2nd Amendment Hysteria

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-10-2015, 10:40 PM)xxlt Wrote: How does the gun strapped to your ankle or shoved down your pants or in your fanny pack do you any more good when a gun is pointed at your face? That is the part I never understood.

It's not really that complicated when you think about it.  For a criminal, it is an easy assumption to make that your chosen target is unarmed given that most citizens are.  If you are open carrying this assumption, obviously, goes right out the window.  If you assume your victim is unarmed you will not be prepared for them to be armed.  Based on the common sense assumption that it is quicker to act than to react the person who is armed, but is not known to be armed, has the advantage.

Lest's take your scenario as an example.  I have a handgun in my waistband and a criminal points a gun at me and demands my wallet.  While I hand him my wallet with one hand I draw my handgun with the other.  Given that the criminal will be focused on my wallet, as it is the whole point of the encounter for him, I now have the element of surprise and can, very likely, discharge my weapon before he knows it even exists.  Contrast that with open carry, in which this element of surprise is entirely lost.  Now the focus is not on the wallet or other form of monetary gain, but on the victim's firearm.  Once a victim is known to be armed you, as the victim, place yourself on the disadvantageous side of the, "act vs, react", equation.  When you consider how crucial the element of surprise is in any such encounter you bring yourself to a point in which you don't even ask your question.

[*Nately120*]

True, but don't you have an open carry to send the message to not rob you in the first place?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-10-2015, 11:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: True, but don't you have an open carry to send the message to not rob you in the first place?

You're missing the point.  Having a firearm openly carried is actually worse than appearing to have nothing, whether that be the truth or not.  An openly carried firearm simply makes you a target for being robbed of both your money and your firearm simply by dint of the concept that it is quicker to act than to react.  If I'm a armed robbery suspect I'll gladly rob an open carrier of both their money and their firearm.  Again, having a gun at your hip is useless when I have a gun in your face.  My, as a criminal, not knowing, or even expecting you have a gun at all is the only useful outcome of carrying a firearm.  

[jfkbengals]

(10-10-2015, 10:40 PM)xxlt Wrote: How does the gun strapped to your ankle or shoved down your pants or in your fanny pack do you any more good when a gun is pointed at your face? That is the part I never understood.

It might not, but concealed in your sweat pants it can get you out of work for a few years.  Just ask Plaxico Burress

(10-10-2015, 10:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was talking about "open carry" not carrying a concealed weapon.

And a robber is going to tske the whole fanny pack instead of asking you to empty it.

False.  He's gonna beat the snot out of you repeatedly for actually wearing a fanny pack.  It's a form of public service announcement.

[xxlt]

(10-10-2015, 11:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's why we need EVERYONE to have guns.  When good guy with the gun #1 is getting shot for having a gun, good guy with the gun #2 draws his gun and shoots bad guy with the gun. 

That's what we call win-win. Or as John Madden used to say on the old vidya games, "Boom!"

[xxlt]

(10-10-2015, 11:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not really that complicated when you think about it.  For a criminal, it is an easy assumption to make that your chosen target is unarmed given that most citizens are.  If you are open carrying this assumption, obviously, goes right out the window.  If you assume your victim is unarmed you will not be prepared for them to be armed.  Based on the common sense assumption that it is quicker to act than to react the person who is armed, but is not known to be armed, has the advantage.

Lest's take your scenario as an example.  I have a handgun in my waistband and a criminal points a gun at me and demands my wallet.  While I hand him my wallet with one hand I draw my handgun with the other.  Given that the criminal will be focused on my wallet, as it is the whole point of the encounter for him, I now have the element of surprise and can, very likely, discharge my weapon before he knows it even exists.  Contrast that with open carry, in which this element of surprise is entirely lost.  Now the focus is not on the wallet or other form of monetary gain, but on the victim's firearm.  Once a victim is known to be armed you, as the victim, place yourself on the disadvantageous side of the, "act vs, react", equation.  When you consider how crucial the element of surprise is in any such encounter you bring yourself to a point in which you don't even ask your question.

I'm honestly surprised someone often governed by logic believes this. I think you've created a false idol here. I don't expect you to change your mind and don't want to argue about it, but your line of reasoning does not convince me. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2015, 09:09 AM)xxlt Wrote: I'm honestly surprised someone often governed by logic believes this. I think you've created a false idol here. I don't expect you to change your mind and don't want to argue about it, but your line of reasoning does not convince me. 

Pretty sure your mind is closed on the matter and no amount of logic will sway you, but let's try this:

A man pulls a knife on you with every intention of stabbing you after he robs you. He says give me everything in your pockets.......

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2015, 09:09 AM)xxlt Wrote: I'm honestly surprised someone often governed by logic believes this. I think you've created a false idol here. I don't expect you to change your mind and don't want to argue about it, but your line of reasoning does not convince me. 

I'm sincerely confused as to how you find my argument lacking in logic.  The element of surprise is huge, criminals do not expect your average citizen to be armed.  The concept that it is easier, and quicker, to act than to react is indisputable.  I've actually seen this type of scenario play out in person.  I worked in plain clothes my entire career in the field, I can guarantee you that what I'm saying is true.

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2015, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sincerely confused as to how you find my argument lacking in logic.  The element of surprise is huge, criminals do not expect your average citizen to be armed.  The concept that it is easier, and quicker, to act than to react is indisputable.  I've actually seen this type of scenario play out in person.  I worked in plain clothes my entire career in the field, I can guarantee you that what I'm saying is true.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-11-2015, 09:09 AM)xxlt Wrote: I'm honestly surprised someone often governed by logic believes this. I think you've created a false idol here. I don't expect you to change your mind and don't want to argue about it, but your line of reasoning does not convince me. 

Seems like he used a lot of logic combined with experience.  

[xxlt]

(10-11-2015, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sincerely confused as to how you find my argument lacking in logic.  The element of surprise is huge, criminals do not expect your average citizen to be armed.  The concept that it is easier, and quicker, to act than to react is indisputable.  I've actually seen this type of scenario play out in person.  I worked in plain clothes my entire career in the field, I can guarantee you that what I'm saying is true.

So it is easier to "act" by which you mean unholster, aim, and pull the trigger than to "react" by which you mean pull the trigger. Like I said, I don't want to argue, but keep telling yourself you are right, and guarantee it. I really don't care.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2015, 09:42 PM)xxlt Wrote: So it is easier to "act" by which you mean unholster, aim, and pull the trigger than to "react" by which you mean pull the trigger. Like I said, I don't want to argue, but keep telling yourself you are right, and guarantee it. I really don't care.

FYI, in concealed carry you usually don't have your weapon in a holster.

The rest is even more silly.  Like I said: you are closed-minded on the subject; nothing will sway you. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2015, 09:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: FYI, in concealed carry you usually don't have your weapon in a holster.

I am sincerely puzzled by this assertion. Almost everyone I knows that carries concealed carries in a holster, myself included. Be it inside the waistband, outside the waistband with an untucked shirt or jacket, shoulder holster with jacket, ankle, or pocket (a pocket holster for something like an LCR keeps out lint and makes it more secure in your pocket). The only people I know that carry concealed without a holster are people not licensed to do so.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2015, 10:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am sincerely puzzled by this assertion. Almost everyone I knows that carries concealed carries in a holster, myself included. Be it inside the waistband, outside the waistband with an untucked shirt or jacket, shoulder holster with jacket, ankle, or pocket (a pocket holster for something like an LCR keeps out lint and makes it more secure in your pocket). The only people I know that carry concealed without a holster are people not licensed to do so.

All i can say is: You need to get out more. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2015, 09:42 PM)xxlt Wrote: So it is easier to "act" by which you mean unholster, aim, and pull the trigger than to "react" by which you mean pull the trigger. Like I said, I don't want to argue, but keep telling yourself you are right, and guarantee it. I really don't care.

At the range that this type of encounter occurs at aiming is not a time consuming event.  Pulling the trigger is accomplished in less than a second.  If done at the proper moment unholstering, "aiming" and firing takes place far faster than the reaction time or your typical human.  I'm not telling myself anything btw, I've witnessed it first hand.

(10-11-2015, 10:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am sincerely puzzled by this assertion. Almost everyone I knows that carries concealed carries in a holster, myself included. Be it inside the waistband, outside the waistband with an untucked shirt or jacket, shoulder holster with jacket, ankle, or pocket (a pocket holster for something like an LCR keeps out lint and makes it more secure in your pocket). The only people I know that carry concealed without a holster are people not licensed to do so.

Concealed w/out a holster is a rare, and foolish, thing.  I'm in full agreement with you on this, no holster almost certainly means clusterfuck.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2015, 10:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Concealed w/out a holster is a rare, and foolish, thing.  I'm in full agreement with you on this, no holster almost certainly means clusterfuck.

What type of holster do women use that carry their firearm in their handbag?

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2015, 10:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What type of holster do women use that carry their firearm in their handbag?

The women I know that carry in a handbag often have one with a compartment specifically for the firearm or if the compartment, which I would consider a holster in and of itself, is not built in then it is in a holster within the bag.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-11-2015, 10:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What type of holster do women use that carry their firearm in their handbag?

Off body carry is a contentious subject, you'll find many who believe it's a bad idea in general.  As to your question, Matt addresses it pretty much exactly as I would.

(10-11-2015, 11:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The women I know that carry in a handbag often have one with a compartment specifically for the firearm or if the compartment, which I would consider a holster in and of itself, is not built in then it is in a holster within the bag.

Pretty much this.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2015, 11:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The women I know that carry in a handbag often have one with a compartment specifically for the firearm or if the compartment, which I would consider a holster in and of itself, is not built in then it is in a holster within the bag.

Well I guess if you consider anywhere a firearm is concealed a holster, then it makes sense.

I often carry in my holster jacket pocket and my wife in her holster handbag,

I have seen a few guys that have the cool guy waistband holster; however, most do not, but I cannot think of a woman I know that has a holster.

We must come from different cultures. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2015, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well I guess if you consider anywhere a firearm is concealed a holster, then it makes sense.

I often carry in my holster jacket pocket and my wife in her holster handbag,

I have seen a few guys that have the cool guy waistband holster; however, most do not, but I cannot think of a woman I know that has a holster.

We must come from different cultures. 

A place designed to hold a handgun is a holster. They make handbags with such a compartment built in. The women I know that carry utilize this option because it is safer than having a loose firearm in their handbags. Having a firearm loose with other objects increases the risk of an unintentional discharge of the firearm or entanglement when retrieving the firearm.

But yes, we may come from different cultures with regards to this. This is why I made statements like "the women I know" as opposed to making sweeping statements about things that may or may not hold true throughout the broader population.