I carry a Ruger SP101 or an S&W airlight. I just adjust them to ride to the side of my junk and honestly, I never feel it. The only time I really notice it is when I’m in a meeting and I’d like to cross my legs or something. The holster typically slides out of the way without issue.
This reminds me of an article I read in Scientific American a few years back about risk assessment. The hypothetical in that case described Air Force fighter training over San Francisco, with the assumption that a downtown crash would occur one time in a billion, and presumably would cause $1 billion in damages, or some such numbers. By conventional math, this meant the “risk cost” of each flight was $1, which was slightly lower than the “aversion cost” of $1.05, i.e. the additional expense of conducting training away from the city.
However, the article went on to postulate, what if the view is that a chance of a downtown crash is entirely unacceptable, regardless of calculation? As far as I can tell, the conflict here is:
Person carrying gun: The odds of me needing my gun are small, but it is entirely unacceptable to risk a situation where I might need a gun and not have it.
Homeowner: The odds of there being an accidental gun-related injury in my house are small, but is still entirely unacceptable to risk it.
I don’t see how either position can be called inherently irrational, nor why either side is inherently “inane”, nor the value of any childish attempts by a proponent of one side to belittle the other. As a matter of simple courtesy, I defer to the homeowner’s rules while the gun-carrier is on the homeowner’s property, but only then.
Oh please, it’s not an “obsession” to simply ask someone to explain their position for saying “no, you can’t carry a gun in my house.” I fully recognize it’s your house and your rules and you’re free to make any rule about it, but to simply ask why you have a rule can, in no rational way, be classified as an “obsession.” I really don’t appreciate you trying to paint my simple requests for the reasoning behind a decision someone makes in a negative light and then trying to say I’m doing a “disservice to the rational gun owning community.” That’s just ridiculous.
You’re acting like the mere questioning of a policy is so incredibly taboo it’s an obsession to even ask about it. That makes no sense whatsoever. Do you think the same about any policy a homeowner makes? And it’s not like I’d even ask a host about the policy in the real world, but like I said before, to dodge the question and then get angry about it on a discussion board is the only thing that seem strange to me.
Nope, in fact I haven’t even carried in a long time (> a year). It depends on the situation. If I’m going to be walking downtown at night, I’d more likely carry than if I were just going up the street to the gas station to fill up (but given the neighborhood I live in and how many times I’ve been accosted by people aggressively wanting money at the gas station down the street, it’s probably not a bad idea to carry there too).
“Is that a gun in your underwear or are you just…” Meh, too predictable.
Oh, and trying to conceal a 1911 just seems really uncomfortable. There’s a reason they make small guns. 
From the OP. The Question is “Okay to ask guest to leave their guns at home?”
The answer to that question is simply “Yes”. To complain about this simple request is, to me, an obsession about your ability to carry a firearm in someone else’s private residence. And makes gun owners look bad.
BrandonYou are not just questioning this. You are pushing the subject. It seems to me that you would probably argue to be able to carry in a hosts home when they don’t want you to.
Their home. Two simple but important words.
Their home. Their rules. This should be simple, but some folks don’t seem to understand.
Those of us (myself included) that believe in castle doctrine need to also give the same respect and rights to those that would rather not have a firearm in their house. It’s that simple.
It’s not a complaint, it’s a request for clarification. How many times do I have to say I’m perfectly fine with you saying you don’t want guns in your home? But to say it’s off-limits to discuss the reasons behind this decision on a discussion board is nonsensical.
No I wouldn’t, and I’ve already said this. Repeatedly.*** Over and over again***. Discussing a hypothetical situation on an internet discussion board is a lot different than how one would respond in a real situation, in case you weren’t aware.
The claification is simple. I would rather not have a guest bring a firearm into my home. Unless, of course they are being chased by zombies. No other clarification is needed.
You want more clarification? OK… My neighbor is an ex-marine and sometimes carries when he walks his dog. No problem there we have bears about. I have carried myself. He, as a gentleman and reasonable person would never think to carry in my house. There is simply no need. It would be rude and unreasonable to do so.
If he did have a gun on him, I would expect him to let me know. That is just common courtesy.
There is no CC in this house. If you have a gun, I want to know about it.
Is that clear?
- I’ve been arguing down BrandonR at least as hard as you have.
- Hell no. Any shooting of an innocent is tragic, period.
- Yes. I believe I personally have a good idea of the risks inherent in my personal firearms ownership–one of the reasons I don’t even consider carrying right now is that, due to the incredibly low risks in my current city and locale, I’ve fallen out of practice with any number of things that I think are important if I were to safely carry a pistol for defensive purposes. Those skills, for the record, are:
- pistol marksmanship (hitting exactly what you’re aiming at every time, or not taking the shot if you’re not 100% sure of yourself.)
- tactical (i.e., stressed) decision-making (tested/trained on what’s called “tactical” courses, which involve moving, taking timed shots at targets in the midst of things that look similar to targets but are not, optionally under psychological stress from firecrackers, yelling, etc.–I personally consider it a 100% fail if I hit a single “civilian”-designated target or miss any shot I fire)
- safe carry practices (properly concealing the pistol from any and all prying eyes, having a safe holster that requires some knowledge to effectively remove the pistol, maintaining appropriate alertness knowing you have a weapon that can be taken from you if you are not paying attention)
deep breath
- I believe it’s incumbent upon the carrier of a firearm to safely carry said firearm. If I were getting noticeably drowsy with a firearm on my person, that’s the time to stand up, make an excuse to run out to the car, and transfer the gun to the safe you have in your car.
Frankly, I think you’re being a smidge disingenuous but only because the vast majority of firearms owners in this thread have disagreed with Brandon at length.
In a rational world, this would have ended the thread.
What, exactly, do the “majority of firearms owners” disagree with me about? I’ve already clearly said I agree with just about everyone else that yes, I would undoubtedly respect the homeowner’s request not to carry in their house. Period.
Much of the flak I’m getting is simply for asking for a clarification of why they made such a request. Certainly that’s not such an incredibly rude and taboo request (especially for a hypothetical situation) as that everyone goes nuts and starts shouting, “It’s my rights, my house, my RULES!!!”
I mean, really, it’s akin to religious people going off because you dare to question their belief. Sorry, but I’m just not in the camp that asking someone for a simple discussion about their intentions or reasoning is too far out there. Of course I’d never ask a real homeowner in real life because yes, it’s moderately rude to ask them about a rule they made for their own house. But this isn’t real life, this is a discussion about a hypothetical situation and if you get so offended about a request for me to understand your position, then perhaps you need to rethink the rationale behind such your decision.
OK then, to put it a different way, IF you were visiting the home of a religious person would you ask them for an explanation of why if there were to say grace of if they were to observe kosher rules?
'cus that would also be an arseholish thing to do…
It sure would be, if I were actually asking them that in person. However, on a discussion board in a thread about such a topic, I don’t think it’d be rude at all. The people of this particular message board should be very familiar with this.
Hmm… I don’t know a whole heck of a lot about either the stopping power or the accuracy of small handguns, so just a question or two if I may (quite genuine curiosity ok) …
- If I were concealed carrying a gun either in the small of my back or hidden with my junk, how long would it take to draw it, and what sort of warning (if any) would I need to “get it out” in time to be useful?
- For what sort of range would it be effective and accurate (I know, a lot of variables, but for the purposes of this discussion please assume a gun small enough to hide with my junk and range in metres please)
- In what percentage of situations do you you would have time to draw it, and use it effectively?
Now these are obviously loaded questions, but they would / do form a part of the “risk assessment” that I am doing when I ask you not to cc in my house, so answers are genuinely appreciated.
But then you’re perfectly willing willing to expect an explanation of why people don’t want a gun in their house?
For me, its quite simple, the risk posed by the gun, outweighs the benefit. Its an explanation that I would be quite willing to offer here on a message board, but I wouldn’t want to have a protracted conversation on the merits of this position in person. No time, no where no how.
As soon as I offer you an explanation of any sort it then allows you to start nit-picking my decision, with cites of this and that and the next about how safe you are and what training you have done and whatever else you want to bring up.
This risk assessment, I would admit, is largely a gut reaction based on what reading I have done, what personal experience I have and what I have seen, forgive me if I don’t want to reach the level of knowledge required to have an indepth debate with cites and references for a situation that I am likely to face, if ever, only once or twice in my lifetime.
Okay, so here’s two possiblities–a smallish 9mm automatic (for clarification: this means it loads and cocks automatically, one bullet per trigger pull) or a .38 Special snub-nose revolver. The automatic would be flatter and have a longer barrel, the .38 would be more reliable and less prone to mechanical failure.
For both, 1) I’d say 2-3 seconds from a front-carry next-to-the-junk holster. Try it yourself–yank your shirt-tail out with your non-dominant hand, reach in there with your shooting hand, grab an imaginary gun (or a water pistol) Without practice, you might be as high as 5-6 seconds. With decent practice at a range (by which I mean “2-3 times a week for a half-hour practicing draw and fire”), I can go from “concealed, safed” to “safety off and gun trained downrange” in just about 2 seconds. Right now I’m closer to 4.
-
.38 I’d say anywhere from 5 meters to 25 meters accuracy and 50-100m dangerous but inaccurate, depending on the barrel length. For a 9mm you’d be looking at 25-50m accuracy range and 100-200m dangerous range. The smaller the gun, the shorter the effective range (both in terms of accuracy and in terms of bullet energy (as the bullet accelerates as long as it and the propellant are confined to the barrel)). When I carry concealed, I use 9mm JHP to minimize the penetration of walls etc. to reduce the chance of mayhem–also note, in either case, these rounds will not penetrate through a human target with enough energy to kill someone else behind them.
-
That’s a very hard question. The way I prefer to address it with myself is that, if I’m surprised by someone coming for me specifically, I’m not going to be able to effectively engage a target that starts within about 5-7m of me (if they’re that distance or closer, they have a decent chance of getting a hand on me before I can safely aim and decide to fire.) Therefore, a concealed weapon (or an open carried one for that matter) is only truly useful when combined with an awareness of the situation you’re in and proper threat assessment. The odds change a lot when you’re not surprised or you have even a few seconds of warning. Realistically, too, for most defense situations inside a home, I’m going to have plenty of time to hear a disturbance that might merit gun usage (like an attempted home invasion, primarily) and get myself and others in the house into some kind of decently safe positions for me to engage the threat.
The other thing is this–if there’s not plenty of time to safely engage a threat (plenty of time, mind you, can be as little as 3-4 seconds if I’ve been keeping up my range practice), then I don’t draw and that’s that.
I’d say inside a home, better than 95% of situations where I’d need a gun I’d have more than enough time to use it effectively–primarily because the range of threats I’d choose to use a gun on inside a home is so narrow.
I don’t want to sound like a gun nut here, so let me also say this–the idea of speed drawing and making snap targeting decisions is a lot of fun for me, so it’s not like when I say I practice at the range or on a tac course that I’m getting all pumped up about learning the skills I need to stay safe all the time, I’m just enjoying fresh air, running and doing something that takes a lot of precision and skill to do well and rapidly. If tactical pistol shooting wasn’t enjoyable as a sport, I’d probably not have the motivation to be skilled enough to carry–and if firearms were banned, it’d be just as much fun with an air pistol firing plastic BBs at 150 feet-per-second, to be perfectly honest.
As far as I can see, of those motivated enough to speak up, none of us are taking your side on this one.
Here’s the thing: you don’t seem to want to accept other people’s assessments of risks as valid, even in the absence of statistics on either side. The fact of the matter is, you can say that a properly carried pistol is vanishingly non-dangerous, and the following three counterarguments (which have been made) are all both rational and have been pooh-poohed or not addressed by you:
- You have no statistics for what percentage of arms are properly carried vs. improperly carried (Blake’s arguments).
- You have no rational reason why a homeowner would want to learn how to determine if you were a safe carrier or not before allowing you into their home (my arguments–and might I add, there are at least two guys I’ll go to a range and shoot with who I will NOT let carry so much as a folding knife into my home, due to unsafe behavior with weapons in the past–and interestingly, they’re the only people who concealed-carry and go armed all the time that I know, too.)
- You haven’t even addressed the situation where the homeowner’s valuation of innocent life is so high that there is no possible benefit from allowing people to carry that will make it an acceptable risk from a cost/benefit standpoint. (Brian Ekers’ argument)
1 - If it is in back, just a few seconds or so. My back holster has a integral lock to prevent unauthorized folks from getting at it. That takes just a sec longer. The smart carry (junk holster) system allows me to draw very quickly, within a second or two.
2 - 10-15 yards is about the limits of my own accuracy. Both guns have integral lasers in the grips as the standard sights are lacking, to say the least. At the range, I can hit center of mass on targets out to 20-30 yards. The range and reality however, are two different venues. I carry a .38 special +P load in each carry gun. That is more than enough stopping power in my opinion. Similar loads were used by most US police forces for the better part of the 20th century.
3 - Unsure. I train a lot, for various reasons. I can draw and hit center of mass within 3 seconds at 10 feet. Most of the concealed carry classes follow themes of avoidance and deescalation, rather than the oft assumed lessons of going down in a blaze of glory.
Thanks JXJohns and Zeriel, the draw time and accuracy are actually both far better than I imagained. So some ignorance fought. What is also abundantly clear from your posts is that you are both serious enthusiasts, who are doing more than carrying just to feel safe.
In that instance, I may well be willing to invite you into my home with a / the weapon.
And yeah - if it was a breakin situation of course you have plenty of time to be prepared, what I was thinking more of was the situation on the street when you were suddenly confronted with someone wanting to do you harm. With a little situational awareness I would imagine you could extricate yourself from the situation long before you needed a gun. But meh, what do I know - I’ve never been mugged and I live in Singapore.
The street situation is interesting–because of the variables involved, it’s a lot harder to quantify. Frankly myself and an acquaintance have been mugged once each, separately, and in both cases we got away scot free through a bit of brazenness and unwillingness to be victimized (and no guns). It probably helps that neither of our assailants had firearms.
Hijack–his story is particularly interesting from the “self-defense” standpoint–he wasn’t paying attention to what he was doing and got himself isolated in an alley by three unarmed guys who demanded his wallet. His response was to get a key protruding from his fist and say something like “You might get my wallet, you might even beat me to death, but at least one of you is paying with an eye. Who feels lucky?” Now granted, you have to be a special kind of guy to be able to say that convincingly, but the point I’m making is that self-defense situations are almost never straightforward and generalizing about them is a fool’s errand. In the long run, the at most $20 in cash I’m carrying isn’t worth even considering drawing the gun in that situation.
Your last point makes the most sense to me. Not the first about being brazen.
All advice I have seen suggests that when mugged give the mugger what they want (your watch, your wallet, etc.). Resist if the mugger tries to move you to a more “private” area.
Back in the mists of time I took martial arts and was talking with my instructor about the unfortunate fate awaiting anyone who tried to mug him. He said if he were mugged he’d hand over his wallet. Sure, he could probably kick the guy’s ass but, his words, “You never know.” He may have a weapon, he may have a friend or three in the bushes, anyone can get lucky and so on. He said unless he happened to be carrying is life savings on him he deemed it far safer to hand over his wallet. Escalating the situation is generally not in your best interests.
As a side point, and my personal feeling, I cannot imagine shooting someone over the $30 in my wallet. Yeah I’d be pissed if I were mugged but I simply do not understand the willingness of people to shoot (and quite possibly kill) someone over such a thing.
Did you see my final point?
I’d ask for a cite that licensed individuals are actively shooting at folks to defend pocket change, but in return, I cannot provide a cite that they are not. One would assume that if this were actually happening, it would be easy to find.
I included the anecdote about my buddy just to prove that street violence is general is so wildly unpredictable that any one tactic may or may not work and that generalizing is hard.
Yeah, as **JXJohns **said, typically the wisdom on whether to use a concealed weapon (or even martial arts skills) is that it requires a very high risk threshold. I wouldn’t draw my gun over a wallet. Over a threat to my life or bodily integrity, or that of my wife, absolutely. Over a threat to the life or bodily integrity of bystanders, depends on the situation. Basically, I am not ever going to draw my gun unless I determine I have a better than 90% chance of wanting to use it, and I am not ever going to point my gun at anything unless there’s going to be a shot involved–one of the other things they teach you is how fast an assailant can close distance and take your gun in a melee if you hesitate, so you had damn well better be willing and ready to shoot if you draw. This makes the vast majority of us much more hesitant to draw.
One of the evaluations/demonstrations I’ve seen used to show off the “how close is too close” threshold–you stand with your gun holstered facing a target, a partner stands back to back with you. Upon a call of “go” you draw and fire as fast as you can while still hitting the 9-ring, while your partner takes off at a dead sprint and a judge on that side marks how far he gets before your bullet hits the target. When you take that shot and turn around and see your partner has made it 20-25 feet in the time it took you to go from “definitely shoot” to executing the shot, you get a much clearer appreciation for the limitations of the firearm as a defensive tool.