Gun for self defense while traveling and small hands.

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Do all smaller guns using the same type of bullet have the same amount of recoil? Or do some guns have better recoil characteristics than others?

This is one of the reasons I never recomment a .22- while the caliber is small, guns that handle this type of ammo are usually really light and cheaply made, so the recoil often feels worse than a 9mm, which is a bit heavier, making the recoil easier to handle.

wait, what?? a .22 feels worse than 9mm? do you even know anything about guns at all?

your comment makes no sense at all. even a .22 out of a 2" barrel is going to be negligible compared to a 9mm with a 5" barrel.

if you had said a .380 out of a small pistol compared to a 9mm out of a large pistol, then you might have some ground to stand on, but not with a .22.

to answer FBB's question, no, a compact 9mm is going to have more recoil than a full size 9mm. the extra weight helps absorb some of that recoil. also, a metal gun is going to absorb more recoil than a plastic gun.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Do all smaller guns using the same type of bullet have the same amount of recoil? Or do some guns have better recoil characteristics than others?

This is one of the reasons I never recomment a .22- while the caliber is small, guns that handle this type of ammo are usually really light and cheaply made, so the recoil often feels worse than a 9mm, which is a bit heavier, making the recoil easier to handle.

wait, what?? a .22 feels worse than 9mm? do you even know anything about guns at all?

your comment makes no sense at all. even a .22 out of a 2" barrel is going to be negligible compared to a 9mm with a 5" barrel.

if you had said a .380 out of a small pistol compared to a 9mm out of a large pistol, then you might have some ground to stand on, but not with a .22.

to answer FBB's question, no, a compact 9mm is going to have more recoil than a full size 9mm. the extra weight helps absorb some of that recoil. also, a metal gun is going to absorb more recoil than a plastic gun.

No kidding, I've fired a .22LR rifle with the stock of the gun against my nuts before. There is zero recoil from a .22 rifle. Very little from a handgun chambered in .22LR as well.

BTW-One of the most punishing handguns I've owned was an airweight S&W .38. Shooting +P rounds through that thing was brutal.

 

[jamesbond007]

A gun that I like is the CZ75 Compact. It shoots a 9mm round, which may be too small for self defense from big game (unless you can fire a few rounds accurately and effectively), but as others have stated, noise is pretty much all you need to get the animals to go away. It's an effective gun, feels great in your hands, and has 10-round magazines. It's an all-metal body, so it feels stable and sturdy in your hands. I have what I'd consider normal size hands and am able to reach my left index around the front to rest it on the trigger guard. The best part is it's only around $500, depending on where you buy your equipment.

In my experience, proper training and regular practice is more important than bullet size.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

That is a legitimate question? I don't even see that as question of gun ownership. Its kind of odd for someone to say they going traveling and they need a gun to carry. Unless they are traveling in the same state a gun permit won't help a person in one state vs being in another.

Amused, everytime someone poses a question about the need for a gun or carrying one doesn't mean its an attack on gun freedom. :roll:

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

That is a legitimate question? I don't even see that as question of gun ownership. Its kind of odd for someone to say they going traveling and they need a gun to carry. Unless they are traveling in the same state a gun permit won't help a person in one state vs being in another.

Amused, everytime someone poses a question about the need for a gun or carrying one doesn't mean its an attack on gun freedom. :roll:

why is that odd? as an rv owner, i carry a gun in my motorhome when we travel. i see it no different then keeping my gun at home handy.
i will let nothing stand in the way of my safety, my wifes, and the things that i own. i'm not the only rver that carries a gun. you'd be surprised how many full timers carry guns. amazingly, most aren't criminals, the guns are registered where applicable, and they are secured and safe.

if someone feels they would be safer carrying a weapon, then so be it. as long as they are legally carrying it, and are respecting the laws and rights of others, there should be no harm in it.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

That is a legitimate question? I don't even see that as question of gun ownership. Its kind of odd for someone to say they going traveling and they need a gun to carry. Unless they are traveling in the same state a gun permit won't help a person in one state vs being in another.

Amused, everytime someone poses a question about the need for a gun or carrying one doesn't mean its an attack on gun freedom. :roll:

why is that odd? as an rv owner, i carry a gun in my motorhome when we travel. i see it no different then keeping my gun at home handy.
i will let nothing stand in the way of my safety, my wifes, and the things that i own. i'm not the only rver that carries a gun. you'd be surprised how many full timers carry guns. amazingly, most aren't criminals, the guns are registered where applicable, and they are secured and safe.

if someone feels they would be safer carrying a weapon, then so be it. as long as they are legally carrying it, and are respecting the laws and rights of others, there should be no harm in it.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. No problem with it all. But, the OP states he going to travel and now he wants to carry a gun. Question one, I doubt this is the first time he has traveled, maybe so but doubt it. So it begs the question where is he going where he feels he needs a gun? Two and this is an even bigger one. Clearly he has never owned a handgun before in his life. So now he is going to take a handgun which he won't own for very long sounds like on a trip. Ok......is there anything wrong with this picture?

And one more thing, he now has dreams of revolvers. Psych ward number please......
I don't know about you, but I damn sure wouldn't travel with him.

 

[FP]

I am all for letting citizens own guns, blah blah... but I have always wondered something. Obviously there is a reasonable limit to the type of firearm citizens should be allowed to own. For example we can't own RPGs or even some fully auto weapons etc.

My question is why should handguns be legal? What legal purpose do they serve? I can understand shotguns and rifles for hunting and self-defense but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of handguns (when used for something other than at the range) are used for illegal purposes.

I think things would be much safer if every state had an open carry law but handguns were outlawed or severely restricted.

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: theblackbox

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

That is a legitimate question? I don't even see that as question of gun ownership. Its kind of odd for someone to say they going traveling and they need a gun to carry. Unless they are traveling in the same state a gun permit won't help a person in one state vs being in another.

Amused, everytime someone poses a question about the need for a gun or carrying one doesn't mean its an attack on gun freedom. :roll:

why is that odd? as an rv owner, i carry a gun in my motorhome when we travel. i see it no different then keeping my gun at home handy.
i will let nothing stand in the way of my safety, my wifes, and the things that i own. i'm not the only rver that carries a gun. you'd be surprised how many full timers carry guns. amazingly, most aren't criminals, the guns are registered where applicable, and they are secured and safe.

if someone feels they would be safer carrying a weapon, then so be it. as long as they are legally carrying it, and are respecting the laws and rights of others, there should be no harm in it.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. No problem with it all. But, the OP states he going to travel and now he wants to carry a gun. Question one, I doubt this is the first time he has traveled, maybe so but doubt it. So it begs the question where is he going where he feels he needs a gun? Two and this is an even bigger one. Clearly he has never owned a handgun before in his life. So now he is going to take a handgun which he won't own for very long sounds like on a trip. Ok......is there anything wrong with this picture?

And one more thing, he now has dreams of revolvers. Psych ward number please......
I don't know about you, but I damn sure wouldn't travel with him.

Well, i can see where you are coming from. I read a post by the OP about hiking at clingmans dome, and the OP was making a big deal, almost frightened because there were some mice scurrying about. I say mice because anyone that has ever hiked on the AT and uses the shelters knows the mice well. With that in mind i could see the OP out camping, freaking out, gun in hand, taking pot shots into the darkness. The dream about revolvers is kind of weird. But then i'm sure we all have weird dreams we don't talk about.
I can even understand about the OP not knowing anything about guns and feeling the need for one now.

well, thats a lot of minuses, and normally if it were up to me, i would say that the OP shouldn't own a gun, but since it's not up to me and i believe that as long as you are legally entitled to own a handgun, you can have one.

So...if the OP were to take the ownership responsibly, get training, and then legally carry the pistol where it can be carried, and treat that ownership right with respect, i have no problem with it.

Maybe someone who posts and reads the forums also works for the government and deals with gun permits and when his comes up, gets flagged because they read this forum and then the op will be regulated to doing what most hikers and travellers do, and just deal with it and accept that 9/10th of the people in this country live relatively boring trouble free lifes and it is the rare hiker, traveller, camper that gets attacked by a bear, cat, person or act of nature.

Never hike alone, and be aware of your surroundings.

Oh, and on a off note, if i see some 145lb photographer gripping a gun in the woods in the middle of the night while i am out hiking and camping, i am going to steer clear, last thing i need is to be mistaken for a bear.

Please OP: don't hike in CO. stay on the east coast, it's safer.


And just to add, open carry is ridiculous. You can legally carry a gun in the open but if you have a knife in your pocket, it's illegal. go figure.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: LordMaul
Sure, try one of these.

Small, lightweight, semi-auto, and you can pick from a few different calibers.

Gonna need to practice with it quite a bit, though, as the trigger pulls are 10 miles long and you won't hit jack shit if you're not used to it.

Seriously? You are recommending a Keltec? Wow dude, just wow.

Cool little guns but I have head a lot about problems with reliability (at least in the P3At).

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

lol nice.


FBB, 1) Get counseling. Then I'll recommend a gun for you.

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: FP
I am all for letting citizens own guns, blah blah... but I have always wondered something. Obviously there is a reasonable limit to the type of firearm citizens should be allowed to own. For example we can't own RPGs or even some fully auto weapons etc.

My question is why should handguns be legal? What legal purpose do they serve? I can understand shotguns and rifles for hunting and self-defense but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of handguns (when used for something other than at the range) are used for illegal purposes.

I think things would be much safer if every state had an open carry law but handguns were outlawed or severely restricted.

handguns are the best deterrent. why do you think police officers carry them. They are unobtrusive, easy to use, and can make the difference in a life or death situation.
while a shotgun is great for self defense, there is a problem with the shotgun unless you have the element of surprise. at home, it can't be beat. anywhere else the shotgun lacks.
I have a police issue automatic shotgun, quite an impressive home defense weapon. short enough to be responsive and easy to wield, legal enough to not be a concern. if someone or something were to break into my house and put me or my family at risk, it is there.

but, in a life or death situation, i'd rather rely on a pistol, more effective at close range, and more of a deterrent.

In the states that have open carry, very few people carry openly. Why? One would think more people would do it?

And then you have california. You restrict the legal right for ownership, and most of the ownership falls to illegal usage and gasp criminals. it's amazing how many illegal guns california has and how much crime there is around LA.

Even though our laws here in CO are a little weird, i wouldn't want it any other way.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

I'm saying I'm not sure I would want to go to an area where I felt I needed a gun to feel safe, but that's just me. I have no problems with gun ownership, but with my wife being a police officer for 15 years in a major city, I would hear about gun disasters every week. They usually didn't involve crimes...mostly accidents. Things like "thought son was a burglar, spousal abuse turns into wife getting shot, a kids' fight were someone goes and gets dad's gun and nails someone, etc." Sadly, these stories outnumbered the "I defended myself/family with my gun" stories at least 25 to 1. I don't know what the actual stats or odds of hurting yourself with a gun for protection is, I'm just going buy real life experiences in the matter.

If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.

Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.

Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.

Cliffs: you're just wrong

You're comparing apples to oranges. The majority of the gun owning population don't use their guns everyday, hell, I haven't touched any of my guns this week. I have driven hundreds of miles in my car in that time though.

A vast number of cars aren't driven often (or ever) either. Hell I've got one that hasn't driven in 20 years, and another that's been stationary for 6 months. Ever see a used car lot? There are still cars there that were for sale when I was 20 (a long time ago). My gun, however, is carried everyday, as are MANY of those of the people who are licensed to do so. Everyone who carries as part of work generally carries every day. Gun shops, target ranges, gunsmiths, etc. Also all of hunting season...and it's almost always hunting season for something somewhere. There are a LOT of guns touched/used daily in this country, probably on the order of 20-25 million at a minimum.

I agree they're not exactly the same, and cars ARE used a lot more than guns...but it's the best comparison I've been able to find in 15 years of searching and it's a fairly reasonable parallel. If you have a better one I'm all ears.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: FP
I am all for letting citizens own guns, blah blah... but I have always wondered something. Obviously there is a reasonable limit to the type of firearm citizens should be allowed to own. For example we can't own RPGs or even some fully auto weapons etc.

My question is why should handguns be legal? What legal purpose do they serve? I can understand shotguns and rifles for hunting and self-defense but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of handguns (when used for something other than at the range) are used for illegal purposes.

I think things would be much safer if every state had an open carry law but handguns were outlawed or severely restricted.

It's true that handguns are by far the most commonly used in crime. However they're also the most commonly used for defense (by a ridiculous margin). You can't actually get rid of them no matter how illegal you make them (prohibition anyone), so the only thing it's possible to accomplish by banning them is to disarm law-abiding citizens and turn them into victims (up to a couple million more a year).

-Do you make a couple million victims in order to charge a half-million criminals (not all of whom will even be caught) with yet another crime (carrying a sentence they'll serve concurrently and get out early from) that they're not going to fear anyway? You restrict rights and endanger lives to accomplish, what again?

 

[Freshgeardude]

should be perfect

 

[FP]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: FP
I am all for letting citizens own guns, blah blah... but I have always wondered something. Obviously there is a reasonable limit to the type of firearm citizens should be allowed to own. For example we can't own RPGs or even some fully auto weapons etc.

My question is why should handguns be legal? What legal purpose do they serve? I can understand shotguns and rifles for hunting and self-defense but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of handguns (when used for something other than at the range) are used for illegal purposes.

I think things would be much safer if every state had an open carry law but handguns were outlawed or severely restricted.

It's true that handguns are by far the most commonly used in crime. However they're also the most commonly used for defense (by a ridiculous margin). You can't actually get rid of them no matter how illegal you make them (prohibition anyone), so the only thing it's possible to accomplish by banning them is to disarm law-abiding citizens and turn them into victims (up to a couple million more a year).

-Do you make a couple million victims in order to charge a half-million criminals (not all of whom will even be caught) with yet another crime (carrying a sentence they'll serve concurrently and get out early from) that they're not going to fear anyway? You restrict rights and endanger lives to accomplish, what again?

Well by that argument why not allow RPGs, fully auto mach. gun, 50cal SUV-mounted AA guns etc?

Are you saying that the majority of handguns are used for defense vs. crime? Can I see some stats on that?

Where does your 2 million number come from? The number of CC permits in the US? Why would banning handguns make them victims?

 

[Capt Caveman]

OP - if you're still planning on road tripping Europe, do not buy and try to bring a gun. If you're planning on doing this in the States, haven't you done this already and it's time to grow-up, get a job and get counseling?

fwiw - I've traveled cross-country a couple of times and never felt the need for a gun.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: FP
I am all for letting citizens own guns, blah blah... but I have always wondered something. Obviously there is a reasonable limit to the type of firearm citizens should be allowed to own. For example we can't own RPGs or even some fully auto weapons etc.

My question is why should handguns be legal? What legal purpose do they serve? I can understand shotguns and rifles for hunting and self-defense but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of handguns (when used for something other than at the range) are used for illegal purposes.

I think things would be much safer if every state had an open carry law but handguns were outlawed or severely restricted.

so those millions of handguns out there are only used for illegal things? why aren't we hearing about this? conspiracy to hide it?

uh oh...i own 5 handguns...but wait... i've never committed a single crime or done anything illegal with any of them. people do hunt with handguns and use them for self defense.

is your mind exploding yet?

if you can use a rifle for defense, why not a handgun?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: FP

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: FP
I am all for letting citizens own guns, blah blah... but I have always wondered something. Obviously there is a reasonable limit to the type of firearm citizens should be allowed to own. For example we can't own RPGs or even some fully auto weapons etc.

My question is why should handguns be legal? What legal purpose do they serve? I can understand shotguns and rifles for hunting and self-defense but I would be willing to bet the vast majority of handguns (when used for something other than at the range) are used for illegal purposes.

I think things would be much safer if every state had an open carry law but handguns were outlawed or severely restricted.

It's true that handguns are by far the most commonly used in crime. However they're also the most commonly used for defense (by a ridiculous margin). You can't actually get rid of them no matter how illegal you make them (prohibition anyone), so the only thing it's possible to accomplish by banning them is to disarm law-abiding citizens and turn them into victims (up to a couple million more a year).

-Do you make a couple million victims in order to charge a half-million criminals (not all of whom will even be caught) with yet another crime (carrying a sentence they'll serve concurrently and get out early from) that they're not going to fear anyway? You restrict rights and endanger lives to accomplish, what again?

Well by that argument why not allow RPGs, fully auto mach. gun, 50cal SUV-mounted AA guns etc?

Are you saying that the majority of handguns are used for defense vs. crime? Can I see some stats on that?

Where does your 2 million number come from? The number of CC permits in the US? Why would banning handguns make them victims?

For the most part there's no reason to restrict some of those, but the gains from allowing them are so small as to make it unimportant.

Out of the 300,000-2.5 million defensive gun uses annually (depending on criteria and which stats you buy) nearly all were with a handgun. Basically every study is in agreement on that fact, even if they vary widely in the number of uses they claim. Feel free to google defensive gun uses and read any of the 20-30 prominent studies on it.

2 million as a rough estimate of the number of defensive gun uses every year. Actually I think the number is slightly lower, but close enough (and it could be that high or higher, again depending on which stats you take). There are about 10-12 million concealed permits in the US if you're curious. Banning handguns make them victims because they're not going to have a long gun with them for defense in most cases. Some, but not most. The crime will still be occurring, and in most cases the criminal will still have a handgun if they ever did (since you can't stop them from getting them, even with a ban). That can only end with them as a victim.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

I'm saying I'm not sure I would want to go to an area where I felt I needed a gun to feel safe, but that's just me. I have no problems with gun ownership, but with my wife being a police officer for 15 years in a major city, I would hear about gun disasters every week. They usually didn't involve crimes...mostly accidents. Things like "thought son was a burglar, spousal abuse turns into wife getting shot, a kids' fight were someone goes and gets dad's gun and nails someone, etc." Sadly, these stories outnumbered the "I defended myself/family with my gun" stories at least 25 to 1. I don't know what the actual stats or odds of hurting yourself with a gun for protection is, I'm just going buy real life experiences in the matter.

If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.

Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.

Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.

Cliffs: you're just wrong

You're comparing apples to oranges. The majority of the gun owning population don't use their guns everyday, hell, I haven't touched any of my guns this week. I have driven hundreds of miles in my car in that time though.

A vast number of cars aren't driven often (or ever) either. Hell I've got one that hasn't driven in 20 years, and another that's been stationary for 6 months. Ever see a used car lot? There are still cars there that were for sale when I was 20 (a long time ago). My gun, however, is carried everyday, as are MANY of those of the people who are licensed to do so. Everyone who carries as part of work generally carries every day. Gun shops, target ranges, gunsmiths, etc. Also all of hunting season...and it's almost always hunting season for something somewhere. There are a LOT of guns touched/used daily in this country, probably on the order of 20-25 million at a minimum.

I agree they're not exactly the same, and cars ARE used a lot more than guns...but it's the best comparison I've been able to find in 15 years of searching and it's a fairly reasonable parallel. If you have a better one I'm all ears.

You're completely missing my point. When is the last time you drove a car? I'd bet that if I created a poll asking how many times in the last month an ATOT member has driven a car and then asked them how many times in the last month they've even touched a gun...let alone worn one on their person I'd get near 100% on the first question and maybe 30% on the second.

It's a horrible comparison. Obviously there will be higher automobile fatalities. Nearly everyone in this country drives a car every single day. I'd be surprised if even half the population owns a gun let alone shoots it regularly.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

You're completely missing my point. When is the last time you drove a car? I'd bet that if I created a poll asking how many times in the last month an ATOT member has driven a car and then asked them how many times in the last month they've even touched a gun...let alone worn one on their person I'd get near 100% on the first question and maybe 30% on the second.

It's a horrible comparison. Obviously there will be higher automobile fatalities. Nearly everyone in this country drives a car every single day. I'd be surprised if even half the population owns a gun let alone shoots it regularly.

But I could ask how many members have driven 80 mph or faster. Studies clearly show that higher speeds lead to more fatalities, and there really is no need at all to go faster then 50 mph.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

You're completely missing my point. When is the last time you drove a car? I'd bet that if I created a poll asking how many times in the last month an ATOT member has driven a car and then asked them how many times in the last month they've even touched a gun...let alone worn one on their person I'd get near 100% on the first question and maybe 30% on the second.

It's a horrible comparison. Obviously there will be higher automobile fatalities. Nearly everyone in this country drives a car every single day. I'd be surprised if even half the population owns a gun let alone shoots it regularly.

But I could ask how many members have driven 80 mph or faster. Studies clearly show that higher speeds lead to more fatalities, and there really is no need at all to go faster then 50 mph.

I'm not sure where you're going with this...

I had my bike up to 90mph in the mountains today.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

I'm saying I'm not sure I would want to go to an area where I felt I needed a gun to feel safe, but that's just me. I have no problems with gun ownership, but with my wife being a police officer for 15 years in a major city, I would hear about gun disasters every week. They usually didn't involve crimes...mostly accidents. Things like "thought son was a burglar, spousal abuse turns into wife getting shot, a kids' fight were someone goes and gets dad's gun and nails someone, etc." Sadly, these stories outnumbered the "I defended myself/family with my gun" stories at least 25 to 1. I don't know what the actual stats or odds of hurting yourself with a gun for protection is, I'm just going buy real life experiences in the matter.

If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.

Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.

Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.

Cliffs: you're just wrong

You're comparing apples to oranges. The majority of the gun owning population don't use their guns everyday, hell, I haven't touched any of my guns this week. I have driven hundreds of miles in my car in that time though.

A vast number of cars aren't driven often (or ever) either. Hell I've got one that hasn't driven in 20 years, and another that's been stationary for 6 months. Ever see a used car lot? There are still cars there that were for sale when I was 20 (a long time ago). My gun, however, is carried everyday, as are MANY of those of the people who are licensed to do so. Everyone who carries as part of work generally carries every day. Gun shops, target ranges, gunsmiths, etc. Also all of hunting season...and it's almost always hunting season for something somewhere. There are a LOT of guns touched/used daily in this country, probably on the order of 20-25 million at a minimum.

I agree they're not exactly the same, and cars ARE used a lot more than guns...but it's the best comparison I've been able to find in 15 years of searching and it's a fairly reasonable parallel. If you have a better one I'm all ears.

You're completely missing my point. When is the last time you drove a car? I'd bet that if I created a poll asking how many times in the last month an ATOT member has driven a car and then asked them how many times in the last month they've even touched a gun...let alone worn one on their person I'd get near 100% on the first question and maybe 30% on the second.

It's a horrible comparison. Obviously there will be higher automobile fatalities. Nearly everyone in this country drives a car every single day. I'd be surprised if even half the population owns a gun let alone shoots it regularly.

I've driven a car less than I've carried a gun. Granted, most people wouldn't be able to say that. I already allowed that there's more car driving than gun carrying, but that there's still a LOT of gun carrying, and given the equal number of each per capita it's still the best comparison I can find.

I don't think that it's obvious there'd be more car accidents...after all, according to everyone on this board the only thing a gun is used for is killing while cars should do other things instead of injure...and yet cars injure/kill constantly and guns much less so (despite their equal numbers). Guns must not work very well if they're not able to keep up when it's their sole purpose.

Oh, and you're vastly overstating the amount of drivers in the US. Only those between 16 and say 80 drive at all, so you've just lost a lot of the population. Now remove all those without licenses (which is A LOT), or those who only drive rarely (like those who live in a MAJOR city with public transportation options). It's not uncommon for me to go half or even a full week without driving, and a lot of others could say the same thing.

 

[theblackbox]

on a sidenote, i just picked up a new 15 round mag for my glock 26. nothing better then a subcompact that can back it up. probably should pick up some 17's too because i'm sure by next year we will be down to ten round clips again.

i only drive once a week to go into town, i have 4 cars (jeep, jeep, mustang, vw) so i can say that i carry a gun more then i drive, and i have yet to shoot anyone or myself in a nightclub (go NFL). Oh, and i haven't had a car accident in a very long time... i have a license to do both.


i would also bet more people drive without a license on a daily basis then carry legally on a daily basis. no stats, but people in big cities have no sense.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

I'm saying I'm not sure I would want to go to an area where I felt I needed a gun to feel safe, but that's just me. I have no problems with gun ownership, but with my wife being a police officer for 15 years in a major city, I would hear about gun disasters every week. They usually didn't involve crimes...mostly accidents. Things like "thought son was a burglar, spousal abuse turns into wife getting shot, a kids' fight were someone goes and gets dad's gun and nails someone, etc." Sadly, these stories outnumbered the "I defended myself/family with my gun" stories at least 25 to 1. I don't know what the actual stats or odds of hurting yourself with a gun for protection is, I'm just going buy real life experiences in the matter.

If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.

Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.

Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.

Cliffs: you're just wrong

You're comparing apples to oranges. The majority of the gun owning population don't use their guns everyday, hell, I haven't touched any of my guns this week. I have driven hundreds of miles in my car in that time though.

A vast number of cars aren't driven often (or ever) either. Hell I've got one that hasn't driven in 20 years, and another that's been stationary for 6 months. Ever see a used car lot? There are still cars there that were for sale when I was 20 (a long time ago). My gun, however, is carried everyday, as are MANY of those of the people who are licensed to do so. Everyone who carries as part of work generally carries every day. Gun shops, target ranges, gunsmiths, etc. Also all of hunting season...and it's almost always hunting season for something somewhere. There are a LOT of guns touched/used daily in this country, probably on the order of 20-25 million at a minimum.

I agree they're not exactly the same, and cars ARE used a lot more than guns...but it's the best comparison I've been able to find in 15 years of searching and it's a fairly reasonable parallel. If you have a better one I'm all ears.

You're completely missing my point. When is the last time you drove a car? I'd bet that if I created a poll asking how many times in the last month an ATOT member has driven a car and then asked them how many times in the last month they've even touched a gun...let alone worn one on their person I'd get near 100% on the first question and maybe 30% on the second.

It's a horrible comparison. Obviously there will be higher automobile fatalities. Nearly everyone in this country drives a car every single day. I'd be surprised if even half the population owns a gun let alone shoots it regularly.

I've driven a car less than I've carried a gun. Granted, most people wouldn't be able to say that. I already allowed that there's more car driving than gun carrying, but that there's still a LOT of gun carrying, and given the equal number of each per capita it's still the best comparison I can find.

I don't think that it's obvious there'd be more car accidents...after all, according to everyone on this board the only thing a gun is used for is killing while cars should do other things instead of injure...and yet cars injure/kill constantly and guns much less so (despite their equal numbers). Guns must not work very well if they're not able to keep up when it's their sole purpose.

Oh, and you're vastly overstating the amount of drivers in the US. Only those between 16 and say 80 drive at all, so you've just lost a lot of the population. Now remove all those without licenses (which is A LOT), or those who only drive rarely (like those who live in a MAJOR city with public transportation options). It's not uncommon for me to go half or even a full week without driving, and a lot of others could say the same thing.

Oh bullshit. How many people do you know who are of driving age who don't drive. How many of those under 16 are likely to get a license and drive?

I live in a major city (albeit with horrible public transportation) and even when I was commuting by bicycle 2-3 days a week (sometimes 4 days a week) I was still driving my car the other days. Fact is, there are almost as many cars in the US as there are people.

I've seen statistics stating that about 25% of the adult population in the US owns a gun and that there are nearly 192,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US. I own 12 myself. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of gun owners own more than 1 gun so even if they owned only 2 guns each that would mean that only about 32% of the population owns guns and that doesn't mean they shoot them on a daily or even a weekly basis. Hell, I don't think I've shot any of my guns this year...and it's almost over!

Of all my gun owning friends only one of them owns only one gun. The rest of them have at least 6-7 guns and a couple have well over 20 firearms.

I think you vastly overstate the use of guns in this country.

Apples to oranges.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Fritzo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Where are you travelling to that is so dangerous you feel you need to carry a weapon?

What are you saying that is so important you feel the need to have freedom of speech?

I'm saying I'm not sure I would want to go to an area where I felt I needed a gun to feel safe, but that's just me. I have no problems with gun ownership, but with my wife being a police officer for 15 years in a major city, I would hear about gun disasters every week. They usually didn't involve crimes...mostly accidents. Things like "thought son was a burglar, spousal abuse turns into wife getting shot, a kids' fight were someone goes and gets dad's gun and nails someone, etc." Sadly, these stories outnumbered the "I defended myself/family with my gun" stories at least 25 to 1. I don't know what the actual stats or odds of hurting yourself with a gun for protection is, I'm just going buy real life experiences in the matter.

If you want guns for sport or hobby, and you keep them locked up and secure with your ammo in a separate area than the gun, more power to you. If you're planning on using it for protection, that can be a danger sign.

Statistically gun accidents hardly ever happen (about 600 deaths a year nationally and as high as 100,000 injuries, out of perhaps 200,000,000 guns in America). Apparently nearly every accident in the United States happened in your city. By comparison there are nearly 40,000 vehicle deaths a year (between 4,000,000 and 6,000,000 injuries), and 15,000 deaths from falling. I point out vehicle deaths because there are roughly an equal number of cars and guns. That makes them almost exactly 60 times as dangerous as guns. Lawful, defensive gun uses outnumber accidents by between 500 to 1 and 4000 to 1 for fatalities and between 3 to 1 and 25 to 1 for injuries, depending on what criteria you place on each.

Those are the 'real life experiences'. It's in no way dangerous to carry for protection. Studies indicate that civilians who carry concealed weapons are significantly less likely to commit a crime than non-weapon holders, and even many times less likely to commit a crime than law enforcement officers. There is NO factual, statistically significant support for your statements. There is factual, statistically significant support for the exact opposite stance.

Cliffs: you're just wrong

You're comparing apples to oranges. The majority of the gun owning population don't use their guns everyday, hell, I haven't touched any of my guns this week. I have driven hundreds of miles in my car in that time though.

A vast number of cars aren't driven often (or ever) either. Hell I've got one that hasn't driven in 20 years, and another that's been stationary for 6 months. Ever see a used car lot? There are still cars there that were for sale when I was 20 (a long time ago). My gun, however, is carried everyday, as are MANY of those of the people who are licensed to do so. Everyone who carries as part of work generally carries every day. Gun shops, target ranges, gunsmiths, etc. Also all of hunting season...and it's almost always hunting season for something somewhere. There are a LOT of guns touched/used daily in this country, probably on the order of 20-25 million at a minimum.

I agree they're not exactly the same, and cars ARE used a lot more than guns...but it's the best comparison I've been able to find in 15 years of searching and it's a fairly reasonable parallel. If you have a better one I'm all ears.

You're completely missing my point. When is the last time you drove a car? I'd bet that if I created a poll asking how many times in the last month an ATOT member has driven a car and then asked them how many times in the last month they've even touched a gun...let alone worn one on their person I'd get near 100% on the first question and maybe 30% on the second.

It's a horrible comparison. Obviously there will be higher automobile fatalities. Nearly everyone in this country drives a car every single day. I'd be surprised if even half the population owns a gun let alone shoots it regularly.

I've driven a car less than I've carried a gun. Granted, most people wouldn't be able to say that. I already allowed that there's more car driving than gun carrying, but that there's still a LOT of gun carrying, and given the equal number of each per capita it's still the best comparison I can find.

I don't think that it's obvious there'd be more car accidents...after all, according to everyone on this board the only thing a gun is used for is killing while cars should do other things instead of injure...and yet cars injure/kill constantly and guns much less so (despite their equal numbers). Guns must not work very well if they're not able to keep up when it's their sole purpose.

Oh, and you're vastly overstating the amount of drivers in the US. Only those between 16 and say 80 drive at all, so you've just lost a lot of the population. Now remove all those without licenses (which is A LOT), or those who only drive rarely (like those who live in a MAJOR city with public transportation options). It's not uncommon for me to go half or even a full week without driving, and a lot of others could say the same thing.

Oh bullshit. How many people do you know who are of driving age who don't drive. How many of those under 16 are likely to get a license and drive?

I live in a major city (albeit with horrible public transportation) and even when I was commuting by bicycle 2-3 days a week (sometimes 4 days a week) I was still driving my car the other days. Fact is, there are almost as many cars in the US as there are people.

I've seen statistics stating that about 25% of the adult population in the US owns a gun and that there are nearly 192,000,000 privately owned firearms in the US. I own 12 myself. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of gun owners own more than 1 gun so even if they owned only 2 guns each that would mean that only about 32% of the population owns guns and that doesn't mean they shoot them on a daily or even a weekly basis. Hell, I don't think I've shot any of my guns this year...and it's almost over!

Of all my gun owning friends only one of them owns only one gun. The rest of them have at least 6-7 guns and a couple have well over 20 firearms.

I think you vastly overstate the use of guns in this country.

Apples to oranges.

Many adults don't drive. Many many. I personally know only a half dozen or so, but most people I know are country/small town folk. There are only about 200,000,000 registered drivers in the US (roughly 2/3 the population). Just google it. There are also only 200,000,000 cars, and only 60% of those are registered and active. Again, just google it.

25% is on the low end of all studies I've ever seen. Most agree it's between 1/3 and 1/2 (actually tops at around 45%) the population (actually households) that owns a gun. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, many only own 1 (though you are correct that statistically most who own, own more than one), most that I knowcarry daily. Now that we've got the personal experience bs done can we go back to compiled statistics please? I've already listed all of the applicable stats, and its all supported by multiple studies. You're vastly understating the use of guns in this country. For the last time, just google it.

EDIT: changed from 1/3 to 2/3 registered drivers...didn't realize the chart I looked at was broken down by gender.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Many adults don't drive. Many many. I personally know only a half dozen or so, but most people I know are country/small town folk. There are only about 100,000,000 registered drivers in the US (roughly 1/3 the population). Just google it. There are also only 200,000,000 cars, and only 60% of those are registered and active. Again, just google it.

25% is on the low end of all studies I've ever seen. Most agree it's between 1/3 and 1/2 (actually tops at around 45%) the population (actually households) that owns a gun. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, many only own 1 (though you are correct that statistically most who own, own more than one), most that I knowcarry daily. Now that we've got the personal experience bs done can we go back to compiled statistics please? I've already listed all of the applicable stats, and its all supported by multiple studies. You're vastly understating the use of guns in this country. For the last time, just google it.

Dude, the population of your entire state is less than that of Los Angeles.

Google what? Statistics on the use of guns in this country? OK, I found a wide variety of results ranging from 108,000 defensive uses annually to 1.5-2 million defensive uses annually (I'm not even counting illegal uses of guns). By comparison, if 1/3 of the population of the US (your numbers) drove a car 5 days a week that would be 26 billion car uses annually (and that's only counting them using it once during the day-when I drive to work I use the car once on the way in and once on the way home so it could easily be double that) which equates to 0.0000769 gun uses per every use of an automobile...not exactly a valid comparison now is it?