Extreme large caliber weapons while macho pose a danger in missed shots and even pass through collateral damage. Part of the beauty of the traditional shotgun in it’s arguments as a better self defense weapon.
Well, I don’t think either the .38 Special or 9 mm qualify as “extreme.” For less force/recoil, there’s the .32 for revolvers and .380 auto (9 mm short) for pistols. But the idea of having to hit somebody 3 times to stop them doesn’t sound good to me. You may not have that much time. Nobody is advocating a 500 S&W Magnum as a self-defense handgun, unless your likely attacker is a grizzly. And a shotgun is a great close range self-defense weapon - if you happen to have one handy when you need it. Kinda tough to carry one concealed, though, even if it’s one of these.
I prefer a shotgun for around the house close in defense and have a couple of other things I carry for CC of different caliber depending on where I am going.
But with the large (5 acres) front yard an AR-15 is handy to have and if push comes to shove the BAR I have would really be a help.
nano: “She strongly supported that if the first shot was too effective but not a kill shot that the woman would effectively disarm herself via either not wanting to take the second shot or being so upset she lost timing and accurracy.”
That’s why cops are taught to squeeze off TWO rounds at a time, assess the damage, and proceed from there. And ALWAYS aim for the “center of mass”. This shoot to “wound” crap is only for those who have a death wish. If it’s important enough to shoot someone, it’s important enough to do it right.
As an aside, I have a picture of a (former) lady friend of mine who insisted upon firing the .44 Magnum while we were camping. She wanted to be one of the guys and wouldn’t take “no dear, it’s too much gun for you” for an answer. I stood back about 15 feet even with the end of the barrel and snapped the picture as soon as I heard the report. When I had the pic developed, her hand, arm, and gun were straight up in the air.
<chuckle>
Blonde, good-looking, and great, ahem, ‘fun’, but she wasn’t very bright - thus the “former” status.
As an aside, I have a picture of a (former) lady friend of mine who insisted upon firing the .44 Magnum while we were camping. She wanted to be one of the guys and wouldn’t take “no dear, it’s too much gun for you” for an answer. I stood back about 15 feet even with the end of the barrel and snapped the picture as soon as I heard the report. When I had the pic developed, her hand, arm, and gun were straight up in the air.
I had the chance to fire a Ruger Super Blackhawk, .44 mag, back when. The original with the 7 (7.5 ?)” barrel. With the standard grips, it did climb and rotate a bit, but the recoil was nowhere near as fearsome as some folks told me back then. Not much worse than my Blackhawk in .357 mag (6 “ bbl.) Of course, being SA, these are probably not ideal self-defense guns, and way too big for concealed carry.
Still want that Model 29 and a shoulder holster rig, though. All I need to do is find that much spare cash lying about unused. It would be the perfect companion gun to my Marlin 1894 SS.
According to statute though, bars are off limits in MN, and I can’t say I disaagree with that provision.
I do.
As a sane and responsible gun-owner, I resent the implication that merely being in a bar, nevermind having a glass of wine with dinner, is likely to trip the homocidal trigger (pun intended).
It’s similar to the horror-prognostications that if a majority of people carried, they’d be shooting each other over trivialities.
First off Pan, I’m not talking about wine with dinner. I’m talking about a bar.
I don’t know about where you come from Pan, but in my vast experience, (remember I made my living as a club/venue musician for 23 years), people in general go to bars for one reason only; to get drunk. Drunk people behave in all kinds of ways they would otherwise not behave, including violent behavior. Otherwise sensible people become extremely stupid when they are drunk.
It makes sense to me to prohibit firearms in an establishment that exists for the purpose of people congregating to get drunk. I favor firearm freedom, as you know, but I also favor common sense. Common sense tells me that drunk people and guns don’t mix.
The argument that says, “carrying a weapon doesn’t make me likely to shoot someone” is a valid one. But the argument that says, “getting drunk makes me likely to do something stupid” is an equally valid argument. Stupidity and guns do not mix.
I think it is perfectly valid to say as a society that we do not leave it up to the individual drunk to decide whether he carries a weapon under the influence. Very, very few people leave a bar sober. I have literally thousands of nights of anecdotal evidence to back this up.
IDP, let me assure you I have been in my share of bars in my life so I have witnessed a good deal of foolishness as well, from both the drunk and the sober.
I AM talking about merely being in an establishment that serves alcohol, having wine with dinner, or a couple of nightcaps.
It is your assumption that bars exist for the purpose of getting drunk and while no doubt some do, I’m not buying the general premise. Nor am I willing to grant credence to your assumption that having imbibed proscribes any individual right, including this one. It’s called prior restraint.
I have spend many an evening with gun-carrying friends, at home and out, where adult beverages were consumed and nobody got stupid with a weapon. So your anectodal observations count about as much as mine, except you seem to believe that few can be counted on to drink responsibly.
I am not in favor of government prohibiting the exercise of any right based on “what might happen if”, or “it makes sense to”.
According to statute though, bars are off limits in MN, and I can’t say I disaagree with that provision.
I do.
As a sane and responsible gun-owner, I resent the implication that merely being in a bar, nevermind having a glass of wine with dinner, is likely to trip the homocidal trigger (pun intended).
It’s similar to the horror-prognostications that if a majority of people carried, they’d be shooting each other over trivialities.
First off Pan, I’m not talking about wine with dinner. I’m talking about a bar.
I don’t know about where you come from Pan, but in my vast experience, (remember I made my living as a club/venue musician for 23 years), people in general go to bars for one reason only; to get drunk. Drunk people behave in all kinds of ways they would otherwise not behave, including violent behavior. Otherwise sensible people become extremely stupid when they are drunk.
It makes sense to me to prohibit firearms in an establishment that exists for the purpose of people congregating to get drunk. I favor firearm freedom, as you know, but I also favor common sense. Common sense tells me that drunk people and guns don’t mix.
The argument that says, “carrying a weapon doesn’t make me likely to shoot someone” is a valid one. But the argument that says, “getting drunk makes me likely to do something stupid” is an equally valid argument. Stupidity and guns do not mix.
I think it is perfectly valid to say as a society that we do not leave it up to the individual drunk to decide whether he carries a weapon under the influence. Very, very few people leave a bar sober. I have literally thousands of nights of anecdotal evidence to back this up.
IDP, let me assure you I have been in my share of bars in my life so I have witnessed a good deal of foolishness as well, from both the drunk and the sober.
I AM talking about merely being in an establishment that serves alcohol, having wine with dinner, or a couple of nightcaps.
It is your assumption that bars exist for the purpose of getting drunk and while no doubt some do, I’m not buying the general premise. Nor am I willing to grant credence to your assumption that having imbibed proscribes any individual right, including this one. It’s called prior restraint.
I have spend many an evening with gun-carrying friends, at home and out, where adult beverages were consumed and nobody got stupid with a weapon. So your anectodal observations count about as much as mine, except you seem to believe that few can be counted on to drink responsibly.
I am not in favor of government prohibiting the exercise of any right based on “what might happen if”, or “it makes sense to”.
Edited.
I am left to only imagine what you edited out of your comment.
I respect your position Pan. I always respect the opinions of those who advocate maximum freedom, minimum government involvement in our lives, or adherence to traditional principles.
But on the narrow scope of this topic, I am of a differing opinion: that the introduction of alcohol into any situation changes the dynamic of that situation in unpredictable ways; that the introduction of alcohol into the individual introduces behavioral variables that impair judgment, and open the door for chaos.
Many people drink responsibly. In fact, on any given night, I’d say that you could remove chronic alcoholics from the equation, and say that most people drink responsibly.
But even drinking responsibly introduces some level of judgment impairment, and along the “drinking responsibility” continuum, there are all levels of drunk, and all levels of ability to handle liquor.
Society doesn’t want people with impaired judgment carrying weapons any more than society wants the insane carrying them. It just doesn’t pass the common sense test.
Put 200 average Joe’s and Josephines in a bustling bar, and feed them Coca-Cola all night long.
Put those same 200 people in a bustling bar and feed them beer and whiskey all night long.
Then take a survey, and find out, upon which evening did more mayhem ensue? Which evening reaped more domestic disputes? Damaged friendships? Fights? Car accidents/DUIs? Injuries?
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that any given group of people will behave more irratically when they are drunk than when they are sober.
I’m asking, “why introduce firearms into that equation?” And my self-evident answer is, “don’t do it, it’s stupid.”
I am not in favor of government prohibiting the exercise of any right based on “what might happen if”, or “it makes sense to”.
Edited.
There’s the money quote. I can’t buy IDP’s argument because all it serves to do is to criminalize otherwise law-abiding citizens. IDP (along with a considerable number of others) would prefer to ban firearms from bars. In an ideal world that might be nice, but this isn’t an ideal world.
The fact is, none of us know definitively how many bar patrons are armed, but I can assure you that there are more are than you think. I don’t know about you but IMO the truly foolish thing to do is to act as though we’re all disarmed. We aren’t.
I’ve always carried - I carry now. I carried when it was legal - I carry even though it isn’t. Heinlein had it correct: “An armed society is a polite society”. I believe that it would be better if the “default presumption” was that everyone around you was packing. I think it would quell some of the silly preconceptions that actually lead to confrontations and violence.
According to statute though, bars are off limits in MN, and I can’t say I disaagree with that provision.
I do.
As a sane and responsible gun-owner, I resent the implication that merely being in a bar, nevermind having a glass of wine with dinner, is likely to trip the homocidal trigger (pun intended).
It’s similar to the horror-prognostications that if a majority of people carried, they’d be shooting each other over trivialities.
First off Pan, I’m not talking about wine with dinner. I’m talking about a bar.
I don’t know about where you come from Pan, but in my vast experience, (remember I made my living as a club/venue musician for 23 years), people in general go to bars for one reason only; to get drunk. Drunk people behave in all kinds of ways they would otherwise not behave, including violent behavior. Otherwise sensible people become extremely stupid when they are drunk.
It makes sense to me to prohibit firearms in an establishment that exists for the purpose of people congregating to get drunk. I favor firearm freedom, as you know, but I also favor common sense. Common sense tells me that drunk people and guns don’t mix.
The argument that says, “carrying a weapon doesn’t make me likely to shoot someone” is a valid one. But the argument that says, “getting drunk makes me likely to do something stupid” is an equally valid argument. Stupidity and guns do not mix.
I think it is perfectly valid to say as a society that we do not leave it up to the individual drunk to decide whether he carries a weapon under the influence. Very, very few people leave a bar sober. I have literally thousands of nights of anecdotal evidence to back this up.
IDP, let me assure you I have been in my share of bars in my life so I have witnessed a good deal of foolishness as well, from both the drunk and the sober.
I AM talking about merely being in an establishment that serves alcohol, having wine with dinner, or a couple of nightcaps.
It is your assumption that bars exist for the purpose of getting drunk and while no doubt some do, I’m not buying the general premise. Nor am I willing to grant credence to your assumption that having imbibed proscribes any individual right, including this one. It’s called prior restraint.
I have spend many an evening with gun-carrying friends, at home and out, where adult beverages were consumed and nobody got stupid with a weapon. So your anectodal observations count about as much as mine, except you seem to believe that few can be counted on to drink responsibly.
I am not in favor of government prohibiting the exercise of any right based on “what might happen if”, or “it makes sense to”.
Edited.
I am left to only imagine what you edited out of your comment.
Let me relieve you of the trouble: I added a few words in the interest of clarity and subtracted nothing.
I respect your position Pan. I always respect the opinions of those who advocate maximum freedom, minimum government involvement in our lives, or adherence to traditional principles.
But…
Know what is said about “buts”? Everything after the “but” is BS.
...on the narrow scope of this topic, I am of a differing opinion: that the introduction of alcohol into any situation changes the dynamic of that situation in unpredictable ways; that the introduction of alcohol into the individual introduces behavioral variables that impair judgment, and open the door for chaos.
Many people drink responsibly. In fact, on any given night, I’d say that you could remove chronic alcoholics from the equation, and say that most people drink responsibly.
But even drinking responsibly introduces some level of judgment impairment, and along the “drinking responsibility” continuum, there are all levels of drunk, and all levels of ability to handle liquor.
You are projecting here, in a way similar to the way the gun-grabbers do: people can’t be trusted because......
Society doesn’t want....
You mean you don’t want.
...people with impaired judgment carrying weapons any more than society wants the insane carrying them. It just doesn’t pass the common sense test.
Put 200 average Joe’s and Josephines in a bustling bar, and feed them Coca-Cola all night long.
Put those same 200 people in a bustling bar and feed them beer and whiskey all night long.
Feed them? All night long? Worst-case scenario-izing here.
Then take a survey, and find out, upon which evening did more mayhem ensue? Which evening reaped more domestic disputes? Damaged friendships? Fights? Car accidents/DUIs? Injuries?
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that any given group of people will behave more irratically when they are drunk than when they are sober.
I’m asking, “why introduce firearms into that equation?” And my self-evident answer is, “don’t do it, it’s stupid.”
Firearms are not being “introduced”, IDP. They’d be present as an effect of citizens exercising their rights. You’re presupposing that any one person who has imbibed enough to behave “erratically” is reason enough for a government ban because of the assumed risk.
People who don’t want certain sorts of behavior by other citizens can think up a myriad of ‘common sense’ reasons, including the ones you’ve written here, to demand prior restraint of other folks. Our Congress has done it multiple times; John McCain used the excuse of keeping the appearance of impropriety out of politics for his McCain/Feingold prohibition of political speech. Public safety and for the good of the children are often touted as other really, really good reasons. They’re not.
First off Pan, I’m not talking about wine with dinner. I’m talking about a bar.
I don’t know about where you come from Pan, but in my vast experience, (remember I made my living as a club/venue musician for 23 years), people in general go to bars for one reason only; to get drunk. Drunk people behave in all kinds of ways they would otherwise not behave, including violent behavior. Otherwise sensible people become extremely stupid when they are drunk.
One thing you should understand is that ‘gun free’ bars are the same thing as gun free schools. The only folk who pay any attention are not the folk who shoot other folk for fun or profit. The nutters who intend mischief will pay no attention to the law which means nothing is accomplished by the law.
Put another way, when was the last time you read about some normal, law abiding citizen, not with a long arrest record, not a gang banger, etc, shootng another law abiding citizen in a bar?
Legally, that’s bullshit. If open carry is legal, you can’t be prosecuted for doing so. Many states have laws against “brandishing”, but that requires you have the weapon in your hand.
The real problem with open carry is that if you have a gun strapped on your hip, but put on a coat that covers it, you are now in concealed carry territory, and had better have a permit.
Not exactly true...In Portland Maine, a state with a very good set of gun freedom laws, it is 100% legal to carry openly. When done one is arrested and the gun confiscated and held for a prolonged period.
Charges are normally dropped unless you make a big fuss at the time and then they drop the gun charge and charge you with some other thing like refusing to obey the cop or creating a mischief. Bottom line, the police chief disagreed with the state law and ignored it as often as possible.
I’m not presupposing that any one person who may behave erratically is enough justification to ban guns from bars. I am presupposing that bars are establishments that exist for the purpose of serving alcohol to people who wish to get drunk - whether it be a little drunk or a lot drunk. And drunk people don’t behave the way they normally do. Normally responsible people do things they otherwise would not do when they are drunk. Judgment is impaired.
I said that society does not want firearms in bars because I believe that to be true. I believe that you’d find most people who believe strongly in the right to own and carry weapons would support the notion that firearms don’t belong in the hands of drunks, and that prohiniting them from bars is a common sense measure to avoid that.
Aaaaaallllllllll that said.... The poster Alphabet Soup makes the most valid argument I can see for your point of view, and it is the same argument that I have used to argue against “gun-free-zones”.
Criminals break the law.
That simplicity is enough to cause me to look at my position with less certainty.
EDIT: Now Jim makes the same argument as Alphabet Soup. It is a valid argument.
I have sat on two murder trial juries involving guns and bars.
In both cases it was over somebody having their girl cheat on them and the shooter brought the weapon to the bar with intent to kill with only the awareness of the habit of the victim to be at the bar in question.
Neither were related to behavior or events at the bar itself.
The same result would have happened if it were a gas station.
I have sat on two murder trial juries involving guns and bars.
In both cases it was over somebody having their girl cheat on them and the shooter brought the weapon to the bar with intent to kill with only the awareness of the habit of the victim to be at the bar in question.
Neither were related to behavior or events at the bar itself.
The same result would have happened if it were a gas station.
Was either of the two shooters upstanding citizens without records?
I have sat on two murder trial juries involving guns and bars.
In both cases it was over somebody having their girl cheat on them and the shooter brought the weapon to the bar with intent to kill with only the awareness of the habit of the victim to be at the bar in question.
Neither were related to behavior or events at the bar itself.
The same result would have happened if it were a gas station.
Was either of the two shooters upstanding citizens without records?
They were gainfully employed people who were over 50 that were the shooters and one had a few speeding tickets and one a drunk and disorderly from over 30 years prior.
The crimes were not ‘crimes of passion’ since the time the shooter found out about the infidelity preceeded the shootings by over a month. Also witnesses testified in both cases the shooter was going hunting for the victim.
Pure premeditated murder with a deadly weapon, in fact in both cases a double barrel shotgun to the base of the butt of someone sitting on a bar stool from behind. Also both had not a word spoken at the time of the shooting, just walk in, place the weapon and pull the triggers.
Interesting...I have not found it before, though I am sure it happens.
The point is the shootings were NOT related to CC or even a weapon in a truck outside the bar they were totally planned.
Now the papers are filled here with drive by shootings or people pulling unreg guns in bars or their parking lots over ‘respect’.
Whole different ball game today.
One of the shooters in a case I sat on walked in the bar unarmed to make sure the victim was there and then returned to his truck to fetch the weapon. A clear sign of intent.
