GhostDog

You are probably right, Rabbi. Hitting a 1" target at 25yds will probably never be a factor. BUT... training WILL teach you the other things that Randy brought up. The most important of these (in my humble opinion) is running your gun (drawing, shooting, even reloading and clearing a malf). I'll use another car analogy: If you had to jump in a car right now and GO, would it be easier to jump in your own car or a strange car you had never driven? You would be surprised how many people handle their gun the same way a brand new driver handles a car. If something happens, you will have plenty to think about and do without having to actually think about how to drive/shoot (run the gun). Another advantage of training is the trained response. We have all heard of the fight or flight response. If possible, "getting out of Dodge" is a good idea. But, if you can't run, you'll have to fight. And... you will probably fight however your experience tell you to fight. When the "reptile brain" takes over, you will just fight. If the only "gunfighting" you've ever done is standing in the open blasting away at a still target, that's probably what you're gonna do. Not a real good way to avoid getting shot. I've seen this myself, it happens. At "tactical" matches, I've seen VERY good IPSC shooters stand in doorways or run into rooms and blast away because that's all they've ever done. No thought of cover or concealment ever entered their minds... conditioned response. The same has happened to police officers, who stood in the open, 2' from hard cover, and blasted away. I am NOT making fun of these folks, just trying to learn something that might help me out one day. This is why, when we shoot matches locally, we try to include stages where shooters have to move and get cover BEFORE they start shooting... conditioned response. More is taught in training than just fast reloads and malf clearing. There's also the "been there, done that" factor. A child knows not to touch a hot eye on the stove in his HEAD because you told him not to. He knows it in his GUT when he actually touches the hot eye. Knowing it in his GUT is the lesson he remembers. Just my opinion. PS- Please forgive me for using the word "tactical", the most overused and stupid word in the English language these days.

How can training be bad (or, to be more specific, of no use)? Of course, training is always good. Now, there is more useful and less useful training, but no bad training. It is true that some people with minimal ability/experience do well when they are forced to, but is that something to count on? Most criminals (in particular street criminals) are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, but do you want to bet your life on it? Their #1 objective is to get what they want and get out, but these days it seems they would just as soon kill someone as look at them. I prefer to better my odds however I can. I agree that the "will" is a decisive factor but most people have developed that attitude from some kind of experience. If one's first experience with "up close serious social encounters" is when they have to defend their life, it's a crap shoot as to how/how quickly they may react. ANY experience beats no experience at all. If I had to play a one-on-one basketball game next weekend against a stranger FOR MY LIFE, you can bet I would practice. The only real question is: what to practice and how is the best way to do it. But... that's a whole 'nother debate. I don't think you can judge based just on reading the success stories. We all see the "not so successful" stories all the time in the news. The NRA isn't going to print stories about gun people who are caught unawares any more than the news media will print stories about people who use guns to defend themselves. I can't really prove a negative to you. For example, I don't think any of us will ever see this story; "Well trained and aware young man not targeted by street thug" or "Young woman, paying attention to her surroundings and armed, passed up by rapist for softer target". See what I mean? Do whatever you think is best for you, it is your own skin. But... to suggest that self defense training has no value seems to me to be silly.

Such an elusive target these days. I have a suggestion for CCW holders. Now, this will not necessarily apply to military or specialized police teams but it surely does for the rest of us, including police patrol officers. We should concentrate on not getting shot, stabbed, or "brained" FIRST and make neutralizing the threat our second priority. It's pretty simple when you think about it. It's harder to test skill in this area and will hardly spark all the usual debates (Glock vs SIG, 9mm vs 45ACP, ect ect ect) but it's surely a valid strategy to pursue. Being aware of your surroundings, avoiding trouble if you can, moving off line at the start of an assault, quick presentation of a weapon while moving... all these are as important as marksmanship. They just aren't very sexy topics for a gun board. Of course, that's just my opinion.

See Mars, I can be a peacemaker as long as you're not ranting about Glocks!

As far as the state goes, I don't think there should be any "minimum" standard to carry for your own protection. That would be like keeping anyone who's not a fireman from buying a fire extinguisher. On the other hand, I don't want the 700lb fireman showing up if my house is on fire. I think Randy was just suggesting a way to test your skills. That's not a bad idea even if it doesn't directly relate to self defense in every way. Relax guys! Excellence in anything is always individual. The harder you work, the better you will be at it (whatever it may be). Some folks are serious and work hard, some don't. Make your own choice, you will get back what you put in. It's your butt, you decide what it's worth. I work as hard as I can while trying to juggle all the other wonderful things I have to do day to day. I try to know what's going on around me and be prepared (not just referring to carry). What I don't get is why people want to require "minimum" standards for CCW, especially "gun people". That is just another way for the antis to deny CCW to you and me. For crying out loud, the state lets any schmuck with eyesight drive on public roads and cars are much more dangerous than guns will ever be!

Don't listen to the "nay-sayers". They would have you spend 2-3 times the money for a gun that won't run any better than your Glock. Spend the money on ammo.

I carry a G17 IWB all the time, you just have to get the right holster. It's really pretty easy. You will have to adjust to the trigger, it's very different from the SIG. Once you get used to the Glock trigger, you'll see that it's very fast and easy to shoot.

Mars, you're right. We old folks are just as bad. The young ensure that the world will always be screwed up and the old ensure that the already screwed up world never changes. Either way you cut it, it's just screwed up!

Because in the communist state, all people are equal.... some people are just more "equal" than others.

How much trouble you have w/ the law will probably depend on two things: your actions in the specific circumstances and, unfortunately, the "flavor" of your local DA. If you don't believe this, ask three young men from Duke. Cruel Hand Luke makes a good point. We all "pays our money and takes our chances". Decide for yourself what you think is a greater risk to you. For DaveTN: Some things cannot be "put to a vote" (for example; the Bill of Rights). Mob rule is not the way to settle all things in a free country. I smoke but am not so foolish to think that smoking is a "right" (that is just silly). The property rights of the business owners is another matter. If the "vote" were the law of the land in all things, black Americans might never have gotten the right to vote and Spanish might be the official language in some parts of the US today. I try to never impose on others. It's not about "rights", it's about being polite (something else that is becoming scarce these days:cool:). It seems anymore that people tend to jump on the bandwagon of whatever is in vogue RIGHT NOW. Smokers and people who are overweight seem to be the popular targets these days. You can take shots at them and "look cool" to all the other "beautiful people" but heaven help you if you even tell the truth about anyone else. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" seems to have been forgotten. If you push your neighbor's ox out to be gored by the gov't, you can rest assured that your ox will be next. For example: if the SCHIP legislation is ever passed in any form, you will see very well what I mean. Regardless of what form it comes in, it can never be paid for w/ a cigarette tax (a fact well known to the powers that be in DC). Gov't programs always expand but this tax will be fairly constant (number of smokers not growing exponentially). At some point after it passes, this will become clear to all. Will the same folks who are all excited to put more taxes on cigarettes be equally excited when the gov't decides to tax something else (like BEER maybe)? We shall see. Don't get me wrong, I know smoking is bad for me. I've tried to quit more than once. I just don't want you telling me to quit. And... if I do quit, how will you pay for your latest program to solve all the world's problems? Human Nature, you gotta love it. We never learn from the past. Each new generation thinks they have all the answers, all the old folks are dumb, and they can fix it all. Some things never change. Instead of trying to fix everyone else, what say we all mind our own business and respect our neighbors' right to do what they want as long as they don't step us? This is probably why the Founders put the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights. They realized that someone is always going to try to control someone else and, at the end of the day, the only way to stop them is by force. It's a miracle any of us have survived.

Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor, Mars. That one made me laugh out loud!

It's gonna be tough to remember all this "tactical" advice the next time I'm crawling through a drainage ditch in Central America, trying to make the world safe for democracy w/ nothing but a rusty ice pick and my trusty, privately owned USP loaded w/ two rounds of fifty year old Mexican 40S&W ammo. I think I'll concentrate on the sabre.

One of the advantages of a revolver.

Which is better, to continue dropping the hammer on bad ammo or "tap, rack, and go"? You decide, it is after all, your rear end that's on the line. No skin off my nose either way. Suffice to say, my solution may differ from yours. I'm sure the Kel-Tecs are OK. I just don't trust them. I make my own decisions and I live w/ the consequences. I just don't try to convince the rest of the world that I'm always right.

I had no idea there was such a huge amount of questionable, surplus 40S&W ammo lying around foreign countries. I thought the whole 40S&W thing was an American invention, didn't know everyone else had gotten in on the act. I guess I missed that one. I think that anyone going overseas, carrying their own gun (which excludes 99.9% of us) would probably take a 9mm. That is the ammo that is plentiful in most foreign lands. The 9mm Glocks don't have the unsupported chamber problem that the 40s do, so a Glock would be just fine in that role. It is an Austrian pistol, after all (You know, the 9mm NATO round, which is supposed to be pretty hot). The whole argument is starting to set off my BS meter. As far as Kel-Tec goes, you couldn't give me one. When they first came out, I saw one of the frames break after a few rounds. That was enough for me. I know a lot of folks swear by them and I have no doubt that the guns are much better now. Having said all that, I'll pass. If I need a good, small carry or BUG, I'll stick w/ a S&W J Frame. But that's just me. Just because it's not my choice, I'm not going to say the guns are no good. That would just make me look silly.

Don't bring up the Deity! If you think these Glock "discussions" get heated, you ain't seen nothing yet.

You are thinking logically which unfortunately has nothing to do with how real people act. Many people on TennCare treat the ER as their family doctor. If you don't have to pay, you don't care. If there's no hope of profit, no one will do it. Remember the shortage of flu shots a couple of years ago? You surely don't want to open the door for the gov't to start telling you how to live "for your own good", do you? If that day ever comes, you can kiss your guns and your freedom goodbye. Don't assume that all of the people in gov't have the same good intentions that you do. It's kind of like communism: it might look good on paper (to some people) but it will never work in the real world. People just don't live like logical computers (thank goodness). Besides, this "socialized medicine" will be exactly like communism where "everyone is equal" but some people are just more "equal" than others. You know who I'm talking about; the same people who want to tell you how to live but think the rules don't apply to them. Also, you would be limiting your own options. Even if you could afford to pay for care (for example, if you were turned down or had to wait for treatment), where could you go to get it, Canada? It's a bad idea all the way around. Look how well the gov't runs everything else that's within their control. Do you really want that kind of efficiency in you health care?

I'll bite. What's the answer?

Exactly! We all get to choose our poison. If only we could all do it without trying to sell the rest of the world on our choice.

We can make all sorts of useless things as long as someone will buy them! Seriously, I agree about the grip. It's nice to be able to fit the grip to your own hand (good thing about revolvers). The stock grip on most pistols fit me fine as long as it's not too big (45 Glocks are out of the question), but it's still nice to be able to change it. I wouldn't pay that much for it, but then again, I wouldn't pay $40,000 for a pick-up truck either.

or does that new HK look a little like a Glock? What a deal at twice the price!

Mars, I knew you couldn't resist responding after I threw in that last line!

Hello Mars and Molon, I'm back. We've had this conversation before. Some folks like Glocks, some seem to hate them. I fall in the former group. I like simple tools that work, it's just that simple. If I decide to buy art, it won't be guns or cars. I've personally seen a round fired in a Glock 19 with an obstructed barrel (another round fired behind a squib load which was a reloading mistake). It bulged the barrel but the gun didn't self destruct. The guns are very robust and will take a lot of abuse. I've seen it myself. If you don't like Glocks, SIGs, whatever... get a different gun. Please spare the rest of us your justification for your bias.

I've been out of touch for a few days. How is the Cougar/have you shot it yet?

I like Glocks. That thing is out of the question for a Glock.