Gun chit chat again (getting a handgun)

[MoeMag]

[bentothejam1n]

-Been having GF problems (unrelated)

[Lohman446]

Good 9MM rounds are very effective, but it requires close selection. I am not as gung-ho about the 10MM, they are in rather limited supply (both arms and ammo). If I were convinced I needed an oddity cartridge it would be .357 Sig. I had one, but sold it after I bought my .45 as it did not fit my intended use any more.

[slateman]

Just try a bunch and see what you like.

BTW - The Mk 23 is a freaking cannon. I mean its bigger than a Deagle

[Lohman446]

I was thinking about this. Most farmers keep a .357 magnum revolver around to dispatch cows if needed on the farm. If its good enough for a cow, should work on a horse

[SCpoloRicker]

On the 9mm debate:

I can see the argument for .45 versus 9mm in terms of the round. However, I am for some reason leery of any cartridge that isn't mainstream. As in 9mm or .45 for pistol, 12ga shotgun, .223/7.62/5.556 (not a long arm guy) equivalent.

You know, for when the zombies attack. Gotta pick up ammo on the run.

[Recon by Fire]

A note on the 10mm:

In a recent self-defense case the would be victim protected himself with a 10mm and shot the assailant dead. The shooter was convicted for the murder and the jury cited that they found him guilty because he used a 10mm with JHP rounds! They felt this was too deadly of weapon to be used...for justified deadly force?! I guess he should have only killed the scumbag a little bit.

[Mind'sEye]

A note on the 10mm:

In a recent self-defense case the would be victim protected himself with a 10mm and shot the assailant dead. The shooter was convicted for the murder and the jury cited that they found him guilty because he used a 10mm with JHP rounds! They felt this was too deadly of weapon to be used...for justified deadly force?! I guess he should have only killed the scumbag a little bit.

A sad mis-carriage of justice for the shooter who was clearly defending himself against a threatening advance. The jury's opinion was swayed more by the use of jacketed hollow points (man killer rounds) than the caliber. Since the shooting occured in a national forest and the "victim" was unarmed the jury had difficulty in understanding the self defense plea. The victim apparently did not realise that once you draw down your weapon you are committed to using it. The last thing you'd want is for an advancing assailant to wrestle the gun away from you and shoot you with it. The anti gun Media is responsible for not making the defensive value of handguns and neccessary respect of a handgun in a law abiding citizen's hands known to the general public. The court has not helped in this case either.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0616hikershooting0616.html

[MoeMag]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...oting0616.html

[Lohman446]

A sad mis-carriage of justice for the shooter who was clearly defending himself against a threatening advance. The jury's opinion was swayed more by the use of jacketed hollow points (man killer rounds) than the caliber. Since the shooting occured in a national forest and the "victim" was unarmed the jury had difficulty in understanding the self defense plea. The victim apparently did not realise that once you draw down your weapon you are committed to using it. The last thing you'd want is for an advancing assailant to wrestle the gun away from you and shoot you with it. The anti gun Media is responsible for not making the defensive value of handguns and neccessary respect of a handgun in a law abiding citizen's hands known to the general public. The court has not helped in this case either.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...oting0616.html

You are not committed to use your gun once you draw it. Well I agree that you better be ready to you are not committed to. The problem here is the people who beleive they will not have to use it, and are not actually prepared to use it. The law is pretty clear on escalation, if I draw my gun (justifiable brandishment) and it stops the threat then I have no justification to use it. If I aim my gun (justifiable felonious assault) and it stops the threat, I have no cause to use it. The problem comes if I am not prepared to actually pull the trigger, and stop regardless if it stopped the threat or not. There is the other side of the problem that says if I draw my gun I must use it and use it even after the threat is stopped. As a civilian you are not taught to shoot to kill, you are taught to shoot to stop the threat of harm. Granted, most of the time this is lethal.

[Recon by Fire]

There are no warning shots, those are called misses.

[Steelrat]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...oting0616.html

NOT a good shoot. There are so many problems with it, I don't know where to begin. It's incidents like this that hurt our ability to carry firearms.

[Mind'sEye]

The shooter may have made a mistake in drawing his gun and firing shots to scare the dogs away. I wasn't there so I can't say what the level of threat the unleashed untended dogs posed. The tragedy was caused by the continued advance of the irrate victim on an armed man. I'm always impressed by the politeness of people at our local pistol range. I'm sure this is in part due to the comraderie of gun ownership but also because each and every person is aware of the lethal power of the handgun they hold. I think the present anti-gun climate and lack of repect for legal firearm owners contributed to the death of the victim. Everyone who carries a gun into a public place must understand that they are placing themselves in danger as well. One of the things you learn is weapon retention. Whether the assailant is unarmed or not you have to be prepared to deal with the potential consequences if he takes the gun away from you. It's impossible to say exactly what would have happened in this case because the attacker is dead. As foolish and tradgic as this case is there is room for reasonable doubt as to the assailant's intentions. Ya, it's bad for gun owners and good cause to consider in advance what your intended use of firearms is.

[Steelrat]

The shooter may have made a mistake in drawing his gun and firing shots to scare the dogs away. I wasn't there so I can't say what the level of threat the unleashed untended dogs posed. The tragedy was caused by the continued advance of the irrate victim on an armed man. I'm always impressed by the politeness of people at our local pistol range. I'm sure this is in part due to the comraderie of gun ownership but also because each and every person is aware of the lethal power of the handgun they hold. I think the present anti-gun climate and lack of repect for legal firearm owners contributed to the death of the victim. Everyone who carries a gun into a public place must understand that they are placing themselves in danger as well. One of the things you learn is weapon retention. Whether the assailant is unarmed or not you have to be prepared to deal with the potential consequences if he takes the gun away from you. It's impossible to say exactly what would have happened in this case because the attacker is dead. As foolish and tradgic as this case is there is room for reasonable doubt as to the assailant's intentions. Ya, it's bad for gun owners and good cause to consider in advance what your intended use of firearms is.

The BIGGEST problems with people carrying firearms is that it causes them to act much more aggressive than they would otherwise. In this case, if the guy wasn't packing a handgun, I'm betting he would have just run away. Which, frankly, is what he probably should have done.

Another issue is that people who carry really don't understand how to use a pistol in a self-defense situation. We are our own worst enemies.

[bornl33t]

Another issue is that people who carry really don't understand how to use a pistol in a self-defense situation.

What's that supposed to mean?