Mr. Chris sent along an LA Times article on the “Open Carry” movement.
For a California paper, the article seems to be fairly balanced. The author merely shines a spotlight on the movement itself and talks about the motivations of people who carry firearms openly. The men (and women) he picked to showcase are normal, well-adjusted individuals who would do well to hold the banner for responsible usage of firearms.
Unfortunately for the author, he totally gets the make and model of a handgun incorrect:
Nearby, Scott Thompson picked over the remains of a salad, his Springfield Armory XD-35 sitting snugly in his hip holster.
Likely this was an XD .45, but how can you expect a Starbucks-drinking-lib-journalist to notice that?
And let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to say this to your wife:
As Clachelle pushed the shopping cart holding their two young children during a recent trip to Costco, her husband admired the new holster wrapped around her waist. “I like the look of that low-rise gun belt,” he said.
That’s bedroom talk that’ll get the old heart racing. 
Texas is a restricted open carry state, which means that you can openly carry in your vehicle if you are “traveling” somewhere. You are not allowed to openly carry on your person without a concealed-carry permit, and even with it, your weapon must be concealed.
What do I think of all this? Obviously, I think open carry goes a long way toward deterrence. What criminal in their right mind robs a bank when it’s a guarantee that there are armed citizens inside? What thug dares to snatch a purse when it’s an even bet that the woman he’s stealing from is carrying a pistol on her belt?
Does open carry mean that the job of a law enforcement official is more difficult? There are two sides to this; without hard research (which means trying this on a large scale), I’m not sure you can really say for sure. I do think incidences of vigilantism would rise, but is that a bad thing? More people watching out to ensure that this world is a better place, free from crime and vice, is a positive in my book. My tax dollars pay the police dangeld now; let’s pay them for paperwork after the fact instead.
The flip side of an open carry movement is that some people will regard their firearm as a talisman. I recently read an article on one of the firearm discussion groups that I participate in that talks about how many regard their weapon as a charm against harm. (Pardon the rhyme.) The firearm is not some magical crucifix that you wear around your neck; it is a tool that you must be prepared to use in the defense of yourself or others. That requires training, familiarity, and the proper mindset. If you, as an individual, are wearing a firearm because “it makes you feel better,” then put it back in your gun safe and admit that you’re not the right kind of person to carry. Carry the weapon because you are willing to risk your life for the betterment of society, standing between danger and the defenseless. If that sounds like chivalry, you’re probably correct, but it is the only attitude that grants you the right frame of mind to be a responsible, firearm-carrying citizen.
![Let’s Kill Hitler [HD]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51hESmStH-L._SL160_.jpg)
Item#1:
“I do think incidences of vigilantism would rise, but is that a bad thing?”
YES! My opinion is that few of us are aware or understand the full legal ramifications of taking action with a firearm. Currently it is our right to carry firearms. But I feel that it is also a privilege and responsibility. Perhaps having the right isn’t enough without being able to show you also respect it and understand the responsibility this right places upon you.
Item #2:
“…it (a firearm) is a tool that you must be prepared to use in the defense of yourself or others. That requires training, familiarity, and the proper mindset. If you, as an individual, are wearing a firearm because “it makes you feel better,” then put it back in your gun safe and admit that you’re not the right kind of person to carry. Carry the weapon because you are willing to risk your life for the betterment of society, standing between danger and the defenseless. If that sounds like chivalry, you’re probably correct, but it is the only attitude that grants you the right frame of mind to be a responsible, firearm-carrying citizen.”
Absolutely! I think the permit (and thus the right) shouldn’t be rendered until you’ve proven the physical ability to wield it, as well as the mental capacity on WHEN to use it.
As a former LEO, I will say that I was never concerned about good citizens being armed. The bad guys have guns and other weapons illegally and know the penalty for their possession when they get caught, but are still willing to ignore that portion of the law as they do the rest. In the CLEET training academy, we were taught that when the need for deadly force arises, you put two center of mass and one in the head. End of argument. We were told that we must NEVER shoot to wound, that if the situation justified the use of deadly force, that is exactly what was required. No warning shots! After rejoining the citizenry, I went through the CHL process and obtained my concealed weapons license. The majority of the training was the legal ramifications of the use of deadly force, when and how it applied and what the probable outcome would be after the fact. We did have to demonstrate that we could safely load, unload and fire the weapon we were using in the course. The training goes a long way to eliminating the vigilantism by making the possessor of the weapon understand when deadly force is authorized under the law. Under the statutes here in Oklahoma you are restricted to family /employees or employer that you can cover under the umbrella of your protection. You may not come to the aid of a total stranger as a police officer would, unless you or someone in the above classification is in immediate danger. You can always defend yourself! I would like to see a national recognization of the rights of law abiding citizens to carry weapons for self defense. That will probably never happen.
Just my thoughts on the issue.. Blitz
If you have to pull it, use it. Thats some old advice from western days. I sure wanted to come out and start cleaning my gun when I caught some pervert watching my wife pick up our front yard. I pulled in from going to the store and noticed him sitting in his truck watching her. He took off when I pulled up and started trying to memorize the details of his face/truck.
Handguns are my least favorite firearms… because their specific design is solely for killing people; and idiots and criminals too easily obtain (and use) them. I wouldn’t cry if all handguns disappeared forever. However, if you possess one, make sure it’s registered, carry and store it legally, educate yourself with proper firearms training (safety and marksmanship), keep your training current, and always remember the basics of firearm safety that I learned in the armed services:
1. Always treat your weapon as if it is loaded.
2. Never point the muzzle of your weapon at anything that you do not intend to kill.
3. Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
These weapons are not play-toys or talismans. No one should ever know that you are carrying. Do not show them in public… if you want other shallow idiots to think that you’re a big man, do it by showing off your muscle car or your trophy wife… for my fellow geeks that would translate as hard drive space and processor speed.
Blitzfike has a lot of good info… warning shots and shooting to wound are for TV, movies, and naval warships. These kinds of shots will likely to get you killed and have the possibility of striking innocents. A double tap, center mass, will almost always take down a target. One shot may not do the job. I don’t agree with taking the head shot, though. It’s a difficult shot to make and you’ll have a hard time convincing others that you were only trying to defend yourself or protect others.
I forgot to add a step… between #2 and #3, if your weapon has a safety switch…
Keep your weapon on “safe”. Do not take your weapon off of “safe” until you are ready to fire.
If you can not carry a weapon off of safe you shouldn’t be carrying them. When the time comes that you need to use it you should be ready and able imo. Flipping a safety in the heat of the moment is bad. If you positively absolutely have to have a safety get a gun with a grip safety (like 1911) and keep the slide safety off when in holster and only flip on when in storage. Glock has a trigger safety that is also good. My Sig has no safety and I like it that way. The only thing that makes a gun safe is being in the hands of a competent shooter who fully understands the consequences of using deadly force hence the training class.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Between 1915 and 1917 approximately 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up by the government and exterminated.
In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 approximately 13 million Jews and other political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
The total number of victims slaughtered during the 20th century because of gun control: 52 million.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program which cost Australian taxpayers an estimated $500 million dollars. The first year results are now available for review:
1. Australia-wide, homicides have increased 3.2%. In the state of Victoria alone homicides with firearms have increased 322%!
2. Australia-wide, assaults have increased 8.6%.
3. Australia-wide, armed robberies have increased 44% (yes, 44%. That’s not a typo.).
Statistics for the previous 25 years have shown a steady decrease in armed robberies. This has changed drastically upward in the last 12 months as criminals are now guaranteed that their victims will be unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in the number of assaults against the elderly and burglaries of elderly peoples’ homes in the last 12 months. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain why public safety has decreased so much after such a monumental effort was made to rid Australian society of guns. While they may be ignorant of the facts, the Australian results and other historical facts listed above speak volumes to me.
Obviously these facts will not appear on American television or radio news as these media are controlled by left-wing nuts. The media serving as the lapdog to liberalism is not a new phenomenon. The facts remain immutable, as they have been since our Constitution was adopted:
Guns in the hands of private citizens save lives, property, and safeguard the citizenry from their government. Gun control laws adversely affect only law abiding citizens.
The next time some idiot wants gun control, kindly remind them of this history lesson.
Catalyst, your unforgivably ignorant and boot opinion concerning safeties is noted. Please make sure not to be standing next to anything living while you play at being Yosemite Sam. The safety is not designed for the shooter’s sense of well-being or pleasure. Safeties exist to prevent unnecessary loss of life. The safeties you listed do nothing other than prevent a misfire from a dropped weapon, which most basic weapons since the Vietnam era have long since overcome. Safeties are so important that even the US military employs safeties in their most basic infantry weapons. The TOE anti-tank missile has a safety. The Stinger has a safety. The AT-4 has a safety. The LAW has a safety. (By the way, the previously listed weapons are f***ing rockets.) Military-issued Browning 9 mil handguns have safeties. Even the M16A2 service rifle has a safety… there is a reason for this policy and design. The only weapons that I have used in the field that lacked safeties were crew-served, open-bolt, link-fed automatic weapons like the M2 .50 cal, the M240G, the SAW, and the 60… and these weapons are for military applications only. Your comments show a lack of field experience, whether military or otherwise. Unless you’ve ever had to flip a safety in combat or as a law enforcement officer, your opinion is untested conjecture.
Your information concerning Australia bears honest review. However, your historical listing of nations employing “gun control” is wrapped in a degree of naivety or willful ignorance only seen in Soviet and Red Chinese propaganda. These millions did not die due to gun control, gun restrictions, or gun seizures.
13 million Jews and others were killed by the Nazis because they didn’t have guns? Have you ever bothered to talk to any Jewish survivors of the Holocaust? Do you honestly believe that the 6 million Jews that were executed by the state of Germany between 1933 and 1945 died because they lacked a legal right to arms, or had a restricted right to arms? Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, Negroes, the insane, the mentally retarded, the physically handicapped, Jews, resistance fighters, Socialists, Communists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others were not killed because they had illegal guns or surrendered weapons to the state. They died because the Nazi regime considered them to be “life unworthy of life” or they occupied territory that the Nazis considered part of their “lebensraum” (living room).
Soviet dissidents, whether they had arms or not, were hunted down and exterminated by Stalin’s purges. The assassination of Trotsky was carried out by the complications that followed from being struck with a pick-ax. More people have died in Cambodia from mines than from guns since 1975… which would suggest that gun control, in spite of the abominable genocide, was a good thing by comparison. Please stop regurgitating someone else’s BS or propaganda.
You stated, “The next time some idiot wants gun control, kindly remind them of this history lesson.”
First, make sure that what you’re passing is truly a history lesson, and not a steaming crock of sh**. Second, define your terms. Americans already exist in a state of government supported and enforced gun control… but by no means is this a condition whereby arms are illegal or sought for seizure. The problem was not gun control in the historical cases you listed. The problem was that in each country the people, with and without arms, were persecuted by a tyrannical government.
Dez,
Once a weapon is pulled you have already made up your mind to use lethal force. So what point is a safety except to prevent accidental firing that doesn’t involve pulling the trigger?
Comparing what the military does with safetys to what a civilian does is very silly. I can not recall there ever being a time in history that a soldier had to make a split second decision with an AT-4, LAW, or TOE. Tanks and bunkers just don’t sneak up on people…
Safetys have their purpose, but not in self defense when a decision to use lethal force has been made prior to pulling the weapon.
The last post I made I took from another site and I thought it was interesting primarily for the following reason.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”
Gun control wasn’t the only liberty that those countries gave up, but it is indicative of the passive mentality toward the loss of liberty that eventualy led to the death of millions.
An avalanche can start with a single snow flake, but is the single snow flake the blame for the avalanche? Obviously not, but it did contribute and that was my point. Admittedly I did not choose the best source to quote nor did I encapsulate with quotes or state the source.
Dez,
Pete has argued and I would tend to agree here that an armed population is a deterrent against tyranny. Unless the governing body is insane, and especially back in the early years were WMD weren’t so widely available; if you’re faced with a majority of the population that is armed and can defend itself, you’re apt to think twice about rounding up “life unworthy of life”, less your own army is left at each armed residence shot in the head.
Catalyst:
I hope to purchase a firearm in the next few years and it will most certainly have a safety. I would argue that your point:
“If you can not carry a weapon off of safe you shouldn’t be carrying them…”
…is really machismo and rather ignorant. Anything that in some form or another can cause bodily harm or death will usually have safety measures to better protect its intended and sometimes not intended user. (i.e. cars – safety belts and brakes, portable heaters – tip switches, hairdryers – breaker plugs). I would gladly argue the point that if you’re not trained to keep control of your emotions and find that safety in a tense situation, you should not be carrying a gun, either. It may be one more step you need to take before aiming center of mass at a person who’s just violated your home, but it’s one more moment you have to think, one more moment you have to breathe, and one more moment you have before changing your or someone else’s life forever. (especially if that person who just broke into your home, was your teenage daughter/son who was just coming in from sneaking out earlier in the night.)
I enjoy shooting, I really do. 90 percent of the weapons I’ve used for target practice have had a safety and to be honest, I’ve felt better holding something in my hand that not only makes me take those few extra seconds, but protects me from a possible accident as well.
Things not to compare the safety on a “self defense” weapon to include:
Safety belts
Military weapons
Home appliances
Rather than be “ignorant” and “macho”, I’ll defer you both to read up on the subject matter. There are experts on both sides of this debate and it is hotly contested.
*The Smith and Wesson 36 Lady Smith Revolver is one of the most widey recomended carry weapons for women. Its simple operation, small size, low maintenance, and missing complex safety mechanism’s make it the best choice for self defense.
*”Millions of Glock pistols (trigger safety only) sold in over 100 countries to government and civilian customers underlines Glock’s dominant role of the market. In the USA, Glock pistols are in use in 65 % of law enforcement agencies. Among other things, GLOCK provides pistols for many of American’s most elite law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), New York Police Department and more than 7.500 other agencies at the federal, state and local levels. Police and military agencies worldwide rely upon the GLOCK pistol for its high level of performance and value.”
“Self defense” — hahah.
How many guns do you have? Do you go camping and shoot into the river? You can’t argue that your guns are strictly for self-defense when you enjoy shooting them at targets, or at tennis balls in the river. Sorry. Which is why I offered up the comparisons to other “every-day” uses of recreation and necessity. There are safety measures/devices on most everything we use, and personally, I would steer clear of something so capable of ending my life, if it did not have some measure of security to protect me.
I was discussing buying a gun with a co-worker the other day and she said she loves her glock. When she mentioned it had no safety, my gut reaction was to ask her about other models she enjoyed that had a safety.
Kate,
Go back and re-read my original post…
Actualy… I’ll save you from having to re-read my post and missing what I’m saying again. I only spoke about “concealed carry” weapons for self defense not having a safety. My Mini-14 has a safety and I use it when not firing and I engage it even before I move from my target. Your nonsensical comparisons do not apply to “concealed carry” weapons.
Ok I’ll chime in too…
Manually operated safeties on self defense handguns are acceptable only if you train regularly with that gun.. Shooting at the range is NOT training. Proper training requires that you draw that weapon from a holstered concealed and engage targets under a stressful situation IE: timed event, force on force style practice, or any other method that applies a bit of pressure to you.
There are numerous reports of Police officers drawing their weapon in a panic life or death scenario and forgetting to disengage the safety causing them precious time to figure out what is wrong before getting off a shot. If you don’t train to a level that makes the disengagement of the safety automatic then you’re risking your own life, period!
Revolvers like Catalyst mentioned, do NOT have safeties just like the infamous Glocks, Springfield XDs, and numerous other semi-auto striker fired handguns. None of these (with the exception of some older single action revolvers) will go off under any circumstance that doesn’t involve pulling of the trigger.
Thats why one of the cardinal rules of gun safety is “KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER” and when I say keep your finger off the trigger, that means don’t put your finger near the trigger, keep it totally outside of the trigger guard. I think some people feel that if they have their finger inside the trigger guard yet not putting any pressure on the trigger that they’re abiding by the “keep your finger off the trigger” rule.. They are NOT.
So this brings us back to the purpose of a safety on a gun.. IF your finger isn’t on the trigger and the gun mechanically can not go off without a trigger press (which encompasses most modern firearms), what does a manual safety do for you? It only stops people who are not following the said cardinal rule from performing a negligent discharge…
“If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, assassinate the character of your opponent.”
My apologies Catalyst, but nowhere in your original post do you particularly mention “concealed carry”. I was applying your statement to general purchase/carry/recreation/use of guns which is my fault for not tying in the subject at hand. Take a heated topic and I’m bound to miss something or other.
As far as your “assassination of character”, I did not aim to make you feel alienated with my replies. I was hoping to engage in a hearty debate.
If I may clear up my posts, personally I would feel uncomfortable to carry a weapon that did not have a safety. I would feel uncomfortable knowing someone next to me, friend or possible foe had a weapon that did not have a safety. This is one of those times I realize how human I am, and regardless of the best training in the world, we still make mistakes in the heat of an emotional moment or idiocy. I’ve read a few articles where “Professionals” in law enforcement have made errors and have hurt or killed people and while you may come back and argue that these are the exceptions to the rule, I sure as hell don’t want to be the person making or on the receiving end of an “exception to the rule.”
As much as I look forward to shooting a glock this fall, I will be very wary.
If you can not “carry” a weapon off of safe you shouldn’t be carrying them. The topic of the post is “Open Carry”. The word “carry” is synonomous with “concealed carry” when speaking about “concealed carry”
When you quote me stating:
————————————-
““If you can not ***carry*** a weapon off of safe you shouldn’t be ***carrying*** them…”
…is really machismo and rather ignorant”"
————————————-
Is a character assault, not a debate or discussion.
A trigger safety does NOT keep you from making mistakes. Once you pulled the gun you must fire the gun. There is no change of heart. If you do not understand this you do NOT need to be carrying a fire-arm. Once you have made up your mind to react, you MUST react. Life and death situations are not for the faint of heart. If you need a safety on your firearm for any of the reasons you stated other than safe storage then you do not need to carry one, because it will be used on you while you stand in stunned silence rethinking your position on lethal force and when is the right time to use it.
Ooh zing. I am gonna cry now cause you beat up on the girl.
I may not be all into the whole proper way of “gun toting” speak there, but I apologized to you for generalizing your statement. Feel free to bitch at me some more, please.
In point of fact, I do find that your statement above both in general terms of having a weapon and “open carry” to be rather machismo and ignorant, really. Sorry. I explained my reasons why, be it my personal opinion. Oh and for future reference, I can state that your opinion is machismo and ignorant without attacking you as a person. Please learn to differentiate and stop throwing out quotes which try to garner sympathy. I apologized for making you feel bad, you can stop whining now.
I still stand by my original opinion that if one can not control their emotions in the mere seconds it takes to swipe the safety to the side while drawing the gun, they shouldn’t carry either. It is a tough debate because you don’t have a proper control group to compile data on how many lives were actually saved through the use of safety mechanisms on handguns. I fully support people having them. I just want to see them safe.
Kate,
With some minor semantic differences, I agree with you. I have not provided an opinion in this thread concerning changing the level of existing gun control. I’ve only stated that I like handguns the least out of all firearms.
“Pete has argued and I would tend to agree here that an armed population is a deterrent against tyranny.”
I do not see Pete arguing that case in this particular thread, though I am sure he has stated such elsewhere. I agree, but I take it a step further… an armed and ORGANIZED citizenry is such a deterrent. Whether or not an armed population will deter crime is another matter. I am honestly interested in hearing more details from Catalyst concerning Australia’s gun control consequences. However, my experience in other countries, in which the populations were armed, has shown me people are sometimes indistinguishable from criminals. Armed populations that are not organized or trained have sometimes turned into opportunistic mobs, for looting, rape, and revenge killings. I don’t know for sure if that would apply to the US, but my memory of the last run of LA riots robs me of hope for groups of altruistic citizens.
“…is really machismo…”
I whole-heartedly agree. Whether one is for or against the use of safeties, the comment was poor.
“…one more moment you have before changing your or someone else’s life forever.”
I agree, and use this statement to answer, in part, GK’s question about the purpose of a safety. If employed, safeties can prevent misfires. Safeties can prevent panic shots. Safeties give shooters one more reminder of the gravity of their actions. Even for the first shot of a revolver, which has no safety switch, has a much harder trigger pull (unless illegally modified). The gent that prefers the weapon with no safety because he’s concerned that he may forget that the safety is “on” tells me he’s not thinking when engaging a target, or not properly trained, and therefore a danger to himself and all around him. If a person can (attempt to) fire while in a panic, and yet forget the safety, that same person can also forget the cardinal rule of keeping one’s finger off of the trigger until ready to fire when using a handgun with no safety… once again, an argument for the use of a safety.
I do agree with GK concerning training… range firing for simple marksmanship, though fun, is not complete training. Timed trials over varying distance with multiple clips/speed loaders and drawing from the holster are critically necessary parts of training. I also agree with GK that in such training one acquires the learned response (which becomes almost instinctive) for using a weapon with a safety.
Catalyst,
“Once a weapon is pulled you have already made up your mind to use lethal force.”
I disagree. Once you’ve pulled a weapon you’ve made a decision that lethal force MAY be necessary. Once you pull the trigger you have decided that lethal force IS necessary. It is true that you may be faced with making that decision before you draw, but your assumption is not true except in that case. Some may view my argument as a point of semantics. I view it as a point of real world experience.
“If you can not carry a weapon off of safe you shouldn’t be carrying them…”
If the military felt the same way that you do, there would be no safeties on any military weapons… or we’d have lots of safety-less weapons and no one to fire them.
“I can not recall there ever being a time in history that a soldier had to make a split second decision with an AT-4, LAW, or TOE. Tanks and bunkers just don’t sneak up on people…”
Apparently you’ve never fired one of these weapons… nor have you ever served or had cause to fire one. I have… and you’d better believe that tanks, bunkers, and attack helicopters can and do sneak up on you. You seem to have a Napoleonic view of combat. True, bunkers don’t move… but soldiers and Marines on patrol do, and sometimes they happen upon a bunker by surprise… and sometimes who shoots first determines life or death… and sometimes a misfire gives the enemy advanced warning of your presence and location. True, tanks are noisy… but combat is often noisy from gunfire, mortars, artillery, your own tanks and air support, your Sergeants and Officers barking orders, etc… something known as “the fog of war.” You may or may not hear a tank coming. You may or may not be blessed with open terrain in which to view an incoming tank. Whether you know it or not, tanks have improved since WWII, and most are very fast, fire quickly, and can target you from a long loooong way away… again, sometimes who shoots first determines life or death. But whether such a tank is up close or far away, sometimes you just don’t have enough time to call in air support or artillery. I hope my examples illustrate how military and civilian defensive postures can be, and often are, similar and appropriate for discussion in this thread. I think we won’t need to cover helicopters, recon patrols, entrenched defenses, or ambushes.
“Gun control wasn’t the only liberty that those countries gave up, but it is indicative of the passive mentality toward the loss of liberty that eventualy led to the death of millions.”
No kidding… but that was not the argument you were presenting. You covered nothing but gun control and presented it as the SOLE reason for the deaths of millions. Quoting you: “The total number of victims slaughtered during the 20th century because of gun control: 52 million.” That is what I was objecting to… not to having or rescinding gun control, but that this was your conclusion.
“self defense” weapon
No such firearm exists. Just like any other tool, it’s all in how you use it.
“*The Smith and Wesson 36 Lady Smith Revolver is one of the most widey recomended carry weapons for women. Its simple operation, small size, low maintenance, and missing complex safety mechanism’s make it the best choice for self defense.”
That statement may be true, but it begs the question, “Recommended by whom?… Smith & Wesson?” As for “complex safety mechanism”… you’ve got to be kidding me. That comment is not only sexist but it insults the intelligence of women. If any person cannot handle the complexity of a safety, the trigger is going to boggle his mind… not to mention the clip release. This is an example of a person who should not be carrying a firearm of any kind, loaded or unloaded.
“*”Millions of Glock pistols (trigger safety only) sold in over 100 countries to government and civilian customers underlines Glock’s dominant role of the market.”
Glock is dominant in the market for two main reasons: popularity (sales) and performance… as were the varying models of the .45, the .357, and the .38 that preceded it. It’s a reliable weapon, lightweight, easy to reload, and holds more ammo than any revolver… and when government agencies buy them in quantity, they are relatively cheap. Some may consider the lack of a safety a bonus, but this is not the primary, secondary, or even tertiary reason for why Glock’s sales dominate the market.
My apologies to you Catalyst. I have been a tactless horse’s back-end. But I assure you that I am not picking on you. I just don’t agree with you. Please get us some more info on Australia’s woes. That looks quite interesting.
Somewhere in the web-iverse sits a lone man (with a belly scar) at his computer… grinning with evil glee at the chaos he has inspired… (and his horns have become entangled) (if the furies are out of balance, as they are in Lo Pan…)
Foxbat… I think I just got fragged by a quote bomb… or something close to it.
“If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, assassinate the character of your opponent.”
Dez, I know you don’t see any useful purpose for handguns except for self defense, but I beg to differ.. I own several handguns that were designed specifically for hunting. I hunt a variety of game with handguns, and have for several years. I also competed in handgun competitions over the years and found that to be a thoroughly enjoyable hobby. If I could only own one weapon, it would probably be a large bore shotgun. With that I could defend my castle, harvest game for my table and shoot skeet or trap for enjoyment. Thank God and the American Constitution the I am not limited to what I can own. Your attitude towards guns is perfectly OK until it interferes with my rights! As long as you feel that way as a citizen, that is your right, but if you ever get in to a position to create legislation to prohibit my rights I will put tremendous effort in defeating you. Just my position.. Blitz
I love you Catalyst.
Blitzfike,
I think you misunderstand me. You and I will never have to declare a legal war on each other. I have no designs to add legislation to increase or decrease our current level of gun control. I am also very conservative when it comes to constitutional freedoms, so I do not vote for candidates who seek to limit the second amendment further. If I ever tried to change the law, you’d never hear from me again, as my own mother would shoot me. My uncles will likely be there too, helping her to locate a hollow-point or some 00 buckshot. Ironically, I hope she gets me with a handgun, ’cause I’ll die quick. If she gets me with a shotgun, it’ll be messy and I may suffer for a spell.
I just don’t like handguns in principal. I honestly have never heard of a handgun made specifically for hunting game… I feel that such a firearm would be impractical as far as accuracy is concerned, but it’s got to be a lot more comfortable lugging around than a rifle or two and the ammo.
I agree with you on the shotgun… that is a respectable all around survival tool.
Kate if you are looking for a semi-auto with a safety I have to recommend the PX4 from Beretta. Mine has a safety right by your thumb and I think if I ever did forget to take it off it would take less than a half second to flip it. Personally I like having the extra security knowing there is no way it’s going off even if I catch the trigger on my pants leg until I take the safety off. The subcompact comes in 9mm and I don’t believe you will find a better shooting gun. I love my .40 and it kicks less than my 9mm Glock. http://www.berettausa.com/product/spotlight/5_of%20spotlight_pistol_subcompact.cfm
Interesting read, I Just out of habit always use my safety,I do not “carry”. however It’s a personal choice if the gun has one to use it or not.
One reason for a safety… taken from today’s CNN.
This is what I mean by accidents. The unthinkable. It does happen.
Dez says:
Maniacal laughter.
Dez, I’m not worried that we are at cross purposes.. I’ve read enough of your posts to be comfortable with your position. I own a couple of Thompson Center Contender pistols. They have many different caliber barrels that you can use with the same receiver. They are a single shot, like an old “break open” single shot shotgun. I have barrels in .223, 41 magnum, 45 colt, 357 Magnum and 44 magnum. They are a great hunting weapon, in that they require you to make the first shot count as it requires several seconds to remove the empty and insert another round. Two of my barrels are 14″ long, two are ten inch and one is an eight inch barrel. You can get everything from .22 rimfire to 45-70 in barrels for it. I have shot 30-30 winchester in a custom barrel but that is too painful for me to consider doing again.. I hunt with the contenders, S&W Revolvers in 357 and 41 mag, and a Ruger Blackhawk in 45 colt. I have been known to hunt rabbit with any of the pistols that I own from .22 rimfire to 380 to 45 colt. I bear hunted in Colorado several years with a 44 magnum pistol as my backup weapon. The group I run with consistently makes long range shots with a pistol that many would have difficulty doing with a rifle. It is all what you are used to. No one told us we couldn’t make those shots when we started, so we didn’t know any better… We do, limit our handgun hunting to ranges that will assure a clean kill.. Blitz
Blitz,
It ain’t no hunting pistol, but…
My folks have an old Luger that you might find interesting… very weird… made during or shortly after WWI, it has an elongated barrel, long range sights, and a clip-on wooden stock so that you can fire it from the pocket of your shoulder. It also has two 15 round clips and a barrel mag that attaches to the bottom of the grip. It also comes fully contained in a leather case with belt straps. I don’t recall the caliber, but it is likely .22 or .32
The pride of my personal collection is a 20 gauge double barreled Beretta, breach loaded, which I hunt dove and quail with.
Yes, it has a safety… It isn’t as convenient as a pump action or an automatic, or as powerful as a 12 gauge, but its use forced me to be very accurate and very fast at reloading. Somewhere I have an old 10 gauge double barreled goose gun that my dad used to own. One of the triggers is a nasty hair trigger. I also have a very old 25-35 lever action Winchester rifle… like you used to see John Wayne use, as well as similar in design as the one from the show “The Rifleman.”
The only way a gun is “safe” is if no one has them.
I’m know I’m not talking to the right crowd here, but think about it. If no one had guns, then how many shooting deaths would there be in the US this year? In the world? If you answer anything other than zero, you’re fooling yourselves.
Removing easy access to guns is the first step to taking them off the streets. The most common argument is that if you take away the legal right to have guns, only criminal will have guns. Has anyone stopped to consider that the reason why these so-called “criminals” have guns is because it is so easy to get them? When every pawn shop has a gun for sale, why shouldn’t someone down on their luck decide to try a handgun to get enough to feed their family? One hundred dollars feeds a family of four for a week (if that with current prices). But it might buy you a handgun that keeps your familiy in cheeseburgers for a month. You and I understand that a crime spree rarely lasts that long, but we’re talking about desperate people here. Desperate people do desperate things.
Reverse that. How easy is it for a desperate man to rob an Arby’s when he doesn’t have a gun? When he’s seperated from the cashier by a huge counter? See where I’m going with this?
Remove easy access to guns, take away the ability of the majority of the criminal element to have weapons. It’s that simple. Once that’s done, your citizens don’t need weapons.
Sure, the mexican drug cartels (as an example) are going to have weapons, but they have military hardware. You’re not going to stop that with any kind of legislation, and putting firearms in the hands of the civilians down there will only get them killed. Unarmed, they can hope to remain unnoticed, at least.
And I’m not about to bite on the notion that our government wants to control us so badly that removing our guns equals tyranny. Australia seems like a nice place to live, maybe more so since they were smart enough to get rid of all the murder machines.
…and then I woke up.
You can’t trick me! Pete put you up to this, didn’t he? You’re a plant, who’s goal is to stir the pot with more controversy. Shame on you, Pete, for abusing us so!
Apparently Nina hasn’t been watching/reading the World news..
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364022,00.html
Where does it stop?
How many “common sense” laws have to be passed before people wakeup and realize that the guns/knifes might not be the root of the problem?
The root word of gunfight is not gun..
What? The tool is not at fault? We are responsible for our own actions? OUT-rageous! Somebody silence that man before we are forced to acknowledge or own culpability!
Thanks for discounting my arguments, Dez. I try to speak up for what’s right from time to time. It’s not my fault that everyone on this blog is too narrow-minded in their history of hate and violence to see it.
GK, nice article from Fox News where the news is “skewed”! I just made that up. Seriously though, what’s your point? You want everyone in Britain to carry swords now? I think the PM is doing exactly what he should by enacting tougher penalties on young people for violating their laws.
The root word of gunfight may not be gun, but the root word of peaceful society isn’t concealed carry either.
One of the actors in an old western once said… “I’m a peace lovin’ man, and there’s nothin’ more peaceful than a deadman…” Just a juxtaposition on the arguement made with tongue in cheek.. Blitz
“Seriously though, what’s your point? You want everyone in Britain to carry swords now?”
The point is, the UK banned guns and crime didn’t magically stop.. Now they’re trying to ban/”crackdown” on knives because they’re the new easily obtainable weapon.
Whats next? Ban people from carrying anything that could be used as a weapon.. say a bat, shovel, walking stick? Hey I know, if we just ban thumbs maybe all assaults with hand held weapons would cease?
Since you obviously discounted the article from Fox news.. heres one from BBC news.
“”The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.
“We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.” ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm
“”Harrison Bergeron” is a dystopian science fiction short story written by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. and first published in October, 1961. The theme of the story is egalitarianism and is set by the first line: “The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal.” Originally published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, the story was re-published in the author’s collection, Welcome to the Monkey House in 1968.”
“This short novel is an allegory in which animals play the roles of the Bolshevik revolutionaries and overthrow and oust the human owners of the farm, setting it up as a commune in which, at first, all animals are equal; class and status disparities soon emerge, however, between the different animal species. The novel describes how a society’s ideologies can be manipulated and twisted by individuals in positions of social and political power, including how a utopian society is made impossible by the corrupting nature of the very power necessary to create it.”
If only we were all equeal what a Utopian society we would have!
Isn’t that George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”? At least if you’re going to cite an unknown author who plagarized something, find the original source, Catalyst.
I just thank whatever God you worship that I don’t share a state with you. First you want guns with no safeties, and now you can’t even be bothered to get your references straight. Every word you say proves you to be an intellectual infant.
How’s that for character assassination?
You nailed it!
“If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts are on your side, argue the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, assassinate the character of your opponent.”
Wow, and I thought I was a bitch.
Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got… an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o’clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It’s not a big truck. It’s a series of tubes. And if you don’t understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it’s going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Now if I could find some kind of darkly tinted spaghetti strainer glasses I might be able to filter out the nonsense that is Nina’s opinion.
Catalyst, Kate, Blitz, GK…
In spite of our obvious flaws (I refer you to diatribe exhibit B: “It’s not my fault that everyone on this blog is too narrow-minded in their history of hate and violence to see it.”) we may fence each other verbally and textually and still retain respect for each other. We employ logic in argumentation, draw from life experience, literature, history, etc. We even become quite impassioned in our causes and opinions. We can agree to disagree when discussions become too heated. But what I haven’t seen in us (so far) is a pathological need to be right, or seen as right. I have not seen anyone waltz into a thread to draw proselytes or convert the masses…
until now
Nina wants us to believe as she does. She thought that she could enter the scene like a knight on a white charger, sprinkle the drippings of her “wisdom” into the eyes of the barbarians, free them from their intellectual and spiritual blindness, and reap their praises and worship. (Disclaimer: The above text may not be the author’s opinion, but a gratuitous display of hyperbole and sarcasm… hopefully for a point.)
What arrogance… Nina, you entered into the midst of an ongoing argument (quite all-right), threw your opinion into the mix for review (we are green; mission is a “go”), and got pissed because no one jumped on board with you (Houston, we have a problem). Then, instead of backing up your opinion with fact or even a modicum of logical discourse (Abort! Abort!) you insult the people you once hoped to convince (Abandon ship!) and play the part of the wounded prophet (Tranquility base, the harpy has landed.).
Now I admit that I am an ass… and I don’t have to, since Foxbat, Pete and others will be more than willing to provide that character reference. My sarcasm has been sophomoric, but hardly acerbic… ok, maybe it was a little tart (but then, I like tarts *wink, wink*). What I’ve experienced in life made it impossible to take what you initially posted seriously… it is pure naivety. At least GK was polite enough to point out the primary flaw of your case gently… and though his argument was sound, you discounted the source… and he (by my standards) gently proffered another source, from the other political extreme. Catalyst was most gentle of all… and though his second quotation sounds like Orwell, his first was rightly cited. Both quotes are examples from literature that attest to the same truth that GK was sharing with you. You cannot legislate a cure for human nature. And still you refused to acknowledge the point that was obvious to the rest of us. This is quite telling… no matter what the truth may be, unless it gels with your opinions, you will not accept it. And if no one agrees with your opinions, you call them narrow-minded (*sniff*, I’m getting that scent of hypocrisy again). We may get heated, but when we do, we apologize and go back to our corners. You skipped over any gradual escalation of poor gamesmanship and went right for the jugular. Who’s the violent one now? Unless you’re willing to back up your ideas without having a tantrum, you will be wasting your time here.
You assume much about us… about our characters, ideals, politics, etc. I believe that you may find yourself surprised by the depth and breadth of what you do not yet know. Here’s what I will assume about you… you have a desire to be heard, you have an idealism that needs to be heard, and you need some thicker skin… or your intelligence will go to waste in needless quarrels with old farts and Kate (Kate is listed separately since, as a southerner, I know that all women are young… at least until they leave the room). When you’re ready, please return to our little melodrama and to this cast of characters:
Catalyst: Plucky comic relief, leaves the enemy dazed and confused or cut to shreds from his rapier wit
Blitz: Experience, gumption, & firepower (if he can’t solve it or fix it, he’ll blow it up… and isn’t that more fun anyway?)
GK: Leader type, voice of reason, getter of girls, etc. (Yes, we grudgingly envy him)
Kate: Capable warrior (“token babe”) lost in a sea of chauvinists, with more patience (with us) than she ever wanted
Dez: Human gadfly, annoying just to the point of desiring to cause him bodily harm (he hopes)
Pete: Arch-nemesis, there’s always one (like Dr. Shrinker, he’s a genius with an evil mind)
and others…
Catalyst, I like Vonnegut… good reference… good author, weird, but good.
These folks claimed they did not need safeties on their weapons. Then again, I suspect they all had their fingers in the guard too.
http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Not-To-Shoot-A-Gun