Wheelgunner

@ chances R -- I think bklem18 and I are in complete agreement with you about more laws not being the answer. That's what we were getting at -- the sarcasm just didn't translate well into online text.

That's sheer brilliance! What state or federal statute did you pull that out of? Oh, wait...

It was just over three months for me. After about the first two weeks you should start calling the phone number on the .gov website to inquire about the status of your application. When I finally called to find out the reason for the delay they told me my application had been approved but had just gotten lost in the system. After that, got the permit in about a week.

I think it is absurd to believe that the segments of our population (military and police) that consist of our most highly trained gunfighters will be a meaningful source for ammunition based on: A. those highly trained gunfighters abandoning their most valuable commodities, or B. those highly trained gunfighters being magically killed off in astronomical numbers. Mechanics maintain accountability of their tools and know how to use them well. Why would the same not be true of soldiers? Personally, I'm betting on that particular demographic doing exceptionally well when civilization falls apart, and taking care of my future ammo needs myself.

What happened to this homeowner is terrible. However, there is an important distinction to be made here. I was taught that there are two means of addressing a potential threat: the appearance of security, and actual security means. The first has a goal of deterrence and involves stuff that would make a BG prefer a different, easier target (motion sensor floodlights, big loud dog, etc.). This is good most of the time, but if it's that's the full extent of your security program and the BG realizes it, you're toast. Putting a sign like the one in the OP outside your house definitely falls into this category. The second has a goal not of deterring a BG's assault but rather of overwhelming and defeating it. An actual security mentally presupposes that the worst will happen. Actual security involves (among other things) hardening a location, locating redoubts, training aggressively with your weapons, knowing everything that's going on in the neighborhood, and practicing a reaction plan for when bad things happen. Actual security means often go unobserved, but make it substantially more difficult for a BG to ruin your life. Witty 2A signs or motion activated lights will disappoint you every time when real-deal armed baddies show up. All of us here could post on our front door something proud and aggressive about being gun owners. So why don't we? RobertNashville's right on target. It's because -as one expert noted a couple thousand years ago - if you appear weak when you're actually strong, the BG won't know your capabilities until he is overwhelmed and defeated.

Government isn't much of a concern, since the Supreme Court recently decided that GPS tracking of a citizen by police is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. But that does nothing to mitigate the risk of bad guys stalking you... Thanks for the info.

As Threeeighty pointed out, one bad guy on the ground in no way means that you're out of danger. Furthermore, the OP pointed out that you don't have kids there to worry about. With those points in mind, I'd probably go with D. Quickly retreat to the bedroom with the wife, close the bedroom door, and cover that door until help arrives. That's not because of any ill will toward the guy, but rather out of ongoing concern for our safety. Truth is, I wouldn't leave the bedroom to begin with because that's where I have the greatest advantage (several weapons, additional ammo, a wife to communicate with 911 dispatcher, and a single well-covered enemy choke point - the bedroom door).

Thanks for the trigger info. Have you tried the Shooter's Ridge high capacity magazines yet for the 795?

@jmoe - I keep a "get home kit" in the trunk. It's got medical basics like OTC medicines, bandages, quickclot, and moleskin. Also land nav stuff, extra ammo, a Swiss Army knife, some granola bars, a couple bottles of water, flashlight, handkerchief, neck gaiter, long sleeve shirt, gloves, and an empty camelback. All that and some more fits inside a Camelback HAWG backpack. I keep a gortex jacket with it, and a pair of worn in boots. The idea is, if for some reason I can't travel by car, I can grab this kit and be all set to walk home. In a pinch it could serve as a bug out bag, although in reality there's some pretty important bug out type stuff that isn't in there. I think your Maxpedition is a good idea for a lot of reasons.

@ the OP: I used a Taurus 605 .357. Shot .38 SPL. I really appreciated the part where you do reloads. Before that, I hadn't ever considered stuff like which way the chambers turned, or the difference between reloading with a speedloader v. by hand. Like others have said, there's really not a wrong gun, and the standards are nothing to sweat.

I recently read the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case mentioned in the title of this thread. Most of us are probably familiar with it; for those who aren't, it was the case that struck down the D.C. handgun ban as a violation of the Second Amendment, which reads thus: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." One thing the majority opinion points out is that the first two clauses - referring to the militia and its purpose - do not and never have defined or limited the right of Americans to keep firearms. Rather, those two clauses were merely the reason the Amendment was codified. This is a huge distinction. The court's opinion explains that there were and are today a variety of elements or purposes protected under "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and the court specifically recognizes self-defense as one of those purposes. It's just that the particular thing that motivated the founders to include an amendment for the right to own firearms happened to be the resistance of government tyranny. Anyway, it was a good read and gave me some excellent points to bring up the next time I find myself in a Second Amendment debate with a hoplophobe. For those who are interested, you can read the court's opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf .

@ bayouvol -- I EDC an SP101. I only weigh 140 and the weight is no problem. It feels lightest when you put it in an IWB holster that keeps it high and tight against your body. It'll probably take a little while for you to get used to it, no matter how you carry it. If you're anything like me, you'll come to find that extra heftiness a little reassuring.

I'm free this weekend, but like Monkeylizard I'll need a little more advanced notice. If we could firm up some plans by, say, Tuesday or Wednesday I'd love to go.

$5 for non member per visit (must be with a member) Even I can cough up five bucks. I'm in.

I'm not familiar with the place. What's it cost to get on the range there? If the price is reasonable just name a Sunday -- they're all good for me.

I was not a gun person before I enlisted. Slept with my M9 in my hand for months because the interpreter pool at my base in Iraq had been infiltrated by Al-Qa'ida. One of 'em tried to kill a soldier with a pistol -- in the office where I worked. At any given moment I might or might not have had my M4 within arm's reach, but that M9 was always on my leg or in my hand. Got so that it was normal to carry a handgun, and when I came home I didn't see any reason for that to change, so... I got my permit. I carry because my safety and the safety of my family isn't your responsibility; it's mine.

I carry every time I leave home, unless I know I'm headed to a prohibited location. I think if I can be armed, then I should be. Also it just feels natural now to have it with me. But the main reason I carry whenever I can? I'd feel really stupid if I bought the gun, spent time at the range, paid for the class, got fingerprinted, waited forever on the damn Safety Department, and then carried my gun all those times... only to be unarmed when I actually needed it.

The advice I've read is that generally dark colored and patterned shirts print the least. I wear mostly untucked polo shirts, usually either darker colors or striped or both. I carry a Ruger SP101 OWB at the 3 o'clock position, and while these shirts don't make it completely disappear, the gun certainly isn't obvious or obtrusive in that position.

I commend Mr. Ellifritz for taking the initiative and conducting his study to answer his own questions. Yet the conclusions he draws from his study, while sound in the context of the data he used, don't pass the common sense test. If I stand two poor b@stards side by side and shoot them both in precisely the same point in their chest, one with a .25 ACP and the other with a .500 S&W Magnum, I promise you there would be a clear and discernible difference in the effect. Ditto with .25 vs. .45, or .25 vs. .357 Magnum, etc. Suffice to say that the .25 would not seem too impressive anymore. I suspect that one of the many reasons for the Ellifritz study's strange and counterfactual statistical results is the influence of illegal drugs on the physical response of criminals shot in many of the cases he used as data. I did not see any mention in the article of this variable despite the fact that Ellifritz himself states that "Every shot in this study took place during a military battle or an altercation with a criminal." In other words, the entire study is skewed by a critical variable that Ellifritz overlooked: drugs. Elsewhere Ellifritz makes some good points -- that often people who are shot just once stop fighting, and that a weapon's rate of fire is often neglected in discussions of "stopping power." Still, I hope that no members here mistake his study for a truly scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of different calibers. According to Ellifritz's wild statistics a .22 round is a more effective single-shot-incapacitator that a .44 Magnum round. If that were true wouldn't most hog hunters choose a .22 over a .44 Magnum? The last thing I'll point out is that Ellifritz says, in effect, that a "psychological stop" is "adequate" for him when choosing a defensive handgun caliber. I'm happy for him. But personally, I don't carry a handgun to defend myself from the guy who's all bark and no bite. I am crazy enough to carry in preparation for the ULTIMATE CRIMINAL -- someone wearing more than a tank top, with a car door between us, who will not be stopped by a fleshwound and who is, for whatever reason, determined to kill or gravely wound me or a loved one. (I know, what a super-villain!) Psychological stop, really? Best case scenario, it works, and you then get to explain in court why you were justified firing your handgun when all that was required was to convince the guy to leave. I would never, ever, shoot someone to scare them; if I have to fire it will be to *end the threat* because I'm about to be killed. What he terms a "physical stop" is what I call the minimum threshold of effectiveness for my carry handgun. But to each his own, I guess.

It took me a good 3 or 4 months to get used to having one in the chamber. My advice is to handle the weapon a lot, mainly to get you familiar with it and with handgun safety. You've gotten a lot of good advice in this thread, but I think, in regard to your particular concern, muzzle awareness may be the key. Even if you had an ND, if you were practicing proper muzzle awareness the worst that would happen is you'd feel really, really stupid. Aside from all of that, remember that you're carrying b/c you want to, not b/c someone is making you. Accordingly, carrying your weapon shouldn't be an anxiety-ridden daily experience. If you have the same concerns a few months from now, maybe you should consider swapping carry weapons. There is nothing wrong with carrying a revolver instead.

Manual for the Ruger SP101, all calibers: https://ruger-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/_manuals/sp101.pdf