# Wow, a gun manufacturer decided to change things!



## Carol (Jan 23, 2015)

Brilliant move by Taurus.  Laughable article by Bob Owens of BearingArms.  

Owens gets so caught up in his OMG style, he completely misses a key function of the Curve's design -- a pocket pistol that is more comfortable to wear and doesn't print.

Personally, I think its great to see this kind of forward thinking coming from an industry that's done very little in terms of innovation.  I'd love to fire one sometime.   

Bearing ArmsWhy You re All Wrong About The Taurus Curve - Bearing Arms


----------



## drop bear (Jan 23, 2015)

Ok. I was reading that article and it seems to be marketed towards people who are going to carry a gun. But not spend any time engaged in responsible gun ownership.

I would hope there are better arguments than that.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Ok. I was reading that article and it seems to be marketed towards people who are going to carry a gun. But not spend any time engaged in responsible gun ownership.
> 
> I would hope there are better arguments than that.


 
And how, exactly, did you reach that conclusion?

My concern with the curve is accuracy. Of course, given the ranges the gun is intended to be used at, accuracy isn't really an issue. It's point and squeeze.

I don't expect to buy one, primarily because it doesn't fit a need I have. I can conceal a double stack 1911 pistol or an extended slide pistol like the Glock 41. Concealing the Taurus PT111 or Glock 26 that I usually carry is no problem whatsoever.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 23, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> And how, exactly, did you reach that conclusion?
> 
> My concern with the curve is accuracy. Of course, given the ranges the gun is intended to be used at, accuracy isn't really an issue. It's point and squeeze.
> 
> I don't expect to buy one, primarily because it doesn't fit a need I have. I can conceal a double stack 1911 pistol or an extended slide pistol like the Glock 41. Concealing the Taurus PT111 or Glock 26 that I usually carry is no problem whatsoever.



from the article itself. Comments like you would never see this gun at a gun range. Something something. (i can find them and quote them if you want.)

i have read a few reviews on it after i posted. There is no rear sight. With practice the reviewer hit torso shots at 15 feet. So with practice an experienced shooter can hit what he aims at. But it is not aimed (according to the article)at experienced shooters.

Now about ranges a gun is intended to be used at. I am not a huge gun guy but lets just work through this. If i have a deadly threat at 20 feet. I assume I would like to to be carrying a gun that would hit him and not hit some 4 year old holding a puppy paying near him.

Now my other assumption is that this same gun will work at five feet. So I would have both bases covered.

My other issue is these guns are designed to be taken out in public. Which means a high risk of people who have absolutely no reason to be shot by someone defending themselves. 

so the gun may have merit but the arguments in that article do not.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 23, 2015)

drop bear said:


> from the article itself. Comments like you would never see this gun at a gun range. Something something. (i can find them and quote them if you want.)
> 
> i have read a few reviews on it after i posted. There is no rear sight. With practice the reviewer hit torso shots at 15 feet. So with practice an experienced shooter can hit what he aims at. But it is not aimed (according to the article)at experienced shooters.


 
I don't know too many CCW holders who don't shoot. At least periodically. In most places, it's required to maintain your CCW. While they probably don't shoot as often as a hobbiest, they do shoot.



drop bear said:


> Now about ranges a gun is intended to be used at. I am not a huge gun guy but lets just work through this. If i have a deadly threat at 20 feet. I assume I would like to to be carrying a gun that would hit him and not hit some 4 year old holding a puppy paying near him.


 
Nice emotional play. Pity you think you have to rely on emotion rather than logic or fact.
The vast majority of CCW holders will never draw a gun outside the range. Of those that do, about 75% will draw without needing to fire; the presense of the gun ends the threat without firing.
Of those that do fire, most will do so at not much more than arms length.
If the guy is 20 feet away and running away, I don't really have any good reason to shoot them. If they're 20 feet away and running towards me, then I'll be firing at point blank range.



drop bear said:


> Now my other assumption is that this same gun will work at five feet. So I would have both bases covered.


 
This gun will probably work quite well for its intended purpose - self defense. It would be a poor choice for a duty gun or a range toy.



drop bear said:


> My other issue is these guns are designed to be taken out in public. Which means a high risk of people who have absolutely no reason to be shot by someone defending themselves.
> 
> so the gun may have merit but the arguments in that article do not.


 
What risk are you imagining?
You don't really think that many attacks occur in rooms occupied by the attacker, the victim, and 14 children all holding puppies, do you?

Again, I don't expect I'll buy one. That doesn't mean it's not worth looking into, if it fits a particular need. You imaginary fears notwithstanding...

In short, I find your ability to predict the actions and intentions of others to be (as Dr Sheldon Cooper would say) complete hokum.


----------



## Kurai (Jan 24, 2015)

I'd love to shoot one just out of curiosity.  Couldn't see it replacing my Springfield any time soon though..


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> I don't know too many CCW holders who don't shoot. At least periodically. In most places, it's required to maintain your CCW. While they probably don't shoot as often as a hobbiest, they do shoot.



Ok. That is nice, but here is a quote from the article.

"fashion accessory and not a firearm, and is purposefully as chic and unoffensive as an iPhone. I'll be stunned if they don't sell tons of these. I'll be stunned if you ever see them at the range"

So the articles argument is that this gun will be owned by people who don't practice with them. 

Now if you read my first reply it was the articles arguments I have an issue with. Not so much the gun itself. 

My argument with the gun itself would be unless you are a proficient gun person don't reinvent the wheel.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> What risk are you imagining?
> You don't really think that many attacks occur in rooms occupied by the attacker, the victim, and 14 children all holding puppies, do you?



Well yes. When are you out in public and not likely to encounter a member of the public? Be they children with puppies or any member of the public?

And a gun that can be put easily in your pocket seems to me to be a go out in public gun. Especially as again the article says this is for an inexperienced shooter.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> This gun will probably work quite well for its intended purpose - self defense. It would be a poor choice for a duty gun or a range toy.



This is kind of what i was thinking. But I am then thinking that it would take some training and skill to employ that over what it takes to employ a range gun. Especially as you may be in that five feet mark.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Nice emotional play. Pity you think you have to rely on emotion rather than logic or fact.
> The vast majority of CCW holders will never draw a gun outside the range. Of those that do, about 75% will draw without needing to fire; the presense of the gun ends the threat without firing.
> Of those that do fire, most will do so at not much more than arms length.
> If the guy is 20 feet away and running away, I don't really have any good reason to shoot them. If they're 20 feet away and running towards me, then I'll be firing at point blank range.



Not really a great sales pitch for a gun though. Ok it may not be very effective but you also will never have to use it. Accuracy is not an issue because i will probably be close?

If they are twenty feet away with their own gun?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> If they're 20 feet away and running towards me, then I'll be firing at point blank range.



This is interesting. Why would you wait until they are point blank range?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 24, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Well yes. When are you out in public and not likely to encounter a member of the public? Be they children with puppies or any member of the public?
> 
> And a gun that can be put easily in your pocket seems to me to be a go out in public gun. Especially as again the article says this is for an inexperienced shooter.


 
Again, how often do you think assaults occur in crowds? They don't. They mostly occur in solitude. You know, less witnesses and less people to intervene.



drop bear said:


> This is kind of what i was thinking. But I am then thinking that it would take some training and skill to employ that over what it takes to employ a range gun. Especially as you may be in that five feet mark.


 
It takes little or no training to use a gun effectively at arms length.



drop bear said:


> Not really a great sales pitch for a gun though. Ok it may not be very effective but you also will never have to use it. Accuracy is not an issue because i will probably be close?
> 
> If they are twenty feet away with their own gun?


 
Other than law enforcement, how often do you think this occurs?



drop bear said:


> This is interesting. Why would you wait until they are point blank range?


 
You don't really have a choice. By the time you recognise the threat and draw, they're going to be right on top of you.

All of this is basically beside the point, though. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you have determined that the people who buy this gun will be irresponsible.
You certainly do not need to be a frequent visitor to the range to be responsible.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Again, how often do you think assaults occur in crowds? They don't. They mostly occur in solitude. You know, less witnesses and less people to intervene.



our last big one in Sydney was in a crowd. And that was the most recent call for self defence guns.

Actually i think a lot of our assaults are crowd ones.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> All of this is basically beside the point, though. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you have determined that the people who buy this gun will be irresponsible.
> You certainly do not need to be a frequent visitor to the range to be responsible.



The quote was never visit the range. And mabye it is just me but the first time you fire a gun is in a self defence. Seems irresponsible.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> Other than law enforcement, how often do you think this occurs



which is why I am not a gun guy. There is a pretty low chance of ever needing one.

But the people who are gun guys will tend to argue that there is a low chance of your house burning down. But as a sensible precaution you take out fire insurance.

I really would have thought controlling where the bullets go would be a sensible precaution.


----------



## drop bear (Jan 24, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> takes little or no training to use a gun effectively at arms length.



Are we taking into account that at arms length they could be fighting you?

I have never met anyone who would choose to go into arms length if they have a gun. Normally it is about safety distances.


----------

