Any of you guys own a handgun?

[yes2drugs]

You call him a crackhead, I call him one of Obama's "core constituents".

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[militarymd]

so for those in the know....would it have been legal to pop someone like that?

For all those anti-gun squirrels out there, gotta nice video on www.liveleak.com for you to see. Type in "one too many hits from the crack pipe" without the quotation marks on the search function and click on the first video. Yeah buddy, lot of "crazies" out there, be careful. Regards, ----Zippy

 

[zippy2u]

Apparently dude's at Sahara and Las Vegas Blvd in Las Vegas. Maybe Jetman could mosey on down there after playin' cards and give us an update. Regards, ---Zip

 

[Monty Python]

Never had a .40....after this thread, I went and picked up a Glock 23.....AWESOME gun and caliber..

I inherited a S&W .38 snub-nose detective special from my father. It was the only thing stolen from my car when broken into a few years ago --- they ignored my satellite radio, phazer/radar jammer, etc. While the deputy was taking the report I mumbled under my breath what to get as a replacement.

He immediately replied "Glock 27", and proceeded to show me his. It's the department-issue backup weapon for this agency.

http://www.glock.com/english/glock27.htm

I absolutely love it. When carrying it concealed I use the eight round clip. The weapon will also accept the 15 round service clip which gives greater control and stability, which is how I keep it loaded in my car.

The only other semi-automatic handgun I'm familiar with is the M9, the military version of the Beretta 92F (I think). Personally I feel any Beretta is inferior to any Glock and more finicky as evidenced here:

The first US military unit to field the Beretta 92 was SEAL Team Six, however due to the extensive use of the pistol by SEAL Team Six (3-5000 rounds per week, per operator), problems that were later evident with other US military users became apparent and SEAL Team Six, as slides started breaking and being flung back towards the shooter. One SEAL broke his jaw when the slide impacted to his face. After these incidents the SEALs switched to the SIG-Sauer P226. The P226 later became the standard sidearm for all of the SEAL Teams.

 

[Monty Python]

so for those in the know....would it have been legal to pop someone like that?

My state law:

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1.

§20. Justifiable homicide

A. A homicide is justifiable:

(1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

(2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

(3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

(4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle.

§22. Defense of others

It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

 

[Doowai]

I'm no firearms freak but I would like to start practicing at the gun range. ......

For those against firearms, thats cool, please don't read into this too much.

I once knew a karate teacher who had an application for new students and one of the questions was :why do you want to study Karate? People often put answers like : discipline, exercise, etc. He would cross these out and write in :wants to kick someones a**

.22's are a great firearm range because they are cheap. For the meditative aspects , stress reducing aspects of shooting - I really do prefer target practice with a bow and arrow. Read some of the books on Kyudo and Zen and the art of archery. Very calming.

If you want a fighting gun - I think the Taurus Judge is great. Fires .45 and 410 shotgun shells. The long barrel and fiber optic site do not make it an ideal gun for punching holes in paper targets (although many find great accuracy up to100 yards with the 45 ammo). But especially up to 15 feet (combat handgunning range) loaded with #4 shot shotgun shells and you will blow a hole in a car jacker you could stick your fist through. If you hike wilderness, shotgun shells would eliminate any rattlers and the 45 would probably dispage or dissuade any larger predatory animals. The Judge is a great personal protection device to keep in your car if you work in high crime areas.

Of course you could not fire it discretely inside your pocket (if you are CCW), so in that case I really like a hammerless smith and wesson since you could fire it from inside a jacket pocket.

 

[tkim]

He immediately replied "Glock 27", and proceeded to show me his. It's the department-issue backup weapon for this agency.

I have that with a pinkie magazine extender:

 

[Salt Creep]

so for those in the know....would it have been legal to pop someone like that?

Specifics are state-dependent, but most places would consider that a pretty clear example of personal protection.

I was a CCDW instructor for 6 years, and our state law essentially says that if a reasonable person would fear for his own safety, he is justified in using deadly physical force against another. He just has to believe he is in danger, whether or not he really is, and that belief has to be what the "reasonable person" would believe (ie - would a jury think the same thing).

If you're using deadly force to protect another, then that person has to actually be in danger (not just the belief that they are as above for personal protection). They give an example on the videos of you seeing somebody draw a weapon on another, so you blast the guy who drew the weapon - only to find out later that was a cop. You have no justification. But in the case of the idiot on this video, the people in that car were definitely in danger, and the ***** was even saying "what are you going to do about it?" And he is toting a weapon that he has no issue using on the car.

You could still be arrested, but at least here, you'd have a clear justification in court.

You'd have the same justification if you just whipped his a ss instead of blasting him, though I'd think carefully about that, considering the drugs in his system very likely have altered his perception of pain, in addition to his being armed with a tire iron or whatever that is.

A side issue - here it is never legal to use deadly force to protect property. So if you came outside and he was doing that to your car, with no one inside the car, you are not justified in using force. Had there not been anyone in the car, this situation is completely different (at least in this state).

However, looking at that guy, I'd bet if you walked out and saw him doing that to your car, and said anything at all, his rage would have immediately shifted to you -> and you'd then again be justified.

 

[Trisomy13]

You call him a crackhead, I call him one of Obama's "core constituents".

...

 

[Doowai]

A nice thing about the Taurus Judge versus Glock is that it is a revolver. You don't have to pick up shell casings if you use a revolver. So that if you are out shooting something, and you leave, nobody coming after you will find your shell casings. No matter why you are shooting you don't want to leave shell casings around. With a Glock you have to remember to pick up your shell casings - its easy to miss one, the can fling all over the place.


Okay I am ENTIRELY kidding here - just hypothesizing. lets say you shoot someone in self defense, but decide not to stick around to see if a judge and a jury believe you, and your lawyer more than the prosecuting attorney in regards to whether it was self defense. Shell casings are evidence. Revolvers don't leave evidence.

 

[pseudoknot]

The round(s) are better evidence than the casings, not to mention the witnesses and other forensic evidence. I'm sure you're kidding but if you were on a jury, would you EVER believe someone who claimed they shot someone in self defense and then fled the scene? I wouldn't.

 

[tkim]

The round(s) are better evidence than the casings, not to mention the witnesses and other forensic evidence. I'm sure you're kidding but if you were on a jury, would you EVER believe someone who claimed they shot someone in self defense and then fled the scene? I wouldn't.

Agreed. The best thing to do if you shot someone in self-defense is to immediately call 911, stay at the scene, and render aid, if necessary.

Though I raise the question about rounds being better evidence than casings. I'm not sure matching 'pristine' bullets with some gnarly mushroomed-out JHP is all that it's cracked up to be.

 

[Salt Creep]

In any true case of self-defense or of protection of another, you'd be far better off to stay there and tell your story when the cops come. Remain very calm and collected, and in a manner-of-fact way, relay your story. Running definitely makes you look guilty (and may be illegal in and of itself).

I do prefer a revolver though, which has no magazine spring to stay compressed all the time, is incredibly easy to clean and maintain, and which can never jam or malfunction in the way an auto can. Revolvers are outstanding at KISS.

 

[MedWiz]

While not really a "handgun" (and thus probably offtopic, even in this thread) check out the following clip for the latest sort of extreme firepower: http://youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c

 

[Doowai]

The round(s) are better evidence than the casings, not to mention the witnesses and other forensic evidence. I'm sure you're kidding but if you were on a jury, would you EVER believe someone who claimed they shot someone in self defense and then fled the scene? I wouldn't.

Maybe better evidence if you are using slugs, but when you are using shotgun shells definately not.

You are right stick around. Police and our legal system are completely fair and understanding in such situations. And of course if you were in fear of your life you would never flee, you would sit there and administer aid - even though (s)he might have partners or gang members near by who will still attack you. You would never flee for fear of being named or recognized - if the guy is a member of a gang, the police will protect you in the future. If the gang comes after you, because of knowing your name from the police you will be protected - remember, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. By all means get down on your hands and knees and take your attention off your environment and administer first aid to this HIV/HepC infected attacker.

Just kidding just kidding.

 

[pseudoknot]

Yeah, I've always found that you can avoid trouble with gangs by staying out of gang neighborhoods and such, but maybe that doesn't work for everyone.

Regardless of evidence, I think that if you shoot someone in self defense and flee the scene you are guaranteed a murder charge and probably a conviction.

And I gotta say, it's incredibly rare that anyone gets shot without doing something to provoke it. I don't have a problem with people owning guns, and I think they're a lot of fun, but the odds of being in a legitimate self defense situation where you can and do shoot someone are astronomically low if you're not a cop. Hell, most cops never fire their weapons at suspects.

 

[Monty Python]

I do prefer a revolver though, which has no magazine spring to stay compressed all the time, .

So, what's the truth about the supposed need to periodically unload a clip so the spring can relax?

 

[coprolalia]

so for those in the know....would it have been legal to pop someone like that?

Pop? How about run over? Potentially far more painful AND legal.

-copro

 

[militarymd]

Looked like there was no room to maneuver the vehicle....however, my new .40 would easily "pop" him through the window.....as long as he wasn't standing in front of any innocent bystanders.

Pop? How about run over? Potentially far more painful AND legal.

-copro

 

[coprolalia]

Looked like there was no room to maneuver the vehicle....however, my new .40 would easily "pop" him through the window.....as long as he wasn't standing in front of any innocent bystanders.

As soon as he walked in front of the car (watch the video again), the tachometer would have hit 6500 RPM and the clutch would've been popped. But, I think if you'd pulled out the G23 and busted off a cap, no judge would've put you away after seeing that video.

-copro

 

[pseudoknot]

Yeah, he walked in front of the car twice. Running him over would have been a good move but many of us wouldn't have the presence of mind to do so.

I doubt that charges would even be filed in that particular case. The problems usually arise when people are arguing for a while, it escalates, someone gets shot and someone claims self defense...

 

[coprolalia]

I doubt that charges would even be filed in that particular case. The problems usually arise when people are arguing for a while, it escalates, someone gets shot and someone claims self defense...

I'm sure that dude spent some time in the pokey. He should've spent time pushing up daisies (which, based on the immutable laws of karma, probably will be soon enough anyway).

I think you can justify shooting the guy. He was going after that car with a crowbar, after all. I think most reasonable judges would see that as a deadly weapon and a mortal threat. I know I would if I was sitting on the bench.

Sometimes you have to do society a favor...

-copro

 

[pseudoknot]

No, I wasn't being clear. I mean that if you shot that guy, no charges would be filed and you'd never see a judge or jury. No way.

And yeah, the crackhead probably found out that Metro could indeed get him off that corner

 

[Salt Creep]

...the odds of being in a legitimate self defense situation where you can and do shoot someone are astronomically low if you're not a cop. Hell, most cops never fire their weapons at suspects.

Often the presence of a firearm in the right hands stops a situation from escalating or continuing.

The NRA publishes reports of citizens using firearms in self-defense every month in their American Rifleman magazine. They say firearms are used in self-defense in the US over 2 million times a year.
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

I've been reading the Armed Citizen column since I was 12, and it does seem that the majority of the time, the citizen being armed and willing to use it was enough to stop the bad guys.

 

[pseudoknot]

Often the presence of a firearm in the right hands stops a situation from escalating or continuing.

The NRA publishes reports of citizens using firearms in self-defense every month in their American Rifleman magazine. They say firearms are used in self-defense in the US over 2 million times a year.
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

I've been reading the Armed Citizen column since I was 12, and it does seem that the majority of the time, the citizen being armed and willing to use it was enough to stop the bad guys.

That's a striking figure, since fewer than 1.5 million violent crimes are estimated to occur each year.

 

[Hernandez]

so for those in the know....would it have been legal to pop someone like that?

Salt Creep has a good explanation, but in most states, it would have been a good shot. However, in some states like Ohio, you may have an affirmative defense for criminal prosecution, but you have no civil protections and will more than likely be sued by which ever baby-momma is able to stay sober long enough to enlist a lawyer.

I would have probably shot the guy in a situation similar to that, definitly brandished but probably shot. And I would NOT have stuck around. I would be on the phone with 911 asking where the nearest police station is to give my statement there. I personally would not stick around in a neighborhood which is more than likely gang infested and would only stick around if I felt safe. I don't want to be in a position to be still holding my gun when the police show up.

A side issue - here it is never legal to use deadly force to protect property.

Except in Texas. But i do believe that's limited to while on your property.

Agreed. The best thing to do if you shot someone in self-defense is to immediately call 911, stay at the scene, and render aid, if necessary.

Eh, depends on the situation and location. As above, depending on the location, I may not stick around, I'd be on the phone with 911, but I would be very cognoscente of the location and potential for more perps to pop up.

Though I raise the question about rounds being better evidence than casings. I'm not sure matching 'pristine' bullets with some gnarly mushroomed-out JHP is all that it's cracked up to be.

They confiscate your firearm, so they will compare the type the recover with what is still in the magazine I'm sure.

In any true case of self-defense or of protection of another, you'd be far better off to stay there and tell your story when the cops come. Remain very calm and collected, and in a manner-of-fact way, relay your story. Running definitely makes you look guilty (and may be illegal in and of itself).

In a perfect world, absolutely. but I don't know about you, but the one time I pulled my firearm, I was not calm and barely maintained my ability to speak less than 300 words a minute. I know several instructors who recommend giving only a limited statement and then asking to give a full formal statement after the adrenaline wears off so you don't say anything stupid. I don't know if there is a universal truth and if I ever have to discharge my weapon, I'll probably cooperate, but the key is don't speak unless you're cool and collected.

So, what's the truth about the supposed need to periodically unload a clip so the spring can relax?

Nope, not entirely true. The majority of spring wear comes from expansion and contraction, otherwise it can and will hold tension for years. Now with some magazines you do need to worry about the feed lip spreading with continued pressure being applied from the bullet/springs. But I personally do not worry about leaving magazine springs compressed. But that's because I carry single stack magazines for a 1911, This is what one of the manufactures of gun springs says.

Should I unload my magazines, rotate magazines, load with fewer than the maximum rounds? How often should I change magazine springs?

Magazine springs in semi-auto pistols are one of the most critical springs and the subject of much debate and concern. Magazines which are kept fully loaded for long periods of time, such as law enforcement applications, will generally be subject to more fatigue than the weekend shooter's magazine springs which are loaded up only when shooting. Magazine design and capacity also affect the longevity of the spring. Older designs where maximum capacity was not the goal such as the 7 round 1911 Colt magazines will last for years fully loaded. There was a lot of room for a lot of spring which reduced the overall stress on the spring. In recent hi-capacity magazines, the magazines were designed to hold more rounds with less spring material. This puts more stress on the spring and will cause fatigue at a faster rate. Unloading these magazines a round or two will help the life of the spring. Rotating fully loaded magazines will also help the problem somewhat but is not always practical.​

That's a striking figure, since fewer than 1.5 million violent crimes are estimated to occur each year.

It's a figure which has been substantiated by 12 different studies. Even those funded by anti-gun organizations came up with numbers in the 1 million/year range. But the best done studies were probably those which show a 700k range. There is a pretty good review article on this topic here

The difference between yours and Salt Creeps numbers is on the emphasis of violent crimes. If so many are prevented by the presence of a firearm, then that would substantially lower the number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI now wouldn't it? The FBI and the Bureau of Justice do not record attempted violent crimes as far as I can tell from the data they publish online.

 

[Doowai]

but I don't know about you, but the one time I pulled my firearm, I was not calm and barely maintained my ability to speak less than 300 words a minute. I know several instructors who recommend giving only a limited statement and then asking to give a full formal statement after the adrenaline wears off so you don't say anything stupid. I don't know if there is a universal truth and if I ever have to discharge my weapon, I'll probably cooperate, but the key is don't speak unless you're cool and collected. .....It's a figure which has been substantiated by 12 different studies. Even those funded by anti-gun organizations came up with numbers in the 1 million/year range. ........The FBI and the Bureau of Justice do not record attempted violent crimes as far as I can tell from the data they publish online.

The adrenaline dump can be amazing. like nothing you experience in medicine - its one thing to get excited because someone else is going to die and another thing to get excited because you are going to die.I had a kid bring a gun to school when I was in 9th grade to shoot me. At the public school I teach at (until I start residency in a few weeks) we have had 2 gun related incidents. Its a very gang infested school. Only one involved someone getting shot though - I think its a shame teachers cannot carry on campus, the shooting may not have happened if it could have been pre-empted. However people underestimate how much your hands shake in such a situation - my calves always shake up and down so much that it looks like I am bouncing. No matter how much I try to control it, I start vibrating up and down. One reason I like shotgun shells - your accuracy does not need to be be dead on - close up just point and shoot.


Definately good advice up above to wait to make a formal statement - although some cops might arrest you for obstructing an investigation if you refuse to give a full statement at the time - cops can be a bit rough at times. Especially at a shooting.

 

[Doowai]

Often the presence of a firearm in the right hands stops a situation from escalating or continuing.

.

Yup

 

[Salt Creep]

...I would be on the phone with 911 asking where the nearest police station is to give my statement there. I personally would not stick around in a neighborhood which is more than likely gang infested and would only stick around if I felt safe. I don't want to be in a position to be still holding my gun when the police show up.

Interesting, and something I hadn't thought of. Interesting enough to me to consult my attorney friend about what our state laws would say about that.

Except in Texas. But i do believe that's limited to while on your property.

I didn't mean one's residence, and that's also very state-dependent.

In a perfect world, absolutely. but I don't know about you, but the one time I pulled my firearm, I was not calm and barely maintained my ability to speak less than 300 words a minute. I know several instructors who recommend giving only a limited statement and then asking to give a full formal statement after the adrenaline wears off so you don't say anything stupid.

Another interesting point. I'm generally the coolest head in the room in any sphincter-tightening situation (sometimes to my detriment, when I should be worked-up, I'm not). However, and this is a very big however, a close friend of mine is now an attorney who had been a county cop for 20+ years. He once told me to never say anything at all to police other than your name and identifying information. They're trained to get you to say what you shouldn't, and they often are not your friend.

So, I retract what I said. Far better off to "lawyer up," or at the very least to know (and be able to control) what is acceptable and not incriminating to say.

 

[pseudoknot]

The difference between yours and Salt Creeps numbers is on the emphasis of violent crimes. If so many are prevented by the presence of a firearm, then that would substantially lower the number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI now wouldn't it? The FBI and the Bureau of Justice do not record attempted violent crimes as far as I can tell from the data they publish online.

I will read the article. I was aware of the distinction between crimes actually committed and those merely attempted. I do not think it is remotely credible that for every violent crime that is committed, another 1-2 are prevented by gun use. Aside from the NRA's own journal, it is very rare to hear about people using guns in self defense, yet fairly common to hear of those who are mugged or worse. This is difficult to reconcile.

 

[Hernandez]

Interesting, and something I hadn't thought of. Interesting enough to me to consult my attorney friend about what our state laws would say about that.

I'd be interested in his take on that, I just know from a personal protection stand point, it is a bad practice to keep yourself in a hostile area where you are liable to have more than one attacker.

I will read the article. I was aware of the distinction between crimes actually committed and those merely attempted. I do not think it is remotely credible that for every violent crime that is committed, another 1-2 are prevented by gun use. Aside from the NRA's own journal, it is very rare to hear about people using guns in self defense, yet fairly common to hear of those who are mugged or worse. This is difficult to reconcile.

That's another point we're probably mis-connecting on, the crimes prevented statistic isn't limited strictly to preventing violent crimes, but does include pretty much any type of non-white collar crime. And as to the NRA's monthly article, this isn't something they just print on their own, they are excerpts from news papers from around the country. Just because the mainstream media continues to ignore the frequent examples of firearms being used for protection doesn't mean they don't happen regularly.

 

[pseudoknot]

Unless I'm missing something, you can only use deadly force to respond to threat of death or great bodily harm, so use of a gun to prevent a non-violent crime would therefore constitute a crime of itself.

 

[Hernandez]

Unless I'm missing something, you can only use deadly force to respond to threat of death or great bodily harm, so use of a gun to prevent a non-violent crime would therefore constitute a crime of itself.

Depends on the state. But most states have the level of self defense at fear for their personal safety. So, just because the crime being committed isn't a violent crime per se, if you can justify why you fear for your safety in that situation, you're good to go.

But after looking at the BOJ stats again, they're saying that there were 5.2 million violent crimes in 2005.

 

[Salt Creep]

... most states have the level of self defense at fear for their personal safety. So, just because the crime being committed isn't a violent crime per se, if you can justify why you fear for your safety in that situation, you're good to go.

Exactly - the law here says that if a reasonable person would be in fear for his own safety, whether or not his safety were actually in danger, then you have a justification.

So if you see somebody smashing in your car, and the sight causes you to say, "Hey!", and that in turn causes the guy to come running toward you - you are then justified. But using deadly force to protect just the personal property is not justified.

 

[coprolalia]

I am ashamed to admit that I own a great many guns.

Why are you ashamed to admit it? I own a great many guns... handguns, rifles, shotguns. I'm not ashamed. Are you thinking about or planning on doing something bad with those guns? Perhaps that's where the shame arises.

(Interesting choice of words.)

-copro

 

[Hernandez]

And here is a great example as what not to do. And the story behind it.

 

[pseudoknot]

And here is a great example as what not to do. And the story behind it.

"I catch shoplifters for a living."
--> I'm a $9/hr security guard

"I always carry my gun with me...constantly, it's right by me."
--> I want to be a cop, but I'm too stupid and crazy

When asked if he would have handled the situation differently in a do-over, Morley said he probably would have shot first -- and asked questions later.
--> Hey, what about just not going in the house and calling 911, like a normal person? Then no injuries, no problem.

 

[Doowai]

Whew today was a crazy day at school. So many fights , starting before schoolk. First time I have ever been a bit scared at school. I had both a crip and a blood put on colors.

 

[Doowai]

I have that with a pinkie magazine extender:

Nice hollow points in the picture.

I bet that thing feels like a firecracker going off in your hand

 

[tkim]

I bet that thing feels like a firecracker going off in your hand

That's not really *my* gun. My grip is plain black - not the OD in the pic. I wonder when they started making them in that color. Looks like an older Glock, as the newer ones have the equipment rail that my older one lacks. My tritium sights are beginning to fade a hair as well.

It does kick a bit. That's the tradeoff with a short-barreled gun made with polymers.

 

[tkim]

Unfortunately it looks like it was constructed with legos, just like every other Glock.

That's why they call it Tactical Tupperware.

Far and away the most aesthetically un-appealing handgun available today.

I bought it for reliability more so than aesthetics. The good-looking *and* reliable guns are either too heavy for concealed carry, too damn expensive, or both.

 

[tkim]

Yeah, the price does make it hard to resist.

Then I look at the plastic rectangle Glock calls the slide, and I pick up the HK catalog again . . .

The slide is metal. Actually, everything at slide level is metal, and almost everything below it is plastic, which is why it has greater recoil than an all-metal gun. My Colt Officer's Stainless, which I *never, never should have sold*, spat out .45ACP slugs like nothing and the recoil was more tolerable.

I look at HK catalogs sometimes ... when I'm not shooting my Glock. I suppose you can roll up the HK catalog into a tube and make 'bang bang' noises until you can afford one. Let me know when you get one, because they nice.

 

[Heeed!]

I just spent 2+ hours on the night shift reading this thread. Luckily, only one trauma has come in tonight: a GSW to the head.

I liked the stuff I've found on the HK brand.

A big concern for me is safety. I have young kids in the house, the wife is unfamiliar with weapons, etc. I liked the link posted earlier to the gun safes. My question is what about getting a taser?....the kind that shoots vs. the kind you have to touch someone with. From a safety standpoint, it seems like it would be better. I would have more peace of mind having it in my home vs. a hand gun. But from a home-defense standpoint, it a taser a valid option?

 

[tkim]

A big concern for me is safety. I have young kids in the house, the wife is unfamiliar with weapons, etc. I liked the link posted earlier to the gun safes. My question is what about getting a taser?....the kind that shoots vs. the kind you have to touch someone with. From a safety standpoint, it seems like it would be better. I would have more peace of mind having it in my home vs. a hand gun. But from a home-defense standpoint, it a taser a valid option?

Tasers are the wired darts that shoot out from taser gun and you apply current to the attacker. It's a one-shot deal - you can only take down one guy - if you don't miss. Pretty expensive. I don't think for sale to civilians.

Stun guns are the ones that you need to touch someone with. I had one a long time ago, and I don't know if it was defective or not but I used to zap myself with once in a while (curious boy that I was), and it never made me drop to the floor or the like. Problem with stun guns is you have to get close to your attacker. Like knife-fighting, baseball bat close. No thanks.

For simple home-defense, I'd get a shotgun. A nice pump action Remington or Mossberg, get a tube magazine extender, maybe a pistol grip. You could get one in the smaller 20 ga. so your wife could learn how to use it and not kill her shoulder from the recoil. Use light target loads so the pellets will not go much further than drywall, but at closer range will punch a hole the size of your fist. Or, you could mix up your shots and add 00 buckshot shells - which are the equivalent of eight 9mm lead bullets flying out at once.

Even if you've never seen a real shotgun, people have heard enough shotguns being racked on TV and movies that if *I* was the intruder and I heard that sound, I'd crap my pants and run away.

Shotguns are cheaper, mechanically simpler, and don't require much aiming.

Of course, if you want a simple handgun, I'd get a revolver. Smith and Wesson, or Taurus, if you want to pay less. Simple operation, if one rounds a dud, just pull the trigger again. Not so with automatics. A safe box, gun lock, revolver and a couple of speedloaders shouldn't set you back much. Rounds are cheap and plentiful.

If you are serious about getting a firearm for home defense, I'd have the entire family take a gun safety course - age appropriate, of course.

 

[militarymd]

Unfortunately it looks like it was constructed with legos, just like every other Glock.

Far and away the most aesthetically un-appealing handgun available today.

I used to think they were ugly, but the more I shoot, clean, and carry mine....the more appealing it is becoming to me.

and it is hard to beat the price.

 

[coprolalia]

I used to think they were ugly, but the more I shoot, clean, and carry mine....the more appealing it is becoming to me.

and it is hard to beat the price.

Cleaning a Glock is optional. That's the best part about owning one.

-copro

 

[Monty Python]

Unless I'm missing something, you can only use deadly force to respond to threat of death or great bodily harm, so use of a gun to prevent a non-violent crime would therefore constitute a crime of itself.

True at least in my CCW state. I recall our instructor saying property can always be replaced, but people can't be. That's the intended distinction in the spirit of the law which allows deadly force to be used in self-defense.

 

[Monty Python]

Nice hollow points in the picture.

I bet that thing feels like a firecracker going off in your hand

My Glock 27 is not the most accurate thing at the 25 yard firing line (or, for that matter, not at the 15 yard line either).

But you should see my center-mass grouping at 7 yards. Or just for fun, the grouping above the nose.

 

[Monty Python]

I just spent 2+ hours on the night shift reading this thread. Luckily, only one trauma has come in tonight: a GSW to the head.

I liked the stuff I've found on the HK brand.

A big concern for me is safety. I have young kids in the house, the wife is unfamiliar with weapons, etc. I liked the link posted earlier to the gun safes. My question is what about getting a taser?....the kind that shoots vs. the kind you have to touch someone with. From a safety standpoint, it seems like it would be better. I would have more peace of mind having it in my home vs. a hand gun. But from a home-defense standpoint, it a taser a valid option?

Heeed, what self-defense weapons are on your body or in your ejection seat survival pack when flying Uncle Sam Airlines?

 

[oudoc08]

I've got two kids (8 and 6), and keep my handguns in an bedside safe that I can get open in about 3 seconds using the electronic finger pad option. However, that's actually my back-up. I don't like the idea of firing a 9mm round in the house. Could go through walls (interior as well as exterior) and hit something else. Also, at night it's pretty hard to effectively place a single round (or even a clip full for that matter) in a dark house, after just waking up, when your eyes are blurry and the adrenaline is pumping.

A much better home defense plan, especially w/ kids in the house is a 12g pump and a Bull Mastiff.

Nothing like the sound of a round being racked through a 12g, and a low growl.