHO - Long rifles are associated with hunting game to eat, Hand guns are associated with killing humans.
I see that this topic is not about 'food on the table' type of firearms.

as seen by the last two or three responses by ... Bonker, and IMP.
These type of responses are not on your topic, and should just be ignored.

Stick to the topic.

Thanks very much Afli, and I'd agree with the point that thisis very much about CC/OC of firearms, and I admit I hand't considered long rifles it that vein, almost exlusively sidearms.

@mugaliens: Agreed... I wonder where people think Kung Fu came from?

 

[skippy1729]

A few thoughts on the original topic. For self defense against two-legged predators I find absolutely no advantage to OC. With a S&W J-frame and a good pocket holster, Mitch Rosen El Raton for example), I can draw and acquire faster than with my OC rig. Gun grabbers waiting for a moment of distraction become a non-issue. The general public does not "freak out" or treat me as some sort of pariah. In an uncertain and possibly dangerous situation (which I avoid like the plague) it is comforting to slip my hand into my pocket and hold the grip without attracting any attention. This weapon is only good for up close and personal encounters so ammo capacity and accuracy are non-issues for me. Lastly, while I try to respect businesses which post NO WEAPONS, sometimes it is totally impractical. Hurray for Scandium!

When the potential is for 4-legged predators I OC a 1911.

Skippy

 

[nismaratwork]

You can't even buy or own Springfield sidearms here...

the 1911... that is a cherry.

 

[mugaliens]

For self defense against two-legged predators I find absolutely no advantage to OC. With a S&W J-frame and a good pocket holster, Mitch Rosen El Raton for example), I can draw and acquire faster than with my OC rig.

I can't. About half as fast from CC as from OC. Nearly all people who both CC and OC report the same. What OC rig do you use?

Gun grabbers waiting for a moment of distraction become a non-issue.

The idea of someone grabbing a gun from an OCer is a much paraded idea which has zero merit in statistical reality. In the last twenty years, there has been only one recorded successful gungrab of an OCer. The reason law enforcement experiences gun-grab attemps are because they're going after and taking down suspects, many of whom become desparate. In a moment you mention you avoid "uncertain and possibly dangerous situations ... like the plague," as do nearly all private citizens who either OC or CC, hence the lack of gungrabs.

The general public does not "freak out" or treat me as some sort of pariah.

I've OC'd for the last year everywhere I go, and they don't freak out or treat me as some sort of pariah, either. Then again, like most honest, law-abiding citizens, I'm well-groomed, dress well, and am a polite and affable person. I suppose if I dressed raggedly, were unkempt, and glanced around with nervousness and suspicion i.e. like a criminal, I'd be treated differently.

Lastly, while I try to respect businesses which post NO WEAPONS, sometimes it is totally impractical.

I can't say that's never happened, although it's almost always been inadvertant. At one restaurant, I was halfway through the meal when the manage politely informed me of their no firearms policy. Sure enough, the restaurant was indeed posted, on a small sign, about 14-pt type, on the wall of the entranceway. Hardly meets the "prominantly displayed" requirement of the law, but oh, well. I put my firearm in the glovebox and returned to finish my meal.

When the potential is for 4-legged predators I OC a 1911.

That would be sweet! Around here, a 9mm will suffice. When I hiked and backpacked in Grizzly country, it was always a .44 magnum.

 

[Aknazer]

You can't even buy or own Springfield sidearms here...

the 1911... that is a cherry.

Where are you at that you can't own Springfield sidearms?

A few thoughts on the original topic. For self defense against two-legged predators I find absolutely no advantage to OC. With a S&W J-frame and a good pocket holster, Mitch Rosen El Raton for example), I can draw and acquire faster than with my OC rig. Gun grabbers waiting for a moment of distraction become a non-issue. The general public does not "freak out" or treat me as some sort of pariah. In an uncertain and possibly dangerous situation (which I avoid like the plague) it is comforting to slip my hand into my pocket and hold the grip without attracting any attention. This weapon is only good for up close and personal encounters so ammo capacity and accuracy are non-issues for me. Lastly, while I try to respect businesses which post NO WEAPONS, sometimes it is totally impractical. Hurray for Scandium!

When the potential is for 4-legged predators I OC a 1911.

Skippy

Very valid concerns for why to CC instead of OC. One thing I will say is that gun-grabs are EXTREMELY rare (gun-grabs on law enforcement is another matter, but a different poster already covered that). This might have something to do with where people OC as I doubt many people OC in the more rundown parts of town, but as a whole they are rare. If someone is going to OC I personally think they need some type of active retention holster as that prevents your gun from simply coming out w/o the person pushing a button (and some of them have a button along with a thumb latch; but that's more of what you would expect an LEO/security guard to have) just in case there's a gun grab since extremely rare doesn't mean never happens.

Also I too am curious as to just what type of setup you're using that CC is faster than OC. Everything that I've seen (and my personal limited experience) shows OC to be faster as you don't have to move clothing out of the way. But I can see how if you're OCing with a holster that has some type of strap/flap to keep the gun in place and are comparing it to CCing with an open holster that moving the clothing out of the way can be faster than undoing the strap/flap.

 

[nismaratwork]

Where are you at that you can't own Springfield sidearms?

MA... Springfield wasn't willing (and rightly so) to jump through every meaningless beaurocratic hoops, so they can't sell here. I should say though, you can buy and own them, but not register them for carry.

Absurd... I know.

Very valid concerns for why to CC instead of OC. One thing I will say is that gun-grabs are EXTREMELY rare (gun-grabs on law enforcement is another matter, but a different poster already covered that). This might have something to do with where people OC as I doubt many people OC in the more rundown parts of town, but as a whole they are rare. If someone is going to OC I personally think they need some type of active retention holster as that prevents your gun from simply coming out w/o the person pushing a button (and some of them have a button along with a thumb latch; but that's more of what you would expect an LEO/security guard to have) just in case there's a gun grab since extremely rare doesn't mean never happens.

Also I too am curious as to just what type of setup you're using that CC is faster than OC. Everything that I've seen (and my personal limited experience) shows OC to be faster as you don't have to move clothing out of the way. But I can see how if you're OCing with a holster that has some type of strap/flap to keep the gun in place and are comparing it to CCing with an open holster that moving the clothing out of the way can be faster than undoing the strap/flap.

I have to say, I'm a quick draw with CC, faster than I am with OC which I don't practice or do. That said, given practice it's pretty clear that OC would be faster. For me, the trade is in favor of CC, but I'm not sure that gun-grabs are the biggest worry. I prefer to remain below the radar, and if that makes me more of a target, so be it.

I also enjoy the ability to have a confrontation that can be de-escalated... hard to do with a gun open on your hip.

 

[Aknazer]

MA... Springfield wasn't willing (and rightly so) to jump through every meaningless beaurocratic hoops, so they can't sell here. I should say though, you can buy and own them, but not register them for carry.

Absurd... I know.

Wow that's pretty stupid. I know that a lot of companies have said that if NY and a few other places pass a law that requires microstamping that they will simply quit selling in those states due to the cost to micro stamp (new equipment and it's proprietary so they would have to license it as well).

I have to say, I'm a quick draw with CC, faster than I am with OC which I don't practice or do. That said, given practice it's pretty clear that OC would be faster. For me, the trade is in favor of CC, but I'm not sure that gun-grabs are the biggest worry. I prefer to remain below the radar, and if that makes me more of a target, so be it.

I also enjoy the ability to have a confrontation that can be de-escalated... hard to do with a gun open on your hip.

The below the radar and not having my gun be a potential issue in a confrontation would be my biggest reasons to CC instead of OC (if I had the option, since in OK it's currently illegal to OC). Though if I had the choice I would likely OC most of the time; partially because of the comfort factor and that my wife likes to buy shirts that "fit" which doesn't leave a lot of room to conceal a handgun without it printing on the shirt or showing when I move my arms.

 

[nismaratwork]

Wow that's pretty stupid. I know that a lot of companies have said that if NY and a few other places pass a law that requires microstamping that they will simply quit selling in those states due to the cost to micro stamp (new equipment and it's proprietary so they would have to license it as well).

Yep, it's so stupid it's a real issue in the state. Needless to say its galling to have one of the most respected armories being shut-out.

The below the radar and not having my gun be a potential issue in a confrontation would be my biggest reasons to CC instead of OC (if I had the option, since in OK it's currently illegal to OC). Though if I had the choice I would likely OC most of the time; partially because of the comfort factor and that my wife likes to buy shirts that "fit" which doesn't leave a lot of room to conceal a handgun without it printing on the shirt or showing when I move my arms.

Hmmmm... well fashion is a consideration (not sarcastic) or you just have a harder-to-access OC. I think I would still tend to CC, but go with an accessory, and my P229... that sucker can HIDE.

Another element is, to be blunt, perception... in MA OC is illegal, but even in states where it is, some people are afraid. I may have the legal right, but I choose not to exercise it, finding a comfortable balance for me between security and social interaction. I understand the other position of course; ths is a personal choce, and a matter of taste and comfort.

 

[Aknazer]

More than just fashion, it's also about not having to buy all new clothes to be able to properly CC (since if someone notices the printing I can actually get in trouble as it has to be undetectable). I made the mistake of buying the gun I wanted rather than buying a gun that works with what I need it for (I got blindsided by a pretty gun and simply wasn't thinking), and now I have to either change my wardrobe or get a smaller gun thanks to my shirts not being long/baggy enough to propery conceal the weapon.

And I agree with what you say about perception and comfort. I think the most important thing when it comes to carrying is your comfort level. It doesn't matter how much "better" one option is if you're not comfortable with that type of carrying it's not the right type for you. I would say kudos to you for wanting to be able to protect yourself, but also knowing your own comfort level and not trying to do something you're not comfortable with.

 

[nismaratwork]

More than just fashion, it's also about not having to buy all new clothes to be able to properly CC (since if someone notices the printing I can actually get in trouble as it has to be undetectable). I made the mistake of buying the gun I wanted rather than buying a gun that works with what I need it for (I got blindsided by a pretty gun and simply wasn't thinking), and now I have to either change my wardrobe or get a smaller gun thanks to my shirts not being long/baggy enough to propery conceal the weapon.

And I agree with what you say about perception and comfort. I think the most important thing when it comes to carrying is your comfort level. It doesn't matter how much "better" one option is if you're not comfortable with that type of carrying it's not the right type for you. I would say kudos to you for wanting to be able to protect yourself, but also knowing your own comfort level and not trying to do something you're not comfortable with.

I agree, and hey, you can always snag another gun, although I admit that seriously compact can be a real downer from the aestethic angle. After all, you probably target shoot more than anything else... who wants to practice with a saturday night special?

Preference and comfort... I agree that it's the main goal along with simple utility.

 

[turbo]

Sig Saur makes some pretty nice concealed-carry guns, including the P238. Still, I'd gravitate to the Walther line, probably. No need though. I have a Glock model 20. It's big and heavy for CC, but there's no real need for concealment, IMO. I have considered getting a CC permit for one reason: if I want to carry a pistol for a kill-shot while deer-hunting, I'd rather have it holstered under my jacket, protected from weather and moisture. I hunt with a large-caliber single-shot rifle, and have never needed a second shot, so I haven't sprung for the CC permit.

My sister is divorced and living alone, and she has worked with kids who have been legally removed from troubled families, and moonlights as a bar-tender. Either of those jobs could earn her the enmity of some disaffected person. She has a CC permit, so she feels a bit safer when taking her early-morning walks. Watch out! Sis is packing.

 

[Aknazer]

I agree, and hey, you can always snag another gun, although I admit that seriously compact can be a real downer from the aestethic angle. After all, you probably target shoot more than anything else... who wants to practice with a saturday night special?

Preference and comfort... I agree that it's the main goal along with simple utility.

I got an XDm-40 and my wife got an XD9-SC. Ironically her gun is also too big for her, so I'll likely end up carrying it and she's looking at getting a Luger LPC 380. Though I hope an IWB holster will allow the XDm to be carried on occasion, but as a lefty I had to order one (store only had right hand holsters) and it hasn't arrived yet so I can't test it. I don't think the SC looks too bad (though plenty of guys would say it's a "girl" gun; though not much I can do about having a smaller frame), but I put 100 rounds through it yesterday and it is a bit annoying using the smaller clip as my pinky doesn't have space on the grip and instead has to be up under the clip. Luckily it's reliable and should I ever need it the minor discomfort from the pinky is more than fine to be able defend myself.

 

[nismaratwork]

Turbo... a Glock? I pictured you as a S&W, or Springfield man... don't ask me why though.

@Aknazer: I made that mistake with a Beretta 92... nice for target shooting, but it's very barrel-heavy and LARGE. Beretta makes a VERY nice line of low-medium caliber concealed-carry models however... cougar... or... some big-cat, I forget which.

 

[turbo]

Turbo... a Glock? I pictured you as a S&W, or Springfield man... don't ask me why though.

Yep. I was ready to spring for a typical M 1911. As it happened, I was liquidating a collection of antique Winchester rifles and carbines, and a fellow showed up with the Glock M20. It was unfired, in a case with original accessories including 3 magazines and a loading tool. Plus the 10mm Auto is like a .45 ACP on steroids. The guy offered to trade me that kit for an antique Winchester rifle .38-55 with a short magazine. I paid $300 for that rifle because the finish was a bit thin and rough, though the bore was like a mirror (rare in the age of black-powder cartridges!). I couldn't possibly turn that down.

Our law-enforcement agencies initially expected to standardize on the 10mm Auto (specifically the Glock M20), but too many officers failed to qualify with those guns because of the recoil. I have small hands, but I am a dedicated shooter, and I like the fact that the geometry of the Glock let's me easily absorb the recoil with very little loss of sight-picture. If you are a tyro, and think you're going to shoot this pistol without proper flex in your elbows, you'll beat yourself up and have a hard time hitting the side of the barn.

My wife likes pistol shooting, and she likes shooting a friend's M 1911 (.45 ACP), as well as the various 9mms that we take to the pit, but one shot with the Glock M 20 was plenty for her. Back to the Walther.

 

[Alfi]

This gun that gun ,,,
It comes down to me as , ...I need a gun.

I'm curious as to why someone thinks they need a gun in the first place.

Your world must be way more dangerous than my world. I don't need a gun in my world.

Concealed or open... I just don't need one.

 

[turbo]

This gun that gun ,,,
It comes down to me as , ...I need a gun.

I'm curious as to why someone thinks they need a gun in the first place.

Your world must be way more dangerous than my world. I don't need a gun in my world.

Concealed or open... I just don't need one.

My wife and I live in a rural area at least 20 minutes from the nearest responder after a 911 call. I don't need to carry guns, especially concealed, but I will maintain the capabilities to defend my home. Every poor area has an underclass of creeps willing to cheat, steal, rob, or kill in order to come up with drugs or money to buy drugs. Home invasions are not numerous here, but they crop up with shocking regularity, and there is no time for cops to respond when it happens.

The best insurance that non-gun-owners have out here in the boonies is that the creeps don't know that they don't have guns, because most of us do.

 

[Aknazer]

Turbo... a Glock? I pictured you as a S&W, or Springfield man... don't ask me why though.

@Aknazer: I made that mistake with a Beretta 92... nice for target shooting, but it's very barrel-heavy and LARGE. Beretta makes a VERY nice line of low-medium caliber concealed-carry models however... cougar... or... some big-cat, I forget which.

Ahh the Beretta 92. That was the first pistol I had ever shot as that's the military standard issue. It's a nice gun but yea I can see the issue with trying to CC that thing. And by the looks of it Beretta has several cat named guns, but the cougar appears to be the compact 9mm version of the 92. If I do end up getting a different one instead of using my wife's ill be sure to give that one a look.

This gun that gun ,,,
It comes down to me as , ...I need a gun.

I'm curious as to why someone thinks they need a gun in the first place.

Your world must be way more dangerous than my world. I don't need a gun in my world.

Concealed or open... I just don't need one.

I'm just curious, but what world do you live in where people aren't robbed, raped, stabbed, shot, murdered, etc by criminals? The point of having a gun is to be able to protect yourself "if" the need arises rather than playing a statistics game and hoping it doesn't happen to you. Just look at the various small towns where crime "never" happens, only to then be rocked by some type of crime spree. I'll leave you with a few quotes I've heard.

"I need a gun 0% of the time, right up until I 100% need it"

"When seconds matter the cops are minutes away."

 

[nismaratwork]

Yep. I was ready to spring for a typical M 1911. As it happened, I was liquidating a collection of antique Winchester rifles and carbines, and a fellow showed up with the Glock M20. It was unfired, in a case with original accessories including 3 magazines and a loading tool. Plus the 10mm Auto is like a .45 ACP on steroids. The guy offered to trade me that kit for an antique Winchester rifle .38-55 with a short magazine. I paid $300 for that rifle because the finish was a bit thin and rough, though the bore was like a mirror (rare in the age of black-powder cartridges!). I couldn't possibly turn that down.

Our law-enforcement agencies initially expected to standardize on the 10mm Auto (specifically the Glock M20), but too many officers failed to qualify with those guns because of the recoil. I have small hands, but I am a dedicated shooter, and I like the fact that the geometry of the Glock let's me easily absorb the recoil with very little loss of sight-picture. If you are a tyro, and think you're going to shoot this pistol without proper flex in your elbows, you'll beat yourself up and have a hard time hitting the side of the barn.

My wife likes pistol shooting, and she likes shooting a friend's M 1911 (.45 ACP), as well as the various 9mms that we take to the pit, but one shot with the Glock M 20 was plenty for her. Back to the Walther.

Gotcha, although I really loathe the 10mm... it's just begging for overpenetration. A .45 mushrooms far more, and dumps its energy into the target with less chance of hitting someone else. I can see why you sprang for the Glock, I would have done the same, but I would have giggled at the time.

@Alfi: We all live in the same world, and it's just a matter of how an individual chooses in advance to deal with even low risks. You wear a seatbelt, a helmet when biking, and a gun is not very different. It's only when the image of some cowboy gunman is raised that it becomes sinister... that in my experience is a rarity, that ends in a felony conviction.

@Aknazer: I've fired the cougar .357 sig and .45 ACP... it's an impressive gun, only downside being that they are expeeeennnnssiiiive! M92FS is the military model, and the one I own... still as you say it's not CC'able in any reasonable way. It's fantastic in terms of accuracy at the range, and so I use it for fun, cheap target practice with something less than comfortable in my hands. I don't every use it for SD, so I just buy some nice 9mm and don't worry to much about the cost.

When it comes to the my Sig's... I want to generally practice with what I'd use for SD/HD, with the occasional splurge on a box of match ammo to test its limits. I am above all, a target shooter, which is why I got into guns at all. Once there however, the advantages for SD/HD were obvious.

I don't expect to have to use this in self defense, but having those skills and a weapon that I'd own anyway for target shooting just makes sense. Over time, life has shown the other side, which is that you never really do know what's around the corner. Usually it's just people, but sometimes... well, bad things happen.

 

[Alfi]

I'm just curious, but what world do you live in where people aren't robbed, raped, stabbed, shot, murdered, etc by criminals? ."

I live in Toronto, Canada. I have never been robbed, raped, stabbed, shot or murdered, ect.
... by anyone.. but if they did those things, yes, I would call them criminals.

This whole question about carry concealed or otherwise, is foreign to me. I just don't see the need to arm myself at all. I have insurance to replace objects, I have no wish to kill another human to protect any object I own.

It's a fear thing. I guess I just don't live with the same fear factor.

It's interesting to read and all, but I just don't understand.

 

[turbo]

Gotcha, although I really loathe the 10mm... it's just begging for overpenetration. A .45 mushrooms far more, and dumps its energy into the target with less chance of hitting someone else. I can see why you sprang for the Glock, I would have done the same, but I would have giggled at the time.

Hollow-points with heavily-grooved cladding. There won't be any over-penetration.

 

[turbo]

BTW, if I should ever have to pick up a back-up (a couple of my closest friends were the chief of police for the county seat, and the chief of the state's warden service, and they had off-duty carry guns), I would probably pick up a Walther PPK in 9mm. Small, light, slim, and backed up by many decades of faithful service. Unless you are a lingerie model or an exhibitionist, you can find a way to carry that.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hollow-points with heavily-grooved cladding. There won't be any over-penetration.

If you were a woman...

@Alfi: GOOD! I hope you never experience those, relatively rare in a large population, crimes. The question is do you choose to carry insurance for your life, even though in all likelihood the skills and weapon will never be used? I'd say yes, but I see little risk in gun ownership by responsible and trained individuals. Your own country has more rifles than a sane person would need to hunt all of the game in the north!

Still, if you're going to draw, then hesitate, you're better off without a gun. There is nothing wrong with your stance, only in failing to recognize it. Some people would rather die than kill, and while I disagree, it's not my choice.

One thing I'd correct: I personally don't live in fear, except of my ultimate end. In other words, I'm afraid of dying, but not of any particular death or a fear of imminent death or harm. I have however, had a wide range of experiences both personal and secondhand which tip me in favor of carrying a gun. I consider it insurance, but I'm also a "shooter" in the figurative and literal sense, I have the typical (responsible) gun-owner's obsession about safety, and I've enjoyed target shooting.

I don't, and never have hunted or shot an animall... to do so would take something out of me that I'm not sure I can spare. For better or worse, a person trying to harm me or one I care for doesn't receive the same consideration. I will say that if someone is robbing me, I use my judgment; it's not instantly the gunfight at the OK corral. If they have a gun, well, unless they look like they're about to use it, they've won. If they have a blade they're going to be shot, and if they're unarmed then I'm going to give up my wallet, keys, etc.

So, I consider the possibilities, but it's not living in fear anymore than having airbags in your car is living in fear. I recognize a small, but very real possibility and prepare for it, that's all.

 

[Aknazer]

I live in Toronto, Canada. I have never been robbed, raped, stabbed, shot or murdered, ect.
... by anyone.. but if they did those things, yes, I would call them criminals.

This whole question about carry concealed or otherwise, is foreign to me. I just don't see the need to arm myself at all. I have insurance to replace objects, I have no wish to kill another human to protect any object I own.

It's a fear thing. I guess I just don't live with the same fear factor.

It's interesting to read and all, but I just don't understand.

For me it's not about "fear" it's about being prepared. I know that myself and my family could easily go our entire lives without ever being the victims of a crime, but yet I don't see why I shouldn't prepare myself for the possibility of crime just as how people prepare theirselves for things like car accidents (auto insurance) or natural disasters (home/renter's insurance, food supplies, etc) among other things. The gun means that I'm safer "if" something happens even though so far in my life I've never felt like I've been in a situation where it was needed (just as how I have renter's insurance and have never needed it). If I never need it that's fine too, I'll continue to go on about my life without even really thinking about it.

Now you being in Toronto means that you're safer than a lot of people (per wikipedia the 2007 homocide rate was 3.3 per 100k and the robbery rate was 207.1 per 100k), but still that doesn't mean crime there doesn't happen. And had any of those ~83 murdered people had a weapon they might be here today.

EDIT: I see Nismara already beat me to it about insurance. Kinda interesting that he used the exact same analogy that I was typing.

And Turbo, if I were to ever carry a BUG (back up gun, for those that don't know) I would most likely look at something like that. I've seen a few at the Base Exchange here and they are incredibly small. Good to know that it comes highly recommended.

 

[nismaratwork]

BTW, if I should ever have to pick up a back-up (a couple of my closest friends were the chief of police for the county seat, and the chief of the state's warden service, and they had off-duty carry guns), I would probably pick up a Walther PPK in 9mm. Small, light, slim, and backed up by many decades of faithful service. Unless you are a lingerie model or an exhibitionist, you can find a way to carry that.

I knew a woman who concealed a PPK at the nape of her neck under her hair when she was out at night. Not the most stable person I've ever met, but it does prove that you can carry naked...

 

[Aknazer]

I knew a woman who concealed a PPK at the nape of her neck under her hair when she was out at night. Not the most stable person I've ever met, but it does prove that you can carry naked...

That brings to mind a rather interesting visualization to mind.

 

[nismaratwork]

That brings to mind a rather interesting visualization to mind.

It did for me...