Bought my concealed carry gun today...cliched, but no camera, so stock pic-

Haven't got to shoot it yet, but I love the feel of it. I tried several, including the Glocks, and this one really felt nice for the money.

Not really...it's a fairly underwhelming gun (9mm). And I'll probably never carry it-but I want the CHL so I can skip the background checks when I buy guns, and I don't really have a gun suitable to qualify with for said license, so I bought this one.

I've never been a major fan of Sigs myself, but this one really feels great. I would have never considered a Sig before today.

PaiNTbALLfReNzY wrote: Sig Arms makes some great firearms. My father is on the Los Angeles Sherriffs Department and wanted to carry a Sig as his "duty weapon" I guess you would call it. The Department had some weak ass rules for why they couldn't use him, so he has a choice between Beretta and H&K.

Most of Texas uses the Sig P226 as their duty weapon. That's awesome if you're dad gets to carry an H&K-if I could have afforded it, that's one of favorite handguns. The cheapest USP's I could find ran anywhere from $800-$950, it was crazy.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Sammy wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: I'm happy to live in a country where I don't need to carry a gun on me... I am happy to live in a country that fully supports my right to carry a gun if I choose to. My point exactly.

huh?

carl_the_sniper wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Sammy wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: I'm happy to live in a country where I don't need to carry a gun on me... I am happy to live in a country that fully supports my right to carry a gun if I choose to. My point exactly. huh? My point was that I'm happy that I live in a country that doesn't allow everyone to carry a concealed gun.

Yes, because laws against handguns are always obeyed by criminals and anyone who wanted to carry one for nefarious purposes would most certainly decide not to do so once they realized that they couldn't do it legally.

I think I sort of see his point...I emphasize the sort of part...

Carrying a handgun is a valid right, IMO, with a proper license, but at the same time in a situation where you're on the street and someone makes an attempt on your life, odds are you won't have time or reflexes to use it. Defending yourself with a handgun does require a little bit of timing to work properly.

I really just want the gun to keep in my truck, namely because I travel alot. It's just good to have a little protection with you. However, with a law they passed last week (I'm way too lazy to look it up right now), in certain wording your vehicle is made an extension of your house. An officer was telling me that by that reasoning, technically you really don't have to have a CHL to carry a handgun in your car/truck, as long as you're of legal age to own it. I'm not going to take that chance, and besides as I said it helps me skip the background check when buying a gun.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Mack wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Sammy wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: I'm happy to live in a country where I don't need to carry a gun on me... I am happy to live in a country that fully supports my right to carry a gun if I choose to. My point exactly. huh? My point was that I'm happy that I live in a country that doesn't allow everyone to carry a concealed gun. Yes, because laws against handguns are always obeyed by criminals and anyone who wanted to carry one for nefarious purposes would most certainly decide not to do so once they realized that they couldn't do it legally. Ok... so why does your country have an exponentially greater number of murders per capita?

Yeah, because all murders are committed with a handgun.

CarbineKid wrote: Congrats on picking a great weapon. I would have grabbed the Sig myself, but Sigs are not lefty friendly..so I overpaid for a HK. The Sig Pro series is IMHO just about the best there is when it comes to polymer guns.   The recol is good, fit and finish are excellent. Its reliable and easy to field strip. Just make sure you grab plenty of ammo and extra mags(before the 08 elections!!). I shop(via the net) at MidwayUSA.com, or CDNN investments. Both stores have great prices, and a good supply on hand. As far as a CCW debate lets keep it to the 101 other threads concerning it.

You got a great gun with H&K man-again, my dream pistol. You just don't get any better, and certainly not more accurate. What I love about HK is that you get a competetion grade gun in a duty grade package-reliability and extreme accuracy.

Yeah, I plan on buying several mags for it, thanks for the site tips I'll check them out. I bought some cheap 9 dollar a box Wolf ammo for plinking, and some of the relatively expensive Hydra Shok's as defense rounds. 

stratoaxe wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Mack wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Sammy wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: I'm happy to live in a country where I don't need to carry a gun on me... I am happy to live in a country that fully supports my right to carry a gun if I choose to. My point exactly. huh? My point was that I'm happy that I live in a country that doesn't allow everyone to carry a concealed gun. Yes, because laws against handguns are always obeyed by criminals and anyone who wanted to carry one for nefarious purposes would most certainly decide not to do so once they realized that they couldn't do it legally. Ok... so why does your country have an exponentially greater number of murders per capita? Yeah, because all murders are committed with a handgun.

Umm...

Number of murders using firearms per capita:

United States: 2.8  per 100,000 pop

Canada: 0.5 per 100,000 people

Now, I generally caution against using crime stats out of context, but Meph - it would seem that your stats support Carl's point.

If Canada has higher assualt rates but lower murder rates, would that not support the thesis that guns convert assaults into homicide?

stratoaxe wrote: Carrying a handgun is a valid right, IMO, with a proper license, but at the same time in a situation where you're on the street and someone makes an attempt on your life, odds are you won't have time or reflexes to use it. Defending yourself with a handgun does require a little bit of timing to work properly.

Most intelligent post I have seen in a CCW thread here in a long time.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Umm... Number of murders using firearms per capita: United States: 2.8  per 100,000 pop Canada: 0.5 per 100,000 people

Another figure those statistics don't represent is that the US has many times the number of handguns than Canada. I'd like to see a statistic of the number of murders per the number of handguns and see who comes out higher as well.

Not dissing Canada in the least, I think Canada is a beautiful country that I'd have no problem living in (other than maybe the strict gun control...).  However, there are alot of facts you're not taking into consideratino when using statistics like these.

Mephistopheles wrote: Depends. I haven't found a Canada Homicide/Murder stat yet. Just violent crimes. Unless of course the people making the stats are including murder as a "violent crime." But so far Canada has double the crime rate as the US... However I do recall hearing about Canada having a pretty high machete situation, due to the gun control people hacking away with those. Of course I haven't found any official source just hearsay. So I can't really toss that into the hat. But if that's true, sorry I'd rather be shot than chopped up. That's just me. Either way we might have more guns, but Canada is more violent!

I found one.  http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2002/olympic/indicators.htm - Here .  Don't know how good it is, but it shows that the US had/has a higher murder rate than Canada.  But again I certainly don't want to draw any real conclusions based only on crime stats.

As to getting shot versus cut - I agree that knives can be scarier, but I would rather be "assaulted" than "murdered", and if facing a knife versus a gun leaves me alive versus dead, then I choose knife.

My biggest problem with guns is that they immediately escalate any situation to a life-or-death-instant-decision-time situation.  If somebody is standing two feet from you with a knife, you have a second to evaluate intentions and determine the seriousness of the situation.  With a gun you don't and can't.  You have to decide, basically immediately, whether you want to start the shooting.  No other common hand-held weapon in the history of man has had this ability.

Simply due to their ability to create instant death, guns can often create violence that otherwise might have been avoided.  Guns certainly have their place, but I think it is naive to believe that they don't change every situation they enter.

stratoaxe wrote: Another figure those statistics don't represent is that the US has many times the number of handguns than Canada.

Actually, I think that was Carl's point.

I'll phrase that differently, for the sake of the relevancy to this discussion-how many CHL owners account for the gun violence in the US?

CarbineKid wrote: That is what training is for. Its called a gun fight, because thats what it is, a Fight. The gun is a tool used in that fight, but its not the only tool you have. There are many self defense classes that teach you how to get the upperhand, even if you are unlucky enough to be looking down the barrel of some thugs gun.

True.  But ask youself - honestly - how many non-military/LEO/militia gun owners actually take any serious training beyond range plinking?  How many even bother practicing drawing their weapon, let alone train for actual scenarios?

In my experience, that number is VERY low.  Just this past weekend, my sister-in-law asked me about getting a gun.  I asked her where she planned on keeping it, where her expected shooting lanes and backdrops were, how she planned on carrying the gun outside the house and how that would affect her clothing/purse selections.  I asked her what her plans were for combat training and weapon retention training, what her theories were on rules of engagement for in-home and on-street shootings, and so forth.

Not surprisingly, she had not thought about any of those things.  Her thought process was "Hey, I should get a gun.  Then I'll feel safer."  It was only random that she happened to ask me first - otherwise she might now be another dee-dee-dee gun owner.

I have no problem with well-trained folks with guns.  It is the untrained fools that frighten me.  All too many people think buying a gun is like buying a new TV, and it is not.

Susan Storm wrote: CarbineKid wrote: That is what training is for. Its called a gun fight, because thats what it is, a Fight. The gun is a tool used in that fight, but its not the only tool you have. There are many self defense classes that teach you how to get the upperhand, even if you are unlucky enough to be looking down the barrel of some thugs gun.     True.  But ask youself - honestly - how many non-military/LEO/militia gun owners actually take any serious training beyond range plinking?  How many even bother practicing drawing their weapon, let alone train for actual scenarios? In my experience, that number is VERY low.  Just this past weekend, my sister-in-law asked me about getting a gun.  I asked her where she planned on keeping it, where her expected shooting lanes and backdrops were, how she planned on carrying the gun outside the house and how that would affect her clothing/purse selections.  I asked her what her plans were for combat training and weapon retention training, what her theories were on rules of engagement for in-home and on-street shootings, and so forth. Not surprisingly, she had not thought about any of those things.  Her thought process was "Hey, I should get a gun.  Then I'll feel safer."  It was only random that she happened to ask me first - otherwise she might now be another dee-dee-dee gun owner. I have no problem with well-trained folks with guns.  It is the untrained fools that frighten me.  All too many people think buying a gun is like buying a new TV, and it is not.

I agree completely. The mentality, thanks in no small part to a gun-crazed (yet ironically anti-gun) entertainment industry, is that the person with the gun is automatically armed and dangerous. People don't realize alot of factors that go into a bullet exchange-

A-Bullets go where you point them. Unfortunately, alot of people (even the gun owners) have never spent extensive hours at the range, and therefore have no clue as to the handling and firing characteristics of a firearm. These people are a danger to themselves and the people within killing range of the bullet.

B-Logic tells us that few people rob you from the regulation 25 yard target distance. If a person is going to threaten your life, odds are they will have either planned it out, or taken their own actions into question before you have the chance to plan out a counter-attack. Therefore you can honestly never be prepared for a lethal encounter, and even with the proper training, even a SEAL is vulnerable if he's shot at pointblank range with no warning. You will not be warned, and the attacker will likely not tell you what method he's going to kill you with. It takes time to get to a handgun-alot of people aren't going to give you that time.

C-Killing someone is a mental block that must be overcome. Alot of people brag about it, but few have the ability to move that block when the time comes. In my experience, even hunting an animal provides you with a certain thought process you have to overcome. You have to train your mind not to consider human compassion, or details. You have to not weight in consequence.

D-My favorite myth about deadly civilian encounters is that the adrenaline rush will provide you with the means to overcome human emotion and thought process. However, I had a deeply interesting conversation with a military/firearms instructor where I bought my Sig. I was trying out the feel of a Glock, and he asked me to pick it up and point it again. Now generally, I hold my right hand on the gun, and my left hand around my right, with my index finder over the trigger guard. His response was that this was the first thing he teaches people not to do in training. He said when you're under an adrenaline rush, your left index finger will actually pull your aim off, because you're not used to the additional strength and movement speed provided by the fear.

Where I'm going with that, is there are a million small details that you can never account for without experience. You need to understand this when taking a firearm out of your house/pickup. Because for most people, a handgun is a liability to their own lives through the added false confidence it gives.

My dad, who was an officer and a marine, told me as a kid and growing up that the most dangerous thing about a gun is the idea that the very presence of a weapon will scare people off. Most people don't pull a gun with the 100% expectation of using it, there are a thousand scenarios playing through their mind. Unfortunately, when an ecounter escalates to that point, the only course of action is to use the gun. There really are very few other options, other than a downhill slope that endanger everyone around you.

tl;dr-Guns are dangerous if you don't know what you're doing with them.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Mephistopheles wrote: Violent Crimes US: 475 per 100,000 Canada: 963 per 100,000 Sexual Assault Crimes US: 32.1 per 100,000 Canada: 74 per 100,000 Assaulte Rate US: 295 per 100,000 Canada: 746 per 100,000 Enjoy the ride back to Canada on your high horse. Just be careful you don't get assaulted or raped when ya cross the border. Assaults and sexual assaults have nothing to do with the point that I had brought up. I mean... I could just as easily change it even more to show total crimes: Canada: 75 per 1000 people United States: 80 per 1000 people But... what does that have to do with this debate? ...Nothing But here's something that does contribute to ccw's specifically: United States: 0.40577 deaths by handgun per 1 million people Canada: 0.0304832 deaths by handgun per 1 million people That's over 13 times the deaths.

How many of those American deaths involved a legal CHL? Bear in mind this discussion is about the legitimacy/need for a CHL. Nobody here would argue that we'd be better off if less criminals had handguns. But the idea that not allowing a law-abiding citizen to carry a gun would make a massive impact gun crimes is the idea that I'm trying to combat. I don't believe it would, and I don't think you'll see a lot of correlation when it comes to high crame rates and CHL's.

And the idea that a full on gun ban would make matters any better is a folley as well, IMO. I believe that you'd see a temporary drop in crime as the ban was enforced, but like every other American law, as enforcement dropped, it's my prediction that the crime rates would rocket higher than before.

I hate to bring this up, but look at Washington D.C.

CarbineKid wrote: http://youtube.com/watch?v=1pf3ID3XQ6o - DEA agent and a "glock 40" The video I posted is now famous on how not to handle a firearm.   The person in it is a "highly trained" DEA agent who discharges a Glock in a classroom.   The average officer does not get that much training to begin with. EDITED to add: This video was on the nightly news...its clean

Ugh.

Susan Storm wrote: I strongly encourage Nuclear and NC1004 to read strato's post in its entirety.

Agreed. Nuclear seems to think that just because you have a CCW, you're exempt from doubt.

In my experiences, I fear anyone carrying a weapon in a stressful situation. It doesn't matter if it's someone who is illegally carrying, or a civilian that took a class. I don't trust either and I will never trust either.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Nuclear wrote: I don't really get how the number of deaths/ murders we have relates to people legally carrying a gun ? Canada has more registered guns per capita than America. America has more gun murders per capita than Canada. That's why the argument is valid.

Because every legal gun in Canada is registered, if I'm correct. Federally, I don't believe that Americans are required to register their weapons, so that argument is void.

And I'll add to that-gun registration has little to do with the argument of CHL.

Nuclear wrote: evillepaintball wrote: Susan Storm wrote:   No other common hand-held weapon in the history of man has had this ability. crossbow? Knife, brass knuckles, glass / glass knuckles, pipe, flapjack etc. All deadly, all hand-held.

Most things could be deadly, including your vehicle. However, there is a distinct difference when you are speaking of firearms.

The problem we're having with firearms in America has little to do with CHL's or gun registration-it's the general loose attitude towards guns we have.

The problem doesn't come in when a law abiding citizen purchases a gun, it comes in when someone steals said gun, then sells it for crack. That gun then goes to some crack dealer, who sells it to same gangster kid, who then uses it in a drive by halfway across the country.

Unfortunately, like in every issue in America, you see the two extremes of ignorance-

People who know nothing of firearms, but only that they're evil weapons of mass destruction, and the primary source of America's crime problems

People who nothing of firearms, but feel that through movies, books, games, the internet, family, or even ownership, they are experts and therefore qualified to carry the responsibility of a deadly weapon.

There is a middle ground though, and there are lots of law abiding gun owners. I find it interesting that many people choose to own firearms, but hide them from their children and talk about them like they're poison. My dad taught me how to handle weapons at an incredibly early age-I had shot a wide variety of guns by twelve years old. My dad never had to lock away the guns in the attic-I understood the danger and responsibility of a gun, so I didn't bother them when mom or dad were away. Unfortunately through the ignorance of society, just like with sex, and political/moral issues, kids are being raised by the television, and the TV only shows the ugly, deadly side of guns.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Concerning the ccw point: Very valid point, one of the best brought up so far. I just have a problem with how easy it is to get a gun in America in comparison to Canada. Especially handguns which are very hard to get here and have strict rules on where they can be carried. It's not that the ccw program is bad, it teaches gun safety, but it still doesn't do a proper job of keeping the guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Also I have a problem with the fact that ccw's are for the sole purpose of killing people, in comparison to Canada, where our handgun program is geared towards hunting and target practice.

And I understand your concern with the American attitude toward CCW's (check my above post ).

A CCW is by defination carrying a concealed weapon. The only reason you need to carry a concealed weapon on your person or in your vehicle is personal defense-which is a candy coated term for killing people.

The CCW program was never designed to keep guns from criminals-really at it's core it ensures that those carrying weapons are A:) of legal age, B:) have some experience and very basic skills with their firearm, and C:) understand the consequences of using it. And the relatively heft fee (around 300 bucks when all is said in Texas) ensures that you're average street thug can't just run down and grab one.

Of course it also ensures that those with criminal histories aren't toting firearms.

The problem comes in when you blame the legal fix for the problem. The problem is illegal carry of weapons. Using the idea that very few murders have ever been committed by a civilian with a CHL, I can put forth the theory that people with CHL's tend to be responsible gun owners, and therefore should have the right to carry if they feel threatened by criminals.

As long as there are illegal guns on the streets, there should be a legal way to carry a weapon. Even if it can't guarantee saving your life, it can add a mental deterrent to those who would commit a crime against you.

carl_the_sniper wrote: stratoaxe wrote: carl_the_sniper wrote: Nuclear wrote: I don't really get how the number of deaths/ murders we have relates to people legally carrying a gun ? Canada has more registered guns per capita than America. America has more gun murders per capita than Canada. That's why the argument is valid. Because every legal gun in Canada is registered, if I'm correct. Federally, I don't believe that Americans are required to register their weapons, so that argument is void. And I'll add to that-gun registration has little to do with the argument of CHL. I meant registered guns in Canada compared to total in the US. (which is every legal gun in canada as well as every in the US) ...Making the argument valid.

But Canada doesn't have more legal guns per capita than the US.

evillepaintball wrote: Susan Storm wrote:   No other common hand-held weapon in the history of man has had this ability. crossbow?

Close second.  Good call. 

They involve very basic markmanship, specifically ten feet shots, I believe. Not really shooting lessons, but it requires ten hours of classroom time, and you're fingerprinted, background checked, and registered in a national registry. You're really marked and tracked as a CHL owner, and the gun you qualify with is registered to you.

carl the sniper wrote: "Using the idea that very few murders have ever been committed by a civilian with a CHL," But is every handgun owned by a person with a ccw? Are most handguns even owned by people with ccw's?

You can legally own a handgun without a CHL. However, again, I'm arguing in defense of CHL's. I'd have to switch modes to argue handgun ownership, and I think this thread would burst at the seams if we started going there. 

Staying on topic, the second part of that sentence is vital to it-CHL's tend to be more responsible. Not at all saying that they're well trained, or even understand their firearm as they should, but there is a huge responsibility to carrying a gun in public, and huge consequences.

If a legal gun owner carries his handgun in public without a license, he is no longer a legal gun owner, and is committing "Unlawful Carry", which I believe is a felony. At that point, he is exempt from my argument, and therefore becomes a criminal.

Nuclear wrote: I think theres one big misconception to having a CCW, if someone does something like say their going to hit you or something, you can't just pull a gun and blast them.Even if you did the right thing and rightfully shot someone, you would have some serious court visits coming up.

And there is a misconception that everyone with a CCW can shoot in a perfectly reasonable situation, under pressure, accurately with a civilian backdrop. Boy, police officers need to attend that one day CCW class that is offered around here if that's what you learn. Fact is, there isn't enough training in CCW classes to make me feel easier about general public carrying hand guns. Beef up the program, then we'll talk.

I'd like to address something-

The NRA pretty much made the term "Guns don't kill people, people kill people famous", but that's really just nitpicking terms. Guns are used to kill people every day on mass basis around the world. I love guns, and I'll argue for my (and any law-abiding citizen's) ability to own one. But you can't deny that guns are the weapon of choice for murder and accidental death around here. You may buy a Glock, Springfield, Sig, Beretta, HK, Colt, whatever, to shoot or own for funsies, but you should always bear in mind that gun was designed, produced, built, tested, and sold, with the intention of killing something.

There are only two uses for a gun-personal enjoyment, or killing. You're either collecting/shooting guns, or you're killing people. We have to keep that in mind in these discussions.

carl_the_sniper wrote: Ok, I've never had any problem with the ccw in comparison to not having a ccw. I noticed that this arguement has changed direction drastically. My origional point was that in Canada, I have no reason to carry a handgun on me and that makes me happy.

lol...it's a little offtrack. To your original point-I feel no less safe without a handgun. It's a right that I defend, but one that I'll rarely excercise. There is little reason to carry a handgun on you in most places (read:most).

Nuclear wrote: Yes the gun was basically made to kill, but some guns are made strictly for target shooting.

In reality they're modified to suit their purpose. But every competition gun is a killing tool in disguise.

Think of it like cars built for racing-they may not even be road legal, but deep down inside, they have seats, pedals, and a steering wheel. They're still built to drive.