pistols & magazines & flashlights, oh my!

[OldMarksman]

According to the Armed Citizen five year analysis of 452 incidents, 84% of incidents occur at home or in a business and the typical distance is "short but in excess of touching distance"

No reason to dispute that, but the only incidents for which data were collected involved successful outcomes for the actors; also, the data were based on unsolicited reports, and I think that puts the analysis into some possible question.

Personally, if I were to shoot someone under any circumstance, I would not provide any information about the incident to anyone except to my attorney or on the advice of same, until and unless I had been tried and acquitted, and then, for reasons having to do with potential civil liability, only upon advice of counsel.

It ain't officially a "good shoot" until the jury has returned that verdict; more accurately, it can always be re-evaluated until such time as that has occurred.

[doh_312]

IMO, the risk to my life from a lack of enough amo justifies a hi-cap with a spare mag and usually a BUG. Call me looney, paranoid, egotistical, or a bad shot. If it comes down to it, I have a better chance of surviving if more than five shots are needed, than he who only has five rounds on him.

If it comes down to more than twenty shots, I'm not going to be marveling at how unlucky I am to be the rare rare rare end of the spectrum statistic that needs a reload. I'll reload and get back to it. Meanwhile, Mr. Five-shot is long gone from this world. But that aint me.

But then it is not my problem if your under prepared nor do I judge you for it.

[oldman1946]

Quote:
All someone has to do is check the FBI stats and see that a running shootout just does not happen.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the question. If you are attacked by someone and deadly force is immediately necessary, multiple hits may be required to stop him. Multiply that by the number of attackers. Many incidents around my area involve perps who work in pairs.

Let's consider this. Why do you stop shooting? You shoot until the threat has ceased. If the person is fleeing, then there is no need to continue to shoot. If the person is down, there is no need to continue to shoot. But many on here feel that throwing bullets around is going to make things better. Innocent people get hit by loose bullets. I will bet that every person on this forum that has a CCW signed an Indemnification and Hold Harmless Affidavit before being allowed to obtain that CCW. There is a reason for that and the reason is the State, it's various departments and it's legal staff do not want to be sued because a CCW holder shot an innocent person or made an unrighteous shot.

BTW: Anyone hear of the Pharmacist that shot the robber in OK? He is now charged with First degree Homicide. He shot the guy and the guy fell. A second perp ran away and the Pharmacist chased out the door looking for him, with gun in hand. He re entered the store and the perp on the floor was moving so he shot him again and this time the wound was fatal. I guess he wanted to use more ammo since he had some left. So he shot him several more times.

I wish I had a single dime for each time I have heard people say after a shooting something to the following: "Man, if that happened to me I would have shot the *&*^% dead. I would have pumped 32 rounds in him. Sorry SOB like that know better than mess with me."

Yet once the person is involved in a shooting, they are often later wanting to sell their guns. I have seen it more than a few times.

Things are easy to say now before the fact. Once the act has happened, it is something else and very costly.

A great example of this from five years ago. Louisiana has some nice laws that say a person can shoot the burglar, the car jacker and the armed robber. All very legal. An armed man enters a store and demands money. He fires his gun over the clerks head. The store owner is in a corner and pulls his legally carry gun, firing three shots into the perp. The perp runs outside. The owner remains inside and calls 911. The police come and find blood on the parking lot but no perp. The owner is carried to the station and advised he might want to get an attorney. He does. Within hours, the perp is found dumped outside a hospital fatally injured. The owner learns this while still being questioned. He then begins to cry over taking a life. He begins to regret the shooting. He then begins to regret having a gun in the store. Some nine hours of intense questions, re-questioning and such, he is let go with the admonishment that he may have charges brought against him. Four months pass and he learns he has been cleared. His insurance company did not have to pay a dime but they cancelled him and the new carrier raised his premiums over $1277 a year due to the shooting. His homeowners (nothing to do with the business) drops him as well even though it was a different company. Within a year, he has to sell his store because he cannot continue to pay the high cost of the shooting.

BTW: The lawyer bill was only $10,000. I was only involved in this for about four hrs but my bill was over $700. Today, the man will not even touch a gun and tells everyone he would have killed himself if he had to watch the man he killed die.

Killing a person is not difficult. Living with the aftermath is a lifelong process. Killing an innocent or crippling them is even more difficult to live with.

Due to many reasons, most of those on this forum and in Congress has not served in the military or worked in law enforcement. They have not had to be in a firefight or watch their commrades fall from wounds or see the grimacing face of a man that is shot and dying. It is easy to be an armchair Monday quarterback. Until you have been there, and I have, it is easy to walk around with more ammo than any officer will carry and say what you will do when the reality is you will likely never use the gun and stats say those getting a CCW are the ones most likely to never need a gun.

I have more ammo in my gun room than most gun stores. I carry a Glock 22 and have six mags for it but the only one on my person is the one in the gun. I do not plan on being in a drawn out firefight. I will make my shots count. The greatest real gunfighters have written book after book. Some here would benefit from reading what these guys have to say. They carried six shooters and was comfortable and safe. They won their battles. Cops carried six shooters for years until the drug community began using the 9mm and carried boxes of ammo. The cops began the same, not because of the opposition but where they met the opposition. If I am going into high drug areas and meeting with drug lords, dealers and such, then I know there is a better than even chance I will need more ammo if I live through the initial suprise attack on me.

There are less than .005% of shootings that take place in well lit, business areas against strangers. Yes, there are shootings inside businesses being robbed like convenience stores and liquor stores but not against the man walking his wife outside a Walmart.

People get a gun, they get ammo and they become pompous about what they will do. Once they have had the permit for four years, they seldom renew the permit.

Right now, I have the reasons on my desk of the 800+ persons that has had their CCW pulled in this state as of this date. The reason for most is improper carry and improper use. Once people tire of the carry, the rules, the cost and such, they lose their bravo.

[Japle]

Posted by Oldman1946:
Due to many reasons, most of those on this forum and in Congress has not served in the military or worked in law enforcement. They have not had to be in a firefight or watch their commrades fall from wounds or see the grimacing face of a man that is shot and dying.

And some of us have. What some of us have learned is that being prepared is a good thing. We've seen what happened to our fellow soldiers who thought they could "walk light" and get away with it.

It is easy to be an armchair Monday quarterback. Until you have been there, and I have, it is easy to walk around with more ammo than any officer will carry and say what you will do when the reality is you will likely never use the gun and stats say those getting a CCW are the ones most likely to never need a gun.

Right. No question you'll most likely never need a gun. I don't see why you carry one at all.
After all, you've been there.
Just keep in mind that many of us have been there and what we learned isn't what you learned.

There are less than .005% of shootings that take place in well lit, business areas against strangers.

Source for this statistic?

Yes, there are shootings inside businesses being robbed like convenience stores and liquor stores but not against the man walking his wife outside a Walmart.

I'm sure that's true. A guy I use to work with was opening the car door for his wife when he was slugged and carjacked.
That was outside a Sears, though. Couldn't happen outside a Walmart.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by oldman1946

There are less than .005% of shootings that take place in well lit, business areas against strangers. Yes, there are shootings inside businesses being robbed like convenience stores and liquor stores but not against the man walking his wife outside a Walmart.

What?!

First part, show me the numbers.

Second part, I don't even understand that sentence. That makes no sense at all, and seems say the opposite of the first sentence.

[MTT TL]

Yes, there are shootings inside businesses being robbed like convenience stores and liquor stores but not against the man walking his wife outside a Walmart.

Bizarrely, I had hundreds of hits for that very thing. Being shot while walking outside of Walmart that is. Here are five cases in the last year or so. If you want to look there are many hundreds on line.


http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbc.../NEWS/80828002

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/video/p...rt_parking_lot

http://www.click2houston.com/news/21688526/detail.html

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/st...onday-morning/

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3B+one+charged

[oldman1946]

There are many sources such as the FBI, DOJ and I got these from the LA State Police.

As to needing a gun, I work with mine. I go into places most will not ever even drive through. I go into the places where shootings occur dang near nightly.

I also agree with people being armed. I do not agree with people using less than common sense. I do not agree with the Redneck mentality in wanting shootings to occur and filling the pickup with ammo.

Has anyone seen any highway signs with bullet holes in them? That is improper use of a firearm. Seldom is someone arrested for such acts but when they are, there is usually a load of ammo in the vehicle.

We are not in a war in this country. We are civil mature citizens. Looking for trouble will soon bring it about.

A man was arrested here yesterday. In fact he was a former police officer, having worked for two different agencies in the last 15 yrs, fired from both. At the time of his arrest, he was in the process of committing a felony without a weapon, but in his car was a 9mm with over 100 rounds of ammo. What he intended to do with it is unknown but when it hit the news, an anti gunner went on air to say how this shows why people do not need guns and what the guy could have done. It was compared to the Ft Hood shootings.

Had the guy had a gun and not a lot of extra ammo, there likely would have been a passing mention that a firearm was found in his auto.

Having a belt full of ammo does not make a bigger man or a winner in a fight. It only increases the potential for loss of life and it may well be the innocent bystander or the CCW holder.

I do not care to argue on this. Yet I do care about several things and am passionate about them.
1. The Rights of the law abiding, honest citizen to own and carry guns.
2. The safety and well being of the public.
3. The public perception of the armed citizen.

We do our ownselves an injustice. We are being tried in the court of public perception in the media for being armed to the hilt and ready to shoot whatever moves. With each gun fatality, we get a little closer to an unwarranted new law on gun control. With each arrest of an armed citizen we get closer to gun bans or now the popular ammo ban.

Yet try telling this to some and they then want to shoot the messenger. People try to justify their actions but for every action, there is a reaction and those reactions hurt our freedoms.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by oldman1946

There are many sources such as the FBI, DOJ and I got these from the LA State Police.

Let's see them.

You said:

There are less than .005% of shootings that take place in well lit, business areas against strangers.

Did you intend that to be fact or did you mean " really really rare"? Either way, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by oldman1946

We do our ownselves an injustice. We are being tried in the court of public perception in the media for being armed to the hilt and ready to shoot whatever moves. With each gun fatality, we get a little closer to an unwarranted new law on gun control. With each arrest of an armed citizen we get closer to gun bans or now the popular ammo ban.

How often are legally armed citizens arrested for crimes RELATED to the gun? Wait, I'll answer that one for you. Almost never.

Originally Posted by oldman1946

We are not in a war in this country. We are civil mature citizens. Looking for trouble will soon bring it about.

Originally Posted by oldman1946

I do not care to argue on this. Yet I do care about several things and am passionate about them.
1. The Rights of the law abiding, honest citizen to own and carry guns.

Those two statements seem diametrically opposed to one another.

Originally Posted by oldman1946

3. The public perception of the armed citizen.

Originally Posted by oldman1946

Had the guy had a gun and not a lot of extra ammo,

You say that you're pro-gun, but you sure don't talk like it. You seem to have the perception of the antis. "Extra ammo"? Define "extra".

[MTT TL]

Having a belt full of ammo does not make a bigger man or a winner in a fight. It only increases the potential for loss of life and it may well be the innocent bystander or the CCW holder.

How in the world does having extra ammo do this?

[oldman1946]

Quote:
Having a belt full of ammo does not make a bigger man or a winner in a fight. It only increases the potential for loss of life and it may well be the innocent bystander or the CCW holder.



How in the world does having extra ammo do this?

The more ammo available, the more shots fired, the more chance of others being hit. Also the better chance of a criminal charge for the shooter. As another poster mentioned, there is laws that say the lack of flight from a confrontation can be a criminal act. If you read the post about the Pharmacist in OK, you will note he had ammo left after the initial shots. He chased the other perp but did not get to fire but returned and saw the downed perp still moving and he emptied the gun into him. Now a professionally employed man with a college degree, a family and respect used the ammo he had in the heat of the blood to kill a man. Had he stopped when the man went down, he would not be in jail now facing a long prison time. The added ammo and added shots did it.

Try talking to those I have to represent, interview or such after a shooting. In some cases, I just take the tapes of an officer interviewing them.

We have jokes around here such as, At a four way stop with a vehicle at each point, who has the right of way?

Answer: The vehicle with the long mag in the rifle hanging from the gun rack.

People are arrested daily in the south with weapons. Not all but the vast majority have more than a box of shells on their person.

The reason many give for having a gun is someone bigger is threatening them.

This is a city of about 125,000 and there is virtually a homicide daily. Some are justified. Most are not. BUt each is treated as a crime. Talk to the shooter. The younger they are, the more often you will hear them say the gun makes them bigger or better.

One day this week when I have time, I am going to post the state stats on CCW revocations by age, race, gender and cause. It will shock many. I wish others here would post stats from their state.

[Stevie-Ray]

Originally Posted by oldman1946

One day this week when I have time, I am going to post the state stats on CCW revocations by age, race, gender and cause. It will shock many. I wish others here would post stats from their state.

Well, not much in the way of demographics, but in raw data the Michigan state police say that out of 269,144 CPLs issued, only 1245 have been revoked for .46% revocation rate. The narrowest ratio came between July of 07 and June of 08 when they issued 26,578 CPLs and revoked 312 for 1.17%, but since those stats don't take pre-existing CPLs into account, they are virtually meaningless. Taking all the years since incept into account, the forty six hundredths of a percent is about average for newly issued and revoked overall.

It appears as though Michigan CPL holders are fairly law-abiding, no great surprise there.

[KenpoTex]

Originally Posted by oldman1946

Let's consider this. Why do you stop shooting? You shoot until the threat has ceased. If the person is fleeing, then there is no need to continue to shoot. If the person is down, there is no need to continue to shoot.

Agreed...

Originally Posted by oldman1946

But many on here feel that throwing bullets around is going to make things better. Innocent people get hit by loose bullets.

Show me where anybody in this thread has said that throwing bullets around is going to make things better. That indiscriminately firing is the proper course of action. That because you have a weapon with a large capacity, the proper way to employ it is to empty the mag without consideration of whether such action is appropriate given the circumstances. That because they have a large-capacity weapon, that they feel compelled to expend all the ammunition they have available. When has anybody said such things?

Originally Posted by oldman1946

BTW: Anyone hear of the Pharmacist that shot the robber in OK? He is now charged with First degree Homicide. He shot the guy and the guy fell. A second perp ran away and the Pharmacist chased out the door looking for him, with gun in hand. He re entered the store and the perp on the floor was moving so he shot him again and this time the wound was fatal. I guess he wanted to use more ammo since he had some left. So he shot him several more times.

Yeah...the extra ammo made him do it. That is no different than saying that because someone owns a gun, that they are more likely to become homicidal. You are blaming the actions on an inanimate object.
You keep trying to forge a correlation between carrying extra ammo and either some sort of inflated ego, or some sort of psychological issues. In the cases you have mentioned (the guys in the restaurant, the law student, the pharmacist, etc.) you keep blaming their actions and the resulting problems on the mere fact that they were carrying extra ammo.

Originally Posted by oldman1946

If you read the post about the Pharmacist in OK, you will note he had ammo left after the initial shots. He chased the other perp but did not get to fire but returned and saw the downed perp still moving and he emptied the gun into him. Now a professionally employed man with a college degree, a family and respect used the ammo he had in the heat of the blood to kill a man. Had he stopped when the man went down, he would not be in jail now facing a long prison time. The added ammo and added shots did it.

Once again...those evil extra rounds made him do it?
Do the unused rounds feel jealous for not being used and therefore somehow compel the shooter to fire them? If the average gunfight is only 3 rounds, as you have alluded to in other posts, what happens to the rest of the rounds in the shooters' guns? </sarcasm>
The pharmacist got nailed because he chose to execute the perp. Because he continued to use force after there was no longer any need to do so. It would be no different if he had picked up a pipe and bashed the guy's head in. But then, that would have just been excessive force, not excessive force caused by having extra ammo...


Seriously, these kinds of comments are completely irrational.

[oldman1946]

If you guys do not believe what I am saying is correct, then ask yourself why the government banned high capacity magazines a few years ago. This was not done because the President at the time had issues with it. It was due to what the FBI, the National Chiefs of Police and a lot of other sources were seeing them at shootings. Please note a nominal magazine amount of 10 rounds or less was not banned. Multile magazines were not banned so you could have a truck load of them.

Still do not believe it? Ask why we went through a period of banning weapons with built in large capacities. If those arms were, and it is well documented , only account for less than 5% of all crimes then it was not a large enough issue to be concerned with.

I will begin posting links to the local area shootings where dozens of rounds are fired needlessly. Start watching your local and national news about shootings and note the little A-boards marking the rest of each casing.

Drug dealers carry these weapons. As with the pharmacist previously mentioned that used all his ammo in the gun, those we see in shootings and they do make the news, that have CCW will generally fire every round they have in their gun. Not all they have with them but then we have uncontrolled adrenilin that cannot be regulated.

Carry a tanker load of ammo and I will only wish you did not. But one day you may become a stat instead of a victim.

Show me where anybody in this thread has said that throwing bullets around is going to make things better.

People read what they want. Read what people say and then construe it the way you want. But note the reports of the shootings and see what was done in reality.

You keep trying to forge a correlation between carrying extra ammo and either some sort of inflated ego, or some sort of psychological issues. In the cases you have mentioned (the guys in the restaurant, the law student, the pharmacist, etc.) you keep blaming their actions and the resulting problems on the mere fact that they were carrying extra ammo.

Duh!!! lets see. The guys in the restaurant. I was there and had one mag in the gun and did not have to show the weapon or toss mags out of my pocket on to the table. The same with the Lt I was with. He had one in his gun and one on his belt. The guys had to dump their pockets to sit down. I would say that is due to the extra ammo they were carrying.

The law student?? He was being macho about having a gun but gung ho about having the ability to shoot lots of rounds and was demonstrating for those around how much he could carry. Agree, it was against the law to have a gun where he did but it is most likely he would not have been doing so had his ego not been inflated over what he could carry on him. I also agree he was in the wrong for showing it as well as possession of it. But you cannot show what you do not have.

The Pharmacist?? His own admission to police was he continued to shoot until the threat was gone. The man was down and lilely unable to continue the fight. The man was running on an emotional charge and still had ammo so he used it. He admits if he had to reload or think about what he was doing, he more likely would not have shot more rounds. Also he did so after the police were called so I may not buy that he would not have shot more. Yet it all made good fodder for the media and bad publicity for us.

Now for the latest one. There was a shooting in Natchitoches, LA this past Saturday night. Police were called. Upon arrival they found one man in the house with 12 bullet wounds but alive. They found another outside in the yard with "several" bullet wounds. They know who they are looking for. It will not be long before they find the guy but he used the ammo he had on him in the heat of the moment.

I see it all daily. The media reports it daily. The President and Congress we have now hears it from the anti gun group and the DOJ. The current administration is anti gun and so are those in power such as Reid and Pelosi. If you want to continue giving them extra ammo, continue the mindset.

I agree with our having the right to own and carry. I disagree with the permit system and feel it un needed. It is what you carry that is the problem.

Maybe best explained this way. The Second says we have a right to bear arms. So can we carrry a bazooka and drive a jeep with a 50 cal anti aircraft gun? Constitutionally we can. Would you be any safer? According to some mindsets, you would be.

MOst states have a CCW rule book available. The one in LOUISANA says, the "permitte may carry A handgun". It does not say all the handguns, multiple handguns. Yet give a person an inch and they will take a mile. CCW holders are being caught with two guns. I suppose under the thinking of some, they are being more protective. It is a mindset of people just as a lot of ammo. It is for show and not for need.

[OldMarksman]

The Pharmacist?? His own admission to police was he continued to shoot until the threat was gone. The man was down and lilely unable to continue the fight. The man was running on an emotional charge and still had ammo so he used it. He admits if he had to reload or think about what he was doing, he more likely would not have shot more rounds.

Nope. He fired and chased the surviving thug until he ran out of ammo. Than he ran back in to get another gun to shoot the guy on the floor. He had to think to do that.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is better for a law abiding citizen to carry a gun holding five shots, six, seven plus one, ten, or thirteen. In Post 45, you say that your magazine holds fifteen rounds. Sounds excessive to me, but it's your choice. Does it make you feel like shooting after you have stopped the threat? Does it make you more likely to hit bystanders?

Drug dealers carry these weapons.

And so, it seems, do you.

I remember when the possession of a cell phone in some areas was considered indicative of drug dealing. Should people have left theirs at home for that reason?

Ask why we went through a period of banning weapons with built in large capacities. If those arms were, and it is well documented, only account for less than 5% of all crimes then it was not a large enough issue to be concerned with.

Right. It was clearly not an anticrime measure, it was antigun--the proverbial nose in the tent. I don't have to ask, I know the answer. But I did like to ask friends why pistol grips and bayonet lugs were banned in the same law. By the way, the same guys and gals were working hard on banning semi-automatic duck guns and deer rifles back then...yeah, that long-barreled full-choke Benelli posed a real threat to society.

Why do you stop shooting? You shoot until the threat has ceased.

How many hits does that take? In some of the cases recounted in The Ayoob Files, quite a number. Let's see: one is trained to fire twice quickly at center mass, reassess, and fire until the threat is stopped. That's a minimum of two per assailant. How many might it take? Consider the meth heads who cause much of the crime in a lot of places...

Do you need fifteen to feel safe? Will five suffice?

[Southern Rebel]

I am amazed that this thread has gone for four pages and continues to be a discussion with well-stated points and counter-points, without containing the poisonous sarcasm that often ruins good discussion subjects. (Maybe it is the spirit of the season!)

[Stevie-Ray]

Originally Posted by oldman1946

MOst states have a CCW rule book available. The one in LOUISANA says, the "permitte may carry A handgun". It does not say all the handguns, multiple handguns. Yet give a person an inch and they will take a mile. CCW holders are being caught with two guns. I suppose under the thinking of some, they are being more protective. It is a mindset of people just as a lot of ammo. It is for show and not for need.

Whoa, back up partner. Personally, I carry 2 guns, a primary and backup. You asked the question earlier do we choose to carry 2 guns because of the possibility of a mechanical failure. I answered yes. In Michigan there is no law deciding how many we can carry. Obviously, in LA, there is. But the people may not think much of that part of the law. They need to work to change it, rather than ignore it and lose their permits. But don't just assume they are doing it for show. You more or less stated it yourself, and I agreed, there is a need.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Oldman1946

MOst states have a CCW rule book available. The one in LOUISANA says, the "permitte may carry A handgun". It does not say all the handguns, multiple handguns. Yet give a person an inch and they will take a mile. CCW holders are being caught with two guns. I suppose under the thinking of some, they are being more protective. It is a mindset of people just as a lot of ammo. It is for show and not for need.

Do you have some case law or actual law specifically prohibiting the carry of multiple handguns in LA? I just went through the handbook for the state and carrying multiple guns is not specifically prohibited. The fact that the law and book are written in the singular is irrelevant. NY states law is written in the singular as well and there is NO restriction as to how many of the firearms that are on your permit may be carried at any particular time.

[oldman1946]

[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Oldman1946
MOst states have a CCW rule book available. The one in LOUISANA says, the "permitte may carry A handgun". It does not say all the handguns, multiple handguns. Yet give a person an inch and they will take a mile. CCW holders are being caught with two guns. I suppose under the thinking of some, they are being more protective. It is a mindset of people just as a lot of ammo. It is for show and not for need.

Do you have some case law or actual law specifically prohibiting the carry of multiple handguns in LA? I just went through the handbook for the state and carrying multiple guns is not specifically prohibited. The fact that the law and book are written in the singular is irrelevant. NY states law is written in the singular as well and there is NO restriction as to how many of the firearms that are on your permit may be carried at any particular time.
[QUOTE]


It is not the intent of the law but the letter of the law that has to be followed. As a District Judge (the same one that wrote the CCW law here as a State Representative) told me after our law went into effect, it is not a concealed weapons law but a concealed weapon law. He also advised that having one in the car (always legal in Louisiana) and one on the person would not be illegal. Having two on the person would likely create a problem. Lousiana, as well as a few other states, lists what type gun you carry based on the type you listed on your application to carry and the type you used during the instruction. I carry either a revolver or semi and it is listed on my license as being BOTH. But I was instructed by the LA State Police Armory in the use of many weapons over the years and the State Police instructor that signed my app told me to check Both on the app.

If I had two guns on me at the same time and got confronted by an officer, I am reasonably certain I would lose both of them to the court for a while. Most likely I would not challenge the law in court since the letter of the law, in this case, follows the intent of the law. The law was written to allow the citizen to carry a concealed handgun (not a concealed shotgun, rifle or such) and it was not concerned with someone carrying multiple weapons since it was addressing ONE weapon, a single weapon. The law does not read, allows the permitee to carry weapons concealed. It speaks in the singular. There may be some cites in Westlaw where this has already been challenged but my Westlaw book is in the office but I will check to see if there has been a challenge.

Granted though, given the population will always stretch the law. Post a speed limit of 65 and the majority will do 74 under the belief there is a buffer factor. It is natural to push the law and that often causes the law to be repealed.

I am an officer of the court, an officer of the state and a holder of a CCW. I was in the company of an attorney and we were on business just outside of Hugo, OK and when we were stopped. Both us carried concealed and so advised the deputy making the stop. He was polite and was friendly until he saw other guns (both long guns) in the back of the vehicle. It got somewhat tense then and he called another officer. Permission was given for a search of my vehicle and all ended well but he gave a stern admonishment about having guns visible in the vehicle as well as on our persons. He made sure the guns were unloaded and placed in the trunk of the vehicle before we were allowed to leave. Had it not been for having multiple guns in the vehicle and both of us being armed, I feel we would have been allowed to travel away long before we were. OTE]

[oldman1946]

Quote:
The Pharmacist?? His own admission to police was he continued to shoot until the threat was gone. The man was down and lilely unable to continue the fight. The man was running on an emotional charge and still had ammo so he used it. He admits if he had to reload or think about what he was doing, he more likely would not have shot more rounds.

Nope. He fired and chased the surviving thug until he ran out of ammo. Than he ran back in to get another gun to shoot the guy on the floor. He had to think to do that.

This was not shown on the video I watched and it was not shown or discussed in the news release. In fact, it was stated he re-entered the store and continued to shoot the perp as the man was down.

Quote:

And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is better for a law abiding citizen to carry a gun holding five shots, six, seven plus one, ten, or thirteen. In Post 45, you say that your magazine holds fifteen rounds. Sounds excessive to me, but it's your choice. Does it make you feel like shooting after you have stopped the threat? Does it make you more likely to hit bystanders?

My Glock 22 holds 15 rounds so you are correct in stating that. However that is a single mag and made for that particular weapon. I did not buy it but it was given to me. I do not carry additional magazines. And, FWIW, I carry a S&W model 686 when I am not working. It carries six rounds and I do not feel inadequate with it. All it takes is one shot As to how someone feels will depend on the mindset, anger factor, training and other things.

Quote:

Drug dealers carry these weapons.

And so, it seems, do you.

I remember when the possession of a cell phone in some areas was considered indicative of drug dealing. Should people have left theirs at home for that reason?

The weapon carried by LEO changed due to the way the gangbangers and drug dealers carried. It has been said in other postings that LEO went the way of their opposition in weaponry. LEO made some mistakes and were proven in error. Initially they went to 9mm and found it was not a good weapon but LE use was different from LEO and other calibers were sought.

Had the street thugs continued to use the six shooter, likely that would still be the standard issue.

As LEO went to more defensive wepaons, the dealers did as well, hence the SKS, AK and other weapons found on the streets.

The remark about cell phones is a cheap shot and far beneath the character I have seen in many of your postings but I will addess it.

Yes, drug dealers use cell phones and it is getting difficult to deal with cell phones in law enforcement. Not only is the cell phone seized during a drug arrest but the records for that phone is subpoenaed and gone through for evidence of more crime.

Also when a major motor vehicle accident where a fatality or potential occurred, the cell phone is taken and the records subpoenaed to determine if the use of the phone contributed to the accident

Cell phones have yeilded a lot of information to both law enforcement and spouses.

[oldman1946]

Quote:
Why do you stop shooting? You shoot until the threat has ceased.

How many hits does that take? In some of the cases recounted in The Ayoob Files, quite a number. Let's see: one is trained to fire twice quickly at center mass, reassess, and fire until the threat is stopped. That's a minimum of two per assailant. How many might it take? Consider the meth heads who cause much of the crime in a lot of places...

Do you need fifteen to feel safe? Will five suffice?

I have a lot more physical control and mental conditioning than most. Having used a sidearm three times in 38 years, I shot twice in one shooting, once in another and three times in the remaining shooting. None resulted in fatal wounds.

Accuracy is still better than capacity.

I do not need fifteen shots for anything other than certification. I carry extra ammo in the trunk of my car but it is training ammo, which is used on the range but can be used in defense. I keep a box of things the avg person will not own or know how to use. It stays in the trunk and I retrieve what I need out of it for the case I am working. There may well be 100 rounds of ammo in the box as well as 3-4 spare mags but I am not going to carry them around on my person.

[OldMarksman]

This [he ran back in to get another gun to shoot the guy on the floor] was not shown on the video I watched and it was not shown or discussed in the news release.

See the animated sequence here (How it happened; "retrieved a second gun"):

http://newsok.com/pharmacyshootings

That extra step was probably the key to being able to charge him with murder in the first degree.

Had the street thugs continued to use the six shooter, likely that would still be the standard issue.

That could well be, but the choice of weapons is not the only thing that has made the perps more threatening.

The Illinois State Police went to single column semi-autos about three decades ago.

Our County police did not carry AR-15 rifles in their cars until fairly recently. I do not think that the fact that perps have some double-column pistols drove that. I think it was because the perps are meaner and more desperate and there are more of them working together. There are said to be more meth labs around here than there were whiskey stills in Appalachia years ago. In nearby counties, the sounds of labs exploding are not all that uncommon.

I carry a S&W model 686 when I am not working. It carries six rounds and I do not feel inadequate with it. All it takes is one shot...

Ideally, yes, one shot on target per violent criminal actor just might suffice. However, there's enough in the literature (Ayoob, for axample) about perps continuing to shoot and kill after absorbing several shots to center mass and to the pelvic area to put the one shot scenario into the category of the ideal.

I like the 686 but I cannot conceal one.

Personally, I stay away from Magnum rounds for reasons of controllability (in lighter guns) and potential danger to others.

The remark about cell phones is a cheap shot...

Not intended as such, but your discussion was excellent.

Having used a sidearm three times in 38 years, I shot twice in one shooting, once in another and three times in the remaining shooting.

Seems it does sometimes take more than one shot.

I've been very lucky. I have necessarily produced a weapon three times in forty five years and have never had to fire a shot.

Accuracy is still better than capacity.

Absolutely, and for reasons we have agreed upon: only hits stop the attacker; and misses can hit someone else.

I do not need fifteen shots...

Nor do I--I am not sworn to enforce the law, and I have difficulty visualizing a scenario in which fifteen shots would be needed in a justifiable use of force by a citizen. I do not have and will not buy any handgun with that capacity. It would be hard to conceal; I don't need it; and the public perception might not be helpful.

I do like the idea of seven or a little more. Two perps times three shots each, should that prove necessary, would not leave much of a reserve. Personally, I don't think that a single perp around here is likely to persist against a man with a weapon unless he gets the jump on his victim, and many crimes around here do involve two or more assailants.

I switched up from a five shot revolver (for carry some of the time) after about a dozen young gang members pulled a man from his car last spring in a good neighborhood at night. Friends of mine who were nearby heard the ruckus and called the police, whose station was less than two blocks away. The victim survived and no one was caught, but it could have turned out a lot worse.

[oldman1946]

I like the 686 but I cannot conceal one.

Personally, I stay away from Magnum rounds for reasons of controllability (in lighter guns) and potential danger to others.

I stand 6'3" barefooted and 6' 5" with my western boots on and wiegh 248. I could dang near conceal a grenade launcher on my large frame.

Concealment is not an issue with me and since I often am dressed for court, having the clothes to conceal is not difficult.

[Kyo]

all i really carry is my 45, an extra mag, my cell phone, keys, wallet. i have a flashlight i take sometimes as well. like, at night time

[igor]

I carry a spare mag at all times because the malfunction drills I do assume having one handy. If tap-rack-bang doesn't clear it, I still have the rip out mag-rackrack-insert new mag-rack-bang available and well drilled in.

The combined capacity of 14+14 is not entirely optimized but I don't mind the extra weight. Oftentimes I download to 13+13 just to save the mag springs a bit. I would be entirely happy to have some 1911 variant with a 7-shot mag and another to spare, but that's not what I spend my training time with.

I'm an A class IPSC shooter and I regularly spend considerable range time with a CZ SP-01. So my carry gun is a CZ D Compact with the same trigger pull and grip angle, and equipped with the same sights as the competition gun. And it just happens to come with that 14-shot mag.

Now, inanimate objects do not make me do things I don't consciously decide to do. I don't feel a burning need to spray everything moving with bullets just because I have several available.

I've read this thread with great interest and respect to the experiences and knowledge shared, but there seem to be some quite baffling straw arguments, exaggerations, projections or sweeping generalizations on top of the very sensible undertone here.

1946, could you sum up in a two-sentence argument your exact point against carrying a spare magazine? I'm at a loss with your reasoning so far.

[oldman1946]

1946, could you sum up in a two-sentence argument your exact point against carrying a spare magazine? I'm at a loss with your reasoning so far.

Maybe not in two sentences. We do the handgun community an injustice when walking around like Rambo.

While I have noticed many here are younger and new to either firearms, CCW or both, there is a tendancy to carry a lot of ammo and even show it off. Walking into a store, restaurant or out in the streets with ammo hanging off the belts causes some people discomfort. The likelyhood of a person needing that much ammo is slimmer than can be calculated but the odds of being seen looking like going to war is great.

I shoot a lot and often. I carry others with me to introduce them to the sport. But as you, I also have extra ammo for my needs but not on me where it will be seen or cause concern.

Come with me to crime scenes and look at the ammo the victims have. Walk around the scene and look at the number cards. Then see it on tv and hear the flak about people having access to that much firepower.

Carry a five gallon bucket around full of ammo and I do not care. BUt lets not injure the sport or ability to carry with unnecessary actions.