83 replies to this topic

[kurt555gs]

I take it vezpa doesn't like my Ruger Alaskan. I do. The .454's are for bear country, I agree. But it is very comfy to shoot Hornady FTX 225 GR shells which is what I load it with for home defense or .45 Long Colt 200 GR low power cowboy loads that I use at the range. With either .45 LC rounds in that big heavy gun I can shoot with both hands or one handed very comfortably. With the cowboy loads, it doesn't kick any more than a .22. In any case, and back to the thread I would like to explain that HB148's "partially concealed" and HB5745's open carry are important.

For the last 2 years I have been working in Texas about 1/2 the time. I obviously don't carry the Alaskan there because Texas is very strict about exposing your carry piece, or even "printing" through your clothing. You will be arrested if some one sees you are carrying even by mistake.

I have a Ruger LCR .38 and a "Pancake" holster that forms a flat, rounded surface obscuring the shape, and also a Kimber Super Carry Pro alloy frame 4" 1911 .45 with an IWB holster. It is a pain to make sure your over garment never gets blown by the wind exposing your gun. Or, bending over to pick up something at a convenience store and accidentally exposing it. Both Illinois bills address that possibility. I am allergic to the metal used in handcuffs, and do not want have that experience. Also, having to wear an over garment in Houston's 100 degree, 100% humidity is terrible.

When I was off in New Mexico, and Arizona, then I simply open carried along with just about everyone else I was working with. No big deal at all. There is a place for both open and concealed carry.

Hopefully we can keep HB5745 intact and I can carry my .45 or .38 concealed while I'm having coffee at Starbucks on Michigan Ave in Chicago, and carry the big Alaskan on a motorcycle trip out to the Palisades.

In either case, we need to address the possibility of temporary exposure and avoid the pitfalls of the Texas law. Both proposed Illinois bills thoughtfully do that.

Cheers.

[Thanks2mcdonald]

chip, on 15 March 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

vezpa, on 15 March 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

Last Year I fired a Ruger Super Redhawk Redhawk 2.5 inch barrel 454 Casull at Gat Guns that a guy in the next lane had brought.  The first time I heard him fire it the other people at the range and myself looked over in disbelief when we heard how f'ing loud that hand cannon was.  I have shot many .375s Magnums before and this was twice as loud and twice the gun that any of the .357s were. After emptying the cylinder the owner looked over he saw us all staring and asked us if we wanted to shoot it.  I said yea and put 1 round downrange.  I then sat the gun back down and will never touch a beast like that again.  Unless you are walking through bear country I just can't see a need for a gun like that, let alone one for CCW.  Good god was that thing a monster.  It wasn't even fun to shoot and I saw later that ammo costs a ton. I don't think that a semi-crowded indoor range is the place to shoot a monster like that because it literally made all the others shooters jump.  To each their own I guess, but I wonder what would happen if you needed to explain to LE why you needed a 454 Casull for CCW.  I know you can use whatever you want, I just think its not the wisest decision.

If a Ruger is your bag, you can get a nice little .357 to handle your CCW needs much better.  Gives you an excuse to buy another gun anyway.  

SP101

I think this is a dangerous road to go down. Deciding what handgun caliber is appropriate for CCW is very much like the crooks in Chicago asking why anyone would need a handgun for protection when they have a tongue depressor available. I know you're on our side, but this is the road that leads to "all you really need is a single shot .22". Just as each citizen is free to choose how much auto, fire, or life insurance they need....they should be free to choose whatever caliber handgun they feel is appropriate to defend their lives and their families lives. For one guy it might be a .22, for another a .50 magnum. I don't want to restrict any law abiding citizen from carrying what they feel is required. That said, I do advocate training and competency with whatever firearm is chosen. I really think there should be a requirement for holster proficiency. I've seen too many people have a negligent discharge trying to get a gun out of a holster....and I've seen videos of people shooting themselves while drawing from a holster. Ok, I'll stop here before I go too far off this thread. As for HB5745, I like that those with military, police, and training backgrounds don't have to jump through any extra hoops, but I think the minimum 4 hour requirement is a little too lax.

I agree on training and proficiency. The CFP course is something I would have taken even if I was not required to do so. Those or similar courses should not be knocked.  I'm not saying training should be mandatory but anyone who wants a gun may not be prepared to take on the responsibility of ownership or CC. Those who CC must make sure they know what all is required physically and mentally when something happens. If you grew up with guns and know them well -  great. But there are 2-3 generations of honest law abiding people who never used guns that suddenly have the right and interest to have a handgun.

On a side note - I think it's great that CC may come because gun laws are not stopping crime anywhere in northern illinois. Maybe things will change if simply there is the perception that a person can fight back with gun.

[oneshot]

lockman, on 15 March 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

There is no general tactical advantage to CC over OC.

I disagree.  If a BG sees a gun on your hip, they may just choose to pop you in the back of the head and take it.  It happens all the time in South Africa, many robbers there shoot unarmed victims and take their wallets off their bodies so as not to have to deal with the hassle of a live victim, kids have been shot for Air Jordan's in this country, I think they'd be more inclined to take a free gun!  Criminals aren't completely stupid, they do alter their tactics to the changing landscape that they deal with and we're not really in the business of giving their moral fiber the benefit of doubt here, are we?

[willxjcherokee]

oneshot, on 18 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

lockman, on 15 March 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

There is no general tactical advantage to CC over OC.

I disagree.  If a BG sees a gun on your hip, they may just choose to pop you in the back of the head and take it.  It happens all the time in South Africa, many robbers there shoot unarmed victims and take their wallets off their bodies so as not to have to deal with the hassle of a live victim, kids have been shot for Air Jordan's in this country, I think they'd be more inclined to take a free gun!  Criminals aren't completely stupid, they do alter their tactics to the changing landscape that they deal with and we're not really in the business of giving their moral fiber the benefit of doubt here, are we?

I agree, why tell the bad guys you are armed

[samy12386]

willxjcherokee, on 18 March 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

oneshot, on 18 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

lockman, on 15 March 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

There is no general tactical advantage to CC over OC.

I disagree.  If a BG sees a gun on your hip, they may just choose to pop you in the back of the head and take it.  It happens all the time in South Africa, many robbers there shoot unarmed victims and take their wallets off their bodies so as not to have to deal with the hassle of a live victim, kids have been shot for Air Jordan's in this country, I think they'd be more inclined to take a free gun!  Criminals aren't completely stupid, they do alter their tactics to the changing landscape that they deal with and we're not really in the business of giving their moral fiber the benefit of doubt here, are we?

I agree, why tell the bad guys you are armed

You are all entitled to your opinion, the FACT, however, is it should be a choice left up to an individual. When you use your opinions to make rules and laws you become just like the antis.

[kurt555gs]

+1 Sammy.

[GarandFan]

samy12386, on 18 March 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

You are all entitled to your opinion, ...

Indeed, but we are not each entitled to our own facts.

[lockman]

oneshot, on 18 March 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

lockman, on 15 March 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

There is no general tactical advantage to CC over OC.

I disagree. If a BG sees a gun on your hip, they may just choose to pop you in the back of the head and take it. It happens all the time in South Africa, many robbers there shoot unarmed victims and take their wallets off their bodies so as not to have to deal with the hassle of a live victim, kids have been shot for Air Jordan's in this country, I think they'd be more inclined to take a free gun! Criminals aren't completely stupid, they do alter their tactics to the changing landscape that they deal with and we're not really in the business of giving their moral fiber the benefit of doubt here, are we?

Under this scenario it would make no difference if the victim was OC or CC, they have been singled out for execution. My point was there is no 100% solution for "tactical advantage".

OC draw is quicker
OC provides a much higher deterrent from being attacked in the first place.

My other point was I will forgo any tactical advantage of CC for comfort if the alternative is I would not carry at all. Carrying at all is a big tactical advantage of not carrying at all. Today I spent a great day with the wife in Fontanna, Williams bay and Lake Geneva. I was OC'd and CC''d. Athough my CC was a Glock21 in a Serpa with an un-tucked T-shirt, not exactly deep cover. It sure was nice not doing the unload/reload shuffle getting in and out of the car. Thank-you Governor Walker.

[kurt555gs]

Both OC and CC are needed. There are times when either can be the best solution. I hope the powers that be negotiate away something else in HB5745 and leave OC intact.

* Carthago delenda est *

[oneshot]

samy12386, on 18 March 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

You are all entitled to your opinion, the FACT, however, is it should be a choice left up to an individual. When you use your opinions to make rules and laws you become just like the antis.

The point of contention was not whether it should be legal, the point of contention was whether it is advisable from a tactical standpoint.  Sure it should be legal, knock yourself out.  

Some people on here just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  

[xmikex]

oneshot, on 19 March 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Some people on here just want to argue for the sake of arguing.  

NO THEY DON'T!!!!!!!      



(kidding of course)

[kurt555gs]

Tactical, Schmactial. There us more chance of being hit by a meteor than being attacked while open carrying.

* Carthago delenda est *

[Uncle Harley]

C0untZer0, on 16 March 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

I'm sure we all have horror story examples of dumb people we've seen at the range.

There is the store clerk Bandar Abu-Karsh in Ohio who chases a robber out of his store and continues to chase him down the street firing at him (and missing)

The guy who claims his Ruger just went off in a Walmart bathroom - he needs firearms potty training.

The YouTube "Safety Check" drives me nuts.

I don't know if Nut N Fancy started this or who - or what.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always done my safety check by

1) Dropping the magazine

2) Locking the bolt or slide to the rear

3) Visually inspecting the chamber to ensure there is no round

On YouTube these guys with their Glocks... they rack the slide five or six times fast and declare it safe. They do it so fast - there's no way they can see into the chamber. They are betting the farm on the extractor working, and what it doesn't?

I think those YouTube safety checks are an acccident waiting to happen. They don't visually inspect the chamber. They go through this frenetic super-fast cycling of the slide, declare it safe and pull the trigger.

They all need training as far as I'm concerned.

Then you shoot yourself in the foot like I did with my  Ruger MKIII   had a bent case  the slide slipped out of my sweaty hangs and caught the edge of the partially edjected round.

[KingWalleye]

kurt555gs, on 19 March 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Tactical, Schmactial. There us more chance of being hit by a meteor than being attacked while open carrying.

* Carthago delenda est *

Agreed. The study by the Cato Institute showed the cases of an open carrier being disarmed and their weapon being used against them are extremely rare. In fact, the odds of taking away a bg's gun and using it against him is much more likely.

I want the option and I don't see any really strong arguments against open carry.

[colt-45]

boy talk about giving the antis what they want. OC verses CC. give then more ammo to use against us by giving facts and cases. lets just get a bill past and then argue the point. cause there reading the he!! out of this. IMO

[Bud]

colt-45, on 19 March 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

boy talk about giving the antis what they want. OC verses CC. give then more ammo to use against us by giving facts and cases. lets just get a bill past and then argue the point. cause there reading the he!! out of this. IMO

that +1

[oneshot]

kurt555gs, on 19 March 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Tactical, Schmactial. There us more chance of being hit by a meteor than being attacked while open carrying.

* Carthago delenda est *

Really?  If you say so, I won't be betting with my life.  You have to think from the perspective of someone who makes their living by preying on others, it takes a certain level of desperation to engage in the lifestyle as it is, it takes a certain level of nerve that I don't think most of in here have, they've already worn away many inhibitions of risk, they are driven by need, what is it that propels this to accost people?  Is it the electric bill that isn't paid?  The girlfriend; aka his sex life?  Is it drugs?  If it's drugs, all bets are off.

[oneshot]

KingWalleye, on 19 March 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

kurt555gs, on 19 March 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Tactical, Schmactial. There us more chance of being hit by a meteor than being attacked while open carrying.

* Carthago delenda est *

Agreed. The study by the Cato Institute showed the cases of an open carrier being disarmed and their weapon being used against them are extremely rare. In fact, the odds of taking away a bg's gun and using it against him is much more likely.

I want the option and I don't see any really strong arguments against open carry.

There's a difference between having your gun taken away used against you and simply being attacked, they're two different arguments.

And yes, this conversation has veered off topic, but is it not useful?  Do we not care about learning more about the practice of self defense and living in a world with predators?  We're the most gung ho group about it and yet we don't want to talk about what's smart on the street and what may not be?

Edited by oneshot, 20 March 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[Jeckler]

oneshot, on 20 March 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

KingWalleye, on 19 March 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

kurt555gs, on 19 March 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Tactical, Schmactial. There us more chance of being hit by a meteor than being attacked while open carrying.

* Carthago delenda est *

Agreed. The study by the Cato Institute showed the cases of an open carrier being disarmed and their weapon being used against them are extremely rare. In fact, the odds of taking away a bg's gun and using it against him is much more likely.

I want the option and I don't see any really strong arguments against open carry.

There's a difference between having your gun taken away used against you and simply being attacked, they're two different arguments.

And yes, this conversation has veered off topic, but is it not useful?  Do we not care about learning more about the practice of self defense and living in a world with predators?  We're the most gung ho group about it and yet we don't want to talk about what's smart on the street and what may not be?

I think talking about "what's smart on the street" is a very acceptable topic.  However, this thread is titled HB5745.  This thread was to discuss the pending legislation.  I suggest discussions regarding how to carry, what to do with bad guys, etc be moved to the Training category or to the Back Room.  It appears we have lost focus of the original topic.

[Federal Farmer]

Uncle Harley, on 19 March 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Then you shoot yourself in the foot like I did with my  Ruger MKIII   had a bent case  the slide slipped out of my sweaty hangs and caught the edge of the partially edjected round.

Ouch!  Hazard particular to rimfire...

[pitbull1022]

New to your forum. I think both bills may not be perfect. But here in Illinois we are not ever going to have anything that will be perfect to everyone. All the sights and people that have been in this fight for the long run have my thanks. I know not everone will agree with me. But it will take Baby Steps to get to where we need to be. I know its not easy and not evetyone agrees. I would love to see Constitutional Carry for not just Illinois but across our great nation. But it ain't happening any time soon. Keep up the good work. Get us what you can. AND THANKS.

[xmikex]

LOTS of cops (usually wearing body armor) get killed with their own openly-carried weapons.  
If you think there aren't cold-blooded murdering thugs out there that are not afraid of your openly-carried handgun, you should change your mindset.


FBI Releases Preliminary Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed in 2010

From the FBI 2010 report:

Quote

Of the 56 victim officers, 38 were wearing body armor at the times of their deaths. Sixteen of the victim officers fired their own weapons, and seven officers attempted to use their own weapons. Seven victim officers had their weapons stolen; seven officers were killed with their own weapons.

[drdoom]

I'd say it depends on the situation, if your going through a bad part of town, you decide which way is best.

[kurt555gs]

My reason for open carry is not tactical, it's comfort. I like heavy big bore revolvers.  There is just no way to conceal those. IWB? Ha! Three pounds plus? My pants would come down.