PDA

View Full Version : Why do you carry?


threegun
June 4, 2008, 12:18 PM
I made the decision to carry about 18 years ago. I figured that I might one day be forced to use the gun to protect myself or family from a BG. Why have you guys chosen to carry a firearm?

I plan a followup question later.

golf97
June 4, 2008, 12:34 PM
1. Because the police aren't going to be able to respond fast enough.

There are many other reasons, but that one kind of sums it all up. I also see it as a duty to protect my family, myself, and the innocent. I believe that if no one exercises the right to bear arms, that it will become another "forgotten" right. I believe that where guns are involved, violence is actually decreased (an armed society is a polite society). etc etc etc...

Bryan.

P95loser
June 4, 2008, 01:44 PM
To give myself the means and tools to exercise my God given right to protect myself and those that I love.

M1911
June 4, 2008, 01:47 PM
Because I learned long ago that evil men do evil things.

That has been true since the time of Cain and Abel, it is still true now, and it will true as long as man walks this earth. Wishing it was not so, or being harmless won't change that fact -- all it will do is enable the predators.

threegun
June 4, 2008, 01:49 PM
P95, Spoken like Uncle Teddy himself.

Hard Ball
June 4, 2008, 02:09 PM
To protect myself and my family if I have to.

Keltyke
June 4, 2008, 02:59 PM
1. I live in the SE USA, where LE response may be anywhere from 1 minute to 1 hour.

2. Nastiness is popping up all over. Fast food restaurants, convenience stores, the neighborhood, even an eyeglass shop in the mall.

3. There are just some mean, evil ba$tards out there who don't give a rip for another human life.

I'll think of a few other reasons later, but for now, those will do.

Superhouse 15
June 4, 2008, 04:15 PM
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff190/superhouse15/DSC00231-1.jpg

Deaf Smith
June 4, 2008, 04:33 PM
Thegun,

Cause I couldn't carry a cop in my pocket, that's why.

threegun
June 4, 2008, 04:41 PM
Superhouse, You ever feed that boy LOL?

oneSoneK
June 4, 2008, 04:46 PM
house +1 man thats why i carry because when the metal meets the meat. who can you really depend on other than yourself

Dragunov54
June 4, 2008, 04:56 PM
Why do you carry?

Great question. I carry because I am responsible for protecting my own life and not the false pretenses of relying on someone else to do it for me (IE. the Police or the Government).

starshooter231
June 4, 2008, 05:19 PM
I carry for several reasons.
1) It is my right and my duty to protect myself from harm.
2) I love life too much to rely on a LEO to be there when I need one.
3) There are way too many nut jobs in this world.

Tanzer
June 4, 2008, 06:33 PM
I could write a dissertation or sum it up in a phrase;
The right to live.

Radio
June 4, 2008, 07:04 PM
Because I would be stupid not to.

poptime
June 4, 2008, 09:28 PM
Because of my work, I often have small valuables in my possesion. I reserve the option to defend myself in the event of a life threatening attack.

DWARREN123
June 4, 2008, 10:46 PM
It is my right and duty as a AMERICAN Citizen!

Dwight55
June 4, 2008, 11:36 PM
Too many reasons for one post, . . . sums up though as my duty to myself first, my family second, and whosoever may be my neighbor at the time.

May God bless,
Dwight

pax
June 4, 2008, 11:41 PM
www.corneredcat.com/Why/whycarry.aspx

(Forgive me for not retyping the whole thing here -- it's long. Boils down to, I like the feeling of being able to cope with whatever life might throw at me.)

pax

GoSlash27
June 5, 2008, 05:42 AM
#1 Because I'd rather have it and not need it than the other way around.
#2 Same reason I still think: it's not illegal yet. :)

ragwd
June 5, 2008, 09:50 AM
Plus one to what DWARREN123 said.

It is my right and "DUTY" as a AMERICAN Citizen!

threegun
June 6, 2008, 07:58 AM
I also carry for most if not all the reasons listed above and many more not listed. Given these ultra important reasons that we all have listed a second question jumps out at me. It also happens to be my followup question.

Why do some folks voluntarily carry mouse gun caliber handguns?

To me this is contradictory to my reason for carrying. I carry to protect me and mine from evil only to willingly choose a caliber that hasn't the ability to do what needs to be done to reliably stop an aggressor. Not that it can't mind you. A well placed round or 2 or 3 will do the trick however history has taught us that well placed hits are very difficult under the pressures associated with a gunfight. Not to mention a moving fighting target. We know that blood loss is the only way to stop an aggressor short of a hit to the upper spinal cord or brain.....that is if the BG doesn't give up. Still given these facts many of us not only voluntarily carry the micro 22's and 25's but they justify them so that they don't feel under armed which causes others follow suit.

Some use statistics that suggest that any gun is enough "MOST" of the time. While I agree "most" is not all. Most folks get through life without needing a gun.........not all. Heck I'm statistically unlikely to need the gun I'm carrying already yet I still carry.

Do you guys think it is contradictory?

spamanon
June 6, 2008, 11:14 PM
I carry to protect me and mine from evil only to willingly choose a caliber that hasn't the ability to do what needs to be done to reliably stop an aggressor.

Except we all make trade-offs in life, right? For you (I will take a guess) the trade-off stopped at .45 caliber. But someone who insists on carrying a pair of Uzi's could say that you didn't do all you could. Someone who carries a .44 magnum, a Bowie knife and took the time to master the arts of kung fu and Filipino knife fighting could say you didn't do all you could. You see, we each must weigh the odds of ever needing a gun and in what circumstance, the benefits of carrying what we choose, and the drawbacks of our choices to arrive at a decision we deem appropriate for ourselves.
So no, it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. We must live with what we choose. What seems contradictory is when people don't think about their safety in today's world, and what they can do to protect themselves. But as far as what they decide, as long as they thought about it, and even if I strenuously disagree that their choice is adequate, I say more power to them.

ziggy222
June 7, 2008, 12:41 AM
i've had guns pulled on me twice in my entire life but that was enough to make me never want to feel that way again.i now carry a 5 shot snub nosed 45 long colt.its light enough to feel like a 38 and yet enough to blast open some punks chest if they ever ever decide to do something that stupid.the 1st time i was so scared i could'nt have acted in time.the 2nd i saw what was about to happen and was prepared but that was enough to make them leave.i only carry when fishing in remote areas and if i'm forced to go into the inner city for any reason which is rare thankfully.another reason for a carry license is because laws about transporting a gun even just to the range were getting rediculous.so i just got a license so i can just lay them in my back seat with my ammo and go to the range without the worry of transporting a gun while obaying all the laws.

fbrown333@suddenlink
June 7, 2008, 12:50 AM
After staring down the muzzle of one and being robbed I made a choice at that point, plus I am not a big guy and am partially disabled and cannot phyically roll around on the ground fighting with some one.

#20fan
June 7, 2008, 02:54 AM
As a child I looked down the wrong end of a gun and in the blink of an eye my father ended that threat to his family with a very tight 2 shot group to the chest. Lesson learned.
1. I carry because I can
2. I carry for those who can't
3. I carry for those who won't

threegun
June 7, 2008, 06:54 PM
Spamanon,

Except we all make trade-offs in life, right? For you (I will take a guess) the trade-off stopped at .45 caliber. But someone who insists on carrying a pair of Uzi's could say that you didn't do all you could. Someone who carries a .44 magnum, a Bowie knife and took the time to master the arts of kung fu and Filipino knife fighting could say you didn't do all you could. You see, we each must weigh the odds of ever needing a gun and in what circumstance, the benefits of carrying what we choose, and the drawbacks of our choices to arrive at a decision we deem appropriate for ourselves.
So no, it doesn't seem contradictory to me at all. We must live with what we choose. What seems contradictory is when people don't think about their safety in today's world, and what they can do to protect themselves. But as far as what they decide, as long as they thought about it, and even if I strenuously disagree that their choice is adequate, I say more power to them.


I simply require my carry gun to be able to do what is necessary to stop an attacker should they not give up at the sight of my gun.

IMO the contradiction is both deciding to carry for self defense only to carry a gun not completely capable and deciding there is a need to carry a gun then selectively carrying more and less powerful weapons or no weapon at all.

Moe Howard
June 7, 2008, 07:17 PM
Just in case that time were to ever arise that my life or my families life is being threatened I at least want a fighting chance. There are no guarantees but if you have the tools necessary to defend yourself the odds are a little more even.

cschwanz
June 7, 2008, 07:20 PM
Because I can. Because this world is going downhill way too fast. Because it is my right. Because I love my life too much. Because there are people in my life I do not want to be without.

BikerRN
June 7, 2008, 08:12 PM
Because I learned at an early age that there is no safe place and that bad things can happen to good people in nice places.

It's a clique, but it's true.

Biker

exprt9
June 7, 2008, 08:50 PM
I got this from another forum
Quote:
"I carry because an LEO will not fit in my pocket!" :)

Harley User
June 7, 2008, 09:11 PM
+1 to all your answers and mine is just as simple as
to protect myself & family from the Bg's.

Breadslinger
June 7, 2008, 09:15 PM
For me it was a social issue, not a political one. I carry not because I have the right to carry; but rather that I have the right to live.

MrClean
June 9, 2008, 09:27 AM
I like #20fan's post..... something I have always thought about in addition to my own family.... for those who can't or won't carry.

I carry because I see it as my right and responsibility as someone who feels comfortable carrying. Those of us that were brought up and taught correctly about guns and even maybe have had specific training have a 'responsibility' in my opinion to use those skills. I believe God (YES I SAID IT) wants us to protect our family and even others that cannot or choose not to carry because they don't feel comfortable due to lack of training or other reasons.

Would you stand by and watch a little old lady get mugged simply because she doesn't carry a stun gun, taser or big stick? Nope. Do I think EVERYONE should carry? No. If a person isn't comfortable doing that, it's a danger.

Therefore, as law-abiding experienced individuals (or LEO) I see it as a responsibility just as much as anything else. I'm no 'cowboy' and hope and pray (yes, I pray!) that I will never have to take another person's life. However, if it comes to that, I have no issue in pulling the trigger as the last resort. I OWE it to me, my family and others.

harleyman959798
June 9, 2008, 09:44 AM
kinda my old expression, u are better off to have it and not need it, as opposed to need it and not have it.


the world is getting worse by the day, i may never go through life needing my gun, but i feel safer knowing its there if and when i do

SilentHitz
June 9, 2008, 10:01 AM
I carry because MrClean is dangerous, he lives in the same house with four women....since 3 are teenagers, hell he could snap at any moment!:eek:;)

LanceOregon
June 9, 2008, 03:13 PM
Why do some folks voluntarily carry mouse gun caliber handguns?

I think that you are overstating this issue. I cannot even recall any folks here on this forum saying that they rely on a 22 or 25 pocket pistol.

Anything from .380 up can be effective. There are .380 loads that can easily match .38 Special performance. And with .380 pistols like the new Ruger LCP being so tiny and lightweight now, it is rather hard to argue that there is any benefit of any kind in going with a smaller caliber now.

.

threegun
June 9, 2008, 07:19 PM
LanceO, I cannot even recall any folks here on this forum saying that they rely on a 22 or 25 pocket pistol.


There is a segment on TFL who believe that there is little or no difference, in terms of self preservation with a firearm, between a mouse gun 22/25 and heavier calibers 38 and up. They tout statistics that show most criminals flee at the mere sight of a gun or after a few rounds are fired even if none of the rounds would have forced incapacitation. I just worry that this statistical shell game, by very reputable members, is going to steer folks who would have carried bigger to carry smaller. Then when that already rare event does happen in its most rare form ( a criminal who needs to be put down forcefully by gun fire) they don't have enough gun.

MeekAndMild
June 9, 2008, 07:33 PM
Why carry a gun? A light gun weighs 13 ounces plus ammo. A police officer weighs on the average about 200 pounds. You could get a hernia carrying a cop all day. ;)

MauiDoc
June 9, 2008, 08:13 PM
Can't CC or OC here; if I could, it would be for all the above-stated reasons (except the fist-in-mouth-kid--no rug varmints yet!), and because I feel that it is a human right, not a civil right, to defend myself against malevolent forces in the universe, using equal or greater force for such defense.

Mostly, I just use The Force.

The Great Mahoo
June 10, 2008, 02:23 PM
I carry mainly for two reasons:

1.) As others have stated so simply, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

2.) The more people who carry, the more BG's have to stop and think if it is worth risking attacking an armed person, or someone near an armed person willing to help. Should everyone have and carry a firearm? No. Should more people carry? Only if they willing to accept the responsibility of safe, legal defense.

Wuchak
June 10, 2008, 02:27 PM
Because I cannot throw a 125gr piece of lead 1400fps without some help.

LanceOregon
June 10, 2008, 03:42 PM
Why carry a gun? A light gun weighs 13 ounces plus ammo. A police officer weighs on the average about 200 pounds. You could get a hernia carrying a cop all day.

Good point. And a hernia operation is no fun at all, believe me!

.

LanceOregon
June 10, 2008, 03:53 PM
There is a segment on TFL who believe that there is little or no difference, in terms of self preservation with a firearm, between a mouse gun 22/25 and heavier calibers 38 and up. They tout statistics that show most criminals flee at the mere sight of a gun or after a few rounds are fired even if none of the rounds would have forced incapacitation.

Well, to a certain extent, that is a valid point to make. I carry a Taser myself, and feel confident that I could use it to handle many self-defense scenarios. Just the sight of a taser aimed at an attacker, with its laser sight shining on them, could stop any aggression being threatened.

However, I also know that there are circumstances when a Taser is not enough. So if my Taser is inadequate to the task, I certainly DON'T want to bring something like a .25 to the fight. So 9mm is the lowest caliber that I'm personally comfortable with carrying.

Carrying two concealed weapons is a bit of a pain. But I like having a far less dangerous and deadly option available to me.


.

threegun
June 10, 2008, 05:41 PM
I'll carry any caliber capable of deep penetration and bone smashing.

You carry two weapons. I carry one (thinking about adding a kimber guardian angle) right now. I'm only 5'7" and can easily conceal a full sized Glock 21 if I wanted to. I find it hard to believe that folks can't conceal many of the mid sized handguns offered in heavier calibers. I believe they opt to carry smaller form laziness and to some extent from being encouraged by the bold talk on TFL. Some folks simply can't handle bigger or can't conceal bigger because of forced attire and those folks have no choice. The rest are IMO walking contradictions.

threegun
June 10, 2008, 05:55 PM
We are talking about the possibility of dying if we fail in a armed conflict. Why folks would willingly revert to the lowest possible denominator (caliber wise) is baffling.

When a customer asks about different guns I always give them BOTH sides of the argument. Most have no idea about the dynamics of a gunfight. How accuracy declines. How a cartridge might be forced to penetrate at angles due to a moving target. How dexterity is compromised. Some senses are lost and others acute. How time seems to slow. Many choose a bigger caliber after simply being told about the Four ways to stop a BG. Brain hit, upper spinal cord, quiting, or blood loss.

Ifishsum
June 12, 2008, 01:46 AM
Oh....I need a reason? :D

Elvishead
June 16, 2008, 03:13 AM
I moved to Las Vegas.

rampage841512
June 16, 2008, 09:39 AM
To answer the first question: I'm a big believer in personal responsibility. In other words, you want to be taken care of then take care of yourself.

To answer the second: I can comfortably carry a full size .45 automatic (my first carry gun was a full size HK USP in .45 and my current is a 1911 in .45). I've also carried a 9mm P2000sk. I loved all those guns, but not everyone can carry the same things comfortably. I'd rather a person have it when they need it, and comfort is going to be an issue. And let's face it, the .22 has killed a lot of folks over the years.

rsgraebert
June 30, 2008, 09:45 AM
I carry because I have seen evil in action and I would never forgive myself if I was powerless to stop it in the future.

As for caliber...I'm willing to bet that a .45 looks like a 20mm cannon from the business end, and I secretly hope that simple fear of the cannon will end any situation that requires me to draw. That said, it also packs a wallop if the sight alone doesn't convince the aggressor to back down.

People have very legitimate reasons for their mouse guns though. I've not heard anyone trying to convince us that a .25 is better all around, just that it is sometimes appropriate.

alistaire
June 30, 2008, 10:41 AM
I am an American.

Tuckahoe
June 30, 2008, 10:47 AM
I carry because I refuse to standby and watch my family get hurt by some crack head. I refuse to roll over and play victim.

Kreyzhorse
June 30, 2008, 11:00 AM
I carry because its my right.

Rifleman 173
June 30, 2008, 12:14 PM
Because it gives me another option for survival should I need to or want to use it. By carrying I at least have the ability to do something should I so desire.

Playboypenguin
June 30, 2008, 12:20 PM
...as it turns out, I carry because I am a "small insignificant and paranoid man who has issues with authority and I am looking for an excuse to kill someone to prove I am a tough guy."

At least that is what I learned one day from an old guy buying a deer rifle at the gun counter at Sportsman's Warehouse when he was talking to the clerk about what a shame it was that they deemed it necessary to carry all those "pocket pistols" on the wall. :)

MrClean
June 30, 2008, 12:39 PM
Well.... at least you are honest with yourself and embracing that....

:D

Water-Man
June 30, 2008, 12:55 PM
Because that's what guns were made for.

UniversalFrost
June 30, 2008, 12:58 PM
i carry because I live in a free state and I can!

plus i live near the border and the illegals don't really give a darn about the law and have been known to appear out of know where and try to rob you etc.. Armed and not needing it is better than unarmed and needing it IMHO.

alto
June 30, 2008, 02:20 PM
The fine writer, John Connor, wrote that he tries to give a well thought out answer to the question 'why do you carry'..He wrote, that when he knows he's talking with someone who is thought-challenged, he leans in, gets real quite and says " It's because the Killer Clowns are coming.. ya know..some of them are canibals '. He wrote that in the wonderful article 'For Little Lizzy'.
I carry because I want a fighting chance against criminals that would do me or my family, harm.
I don't know why it upsets some people that others choose a mouse gun. I don't consider those who do carry smaller arms as morons nor do I think they 'need' my advice on what to carry. It's none of my business what they choose to do. I'm pleased that they choose to do something instead of just being sheep. It's also my understanding, that the Mossad carries .22.
If asked, I would offer my opinion of my choices but, my opinion doesn't matter much except to me. We carry what we carry and train with what we choose.

jabineer
June 30, 2008, 03:16 PM
Because my Lord and my Master tells me that the world is not going to get any better before His return. See Matthew Chapter 24. He also tells me to not be afraid and to be ready. I heed and I obey.

izzkidioto
June 30, 2008, 09:46 PM
It is my responsibility to look out for #1. No one else is going to do it for me. If I had a family, they would take that place, but I don't, so I am #1.

Also, I love being around the people I love, and would like to think I have the opportunity to preserve that if I can. Yet another tool in the toolbox. Besides, it can reach farther than my arm.

Chui
June 30, 2008, 10:26 PM
Because I cannot fit, much less carry, an American Bulldog on my person... :p

Seawolf_504
July 1, 2008, 12:56 AM
Because in our Society we are split up into 3 catagories.

Sheep (those that live in denial and refuse to believe that the threat from the Wolf is real until it is too late. Sheep attack Sheepdogs for being like a Wolf, but they forget that the Sheepdog, while having fangs like the Wolf, would never hurt the sheep and protect the sheep at all cost.)

Wolves (Those that wish to do harm to the sheep and sheepdogs. Wolves would be the criminals, terrorists, and other violent people with no regard for human life.)

and

Sheepdogs (Those people that stand on a fence, walk a beat, or put themselves in harms way to say, "Not on my Watch!" and will do everything including laying down thier own life to protect the flock. You don't have to be a person in uniform to be a sheepdog. You only need to be a common citizen that decides to stand up to the Wolves.)

I choose to be a Sheepdog

Everyone should read this - http://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Glockeroo
July 1, 2008, 07:32 PM
Copied this from another forum. I agree with the writer, and it's exactly why I carry.
------------------------------------------------------------

If you or anyone you know needs a reason to CCW, here it is.
Here are two strong reasons why you should do everything you can to buy a gun, get training and secure a Concealed Weapon Permit so you can carry a gun with you everywhere you go.

The first is a jail house interview with a thug who recently shot two men simply because they didn’t have a cigarette to give him. That’s right. No cigarettes so he “went in dat mode” and killed them by shooting them repeatedly in the torso and head.

What you need to recognize is this can happen to anyone at any time. It could have happened to you.

You carry a handgun EVERYWHERE YOU GO because it is light weight, portable and can always be on your person as an emergency defense tool. Just like a life jacket in a boat or a seatbelt in a car— you wear it hoping you never have to use it, but if you do, it is the only piece of equipment that will save you!

Also note what a classic sociopath the killer is. The enablers of the world will blame his actions on a lack opportunity, an abusive mother, no father figure, gang influence, drug abuse, learning disabilities, violent video games, etc. They can blame it on whatever they want. The fact of the matter is he is a cold blooded killer who took two lives and there are thousands more like him who will do the same thing if given the chance to do so by those who actively seek to disarm law-abiding citizens— leaving the balance of power on the street in the hands of people who will kill for lack of a couple of cigarettes or pocket cash.

Watch this very revealing jail house interview. Although there is profanity throughout the interview, I believe every member of your family over the age of 16 should watch this interview as a reality check of the type of murdering sociopaths walking the streets of every city across the county.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/...Y&pageId=1.1.1

This kid is not a sociopathic, cold blooded killer like his cousin, but he certainly lacks the remorse that one would expect if you are truly sorry for your actions in the killing of two men for nothing more than a few dollars…

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/...Y&pageId=1.1.1

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sig...weapon-permit/

Glockeroo
July 1, 2008, 07:37 PM
Cause I couldn't carry a cop in my pocket, that's why.
You couldn't be more correct. :cool:

ECHOONE
July 17, 2008, 11:41 PM
The Police arrest people they rarely stop the violent act in progress thats why I carry,besides being disabled which makes me an easy mark to begin with.Last but not least I dont need a reason it's my right!

Glenn Bartley
July 31, 2008, 04:39 PM
Well, one I carry for work. I also carry because there are bad people out there who want to take my liberties, who want to rob my belongings, and who are willing to hurt or kill me and my loved ones to do either. I am certainly willing to defend myself and my loved ones from them.

mvpel
July 31, 2008, 04:52 PM
Because cops are too heavy to carry?

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html
why the gun is civilization. - by Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

David Armstrong
July 31, 2008, 05:27 PM
Why do some folks voluntarily carry mouse gun caliber handguns?

You know, you would think that after having 3 threads shut down on this issue you would quit beating the dead horse. Folks have told you over and over and over the reasons, other people have told you the same reasons here, yet you keep asking the same question and tossing around the same old stale arguments. People carry mouseguns because handguns are a compromise. ALL handguns have that element in them. YOU have chosen certain points in your choice of a handgun that are a compromise. Others choose a different point to compromise. The facts do not change...having a gun--ANY GUN (even the mousegun)--solves the DGU problem in the overwhelming number of cases. In some cases the handgun doesn't work, period. You want to worry about a very small set of factors, other folks want to worry about the broader picture. So, people carry mouseguns because they work fine. They have worked fine in the past, they work fine now, and they will work fine in the future.
IMO the contradiction is both deciding to carry for self defense only to carry a gun not completely capable and deciding there is a need to carry a gun then selectively carrying more and less powerful weapons or no weapon at all.
No handgun is completely capable. All have some form of compromise to them.
There is a segment on TFL who believe that there is little or no difference, in terms of self preservation with a firearm, between a mouse gun 22/25 and heavier calibers 38 and up.
It goes far beyond a belief, it is a fact. I know that bothers you a lot, but none the less it is a fact.

People have very legitimate reasons for their mouse guns though. I've not heard anyone trying to convince us that a .25 is better all around, just that it is sometimes appropriate.
Exactly. As I said earlier, they will all work most of the time. The main concern is to have a gun. History and all the available information show the big calibers and big guns work well for self defense. History and all the available information also show that smaller guns and smaller calibers work well for self defense.

Nnobby45
July 31, 2008, 05:29 PM
The first is a jail house interview with a thug who recently shot two men simply because they didn’t have a cigarette to give him. That’s right. No cigarettes so he “went in dat mode” and killed them by shooting them repeatedly in the torso and head.


It's important to realize that nobody got killed because they didn't have a cigarette.

Got a cigarette?, loan me five bucks, you got the time?, etc., etc. All common tactics used by crimminals to "interview" their victims and size them up, and APPROACH.

If you see the cold, chilling video and observe the absolute hate in the eyes of the killer, and listen to his statement making every circunmstance other than himself responsible--- then that should answer any questions as to why we carry, and make further debate unnecessary----not that it needs to be to have an interesting debate.

His comment with respect to the loved ones of the murder victim doesn't come as a surprise once you've listened that far.

I'd suggest that's the real reason we all carry. It's mine.

sandbag
July 31, 2008, 06:34 PM
Because I've carried handguns since I was 18-I'm 62 now.I spent 41/2 years in the military and 26 years in LE.I feel funny without a handgun.In recent years I have had serious health problems which means I have no intention of duking it out with a mugger or crazy sob that wants to threaten me or a member of my family.My city has gotten worse in terms of random violence.
I am a very disciplined individual with regard to firearms.I will never fire at someone because I lose my temper.Only to prevent a serious assault.In over 20 years on the bricks,including 9 assigned to narcotics I dealt with lots of dangerous and armed violators and never fired a shot.My favorite weapon was a flashlight.I used my handgun as a bludgeon on a number of occasions,including one where the BG had a pistol pointed at me.I didn't think,just acted.His lucky night as he told me later.
It is also my right as an American to own a handgun and I believe to carry one if I can demonstrate that I am competent(even cops and soldiers have to qualify to carry)-and no halfass commie politician is going to make me surrender that right unless I am certifiably insane or convicted of a felony.that last should be restricted to violent felonies.I don't think Martha Stewart would stick up a 7-11 if she had a handgun.

threegun
August 1, 2008, 07:39 AM
David Armstrong,
No handgun is completely capable. All have some form of compromise to them

So advocating "compromise" down to the lowest possible caliber is your idea of helping fellow shooters.

Exactly. As I said earlier, they will all work most of the time. The main concern is to have a gun. History and all the available information show the big calibers and big guns work well for self defense. History and all the available information also show that smaller guns and smaller calibers work well for self defense.

Most of the time we won't need a gun. History and all the information available shows we will likely never need a gun. So the act of carrying a gun is for the unlikely event. So on one hand we prepare for the unlikely by carrying only to not prepare for the unlikely of needing a heavier caliber. That is a huge contradiction IMO. To use the excuse of compromise is yet another.

You keep justifying folks choice of carrying puny calibers as primary and I will continue to challenge it. You tout history and probabilities and I will point out what calibers every profession that might face an armed foe will not carry as primary. You push statistics and I will point out ballistics. You suggest folks carry what is convenient and I will suggest they carry what gives them the better chance of surviving.

You aren't wrong David just hypnotized by statistics. They do leave open the possibility of needing heavier. At that point you have just condemned someone who took your advice and possibly yourself.

David Armstrong
August 1, 2008, 02:31 PM
So advocating "compromise" down to the lowest possible caliber is your idea of helping fellow shooters.
No. My idea of helping out fellow shooters is informing them of the actual facts rather than a sensationalized bit of hype, and allowing them to make an informed decision based on their personal situation and the facts.
Most of the time we won't need a gun. History and all the information available shows we will likely never need a gun.
Depends on what you mean by "likely never". Personally I think the lifetime chances for needing a gun are fairly good.
So on one hand we prepare for the unlikely by carrying only to not prepare for the unlikely of needing a heavier caliber. That is a huge contradiction IMO.
As we have discussed numerous times before, if you understood statistics and analysis, and could figure out the concept of cost versus benefit, it wouldn't seem such a huge contradiction. Most people, fortunately,don't have that problem, thus the large number of small guns and small caliber guns carried.
To use the excuse of compromise is yet another.
Again, your choice of handgun and caliber are a compromise. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me for you to complain about compromise when your choice is perhaps the epitome of compromise.
You keep justifying folks choice of carrying puny calibers as primary and I will continue to challenge it.
Yes, I know. Same old rhetoric, long on argument but short on facts. Instead of challenging what is said, you might try to find some facts that show the position to be wrong. Of course, you can't do that, so you are left with the same old nonsense.
You tout history and probabilities and I will point out what calibers every profession that might face an armed foe will not carry as primary.
Sigh. As we've discussed before there is a huge difference in the role of those who face the armed foe professionally and those who carry for personal self defense. What is good for one is not necessarily needed for the other. If you want to discuss typical CCW that is what you should focus on, not LE, military, and so on.
You suggest folks carry what is convenient and I will suggest they carry what gives them the better chance of surviving.
Ok, this should be easy, then. What is the difference (chance) of surviving a DGU between persons of similar skill but armed with (A) 1911-model .45 (B) 9mm Glock 17 (C) .357 S&W 65 4" (D) Walther PPK .380 (E) Kel-Tec PT-32 and (D) Beretta 21 .22LR. Come on, give us your percentages/chances of survival and how you determined them with some sort of scientific validity. This I'd really like to see. Of course, you can't do it. That is the problem with your "suggestions" in this area, they have little or no scientific, factual, or historical basis behind them. In fact, about the only thing going for them is that is the way you think things should be, and Heaven help us if we try to confuse you with actual facts. BTW, for the record, I don't suggest people carry what is convenient. I suggest people carry what they are comfortable carrying AND confident that it will do the job for their situation.
At that point you have just condemned someone who took your advice and possibly yourself.
My advice is to have a gun with you that you can use well and is reliable. I'd bet a fair amount that saves more than it condemns. As for myself, I'll be glad to compare my experience, training, and actual DGUs with you any time.

Brian Pfleuger
August 1, 2008, 08:29 PM
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=34660&d=1217640458

threegun
August 3, 2008, 12:34 PM
Most people, fortunately,don't have that problem, thus the large number of small guns and small caliber guns carried.

People I know(the few I know that carry puny anyway) carry puny because they will not carry bigger from laziness. Better to have any gun than no gun. The difference is they know that they are not as well armed as with a larger caliber weapon. They understand that their choice to carry puny might come back to bit them on the rump.

No. My idea of helping out fellow shooters is informing them of the actual facts rather than a sensationalized bit of hype, and allowing them to make an informed decision based on their personal situation and the facts.


Then give them all the facts not just your biased version. You always chime in with one side of the debate. BTW there is nothing sensational about recommending a caliber that can reliably do what needs to be done to stop an attacker.

Depends on what you mean by "likely never". Personally I think the lifetime chances for needing a gun are fairly good.


Personally?? No stats today.....wonder why? You reckon they might agree with me?

Yes, I know. Same old rhetoric, long on argument but short on facts. Instead of challenging what is said, you might try to find some facts that show the position to be wrong. Of course, you can't do that, so you are left with the same old nonsense.

Your facts are not wrong. Its your aggressive adherence to those stats that I have a problem with. You live in a world of numbers but only when they support your argument. Numbers say you will never need your gun.....still you carry (against the numbers). Then you cry foul when others go against the numbers (and recommend carrying bigger calibers). Thats the nonsense David.

Ok, this should be easy, then. What is the difference (chance) of surviving a DGU between persons of similar skill but armed with (A) 1911-model .45 (B) 9mm Glock 17 (C) .357 S&W 65 4" (D) Walther PPK .380 (E) Kel-Tec PT-32 and (D) Beretta 21 .22LR. Come on, give us your percentages/chances of survival and how you determined them with some sort of scientific validity. This I'd really like to see. Of course, you can't do it. That is the problem with your "suggestions" in this area, they have little or no scientific, factual, or historical basis behind them. In fact, about the only thing going for them is that is the way you think things should be, and Heaven help us if we try to confuse you with actual facts. BTW, for the record, I don't suggest people carry what is convenient. I suggest people carry what they are comfortable carrying AND confident that it will do the job for their situation.


If making bigger deeper holes in an attacker doesn't equal a better chance at surviving...then I stand corrected. Please don't reply with a shot placement post I'm comparing hits of equal location.

As for myself, I'll be glad to compare my experience, training, and actual DGUs with you any time.

Come to Florida and lets shoot together. Lets do FOF or any other training you would like. If you out perform me I'll pay for your trip (free vacation). We can see if your shooting skills and tactics are as sharp as your use of the English language. That you have few equals.

Shane Tuttle
August 3, 2008, 02:02 PM
People I know(the few I know that carry puny anyway) carry puny because they will not carry bigger from laziness. Better to have any gun than no gun. The difference is they know that they are not as well armed as with a larger caliber weapon. They understand that their choice to carry puny might come back to bit them on the rump.

...and carrying a bigger gun with a more powerful cartridge can just as well do the same....

I find it hard to believe that folks can't conceal many of the mid sized handguns offered in heavier calibers. I believe they opt to carry smaller form laziness and to some extent from being encouraged by the bold talk on TFL. Some folks simply can't handle bigger or can't conceal bigger because of forced attire and those folks have no choice. The rest are IMO walking contradictions.

The bottom line is that you don't know what's best for the other person. Only that person knows. All you can do is base your opinion on observation. One is extremely arrogant in thinking just because a 6' 2" 230lb. male is perfectly capable carrying a full size Glock chambered in 10mm. The mental acuteness in a defensive situation cannot be judged by anyone exept ones self. With that, the effectiveness of using a gun comes into play in a big way.

I'd rather have a firearm that I'm extremely comfortable using in any situation that I can imagine in a gun fight even if it's a .380 rather than compromising and settling for a .45ACP. I would tend to believe the effective use of a gun and your brain FAR outweighs the cartridge you have.


You tout history and probabilities and I will point out what calibers every profession that might face an armed foe will not carry as primary. You push statistics and I will point out ballistics. You suggest folks carry what is convenient and I will suggest they carry what gives them the better chance of surviving.

What's your definition of "profession"? Not very many citizens make their profession in firearms use. Ballistics are a bit down the line in consideration of what gun/cartridge choice to use. Your opinion of what's involved to have a better chance of surviving is different than others. Just because it doesn't match your criteria doesn't make it fact.

There is a segment on TFL who believe that there is little or no difference, in terms of self preservation with a firearm, between a mouse gun 22/25 and heavier calibers 38 and up. They tout statistics that show most criminals flee at the mere sight of a gun or after a few rounds are fired even if none of the rounds would have forced incapacitation. I just worry that this statistical shell game, by very reputable members, is going to steer folks who would have carried bigger to carry smaller. Then when that already rare event does happen in its most rare form ( a criminal who needs to be put down forcefully by gun fire) they don't have enough gun.

I actually do believe statistics can back up the claim that "brandishing" a firearm has deterred more crimes from being committed than actual use of a firearm.

I don't necessarily advocate to carry the smallest cartridge available. However, I also think a handgun is a ****-poor excuse of a tool for self defense. I do think carrying one (or two) is a great idea. But, my personal belief is just about any common cartridge that the general public can effectively use isn't a good 1st line of defense.

But, what do I know? I'm just a slack-jawed yokel that likes XD's over Glocks. That right there should lose all credibility in your eyes...;)

imp
August 3, 2008, 03:17 PM
Everything is a compromise. If I really felt like it, I could conceal a S&W 500Mag. Most of the time, I carry my kel-tec and a spare magazine. Occasionally, I carry my NAA mini-revolver only. Not saying its the best weapon for a gunfight, but its better than nothing when I can't carry anything larger, or feel the need to carry anything larger.

In my humble opinion, being armed an proficient comes first, the caliber of the gun is a distant second.

mordis
August 3, 2008, 03:48 PM
It almost sounds like some people here want all small guns to be discontinued and made to dissapear. Now i would like some clarification on one issue here. Are we talking small gun/decent caliber or small gun small caliber.

I for dont think anyone is underarmed with a snubby in .38spc or a small auto in 9mm. Now the issue of small gun over larger one is something that i have to deal with every now and then. There are times when i go places and i have to be dressed up. Now unless i want to be uncomfortable all night ill keep my large framed gun and wear my suite jacket all night long. Or I could go to a smaller pocket auto and still be armed and still be comfortable.

There are just to many situations that dont allow the carry of larger arms do to the method of dress, or occasion that a smaller arm would be wiser.

Being that im a big man i sweat alot, so i have to beable to mitigate my heat. When i get dressed up, sure i could were my larger framed auto, and sometimes do, if i know im going to be someplace outside or air conditioned. But if i know im going to get hot, then the small auto gets the nodd.

Unless someone comes up with a way for me, and others to carry larger framed autos when our method of dress makes them uncomfortable, or difficult do to circumstances im all ears.

Another thing is, why rag on people who like how they dress. having to buy one size larger clothing and then going around with that crappy look is just disconcerting some times. Having a firearm that gives one adaquate protection while allowing them to dress how they feel and the way they feel they look best and feel the best should be up to them. Someone famous said "judge lest ye be judged." That kinda applies here.

threegun
August 3, 2008, 06:35 PM
Tuttle,
...and carrying a bigger gun with a more powerful cartridge can just as well do the same....


Agreed however you have eliminated cartridge power from the equation.

I'd rather have a firearm that I'm extremely comfortable using in any situation that I can imagine in a gun fight even if it's a .380 rather than compromising and settling for a .45ACP. I would tend to believe the effective use of a gun and your brain FAR outweighs the cartridge you have

It does but if your cartridge lacks the ability to penetrate deeply or through bones, both of the above are for not.

What's your definition of "profession"? Not very many citizens make their profession in firearms use. Ballistics are a bit down the line in consideration of what gun/cartridge choice to use. Your opinion of what's involved to have a better chance of surviving is different than others. Just because it doesn't match your criteria doesn't make it fact.


I included that only as an example. Folks who expect trouble only carry puny as a BUG. Just trying to make a point. Carry what you want.....if it can't penetrate oh well.........to late.

I actually do believe statistics can back up the claim that "brandishing" a firearm has deterred more crimes from being committed than actual use of a firearm.


I agree however basing everything on the fact that most will give up the attack at the sight of the gun is just not tactically sound IMO after all statistics say you will never need to even brandish your gun yet we still carry.

BTW As a Glock fan you only lost points in the firearms taste category LOL.

Shane Tuttle
August 3, 2008, 08:33 PM
Agreed however you have eliminated cartridge power from the equation.
It does but if your cartridge lacks the ability to penetrate deeply or through bones, both of the above are for not.
I included that only as an example. Folks who expect trouble only carry puny as a BUG. Just trying to make a point. Carry what you want.....if it can't penetrate oh well.........to late.
I agree however basing everything on the fact that most will give up the attack at the sight of the gun is just not tactically sound IMO after all statistics say you will never need to even brandish your gun yet we still carry.

Actually, I placed cartridge power near the TOP of my consideration. However, no common handgun cartridge in the world will do you ANY good if you can't place the shot correctly to begin with. This holds the trump card over any other consideration. This goes back to my original statement that IMO one has to be comfortable using the firearm and being able to effectively use it. I'd rather have a .40S&W in a Service XD than a Ruger Blackhawk in .44Mag. If the situation arises, I know I'd be better in defending myself with the XD even though it's a much "weaker" cartridge.

Other people may be better suited to use a smaller gun chambered in .380 than one of bigger size. Better to be proficient in stopping your agressor with a .32 than marginal with a 10mm....

By the way, I'm not trying to advocate to carry the smallest cartridge out there just to be lazy. My point is that ANY cartridge that one chooses to carry is better that one is most proficient using is the best.

diginit
August 3, 2008, 09:08 PM
Honestly. I have a 45. But I carry pepper spray. I have no desire to scatter someone's brains all over the street if they are unarmed. Since most SHTF situations are very close range, It seems sufficant. It's better that a taser or stun gun because the effects are long lasting. Whereas a stungun or taser will only subdue for 30 seconds. Then the attacker is active and really mad. If you use a gun, you tell the entire neiborhood your location and probably go to jail. Self defence or not. Unless you're a LEO. Not to mention the guilt trip. Even if you are LE.
Too bad that only honest citizens obey the law.

threegun
August 4, 2008, 06:16 AM
Tuttle, My criteria for a carry gun is simple. First the weapon must be reliable and accurate. Second it must be capable of deep penetration and bone busting. Third it must have enough capacity to engage multiple foes. All in a package that I can shoot, handle, and conceal.

This of course assumes comfort and proficiency with your chosen handgun.

For me front line calibers are 38 special/9mm and up.

Mordis,Are we talking small gun/decent caliber or small gun small caliber.

We were debating puny calibers vs larger calibers. I feel that ones carry gun caliber should be able to do the basic things to our foe (human bad guy) to force them to stop an attack. This includes forcing them to stop via blood loss (the most reliable way to stop someone). This means that my caliber choice will have to penetrate deep and possibly through bones. Others feel that since the occasions of a bad guy needing to be forced to stop are rare, any caliber properly used will suffice.

David Armstrong
August 4, 2008, 11:35 AM
People I know(the few I know that carry puny anyway) carry puny because they will not carry bigger from laziness.
There is always a problem with trying to make broad assumptions based on one's own limited knowledge. Let me ask you--are you lazy? After all, you are carrying a compact Glock .40 instead of a full-size Glock .45.
Then give them all the facts not just your biased version.
Nothing biased about it. If you have actual facts that contribute to the discussion dealing with caliber for non-military, non-LE, typical CCW use, bring them out. The facts are very simple: Caliber is probably the least important variable in the DGU environment. Small calibers and guns have been shown to be just as effective at solving the problem as larger in virtually all DGU sitiuations. Historically there is no indication that smaller calibers lead to lower survival rates in CCW situations.
Personally?? No stats today.....wonder why? You reckon they might agree with me?
No, I reckon it is because you used a term that is rather vague and can be interpreted by different folks in different ways. That requires a "personally" as it is a value condsideration. Lifetime need of a gun also varies significantly based on lifestyle. That is the problem. You keep mixing up specific issues and general issues and trying to treat them the same based on what you wnat them to show.
Your facts are not wrong.
Then why do you keep arguing about them?
Its your aggressive adherence to those stats that I have a problem with.
Strange. The facts are not wrong, but pointing them out to people and suggesting they understand them and use them when appropriate is a problem with you. That is where we differ. I think the best-informed person is most likely to make the best decision as opposed to someone who bases a decision on bad information or falsehoods.
You live in a world of numbers but only when they support your argument.
In a long series of silly things you have siad, that has to be near the top. Not only is it silly on its face but it also happens to be factually incorrect.Numbers say you will never need your gun.....still you carry (against the numbers).
And that is part of that whole cost versus benefit argument that you seem incapable of understanding.
Then you cry foul when others go against the numbers (and recommend carrying bigger calibers). Thats the nonsense David.
What is nonsense is you making things up all the time. I have not and will not do any such thing. I cry foul when you recommend things and then try to justify that recommendation on falsehoods and/or irrelevant statements.
If making bigger deeper holes in an attacker doesn't equal a better chance at surviving...then I stand corrected.
So, once again we see that in spite of all your claims, when it comes down to actual facts you cannot provide any to support your position.
Come to Florida and lets shoot together.
What has that got to do with experience, training, and actual DGUs? I'll note that once again you have tried to change the subject rather than respond to the issue.


It does but if your cartridge lacks the ability to penetrate deeply or through bones, both of the above are for not.
And there is another claim you make that has no basis in reality. Most DGU incidents get taken care of without any great ability to penetrate deeply or through bone.
Folks who expect trouble only carry puny as a BUG.
Folks who expect trouble generally don't rely on a handgun at all.
...after all statistics say you will never need to even brandish your gun....
You keep making these wildly inaccurate statements. That one, like many others, is just flat wrong.

threegun
August 4, 2008, 01:46 PM
Let me ask you--are you lazy? After all, you are carrying a compact Glock .40 instead of a full-size Glock .45.


Nope not lazy. The .40 and .45 both are capable of deep penetration and bone smashing....which is one of my criteria for a primary carry gun. I never said the gun or caliber had to be the biggest available only that the chosen caliber should be able to penetrate deeply and after bone is hit.

BTW David I own a couple of 21's and have easily concealed them in the past.

Historically there is no indication that smaller calibers lead to lower survival rates in CCW situations.


How many civilian gun incidents have you reviewed? Where can this information be found? Most importantly what was the outcome for those rare few that caliber did matter?

No, I reckon it is because you used a term that is rather vague and can be interpreted by different folks in different ways. That requires a "personally" as it is a value consideration. Lifetime need of a gun also varies significantly based on lifestyle. That is the problem. You keep mixing up specific issues and general issues and trying to treat them the same based on what you want them to show.

I said " History and all the information available shows we will likely never need a gun. ". Breaking down the odds based on personal lifestyle doesn't change my statements truth. "We" meaning fellow civilians and the odds are WE will never need a gun. In fact I would just love to see the stats that indicate that folks living a more risqué lifestyle are likely to need a gun in their lifetime. Since you always demand proof from me I thought you would provide some to back your claim.

Then why do you keep arguing about them?

Strange. The facts are not wrong, but pointing them out to people and suggesting they understand them and use them when appropriate is a problem with you. That is where we differ. I think the best-informed person is most likely to make the best decision as opposed to someone who bases a decision on bad information or falsehoods.

I don't argue about your stats rather your willingness to potentially place life and limb on those stats. You do so with a bias toward puny and against those of us who recommend heavier calibers.

BTW what are my "falsehoods" or "bad information"? I feel that a chosen caliber should be able to penetrate sufficiently, is that bad info? I'm concerned that puny will fail to stop a determined attacker and heavier gives you a better chance of doing so, is that a falsehood?

In a long series of silly things you have said, that has to be near the top. Not only is it silly on its face but it also happens to be factually incorrect.

Factually incorrect???????You recommend and advocate puny based on stats. You even said your personal odds of needing a gun in your lifetime are higher because of your lifestyle compared to other civilians life style. You are the king of statistics and they do seem to govern your every move. From you telling us not to start a gunfight because the numbers say it will raise the odds of someone being harmed to you suggesting that civilian will likely never need to even fire a gun much less face a determined attacker......you are the odds king.

BTW Thanks for all the stats they are helpful at times.

And that is part of that whole cost versus benefit argument that you seem incapable of understanding.


And part of the contradiction you seem incapable of understanding.

What has that got to do with experience, training, and actual DGUs? I'll note that once again you have tried to change the subject rather than respond to the issue.

I've never been in a shoot out. I've never attended formal training. I don't work in law enforcement. What I can do is fight with a handgun, rifle, and shotgun better than most. My training is a soup of what many schools teach. My competitive experience is close to 2 decades worth. I have studied many shootout videos. I have tons of FOF against friends and co workers (although nothing formal). I can fight with a knife and bare handed better than most. SO WHAT!! Does that make my words any more true? Does your experience make your words more true? You made the statement to lower my credibility and strengthen your own. I just put my money were my mouth is.

And David I would welcome and treat you as a friend even though we seem to butt heads alot.

threegun
August 4, 2008, 02:00 PM
Most DGU incidents get taken care of without any great ability to penetrate deeply or through bone.


Whats your point and how does it make deep penetration and bone smashing any less advantageous? Most folks will never need a gun either. The get through life without carrying one. Many still chose to carry one. Yet when I bring this up you ignore it.

Folks who expect trouble generally don't rely on a handgun at all.


Only if they know when trouble is coming David. Since few have crystal balls they carry a sidearm. I have yet to see a single one carry puny.

You keep making these wildly inaccurate statements. That one, like many others, is just flat wrong.

The fact that most folks never need a gun proves my statement. You are aware that most civilians get through life without ever needing a gun. Very few (on average) civilians carry a firearm. Of those who carry few will need said firearm ever. Think about it.

cjw3cma
August 4, 2008, 02:27 PM
I live in an area of southern Oregon where L.E. is not "just a click away" and 99% of the time response is up to me - so that's why I carry. There are any number of 4-legged creatures that one can come upon just off of the roadway (and some of those pesky 2-legged "animals" that you NEED to be armed when you run into them). My carry choice is my S&W 40 cal. with a couple of spare mags.

c4v3man
August 4, 2008, 02:41 PM
I carry because I can, and because I don't want fear to dictate when and where I can go "within reason". I don't go to bars, but if I want to go and grab some dinner late at night with the wife, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to do so safely.

I carry a P3AT (although, I'm going to start carrying my P7M8 now that I have it) to work because of the dress code at the office. I am unable to conceal my HK USP Expert 45. I do that on the weekends or after hours. I know that there is a slight chance that I will need a gun this year (I think there was a post earlier stating that 1 in 275 or so are in a violent confrontation per year according to the FBI published stats) but that the chance that I'll need 45 caliber power are even less than that (significantly less). I feel protected carrying 13 rounds of .380 +p CorBon hollowpoints, that I know I can keep on a paper plate at 25 feet firing at a reasonably fast pace.

I don't need someone else to try to force their opinion of what I need to carry on me. I have no problem with stating your opinion, but once it's out there, let it go. You're only hurting your cause by badgering others in my opinion.

Don't quote me on the 1 in 275, that's just what I believe was posted earlier.

David Armstrong
August 4, 2008, 05:06 PM
Nope not lazy. The .40 and .45 both are capable of deep penetration and bone smashing....which is one of my criteria for a primary carry gun.
So let's see...you are not lazy by compromising on the criteria that you think are important, but others are lazy because you don't agree with their criteria and compromise. Seems a litle odd.
BTW David I own a couple of 21's and have easily concealed them in the past.
OK. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though. I own a couple of 1911s and have easily concealed them in the past. I've owned a S&W N-frame and easily concealed it in the past.
How many civilian gun incidents have you reviewed?
Off the top of my head I'd say between 1500 and 2000. I'd try to be more precise but most of my office is still in storage while repairs from Hurricane Rita continue.
Where can this information be found?
Some of it is academic in nature, but most of it can be found with just a little searching, depending on the data you are wanting to find. Lot's of it ends up in newpapers, "it happened to me" sections of magazines such as the NRA Armed Citizen column, various biographies, and so on.
I said " History and all the information available shows we will likely never need a gun. ".
And I said that is pretty vague. "Likely never" might mean one thing to one person, something else to another.
Breaking down the odds based on personal lifestyle doesn't change my statements truth.
Well yes, actually it does. See the above note.
I would just love to see the stats that indicate that folks living a more risqué lifestyle are likely to need a gun in their lifetime.
Lifestyle is one of the prime indicators of likelihood of victimization. The fact that you don't know that info or don't understand how it applies is rather telling.
I don't argue about your stats rather your willingness to potentially place life and limb on those stats.
Got some bad news for you. Everybody does that, in multiple ways. The problem with many is that they have no idea of what the actual stats are so they cannot make an informed decision.
You do so with a bias toward puny and against those of us who recommend heavier calibers.
Nonsense. I have no bias toward small guns or large. If you want to carry a big gun, by all means do so. If you want to carry a small gun, by all means do so. Just realize that it really doesn't matter much in the overall scheme of things.
BTW what are my "falsehoods" or "bad information"?
I think we just pointed out a couple of them right there. We can throw in your constant denial of the effectiveness of small calibers, your insistence that certain factors are important in DGU incidents that aren't and so on.
Factually incorrect???????
Yes.
You recommend and advocate puny based on stats.
Nope. Incorrect again. Pointing out that something is adequate for the job at hand is neither a recommendation nor an advocacy.
You even said your personal odds of needing a gun in your lifetime are higher because of your lifestyle compared to other civilians life style.
Nope. Incorrect again. Starting to see the pattern?? I never said any such thing.
You are the king of statistics and they do seem to govern your every move.
Nope. Incorrect again. Stats certainly come into play in deciding what to do (as is true of everybody) but they do not govern my every move. If so I wouldn't do all those things that are contra-indicated by the stats.
And part of the contradiction you seem incapable of understanding.
Huh??? Gonna have to be a bit mosre specific there, as there is no contradiction indicated in the statement you have quoted.
What I can do is fight with a handgun, rifle, and shotgun better than most.
And you know this how---given that you have never been in a gunfight or attended any training??
My competitive experience is close to 2 decades worth.
Should I ever need information on how to play the shooting games, I will keep you in mind.
SO WHAT!!
I agree, so what? But you are the one who posted it, not me. I fail to see anything of any relevance in it, but again, I didn't post it.
Does your experience make your words more true?
When you have someone who has been in the field and is discussing what has actually occurred in actual incidents, yes, I would consider that information to be more accurate than someone whose experience has been playing games. By your own statement, you can find nothing wrong with my facts. I would consider somebody like Clint Smith, or John Farnam, or others of their ilk, to be better at describing and discussing what actually occurs during training and gunfights than somebody who has not trained and interacted with with many fighters.
You made the statement to lower my credibility and strengthen your own.
No. I feel no need to sstrengthen my credibility. I'm pretty much an open book and have been doing this stuff a long time. But whenever someobody is going to talk about how important something is for a DGU, and how to survive shootouts, and other stuff like that I think it important to find out just where their ideas come from.

David Armstrong
August 4, 2008, 05:21 PM
Whats your point
Umm, did you miss it? Let's try again: "Most DGU incidents get taken care of without any great ability to penetrate deeply or through bone."
how does it make deep penetration and bone smashing any less advantageous?
I never said a thing about it being less or more advantageous. What I have said is that it rarely matters at all.
Yet when I bring this up you ignore it.
No, that is incorrect. I have not ignored it, I have said over and over that is an issue of cost versus benefit. I realize you can't understand that for some reason, but I have said it. I will also point out a basic flaw in your premise, as getting through life without carrying a gun is very different from never needing a gun.
I have yet to see a single one carry puny.
As we have mentioned before, your limited experience in this area is a poor way to decide what the broader implications and realities are.
The fact that most folks never need a gun proves my statement.
First, as mentioined above, that is a questionable claim itself. But second, and more important, it does nothing to prove the false statement you gave, which was, "...after all statistics say you will never need to even brandish your gun." Statistics do not say that at all. Once again, you are incorrect.
Think about it.
I did. Sounds like you agree with me that small calibers/guns are adequate for the great majority of DGU incidents.

pax
August 4, 2008, 05:43 PM
This has wandered significantly off topic from the first post in the thread, and civility is declining.

Closed.

pax