DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago

That was my primary carry XD subcompact in 40 cal...now its Baby Eagle 11 in 9mm that gun shot flawless from the start and conceals very well for me. Plus its very accurate and eats just about any ammunition I've put through it.

I have always been a wheel gun guy, Ruger SP101 357mag is my gun of choice.

Will never jam and will always fire. Has the power to knock them off their feet and shoot thru glass and walls. Can carry with the hammer on an empty chamber so you can drop it off a cliff and it won't fire a round.

Nice. I want a Ruger Redhawk in a major way.

I have to say 40, I don't believe any hand gun beats a Ruger. I've had several over the course of my life and at this point, would own nothing else.

Pit make no mistake now this is what sits next to me all the time...

And this one...but I sure do love me some guns made in Israel.


Plus if I'm involved in a shooting and the police take my stuff..if I never get it back or do and its rusted out or whatever its no great loss..

But that Baby Eagle is a great gun...sorry for the crappy pics in bed with a crappy phone that takes bad pics or it could just be the user

It's the picture taker. The backlighting is throwing off the exposure of the pictures.

That is his TV in the background. Wait a minute, is that the Muppets Movie??? FB what gives?

I know bud..I dont take very good pics..plus I didnt feel like getting up and opening the drapes to let in some light

actually espn was on

What I meant is that the light from the TV and PC is what messed up the picture. You needed light coming from behind you to brighten the guns in the foreground.

This not entirely true as the shooter did kill a fellow student before taking his own life.

There's 2

If you get a Ruger you will need to practice like my brother and I do...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=990_1450157303

You and your brother just shot 10 rounds with a 6 round wheel gun, and here I thought your limberness would be the story.

It could happen!

I know I love shooting that 357 blackhawk in the pic I posted and you better be on your p&q's with that thing I usally need to wear gloves if I put more then 100rnds through it at 1 time.

I've shot the Redhawk 44mag if I'm remembering right nice gun..but I ended up doing the .50 Desert Eagle for my novelty gun.

Well, if you are done warming up with that 44Mag, you may be ready for me Smith & Wesson 500...

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=382_1420246482

40 I've shot that gun and it was to big for me..I have smallish hands and that thing is a huge gun.

The Desert Eagle in 44 .50 are my favorite to shoot when I need to hear BOOOM and see fire shooting out of the end of the barrel..and have people look around the booth to see what made that sound.

But to each their own..

Yea, I don't really own one because I just can't find a use for it. Gotta admit tho, that video was fun.

Man, I've been wanting to pick one up for the longest time. I carry its bigger brother the M&P 45 for work... <3 <3 <3 Love it love it love it! I can't carry it of duty nearly as much as I'd like to for a couple reasons:

I'm 5'8" 150lbs... and even though my department mandates I carry concealed off duty "when feasible", they don't actually issue us concealed holsters, and so far its been a year and a half "study" trying to see if they'll approve actual concealed holsters. The few months of cold weather down here is about the only time I can effectively carry concealed

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_r=0

The National Rifle Association maintains a blog called The Armed Citizen, which highlights defensive gun use. The latest entry, from April 9, describes three incidents: Two from 2013 and one archival example from 1969. It’s not hard to see what the NRA’s getting at, but just in case, a sidebar on the site states: “Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances.” In other words, as Wayne LaPierre put it after Newtown, “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

That’s almost as catchy as “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” The problem is: The 2 million figure — often inflated to 2.5 million in N.R.A. literature — is bogus. Defensive gun use is actually quite rare.

A new paper from the Violence Policy Center states that “for the five-year period 2007 through 2011, the total number of self-protective behaviors involving a firearm by victims of attempted or completed violent crimes or property crimes totaled only 338,700.” That comes to an annual average of 67,740 — not nothing, but nowhere near the N.R.A.’s 2 million or 2.5 million.

Readers can judge for themselves whether the V.P.C. or the N.R.A. is likely to have better numbers. The V.P.C. used data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The N.R.A.’s estimate is the result of a telephone survey conducted by a Florida State University criminologist.

The V.P.C. also found that in 2010 “there were only 230 justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a firearm” reported to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program. Compare that with the number of criminal gun homicides in the same year: 8,275. (That’s not counting gun suicides or unintentional shootings.) Or compare it with the number of Americans killed by guns since Newtown: 3,458.

As the V.P.C. paper states, “guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”


---------------------

So I'll even spot you and go with the minimums presented in this article....

230 saved their own lives or the lives of others by shooting someone

and at least 67,000 per year don't become victims of a criminal because they have a gun. That's an awful lot of people. I don't know, I guess it takes someone who's been a victim or deals with them on a regular basis to appreciate these numbers.

Oh dung Devil...you tellin me you dont rock 511 tactical pants 2inch thick belt and a Hawaiian shirt to not print in the summer

Ok you live where it gets a little hot..exchange the pants with some shorts same belt and same shirt

I'm just funnin with you man..but damn I thought you was 'taller' 150..damn man tell the wife to make more sammiches..You may be the tiniest Marine Ive encountered

[quote]You may be the tiniest Marine Ive encountered poke/quote]

I dunno, I knew a guy in artillery back in the 80's who was so small our platoon sergeant said he was so small he didn't have enough meat on his @ss to make a sick man a bowl of soup!

hahaha thanks for that..it honestly made me think of my time in and well maybe I should've said a middle aged Marine

I carry more "success" around then I did in the 80's for sure..it was just not what I pictured him to be was all.

I like your response DevilDawg and I agree that those who have found themselves protected by owning a gun is not to be minimized or discounted.

Like you stated the numbers of these types of gun interactions are inflated and that's part of the problem. Some accept this idea as being the only answer to the problem of spree shootings.

Personally I think there's plenty of room for owning personal fire-arms, but I also believe we have a right to expect that the owners register, regulate and do anything to help with the problem of accessibility.

Again, I really appreciate your response.

No problem!

I think the tendency to believe like you said that his is the only answer to shooting sprees stems from, I'd ALMOST say fact, that not a single law can demonstrably be shown to have prevented one.

No one can show a case where a spree didn't happen because of a gun free zone sign,

No one can show what kind of law would prevent a person who has no prior criminal or mental health history from obtaining a firearm would prevent one,

And very few people can actually spell out how new laws would prevent future incidents beyond a "well, we have to do something!"

But on the flip side, even though the number of armed citizens stopping a spree is low, it can be demonstrated to have stopped them.

I honestly think more people WOULD be willing to accept addt'l gun laws IF what's been proposed could actually spell out how it would prevent these kinds of things. Gun registrations won't stop a mass shooter. Its only useful after the fact to punish everyone who may have helped him.

Expanded and integrated criminal histories with access to Dept of Corrections files I think would be something that could gain support in regards to background checks.

Mental health I think is where we see the biggest fear and pushback IMO. The trend over the last 20yrs is to classify virtually anything and everything as a disorder of some sort. On top of that, my biggest fear is that psychology these days is too subjective. Too many people think they know what they are talking about when they don't. There is also too much stigma attached to things like depression, PTSD, schizophrenia, etc. Most lay people would tell you in their expert opinion that those types of people can't possibly be responsible enough to possess a gun, and that is simply not true.

Hell, whenever someone says they carry concealed "just in case", they are called crazy and paranoid. Yet in every one of those instances where an armed citizen stopped a spree, they were carrying for the specific reason of "just in case".

Look, it's harsh to say it, but at some point we have to accept that tragedy is going to happen no matter what we do to prevent it. There is true Evil in the world. Evil is NOT a mental health issue. This is a fact that too many people protect themselves from.

I have to admit, in my 50 yrs I've had a gun pulled, pointed or shot at me more than once. BUT it would have been a lot worse those very few times had I been armed. Somebody, maybe me, would have definitely died on one particular night. That would have been senseless then and now.

I know bad things can happen. I sold and gave away all the guns I owned after losing my temper very badly one night when I was a much younger man. I haven't suffocated or been raped, brutalized, or murdered since then either.

After a few close calls, a little soul searching and life changing has done me more good than any gun would have. Maybe I got lucky, maybe the worst is yet to come (hope not but who knows) or maybe living a common sense life, getting a big mean dog and looking like the crazy guy saved my bacon. Whatever it has been it sure beats being the guy that killed somebody, just-in-case.

I think it's clearly shown that the number of sprees has risen and that the number of gun murders directly correlate to the number of guns. Our country leads most of the world in both. Way more than most.

I disagree that more guns will solve the issue and I also know that having a gun for protection against a number of people with a number of guns, like in the recent spree, guarantees nothing.

If we're to get anywhere with this problem we can't just say we accept that evil people are going to do evil things without agreeing that we should make it more difficult for evil people to do evil things so efficiently.

well rock you can be target practice for some nut job if you want. For me though I will lay him to rest and protect me and mine. In states where lots of people have guns you don't have many mass shootings because they know they will die if they try.

Even if you restrict guns they will then just make bombs or use knives. An armed population stop a lot more crime than it creates so long as, you keep the nutjobs from easily getting weapons.

An armed population stop a lot more crime than it creates so long as, you keep the nutjobs from easily getting weapons.

Ther in lies the rub isnt it..I go no where unarmed..gun free zone well I would never break the law but concealed means concealed and Im not going to be a walking duck for anyone that decides today is the day I go shoot people up and not be prepared.

Well, I think I posted earlier the states with the highest gun violence are the states with the most guns.

And I don't want to be a target period. Too many Americans already have been.

Well, I think I posted earlier the states with the highest gun violence are the states with the most guns.

And a lot of those places have the strictest laws..Chicago laws a pretty restrictive but holy hell lots of folks dying there from gun deaths.

whats your opinion on this Rock..

https://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/do-strict-firearm-laws-give-states-lower

Maybe you shouldve said...states with the largest cities and highest poverty rates are the ones with the highest gun violence??

Either way I avoid places with high crime/violence like the plague so maybe I shouldn't have even responded.

I don't know why you think I should have said that when the CDC, the agency that NRA has lobbied congress not include gun deaths as health risks, shows that, weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich wrote.

What they lobbied was not to have suicide rates involved in those statistics I believe..no I stand by what I said.

States with large cities and with high poverty rates is where the bulk of crime comes from..you dont agree well thats on you I guess..

Statistics is a funny thing..can almost always make them say what you want them to

In the more affluent neighborhoods I lived in no matter the state...1 gun death a suicide...now before I was able to live in better places well lots of gun crimes/death and you know what Rock it was in a bigger cities and well the poverty rates was pretty bad.

But by all means believe what you want...I'm 99.9% sure where I live I'm not getting shot going out to walk me dags...and damn near everyone in my community is armed to the gills...so its not a lack of guns thats the problem

I'm curious to know if those studies include places like the Iraq, SYria, Afghan, all points Middle East, Somalia, Rwanda, Liberia, etc too... and if it includes gun deaths by radical Islamists and African warlords too. My guess is it probably doesn't.

My point in that is that there are far more dangerous places in the world to be that you have a much more significant chance at being killed by someone using a gun of some sort. But here in America, I'd wager 98% of the population can go to 99% of the country and not have to worry about or even think about getting shot. Even the biggest CCW proponents say they carry "just in case" and recognize that evil isn't lurking around every single corner.

To your point about making it difficult for evil people to carry out evil acts efficiently... I get that, but you also have to find that balance where you aren't making it unreasonably difficult for good people to protect themselves and others. Too often many proposed laws end up disproportionately impacting the good people more than the evil people.

How do you know a proposed law will end up disproportionately impacting the good people more than the evil people? How can a proposed law do that? Unless you mean by allowing evil people to get their hands on guns before a proposed law takes affect and impacting the good people ...Ok I can see that.

But I've never heard of a gun control law impacting good people more than evil people? What are these laws you speak of? What laws are on the books we are not enforcing? What laws are taking rights away from law abiding citizens? Name one federal gun control law that is impacting good people more than evil people?

Evil people could care less about our stinking laws. Therefore, ALL federal gun laws impact good people more than evil people as only the good people respect our laws.

Not so hard really.

Can you site one of our stinking federal gun control laws and prove how that stinking law impacts good vs evil people?