"Why Carry A Revolver?"

[Bill Mattocks]

I usually carry a kimber pro carry 2 .45acp with a Ruger LCR 5-shot 38+p. Just like to cover my bases. :ultracool

Not to pick on you, but are there times when you don't carry? Your statement would seem to indicate that there might be. And if not, why not?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Commander's 4 or 4-1/4 inches,I think the model you are trying to describe is the Officer's model.

I stand corrected.

The FBI 3X3 guideline would seem to bear this out.( Most take place at 3 yards or less, in 3 seconds or less with 3 rounds or less). Still, there's always the possibility that hostilities may continue past this, and if we could schedule our emergencies, they wouldn't be "emergencies".

And again, this applies to officer-involved shootings, as I recall.

Of course there are chances it could continue past this. There are chances lots of things could happen. One must examine the odds and make decisions accordingly. As they say "You pays your money and you takes your chances."

My point is that many of the 'facts' about gunfights currently being circulated are either not based in fact or refer to studies that don't actually exist. Like the 'drink 8 ounces of water a day' myth, nobody knows where they came from, but many consider them more-or-less correct anyway.

Absent actual facts, I rely on my own experiences plus whatever facts I have been able to glean, plus what I consider a rational examination of my own risk factors. YMMV, of course.

What I *don't* do is a) assume the worst or b) get hung up on what a gun 'looks like' or how others view it (lady's gun, pansy gun, inaccurate, not enough rounds, etc). I suspect that more than a couple of the folks in this thread would 'not be caught dead' carrying a derringer, just because of their social conditioning. The facts don't enter into it, it's purely emotional.

Yeah that "Oh, well, I don't carry unless I think/know I might need to" line is starting to SERIOUSLY grind my gears, because it flies in the face of all training on the subject--If you know you may be going to a gunfight-- DON'T GO! If by some astronomically unlikely twist of fate you *must* go, don't go with just a sidearm!

I have to agree with you. But grinding gears or not, people do what they do. I would suggest you ask any CCW holders you know if they ever just don't carry, and if so, why. I'm sure there are lots of good reasons, and some that would fash you unduly, like it being hot, they feel safe where they are going, dressing too lightly to accommodate a concealed weapon, and so on. This has been my experience talking to CCW holders I know. So again, the weapon you *will* carry everywhere trumps the one you *sometimes* don't carry, yes?

 

[KenpoTex]

Bill, I don't think anyone is going to take exception to your statement about CCW holders who don't always carry because it's obviously true. In fact, I would even go a little further and say that the "always carry" crowd is in the minority where CCW holders are concerned.

Now, as one of the "always carry" crowd (unless I'm going to have to walk through a metal-detector, I'm carrying), I tend to think that not carrying when you can is not only defeating the purpose of having the CCW, but is kinda dumb. It reminds me of that line from Heartbreak Ridge: "Must be nice to know when and where you're going to be ambushed, sir." To me, the idea that one only carries "when they think they might need it" is laughable.
There is no way to know when/where you might need your firearm. You don't have to be on the "wrong side of the tracks" for something bad to happen.

As for stats on incidents involving private citizens, there isn't a whole lot out there. There are however, some instructors who have compiled some data from incidents in which their students have been involved.

Here's a little snippet from Tom Givens of RangeMasters. He's done other reports (he's had something like 60 students involved in shootings) but this was the only one I could find quickly.

At the NTI this year I did a lecture and power point on seven representative shooting incidents my students have been involved in during recent years.

Trends-
4 of 7 incidents involved an armed robbery by 1 or 2 suspects
3 occurred on Mall parking lots
Students- 1 female, 3 male whites, 3 male blacks
Shootees- 7 male black, 1 male white, 2 male Hispanics
3 of 7 incidents involved 2 suspects
29 shots fired by students/28 hits achieved- 96.5% hit ratio
Average # of shots fired = 4.1
3 incidents involved 4 or more shots fired
Students’ guns- 9mm- 2 incidents
.40 S&W- 5 incidents

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Here's a little snippet from Tom Givens of RangeMasters. He's done other reports (he's had something like 60 students involved in shootings) but this was the only one I could find quickly.

Now this is interesting:

Average # of shots fired = 4.1
3 incidents involved 4 or more shots fired

Since it appears his sample size is 7 shootings, one must of course keep in mind that it might not be very applicable to the world at large, but it's better than nothing.

So...7 shootings, 3 of which involved more than 3 shots fired, with an overall average of 4.1. That would mean that 4 involved 3 or fewer shots fired. Without knowing the fulls stats, I can't tell if most people fired 1, 2, or 3 shots, but it would be interesting to find out.

I think you see where I'm going with this, though. People consider their odds when they arm themselves - that's good. But many do not have a firm grasp of what the actual odds might be. Myself included; we're all grasping the dark here to determine the actual risk. I just tend to think the real risk is somewhat lower than most might assume.

 

[zDom]

are there times when you don't carry? ... And if not, why not?

I'll answer this one (even though it wasn't directed at me):

Because sometimes I like to have a drink or two in a public place. Usually a "with dinner beer" but not always. I know some folk choose to carry anyway — but not me.

I don't want to risk the loss of my CCW privilege.

I figure the odds of me getting caught under the influence (or even worse, intoxicated! A felony) with a firearm are greater than the odds of me getting into a situation where I need that firearm.

Thank God I have a better-than-average ability to defend myself empty handed.

 

[lklawson]

Bill, I don't think anyone is going to take exception to your statement about CCW holders who don't always carry because it's obviously true. In fact, I would even go a little further and say that the "always carry" crowd is in the minority where CCW holders are concerned.

Now, as one of the "always carry" crowd (unless I'm going to have to walk through a metal-detector, I'm carrying), I tend to think that not carrying when you can is not only defeating the purpose of having the CCW, but is kinda dumb. It reminds me of that line from Heartbreak Ridge: "Must be nice to know when and where you're going to be ambushed, sir."

Personally, the more I hear (see) people harassing folks about not always carrying, the more annoyed I get.

First, I get annoyed because I can't always carry legally. My place of work is barred and there's nothing I can much do about it except find a new job (in this economy?!?!). No, I can't even break it down, separate the ammo, and lock it up in separate boxes, stored in my vehicle for when I drive out of my "unarmed" work zone. So, 5 days a week, I have to leave it at home. Further, I'm in Ohio so 1/2 of all restaurants are automatically barred (we're working on it).

Second, people make judgments about safety all the time. Would you honestly live where you currently do if you felt it was unsafe; if you felt the odds for having a Home Invasion or being mugged on your front porch were high? I wouldn't. There are times when you weigh the odds. First off, what are the odds that you're going to be assaulted at all? For most of us, it's pretty low, even over a lifetime. Second off, what are the odds you're going to be assaulted in a given area? You know usually if the area you're going to is more or less "safe." Those affect your odds too.

Now, I've got no problem with SD advocates wanting to be armed as often as legally permissible as an "insurance policy." I want that too, to be honest. But neither should we SD advocates harass folks who generally agree with us but have made an informed, well reasoned conclusion that odds and need for a given circumstance are low.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[KenpoTex]

...There are times when you weigh the odds. First off, what are the odds that you're going to be assaulted at all? For most of us, it's pretty low, even over a lifetime. Second off, what are the odds you're going to be assaulted in a given area? You know usually if the area you're going to is more or less "safe." Those affect your odds too.

Now, I've got no problem with SD advocates wanting to be armed as often as legally permissible as an "insurance policy." I want that too, to be honest. But neither should we SD advocates harass folks who generally agree with us but have made an informed, well reasoned conclusion that odds and need for a given circumstance are low.

I don't recall ever advising someone to, or giving them crap because they don't, carry a gun when it is illegal to do so. Furthermore, if someone makes a decision to not carry because exposure would cost them their job, I'm not going to give them much static.

However, the "perceived risk" issue is where I start to disagree. Yes, the odds that any specific person will be targeted, particularly if they follow the "3 stupids rule," are probably pretty slim. Unfortunately, as we all know, it doesn't matter where/who you are, you can still be targeted. I'm sure all the people at mall, church, and school shootings, if asked ahead of time, would probably have classified that locale as a "safe" or "low risk" area.
Playing the odds is fine...until you become the statistical anomaly.

So, to summarize...if someone chooses not to carry to stay within the law (e.g. won't carry where it's illegal, or won't carry while drinking, etc.) or to protect their employment, fine.
If however, it's just an issue of "comfort" or because "I'm not likely to need it here," then I personally feel that to be indicative of poor mindset.

 

[Archangel M]

There are some times when I just like to go out on an errand in a pr of shorts and a t-shirt. Getting into my 5.11's, strapping on and covering it all up to go to the hardware store for something is just too much hassle. Am I aware of my risk? Sure I am, I carry more often than not but not 100%

 

[Bruno@MT]

So, to summarize...if someone chooses not to carry to stay within the law (e.g. won't carry where it's illegal, or won't carry while drinking, etc.) or to protect their employment, fine.
If however, it's just an issue of "comfort" or because "I'm not likely to need it here," then I personally feel that to be indicative of poor mindset.

Well in Belgium this discussion is moot for 99% of the people. CC is illegal. Unconcealed is illegal as well for that matter

But there are other things to consider. Carrying a gun brings other risks. For the purpose of carrying a weapon, you have to own a weapon, and ammo, etc. Which means that you have weapons and ammo in your house.

There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.

 

[elder999]

If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.

feh.

If you look at the statistics, the logical/rational conclusion is not to eat hot dogs, and risk choking-or a pool, and risk drowning, etc., etc., etc.....

 

[Bruno@MT]

feh.

If you look at the statistics, the logical/rational conclusion is not to eat hot dogs, and risk choking-or a pool, and risk drowning, etc., etc., etc.....

True. Absolutely true.

And you don't think people have a poor mindset if they don't eat hot dogs because of that. And you don't think they have a poor mindset if they decide not to have a pool.
So for the same reason, you should not think people have a poor mindset if they don't want to have a gun on the basis that owning one is more dangerous than not owning one.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Speaking for myself, I am not here on this thread to try to convince people who don't want guns to go and get them. I speak only to those who have made the decision already and wish to learn to do so responsibly and safely in order that the right to do so remains unmolested.

That gun's the heaviest two pounds you'll ever wear, and it IS a drastic lifestyle commitment, which WILL require you to change how you think, how you dress, how you act, and nobody else can make that decision for you, and I won't even try.
I'm just here to point the way for those who have already chosen the path.

I help those who help themselves. Debating the point with anyone else is a waste of my time.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I am not arguing for or against. I am just pointing out that it is presumptuous to judge the mindset of people solely on their decision to carry or not (as posted by kenpo-tex)

 

[lklawson]

However, the "perceived risk" issue is where I start to disagree. Yes, the odds that any specific person will be targeted, particularly if they follow the "3 stupids rule," are probably pretty slim. Unfortunately, as we all know, it doesn't matter where/who you are, you can still be targeted. I'm sure all the people at mall, church, and school shootings, if asked ahead of time, would probably have classified that locale as a "safe" or "low risk" area.
Playing the odds is fine...until you become the statistical anomaly.

So, to summarize...if someone chooses not to carry to stay within the law (e.g. won't carry where it's illegal, or won't carry while drinking, etc.) or to protect their employment, fine.
If however, it's just an issue of "comfort" or because "I'm not likely to need it here," then I personally feel that to be indicative of poor mindset.

See, this is where our two opinions (and that's what they are) diverge.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to not carry based on an honest reflection of the odds. But here's the catch, it's predicated on it being a informed decision. I get well and truly annoyed at folks who make the decision based solely upon ideological or other reasons, or even for no reason at all.

As long as it's an informed decision, where they've understood the risks and consequences, then they're grown-ups and neither I nor anyone else has any call to harass them about their "mind set."

To be fair, on the other side of the coin, I also get well and truly annoyed by folks who think that their conclusion, informed or not, should somehow apply to me. It's MY decision. If I want to be armed (legally) then I don't give a flying fig whether or not you have decided that it's low risk.

I think that you and I agree on the preceding paragraph, right? The thing is that if I take this stand, then I would be a bald faced hypocrite (of Washington Politician proportions!) if I did not also apply the same standards to the opposite. If I make an informed decision not to carry because I believe it is low risk, then I don't give a flying fig whether or not you disagree.

In summary, if I think that other people have no right to question my decision to be armed because they believe it is "low risk" then I equally have no right to question their decision not to be armed even if I believe it to be "high risk."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.

Good point.

It's worth noting, as part of that assessment, exactly how low the risks of an accident actually are. In home firearms accidents (as opposed to murder and suicide) are so astoundingly low that they are dwarfed by even the (admittedly) low risk of a pool accident.

Still, I understand the point you are making.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Carol]

Personally, I think we define our tools, not the other way around.

 

[KenpoTex]

I am not arguing for or against. I am just pointing out that it is presumptuous to judge the mindset of people solely on their decision to carry or not (as posted by kenpo-tex)

If you look at my last post, I made it clear that I am not directing my thoughts toward those who choose not to carry to remain within the law. (and if I did have such thoughts, hypothetically, I wouldn't voice them on a public forum)

My issue is with those who have a CCW because, on some level, they recognize a "need" to have one. Yet, they only carry some of the time because there are other times when it's uncomfortable or "unnecessary." In other words, they are choosing for the sake of convenience to be unprepared. In my mind, there is a disconnect there. It would be akin to choosing to "turn off" your empty-hand abilities (if such a thing were possible) because you didn't feel like you'd need them that day.

But, as I said in an earlier post, everyone makes their own choices...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.

Fortunately, I have no children and therefore no kids in my house. That risk does not exist for me.

 

[jks9199]

Well in Belgium this discussion is moot for 99% of the people. CC is illegal. Unconcealed is illegal as well for that matter

But there are other things to consider. Carrying a gun brings other risks. For the purpose of carrying a weapon, you have to own a weapon, and ammo, etc. Which means that you have weapons and ammo in your house.

There are examples aplenty of gun accidents, kids playing with their parents' weapons, accidental discharges, etc. If you look at the statistics, and the risk of such accidents is higher than the risk of someone in your context (job, area, etc) being targeted in an attack where your handgun would make a difference, then the logical / rational conclusion is to not own a gun at all.

Those risks are easily handled, by proper storage and handling, coupled with EDUCATION from an early age. I have guns and ammunition in my house. Before the birth of my son, I was a little more lax at home since it was just me & my wife -- but even before his birth, I'd upgraded my practices. First thing that happens when I walk in the door is the gun gets locked up. What I'm doing evolves as my son grows; currently a Life Jacket and higher than he can reach is enough. In a very few months, it'll go into a safe, too. And, as he gets older, he'll start learning gun safety. That's part of being a responsible gun owner and parent. (Just like you'd handle teaching them about knives or other weapons you might have...)

 

[Bruno@MT]

True. a good part of that risk is manageable. And indeed, I have loads of straight razor blades in the house (living room, bath room, basement, and there are sharepened objects in pretty much every room) and I did indeed put everything above head height for an adult. And my oldest daughter knows how to hold and carry them in case she should find any (which should never happen). When she was 3 I started teaching her how to cut vegetables with a sharp knife.

But still, carrying a gun vs not carrying one is a decision you have to make conciously and rationally, same as I decided to keep my blades in the house. As long as the decision is made based on arguments, it's a matter of deciding how important those arguments are, and respecting the decisions of someone else.

Come to think of it, it's kinda like arguing your decision to choose for one religion or the other