Conceal and Carry Question

[Mulligan]

Ok... Finally acted on a thought that I have wanted to for several years. I bought me a 9MM for home protection and to shoot at ranges. First 20 years of my life, I was around, shot, and hunted with shotguns and rifles. Last 25 years, nothing so I am taking a handgun safety and shooting class before the bad boy comes out of the box. My state has a conceal and carry law. My question is there any value to having this? I live in a small town and it is pretty safe. Dont feel the need here, but I go to St. Louis frequently to eat out, go downtown, and attend various sporting events. My question is even if I feel trained enough to carry, there are so many places you cant take them. If I leave it in the car, I probably run a greater risk of it being stolen (my car has been broke into twice this past year while being downtown)than I do of needing it. What is my value or benefits in having it? Anyone have any experiences or thoughts with it? I know I could have posted this on a handgun forum (learned a lot from them) but am not a member of any and they seem they would be a little more one sided in their opinions. Thanks!

 

[LOL!]

I've been all over the world and never felt the need to carry a handgun.

My wife was robbed at gunpoint once, but I don't think having a concealed handgun would have made a difference. BTW, the police easily caught the perps.

Basically, I think if you have nothing of value, you will not be a target.

 

[samclem]

It sounds like you don't have a desire to be armed (don't see a real need, etc). If you feel that way now, your opinion won't likely change after your training. Carrying a concealed weapon takes some doing--you have to dress right, get a holster you are comfortable with and which can be concealed, etc. I sure wouldn't go down that road just because you now happen to own a handgun. Anyway, if you get "serious" about concealed carry, you might find that a full-size 9mm is not a convenient weapon to carry on a daily basis--they are considerably more trouble to conceal, particularly as the weather gets warmer, than one of the new light .38 revolvers or .380 semi-automatics.
I'd give this some thought as you go about your daily business. Think about the advantages/disadvantages/responsibilities that concealed carry would mean as you go about your daily activities. The courses aren't expensive, so if the idea appeals to you after a month or so, maybe take one.

 

[calmloki]

I have the permit but don't carry. Choosing to put somebody down opens a whole new set of problems. Now in my house if a situation requires shooting someone I'll have regrets but it should be pretty clear cut as to whether it was justified. Of course in my house I don't need the permit.

 

[Gumby]

In addition to the inconveniences mentioned by Samclem, I wonder if being armed would make me more likely to take imprudent risks that I would not normally take.

 

[brewer12345]

Seems like a lot of trouble and risk. How about a can of pepper spray or a taser? Generally far fewer legal issues and a lot less risk when you are out and about. Or failing that, maybe a few weeks of krav maga classes?

If you have an intruder in your home, it would be a different story. Although I suspect a handgun would not be the best choice then.

 

[dex]

I have the permit but don't carry.

Most important aspect of safety is situational awareness. Simple things like don't letting your gas tank go to less than 1/4 tank so you can choose where you fill up. Moving your head around and looking aware of your surroundings.
I have a Glock 26 that is a great gun but is a commitment to carry. Take a look at the Ruger LCP if you want to carry.

 

[GregLee]

Basically, I think if you have nothing of value, you will not be a target.

A previously unremarked benefit of LBYM.

 

[Martha]

I would never carry in an urban area for many reasons. Risk of accidents. Risk of making a horrible mistake. Risk of the gun being used against me. I don't want to walk around feeling like an armed person; I'd feel like I was a part of the culture of violence. It is not my nature. I'd rather try to avoid unsafe situations to the extent reasonable.

 

[73ss454]

In most cases having or carrying a gun will just get you into trouble. You can kill someone or someone can take the gun from you and kill you, a loved one or a bystander. IMHO no one needs a gun except the police or the military. This is not the 17 or 1800's where there was no Police or 911, it's not the wild west. I know that people think it's a right but this is a different time. Harsher laws for possession of guns should be passed IMO.

 

[dex]

Incidents of gun violence and self-defense have routinely ignited bitter debate. 12,632 murders were committed using firearms and 613 persons were killed unintentionally in 2007[56]. Surveys have suggested that guns are used in crime deterrence or prevention around 2.5 million times a year in the United States.[57][58][59][60] The American Journal of Public Health conducted a study that concluded "the United States has higher rates of firearm ownership than do other developed nations, and higher rates of homicide. Of the 233,251 people who were homicide victims in the United States between 1988 and 1997, 68% were killed with guns, of which the large majority were handguns."[61] The ATF estimated in 1995 that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million.

Gun politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In an extensive series of studies of large, nationally representative samples of crime incidents, criminologist Gary Kleck found that crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults.[90] Other research on rape indicated that although victims rarely resisted with guns, those using other weapons were less likely to be raped, and no more likely to suffer other injuries besides rape itself, than victims who did not resist, or resisted without weapons.[91] There is no evidence that victim use of a gun for self-protection provokes offenders into attacking the defending victim or results in the offender taking the gun away and using it against the victim.[92]

Kleck has also shown, in his own national survey, and in other surveys with smaller sample sizes, that the numbers of defensive uses of guns by crime victims each year are probably substantially larger than the largest estimates of the number of crimes committed of offenders using guns.[93] Thus, defensive gun use by victims is both effective and, relative to criminal uses, frequent. In a largely approving review of Kleck's book Point Blank (1991) in the journal Political Psychology, Joseph F. Sheley argues that Kleck sidesteps the larger political problem of the role of gun culture in contributing to the spread and effect of violence in the United States.[94

 

[Westernskies]

Don't ask, don't tell.

 

[toofrugalformycat]

Many people have guns in this state, including myself. I use them for wilderness only, for scaring away bears. A gun is a nuisance to keep clean and oiled. Most shootings here where people get hurt are accidental, and many are children. Some are off-duty military, so training alone does not cut it. If you keep the gun locked away and safe, which you should, then it's no use if you have a break-in in the middle of the night.
When I lived in the roadless wilderness, once a man did come up my trail and kind of threaten me with his shotgun (waved it in my direction). I could tell he was unstable. I had a revolver on my hip, but there was no way I would have tried to use it on him (I found the thought repulsive, and I would have likely missed anyway).
Life is not a John Wayne movie.
Take a self defense course, get your body in shape, and carry a cell phone. If you're really worried, I second the emotion of carrying a Taser and/or mace and/or pepper spray.

 

[HFWR]

Having never shot at anyone, I speak from no experience. But I think the actual act of shooting someone, or engaging in a gun battle, is entirely different from water cooler talk about "the right to bear arms".

The recent shooting in Tucson is a good example. Lots of scuttlebutt about "if the people were armed, someone could have stopped the shooter". Possibly. Or, someone could have returned fire and killed another innocent bystander, or could have become the shooter's next target themselves, or could have been shot by a LEO...

Nonetheless, I operate under the illusion that I could shoot an intruder in my home. And I might or might not be packing.

Do you feel lucky?

 

[MasterBlaster]

The recent shooting in Tucson is a good example. Lots of scuttlebutt about "if the people were armed, someone could have stopped the shooter". Possibly.

Maybe you are on to something here:

I suspect if everyone attending political rallies were armed then the discourse would be much more civil.

 

[mrpd114]

dex suggested a Ruger LCP if someone needs to (and is legally allowed to) carry. As retired law enforcement I carry the LCP .380 with a six round clip, and it is small enough to comfortably conceal without any problem. If I should need more than the six rounds the LCP clip holds, I'm gonna hightail it out of that situation in a hurry anyway...

 

[saluki9]

This is not the 17 or 1800's where there was no Police or 911.

I'm not here to start a gun argument, but I do always find this argument interesting. If somebody is intent on doing you harm, chances are pretty good that calling 911 isn't going to help you. As my sister the cop tells me "if somebody wants to kill you, chances are we will get there in time to draw the chalk lines"

As far as the shoot in Tucson, most people that I know who carry don't do it to protect the general public. They don't carry to replace the police, or carry out vigilante justice, just to protect themselves and their family. For them the gun is a last resort when the first choice is getting the hell away.

 

[Walt34]

I'm retired from law enforcement and haven't even bothered to qualify to carry under the LEOSA. I just don't see the need. Every city has places that it is better not to be at certain times. I just don't go to those places at those times.

A handgun is simply a defensive tool I carried at the time, and that I carry to and from work now (armed security) but I have no desire to lug the thing around when I'm off.

The plain fact is, when someone is pointing a gun or knife at you (at close range) the time is long past to be fumbling with jackets, holsters and all that. This was demonstrated repeatedly in training.

So to me at least, the value of carrying it is negligible.

 

[obgyn65]

Same for me. I have never owned a gun and never will.

So to me at least, the value of carrying it is negligible.

 

[davemartin88]

I have a permit but don't bother to carry. I like having the permit because it allows me to transport the gun in a "concealed" location in my car (under the seat) when I go to the range or otherwise travel.

 

[RonBoyd]

Same for me. I have never owned a gun and never will.

+1

 

[travelover]

I carry two cans of Mace and a cell phone when I'm hiking out of range of 911 help. One can is formulated for dogs and the other is formulated for people. Fortunately, so far, I've only had to use the dog pepper spray, though I have been threatened by the irate dog owner. My worst fear is meeting up with some nut with a gun.

 

[donheff]

In addition to the inconveniences mentioned by Samclem, I wonder if being armed would make me more likely to take imprudent risks that I would not normally take.

This is the question that worries me. I remember some incidents in high school that support that fear, although HS kids are quite a different crew than ER adults. On the other side of this question, Dex's statistics were surprising to me both in the number of self defense occurrences and the effectiveness.

I have good situational awareness which, I think, has helped insure that over many decades walking around lots of sections of supposedly dangerous cities I have never been robbed or assaulted (excluding those HS incidents ). But I wonder whether I will become more of a target when I get into my mid to late 70s. Of course, by that time fumbling for a weapon might prove ineffectual

 

[braumeister]

I suspect if everyone attending political rallies were armed then the discourse would be much more civil.

Robert Heinlein's line always made sense to me:
"An armed society is a polite society."

I think it's an excellent thing that the bad guys never know who might be packing.

I have a concealed carry license and I am often armed. Where I live and normally travel is considered a very safe area, but so are the majority of places where people get shot unexpectedly. You simply never know.

If you are sincerely interested in carrying a gun outside your home, you need plenty of specific training, and you need to keep it fresh with practice. The NRA has plenty of links for obtaining training.

If you're unsure about the laws relating to carrying, the best place to start checking them is www.handgunlaw.us.

In my case, I was first required to carry a concealed gun for self-protection some decades ago when I was on active duty, but I can't really discuss that. When my state adopted the option for civilians, I immediately took advantage of it, because I had first hand experience of the associated value.

Whatever you do, be sure to do it thoroughly. That means get lots of specific training for it, plenty of practice on the range, good equipment (well-maintained gun, good quality holster and belt), complete knowledge of all the applicable laws, and the proper mindset (situational awareness, planned courses of action, etc.).

 

[Danmar]

I suspect that 95% of the world would find this discussion absurd. The US really is an outlier on this topic.