Not to step on your point, tvvat, but I think the Mayerthorpe killings were worse than Taber (four RCMP officers killed by a crazy person). That brings up a good point, actually; the crazy guy in Mayerthorpe managed to take out four RCMP officers, arguably some of the best trained police officers in the world. And all you cowboys think that you could do better against an insane gunman, eh?
I prefer to take my chances with a gun rather than without one. By the way, I am a deputy sheriff, not a cowboy.
Good advice. Whatever you do, don’t repeat this statement to them.
I would like to think so
And as a deputy sheriff you’re properly trained in regards to how, when, and where a firearm should be used. You’re trained to look for the warning signs, how to subdue an attacker, and you’ve got a structure of responsibility to back you up when an incident does occur. The comfort I’d feel sitting next to an armed you in a closed room is inversely proportional to the comfort I’d feel sitting next to any other Tom Dick or Sally packing a glock in her/his purse/boxers. No sir, you aren’t a cowboy, you are one of the brave souls dedicated to keeping us safe. The rest of us that feel we need to pack a deadly weapon for “protection” are indeed, cowboys.
I won’t rain on your parade by relating the minimal training and proficiency standards required by most Sheriff’s departments.
Stranger
shrug
I know you tried to restrain yourself,
you really did.
Did I miss a post in which someone was against researching early detection and intervention of asteroids? Sounds worthwhile to me, if only for the scientific and technological achievements.
What have you done lately?
Yes. A Ruger 45 automatic, not the Taj Mahal of guns, runs about $550 new these days.
That’s not the point. My point is, everyone has a certain risk of dying that they, personally, can do absolutely nothing about, and that you therefore probably shouldn’t worry about risks that are less likely than that. Thinking about probabilities like this is, IMO, a good antidote to media fear-mongering.
Currently, the risk of dying in an asteroid collision is a useful benchmark for that level of risk (and I like it as a benchmark, being an ex-astronomer). The specific risk that creates that level of risk isn’t really the point, though- it’s the fact that there’s nothing you can do to make yourself absolutely safe, and that you should take the probability of something bad happening into account when deciding what you should be doing to make yourself safer. It’s OK to do things that aren’t justified by the probability of various risks, but you should acknowledge to yourself that you’re just making yourself feel better, not actually reducing your risk of dying by a significant amount.
I do think that, as a society, we should be working on efforts to detect near-Earth asteroids, even though that would mean I’ll have to find a new benchmark for “things that are too unlikely to worry about”. But even if we did eliminate the threat of near-Earth asteroids entirely, there would still be risks that we couldn’t do anything about- life can’t be made entirely safe.
Mhendo: I did say generally. I’m honestly surprised that non-citizens can own/carry, but not terribly surprised that legal, permanent resident non-citizens are excepted, as opposed to temporary, non-resident non-citizens. In any case, the carrying on campus was illegal.
Catsix: The CC laws are rather nebulous, yes? Selective and malicious enforcement can certainly be at play.
Well, I read through this entire thread, naively thinking I would catch up on all of the recommendations for which gun the OP should purchase. Of course, most of the thread has been filled with debate.
Anyway…
My standard response is to tell people to purchase a Smith & Wesson 1911 in .45 Auto, but I realize that most people don’t have the physical bulk required to carry this concealed. The recoil is manageable, but is off-putting to most first-time shooters I have taught to use it.
I would NOT suggest going with a 9mm. I’m not claiming to be an expert, but I don’t believe that round is capable enough for a defensive role. The goal in using your gun in self-defense is to stop the threat, and you need a round that will do enough damage (read: blood loss) quickly enough to stop the threat. If the bad guy can keep fighting after hes been hit with 5 rounds, that isn’t good enough.
I would suggest something chambered in .40S&W. Maybe a Glock 22 (Or Glock 27 if you want greater concealability). Or a Sig P229 in .40 would also make a nice choice.
LOL
Why is that statement funny? 
It’s true, you did say generally.
A quick survey, however, suggests that generally may not even be correct. I looked at the licensing authority web sites of five randomly chosen, geographically diverse states, and in every case the only prohibition related to citizenship or residency was that the applicant should be a lawful resident of the United States. A couple of the states i checked even allow temporary non-resident citizens to carry—as long as they can show they are in the country legally—and bar only illegal aliens from owning firearms.
The states i looked at were:
Connecticut
Florida
Nevada
Indiana
Utah
I’m sure there are, in fact, jurisdictions where you have to be a full-fledged US citizen to buy and carry a gun, but it doesn’t seem to be the general rule.
Well, to be fair, the OP poisoned the well a bit at the beginning by offering his own diatribe about the necessity of having a gun, and about the politics of gun control.
If he had simply come in and said “I’m thinking of getting a handgun and a concealed carry permit. Please recommend a gun for me,” then i’m sure the debate might have been avoided. I’ve seen plenty of “suggest a gun” threads before that have not descended into debates over the merits of gun ownership.
See, that’s why I don’t recommend a specific gun but rather to test fire several. For me, 5’3" and with tiny hands (I wear a size 4 ring), a 9mm is perfect. I have to be able to hold onto the gun while I’m firing it, or it doesn’t do any good. My Glock 17 is perfect for the range/home. My husband has a Glock 27, usually chambered for .40S&W. It’s good, too, but slightly more powerful. When he puts in the .357Sig barrel, I just about can’t fire it and still hold onto the gun. When I get a carry weapon (eventually; it costs about $250 for just the class & license and then I’d still have to get a carry gun) I’ll get another 9mm. I want to look into the Kahr PM9 that pkbites recommended in another thread.
BTW, I’m going to point out to the OP that I’m in agreement with those who say that buying a gun during an emotional time is a bad idea. You don’t need the gun now. Spend time doing your researching and learning about them. Make it a purchase you put some serious thought into. (I spent close to six months myself).
The FN FiveSeven is chambered in a new round called the 5.7mm. The FN P90 also uses this little round. If you’re Police or Military, you can get a supersonic version of the round, otherwise, you’re stuck with a subsonic version.
A number of PDs use the 5.7mm, in part as a way to get people armed who can’t otherwise qualify with larger rounds.
The 5.7 was developed, in part, as a way to defeat modern body armor. It isn’t clear how the subsonic round performs, but this pistol might be a good choice for people who need a concealable weapon that can be easily controlled. And if it works out, perhaps others will chamber the new round.
If you want a nice concealable that has punch, go with a nice Sig, chambered in .357Sig. If they’d chamber a Sig in 5.7, that’d be interesting.