dakota1911
New member
The one you have when you need it is the best one.
Lamb then made the comment that is paraphrased to title this post. His point, of course, was that carrying all the time is far more important than what you choose carry.
I'd venture to say it's virtually never close to the best choice. One can look at the military to see what they believe the best choice is for saving a soldier's life and it's usually something carried with a sling, not a holster.... in most cases, its not necessarily, or even close to the best choice.
One might even say the most important part of the equation. While an unskilled person with a gun has a chance (perhaps a small chance) of prevailing in a situation requiring a firearm, a highly skilled person without a gun isn't going to make any headway at all in a situation requiring a firearm.Having it is only one part of the equation.
Absolutely, but if you have a choice, why continue in a negative direction if its not necessary?I'd venture to say it's virtually never close to the best choice. One can look at the military to see what they believe the best choice is for saving a soldier's life and it's usually something carried with a sling, not a holster.
I wasnt referring to having or not having, but what you have, and your ability to use it.One might even say the most important part of the equation. While an unskilled person with a gun has a chance (perhaps a small chance) of prevailing in a situation requiring a firearm, a highly skilled person without a gun isn't going to make any headway at all in a situation requiring a firearm.
Again, having a gun is important, but having the "right gun", even more so, and being able to use just goes along with that.As I recall, John Lott's work confirms that having a gun is far more important than having mandated training to use that gun. This makes sense, because having the training without having the gun is close to useless. But, empirically, Lott shows that states requiring training to obtain a concealed carry permit has no discernibly impact on reducing violent crime relative to the reduction seen in states having no training requirement. He noted the only substantive effect training requirements have is to keep carry permits out of the hands of some of those who need them most, the inner city poor.
I have nothing against one opting for elective training, and believe a good quality class would be beneficial. But, the training Nazis who put training über alles to the point of making it a requirement are just peddling their form of gun control.
I suggest people watch their language. You can get banned if you stray into some linguistic outrages.
As far as training - you have the overall statistical analyses which suggest that you don't get significant differences between training and nontraining states.
However, each incident does have its own individual variance and we do see many cases where the untrained carry the day.
But, we do see some extreme critical incidents where the carrier fails from what seems to be a lacking of training. Take the Tacoma and Tyler courthouse incidents. Failure of action that wouldn't occur if someone would have followed what most quality training would suggest.
We also see the NDs clearly from finger on the trigger. Training and practice reduce those.
I would say its just the opposite. The gun is simply the tool. Training is the skill.I was just trying to make the point that having a gun is infinitely more important than having training. An untrained person with a gun stands a fighting chance, while a trained person without a gun is a sitting duck.
That position is quite difficult to support.I would say its just the opposite.
I would say its just the opposite. The gun is simply the tool. Training is the skill.
Theres no doubt having a gun is important, but you really do need to know at least the basics of what to do with it.
You "may" stand a chance, but you also may well put yourself, and/or others in even greater danger, if youre counting on simply having the gun itself and not being able to use it in a reasonable manner.
Also, Im not sure why a trained person is necessarily a sitting duck, simply because they dont have a gun. I would think that most people who have taken the time to learn to use their gun, also have other skills and options available, should they somehow happen to find themselves "gun-less". At distances youre always told you will be fighting at, you pretty much always have a chance, gun or not. Of course, that is assuming you have some "training".
Ive never said dont have a gun along. My point is, if youre going to carry one, get a "real" one, and have the skills to use it. If you feel the need to carry one in the first place, why would you do otherwise?It's far better to have a gun, even a less than ideal gun, even with insufficient training, than it is to be highly trained and own an ideal gun that's not with you when you are faced with a scenario requiring a firearm.
Its a cute saying, and we both know that.Ever hear the saying: “Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal”? It was in reference to a tool, not a skill.
Id bet a lot of them. Ill bet a lot of them just load the gun, never shoot it, and just put it away, or in their pocket.How many gun owners who eschew formal training do you think do not bother to read their gun's instruction manual and go out, load it up, and fire a box or more of ammo in familiarizing themselves with their tool?
You keep going to the "gunless" thing here for some reason, when thats not the issue.With only the gun training without access to the gun, you may well put yourself and others in great danger if all you can do is stand there with your finger in your armpit.
Youre the one who keeps pointing in that direction "gunless", hence the comment.Of course the subject was gun training, not martial arts training. The quip about Colt making men equal had nothing to do with training and everything to do with Colt's revolving handgun. A firearm in the hands of a petite woman puts her on more equal footing to a hulking male thug. But, if you move the goalposts far enough you can engineer a winning argument.
Thats great and all, but it sounds like your whole theory here, is using the gun as a threat/bluff, with nothing to back it up should the other party not be intimidated by you. Is that right?As to the point made above about the majority of DGUs not involving the gun being fired, while recently reading the LAPD's Use of Force report for 2010 I noted that for every shooting incident there were four incidents where a firearm was drawn and exhibited but not fired.
So have I.I have witnessed "trained" people do some unbelievably dumb things with a gun.
You have that too, but generally, thats not to common a thing, especially if you add a little reality to things.I have also know quite a few folks who handle a weapon like an expert with their only training being a trip to the range with a relative or what they pick up here and there.
Ive been through a couple of this type class too, and the shooting portion at the end, was pretty scary in both cases. But then again, they all "did" have a gun.Having sat through a class and watching a poorly produced safety video rarely turns out spectacular shooters.
the only problem I have with "The Ultimate Carry Gun" is that its not always lawful or practical to carry religiously; work policies, legal gun free zones, Reciprocity laws..... until a solution is found the ultimate carry gun does not exist. Or maybe a better way to look at it is its not available to all.Glenn E. Meyer said:Unfortunately, most CCW types don't carry religiously. A TX survey (old) found that 20% do. I have friends who talk the gun talk but hardly carry. The gun is wrapped in a towel in the glove compartment.
One hurt his dominant hand, so ditched carrying.
Most folks are not serious.
I didn't make the specific comment you're referring to but I have made similar ones on the thread.Thats great and all, but it sounds like your whole theory here, is using the gun as a threat/bluff, with nothing to back it up should the other party not be intimidated by you. Is that right?
That is correct. While that is a valid excuse for not carrying all the time for people who live with such restrictions, many people use it as an excuse to never carry, even when the restrictions would allow them to....its not always lawful or practical to carry religiously...