What Will You Never Believe Or Understand About Gun Owners...

[roadapple]

Except I was just razzin Dan.
There is nothing wrong with Hi-Power.
Or High Point. Or Glock. Or almost any other.
This weekend, I got to meet a member and do some shooting with him. He brought two Berettas. Little .32 acp model something. Cute little thing. Cost a little over $200 each. He offered to let me be the first to shoot one. Shot about a 3 inch group at 15 yards. Pretty damn good for me with black open sights and my eyes. I smiled and thanked when I handed it back. Accurate little thing. Almost no recoil. Light and small. Light trigger pull. Probably would not keep it if you gave me one. I have arthritis. It hurt my thumb joint to hold it and hurt worse to shoot it. Only ever picked up one model of Beretta that actually felt good in my hand but it had what to me was a horrendous trigger. I left it in the gun store too.
But there ain't a damn thing wrong with them.
Another good friend, actually 2 of them and I were discussing why he shoots his revolvers revolvers better than most semi autos. I had him hold a couple of them at arms length and then his revolver to see the difference in how each sat in his hand and the difference between them.
He finally gets it.
What about you?
No matter what it is, what kind it is or how many rounds it holds. The only things that matter;
It fits you. You can shoot it well and hit what you aim at.
If you like plastic gun, goody for you.



Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

In my academy, they started us on revolvers: Well used S&W Model 66's. By the end of the first week, I could shoot those, with 38 Spl. and 357 Mag., better than I could shoot my 1911. I thought that I would never be accurate shooting a revolver double action. I did pretty good shooting them single action, but double action was something I thought I would never be able to be accurate with. Like I said, after 1 week, I could shoot a double action revolver more accurately than my 1911. The rest of the firearms instruction was done with the sidearms we were going to use as LEO's. I did bring my proficiency up with the 1911, the Glock 19 & 20, Beretta 9mm, and a variety of other approved sidearms. It wasn't so much that the 1911 is easier to shoot well (it is by the way), as much as it was me that had several bad habits shooting handguns. I learned to shoot handguns at that academy. They told us we could maintain our proficiency by shooting 50 rds, per month, at a decent range. They also said that we could improve by using the techniques that we were taught, and shooting at least 25 rds per week. It's a wonderful idea, but most LEO's will tell you that it is harder to find the time to practice when you are actually working the job.

I did learn that it was my skills that were lacking, a lot more than the firearm I chose to use.

 

[Kar98]

...Later, she wanted a Kimber Micro 9. I got one for her. She worked on working the slide for some time, and she used that little pistol in her concealed carry class.

My wife wanted one too, so we bought it, she hated it, and now I have a Kimber Micro 9. Oddly enough, she likes the Sig P938 just fine.

 

[GoPappy]

A friend of mine called them "Hardly Davidsons".

I pretty much like all guns, including polymer and metal. I’m the same way with bikes - I like ‘em all. I’ve had HD, BMW, Honda, Triumph, Buell, Suzuki and some others I probably can’t remember right now.

HD guys like to bash rice burner guys and vice versa. But it’s usually all in good fun. But, just like guns, some take their personal choice way too seriously.

 

[itsanss]

Regardless I'm no tactical expert, being old, out of shape and half blind with a heart condition I'm thinking I never will run and gun like I once could (or thought I could).

Wow....with that combination, should you even be carrying a gun??



Sincerely,

Young Buck

 

[Moonpie]

People that buy a $1500+ handgun and then attempt to run cheap junk steel cased ammo thru it.
Then wonder why it doesn't function.

Same clods that buy a $1500 rifle and stick a $79 scope from Wal-Mart on it.
Then wonder why it won't group.

 

[Whistler]

Wow....with that combination, should you even be carrying a gun??



Sincerely,

Young Buck

Hell yea, running is out of the question.

 

[Hoji]

People that buy a $1500+ handgun and then attempt to run cheap junk steel cased ammo thru it.
Then wonder why it doesn't function.

Same clods that buy a $1500 rifle and stick a $79 scope from Wal-Mart on it.
Then wonder why it won't group.

For $1500 I should be able to load it with acorns and have them magically turn into live rounds in the chamber.
After dispatching the threat it then needs to fix me a drink and cook dinner.

 

[Kar98]

For $1500 I should be able to load it with acorns and have them magically turn into live rounds in the chamber.
After dispatching the threat it then needs to fix me a drink and cook dinner.

And detail the car!

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Wow....with that combination, should you even be carrying a gun??



Sincerely,

Young Buck

Welcome to the Forum!

 

[TexasRedneck]

Wow....with that combination, should you even be carrying a gun??

Young Buck

Damned straight - that's how us old guys ensure we control the breed stock of the next generation!

 

[V-Tach]

People that buy a $1500+ handgun and then attempt to run cheap junk steel cased ammo thru it.
Then wonder why it doesn't function.

Same clods that buy a $1500 rifle and stick a $79 scope from Wal-Mart on it.
Then wonder why it won't group.

.....and anyone who buys a $69.00 all in one scope, laser, flashlight combo and puts it on an $1800.00 Sig Sauer rifle...............

I about fell over when the guy walked through the door with it........asked me what I thought about it........I was brutally honest..........

 

[Hoji]

.....and anyone who buys a $69.00 all in one scope, laser, flashlight combo and puts it on an $1800.00 Sig Sauer rifle...............

I about fell over when the guy walked through the door with it........asked me what I thought about it........I was brutally honest..........

Years ago saw a guy with a Sako TRG .308 and couldn’t get a group to save his life. The scope? A $40 Simmons riding on some $10 rings.

 

[easy rider]

In the day and age of the internet you would think people that decided to buy an expensive firearm might do a little research on it.

 

[Glenn B]

Any authoritative sources on that?

All of the training I have received on it indicated that. I don't recall the sources that were cited in my training, my training in such ended in 2011 and I certainly did not take notes but they did give the source when telling us. You can probably find them on the Intraweb of all knowledge pretty easily if you want.

 

[Glenn B]

Any authoritative sources on that?

Go to this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221

Once at that linked page, click on "Full Report" about 3/4 of the way down on the left hand side of the page.

The report comes up as a PDF file. Go to page 24 where it will show that 1 in 5 homicides in 2008 were committed by more than one assailant. The chart a top left on that page shows that about 20% of all homicides

The actual number of multiple offenders homicides are probably higher as explained on page 35, left hand column about half way down that page:

An estimated 30.8% of homicides involved an unknown number of offenders. For these homicides, the offender imputation method conservatively assumed the number of offenders to be one, likely resulting in an undercount of the number of homicides involving multiple offenders between 2005 and 2008 had multiple assailants in each case.

If using the same 20% figure, and if my math is right, 20% of that 30.8% unknown factor would equal about 6% more homicides overall committed by multiple assailants. That would raise the number of homicides committed by multiple assailants to over 1/4 of all homicides in those years.

That's just for homicide. Now while 20% may not be most, it certainly is many as in a high percentage. In addition, as seen, the percentage may well be higher due to reporting cases with unknown number of assailants as single assailant cases. You probably can find more such statistics, if you look, for other violent crimes like home invasions, assaults, robberies/muggings, gang violence and so on.

 

[jrbfishn]

Go to this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2221

Once at that linked page, click on "Full Report" about 3/4 of the way down on the left hand side of the page.

The report comes up as a PDF file. Go to page 24 where it will show that 1 in 5 homicides in 2008 were committed by more than one assailant. The chart a top left on that page shows that about 20% of all homicides

The actual number of multiple offenders homicides are probably higher as explained on page 35, left hand column about half way down that page:



If using the same 20% figure, and if my math is right, 20% of that 30.8% unknown factor would equal about 6% more homicides overall committed by multiple assailants. That would raise the number of homicides committed by multiple assailants to over 1/4 of all homicides in those years.

That's just for homicide. Now while 20% may not be most, it certainly is many as in a high percentage. In addition, as seen, the percentage may well be higher due to reporting cases with unknown number of assailants as single assailant cases. You probably can find more such statistics, if you look, for other violent crimes like home invasions, assaults, robberies/muggings, gang violence and so on.

I would argue with that.
Given the number of homicides that are gang related would tend to skew your math. Stay away from gangs and your odds would decrease dramatically.
Take out gang related, the most likely way to get killed by homicide for most;
During a rape, armed robbery, burgalry or killed by a family member.
How many assailants during those types of crime?

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Glenn B]

I don't understand gun owners that argue how many rounds you should have on you at all times, yet have never had to use one in defense, let alone many.

I have used a firearm in self-defense, when being assailed, at least five times as best I recall. At least twice on the job and three times when not working. In four of those instances, I was assailed by multiple opponents. Yet, truth be told, no one actually has to have to have been involved in a self-defense situation to be able to talk about how to defend yourself or how much spare ammo to carry should you become involved in one. It's much akin to someone, who has never been involved in an accident, telling you to wear your seat-belt and to take other safe driving precautions. Is it really difficult to understand someone discussing how much spare ammo they think one should carry, at a minimum, whether they believe a lot, a little, something in between or none at all depending on their point of view?

There are, I think, several reasons to carry sufficient spare rounds equaling more than one full reload for a defensive firearm. You may want to enroll yourself in a self-defense with firearms course if you want to learn and understand those reasons. Just in brief allow me to give a few. If involved in a self defense situation wherein you need to fire your handgun you may: miss or hit several times and need to reload because you have expended all the ammo in the gun, be accosted by multiple assailants each requiring multiple shots to stop them, be assaulted by a single assailant requiring a few to many shots to incapacitate him, be involved in a shootout wherein you are behind cover and there is a lull in the action and then should do a tactical reload if you do not remember with certainty how many rounds you have already fired, have to do a tactical reload because your gun jams due to a faulty or damaged magazine or because of a failure to extract or eject, try to reload a spare magazine or speedloader and drop it and hopefully will have another thus not needing to fumble around looking for the one your dropped, inadvertently drop all your rounds out of your speedloader and so on, inadvertently hit the mag release on a semi-auto and drop your magazine thus leaving you needing to reload. Thus carrying a handgun without at least two full reloads, in my humble estimation, would be less than being prudent. While only ever having had to fire two shots at most in a single violent encounter (and sometimes none) I see no reason why I or anyone cannot discuss the issue intelligently and hope my post helps you understand us better.

 

[Glenn B]

I would argue with that.
Given the number of homicides that are gang related would tend to skew your math. Stay away from gangs and your odds would decrease dramatically.
Take out gang related, the most likely way to get killed by homicide for most;
During a rape, armed robbery, burgalry or killed by a family member.
How many assailants during those types of crime?

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

I don't know but you can satisfy your curiosity by looking it up yourself. My guess would be the likelihood of multiple assailants is higher for crimes such as home invasions than for murder and what does it matter if it is a gang member or not who is doing the crime. The thing is they are still crimes with multiple assailants - so why take them out of the picture when they are part of it! You are the one trying to skew things, not me. I just gave the info as I found it and as I was trained.

 

[oldag]

I have used a firearm in self-defense, when being assailed, at least five times as best I recall. At least twice on the job and three times when not working. In four of those instances, I was assailed by multiple opponents. Yet, truth be told, no one actually has to have to have been involved in a self-defense situation to be able to talk about how to defend yourself or how much spare ammo to carry should you become involved in one. It's much akin to someone, who has never been involved in an accident, telling you to wear your seat-belt and to take other safe driving precautions. Is it really difficult to understand someone discussing how much spare ammo they think one should carry, at a minimum, whether they believe a lot, a little, something in between or none at all depending on their point of view?

There are, I think, several reasons to carry sufficient spare rounds equaling more than one full reload for a defensive firearm. You may want to enroll yourself in a self-defense with firearms course if you want to learn and understand those reasons. Just in brief allow me to give a few. If involved in a self defense situation wherein you need to fire your handgun you may: miss or hit several times and need to reload because you have expended all the ammo in the gun, be accosted by multiple assailants each requiring multiple shots to stop them, be assaulted by a single assailant requiring a few to many shots to incapacitate him, be involved in a shootout wherein you are behind cover and there is a lull in the action and then should do a tactical reload if you do not remember with certainty how many rounds you have already fired, have to do a tactical reload because your gun jams due to a faulty or damaged magazine or because of a failure to extract or eject, try to reload a spare magazine or speedloader and drop it and hopefully will have another thus not needing to fumble around looking for the one your dropped, inadvertently drop all your rounds out of your speedloader and so on, inadvertently hit the mag release on a semi-auto and drop your magazine thus leaving you needing to reload. Thus carrying a handgun without at least two full reloads, in my humble estimation, would be less than being prudent. While only ever having had to fire two shots at most in a single violent encounter (and sometimes none) I see no reason why I or anyone cannot discuss the issue intelligently and hope my post helps you understand us better.

Each person has to weigh the probabilities and come to their own comfort level.

 

[candcallen]

The link is BJs.gov

Bwahahaaa