# Hi, English person's perspective on the carrying one in the chamber or not discussion



## JimmyJ7 (Aug 15, 2016)

Hi everyone, I'm from the UK, not allowed guns over here but I enjoy learning about them and watching YouTube videos, and reading forums.

I have been watching videos of people talking about the merits of carrying an automatic pistol with one in the chamber or not. I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this but if I carried pistol I would do so with a racked slide but with a nonlethal round in the chamber. I don't know if there's any nonlethal 9 mm, but If not even a blank would be fine.

Wouldn't that get over the problem of needing both hands to make the gun active and also cover you against accidentally shooting yourself, because you not going to do it twice and a nonlethal load would be preferable.

In regard to deployment the amount of time you lose is how quick it takes you to take a 2nd shot. The only reason I mention it here is I don't hear this talked about, it's either one or the other, racked one racked. All the best.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Firstly, welcome aboard from the commonwealth of Virginia... the place where this experiment all started.

*"I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this but if I carried pistol I would do so with a racked slide but with a nonlethal round in the chamber. I don't know if there's any nonlethal 9 mm, but If not even a blank would be fine."*

You are the first person I have ever heard mention this state of carrying a semi-auto pistol. For nonlethal rounds that are also not blanks, snap caps come to mind. These are practice simulator rounds and are usually made from plastic. They contain no powder or primer. Blanks are just shell casings with a small amount of powder and something at the case mouth to hold the powder in the case (the case mouth is usually pinched to hold that piece in place). Neither of these devices will cycle the slide. In the first case, the reason is obvious. In the case of blanks, there is not enough force exerted on the slide's breech face to overcome the recoil spring. So effectively, these two methods would be no different from carrying with an empty chamber.

So to get that live round into a gun's chamber in preparation of being used, that slide needs to be cycled to pick up a round from the magazine and chamber it. This means the user is going to have to work that slide to do this, which does require time, his attention, and a support hand.

Look at it this way. Since we are likely never to know if and when an attack is going to come, doesn't it make sense to make sure that your equipment is as ready as you can make it? Why would anyone willingly give up time, and the chance of damage to his support hand/arm, when confronted by an attacker(s)? Isn't it much better to have as many of the cards stacked in your favor from the get go?

Have to ask. Why would you entertain carrying a defensive sidearm that is not in full battery?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

If you're going to carry a gun with an empty chamber or with blanks, you might as well carry a brick. That is if they haven't already outlawed that too in the UK? Maybe you can carry a sock full of shillings? I don't know? 

The first shot is the one that counts. By the time you get a second shot off your assailant may have the opportunity to get ahold of your weapon and shoot you with it. In the case of a brick, beat you over the head with it, of course they could use your gun to do that too. If someone attempts to violently assault you, you have to assume that they have every intention of killing you. At which time it's up to you to stop the threat. Carrying an empty gun or not be willing to take appropriate action during a violent assault could get yourself killed, at the very least sustain serious bodily harm.

My God, what are they teaching you guys over there about defending yourselves against violent criminal attacks? It's a pretty dangerous world out there. It's no longer a "put up your dukes" kind of society.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Well the discussion of C3 [Isreali Carry - empty chamber] is alive and well on several threads as well as other forums,

Perhaps the principle reason for C3 is safety, and for many, the precious second or two used cycling the slide during the draw are well worth the investment. 
[hence C3 carry needs to regularly include practice of a draw/cock motion]

With a CZ PCR I'm really appreciating C2 - de-cocked carry, Yet I prefer C3 as most of my day is spent in the pale-yellow zone.

Aside from that, I see a viable option with the less-than-lethal round... ie: a shot shell.

One of the greatest tactical actions learned from warfare is to have the first shot. 
But in a civilian world, having the first kill is not always optimum, whereas many would-be thieves take off at the first sign of resistance.

A fast draw with a peppering of shot may do all that is needed, and if mixed with a pigment might well assist the police in finding the assailant.
Although the load may not cause fatal wounds, the cartridge can be loaded to insure cycling of the next round.

I suspect this type of round might favor particular cultures where the motive of a criminal is presumed to be less violent, than say downtown Chicago.
It would be something to consider.

Of course blinding someone with birdshot may be seen as a bit nefarious by some courts, as opposed to killing them in self defense.... yea, its a strange world we live in.

For more on _Firearm conditions of readiness _look up Jeff Cooper.


----------



## SteamboatWillie (Jan 24, 2013)

If people feel that a blank as the first round assuages their fear/concern/safety mindedness, whatever you wish to call it, then that seems like a reasonable alternative - provided they are certain the slide will recoil far enough and fast enough to eject the spent brass and strip a new cartridge off the mag and into the chamber.

Frankly, whatever "starts your tractor" is fine - it makes no difference to me.

Two thoughts on the issue:

1. I see more of an issue with people who have a license/permit to do so, and don't regularly carry. 

2. If you subscribe to the "rule of 3s" (less than 3 yards, less than 3 rounds, less than 3 seconds) for the average self defense encounter - having a round chambered seems like an awfully good idea. If you don't subscribe to it, then it really doesn't matter.

I'll close by saying that I've only interviewed one person who actually had to use his pistol for self defense. He was jumped by two guys as he was getting back into his car after fueling up. They tried to pull him out of the car. He had a pistol in the center console. He grabbed the steering wheel with his left hand to avoid being pulled out by his legs. He grabbed his pistol with his right hand and fired two rounds into the bad guy standing over him trying to pull him out. Had there not been a round chambered, things may not have gone as well for him.

I realize this is purely anecdotal, but it left a lasting impression that one hand may well be busy fending off the aggressor, hanging onto something etc. while the other hand draws the pistol and, if needed, fires.

But as I said, I don't care how other people carry, I'm just glad they have it with them.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SteamboatWillie said:


> If people feel that a blank as the first round assuages their fear/concern/safety mindedness, whatever you wish to call it, then that seems like a reasonable alternative - provided they are certain the slide will recoil far enough and fast enough to eject the spent brass and strip a new cartridge off the mag and into the chamber.
> 
> Frankly, whatever "starts your tractor" is fine - it makes no difference to me.
> 
> ...


I also don't care how others carry, or even if they carry at all. Their survival is not a prerogative with me. However when someone posts questions or seeks opinions on a website about this and other topics, then it is they who open the door to all manner of comments, remarks, suggestions, and even pointed sarcastic rhetoric. Hopefully, these folks get what they look for in the form of constructive feedback and that is how I prefer to answer them. While I don't really care what they do, there is a side of me that wishes they use prudence, common sense, and knowledge in any such decisions they take.


----------



## JimmyJ7 (Aug 15, 2016)

SouthernBoy said:


> Firstly, welcome aboard from the commonwealth of Virginia... the place where this experiment all started.
> 
> *"I'm sure I'm not the first person to think of this but if I carried pistol I would do so with a racked slide but with a nonlethal round in the chamber. I don't know if there's any nonlethal 9 mm, but If not even a blank would be fine."*
> 
> ...


Thanks for the replies. A real eye opener what you say, I had no idea that automatic pistols couldn't cycle blanks and other nonlethal ammunition is questionable whether it will cycle. That kind of negates my whole initial post. I only felt compelled to write to promote safety. If someone invents some ammunition that is nonlethal and 100% cycles the next round the now be pretty cool.

Do you remember that film Money Ball when the guys looks all the statistics to find the best players, I wonder if there is similar statistics relating to gun accidents through negligent discharge verses repelling an attack or a robbery with your firearm. With a statistically one might be better off increasing accident safety over combat readiness.

You guys are the experts I just watch YouTube videos, although I did used to shoot 22 pistol and rifle about 25 years ago before they banned it in the UK.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

JimmyJ7 said:


> Thanks for the replies. A real eye opener what you say, I had no idea that automatic pistols couldn't cycle blanks and other nonlethal ammunition is questionable whether it will cycle. That kind of negates my whole initial post. I only felt compelled to write to promote safety. If someone invents some ammunition that is nonlethal and 100% cycles the next round the now be pretty cool.
> 
> Do you remember that film Money Ball when the guys looks all the statistics to find the best players, I wonder if there is similar statistics relating to gun accidents through negligent discharge verses repelling an attack or a robbery with your firearm. With a statistically one might be better off increasing accident safety over combat readiness.
> 
> You guys are the experts I just watch YouTube videos, although I did used to shoot 22 pistol and rifle about 25 years ago before they banned it in the UK.


Just out of curiosity, do you feel safer in the UK since so many self-defense weapons have been effectively banned?

Please don't take this as a "loaded" or rhetorical question. I just want your impression.

I don't have any statistics for you, but I do believe that the average person who has a concealed carry permit is probably more likely to have an accidental or negligent discharge than the need to fire the weapon in self-defense. (And I do have a concealed carry permit, although I carry relatively infrequently since I live in a low-crime area and I am not all that frequently out at night anymore.)


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I like pocket carrying my glock 27 without a holster


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

pic said:


> I like pocket carrying my glock 27 without a holster


Not a good idea:
It'll get dirty, and it won't function properly when you need it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic said:


> I like pocket carrying my glock 27 without a holster


Uhhhh, I don't know if that's such a good idea? Unless you want to be talking in a high voice. You are kidding, right?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Not a good idea:
> It'll get dirty, and it won't function properly when you need it.


Not only that you could end up shooting your balls off.


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

Ya could end up dead! Not having a live one in the pipe? Why carry a gun. If you hafta rack the slide? you just died! jmo

p.s. just keep your danged finger off the dadgum trigger! I see why you englishers ain't allowed to own guns! jmo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

@JimmyJ7

Welcome from the state of Arizona!

The idea you propose doesn't appeal to me. Just 1 more thing that can go wrong and one less round available. Just my humble opinion.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

It and old age question that has no one right answer...... 

Coke or Pepsi...

Ford or Chevrolet......


----------



## SouthSideScubaSteve (Jun 20, 2012)

Most days I carry a Sig P938 and I always carry Condition 1. Quite honestly don't worry about a negligent discharge (i.e. shooting myself) at all. I'd put the odds that I'm going to somehow disengage the thumb safety and also manage to manipulate the trigger while my firearm is holstered up there with being struck by lighting! That said, when I started carrying I drilled with snap-caps, and then a laser cartridge every day for nearly 6 weeks. I practiced Drawing and Re-Holstering my firearm while standing, while seated, while behind the wheel and in the passenger seat. I also practiced removing the holster with the firearm in it as well as putting the holster on with the firearm in it. When I switched to the P938 for EDC, I practiced with it every night for a week and then carried it while doing yard work around my house/ yard on a weekend; I even made conscious attempts to "accidentally" disengage the safety by brushing against objects ... I still try to practice my Draw and first shot with the laser cartridge once a week 

When it's in the nightstand, I leave it in the holster, but with the slide locked back and safety off; but that's mainly because that's how I've trained my wife and daughter for emergencies (they see the sound of the slide locking closed as a "warning" to intruders and they are more comfortable with racking from that 1/2 racked position)

The reality is that blanks, and shot-cartridges can be lethal, particularly at close range (ask Brandon Lee, Bruce's son) ...

I see the surest way to maximize my safety is to train, train, train and then train some more!


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

In my mind a carry firearm holds great responsibility, is a lethal and deadly weapon and should always remain that way. It's not a stun gun, tazer, blank gun, rubber bullet firing, pepperspray firing, gas, or other type weapon. Generally, it's a choice of very last resort when one is faced with grievous bodily injury or death. 

I understand the OP's question. But being from a different country with far different laws I would pose this. The carrying of a firearm brings the utmost of responsibility. If one were planning on drinking, fighting, doing drugs, looking for trouble, or acting like a hooligan, or even had a very short or bad temper, the carrying of a firearm wouldn't be for you, quite the contrary.

11 Million or so CCW holders have all passed an extensive background check and are law abiding citizens with no felonies or addictions. A minuscule amount of revocations of CCW permits support this. 

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States 


"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman said:


> Not only that you could end up shooting your balls off.


:anim_lol:I'll pocket carry the 27 unchambered. 
To much fumbling around with a holster. 
Plus the glock rails are built to take on a little pocket dust.

Theres pluses n minuses in whatever carry mode someone decides.
iwb is nice, but you are showing your intentions when lifting your garment out of the way and reaching back.

I can already have my hand on the pocket carry and go unnoticed. It's a move that doesn't spell out I'm going for my gun..

Ive actually construction site tested with and without for about three years,,, most of the time a holster will hold the dust, dirt , debris n moisture onto the glock
*
I personally do this with only my glock 27. it's my dust buster, *


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

JimmyJ7 said:


> Do you remember that film Money Ball when the guys looks all the statistics to find the best players, I wonder if there is similar statistics relating to gun accidents through negligent discharge verses repelling an attack or a robbery with your firearm. With a statistically one might be better off increasing accident safety over combat readiness.


There have been a lot of attempts by manufacturers to overcome the failings of humans, in regard to handling firearms safely. This is probably more market-driven than any sincere belief that they can actually solve safety problems for the average gun owner with design innovations. Gun experts in the USA are almost universally in agreement that proper training is the only way to reduce the number of stupid mistakes in gun handling.

Really, once you have a gun that will never 'go off' without having the trigger pulled, you have reduced it all down to a matter of teaching a person to leave the trigger alone, until he is willing to destroy anything that gets in front of the muzzle. You can liken it to teaching a child not to stick his fingers into a mouse trap, or teaching a new driver not to drive on the wrong side of the road. It is fundamental, and operating any machine requires a fundamental understanding of how it operates, and what not to do.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> I like pocket carrying my glock 27 without a holster


Don't tell him that... he'll believe what you say is true because he is not likely to know otherwise. [heh, heh]


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

JimmyJ7 said:


> Thanks for the replies. A real eye opener what you say, I had no idea that automatic pistols couldn't cycle blanks and other nonlethal ammunition is questionable whether it will cycle.


Semi-autos can be made to cycle blanks. Prop guns used in movies and on TV have this done. Generally they have weaker recoil springs installed to allow the mild rearward force of the fired blank cartridge to cycle the gun's slide. However for semi-autos sold for use by police, military, and civilians, the recoil springs are designed for use with commonly available ammunition.



JimmyJ7 said:


> That kind of negates my whole initial post. I only felt compelled to write to promote safety. If someone invents some ammunition that is nonlethal and 100% cycles the next round the now be pretty cool.


I would argue that point. If I ever have to use my sidearm in my defense, the situation would already exist which would require a deadly force response. I would not want a round that would just "hurt" or wound an assailant. I want to have ammunition that will do its best to stop the threat in as short of a time as possible. That means rounds that are very lethal and very dangerous for those willing to do me harm.



JimmyJ7 said:


> Do you remember that film Money Ball when the guys looks all the statistics to find the best players, I wonder if there is similar statistics relating to gun accidents through negligent discharge verses repelling an attack or a robbery with your firearm. With a statistically one might be better off increasing accident safety over combat readiness.


Never saw nor heard of that movie that I can recall. As for statistics, there are stats for just about anything one can imagine so I'm sure there are stats for what you have asked. Negligent discharges (ND's) are not very common. Yes they do take place but way less than the number of times a citizen uses a firearm to protect themselves or someone else.

I would propose this. A person who carries their sidearm in a quality holster and with that firearm in full battery (magazine loaded and a round in the chamber) is, in fact, practicing good safety measures. Their firearm is accessible to them should they need it and is in a fully ready condition to do what it was designed to do. That sounds like a good safety measure to me.



JimmyJ7 said:


> You guys are the experts I just watch YouTube videos, although I did used to shoot 22 pistol and rifle about 25 years ago before they banned it in the UK.


Well we're not especially experts but most of us do have years of experience. I have been at this for over 46 years but I'm not so foolish or arrogant to claim I know everything... because I don't. I learn new things about the world of firearms on a frequent basis and that is a good thing. When you run across someone who claims to know everything about this subject, you are probably in the company of a fool or a liar.

It is a shame that your nation saw fit to rob you of a most fundamental freedom. There are people in our country who would love nothing more than to do to us what was done in the UK with firearms. They have a very large hurtle in their way with this since nearly all of the states have the right to keep and bear arms written into their constitutions, as does the federal constitution also does. Could it happen? Yes, but not likely.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founders, once said that for a man to be truly free he must own property. Firearms are property, though personal by definition, and he also thought their ownership was absolutely essential to liberty. He was not alone in his sentiments as all of our Founders believed this to be true. When a government disarms its people, it has lost any valid claim to governance, as the first and single most important reason for its existence is to guarantee and protect the liberties of the People it was formed to serve. While this is an historically unique American perspective, I view it as a universal truth.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> Semi-autos can be made to cycle blanks. Prop guns used in movies and on TV have this done. Generally they have weaker recoil springs installed to allow the mild rearward force of the fired blank cartridge to cycle the gun's slide...


Not exactly.
Real guns that cycle blanks, for instance for use as movie props, have modified barrels.
Essentially, the barrel is blocked so that all of the force of the burning powder is directed back to cycle the mechanism.
Usually, there is a small outlet hole in the blockage. This controls the amount of gas, and force, that impinges back upon the mechanism.

The recoil spring may also be changed, but not always.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Not exactly.
> Real guns that cycle blanks, for instance for use as movie props, have modified barrels.
> Essentially, the barrel is blocked so that all of the force of the burning powder is directed back to cycle the mechanism.
> Usually, there is a small outlet hole in the blockage. This controls the amount of gas, and force, that impinges back upon the mechanism.
> ...


Thanks for the clarification, Steve. I didn't know this. I seem to recall seeing a short news piece once on movie prop guns and how they were modified for movies and TV.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> Don't tell him that... he'll believe what you say is true because he is not likely to know otherwise. [heh, heh]


Don't understand the response point, but I will clarify if my response was confusing


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman said:


> If you're going to carry a gun with an empty chamber or with blanks, you might as well carry a brick. That is if they haven't already outlawed that too in the UK? Maybe you can carry a sock full of shillings? I don't know?
> 
> The first shot is the one that counts. By the time you get a second shot off your assailant may have the opportunity to get ahold of your weapon and shoot you with it. In the case of a brick, beat you over the head with it, of course they could use your gun to do that too. If someone attempts to violently assault you, you have to assume that they have every intention of killing you. At which time it's up to you to stop the threat. Carrying an empty gun or not be willing to take appropriate action during a violent assault could get yourself killed, at the very least sustain serious bodily harm.
> 
> My God, what are they teaching you guys over there about defending yourselves against violent criminal attacks? It's a pretty dangerous world out there. It's no longer a "put up your dukes" kind of society.


That's not always true, I'm amazed how programmatic gun holders can be


----------



## NLAlston (Nov 15, 2011)

When I first got my permit, and bought a gun, I asked a WHOLE LOT of questions to others tat I knew were 'carriers'. When it came to querying about the 'load' fashions that were preferred, I was surprised at the number of people who opted to carry their semi autos WITHOUT a chambered round - and I had been advised to do the same. However, that was one piece of advice that I had chose to push beneath my consideration. Why? In the (God forbid) situation of my actually having to enter a mode of self defense, I want to ALWAYS be in a state of readiness. 

So, when carrying either of my semi autos, I ALWAYS carry chambered.

Blessings,
Nathan


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> Don't understand the response point, but I will clarify if my response was confusing


See the "[heh, heh]"? That means I was funnin' with ya'.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> See the "[heh, heh]"? That means I was funnin' with ya'.


I do confuse the issue many times,lol, my fault


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

duplicate post


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

For my home defense pistols I keep a full magazine loaded but no round chambered. I figure if I hear breaking glass or movement coming down the hall, I either won't wake up at all, or will have time to rack the slide.

I can't imagine a carrying a pistol for self-defense without a round chambered. There have been many instances of sudden ambush.


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

If you can't carry in Condition 1 then you don't need a gun! just keep your dang finger OFF the frickin trigger!


----------



## Cannon (May 1, 2016)

To many things can go wrong when under stress one in the chamber just makes sense, it how I've always carried. Worried about carrying a round in the chamber... Just keep your finger off the BANG switch!!


----------



## Harley_Hound57 (Dec 10, 2015)

I always carry with one in the chamber it makes no sense to carry with an empty one.


----------



## JimmyJ7 (Aug 15, 2016)

NLAlston said:


> When I first got my permit, and bought a gun, I asked a WHOLE LOT of questions to others tat I knew were 'carriers'. When it came to querying about the 'load' fashions that were preferred, I was surprised at the number of people who opted to carry their semi autos WITHOUT a chambered round - and I had been advised to do the same. However, that was one piece of advice that I had chose to push beneath my consideration. Why? In the (God forbid) situation of my actually having to enter a mode of self defense, I want to ALWAYS be in a state of readiness.
> 
> So, when carrying either of my semi autos, I ALWAYS carry chambered.
> 
> ...


The first time the issue of not chainring around came up was when I was watching one of those great videos from Iraqveteran8888 YouTube channel, from Moss pawn. The older guy Barry who has sadly passed away was demonstrating concealed carry and he pulled out his Glock and wrap the slide in one motion.

Another time Hickok45 was talking about a Glock saying it was just like a revolver, he said people are scared because it doesn't have a safety where as they're completely comfortable around a revolver which is exactly the same point and shoot without a safety.

From watching videos I can clearly see that if you have to face on with a gun, milliseconds count and if you mess up, forget to take the safety off, all rack the slide you are generally screwed.

From my own personal perspective, I can definitely see that if I owned a gun and lived in America there is a certain level of stress and responsibility. For example saying I'm visiting family and friends and they have young kids. What if I fall asleep on the couch and the gun becomes visible and the kid pulls out. What about if I'm getting changed and nip into another room and the kids got my gun in his hand. What about me accidentally leaving it lying about.

What about a harassed mother with a small pistol in her purse, there are going to be times when she takes her eye off it. I think it makes a lot of sense to carry without one in the chamber if you are in lower threat situations.

I'm looking at things as a beginner was probably nervous at the idea of guns but if your gun is was cocked and locked how do you prevent accidents.

I've just been listening to a great audiobook called escape from Alcatraz and you hear about all these perfect systems that make escape impossible, yet 11 people did.

Having one in the chamber may stop you being killed but your nephew accidentally shooting himself or anyone else will stop you from living. That's why I think an effective nonlethal round would be an ideal compromise, surely it must be possible to invent one that will cycle the gun. Certainly give little Johnny a memorable lesson about messing with guns as he blasts himself with pepper spray or whatever.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

JimmyJ7 said:


> ...What about me accidentally leaving it lying about.
> 
> What about a harassed mother with a small pistol in her purse, there are going to be times when she takes her eye off it...


A properly responsible gun owner, and particularly a responsible gun carrier, can not afford to "accidentally leave it lying about." _The gun must be under the carrier's control at all times_.
A properly responsible woman does not carry her pistol in her purse, especially around children. _The gun must be under the carrier's control at all times_.

More About Off-Body Carry:
So mom's got her gun in her purse, and a purse snatcher comes up behind her.
He gets away with the purse.
Now she has armed a felon with the gift of a loaded gun.
(The same thing is true of a guy who carries his pistol in a man-bag.)


----------



## SouthSideScubaSteve (Jun 20, 2012)

JimmyJ7 said:


> ...From my own personal perspective, I can definitely see that if I *own*ed *a gun *and lived in America *there is *a certain level of stress and *responsibility*.


 Owning a firearm carries with it a high level of personal responsibility, period.



JimmyJ7 said:


> For example saying I'm visiting family and friends and they have young kids. What if I fall asleep on the couch and the gun becomes visible and the kid pulls out.


 This seems to be a scenario where, you as a gun owner have failed in your responsibility to maintain control of your firearm...



JimmyJ7 said:


> What about if I'm getting changed and nip into another room and the kids got my gun in his hand.


 Again, you are responsible to maintain control of your firearm at all times ...



JimmyJ7 said:


> What about me accidentally leaving it lying about.


 As I see it, "accidents" are things that occur which are beyond your control, "leaving it lying about" is negligence...



JimmyJ7 said:


> I'm looking at things as a beginner was probably nervous at the idea of guns but if your gun is was cocked and locked how do you prevent accidents.


 Common theme here; i.e. If you can't be responsible for maintaining control of your firearm, you have no business carrying one ....



JimmyJ7 said:


> That's why I think an effective nonlethal round would be an ideal compromise, surely it must be possible to invent one that will cycle the gun.


 What you are suggesting may be possible but it's a complex solution to a "problem" that has an easier solution; i.e. Don't carry (in any "condition") if you aren't confident you can be responsible for your actions!

At the end of the day, even if such a round was available, I'm pretty sure I'd carry exactly as I do today, because I am confident that I can responsible for / will maintain control of my firearm (no matter what "condition" it happens to be in at any moment in time)


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Jimmy,

Your points are valid. They are all things that a person must think about when considering the option of carrying a lethal weapon. I say this because I have similar thoughts about backyard swimming pools, and have steadfastly refused to consider one for many years. Also, I suffered greatly through those years when my two daughters began driving a motor vehicle, being out and about at night, and dating young men who weren't good enough for them. 

One has to weigh all of the positives and negatives as best he can, make a decision, and then work diligently at making the choice work. For those of us who have handled guns responsibly since early childhood, it's not hard to believe that a person can do everything right for his entire life, when it comes to gun safety. If I am worried at all about someone else's children getting control of one of my guns, I'll leave it at home, lock it up, or do whatever extra safety measures are needed. I am fully conscious, at all times, of my responsibility. Anyone who is not, should leave their gun locked up.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

This is Why You Carry With A Round in the Chamber................


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Cait43 said:


> This is Why You Carry With A Round in the Chamber................


Wow! That last 'victim' was a tush-hog - he fought like a madman against 4 strong guys and he and his girl walked away - impressive.


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

Also, don't make a beer run after dark, that's asking for it! jmo


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

JimmyJ7 said:


> Having one in the chamber may stop you being killed but your nephew accidentally shooting himself or anyone else will stop you from living. That's why I think an effective nonlethal round would be an ideal compromise, surely it must be possible to invent one that will cycle the gun. Certainly give little Johnny a memorable lesson about messing with guns as he blasts himself with pepper spray or whatever.


I'm going to touch on a slightly different track that some have alluded to. By definition, guns are legally considered lethal force. There is no shoot to wound, scare, deter, or less than deadly round. Similarly, generally speaking, it is the threat of death, rape, or grave bodily injury that warrants the use of deadly force. Notice also, that I said THREAT of because that is what matters. It doesn't matter if the assailant actually has a weapon, it is the threat of the weapon or action of using it that matters. A concept that you may find interesting to research is the concept of AOJ or AOJP, meaning ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion (required in some locations, situations, and jurisdictions). Basically, all three must be present in order to classify a deadly threat. Let's look at some examples:

A guy walking down the other side of the street with a holstered gun, openly displayed. Does he have the ability to kill you? Yes, he has a weapon that can. Does he have the opportunity? Yes, he is in range. Are you in jeopardy? No, so it's not a lethal threat. Now if he were saying I'm going yoU kill you, you SOB, in such a manner that a reasonable person would feel threatened the situation changes. Now let's replace the gun with a knife or baseball bat, or pipe wrench, which are also legally considered deadly weapons. By substituting out a ranged weapon, he would no longer have the opportunity to cause you harm, unless something changed the situation.

What I'm trying to get at here is that while I understand your safety concerns, guns are by definition a lethal function. As others have said, there is a reason why you want them to be, but there is also a legal standing that negates the idea of them being less than lethal.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Foam Earplug Bullets!


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

denner said:


> Foam Earplug Bullets!


Oh I see now use the ear plug bullet as the first round. Now you have a kinder, gentler bullet.

Makes me want to invite the grand kids over for some nerf gun practice.:smt083


----------



## JimmyJ7 (Aug 15, 2016)

noway2 said:


> I'm going to touch on a slightly different track that some have alluded to. By definition, guns are legally considered lethal force. There is no shoot to wound, scare, deter, or less than deadly round. Similarly, generally speaking, it is the threat of death, rape, or grave bodily injury that warrants the use of deadly force. Notice also, that I said THREAT of because that is what matters. It doesn't matter if the assailant actually has a weapon, it is the threat of the weapon or action of using it that matters. A concept that you may find interesting to research is the concept of AOJ or AOJP, meaning ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion (required in some locations, situations, and jurisdictions). Basically, all three must be present in order to classify a deadly threat. Let's look at some examples:
> 
> A guy walking down the other side of the street with a holstered gun, openly displayed. Does he have the ability to kill you? Yes, he has a weapon that can. Does he have the opportunity? Yes, he is in range. Are you in jeopardy? No, so it's not a lethal threat. Now if he were saying I'm going yoU kill you, you SOB, in such a manner that a reasonable person would feel threatened the situation changes. Now let's replace the gun with a knife or baseball bat, or pipe wrench, which are also legally considered deadly weapons. By substituting out a ranged weapon, he would no longer have the opportunity to cause you harm, unless something changed the situation.
> 
> What I'm trying to get at here is that while I understand your safety concerns, guns are by definition a lethal function. As others have said, there is a reason why you want them to be, but there is also a legal standing that negates the idea of them being less than lethal.


I understand and agree with all those that have expressed the importance of being ready and guns being lethal force. I don't mean to be argumentative just sharing my honest thoughts and perspective. To me it seems to be a lot of the attitude is geared towards the expectation of assassination at any moment. A lot of the attitude seems more geared towards a police perspective, those guys and gals really being in the firing line. You stop a car and any moment someone might reach for a gun and milliseconds count.

Guns are lethal but surely that's not a directive in all circumstances. If some drunken inebriated crazy person comes staggering across the street waving a machete and keeps coming, I would certainly try and shoot them in the leg. Also in my opinion it would be an absolute must for any concealed carry permit owner to carry a good-quality mace spray. I thought it was awful that video of a gun instructor being repeatedly shoved by some crazy probably drunk person and then shooting him. Some sort of pepper spray would have taken the fight out of him and could have been deployed more readily before the guy got close. I thought he was more at risk by allowing the guy to come close.

Also, most of the gun experts think having a safety catch is a bad idea for a firearm, I think the main reason for this is for people have a lot of guns, a safety is bad if you have a lot of guns some with safety and some without. For personal protection the majority of people with concealed carry permits have only one gun. So surely a safety is not a problem if you only practice with one gun. Throughout all my posts my only thought have been about safety and avoiding an accidental discharge. This seems to be a lot of talk that basically says, don't make a mistake, you might as well say never have a car crash.

Another point, there is a danger with concealed carry of being obliged to be an unpaid policeman. If you see a shop getting robbed, do you pull out and start shooting? Also in the UK if I get mugged someone will take my wallet and my phone but it very much increases the stakes if I would be armed because I wouldn't want them getting my weapon, so with the mugger has a knife, it would be pretty intense situation to whip out my gun, and would it be worth it for the loss of my phone and wallet.

I don't mean to be negative, there are many examples I can think of that would be life-saving to be armed, particularly for home defence.I understand there are big differences between the UK and the USA, the UK is a lot smaller for one thing so police responses quicker theoretically. I think also in the UK people alter their behaviour to stay safe. Fundamentally Friday and Saturday and late at night is pretty much out of bound for anyone who wants to stay safe and who is alone. And most violence would be from drunk people which guns wouldn't be so appropriate. That said it's always better to defend yourself and be evicting and I would be armed to the gills I lived in America.


----------



## noway2 (Jun 18, 2011)

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to post and having this honest discussion. It is enlightening and entertaining to see different perspectives. It kind of reminds me the first time I was in the UK. It was a Sunday in June early afternoon on a day that exceptionally hot by your standards (about 85F), I was seriously jet lagged and was visiting the town of Oldham, northeast of Manchester. I stopped in at a local pub to get something to eat. I ordered a bowl of chili and when it came the guy next to me said, "my god man, how the hell can you stand to eat that on a day like this?". I replied, "well, it's a little hotter where I come from" (and btw, I lived in NE Ohio then which is A LOT cooler then central NC where I am now). To which the guy leaned back and replied,"ah you're a yank, that explains it all", after which we sat and talked for a good long time.



JimmyJ7 said:


> I understand and agree with all those that have expressed the importance of being ready and guns being lethal force. I don't mean to be argumentative just sharing my honest thoughts and perspective.


I'm sure you weren't trying to be argumentative. It is difficult to convey tone in text and I think the important thing that I, and others, are trying to convey is that from a legal perspective guns are considered lethal, only, and that there is no lesser use and that makes them such a dire instrument.



> To me it seems to be a lot of the attitude is geared towards the expectation of assassination at any moment. A lot of the attitude seems more geared towards a police perspective, those guys and gals really being in the firing line. You stop a car and any moment someone might reach for a gun and milliseconds count.


Yes, I think you are thinking along the right lines, except that rather than it being an expectation, more the realization that it could occur but is still very, very, unlikely. A common analogy is a house fire. Very few people will ever have one, but we still have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and plan evacuations.



> Guns are lethal but surely that's not a directive in all circumstances. If some drunken inebriated crazy person comes staggering across the street waving a machete and keeps coming, I would certainly try and shoot them in the leg.


Keeping in mind that from a legal perspective, in order to deploy a gun you would have to be faced with a sufficient threat, which the drunk may be, the objective is to stop that threat and to avoid harm to yourself; no more, no less. If you are able to do so by wounding them, that is fine, the objective is not to kill them, just stop them, but you still need to be able to articulate why a potentially deadly response was justified.



> Also in my opinion it would be an absolute must for any concealed carry permit owner to carry a good-quality mace spray. I thought it was awful that video of a gun instructor being repeatedly shoved by some crazy probably drunk person and then shooting him. Some sort of pepper spray would have taken the fight out of him and could have been deployed more readily before the guy got close. I thought he was more at risk by allowing the guy to come close.


No argument from me there. A lot of people advocate for carrying spray or other less than lethal forms of defense. It is far more likely that one will face a less then lethal threat that still requires or justifies the use of some level of force.



> Also, most of the gun experts think having a safety catch is a bad idea for a firearm, I think the main reason for this is for people have a lot of guns, a safety is bad if you have a lot of guns some with safety and some without. For personal protection the majority of people with concealed carry permits have only one gun. So surely a safety is not a problem if you only practice with one gun. Throughout all my posts my only thought have been about safety and avoiding an accidental discharge. This seems to be a lot of talk that basically says, don't make a mistake, you might as well say never have a car crash.


I think you're spot on here. If one practices to where it becomes muscle memory, or an automatic action, to where you don't need to fumble and think about it, a safety is fine. There are other forms of safeties, such as ones that you grip that don't require you to think about flipping them, but serve the same kind of function. The main thing that I think most are trying to convey is the importance of always, always, keeping mindful attention to the status of your gun because mistakes can't be corrected. As one instructor put it, think of it as having a laser beam that is always on coming out of the barrel and it will hit anything in its path.



> there is a danger with concealed carry of being obliged to be an unpaid policeman. If you see a shop getting robbed, do you pull out and start shooting?


No. Quite the opposite in fact. It is common for people to say they carry for the protection of themselves and will not engage unless the threat is directed towards them. It is a recognition of what your responsibilities are as an individual. That being said, a lot of people would defend another in such a situation. They may even draw a proverbial line and let them take wallets, goods from a store, etc, and draw the line at being relocated say to back room which is usually a psychological indicator that they wish to cause harm rather than just take stuff.



> Also in the UK if I get mugged someone will take my wallet and my phone but it very much increases the stakes if I would be armed because I wouldn't want them getting my weapon, so with the mugger has a knife, it would be pretty intense situation to whip out my gun, and would it be worth it for the loss of my phone and wallet.


[/quote]
You're right again,in that the taking of your gun is an additional risk. So too is the taking of your phone and wallet as they now know where you live and have your identity that will be used for nefarious purposes.



> I don't mean to be negative, there are many examples I can think of that would be life-saving to be armed, particularly for home defence.I understand there are big differences between the UK and the USA, the UK is a lot smaller for one thing so police responses quicker theoretically.


I think the big difference is a way of looking at things and it isn't even a US / UK thing as there are many here that feel the same way. On the other hand, there are others who think it is their responsibility to be prepared to deal with such situations and that the police are there to investigate after the fact. There is a tendency for some people to feel and want to be very independent here.



> I think also in the UK people alter their behaviour to stay safe. Fundamentally Friday and Saturday and late at night is pretty much out of bound for anyone who wants to stay safe and who is alone.


Same here. It's best to avoid, evade, escape. Don't do stupid things with stupid people at stupid times. It will avoid almost all trouble.



> And most violence would be from drunk people which guns wouldn't be so appropriate.


It's pretty well accepted that guns and alcohol don't mix. Many areas prohibit the carry while consuming. Personally, I'm more of the rationale that it should be like driving.



> That said it's always better to defend yourself and be evicting and I would be armed to the gills I lived in America.


Hopefully not because you think it's a jungle here. In most areas it is very safe. In others, I wouldn't go even backed up by Starfleet. I have one friend who lived in California and moved to North Carolina and bought a bunch of guns simply because he could and now he enjoys practicing with them and collecting them.


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

ran this in the ground?????Jeesh


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

JimmyJ7 said:


> ....That said it's always better to defend yourself and be evicting and I would be armed to the gills I lived in America.


Very few of us are "armed to the gills," but quite a few of us are armed with effective handguns that we know how to use, and when to use them. Think of it as just an extra layer of preparedness, in the not very likely event that we will someday be attacked by bad people who could otherwise overwhelm us. Our government maintains a nuclear arsenal that they have every intention of never using, because the consequences of such an act are too horrible to contemplate. Our citizens reserve that same right for themselves, individually. While most of us live in areas where attacks on innocent people are unusual, it does happen, occasionally, and many of us have made the decision to carry weapons, for much the same reason as we carry insurance on our lives and property.

Most people will never collect as much insurance as they pay in, but there is security in knowing that they will likely be able to recover from a catastrophic loss, and most people do invest their money in having that security. An investment of money and time is necessary to provide that same type of security against crime, and a statistical analysis will prove that areas with a larger number of licensed gun carriers have lower violent crime rates, and also that licensed gun carriers have a lower rate of crimes committed than all other groupings, including police.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

JimmyJ7 said:


> ...If some drunken inebriated crazy person comes staggering across the street waving a machete and keeps coming, I would certainly try and shoot them in the leg...


1. You must be a much better pistol shooter than I. I am certain that, under deadly pressure, I would not be able to maintain my "small motor" skills and make such an accurate shot. But then again, you haven't the practical shooting experience that most of us on this forum have.

2. In the exact case you postulate, I would just remove myself from the madman's path. Shooting would not be necessary.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ............ 2. In the exact case you postulate, I would just remove myself from the madman's path.....


or as Daffy Duck as Robin Hood emulates: Hoh Hoh Hee Hee, Dodge! Parry! Thrust! ...BOING!

I'm not a martial arts expert, but in several of the recent police-shooting-suspect, it seems a well placed roundhouse kick would have proven quite effective.

I guess they discourage brute force.

You want to kill them not hurt them......


----------



## Yevgenii (Nov 14, 2016)

pblanc said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you feel safer in the UK since so many self-defense weapons have been effectively banned?
> 
> Please don't take this as a "loaded" or rhetorical question. I just want your impression.
> 
> I don't have any statistics for you, but I do believe that the average person who has a concealed carry permit is probably more likely to have an accidental or negligent discharge than the need to fire the weapon in self-defense. (And I do have a concealed carry permit, although I carry relatively infrequently since I live in a low-crime area and I am not all that frequently out at night anymore.)


A couple of things that might answer your question, as I have a bachelor's in Criminology-

-As of 2010, the US murder rate is four times higher than that of the UK. Hasn't changed in the past 5 or 6 years much in either country.

-Statistically speaking, when one purchases a firearm they increase their chance of being harmed by that firearm directly (partially through accidental discharge), and some studies even show that you increase your chance of dying in a home invasion as opposed to being unarmed, potentially due to the assailant seeing you as a greater threat and killing you as opposed to simply taking your stuff.

However, I still have a firearm under my bed cocked and locked, because I personally believe that 1) _well-trained _owners of firearms who 2) _follow rules of safety _are likely not increasing their chance of either, and since the stats cover everybody (and the majority don't do the aforementioned 1 and 2), the majority weigh heavily on the mean.

I would advise against directly comparing crime rates other than murders between any two countries. As someone who has taken a justice statistics that focused almost exclusively on this issue, I can tell you that the way one country counts crimes can, and usually is, VASTLY different from any other. The FBI UCR stats are NOTORIOUSLY inaccurate and highly underestimate true crime rates (look up the hierarchy rule for instance), and vary wildly county to county due to how the police count crimes, how charges are horizontally or vertically changed, plea deals, etc. This has long been confirmed through comparison with various victimization surveys. Also, the UCR has a very narrow definition of violent crime, compared to UK crime rates which have a very wide definition that covers many more crimes. Thus nominally, it would seem that the UK has more violent crime, when this is in fact not factual.

The few international attempts to survey crime victims have generally shown that developed, western nations have similar crime rates, with a few Eastern European countries as well as the US having aberrantly high murder rates.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Yevgenii said:


> ...Statistically speaking, *when one purchases a firearm they increase their chance of being harmed by that firearm directly* (partially through accidental discharge), and some studies even show that you increase your chance of dying in a home invasion as opposed to being unarmed, potentially due to the assailant seeing you as a greater threat and killing you as opposed to simply taking your stuff...[emphasis added]


I harbor deep suspicions about, and strong disbelief of, this statistic you quote. To me it reeks of gun-control humbug.
I would need "chapter and verse" as proof, and may view the source of the statistic with a jaundiced and critical eye.

I must note its seeming relation to the oft-quoted "statistic" that "proves" that women should not carry firearms as protection against rape, because of the (mythical) very high likelihood of a woman's own protective firearm being grabbed from her, and then used against her.
This is because women are, the story goes, the "weaker sex," and are therefore constitutionally incapable of harming an attacker, even in dire self-defense.
As Sherlock Holmes was once said to have exclaimed, "What ineffable twaddle!"

The quoted statistic is nonsense anyway (as quoted) because it is incontrovertibly true in only the most absurd sense.
That is, one stands exactly no chance at all of being injured by a specific firearm that is never present. And if the specific firearm is present, than even the very slightest chance of injury is necessarily increased (even if it never happens).
As Twain said, "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."


----------



## Yevgenii (Nov 14, 2016)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I harbor deep suspicions about, and strong disbelief of, this statistic you quote. To me it reeks of gun-control humbug.
> I would need "chapter and verse" as proof, and may view the source of the statistic with a jaundiced and critical eye.


You would be wise to view politically charged topics with a critical eye 

As I said, I personally have a firearm cocked and locked under my bed, and own 6 firearms myself, all of which are in my home. That being said, as someone who has a bachelors in the field and currently applying to PhD criminology programs, I am a serious student of justice, and as in any scientific field, when data on an issue is at a near absolute consensus I must accept the conclusions or I am simply as biased as those gun-control advocates that are just as biased and fact-free when it comes to gun ownership.

As for the data I mentioned before, a plethora of studies and articles that compile study results, all from reputable sources:

1) The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a meta analysis that itself references 17 other studies from a variety of academic fields that show similar results (an increase in risk of all-cause mortality from owning a firearm). You'd usually have to pay for stuff like this, but some websites host it in its entirety:

Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death?...[Fulltext, Aug 5 JAMA. 1998;280:471-473] (c) AMA 1998

Here is the same article from JAMA itself if you find that one sketchy for whatever reason (but like I said you'd have to pay to see it here):

Does Owning a Firearm Increase or Decrease the Risk of Death? | Firearms | JAMA | The JAMA Network

JAMA is a highly-respected journal that does not lean left or right.

2) The American Journal of Epidemiology (also a very respected journal) published an article showing an increased rate of death from homicide as well as suicide:

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

3) The Annals of Internal Medicine meta-analysis and systematic review that used Cochrane review methods (considered the absolute most rigorous and methodologically sound methods in all of science) which shows the same results:

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household MembersA Systematic Review and Meta-analysisA Systematic Review and Meta-analysis | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

4) Harvard School of Public Health study showing that the risks of gun ownership far outweigh the benefits as well as the lack of any evidence showing that having a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in (on the right side of the panel you can click to get a free sample copy).

Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home

These are the four studies that I knew of that provide the most comprehensive reviews, using only the most stringent methods, and the sources don't seem to have any bias (can't rule it out though).

That being said however, I'd like to refer to a statement I made in my previous post - the nature of a mean average means that a large majority of firearm owners, who likely don't follow rules of safety and haven't taken the time to train themselves in the effective operation of their firearms, will weigh heavily on the mean and it is very possible that *if you are safe and have either self-taught or taken courses to shoot accurately, you will not only have a negligible chance of discharging your firearm on yourself, you will also be very effective in the protection of your home, by being an outlier in both safety and effective aim.*


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

Hey Steve this BS is by a person in a socialist country over wrought with gun control and HE only knows what HE reads in the media. This thread has run aground! JEESH!


----------



## SteamboatWillie (Jan 24, 2013)

Yevgenii said:


> You would be wise to view politically charged topics with a critical eye
> 
> As for the data I mentioned before, a plethora of studies and articles that compile study results, all from *reputable *sources:
> 
> ...


Sorry, if you believe that, you might want to dig a little deeper. But I agree, a "critical eye" should be used when citing studies by JAMA.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

*Yevgenii*;
Bear in mind that the AMA, and indeed the entire national medical establishment's political arm, is dead set upon proving that firearms violence is a public health issue, and should be treated as an epidemic. That applies particularly to the US Public Health Service, and the Centers for Disease Control.
Were the medical establishment to view many of the causes of crime as mental-health issues, I would be in complete agreement with it. But instead, the medical establishment focuses upon the means (the gun) and not the cause (social problems).
No matter what you call it, merely removing the gun from the equation will not solve our criminal-violence problem. Indeed, removing the gun, as the AMA insists that we do, will probably only make matters worse. Removing the gun from society leaves the weak and the moral at the mercy of the strong and the amoral.

So, with my apologies, quoting AMA, Public Health, and CDC statistics to me is not an opinion-winning strategy.



Yevgenii said:


> ...JAMA is a highly-respected journal that does not lean left or right...


Speaking as the step-son of an AMA-member physician, I can confidently state from long experience that JAMA leans politically to the Left, and is Progressive in outlook.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *Yevgenii*;
> *Bear in mind that the AMA, and indeed the entire national medical establishment's political arm, is dead set upon proving that firearms violence is a public health issue, and should be treated as an epidemic. That applies particularly to the US Public Health Service, and the Centers for Disease Control.*
> Were the medical establishment to view many of the causes of crime as mental-health issues, I would be in complete agreement with it. But instead, the medical establishment focuses upon the means (the gun) and not the cause (social problems).
> No matter what you call it, merely removing the gun from the equation will not solve our criminal-violence problem. Indeed, by removing the gun, as the AMA insists that we do, will probably only make matters worse. Removing the gun from society leaves the weak and the moral at the mercy of the strong and the amoral.
> ...


RIGHT ON STEVE!

Usually those that like to brag about their academic credentials more than likely have a degree in the science of bovine excrement.

The fact that they believe that: "JAMA is a highly-respected journal that does not lean left or right". Is proof of that.

Telling everyone that they have some kind of degree somehow makes them feel that their opinions (that's just what they are opinions) are far superior to the opinions of others. But you know what? Who the hell cares? They're not convincing anyone but the ignorant and uninformed. Just as the national news media lost all credibility this past election cycle. We can all thank God at least this time around that a lot of people for the most part were not listening.


----------



## Yevgenii (Nov 14, 2016)

desertman said:


> RIGHT ON STEVE!
> 
> Usually those that like to brag about their academic credentials more than likely have a degree in bovine excrement.


Here you go: Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet
Both my degrees are there... and my honors. I'm not an idiot I promise 



> The fact that they believe that: "JAMA is a highly-respected journal that does not lean left or right". Is proof of that.


JAMA is very highly respected, and all medical professionals who do research almost literally cream at the opportunity to publish in it. If you think they lean left, I'd ask for some proof. I'm not aware of any.



> Telling everyone that they have some kind of degree somehow makes them feel that their opinions (that's just what they are opinions) are far superior to the opinions of others. But you know what? Who the hell cares? They're not convincing anyone but the ignorant and uninformed.


My statement on gun ownership and increased risk of death wasn't an opinion - I'm stating that the extant scientific research has come together from different fields, in different years and eras, and different approaches. That is called consilience, and in science when you have independent sources coming together with research that points to one single conclusion, it's almost universally a true representation of reality.

Also, I never stated my opinions are better than anyone else's. I've only stated that I've gained an insight into the science of justice and gun ownership through my years of education that many perhaps don't have, and so far I've only brought forth the highest grade of scientific literature, which consequently nobody has addressed, and the only rebuttals I've heard were "JAMA leans left" and "You don't have a degree, man!"

*If anyone wants to actually read the articles I linked, and explain in detail why the methods or conclusions of said studies are erroneous, I'm all ears*. I've changed my opinion vastly on gun ownership (used to be very liberal and against, now I support the 2nd amendment and myself own 6 guns), and if anyone actually brings forth a valid argument that addresses the research I linked I'm willing to change my mind.


----------



## Yevgenii (Nov 14, 2016)

Blackhawkman said:


> Hey Steve this BS is by a person in a socialist country over wrought with gun control and HE only knows what HE reads in the media. This thread has run aground! JEESH!


I live in Alaska, my friend  We have perhaps the most lax gun laws in the country, and I happen to be a voting citizen who has supported them in the past.

And none of my links were from the media. They're all studies.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Oh, and, by the way, *Yevgenii*, you are absolutely correct that "...if you are safe and have either self-taught or taken courses to shoot accurately, you will not only have a negligible chance of discharging your firearm on yourself, you will also be very effective in the protection of your home, by being an outlier in both safety and effective aim."

But you won't find that in JAMA, or in Public Health or CDC media.

Proof that JAMA leans Left and is Progressive?
Please re-read my first two paragraphs in Post #55, nearby.
It is a modern Progressive method, to place blame on the instrument rather than upon the user thereof. By placing blame on the instrument, one avoids the Political-Correctness error of blaming people who may turn out to be minorities or other protected persons.
Political Correctness is a Leftist, Progressivist disease, but not one which is ever addressed in JAMA.

*P.S.:* I believe, by your name, that you may be Lithuanian in origin. Am I correct? Or is it Latvian?


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

Yevgenii said:


> *If anyone wants to actually read the articles I linked, and explain in detail why the methods or conclusions of said studies are erroneous, I'm all ears*. I've changed my opinion vastly on gun ownership (used to be very liberal and against, now I support the 2nd amendment and myself own 6 guns), and if anyone actually brings forth a valid argument that addresses the research I linked I'm willing to change my mind.


Yevgenii, Thanks for the post and I do want to read it, but it'll take awhile.

Statistics on the the US includes liberal states like Illinois, New York, and California. These states have higher murder rates because it is harder for a law abiding citizen to own a gun. And the criminals know it. Here in Arizona we have a lower rate, I'd guess 60% here own guns (a lot of California escapees here).

I thought the murder rate was also increasing in Great Brittan and Australia. ???


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

AZdave said:


> ...I thought the murder rate was also increasing in Great Brittan and Australia. ???


The _violent crime rate_ increased, and continues to increase, in Great Britain, absent guns.
The _gun-violence rate_ has increased in Australia, after almost all guns were (and remain) prohibited. Explain that one please, won't you?

(Maybe the existence of crime and violence has no direct relationship with guns, _per se_. Waddaya think?)


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Yevgenii:

No one's saying that you're an idiot. I just do not place my faith and trust in those that brag about their academic achievements. Those degrees don't mean shit to me. For far too long we've placed our faith and trust in those who for some reason or the other think that they are smarter than all the rest of us. Just look at where that got us. Obamacare is just one example. It's a freakin' unmitigated disaster who's architects Ezekiel Emanuel and Jonathan Gruber both have Phd's. The world's most brutal dictators were very smart people too. Otherwise they never would have obtained all that power. The problem is that there were too many stupid and gullible people who believed in them and their cause. 

Oh and by the way I don't believe in all of that "climate change" bullshit either. That's just another ploy by the UN to weaken the United States to the point of third world status in order to achieve total equality with the rest of the world. The UN's goal is one world government. Climate change being the vehicle to get them there. Ah, but those of us without college degrees are just too stupid to be able to figure it all out. Not only that the cause of "climate change" is very lucrative for those who advocate and study it. Greed is a strong motivator. 

There is not enough space to provide all of the proof that the JAMA is "left" leaning. I'd have to pull out every freakin' article or comment that they have ever written on the subject. I have yet to read anything that they have published that supports the civilian possession of firearms. Quite the contrary they have consistently railed against it. Along with most of the medical profession. The abolition of the 2nd Amendment has always been a "left wing" cause and priority. So it is not unreasonable to believe that those who wish to abolish it would also come up with studies to support their claims. JAMA the CDC and others being their enablers. Bird's of a feather do flock together. 

These organizations thrive on government grants to further their studies. Liberals are always clamoring for more government money to further their cause. The JAMA and CDC are among the chief beneficiaries. It's no wonder that the Republicans in congress who support the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law" wish to slash their funding and why Liberals fight so hard to retain it. So you tell me that the JAMA and CDC are non partisan? Bullshit! Perhaps the JAMA and CDC would be better off studying ways to cure cancer or deaths due to medical malpractice instead of guns. Subjects they would be better suited for. 

Any group can call themselves independent, however when they all believe in the same thing and draw the same conclusions they can hardly be called independent. It's more like collusion for a stated cause.

I don't have to read any of the articles you've "linked". I've been involved in the fight to preserve the 2nd Amendment and "Constitutional Law" for most of my adult life. I don't know, but you sound like one of those so called "gun owners" who seek more restrictive gun control laws, trying to infiltrate our ranks. Kind of like Mark Kelly and his group "Americans for Responsible Solutions". With friends like them, who needs enemies? Their goal is to lull us into complacency by claiming that they are one of us and we don't have to fear them. After all their mantra is: "We are gun owners too". While at the same time clamoring for every restriction they can come up with. If they can't abolish the 2nd Amendment in one fell swoop they will do it incrementally. But first they have to win us over with seemingly innocuous little restrictions that they call "common sense" laws. Which are anything but "common sense" as they will have no effect on the criminal or negligent use of firearms of which there are already laws on the books that address those issues. Yet just one more law or restriction will solve everything? Right?

Just one question: If you have supported some of the most lax gun laws in the country. Then why are you coming on this forum supporting studies that could eventually lead to even more restrictions and the eventual abolition of the 2nd Amendment? Once a Liberal always a Liberal is the only rational conclusion that I can come up with.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> The _violent crime rate_ increased, and continues to increase, in Great Britain, absent guns.
> The _gun-violence rate_ has increased in Australia, after almost all guns were (and remain) prohibited. Explain that one please, won't you?
> 
> (Maybe the existence of crime and violence has no direct relationship with guns, _per se_. Waddaya think?)


Both you and I know that their interest is not to reduce crime. If it were they would be strictly enforcing laws that are already on the books. Instead of releasing career criminals with long histories of violent crimes back out onto our streets where they can wreak even more havoc on society. Hopefully with guns so they can call for more gun control laws that these criminals habitually ignore. They are a means to an end. We saw that with Holder and his "Operation Fast and Furious". What better way to have even more crimes committed with guns than sell them to known drug dealers? More crimes committed with guns equals more exploitation of those crimes which leads to more gun control laws. It's that simple.

Nothing, and I mean nothing is beneath these people. Notice how they do not use the term "gun control" anymore. It's now "gun safety" or "common sense" legislation. I mean who could possibly be against that? It doesn't sound as threatening but it's still the same old shit.

No, their goal is to abolish the 2nd Amendment so the people will have no way of fighting off an oppressive government of which they will have absolute control. Along with the rest of their sordid agenda. The founders of this nation were very smart people for including the 2nd Amendment in the "Bill of Rights". It is the one right that ensures that all the others exist.


----------



## warcloud (Oct 24, 2013)

Best way to carry is what ever your comfortable with and practice with safety being the number one priority. Just my 2 cents


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Statistics prove that people that own dogs are more likely to have dog poop in their yards than those that don't.... Just saying

Statistics found in Cat Lovers Magazine, July 2001 issue........


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

These articles may be of some interest:
Recent Study of Physician Political Bias Shows Importance of Florida Firearm Owners' Privacy Act
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...ortance-of-florida-firearm-owners-privacy-act

Red And Blue Doctors: Politics Can Seep Into Primary Care, Study Finds
Red And Blue Doctors: Politics Can Seep Into Primary Care, Study Finds | CommonHealth


----------



## SteamboatWillie (Jan 24, 2013)

warcloud said:


> Best way to carry is what ever your comfortable with and practice with safety being the number one priority. Just my 2 cents


I disagree with this line of thinking. To me, the best way to carry is to learn to carry safely and _properly._ If someone is not comfortable carrying a loaded firearm, with a round in the chamber, I suggest they need more instruction and range time carrying.

I understand that many will disagree, but frankly the vast, vast, vast, majority of firearms trainers teach concealed carry with a round in the chamber and learning to keep your finger off the trigger. And they do so for a reason. The following youtube shows just a few examples:






But of course this is just my opinion.


----------



## NLAlston (Nov 15, 2011)

JimmyJ7 said:


> From my own personal perspective, I can definitely see that if I owned a gun and lived in America there is a certain level of stress and responsibility. For example saying I'm visiting family and friends and they have young kids. What if I fall asleep on the couch and the gun becomes visible and the kid pulls out. What about if I'm getting changed and nip into another room and the kids got my gun in his hand. What about me accidentally leaving it lying about.
> 
> What about a harassed mother with a small pistol in her purse, there are going to be times when she takes her eye off it. I think it makes a lot of sense to carry without one in the chamber if you are in lower threat situations.
> 
> ...


Jimmy, I didn't see your reply to my post, until now - and I stand in agreement with you, on a portion of your concerns.

I can't speak for anyone else, but "I" ALWAYS CC in a condition 1 state, when I'm out & about. Though I have been carrying (licensed) since '93, I have never had to pull my gun on anyone. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how much seconds could matter, in a self defense scenario. Yes, those few seconds could, very well, spell the difference between continued life - or death.

Now, when at home, I ALWAYS remove the loaded cartridge, and return it to its mates, in the magazine. Only when leaving home do I enter the condition 1 mode.

I also NEVER leave my gun just lying around. And, when visiting others, my gun is holstered, and on my person.

Lastly, I NEVER have my finger on the trigger - or even in the trigger area - unless I am ready to fire my gun. That last sentence is (IMO) is one which details something tat EVERY gun owner/handler should store in their upper memory banks.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman said:


> Not only that you could end up shooting your balls off.


Lol :smt033:anim_lol:


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

NLAlston said:


> ...when at home, I ALWAYS remove the loaded cartridge, and return it to its mates, in the magazine. Only when leaving home do I enter the condition 1 mode...


Why?
Do you believe that being at home decreases or removes all danger?

One of the only two times that I actually needed my pistol to handle an immediate threat occurred at my own kitchen door, when I had been comfortably in "at home mode." I am glad that I was carrying a gun, and that it was in C.1 and ready to go.
(There were three instances in total. No shots were fired in any case. The mere presence of a ready-to-use weapon solved the problem twice.)


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

My crystal ball is out for repair. It doesn't seem to be working. So I suppose I'll have to continue having some sidearms at the ready... as in really at the ready. Or I could put a sign out in my yard that says something like...

*"If you are of a mind to break into my home, please make some noise then wait 30 seconds before you enter."*

Yeah, that oughta do it. Should work as well as those NO GUNS signs in schools, shopping centers, and several other places.

Sorry gentlemen, et al. Hope you excuse my off beat humor with this. No ill will intended, just a little bit of a smile for all on this Thanksgiving day.


----------



## Yevgenii (Nov 14, 2016)

desertman said:


> Yevgenii:
> I don't know, but you sound like one of those so called "gun owners" who seek more restrictive gun control laws, trying to infiltrate our ranks. Kind of like Mark Kelly and his group "Americans for Responsible Solutions". With friends like them, who needs enemies? Their goal is to lull us into complacency by claiming that they are one of us and we don't have to fear them. After all their mantra is: "We are gun owners too". While at the same time clamoring for every restriction they can come up with. If they can't abolish the 2nd Amendment in one fell swoop they will do it incrementally. But first they have to win us over with seemingly innocuous little restrictions that they call "common sense" laws. Which are anything but "common sense" as they will have no effect on the criminal or negligent use of firearms of which there are already laws on the books that address those issues. Yet just one more law or restriction will solve everything? Right?
> 
> Just one question: If you have supported some of the most lax gun laws in the country. Then why are you coming on this forum supporting studies that could eventually lead to even more restrictions and the eventual abolition of the 2nd Amendment? Once a Liberal always a Liberal is the only rational conclusion that I can come up with.


Well first of all, I don't consider myself "liberal" or "conservative", I'm firmly independent and I'm HEAVILY science-based and a self-identified skeptic, which means I don't care much about either political side - I side with science, first and foremost, ideology be damned.

There are two gun control measures I support, and support completely - Preventing 1) Convicted violent criminals and 2) Seriously psychologically/neurologically impaired individuals from owning guns. Those are the common sense measures I'm talking about, and if you don't think that violent criminals or paranoid schizophrenics should be prevented from owning guns, there's no saving you.

Second, the laws that exist differ greatly state by state. This means someone in Virginia can buy guns in another state and bring them over. I'd support any initiative that would federalize and equalize any legal measure that would keep all gun control measures STRICTLY to the two measures I point to above, and nothing more and nothing less.* I don't care about fully-automatic rifles, high-capacity magazines, people owning "assault style rifles" (or whatever they call ar-15's nowadays), suppressors, or anything else, as long as violent convicted criminals or psychologically disturbed individuals don't have access to firearms. There's also no rigorous evidence that a gun registry reduces crime, so I don't support that either.*

I'm all for the second amendment, but with the two caveats stated above. Every other amendment has limitations, and the second amendment is no different.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Yevgenii said:


> There are two gun control measures I support, and support completely - Preventing 1) Convicted violent criminals and 2) Seriously psychologically/neurologically impaired individuals from owning guns. Those are the common sense measures I'm talking about, and if you don't think that violent criminals or paranoid schizophrenics should be prevented from owning guns, there's no saving you.


Nobody wants a gun in the hands of a criminal or a mentally disturbed person. The problem is that anti-gun activists are sneaky about holding such legislation out as bait, and then switching it to a much broader interpretation, once the hook is set. They tend to attach other 'caveats' to such common sense legislation so that they can portray their opponents as being against the common sense part of the legislation.

Having witnessed such behavior for decades, it is wise for us to be skeptical of all legislation put forth by any of 'the usual suspects.' In many cases, the status quo is a better option than accepting bait that is offered that obviously has a hook imbedded in it, somewhere.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Yevgenii
[QUOTE said:


> *There are two gun control measures I support, and support completely - Preventing 1) Convicted violent criminals and 2) Seriously psychologically/neurologically impaired individuals should befrom owning guns. Those are the common sense measures I'm talking about, and if you don't think that violent criminals or paranoid schizophrenics should be prevented from owning guns, there's no saving you*.


I agree
You say seriously psychological /neurological impaired individuals should be prevented from owning guns.

I'm science based also, I know scientists are always creating hypothetical situations , some prove to be right, some not .
Scientific experiments are the norm for scientists ,,, the science of a discovery, etc

Everybody has the potential to become impaired. Science has determined

When a person undecidedly becomes impaired or has slipped through the system, I'll be ready to fix his sudden impairment with my Glock , beretta, sig, or ruger etc.
:smt1099


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Yevgenii said:


> Well first of all, I don't consider myself "liberal" or "conservative", I'm firmly independent and I'm HEAVILY science-based and a self-identified skeptic, which means I don't care much about either political side - I side with science, first and foremost, ideology be damned.
> 
> *There are two gun control measures I support, and support completely - Preventing 1) Convicted violent criminals and 2) Seriously psychologically/neurologically impaired individuals from owning guns. Those are the common sense measures I'm talking about, and if you don't think that violent criminals or paranoid schizophrenics should be prevented from owning guns, there's no saving you.
> *
> ...


*THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.* -- *THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.* -- *THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.* How many times does that have to be drummed into your head? You talk as if these laws don't already exist? If you'll take the time to read Form 4473 it lists all of the categories that would prohibit an individual from legally owning a firearm. Any violation of any one of them is a violation of federal law. So I fail to see what your point is? Kind of redundant isn't it? Unless of course you're advocating for additional laws to be passed based on what someone might do? If that's the case then you're advocating doing away with all due process rights. At least in this country we do not just randomly incarcerate or institutionalize people based on what they might do. *That has to be adjudicated in a court of law.* Anyone can accuse anyone of anything and for any perceived reason. You may have an argument with a neighbor. Someone just does not like the way you look or the way you looked at them. They may not like the breed of dog you have or the type of music you listen to. Maybe they think you dress kinda' weird. Who's to determine who's crazy or not? If you do not understand that then I guess there's no saving you either.


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

Yevgenii, as long as GB elects a Muslim for it's mayor in London and lets more mooslims in the country it'll get worse. Y'all don't have a prayer and it's gettin bad here in the USA! I always have one in the chamber. IF you come to my house with a gun drawn? Come shooting! I will! jmho fwiw


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

pic said:


> I like pocket carrying my glock 27 without a holster


I will do this with my HK P2000sk - but ONLY because it is DA/SA, with an 11lb DA 1st pull. I would never do this with a striker fired gun that is not DA/SA...

As for the other topics - I was on my tablet this morning when I saw the beginnings of this thread. It is too hard to type out a huge response on such a tablet. So, I was going to wait until I was at a computer.

Now that I read the thread, though - some excellent points have been made. Not much else to say.

I do think it is highly unrealistic to go with the "non lethal" round idea. You cannot shoot anyone, period (with a lethal OR non lethal round) without having the legal backing to do so. And, when you hit that point where you CAN shoot to defend yourself - you damn well better use something that works.

If someone has a gun that is pointed at me, I am going to use a non lethal 1st round? I don't think so!

Also - what happens when you kill someone by use of the non lethal round (people die from tasers - it WOULD eventually happen)). Then, what? Prepared to be sued to infinity there. You just opened up a whole other issue. I think people using that option might be more likely to use the gun - under the assumption that the 1st round isn't going to kill (supposedly).

Carrying a gun unchambered is a BAD idea. In many cases - you will be lucky to even draw your weapon - let alone work the slide under stress of an adrenaline dump. And, even if you do have the time - what happens if you short stroke it? I have actually got myself out of a robbery situation several years ago without needing to pull a gun. And, I kept my wits about it. However - when the adrenaline kicks in - it is a whole different world. How you think you would act may not be how you WILL react once things get cranking. It is so, so easy to sit here and say what you would do.... At the safety of your keyboard.

It is documented that fine motor skill goes out the window, and your brain loses blood flow. I can say for myself that it IS true that you get tunnel vision when this occurs...

After that incident - I changed how I carry. I will not carry SAO gun - I don't want to think about deactivating a safety lever in a stressful situaton. I will not carry a striker fired gun - too easy to get startled and shoot by mistake (cops do it weekly). I will only carry a DA/SA gun. That longer, heavier DA pull will keep me honest. But, I also practice shooting in double action, and 1 handed - EVERY range trip. You MUST practice with this trigger - but I disagree with many that it is hard to master this kind of trigger setup. I actually believe it is a great start for beginners.

I also think it is idiotic to carry unchambered. I get that a newbie does it when they first get their carry license. 20 years ago, I did the same thing initially... Having the unrealistic expectation (in my opinion) that you will have the TIME to chamber a round (I admit, I too believed that 20+ years ago initially). What happens when someone confronts you with a gun in a parking lot or on the street? Other than a break in, this is the other most common scenario for where I live at... You would be lucky to get your gun out at all - good luck chambering a round too. Want to argue that you will just cooperate and they will let you go after they have your stuff? Well, tell that to the people who get shot even when they do. If someone pulls a weapon on me and asks for my stuff - I am sorry, but they crossed a line. How can you know that they will leave you alone after you give them the stuff. What happens if they get startled and the gun goes off for them? You want to compound that by realistically telling me that you want an unchambered gun - OR, that you will shoot someone in the leg?

I know the original poster had some questions - but with some of the stuff that has come out on this thread since... Much of this is unrealistic nanny state stuff, come up with people in classrooms who think they know everything, but actually have no experience in the real world with what they are talking about.

And, I too have a criminal justice degree, and have been in the criminal justice field for 25 years now.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

> * What happens when someone confronts you with a gun in a parking lot or on the street? Other than a break in, this is the other most common scenario for where I live at... You would be lucky to get your gun out at all - good luck chambering a round too. Want to argue that you will just cooperate and they will let you go after they have your stuff? Well, tell that to the people who get shot even when they do. If someone pulls a weapon on me and asks for my stuff - I am sorry, but they crossed a line. How can you know that they will leave you alone after you give them the stuff. What happens if they get startled and the gun goes off for them? You want to compound that by realistically telling me that you want an unchambered gun - OR, that you will shoot someone in the leg?*


*

if the above happens , will I try to chamber a round? ,,,probably not, will I pull my gun out with a round chambered confronted with a gun already pointed at me? Probably not.

There are some minor to major variables to consider. The first would be distance from an already pulled gun pointing at me, and my immediate coverage or surroundings. If we are very close , like within arms reach,,,pulling out my gun would be very risky,,,,,now that's idiotic ,lol no offense.

That is a good question for the forum in general

*


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

pic said:


> if the above happens , will I try to chamber a round? ,,,probably not, will I pull my gun out with a round chambered confronted with a gun already pointed at me? Probably not.
> 
> There are some minor to major variables to consider. The first would be distance from an already pulled gun pointing at me, and my immediate coverage or surroundings. If we are very close , like within arms reach,,,pulling out my gun would be very risky,,,,,now that's idiotic ,lol no offense.
> 
> ...


I already said you may or may not be able to get your gun out. Depends on the circumstances. If I found the opportunity, I would. I have actually read many news stories of this scenario where the off duty cop (in plain clothes) or CHL holder shoots the armed robber.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Shipwreck said:


> ...I have actually read many news stories of this scenario where the off duty cop (in plain clothes) or CHL holder shoots the armed robber.


It's all quick accuracy.
Practice, practice, practice.

It's also waiting until there's a distraction, that pulls the armed BG's eyes away.

It's also being aware, so that you are suspicious of an approaching person and, covertly, have already accessed your gun.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> Yevgenii:
> 
> No one's saying that you're an idiot. I just do not place my faith and trust in those that brag about their academic achievements. Those degrees don't mean shit to me. For far too long we've placed our faith and trust in those who for some reason or the other think that they are smarter than all the rest of us. Just look at where that got us. Obamacare is just one example. It's a freakin' unmitigated disaster who's architects Ezekiel Emanuel and Jonathan Gruber both have Phd's. The world's most brutal dictators were very smart people too. Otherwise they never would have obtained all that power. The problem is that there were too many stupid and gullible people who believed in them and their cause.
> 
> ...


Props to you. An excellent post; one of the best I have read on the subject on this site.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> if the above happens , will I try to chamber a round? ,,,probably not, will I pull my gun out with a round chambered confronted with a gun already pointed at me? Probably not.
> 
> There are some minor to major variables to consider. The first would be distance from an already pulled gun pointing at me, and my immediate coverage or surroundings. If we are very close , like within arms reach,,,pulling out my gun would be very risky,,,,,now that's idiotic ,lol no offense.
> 
> ...


When someone has a weapon and has demonstrated his intent to use it to get what he wants, you must seek every possible opportunity to get your own sidearm into play and eliminate the threat. This covers a large area and is not the subject of this thread but is one that is very significant in and of itself. If you can create or you can discover an opportunity to get your firearm out, do it and respond with extreme prejudice.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Pros to you. An excellent post; one of the best I have read on the subject on this site.


Thank you "SB". I appreciate that. These people who sit up in their ivory towers while looking down on the rest of us irritate the shit out of me. Thank God they got their ass kicked this past election cycle.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Why?
> Do you believe that being at home decreases or removes all danger?
> 
> One of the only two times that I actually needed my pistol to handle an immediate threat occurred at my own kitchen door, when I had been comfortably in "at home mode." I am glad that I was carrying a gun, and that it was in C.1 and ready to go.
> (There were three instances in total. No shots were fired in any case. The mere presence of a ready-to-use weapon solved the problem twice.)


Far , to much action going on, IMO


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> When someone has a weapon and has demonstrated his intent to use it to get what he wants, you must seek every possible opportunity to get your own sidearm into play and eliminate the threat. This covers a large area and is not the subject of this thread but is one that is very significant in and of itself. If you and create or you discover an opportunity to get your firearm, do it and respond with extreme prejudice.


totally agree, another topic, 
Quick question ,,the demonstrated intent would be , they have presently already shot a person or people in your similar situation?


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> totally agree, another topic,
> Quick question ,,the demonstrated intent would be , they have presently already shot a person or people in your similar situation?


The displaying of a weapon during a felony is sufficient cause to immediately respond with deadly force if the opportunity presents itself. You needn't wait until the perp(s) verbally threatens you or demands your keys and your wallet. That weapon is all that is needed to open fire and eliminate the threat.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

SouthernBoy said:


> The displaying of a weapon during a felony is sufficient cause to immediately respond with deadly force if the opportunity presents itself. You needn't wait until the perp(s) verbally threatens your or demands your keys and your wallet. That weapon is all that is needed to open fire and eliminate the threat.


When you said above "he has demonstrated his intent to use it" I thought you meant he has demonstrated this action by a previous action. 
I can see how just pulling out the gun or knife can be defined the same as displaying the gun


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

pic said:


> When you said above "he has demonstrated his intent to use it" I thought you meant he has demonstrated this action by a previous action.
> I can see how just pulling out the gun or knife can be defined the same as displaying the gun


The demonstration of intent can come in many ways and remember... It is the perception of the victim that counts. If you perceive an imminent thread which you believe will result in serious bodily harm (or worse), you are justified in using whatever force is necessary to stop that threat.

If a perp, or perps, approaches you while you are entering your vehicle and he has a weapon in his hand, he is not there to solicit contributions for the Salvation Army. So if you see an opportunity, or if you believe you can create an opportunity, to get your sidearm out and into play, do it. The mere fact that your assailant has a weapon, or force in numbers, is all that is necessary for you to respond with deadly force.

This is a conditioning factor. You must envision what you would do as you start towards your vehicle if someone or a few someones were to approach you in this manner. In other words, you must have already mentally prepared for such an event prior to it taking place. Getting surprised suddenly is not going to work in your favor. You must envision the attack in advance...

*"The key to avoiding the freeze is to know there will be a fight before it happens."*

The above quote is from a training video that I have and it sums it up pretty darned good.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

pic said:


> If we are very close , like within arms reach,,,pulling out my gun would be very risky,,,,,now that's idiotic ,lol no offense.
> 
> [/COLOR][/B]


If I am within arms reach, I'm grabbing his gun while I get mine - or just grabbing his. There are techniques to do this. I practiced one fairly often years ago, and I think I could still do it fine now.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Shipwreck said:


> If I am within arms reach, I'm grabbing his gun while I get mine - or just grabbing his. There are techniques to do this. I practiced one fairly often years ago, and I think I could still do it fine now.


Could work hopefully, very risky becoming the aggressor with a gun pulled and pointed at you.

To many variables to factor ,, what my own response would be if I was in such a position.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Well, it does depend on the situation. BUt, it is a possible option is they are within arms reach.


----------

