Graduation Gift. Beretta Px4 Storm & 200 Winchester full metal jacket rounds

[Montmorency]

Fear and pain only work on sane people who are not on substances, and the chances of your attacker being on substances, or not being a very sane individual are pretty high.

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

[Vuk]

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

I'm talking about in cases where shooting to kill/incapacitate are your only options. If I only wanted to scare people and had no intention of shooting them, I could carry around a toy! I want a gun that has all options on the table. If intimidation and winging shots fail to stop someone, I want to be able to kill them before they kill me. Quit it with your hypocritical morality.

[Vuk]

A Desert Eagle? For carry?? No one really needs anything more than .380 in a carry gun. On the rare occasion that I carry, its a Sig P230.

Yeah, more than anything just because it would terrify most any perp, and I probably would have to worry less about having to use it then with another gun. I am a pretty big guy, so believe it or not, I can wear one under my coat without it being noticeable. Why not carry it?

[Greyblades]

Bah! All you gun boys are a bunch of wussies! Real men dont need guns, when we need to kill something we use our teeth!

[Montmorency]

I'm talking about in cases where shooting to kill/incapacitate are your only options. If I only wanted to scare people and had no intention of shooting them, I could carry around a toy! I want a gun that has all options on the table. If intimidation and winging shots fail to stop someone, I want to be able to kill them before they kill me. Quit it with your hypocritical morality.

When did I ever claim a moral high ground?

The point: For most criminals, revealing your weapon will cause them to abort. For most of the remainder, a wound anywhere on the body, with most any firearm projectile, will cause them to abort. Viking champions are a vanishingly small felon demographic, so arming oneself with them in mind primarily is simply a dangerous mindset.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Teeth can still be part of the arsenal

[Vuk]

When did I ever claim a moral high ground?

The point: For most criminals, revealing your weapon will cause them to abort. For most of the remainder, a wound anywhere on the body, with most any firearm projectile, will cause them to abort. Viking champions are a vanishingly small felon demographic, so arming oneself with them in mind primarily is simply a dangerous mindset.

Why is it dangerous to have killing capabilities? I don't know why you assume that because I want a gun capable of killing I am some wacko who just wants to butcher everyone I see. First of all, I don't even carry. The only thing that would make me carry is if I was in an area with really high crime. City crime and drugs usually go together, so the chances of someone being high when they attack you is not that far fetched. Guys on drugs have gotten shot multiple times and not even realized it. They also don't make the best decisions.

I don't want to be responsible for killing anyone, which is why I carry a tire knocker in my car, along with my knives. Killing is always a last resort, but sometimes it is necessary to protect oneself. You may say that those situations are rare, but being mugged at all is rare. You arm yourself for those rare instances and hope they don't come. Of course you should use non-lethal means of defense first whenever possible, but if they never present themselves or if they fail, you had better have something definite to fall back on.

[Montmorency]

I'm speaking in principle. As someone who claims to go to pains with non-lethal or less-lethal alternatives, why would you make lethality the first and foremost trait of defensive gun use?

City crime and drugs usually go together, so the chances of someone being high when they attack you is not that far fetched. Guys on drugs have gotten shot multiple times and not even realized it. They also don't make the best decisions.

Presumably, if one lives in a Detroit or DC slum, the risk of falling victim in a larceny or felony is much higher than the average for the entire country - and thus justifies possession of a firearm for self-defense. Now, "intoxicated" does not necessitate "being in a psychotic rage". Preparing for the latter sort is like carrying a potassium cyanide tablet at all times on the off chance that the CIA will detain and interrogate you.

[Vuk]

I'm speaking in principle. As someone who claims to go to pains with non-lethal or less-lethal alternatives, why would you make lethality the first and foremost trait of defensive gun use?

Because every gun is going to have the same or mostly the same non-lethal and less-lethal abilities (intimidation, accuracy sufficient for winging shots, etc), but where they really differ is the lethal capabilities, and it is in the most dire straights when that becomes important. It is those dire straights I am concerned about. If I only wanted to scare people away I could carry a toy gun. If I wanted to just wound them, and figured I would never be in a situation where I would have to do more, I could just use my knife. Sometimes though you need more. You carry a gun for those instances.

[Xiahou]

Do they make snub-nosed Magnums? Concealability and practicality were my main concerns when I went gun-shopping. The fact that its a .38 is more a side-product of the weapon's other features that I liked.

They sure do.
I can tell you from experience that a snubby .357 can sting your hands a little when firing magnums out of it.

[Montmorency]

It is those dire straights I am concerned about.

Sometimes though you need more. You carry a gun for those instances.

It is those dire straights I am concerned about.

That's what I'm getting at - these outlier concerns are not warranted... Certainly, equating any firearm to a knife in functionality is an indicator of categorical confusion.

I hope you'll at least maintain vigilance with respect to incoming out-of-control vehicles in future, ready to dive out of the path at a moment's notice.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

First of all, I am a firm believer in winging people if you are able, and only if that doesn't stop them shooting to kill. If I don't have the ability to do that, or if doing so will endanger me or those around me (because taking the extra time will allow the other guy to get a shot off), I am gonna pointshoot for a mass I know I can hit as soon as possible (and that will be his vitals), and I am gonna want a gun that can stop him instantly, before he gets a shot off.

What leads you to believe that a statistically significant proportion of (potential) felons or petty thieves would in the event experience a psychotic episode due to drug use - not really such a common thing - to the extent of berserker insensitivity? In reality, most criminals will retreat as soon as someone brandishes a firearm.

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

1. It's how you trained, even if you're practiced shooting him in the shoulders, you practiced grouping more and you aimed at the centre of the target when you did that. the centre of anything is also where you will naturally point. Trying to "wing" someone is fighting muscle memory and instinct, that means you're thinking, that means you're too slow.

2. You objective is to put him down, whether he dies or not is secondary, the objective is to get the guy on his back, hitting him in the shoulder even at close range might not do that. You've already drawn you gun, someone has to go down now, no take-backsies.

3. You will panic, your aim will suffer. You have more chance of hitting him at all if you aim for the centre of mass, especially with a handgun which is never going to be super accurate to begin with.

I'll give you a fourth.

4. At close range no matter where you hit him trauma might cause shock and death, in which case it will look better if you aimed centre of mass, because then the Police might be more willing to believe you acted on instinct and didn't have time to not shoot him.

He's another tip:

Double-tap, two bullets in the chest will put down a charging man, and even if he has a vest on he will be struggling to breathe.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

[Vuk]

That's what I'm getting at - these outlier concerns are not warranted... Certainly, equating any firearm to a knife in functionality is an indicator of categorical confusion.

I hope you'll at least maintain vigilance with respect to incoming out-of-control vehicles in future, ready to dive out of the path at a moment's notice.

No, I am not confused. I was pointing out that you were. A gun's main usefulness and advantage over other weapons in a self-defense situation is its capacity for lethality (whether you can use knowledge of that to intimidate someone or have to use lethal force). Why should that not be one of the most important deciding factors?
And don't worry about me, I am always cautious when crossing the road.

[Vuk]

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

1. It's how you trained, even if you're practiced shooting him in the shoulders, you practiced grouping more and you aimed at the centre of the target when you did that. the centre of anything is also where you will naturally point. Trying to "wing" someone is fighting muscle memory and instinct, that means you're thinking, that means you're too slow.

2. You objective is to put him down, whether he dies or not is secondary, the objective is to get the guy on his back, hitting him in the shoulder even at close range might not do that. You've already drawn you gun, someone has to go down now, no take-backsies.

3. You will panic, your aim will suffer. You have more chance of hitting him at all if you aim for the centre of mass, especially with a handgun which is never going to be super accurate to begin with.

I'll give you a fourth.

4. At close range no matter where you hit him trauma might cause shock and death, in which case it will look better if you aimed centre of mass, because then the Police might be more willing to believe you acted on instinct and didn't have time to not shoot him.

He's another tip:

Double-tap, two bullets in the chest will put down a charging man, and even if he has a vest on he will be struggling to breathe.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

Actually PVC, I practice on cardboard human-shaped targets to wing opponents. No, it is not perfect, and of course it will be a lot different, but I have been in life or death scenarios before, and I am fairly confident I can keep my wits about me. If I can't, I'll know at the time, and I'll shoot to kill.
It depends a lot of the scenario, and to rule out times when taking someone alive is possible is just silly. I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience that I killed a man who I could have taken alive. Yes, it may be more risky, but I am capable of and willing to evaluate those risks and make a decision. If I am too panicked to at the time, I'll always fall back on what I know.

[Montmorency]

No, I am not confused. I was pointing out that you were. A gun's main usefulness and advantage over other weapons in a self-defense situation is its capacity for lethality

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?

I certainly wouldn't want to have it on my conscience that I killed a man who I could have taken alive. Yes, it may be more risky, but I am capable of and willing to evaluate those risks and make a decision.

If you need to fend off domestic dogs, you don't need to carry an elephant gun.

[Vuk]

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?



If you need to fend off domestic dogs, you don't need to carry an elephant gun.

I've already explained my position to you. I am not gonna repeat myself.

Past fifteen feet or so, especially if you or your target are in any way moving, it becomes really hard to hit a target as specific as a shoulder, or an arm, or a calf, or a head for that matter. Center-mass is the way to go.

Yeah, I understand that, but I am not going to write off the possibility that such a situation could present itself. If it does, I will always try to take advantage of non-lethal means before lethal. I already know most circumstances when non-lethal shots would be possible, and when they would not. If I am ever in a situation where I need to use a gun to defend myself, I'll respond based on the options available to me. You may very well be right that non-lethal options aren't available most times, but when they are, what do I stand to lose by not taking someone's life?

[a completely inoffensive name]

?

So why is the mostest lethalest the mostest bestest?

It's called paranoia and/or power tripping. Owning a gun imparts a lot of power over anyone else who doesn't have a gun. If you think that you need a hand cannon to walk the streets when violent crimes is at its lowest since the mid 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States), you must be either paranoid or you get rock hard at the idea that anyone who messes with you will be turned into paste.

[Montmorency]

Do I press on with it? Perhaps he's been ignoring my posts? I suppose I'll just move on to the incidental point that's been bugging me.

I already know most circumstances when non-lethal shots would be possible,

The "non-lethal shot" is a myth, as no part of the body is truly non-lethal when it comes to bullet wounds. It is particularly amazing to hear of "non-lethal shots" from the one who advocates that large-caliber sidearms be preferred and wielded for their superior lethality.

[Xiahou]

Rule one of firearms usage - aim centre of mass.

Don't give me any of this "winging them" crap or "shooting to preserve life" - you're not the Phantom. A human body is a target, the bullets go in the centre of the target, especially when using a handgun.

I can give you three good reasons for this.

IMO, PVC is talking sense here. Winging someone is for Hollywood. You run the risk of missing altogether (and hitting a bystander), winging as intended- which may or may not stop a determined attacker, or hitting center of mass anyway- may as well aim there to begin with..... But, I'm not a cop, lawyer, marksman, or anything of the like, so take that for what it's worth.

Personally, however, I never planning on going anywhere where I feel like I need a gun.

I say if you feel like you're going somewhere so unsafe that you think you'll need a gun, you need to ask yourself why you're going there in the first place. However, that's no reason not to carry should you choose to- it's just a caution against thinking you can go into unsafe situations just because you're carrying. That's dangerous thinking...

[Vuk]

Do I press on with it? Perhaps he's been ignoring my posts? I suppose I'll just move on to the incidental point that's been bugging me.



The "non-lethal shot" is a myth, as no part of the body is truly non-lethal when it comes to bullet wounds. It is particularly amazing to hear of "non-lethal shots" from the one who advocates that large-caliber sidearms be preferred and wielded for their superior lethality.

Of course you can kill someone no matter where you hit them, due to possible infections, bleeding, etc. It is true though that there are some areas where shooting someone is much less likely to kill them than other places. Shooting in the arm, shoulder, or leg avoids most major blood vessels, avoids causing septic infections, avoids the central nervous system, etc. No, it is not 100% 'non-lethal', but it is a lot more so than shooting someone in the torso and face.

It's called paranoia and/or power tripping. Owning a gun imparts a lot of power over anyone else who doesn't have a gun. If you think that you need a hand cannon to walk the streets when violent crimes is at its lowest since the mid 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States), you must be either paranoid or you get rock hard at the idea that anyone who messes with you will be turned into paste.

Wanting to be able to defend yourself is paranoia? So I guess a government with a military is paranoid and on a power trip, for wanting to defend itself and its citizens. How does it make me paranoid to want to keep my family and I safe?

Owning a gun imparts a lot of power over anyone else who doesn't have a gun.

Here you accuse me of wanting inequality, and of wanting to have power over others. I have long advocated that everyone should carry a gun, and I believe that in a close-as-humanly-possible-to-a-perfect world everyone would carry a gun, except known criminals. It has nothing to do with wanting to have power over others, but wanting to have power over myself. I don't want to be in control of someone else, and I don't want them to be in control of me. I like guns because it gives me the ability to ensure that my life is as much in my own hands as possible.

Honestly ACIN, you have posted like an ignorant fool on subjects you have no idea about before, but this is a new low. I don't know if your mom didn't love you as a kid or what, but get a grip.

[Vuk]

I say if you feel like you're going somewhere so unsafe that you think you'll need a gun, you need to ask yourself why you're going there in the first place. However, that's no reason not to carry should you choose to- it's just a caution against thinking you can go into unsafe situations just because you're carrying. That's dangerous thinking...

I hate cities, and everything about them. The noise, the crime, the lack of privacy, the tight spaces, the horrible traffic, etc. But if the only place I can get a job is a city with a lot of crime, as long as there are no prohibiting city laws, I am moving there and I am carrying. I am not gonna pass up a job opportunitty because of crime. Whether I am allowed to carry or not, if I could get a job in a dangerous city, I would jump at it. Things are too desperate right now for me to worry too much about safety or preference.

[Montmorency]

Shooting in the arm, shoulder, or leg avoids most major blood vessels

Are you certain?

[Vuk]

Are you certain?

I know there are large blood vessels in the arms and legs, but your chances of causing uncontrollable bleeding there is far less than if you shoot someone in the torso.

[PanzerJaeger]

Past fifteen feet or so, especially if you or your target are in any way moving, it becomes really hard to hit a target as specific as a shoulder, or an arm, or a calf, or a head for that matter. Center-mass is the way to go.

Indeed, and if you shoot someone past fifteen feet, you're likely going to jail.

[Vuk]

Indeed, and if you shoot someone past fifteen feet, you're likely going to jail.

Unless they have a gun trained on you or someone else.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Wanting to be able to defend yourself is paranoia? So I guess a government with a military is paranoid and on a power trip, for wanting to defend itself and its citizens. How does it make me paranoid to want to keep my family and I safe?Here you accuse me of wanting inequality, and of wanting to have power over others. I have long advocated that everyone should carry a gun, and I believe that in a close-as-humanly-possible-to-a-perfect world everyone would carry a gun, except known criminals. It has nothing to do with wanting to have power over others, but wanting to have power over myself. I don't want to be in control of someone else, and I don't want them to be in control of me. I like guns because it gives me the ability to ensure that my life is as much in my own hands as possible. Honestly ACIN, you have posted like an ignorant fool on subjects you have no idea about before, but this is a new low. I don't know if your mom didn't love you as a kid or what, but get a grip.

Dude you are legit crazy, I am not against owning a gun for self defense, you just don't need a hand cannon. You grab insults where there is none to play the victim card.

[Papewaio]

Sharks vs bees

Not all dangerous situations are obvious. Even though only 2 countries in the world had greater then 50% private gun ownership circa 2010. Private guns do not necessarily increase safety.

However despite the shark like drama of gun deaths there are far more lethal things to watch out for. The bee like dangers of cars, sugar, alcohol and speed.

Some risks are spectacular like sharks but infrequent. Others like bees are a constant hum in the background, these cause far more deaths.

Diabetes and being overweight are far more likely deadly events then having your face gnawed off by a berserker.

[Vladimir]

Wow. This thread got seriously Vuked up.

[Major Robert Dump]

Sometimes pro gun people's comments are the best argument for gun control.

[Vuk]

Dude you are legit crazy, I am not against owning a gun for self defense, you just don't need a hand cannon. You grab insults where there is none to play the victim card.

Right, so a poster says that the best gun for home defense is a shotgun and you don't blink an eye, but I say that I want a Deagle, and you hit the roof. (and BTW, I want the DE mostly for the gun, and the fact that it is gas piston operated, not for the round I am gonna get it in. That is a secondary priority.)
Of course a typical 12 gauge with slugs or buck shot will do much, much more damage to someone than a .50 AE. Yet it is me you call the wacko.

If the point of your gun is for those times when you need to put someone on their backs to defend yourself, what is wrong with going for the gun that can do that best, while still being easy for me to use and easily concealable?

The fact that you keep refering to it as a handcannon makes me think you play way too many video games and really know nothing about the gun.

Sharks vs bees

Not all dangerous situations are obvious. Even though only 2 countries in the world had greater then 50% private gun ownership circa 2010. Private guns do not necessarily increase safety.

However despite the shark like drama of gun deaths there are far more lethal things to watch out for. The bee like dangers of cars, sugar, alcohol and speed.

Some risks are spectacular like sharks but infrequent. Others like bees are a constant hum in the background, these cause far more deaths.

Diabetes and being overweight are far more likely deadly events then having your face gnawed off by a berserker.

What is your point? Am I saying you shouldn't be careful of cars when crossing the road, or watch your blood sugar level, you should drink too much, and that you should speed? No, I am not. Just because one thing happens less often than another thing, does not mean that you should do nothing to safeguard yourself from it. You should try to protect yourself from all dangers that have a reasonable likelihood of happening. Depending where you live, there is a pretty good likelihood of falling victim to violent crime.