# The Disadvantage of Carrying Weapons



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 10, 2017)

Weapons can be force multipliers.  As such, they can be effective in self-defense use.  There is no doubt that a knife or a gun is more deadly in more circumstances than empty hands.  There is no doubt that both types of weapons, especially firearms, can be used effectively in self-defense by people who otherwise would not be equipped to defend themselves, for example the aged or infirm.

So weapons, in general, are a good thing.  I'm for them.  This is not an anti-weapons diatribe.

However, carrying weapons, any kind of weapons, for self-defense, has some disadvantages as well.  I think people don't always consider those before they decide to venture outside armed.

A weapon, to be effective, must be practiced with.  The user must become proficient.  This is something that some people take seriously.  Others, however, do not.  They buy a gun or a knife or a stick or a can of pepper spray or a stunner and they test it once or twice, put it away or drop it in a pocket, purse, glovebox, or throw it under the seat of their car and forget about it.  You can certainly get lucky deploying a weapon you haven't trained with, but it's probably more likely that you won't.

Which brings me to my next point, which is that far too many people (in my opinion) think a weapon is a magic talisman.  The idea in their mind is that they'll be attacked or confronted by a bad guy, they will casually unholster their concealed boom stick, wave it around a bit, and everything will magically get better.  I'm here to tell you, typically it will not.  After brandishing a weapon, if it goes to the next step, you had better be prepared and trained to use it as it was intended; there goes the magic wand effect.

Weapons, to be effective, not only have to be trained with to the point of proficiency, but they must be with you when you need them.  This brings me to my next point, which involves carry.  If you're going to carry, carry.  In my opinion, despite the fact that a whole bunch of people will respond to this thread and say they carry every day in every way, most people who are licensed to carry seldom do.  They carry infrequently, in my opinion.  I've never seen a study done, so this is just one man's opinion, but I know quite a few people with concealed carry permits and they have nearly all told me that there are times when they just decide not to carry.  They are making a 'quick trip' to the gas station, or church, or it's hot and they're wearing light summer clothing, or they are going to church or the beach or a bar and they don't want to leave their weapon in the car, or (and I hear this one a lot) the gun is too heavy and prints through their clothes, or they just don't think they're going to need it wherever they happen to be going.  Whatever.  The point is, people licensed to carry often do not carry.  That is when you're going to need it - when you don't have it.

I read comments from people who would have us believe that they carry everywhere, including the shower and bed and when making sweet sweet love, and furthermore, they generally have several guns with them at all times.  I call BS.  Just saying.

In addition to actually obtaining a carry permit and becoming proficient and actually carrying, one must also become more than slightly familiar with the laws where they live concerning self-defense and the use of deadly force.  Not having a thorough understanding of when you can and cannot employ your weapon is of vital importance if you wish to remain out of prison and not have your life's work taken away by a civil lawsuit.  One must become familiar with ancillary laws such as where you can carry, how you can legally transport, duty to notify others and/or law enforcement, and so on.

Finally, one must remember this.  Any weapon you choose to use is also a weapon against you if it is taken away by the bad guy.  So you must become proficient in weapon retention as well as learning to use the weapon.  If you draw a knife in a confrontation and the bad guy takes it from you, you have a real problem on your hands.

Moreover, depending on what kind of weapon you're using, you now have to defend the weapon with one hand, because the other hand is busy holding the weapon itself.  Congratulations, you just voluntarily made yourself a one-armed person.  Even if you haven't drawn your weapon but are carrying it on your person, now you have to defend it from being taken from you; it's like you are now defending yourself and another person, and believe me, that's harder than simply defending yourself.

Finally, when a weapon is introduced into a violent situation, the chances that the situation will now end up involving deadly force is much higher.  Once a knife or a gun is brought into the equation, the chances are much higher that someone is going to be shot, stabbed, or sliced.  Consider that the situation may well not call for such an outcome.  I'm not suggesting that a person should not defend their own lives with deadly force if need be, but that it's important to remember that a standard fistfight between a couple of drunks usually doesn't result in death (it can of course, but it usually doesn't).  Somebody draws a pistol and starts firing, and now it's a massacre instead of a drunken brawl.

In conclusion, again, I say I am not against weapons.  They are effective force-multipliers when used properly.  But they are not magic wands, and there is a tuition to be paid and risks to be taken when one chooses to go about armed.  Consider that before deciding to carry.


----------



## MJS (Oct 10, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Weapons can be force multipliers.  As such, they can be effective in self-defense use.  There is no doubt that a knife or a gun is more deadly in more circumstances than empty hands.  There is no doubt that both types of weapons, especially firearms, can be used effectively in self-defense by people who otherwise would not be equipped to defend themselves, for example the aged or infirm.
> 
> So weapons, in general, are a good thing.  I'm for them.  This is not an anti-weapons diatribe.
> 
> ...



Well said Bill and I agree.  The interesting thing is, while many schools teach weapons, the retention part, as you mention, is often not taught.  This is akin to teaching self defense, but not teaching de-escalation, or the legal side of SD.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

Well also depending on what kind of weapon you can or will be carrying that's the weapon you should train with. So, it would make sense to train with guns if you're going to be carrying a gun and if you're in a place that allows it and you've got the proper permits. But lets say you're going somewhere where you aren't allowed to carry guns or knives. Than you would have to be proficient with the weapons that would be available. For that reason I like to train with sticks, you will find them just about everywhere and its just about impossible to ban all types of sticks.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 10, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Weapons can be force multipliers.  As such, they can be effective in self-defense use.  There is no doubt that a knife or a gun is more deadly in more circumstances than empty hands.  There is no doubt that both types of weapons, especially firearms, can be used effectively in self-defense by people who otherwise would not be equipped to defend themselves, for example the aged or infirm.
> 
> So weapons, in general, are a good thing.  I'm for them.  This is not an anti-weapons diatribe.
> 
> ...


I need to show this post to my mother.  Maybe it’ll talk some sense into her.

Her sister got her onto a gun kick.  Or should I say paranoia.  She recently convinced my mother she needs to buy a shotgun.  The whole ‘you’re a 60 year woman living alone and what happens if someone breaks in’ speech.  

So my aunt and mother each buy a shotgun and some shells (bullets? whatever they’re specifically called) from a local sporting goods chain store.  They then to a gun range with a friend (who doesn’t know his a$$ from a hole in the ground) who teaches them how to load and fire it over the course of an hour or so.  They both think they’re good to go.  Seriously.

I asked her who and when she’s allowed to shoot.  Shoulder shrug.  How far away they need to be.  Shoulder shrug.  What’s going to keep someone from shooting you with your own gun.  Shoulder shrug.

Ever think of taking a gun safety course?  Ever think of asking a LEO or attorney the legal ramifications?

She’ll get to that later.  Sure.


----------



## jobo (Oct 10, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Well also depending on what kind of weapon you can or will be carrying that's the weapon you should train with. So, it would make sense to train with guns if you're going to be carrying a gun and if you're in a place that allows it and you've got the proper permits. But lets say you're going somewhere where you aren't allowed to carry guns or knives. Than you would have to be proficient with the weapons that would be available. For that reason I like to train with sticks, you will find them just about everywhere and its just about impossible to ban all types of sticks.


where do you live that sticks are,available EVERY WHERE? I can walk for many miles with out coming across a stick!


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> where do you live that sticks are,available EVERY WHERE? I can walk for many miles with out coming across a stick!


Maybe he lives in the woods?


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 10, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I need to show this post to my mother.  Maybe it’ll talk some sense into her.
> 
> Her sister got her onto a gun kick.  Or should I say paranoia.  She recently convinced my mother she needs to buy a shotgun.  The whole ‘you’re a 60 year woman living alone and what happens if someone breaks in’ speech.
> 
> ...


  In instances like that, the shotgun is not actually for self-defense. It is to lessen the growing feeling of helplessness from getting old, since you can't even run away any more. My Dad did the same thing. As he got older, he started putting a shotgun where he could easily get to it by the back door. He said it was for self-defense, but he also never did more than basically learn how to use it. I figured that it didn't change the odds of him having a home invasion robbery, so it didn't really make much of a difference if he knew how to use it or not. It sat there for years. When he passed away a couple of years ago, I had to give it a thorough cleaning to remove the accumulated dirt from years of neglect. However, it always made him feel better to think that it was there.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> where do you live that sticks are,available EVERY WHERE? I can walk for many miles with out coming across a stick!



Here in the U.S. We have these things we call brooms that consists of "broom sticks" plus mops and shovels, dowel rods, etc... can be converted.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> where do you live that sticks are,available EVERY WHERE? I can walk for many miles with out coming across a stick!


And just where are you?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Here in the U.S. We have these things we call brooms that consists of "broom sticks" plus mops and shovels, dowel rods, etc... can be converted.


Exactly


----------



## wab25 (Oct 10, 2017)

Excellent post from the OP. I really liked the part about how introducing the weapon, increases the odds of a deadly outcome. I would add to that, that unless you are prepared to use the weapon, you should not produce the weapon. If I am carrying a gun, and I am not prepared to shoot and kill my attacker, I should not produce the weapon. Weapons are force multipliers as well as situation escalators.

In martial arts, we practice weapon disarm moves. But, do we consider the points made by the OP? I know many people, who won't carry a gun, because they have moral issues with guns... (which is not an argument for here) But they also practice a martial art that involves gun disarming techniques, thinking that will save them. It does not occur to them, that after disarming the other guy, they now have the gun that they morally object to.

When we attempt a weapon disarm, that is also a situation escalation, not a de-escalation. When the bad guy pulls a gun on you for your wallet, he is reasonably sure that he is safe, and you are in danger. When you disarm him, he suddenly becomes afraid for his life, his fight or flight response kicks in. He may very well, use that response to overwhelm you, take the gun back and now he kills you, where before he would have been happy with the $20 in your wallet.

When people are taught weapon disarms, they need to know all of the legal implications of using deadly force. They need to be ready to use the weapon they take away, as soon as they get it, their life may *now* depend on it. (this is all assuming the disarm actually works...) Too many times people train these weapon disarms, thinking that will de-escalate the situation and the other guy will logically agree to walk away now. However, as soon as you start to fight for that weapon, you are both fighting for your lives. Assuming you get the weapon, you may need to deploy it immediately, to stop the bad guy from getting it back and killing you with it. You should also know when you can legally use the weapon you just took... you may become the bad guy in a legal sense.

Also, consider what other people see and what the police will see. The bad guy pulls a gun on you, a bystander calls the police "some guy pulled a gun on the other", you disarm the bad guy, get distance and cover the bad guy with his own gun, the police show up... who do the police see as the bad guy? Do you know how to communicate with the police without getting yourself in more trouble?

Again, I really like this discussion. I am not trying to deter anyone from carrying or disarming... But, I agree completely with the need for the carrier to train and understand the legal environment. I also think that when weapon disarms are studied, these same issues need to be discussed as well. Whether carrying or attempting a disarm, you need to understand these same issues.


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 10, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I need to show this post to my mother.  Maybe it’ll talk some sense into her.
> 
> Her sister got her onto a gun kick.  Or should I say paranoia.  She recently convinced my mother she needs to buy a shotgun.  The whole ‘you’re a 60 year woman living alone and what happens if someone breaks in’ speech.
> 
> ...


See this is the whole problem with the world..the fact that 2 elderly women who know sweet FA about guns can go Into a shop and buy a shotgun and a bunch of ammo and off they go and legally this is perfectly fine....it's because dumb logic like this that 50 people in Vegas are dead and over 500 are injured


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I need to show this post to my mother.  Maybe it’ll talk some sense into her.
> 
> Her sister got her onto a gun kick.  Or should I say paranoia.  She recently convinced my mother she needs to buy a shotgun.  The whole ‘you’re a 60 year woman living alone and what happens if someone breaks in’ speech.
> 
> ...


They should go to Frontsight.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> See this is the whole problem with the world..the fact that 2 elderly women who know sweet FA about guns can go Into a shop and buy a shotgun and a bunch of ammo and off they go and legally this is perfectly fine....it's because dumb logic like this that 50 people in Vegas are dead and over 500 are injured


Dude, you're not supposed to get political on this forum. By doing so you're putting this thread at a risk of being shut down.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 10, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Weapons can be force multipliers.  As such, they can be effective in self-defense use.  There is no doubt that a knife or a gun is more deadly in more circumstances than empty hands.  There is no doubt that both types of weapons, especially firearms, can be used effectively in self-defense by people who otherwise would not be equipped to defend themselves, for example the aged or infirm.
> 
> So weapons, in general, are a good thing.  I'm for them.  This is not an anti-weapons diatribe.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more. Carrying a weapon isn't the only thing a person needs, but training as well. Imagine a non martial artist using the logic, "I have hands, thus I will use them if the situation arises even though I have little to no training." When you apply the same reasoning with weapons the situation become more dangerous. Weapons, regardless of your preference, requires professional training and continuous practice.

Reading your post reminds me of a friend I once had. He loved guns, grew up with guns and would talk about guns endlessly. One day him, a group of friends and I went to the pistol range to fire off some rounds. When it came down to it he possessed zero to little firearm skills. Out of 50 rounds he only put half into a target 7 yards away. Imagine the target being an actual threat and my friend responded, that's a lot of stray rounds. He didn't know what to do when it jammed, nor did he know how to stand properly. I, being a former armed security officer, was able to put 48/50 rounds(with varying accuracy) into it. That was the first time me firing my pistol in 5 years, but I would have been much more accurate if I practiced more regularly.

I'm not an anti-weapon advocate either, but I agree the untrained carrying weapons is more dangerous than someone trained. One would think people would naturally want to receive quality training in the weapons they carry, unfortunately many don't.


----------



## Streetfighter2 (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> See this is the whole problem with the world..the fact that 2 elderly women who know sweet FA about guns can go Into a shop and buy a shotgun and a bunch of ammo and off they go and legally this is perfectly fine....it's because dumb logic like this that 50 people in Vegas are dead and over 500 are injured


Agreed its pathetic guns are cowards weapons


----------



## Anarax (Oct 10, 2017)

The ignorance on here is absolutely astounding. People using those who lost their lives to make a political statement is such a disgraceful thing to do. Regardless of your political allegiance try to conduct yourselves with some respect and dignity


----------



## Streetfighter2 (Oct 10, 2017)

.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 10, 2017)

Streetfighter2 said:


> Agreed its pathetic guns are cowards weapons



Saying only cowards use guns is an ignorant and inaccurate thing to say. Cowardly acts are committed with guns, knives, bats, bare hands, etc. The tools you use are not indicative of your bravery nor cowardice. Look at it three dimensionally and try not to generalize.


----------



## MA_Student (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> See this is the whole problem with the world..the fact that 2 elderly women who know sweet FA about guns can go Into a shop and buy a shotgun and a bunch of ammo and off they go and legally this is perfectly fine....it's because dumb logic like this that 50 people in Vegas are dead and over 500 are injured


I meant no disrespect in the post but it relates to this thread my point. People are carrying weapons because they're scared of people with weapons because they're so easy to get which was shown in this incident when the scumbag had over 50 guns in his hotel room. Apologies if anyone's upset by it if anyone wants to delete it go for it makes no difference to me


----------



## Anarax (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I meant no disrespect in the post but it relates to this thread my point. People are carrying weapons because they're scared of people with weapons because they're so easy to get which was shown in this incident when the scumbag had over 50 guns in his hotel room. Apologies if anyone's upset by it if anyone wants to delete it go for it makes no difference to me



1) This thread has nothing to do with the point you're making, this thread was addressing the lack of training people have with the weapons they carry on them. 2) You're using a tragedy and trying to make it apply to this thread just to make it clear to everyone what your stance on firearms policy is.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> See this is the whole problem with the world..the fact that 2 elderly women who know sweet FA about guns can go Into a shop and buy a shotgun and a bunch of ammo and off they go and legally this is perfectly fine....it's because dumb logic like this that 50 people in Vegas are dead and over 500 are injured





Streetfighter2 said:


> .


You really can’t see the idiocy in theses posts?  I’ll spell it out for you...

No one who walks into a store and buys guns they truly don’t know how to use is going to be able to pull that off.

Quite a big difference between a sociopath who makes specific and effective plans, knows the weapons inside and out, knows how to alter them, and has the mental defect to actually implement all of that vs someone who buys one to feel safe at night.

Very, very big fundamental difference.  If you can’t see that, there’s nothing anyone can say that’ll change what’s in your head.  You can’t fix stupid.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 10, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> In instances like that, the shotgun is not actually for self-defense. It is to lessen the growing feeling of helplessness from getting old, since you can't even run away any more. My Dad did the same thing. As he got older, he started putting a shotgun where he could easily get to it by the back door. He said it was for self-defense, but he also never did more than basically learn how to use it. I figured that it didn't change the odds of him having a home invasion robbery, so it didn't really make much of a difference if he knew how to use it or not. It sat there for years. When he passed away a couple of years ago, I had to give it a thorough cleaning to remove the accumulated dirt from years of neglect. However, it always made him feel better to think that it was there.


There’s pretty much zero chance she’ll actually have to use it.  You’re absolutely right, it’s so she can sleep better at night.

But something only needs to go wrong once.

My advice was get rid of the damn gun and get a dog if she’s truly worried.  I guess a dog is too much work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 10, 2017)

If you just carry a .22, the story in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "The Hills have Eyes" will never happen.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2017)

Yeah. Look. I used to carry a great big head beating maglight. Which was cool but if my force response didn't really justify head beating I really had more advantage putting the thing away. Otherwise all options were basically hold bat. Hit them with it.

I couldn't work in a crowd effectively. Break up fights or really manhandle guys because the risk was always there that it would become part of the problem.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2017)

jobo said:


> where do you live that sticks are,available EVERY WHERE? I can walk for many miles with out coming across a stick!



I have mentioned this before but the kiddies in my area were mad keen for beating each other with trolley handles. There is generally a stick if you know where to look.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Oct 10, 2017)

You have one. I have one too. Please! Can we have peace now?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 10, 2017)

Folks, my intent was not to fuel a political debate, which in any case is against the rules here on MT and for good reason.  Let's bring it down a notch, please.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 10, 2017)

wab25 said:


> When we attempt a weapon disarm, that is also a situation escalation, not a de-escalation. When the bad guy pulls a gun on you for your wallet, he is reasonably sure that he is safe, and you are in danger. When you disarm him, he suddenly becomes afraid for his life, his fight or flight response kicks in. He may very well, use that response to overwhelm you, take the gun back and now he kills you, where before he would have been happy with the $20 in your wallet.



And of course you have someones strange gun you may have no idea how to use.

In the defence drills I did with gun disarms I just used to pistol whip guys after I got the gun of them.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 10, 2017)

Streetfighter2 said:


> Agreed its pathetic guns are cowards weapons



When my cousin protected her baby by confronting and killing the escaped convict that broke into her house....that wasn't cowardly.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 10, 2017)

drop bear said:


> the defence drills I did with gun disarms I just used to pistol whip guys after I got the gun of them.



Not the best idea.  Real easy for an accidental discharge while "pistol whipping" someone.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 10, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Not the best idea.  Real easy for an accidental discharge while "pistol whipping" someone.


I was going to say I wonder how easy it would be for the gun to go off during a pistol whip.

It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
Then it’s hilarious


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 10, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> I meant no disrespect in the post but it relates to this thread my point. People are carrying weapons because they're scared of people with weapons because they're so easy to get which was shown in this incident when the scumbag had over 50 guns in his hotel room. Apologies if anyone's upset by it if anyone wants to delete it go for it makes no difference to me


As I said before, making such posts not only risks them being deleted but also risks the thread being locked down. I don't think most of us want this thread locked down just because of your political posts.


----------



## Steve (Oct 10, 2017)

I think there is a meaningful and important difference between carrying weapons out and about and having weapons available for home defense.

Oh, and rabble rabble.  I don’t want to be left out of the rabble rousing going on.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 10, 2017)

Steve said:


> I think there is a meaningful and important difference between carrying weapons out and about and having weapons available for home defense.



So you should be able to protect yourself at your home....but be at your attacker's mercy outside your home?


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 10, 2017)

As long as the US bans me owning my own personal defense orangatuan named Clyde, I will continue to carry CCW.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> As long as the US bans me owning my own personal defense orangatuan named Clyde, I will continue to carry CCW.



I have to disagree with you here, I believe a gorilla would be more effective though baboons are disturbingly aggressive.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 11, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And of course you have someones strange gun you may have no idea how to use.



Spurious. All guns (at least any that it's reasonable to consider in this context) operate in exactly the same manner. Point and squeeze the trigger.



CB Jones said:


> Not the best idea.  Real easy for an accidental discharge while "pistol whipping" someone.



No it's not. Not unless you're violating one of the fundamentals of gun handling by putting your finger on the trigger when you shouldn't.



Steve said:


> I think there is a meaningful and important difference between carrying weapons out and about and having weapons available for home defense.



Because you're not supposed to protect yourself when you're outside your home?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 11, 2017)

Streetfighter2 said:


> Agreed its pathetic guns are cowards weapons



I hope this is supposed to be funny, because otherwise this makes you look an incredible buffoon.



MA_Student said:


> I meant no disrespect in the post but it relates to this thread my point. People are carrying weapons because they're scared of people with weapons because they're so easy to get which was shown in this incident when the scumbag had over 50 guns in his hotel room. Apologies if anyone's upset by it if anyone wants to delete it go for it makes no difference to me



If you turn this into a political debate, the thread will be locked. Period.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 11, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I have to disagree with you here, I believe a gorilla would be more effective though baboons are disturbingly aggressive.



The gorilla will certainly bring more brute force to the party, but I think the orangutan is smarter, and I like having smarts on my side.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> As long as the US bans me owning my own personal defense orangatuan named Clyde, I will continue to carry CCW.


Right turn, Clyde


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> The gorilla will certainly bring more brute force to the party, but I think the orangutan is smarter, and I like having smarts on my side.



What you really need is what I have by my side , a Rockape.


----------



## CDR_Glock (Oct 11, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Weapons can be force multipliers.  As such, they can be effective in self-defense use.  There is no doubt that a knife or a gun is more deadly in more circumstances than empty hands.  There is no doubt that both types of weapons, especially firearms, can be used effectively in self-defense by people who otherwise would not be equipped to defend themselves, for example the aged or infirm.
> 
> So weapons, in general, are a good thing.  I'm for them.  This is not an anti-weapons diatribe.
> 
> ...



Carrying a firearm requires a lot of training, knowledge about the weapon system, knowledge of the law, and understanding the limitations of the weapon system.  

That does not even include the complexities of how to carry, concealed or open carry.

Regular practice is important, not only for competency but also when drawing the firearm, determining timing, and also when to draw and fire.

Above all, situational awareness and intuition rise above all of that for me.  I go above and beyond the average citizen’s ideas of what to do.  Honestly, I can outshoot and outdraw most individuals.  

It is still with an understanding that if a situation can be avoided, irregardless of a weapon or the ability to fight, that I do so.  

By most laws, deadly force is justified in the event of a carjacking, robbery, rape, abduction, robbery, or in a case where where is a disparity of force.  It is not in the case of a bar fight or physical altercation.  Most places don’t even allow carry where alcohol is served.  All places don’t allow carry while drinking, either.

Gun laws on carrying are laid out to protect the average citizen and certain areas are prohibited, such as federal buildings, post offices, school, court houses, law enforcement facilities, etc.  

It isn’t the Wild West where you can just draw on someone, either, just because they’re an *******.  Brandishing is punishable by law.  It can only be drawn in a self defense situation.

The average non-gun carrier would not have any idea of the extent of the laws and regulations, let alone the subtleties.  

—-
The other day, I was craving food from a restaurant. It was 25 minutes from home.  An individual was walking and I thought he wanted to cross the street.  I motioned to him to cross but he shrugged it off and he tried to approach my car.  I drove forward and through, not acknowledging him.  He had a strange walk with a stagger.  I moved two rows away from him at the parking lot to park.  He made eye contact, and was walking towards my car again.  I was armed, and I could have proceeded to go to the restaurant but I had a weird vibe about him.  I just decided to drive off and go to a plan B.  I always carry a semiautomatic, a revolver and a smaller revolver with me.  That day I did not want to have to resort to a situation as any situation can he avoidable.
—-

It is a complex area that will bring a lot of heated discussion.  But then again, Deadly force for self defense whether it’s by martial arts or a weapon is a complex topic.



Instagram: MuzzleblastMD


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 11, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> What you really need is what I have by my side , a Rockape.



I think a trunk monkey is best.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 11, 2017)

CDR_Glock said:


> Carrying a firearm requires a lot of training, knowledge about the weapon system, knowledge of the law, and understanding the limitations of the weapon system.



It's really not that complicated. 



> That does not even include the complexities of how to carry, concealed or open carry.



I've been carrying for something like 20 years. It's not complicated.

The biggest disadvantage I see to carrying a weapon is the problems encountered in public restrooms...


----------



## CDR_Glock (Oct 11, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> It's really not that complicated.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That may be the case, but reading endless threads of what holster to use, printing or does my gun make my *** look big reveals that most people over complicated it.

As for public restrooms, I go into a stall.  Last think I want to do is drop a firearm or worse, leave it.

I’ve been carrying for half of the time as you.  I shoot 4-6 times a month.

What do you carry?




Instagram: MuzzleblastMD


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 11, 2017)

CDR_Glock said:


> That may be the case, but reading endless threads of what holster to use, printing or does my gun make my *** look big reveals that most people over complicated it.



You can make anything complicated, if you want to. But carrying a gun is not inherently complicated.



> As for public restrooms, I go into a stall.  Last think I want to do is drop a firearm or worse, leave it.



I think every stall should have a shelf to put your gun on. It'd make pulling your pants back up a lot easier...



> I’ve been carrying for half of the time as you.  I shoot 4-6 times a month.
> 
> What do you carry?



Depends on the day, but the majority of the time I carry a Glock 19.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 11, 2017)

I think oftentimes people overcomplicate it because they don't want people to think they are reckless or unsafe.

But I agree with DD....carying and using a firearm is simple, it just takes a little training and practice.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 11, 2017)

CDR_Glock said:


> Honestly, I can outshoot and outdraw most individuals



Can you?

Ever done any force on force gunfighting with simmunitions?  It's a great eye opener to see how well your skills translate when matched up against someone shooting back.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think a trunk monkey is best.



My husband's feelings are hurt now.  Still, there's very little he doesn't know about weapons big and small, having fired most things in anger somewhere around the world, if you ask him he will tell you the people who should have their guns taken off them are those in certain parts of the world who fire in the air for the slightest little excuse. Celebrating etc by doing that is just plain stupid.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 11, 2017)

Get a Donk...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I think oftentimes people overcomplicate it because they don't want people to think they are reckless or unsafe.
> 
> But I agree with DD....carying and using a firearm is simple, it just takes a little training and practice.



Anyone can buy a law book. If they read it a lot, they may learn something about the laws.  Doesn't make them a lawyer.

Proper training with a firearm makes one proficient with the firearm.  It doesn't automatically confer knowledge about when and when not to employ it.  CCW training may provide some of that information, but now in 13 of the 50 states, no carry permit is required, no training, no certification necessary.

I would argue that from a moral point of view, mere proficiency is grossly insufficient when carrying a firearm.  I am not interested in politics or the laws about training/carrying here.  I am saying that a person who is able to safely carry and accurately shoot a firearm only is woefully unprepared to use it in self-defense in most circumstances.

Unlike martial arts training, where something is generally better than nothing, mere proficiency with the firearm without all the accompanying requirements is worse than not carrying at all.

In other words, the guy who carries three guns at all times on his person (good grief) and can shoot straight and draw fast, but who knows jack about when, where, how and why they may shoot, how to retain their weapon from a person determined to take it from them, and so on, is more a danger to the community than an unarmed person.  I am not claiming Johnny Three-Guns is not also knowledgeable about the above, I'm using it as an example.  Three guns.  For crying out loud.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 11, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> My husband's feelings are hurt now.  Still, there's very little he doesn't know about weapons big and small, having fired most things in anger somewhere around the world, if you ask him he will tell you the people who should have their guns taken off them are those in certain parts of the world who fire in the air for the slightest little excuse. Celebrating etc by doing that is just plain stupid.


I like the sign my brother in law told me about in the jail he used to work at.  Similar to this one...


----------



## Martial D (Oct 11, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Weapons can be force multipliers.  As such, they can be effective in self-defense use.  There is no doubt that a knife or a gun is more deadly in more circumstances than empty hands.  There is no doubt that both types of weapons, especially firearms, can be used effectively in self-defense by people who otherwise would not be equipped to defend themselves, for example the aged or infirm.
> 
> So weapons, in general, are a good thing.  I'm for them.  This is not an anti-weapons diatribe.
> 
> ...


Truth and wisdom right here.


----------



## Tarrycat (Oct 11, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I need to show this post to my mother.  Maybe it’ll talk some sense into her.
> 
> Her sister got her onto a gun kick.  Or should I say paranoia.  She recently convinced my mother she needs to buy a shotgun.  The whole ‘you’re a 60 year woman living alone and what happens if someone breaks in’ speech.
> 
> ...



Old people are ALWAYS right... I know the feeling.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 11, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> View attachment 21059
> I like the sign my brother in law told me about in the jail he used to work at.  Similar to this one...



They shouldn't have that because  when they shoot and miss they can't claim it was a warning shot!


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 11, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Spurious. All guns (at least any that it's reasonable to consider in this context) operate in exactly the same manner. Point and squeeze the trigger.


And for it to go bang when you squeeze the trigger, depending on the gun that might require certain conditions to be met. For instance, with the Beretta m9 the decocker lever has to be up or it will not fire.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 11, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In other words, the guy who carries three guns at all times on his person (good grief) and can shoot straight and draw fast, but who knows jack about when, where, how and why they may shoot, how to retain their weapon from a person determined to take it from them, and so on, is more a danger to the community than an unarmed person.  I am not claiming Johnny Three-Guns is not also knowledgeable about the above, I'm using it as an example.  Three guns.  For crying out loud.


Pick the level of paranoia to which you subscribe.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Oct 11, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Three guns. For crying out loud.


perfect example of my anxiety compensation theory.
_anxiety from the inability and helplessness to defend one's self leads to an increasing and growing need for more control due to the expanding awareness of one's weakness._  so one gun is good for awhile until it occurs to you that you also need one under your pillow and next to the door,  strapped to you leg, one under the sink and one behind the toilet.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 11, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Pick the level of paranoia to which you subscribe.



For some reason, in my mind's eye, all I see is Travis Bickle.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 11, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> perfect example of my anxiety compensation theory.
> _anxiety from the inability and helplessness to defend one's self leads to an increasing and growing need for more control due to the expanding awareness of one's weakness._  so one gun is good for awhile until it occurs to you that you also need one under your pillow and next to the door,  strapped to you leg, one under the sink and one behind the toilet.


I keep a fourth hidden in my rectum.  Just in case.  ‘Cause ya never know...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 11, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I keep a fourth hidden in my rectum.  Just in case.  ‘Cause ya never know...



Wrecked 'em?  Damned near killed 'em.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 11, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Anyone can buy a law book. If they read it a lot, they may learn something about the laws.  Doesn't make them a lawyer.
> 
> Proper training with a firearm makes one proficient with the firearm.  It doesn't automatically confer knowledge about when and when not to employ it.  CCW training may provide some of that information, but now in 13 of the 50 states, no carry permit is required, no training, no certification necessary.
> 
> ...



All of that is not really that complicated to learn and when you get into it is much simpler than what most people think.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> All of that is not really that complicated to learn and when you get into it is much simpler than what most people think.



If it was that easy, you'd think that people with a freshly-minted CPL license would not rush out of a Home Depot to shoot at shoplifters.

Woman Who Shot at Home Depot Shoplifters Vows to Never Help Anyone Again

FYI, this was less than 3 miles from my house.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 11, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If it was that easy, you'd think that people with a freshly-minted CPL license would not rush out of a Home Depot to shoot at shoplifters.
> 
> Woman Who Shot at Home Depot Shoplifters Vows to Never Help Anyone Again
> 
> FYI, this was less than 3 miles from my house.



Because the action(s) of one or a few is indicative of everyone else.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Because the action(s) of one or a few is indicative of everyone else.



I agree that the overwhelming majority of lawful concealed weapons carriers do not break the law in any way, shape, or form with regard to their carry of weapons.  I simply question how simple it is for the average citizen to understand these things.  I think most of them absolutely do not.  I guess I'm a pessimist in that way.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 11, 2017)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree that the overwhelming majority of lawful concealed weapons carriers do not break the law in any way, shape, or form with regard to their carry of weapons.  I simply question how simple it is for the average citizen to understand these things.  I think most of them absolutely do not.  I guess I'm a pessimist in that way.



It's actually really simple if....you aren't a dips**t and you take the time to learn.....and are open to learning

Problem is some either don't take the time to learn or go in with their own preconceived ideas and do not learn it correctly.

Then you have your Dips**t outliers that make us all look bad.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 11, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Get a Donk...


Stupid me posted the video in a different language. Here it is in English...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 11, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> And for it to go bang when you squeeze the trigger, depending on the gun that might require certain conditions to be met. For instance, with the Beretta m9 the decocker lever has to be up or it will not fire.



Right. Because the guy you took it from is real likely to have kept the safety on. 
Still having difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality?
The point, which you clearly failed to grasp, is that the odds of an assailant having a gun that I have ‘no idea’ how to operate is ridiculous. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PhotonGuy (Oct 11, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Right. Because the guy you took it from is real likely to have kept the safety on.
> Still having difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality?
> The point, which you clearly failed to grasp, is that the odds of an assailant having a gun that I have ‘no idea’ how to operate is ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Nope, there is this true case of an owner of a gun shop who in the course of having his shop robbed his sidearm was taken and the bad guy tried to shoot him with it. The bad guy was not able to and shoot the gun and fortunately the shop owner was able to retrieve a backup gun and stop the robbers. The reason why the bad guy was not able to shoot his sidearm is because he had it specially designed that unless you knew exactly what to do you would not be able to fire it. He had it designed that way for that very reason, if somebody were to take it from him they could not shoot him with it. This is a true story not a fantasy my friend.


----------



## Steve (Oct 11, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> So you should be able to protect yourself at your home....but be at your attacker's mercy outside your home?





Dirty Dog said:


> Because you're not supposed to protect yourself when you're outside your home?



I’m pretty sure I didn’t say this.  I said they are different issues, and I believe that.


----------



## Tarrycat (Oct 11, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you just carry a .22, the story in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "The Hills have Eyes" will never happen.



Aren't both based on true stories?


----------



## Tarrycat (Oct 11, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> I have to disagree with you here, I believe a gorilla would be more effective though baboons are disturbingly aggressive.



Omg, they ARE, Tez! . Look what happened to that lady whose face was torn & bitten off by that famous & "tame" chimpanzee. My dad wanted to take me to the Congo to play with the chimps & the gorillas, but I refused. I'm not familiar with the temperaments of gorillas, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. I'll stick to playing with tiger & lion cubs...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 12, 2017)

Steve said:


> I’m pretty sure I didn’t say this.  I said they are different issues, and I believe that.



OK, I'm certainly willing to accept that I may have misinterpreted your one-liner. So perhaps you'd like to expand on the statement and clarify things?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 12, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> Nope, there is this true case of an owner of a gun shop who in the course of having his shop robbed his sidearm was taken and the bad guy tried to shoot him with it. The bad guy was not able to and shoot the gun and fortunately the shop owner was able to retrieve a backup gun and stop the robbers. The reason why the bad guy was not able to shoot his sidearm is because he had it specially designed that unless you knew exactly what to do you would not be able to fire it. He had it designed that way for that very reason, if somebody were to take it from him they could not shoot him with it. This is a true story not a fantasy my friend.



Citation?

I'm going to expand on this...
I am extremely skeptical of the story you mention really being true. You're claiming that this gun shop owner had a custom designed one-off handgun made. Given the cost, I'm skeptical of that claim. Modified guns exist, certainly, but there's no significant change in the way the guns function.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 12, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I keep a fourth hidden in my rectum. Just in case. ‘Cause ya never know...



  Sure, but how good is your aim with that thing!


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 12, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> Sure, but how good is your aim with that thing!


It depends on if I am firing from a position of concealment.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Right turn, Clyde


It's like you read my mind, JR.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Right. Because the guy you took it from is real likely to have kept the safety on.
> Still having difficulty differentiating between fantasy and reality?
> The point, which you clearly failed to grasp, is that the odds of an assailant having a gun that I have ‘no idea’ how to operate is ridiculous.
> 
> ...



I know how to use it. I hit them with it. That way I get an absolute guaranteed result.

If you think you will reliably fire a weapon you have just found. Then good luck with that.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Citation?
> 
> I'm going to expand on this...
> I am extremely skeptical of the story you mention really being true. You're claiming that this gun shop owner had a custom designed one-off handgun made. Given the cost, I'm skeptical of that claim. Modified guns exist, certainly, but there's no significant change in the way the guns function.



Sammy the turk.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I know how to use it. I hit them with it. That way I get an absolute guaranteed result.



No, you don't. If you did, then every person with a club with have a "guaranteed result" which is clearly not true.



> If you think you will reliably fire a weapon you have just found. Then good luck with that.



I've handled literally hundreds of different gun models over the last 40 years or so. There's never been a single one that I had to 'puzzle out' how to fire.
They're just not that complicated.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, you don't. If you did, then every person with a club with have a "guaranteed result" which is clearly not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, but what if you never fired one before?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I know how to use it. I hit them with it. That way I get an absolute guaranteed result.
> 
> If you think you will reliably fire a weapon you have just found. Then good luck with that.


For folks who've fired a lot of different handguns, the likelihood of a new gun being unfamiliar is remote. At the same time, there are some quirks I'd readily recognize if someone handed me the gun, which I'd be unlikely to recognize by feel, alone, after taking one away from someone - especially with the reduced feeling under adrenal load.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> No, you don't. If you did, then every person with a club with have a "guaranteed result" which is clearly not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok. So the bad guy has pointed a gun at you and you yell krav Maga and take it off him.

The bad guy then comes for you to get his gun back.

You shoot. I hit.

Fake gun. Doesnt work for you. Does work for me.

Safety on. Doesnt work for you. Does work for me.

Round not chambered. Dosent work for you. Does work for me.

Gun jams because it is some cheap POS. Doesn't work for you. Does work for me.

Gun is some obsure thing that has some sore of knarley firing system. Doesn work for you. dDoes work for me.

I think I am playing the odds in my favor here.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> For folks who've fired a lot of different handguns, the likelihood of a new gun being unfamiliar is remote. At the same time, there are some quirks I'd readily recognize if someone handed me the gun, which I'd be unlikely to recognize by feel, alone, after taking one away from someone - especially with the reduced feeling under adrenal load.



There was an old murder in melbourne where a guy called chopper reid was having an issue with another guy called Sammy the Turk. 

Anyway Sammy has pulled choppers gun out from his pants. A Beretta M1934 and pulled the trigger. Now aparently there is a weird safety to that gun and it didnt fire giving chopper time to pull out a 4,10 shotgun and kill sammy.

Nicely portrayed by Eric banner here.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You shoot. I hit



Why do I only get to do one?  Why can't I try and shoot and if it doesn't then use striking

What happens when it is a a cocked pistol  you take away and when you hit.... it goes off and shoots yourself in the face?  Again not a big fan of using a gun as a club.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> OK, I'm certainly willing to accept that I may have misinterpreted your one-liner. So perhaps you'd like to expand on the statement and clarify things?


is there something about it you find confusing?  I really think it’s a stand alone statement.   Weapons for home defense and weapons for carrying around in public are two completely different topics that are often conflated, in my opinion inappropriately.    

If you have a question that isn’t loaded, I’m happy to answer it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 12, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Yeah, but what if you never fired one before?



Unless you've lived your entire life under a rock, I'm willing to bet you could manage. It's just not that complicated.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 12, 2017)

Steve said:


> is there something about it you find confusing?  I really think it’s a stand alone statement.   Weapons for home defense and weapons for carrying around in public are two completely different topics that are often conflated, in my opinion inappropriately.



And I disagree, obviously. The weapons I use for home defense are in fact the exact same weapons I carry around in public. This is true of the vast majority of gun owner, in my own experience.



> If you have a question that isn’t loaded, I’m happy to answer it.



Apparently not.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 12, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> What happens when it is a a cocked pistol  you take away and when you hit.... it goes off and shoots yourself in the face?



Let's be honest here... the odds of this happening with any modern firearm are about the same as the odds of the bad guy pointing a gun at you with the safety on and the chamber empty. Silly scenarios are silly, on both sides of the argument.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Let's be honest here... the odds of this happening with any modern firearm are about the same as the odds of the bad guy pointing a gun at you with the safety on and the chamber empty. Silly scenarios are silly, on both sides of the argument.



The odds of this happening are higher than you think....my partner worked the  investigation on it....it didn't shoot the guy in the head but it did shoot the guy's car and almost hit his girlfriend sitting in the car.


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> And I disagree, obviously. The weapons I use for home defense are in fact the exact same weapons I carry around in public. This is true of the vast majority of gun owner, in my own experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not.


As I said, if you have a question that isn’t loaded (no pun intended),  by all means.  You’re snarkiness just makes it clear you are just stirring the pot. 

I think anyone without a hidden agenda can understand I mean they are different topics, not different weapons.  this is a perfect example of why I am skeptical.  You’re parsing words to support an agenda.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Why do I only get to do one?  Why can't I try and shoot and if it doesn't then use striking
> 
> What happens when it is a a cocked pistol  you take away and when you hit.... it goes off and shoots yourself in the face?  Again not a big fan of using a gun as a club.



It will never happen. Just like the gun that will always fire.

Otherwise they are right on top of you. I think you are going to get one go here. 

I will whip them with the barrel. Gun goes off all the better.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Oct 12, 2017)

Steve said:


> As I said, if you have a question that isn’t loaded (no pun intended),  by all means.  You’re snarkiness just makes it clear you are just stirring the pot.
> 
> I think anyone without a hidden agenda can understand I mean they are different topics, not different weapons.  this is a perfect example of why I am skeptical.  You’re parsing words to support an agenda.



Well Steve, I can ask you to expand on what you said and clarify what you mean, but I sure can't make you do so.
There wasn't anything snarky in what I said, but you're free to put whatever spin on it you want.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> It will never happen. Just like the gun that will always fire.
> 
> Otherwise they are right on top of you. I think you are going to get one go here.
> 
> I will whip them with the barrel. Gun goes off all the better.



Hmm...i dunno with his gun in my hand I don't have any reason to stay within reach.  So soon as I have it I'm disengaging physically and creating distance while trying to engage the target with his gun if he is advancing.

If the gun won't fire then I'm going back to fighting.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 12, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Hmm...i dunno with his gun in my hand I don't have any reason to stay within reach.  So soon as I have it I'm disengaging physically and creating distance while trying to engage the target with his gun if he is advancing.
> 
> If the gun won't fire then I'm going back to fighting.



What does he want though?


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 12, 2017)

drop bear said:


> What does he want though?



Well seeing as he has pulled a gun on me I'm guessing he's not interested in my witty banter


----------



## Steve (Oct 12, 2017)

Never mind.  I hope whatever’s bothering you tonight clears up, dirty dog.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

Dirty Dog said:


> Unless you've lived your entire life under a rock, I'm willing to bet you could manage. It's just not that complicated.


I'll have to disagree on this one, DD. A simple safety will often confound new gun users. Grip safeties sometimes cause them problems because they don't hold the gun right. The cocking grip on my Ortgies has kept it from being fired by both new users and the guy who stole it from my dad many years ago. A decocking lever can get tripped in the takeaway (like the safety could), and I've seen new users fail to cock a gun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> As I said, if you have a question that isn’t loaded (no pun intended),  by all means.  You’re snarkiness just makes it clear you are just stirring the pot.
> 
> I think anyone without a hidden agenda can understand I mean they are different topics, not different weapons.  this is a perfect example of why I am skeptical.  You’re parsing words to support an agenda.


Steve, I'm actually curious what you see as differentiating the two. I can see some important differences, but I'd view them as different aspects of the same topic.


----------



## JR 137 (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I'll have to disagree on this one, DD. A simple safety will often confound new gun users. Grip safeties sometimes cause them problems because they don't hold the gun right. The cocking grip on my Ortgies has kept it from being fired by both new users and the guy who stole it from my dad many years ago. A decocking lever can get tripped in the takeaway (like the safety could), and I've seen new users fail to cock a gun.


I thought that way too, however if the attacker has drawn the weapon already, the weapon is most likely cocked and the safety has been deactivated.  Usually all that’s left is pointing it and pulling the trigger.

The only guns I’ve fired are an AR-15, SKS, and 7mm magnum.  They’re all different in the safety and cocking.  If I was pointing one at you and you took it from me, all you’d have to do at that point is aim and fire.  Unless of course i skipped a step when I drew it.

But I’ve never fired a hand gun.  I’m pretty sure I could aim and pull the trigger, but if I’ve never fired any real gun, it may not go that way, especially under stress.


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Steve, I'm actually curious what you see as differentiating the two. I can see some important differences, but I'd view them as different aspects of the same topic.


Alright.  Couple of quick disclaimers.  It was truly intended to be a simple point, to try and avoid the general path these threads go down, which is to confuse home defense and the issues that surround folks packing heat.

Dirty Dog went straight for the most superficial, possibly because it's one of the only things home defense and CCW have in common.  The actual tool is the same... but even that's not true.  I mean, sure, a handgun is a viable home defense weapon, but the "experts," including on this forum, have suggested that a shotgun is very effective for home use because of its lower penetration and relative ease of use in a crisis for people who aren't using guns all the time.  Conversely, a shotgun isn't a practical weapon for CCW.  So, I mean, sure.  If you're looking to stir the pot, you could trivialize the issue and score a minor point by saying that the weapons are the same, even though they really aren't.

But beyond this, just give some thought to the issues surrounding each.  Statistically, most people who use their weapons for self defense are in their homes.  The fundamental nature of the types of crimes is different.  The weapons are different (unless you're just arguing to argue).  The strategies and tactics involved are different.  Even the laws are different, both governing the use of force and of ownership.  Just not the same things.

I'll answer your question with a question.  in what _meaningful_ way are they the same?  I can only think of one that is specific to the USA, and that's the argument for the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, and that's more of a political discussion than a self defense related discussion.  .


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> a shotgun isn't a practical weapon for CCW.



Unless you are Antonio Banderas in Desperado.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I thought that way too, however if the attacker has drawn the weapon already, the weapon is most likely cocked and the safety has been deactivated.  Usually all that’s left is pointing it and pulling the trigger.
> 
> The only guns I’ve fired are an AR-15, SKS, and 7mm magnum.  They’re all different in the safety and cocking.  If I was pointing one at you and you took it from me, all you’d have to do at that point is aim and fire.  Unless of course i skipped a step when I drew it.
> 
> But I’ve never fired a hand gun.  I’m pretty sure I could aim and pull the trigger, but if I’ve never fired any real gun, it may not go that way, especially under stress.


That's why I made the comment about what can happen during the take-away. When stripping the gun from their hand, small levers can easily be moved. The de-cocking lever on the 1911 I used to own would be a good example. In taking it, if there was any struggle at all, all it would take is a small amount of force (a hand sliding across it would work - it's designed to be easily operated with a thumb) to de-cock the gun. Then pulling the trigger would do nothing (it was single-action only, meaning the hammer must be cocked to fire it). The de-cocking button on my Ortgies is similarly easy to engage (for the same reason).

I'd guess the vast majority of the time, the gun would be ready to fire after a takeaway. But almost certainly not every time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 13, 2017)

Steve said:


> Alright.  Couple of quick disclaimers.  It was truly intended to be a simple point, to try and avoid the general path these threads go down, which is to confuse home defense and the issues that surround folks packing heat.
> 
> Dirty Dog went straight for the most superficial, possibly because it's one of the only things home defense and CCW have in common.  The actual tool is the same... but even that's not true.  I mean, sure, a handgun is a viable home defense weapon, but the "experts," including on this forum, have suggested that a shotgun is very effective for home use because of its lower penetration and relative ease of use in a crisis for people who aren't using guns all the time.  Conversely, a shotgun isn't a practical weapon for CCW.  So, I mean, sure.  If you're looking to stir the pot, you could trivialize the issue and score a minor point by saying that the weapons are the same, even though they really aren't.
> 
> ...


I can add some thoughts to how they differ (more likely to have people you care about within firing range, less likely the gun is actually on your hip, perhaps easier to make the determination that it's time to shoot). The meaningful ways they are similar would include being in fear of real harm (for yourself or another), probably some confusing circumstances, having to worry about innocents being shot, the problems with bringing a gun to bear quickly, the psychological aftermath, the legal aftermath (perhaps less of an issue in one's own home), etc.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Unless you are Antonio Banderas in Desperado.


Or chopper reid


----------



## drop bear (Oct 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Well seeing as he has pulled a gun on me I'm guessing he's not interested in my witty banter



So you are disengaging backwards. He is engaging forwards? Who can cover more ground more effectively?

Personally I think you missing the weapon retention phase.


----------



## Steve (Oct 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I can add some thoughts to how they differ (more likely to have people you care about within firing range, less likely the gun is actually on your hip, perhaps easier to make the determination that it's time to shoot). The meaningful ways they are similar would include being in fear of real harm (for yourself or another), probably some confusing circumstances, having to worry about innocents being shot, the problems with bringing a gun to bear quickly, the psychological aftermath, the legal aftermath (perhaps less of an issue in one's own home), etc.


Some good observations.  I hope this isn't belaboring the point, but I think it's important to distinguish between "similar" and "the same." 

For example, yeah, the fear of real harm would be the same.  But that's not unique to firearm situations.  This is a great point.  don't get me wrong.  It's just not a "guns at home" or "guns out and about" observation.  It's a "I'm in danger anywhere" observation.

Confusing circumstances is, again, a good "big bucket" observiation.  But when you start to get into the circumstances, there is no overlap.  Same with identifying innocents.  in a home, knowing who the bad guys are is very clear.  Not always so clear when you're not at home.   And as you note, legality is another big bucket item but only really that there are legal concerns.  The actual legal concerns are very different in each situation.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> So you are disengaging backwards. He is engaging forwards? Who can cover more ground more effectively?
> 
> Personally I think you missing the weapon retention phase.



I'm disengaging wherever I can create distance.

Every weapon retention drill we have ever done has centered on disengaging and creating distance and putting shots on the target if it keeps attacking.

Why would I stay physically engaged with a gun in my hand only to have to keep fighting for retention.  I'd rather some space to allow me to operate the weapon.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I'm disengaging wherever I can create distance.
> 
> Every weapon retention drill we have ever done has centered on disengaging and creating distance and putting shots on the target if it keeps attacking.
> 
> Why would I stay physically engaged with a gun in my hand only to have to keep fighting for retention.  I'd rather some space to allow me to operate the weapon.



Because the best time to attack a guy is straight after you have broken free from the grapple. Especially if they are backpedaling.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Because the best time to attack a guy is straight after you have broken free from the grapple. Especially if they are backpedaling.



I will agree with that if you are grappling without a gun.

But with a gun in your hand.....why take the chance of him taking it from you and killing you with it.

Instead I'm creating distance and ending the fight immediately with lethal force or his cooperation.

I'm not playing the game of who is the best at weapon retention.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> I will agree with that if you are grappling without a gun.
> 
> But with a gun in your hand.....why take the chance of him taking it from you and killing you with it.
> 
> ...



Provided the gun works when you pull the trigger


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Provided the gun works when you pull the trigger




True.....and if I can't get it to fire.....If I can.....I'm tossing it and going hands on.

I don't want to get into a weapon retention struggle that I could possibly lose with a gun I can't operate but he can.


----------



## drop bear (Oct 13, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> True.....and if I can't get it to fire.....If I can.....I'm tossing it and going hands on.
> 
> I don't want to get into a weapon retention struggle that I could possibly lose with a gun I can't operate but he can.



See. I really don't think you can catch a punch. So the safest place from a retention point of view is that gun moving at speed towards the other guys head. Especially if he is trying for the gun because then his hands are not near his head.

Otherwise a gun works best when it is stationary but is at that point easiest to grab.

Now you bring it in to your hip and fence with your other hand but the opportunity is still there. 

Worse of course if you get exited and point the gun straight out in front and hold it steady.

It is one of those things that shooting relies on opposing mechanics to fighting. And so when you go from one to the other is important.


----------



## CB Jones (Oct 14, 2017)

drop bear said:


> See. I really don't think you can catch a punch. So the safest place from a retention point of view is that gun moving at speed towards the other guys head. Especially if he is trying for the gun because then his hands are not near his head.



While I agree about catching it you can be tackled clinched and then get into a game of wrestling for the gun....which is the most common way someone tries to take your gun.



drop bear said:


> Otherwise a gun works best when it is stationary but is at that point easiest to grab



Gun isn't stationary.....you are moving while firing, and you can move the gun from extended to close to your chest to your hip.

I also don't think it would be that easy to grab once you start firing it.  That gun firing  would be pretty nerve wrecking.



drop bear said:


> Worse of course if you get exited and point the gun straight out in front and hold it steady.



But that goes to proper tactics and retention....in close quarters why would you extend the gun out...at that range there is no reason to use sights or aim.  Inside 5 yards, I am keeping the gun close to my chest and firing while moving.


I think alot it is also our backgrounds...you are more comfortable engaging physically due to your grappling background whereas I'm more comfortable running that gun while moving due to background in firearms.


----------

