• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you have a conceal and carry license?

Do you have a conceal and carry permit?


  • Total voters
    66
Yep, and over penetration. Basically knowing what is beyond your target


true. know what you are shooting.


If you can gaurentee hitting your target, yep. My nightmare would be missing and the round going through a plasterboard wall and into the next room.


If thats what you think works for you, i wouldn't suggest anything else. To me however, knowing you have the firepower to end the threat and the training to use this force appropriatly is the solution.

Though I would say, if you live in an apartment townhouse adjoining community type housing. overpenetration is a risk




A middle school teacher? cocktail waitress? Anywhere where it could be difficult to conceal, or if carrying may be frowned upon.

Cocktail waitress maybe... a school teacher can wear something that could conceal even a large frame pistole.



The point is stilll somewhat valid even if the analogy isn't I believe.


not really. a month without going to the pub and you'd have enough.


It's not and never was illegal exactly... Basically you needed to show that your life was in danger. Lead to all sorts of issues did that.
For example if you shot someone who was armed with a less than leathal weapon you were in trouble.
But what is a less than leathal weapon I hear you ask?
That's a good question...

If you shot someone outside your front door, or halfway through your window, you were in trouble.

That is changing again at the moment to make the homeowner less culpable and to put the burden of proof more on the intruder.


scary....
 
true. know what you are shooting.





If thats what you think works for you, i wouldn't suggest anything else. To me however, knowing you have the firepower to end the threat and the training to use this force appropriatly is the solution.

Though I would say, if you live in an apartment townhouse adjoining community type housing. overpenetration is a risk
I agree. And seeing as I don't know what the lady in questions circumstances actually are I suggested that she speaks to a good instructor in person. I don't know any substute for personal advise in that respect.



Cocktail waitress maybe... a school teacher can wear something that could conceal even a large frame pistole.
Again the ladys specifics are a mystery here. That's why I suggested something you can conceal anywhere, and have it on you most of the time regardless. I simply believe that if one feels threatened enough to think about concealed carry, one must have the tools available at any given time. And as G. said, it's better than throwing rocks.






not really. a month without going to the pub and you'd have enough.
I don't drink that much.

Ok.
Maybe 6 weeks would do it.:mrgreen:





scary....
Depends how you look at it.
I'm fully convinced that the reason you need firearms in the US is because you have them, and because you have them, you need them.
A criminal doesn't break into a house armed over here because he doesn't expect to encounter an armed response. And because the owner doesn't expect an armed criminal, he doesn't feel the need to be armed.

The result is a very low instance of gun violence among the general population.

What is truely scary are those in the US that think that banning guns based on a reduction in crime is a good idea. That horse bolted about the time the constitution was signed. The Guns are out there, there is no taking them back.
Equally as scary are those on the opposite side that think that just because you are American means you should have unlimited access to firearms at will.

I fall somewhere in the middle.
I think (an it's only an opinion) that the key to having a safe and armed society is the responsible ownership of guns. And I feel that the NRA etc has gone about it all arse about face.
 
While I oppose legal restrictions on munitions, I do agree with selecting a round with less penetration for home invasion.

You can know what you're shooting at and be aware of your background, and miss. You can miss-fire. The gun can fire in unintended directions during a struggle. You could not notice a family member's movement and think the room behind your target is empty when you fire. More powerful rounds can go through your target.

I realize that it's easy to deny all of this in an online setting and claim that your plan is perfect, that you will never make a mistake, that you are better than any criminal who could ever assault you and that you will always have complete control over every situation; but that's not actually real.
 
While I oppose legal restrictions on munitions, I do agree with selecting a round with less penetration for home invasion.

You can know what you're shooting at and be aware of your background, and miss. You can miss-fire. The gun can fire in unintended directions during a struggle. You could not notice a family member's movement and think the room behind your target is empty when you fire. More powerful rounds can go through your target.

I realize that it's easy to deny all of this in an online setting and claim that your plan is perfect, that you will never make a mistake, that you are better than any criminal who could ever assault you and that you will always have complete control over every situation; but that's not actually real.

all plans are perfect until the first 7.62 whizzes by.



There are pros and cons to both. Me im concerned with a rou d that wont penetrate sheetrock penetrating a thick leather jacket for example
 
all plans are perfect until the first 7.62 whizzes by.



There are pros and cons to both. Me im concerned with a rou d that wont penetrate sheetrock penetrating a thick leather jacket for example

You should have no problem with a 9mm hollow point or similar, considering the close range you would be at.
 
Should? Id rather have a .45 hydrashock and remove all doubt. ;)

Well, again, I would never support legal bans on munitions so what I say were is just opinion.

The .45 hydra-shock is a decent round and personally I don't have much of a problem with it. If you know ****'s going down in advance then innocents should get the **** outa there asap. I personally proffer the weaker 9mm hollow point for my comfort zone as I'm in a a home situation where my children would have to stay near me, but I wouldn't fault someone for using the .45 in their situation.

I take issue with retards who think the AK-47 is acceptable home defense, especially in a rural setting. While I wouldn't legally ban you owning one, don't be surprised if I put one in your head when you shoot through your walls, my walls, and strike one of my family.
 
Last edited:
Well, again, I would never support legal bans on munitions so what I say were is just opinion.


Of course no worries.


The .45 hydra-shock is a decent round and personally I don't have much of a problem with it. If you know ****'s going down in advance then innocents should get the **** outa there asap. I personally proffer the weaker 9mm hollow point for my comfort zone as I'm in a a home situation where my children would have to stay near me, but I wouldn't fault someone for using the .45 in their situation.


Whatever you are comfortable with is fine with me as these are opinions. I am of the school hit em hard hit em big. The 9mm just does not do that for me.


I take issue with retards who think the AK-47 is acceptable home defense, especially in a rural setting. While I wouldn't legally ban you owning one, don't be surprised if I put one in your head when you shoot through you walls, my walls, and strike one of my family.




Rural or urban?

M4 and to a less far less ak variant makes a great "farm" defense weapon.


Did u mean urban? In a rural setting you have little fear of an errant 762 flying through your barn and into your farmhouse.
 
There are pros and cons to both. Me im concerned with a rou d that wont penetrate sheetrock penetrating a thick leather jacket for example

Reminds me of an old family story.

My Grandad carried a bible with him at the Somme. One day a bullet with his name on it hit him just above the heart. Luckily he had his bible in his brest pocket. The bullet penetrated all the way through to the back cover before stopping.

My dad still has that bible to this day....and the bullet it stoped.




Still it was a pitty about the other 17. They really made a mess out of him.;)
 
dood you keep throwing out insults, is there a reason for this? I mean, you claim you don't show disrespect then you do just that....

Taking from your statements such as taking aikido is a good way to defend oneself in a gunfight or ever, I can only surmise that you are ignorant to what it takes to survive in a life or death altercation.

Its hard not to throw insults when my points are either missed, ignored, or inflated beyond reason. As stated, its my "personal" feelings based both on experience (which I've been berated for being only 22) and general reasoning, specifically the state training guidelines I had to take to carry a gun as part of my employment.

Sheesh, I don't think everyone should carry, and I will second guess anyone who feels the need to carry, and to go beyond that its perfectly in my right to challenge anyone who chooses to carry (check out one of those first amendment deals). I suppose my confrontational style of debate can be taken as disrespect, so be it. If I question someone as to why they carry, and all it does is make them more resolute in their choice, well at least I know how serious they're taking it.

I have constantly run Drill after Drill, where having a gun against an armed attacker just gets you killed. I've trained with a FATS. You guys put too much into the notion, that having a gun Will save your life, or that the world would be a safer place if everyone was armed, I disagree.

As for the Aikido comment, the thread starter is a woman in her 40s, who's stated multiple times she works in an elementary school. Depending on the state even with a Concealed Carry Permit (or license) she probably can't carry it into work, or leave it in a car parked on school property. That for some people alone would rule out having a gun 5x a week. Now onto aikido, as an Introduction into martial arts, can you think of something better? (Karate? ROFLMAO) I don't expect someone who is new to martial arts to jump right into a Krav Maga course.

I wish I could participate in this thread further, however I am currently caught up with work, and other issues, beyond that, this thread doesn't have much growth its the same circle over again, suppose you can't expect too much from a poll.

-Ed
 
Sorry Ed, but that is not the issue. The problem is that you have demonstrated a pre-judged prejudice against those who CCW, and despite stats proving you wrong you refuse to acknowlege that your prejudice has no basis in reality.

Drills? Lol. If having a gun against an armed attacker always gets you killed, why do cops carry them? :mrgreen:
 
Sorry Ed, but that is not the issue. The problem is that you have demonstrated a pre-judged prejudice against those who CCW, and despite stats proving you wrong you refuse to acknowlege that your prejudice has no basis in reality.

Drills? Lol. If having a gun against an armed attacker always gets you killed, why do cops carry them? :mrgreen:

Could you quote the part where I said people take what I've said miss my points, or inflate them beyond belief. I get it, everyone should carry, it doesn't decrease the safety of anyone else. Feeling scared to walk down the street unarmed, is a legitimate reason to carry.

You found two studies, (the Ohio one is the first to pop up in google) and the real break down is that few each year get a license revoked. Its hard (I couldn't find them) to find relevant statistics on how many permit holders Fired their weapon, how many hit the intended target, and how many if any were wounded or killed as a result, the wiki article itself states 9 officers were killed by ccw holders. However nothing is laid-out to say if the ccw holders were law breakers, or missed their intended target.

Seems like a topic that people just havn't explored. Having a permit is one thing, which I fully support (and wish my state had tougher standards then "sign here"). But carrying on a daily basis, out of fear...yawn, guess I'm just an anti-gun liberal because I believe in tougher restrictions in handgun ownership and use!
 
Could you quote the part where I said people take what I've said miss my points, or inflate them beyond belief. I get it, everyone should carry, it doesn't decrease the safety of anyone else. Feeling scared to walk down the street unarmed, is a legitimate reason to carry.

You found two studies, (the Ohio one is the first to pop up in google) and the real break down is that few each year get a license revoked. Its hard (I couldn't find them) to find relevant statistics on how many permit holders Fired their weapon, how many hit the intended target, and how many if any were wounded or killed as a result, the wiki article itself states 9 officers were killed by ccw holders. However nothing is laid-out to say if the ccw holders were law breakers, or missed their intended target.

Seems like a topic that people just havn't explored. Having a permit is one thing, which I fully support (and wish my state had tougher standards then "sign here"). But carrying on a daily basis, out of fear...yawn, guess I'm just an anti-gun liberal because I believe in tougher restrictions in handgun ownership and use!

I found far more than two studies; I just posted only two, I read others. You can't refute that those two studies indicate that about 99.7% of permit holders do not get in trouble with the law and are therefore not the unthinking walking disasters you painted them to be.


You complain that people are exaggerating your position (not really, read back over your own words, you exhibit a very negative view of CCWs), then you exaggerate the counter-position to claims that everyone should carry all the time? I don't think anyone said that... I sure didn't. I've said it before, if you don't want to carry or don't think you can handle it, don't.

Your emphasis on fear, as if people were trembling in terror at the idea of stepping outside their door unarmed, is a silly tactic attempting to create an emotional reaction of "I ain't skeered!" in the opposition. Not going to work.

Being cognizant of a danger and its consequences is not the same as living in fear. Do you live in terror of car crashes because you always wear a seatbelt? Hardly.

And yes, if you favor stricter controls on handguns than already exist in most states, then you come off as relatively anti-gun, compared to my own position.

I notice you didn't address my question: if EVERY "drill" where you are armed against an armed attacker results in your demise, why do cops carry guns? Surely they'd be better off with just pepperspray and aikido...

You seem impervious to facts and reason...which usually indicates a position held due to an emotional bias. That would appear to be consistent with your irrational prejudice against those who CCW and your unfounded viewpoint of them as mindless walking disasters, which are easily shown to be fantasy through available data and statistics.
 
Last edited:
Its hard not to throw insults when my points are either missed, ignored, or inflated beyond reason. As stated, its my "personal" feelings based both on experience (which I've been berated for being only 22) and general reasoning, specifically the state training guidelines I had to take to carry a gun as part of my employment.

Sheesh, I don't think everyone should carry, and I will second guess anyone who feels the need to carry, and to go beyond that its perfectly in my right to challenge anyone who chooses to carry (check out one of those first amendment deals). I suppose my confrontational style of debate can be taken as disrespect, so be it. If I question someone as to why they carry, and all it does is make them more resolute in their choice, well at least I know how serious they're taking it.



So what can we take from this?

1. you admit to insulting people.

2. you think that "1st amendment deals" apply only to you.


I have constantly run Drill after Drill, where having a gun against an armed attacker just gets you killed. I've trained with a FATS. You guys put too much into the notion, that having a gun Will save your life, or that the world would be a safer place if everyone was armed, I disagree.



are you seriously suggesting you can disarm someone with a gun before they can shoot you? seriously?



As for the Aikido comment, the thread starter is a woman in her 40s, who's stated multiple times she works in an elementary school. Depending on the state even with a Concealed Carry Permit (or license) she probably can't carry it into work, or leave it in a car parked on school property. That for some people alone would rule out having a gun 5x a week. Now onto aikido, as an Introduction into martial arts, can you think of something better? (Karate? ROFLMAO) I don't expect someone who is new to martial arts to jump right into a Krav Maga course.


yes, I can. tons of things. Aikido is not an effective martial art. And I am telling you this as a shodan, under Yamada Sensei, from the NY Aikikai. USAF. I stopped training Aikido seriously when I came to the realization that most aikidoka are self delusional about the practicality of thier art.... Oh i still practice it with some friends time to time, because it is fun at the higher levels, but i am not deluded into thinking its an effective art....

Collusive fakery does not translate into effective self defense.
 
Last edited:
So what can we take from this?

1. you admit to insulting people.

2. you think that "1st amendment deals" apply only to you.

In other threads he has said that he is working his way towards becoming a Police officer. Perhaps he has an issue with the idea of ordinary citizens possessing the same "power" (ie being armed) as he would as a cop. He wouldn't be the first to think that way... this is just speculation on my part though.






are you seriously suggesting you can disarm someone with a gun before they can shoot you? seriously?

It can be done, Rev. I do happen to know one guy who pulled it off successfully. I teach it in some of my self-protection classes as a last-ditch desperation option. However it isn't remotely as simon-simple as many people like to paint it : "oh, that hardened criminal will just snatch your gun away from you!" --- uh, not so much, this takes a lot of training and some luck, OR an enormous amount of luck and a very incompetent opponent.

It also depends on the guy holding the gun. There are methods I also teach of handling extreme-close-quarters shooting problems using the "retention position" which makes it extremely hard for the other guy to disarm or muzzle-avert you. (credits to my instructor, I didn't invent it.)

Anyway, as a primary defense option it isn't such a hot idea. I prefer being armed, and for the record I know what I'm talking about --- I've defended myself both armed and unarmed before.





yes, I can. tons of things. Aikido is not an effective martial art. And I am telling you this as a shodan, under Yamada Sensei, from the NY Aikikai. USAF. I stopped training Aikido seriously when I came to the realization that most aikidoka are self delusional about the practicality of thier art.... Oh i still practice it with some friends time to time, because it is fun at the higher levels, but i am not deluded into thinking its an effective art....

Collusive fakery does not translate into effective self defense.

Well, there's Aikido and there's Aikido. Some forms are more real-world oriented than others. Some instructors are more real-world oriented than other instructors, even within the same "style". I trained in a self-defense oriented form of Aikido for the better part of a decade, and found it useful as an LEO... but you have to bear in mind that my instructor was also a cop with plenty of real-world experience.

From what I've seen a majority of Aiki schools do not practice in a manner that would give their techniques utility against anyone other than Joe Schmuck the John-Wayne-roundhouse-puncher... but there are exceptions.

Granted, there are a lot of martial arts I'd recommend to a newbie looking for something street-effective long before I'd recommend a "generic" Aiki school....MMA, Brazillian 'jitsu, Vale Tudo, Muay Thai, boxing/kickboxing, etc.


But yeah, I suspect Ed doesn't have too much real world experience with serious violence. His suggestions are not very practical on the whole.
 
In other threads he has said that he is working his way towards becoming a Police officer. Perhaps he has an issue with the idea of ordinary citizens possessing the same "power" (ie being armed) as he would as a cop. He wouldn't be the first to think that way... this is just speculation on my part though.


I agree with this assesment.



It can be done, Rev. I do happen to know one guy who pulled it off successfully. I teach it in some of my self-protection classes as a last-ditch desperation option. However it isn't remotely as simon-simple as many people like to paint it : "oh, that hardened criminal will just snatch your gun away from you!" --- uh, not so much, this takes a lot of training and some luck, OR an enormous amount of luck and a very incompetent opponent.


I used to teach it all the time, different sorts of disarms, etc..... I also teach the reality of it..... Take a paintball gun. Disarm the person pointing the paintball gun before he shoots you....


99 out of 100 times.... you got shot....


Yes there is always a possibility it would work, but in reality. Usually imo its foolish. Give em your wallet already.



It also depends on the guy holding the gun. There are methods I also teach of handling extreme-close-quarters shooting problems using the "retention position" which makes it extremely hard for the other guy to disarm or muzzle-avert you. (credits to my instructor, I didn't invent it.)


+1 fully know what you mean. in aikido, that's an example of proper Mai-ai. ;)




Anyway, as a primary defense option it isn't such a hot idea. I prefer being armed, and for the record I know what I'm talking about --- I've defended myself both armed and unarmed before.


+1



Well, there's Aikido and there's Aikido. Some forms are more real-world oriented than others. Some instructors are more real-world oriented than other instructors, even within the same "style". I trained in a self-defense oriented form of Aikido for the better part of a decade, and found it useful as an LEO... but you have to bear in mind that my instructor was also a cop with plenty of real-world experience.


Ive trained yosinkan, akikai, tawama style. Chiba, ikeda, saotome, yamada, and on and on.... If you found a real world oriented Aikido, its far removed from the Aikido taught by hobu dojo (been there as well. )


That said, let me correct my self, it works great for defending oneself against charging drunks. ;)


Boxers, not so much as there is no momentum to deal with. ;)


From what I've seen a majority of Aiki schools do not practice in a manner that would give their techniques utility against anyone other than Joe Schmuck the John-Wayne-roundhouse-puncher... but there are exceptions.


exactly, not realistic attacks, too much reliance on momentum of an unlikley scenario.


Granted, there are a lot of martial arts I'd recommend to a newbie looking for something street-effective long before I'd recommend a "generic" Aiki school....MMA, Brazillian 'jitsu, Vale Tudo, Muay Thai, boxing/kickboxing, etc.



This part I agree. As you can tell, I am less than impressed with most "aiki" style teachings as a practical self defense. It has uses, and I do benefit from my years of doing it. But it was the application of other martial arts such as BJJ and boxing that made whatever "aiki" style movements and mind set a reality.... my experience anyway... ;)


But yeah, I suspect Ed doesn't have too much real world experience with serious violence. His suggestions are not very practical on the whole.



100% agree....


you gotta tell me more about your "aikido" school. While I will trash Aikido relentlessly, I do so from a position of experience, and would love to find a system that proves me wrong.... (I put a lot of years into it. ;) )
 
I used to teach it all the time, different sorts of disarms, etc..... I also teach the reality of it..... Take a paintball gun. Disarm the person pointing the paintball gun before he shoots you....


99 out of 100 times.... you got shot....


Yes there is always a possibility it would work, but in reality. Usually imo its foolish. Give em your wallet already.

+1 fully know what you mean. in aikido, that's an example of proper Mai-ai.

Yeah, it depends. I've done it in training vs simunition guns. If someone is dumb enough to press the gun to your head or body (and there are lots of dumb crooks, let's admit) a disarm can be done many times. Most commonly it is effective if the person is not intent on shooting you immediately; that is, they want to intimidate/rob you, or take you off somewhere private before killing you. Against someone who intends to shoot you at once, it is much more iffy.

I have done it at ranges of up to 20' against a guy reaching for a holstered weapon, similar to the Tueller drill. My success ran about 90%. Granted a well-trained man could stop me if he was ready for it, but most don't expect you to charge them when they're reaching for a pistol.

On the whole though, I'd prefer diving for cover and then drawing my own pistol.



Ive trained yosinkan, akikai, tawama style. Chiba, ikeda, saotome, yamada, and on and on.... If you found a real world oriented Aikido, its far removed from the Aikido taught by hobu dojo (been there as well. )

That said, let me correct my self, it works great for defending oneself against charging drunks. ;)

Boxers, not so much as there is no momentum to deal with.
exactly, not realistic attacks, too much reliance on momentum of an unlikley scenario.

Against an opponent like a boxer, who strikes from a balanced position and does not overextend, you have to use "aggressive aikido" and enter with a feint or strike, either "blending" to his flank and going for something strong like an armbar, or clinching and going for a hip throw or similar. Since you can't use his momentum and overextension, you have to "create a circle" with a methodology that looks more like judo or Braz-Jits than like classical Aiki. Again, what my instructor taught was called Aikido but the practical side of training didn't look much like what O-Sensei taught. Nor was their anything very pacifistic in the "philosopy". :mrgreen:





This part I agree. As you can tell, I am less than impressed with most "aiki" style teachings as a practical self defense. It has uses, and I do benefit from my years of doing it. But it was the application of other martial arts such as BJJ and boxing that made whatever "aiki" style movements and mind set a reality.... my experience anyway...

Agreed. I also trained in Karate, did some boxing/kickboxing and wrestling, a little Philipino knifework, etc. That and the time I spent in LE gave me some perspective on ways to use my Aiki skills ITRW.



you gotta tell me more about your "aikido" school. While I will trash Aikido relentlessly, I do so from a position of experience, and would love to find a system that proves me wrong.... (I put a lot of years into it. )

I'll PM you. There's a reason why I don't want to mention my instructor by name on the open forum, and the system itself is a small one with only a handful of schools in the US.

Basically it was about 50% classical Aikido technique, but with a lot more "ooph", more pain, and more energy than you see in most Hombu-based Aiki. The other 50% was focused on "how do you actually USE this stuff in the street?" We practiced against forceful attacks, fast attacks, combinations, grabs and takedowns that you actually see in bar-brawls, weapons, etc. We commonly used strikes as a method of stunning the opponent before finishing him with a joint-break or a throw-and-lock. We also did "groundfighting" before groundfighting was "cool". :cool:

It drew from Aiki, Judo, Karate, Jujitsu, kickboxing and other styles, rather than being "pure Aiki", also. In a sense it was a "mixed martial art" of sorts back before MMA was "cool". :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom