Gun Control: RTC VS non-RTC crime rates

[rockwerks]

All this debate recently has gotten me thinking about gun control and the Right To Carry a handgun.

The statistics are amazing to say the least Against any type of gun control dont own a gun at this point but Ali and I have decided to take a concealed weapon class and buy a couple of nine's

Gun Control: Examining the 2005 FBI Crime Statistics
By Howard Nemerov | November 17, 2006 - 10:30 ET




FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst.

Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states



England and Wales have the most stringent gun laws and the fastest increase of crime in the world

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.

Joyce Lee Malcolm | November 2002 Print Edition

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

The deeper I delve into the Gun Control controversy, the more I'm glad I live in a RTC state.

Id like to thank you guys for bringing this to my attention

[5-90]

Right to carry, and open carry.

I applaud your general decision, but I honestly think you should pick something better than any 9m/m, if you haven't already. The history of performance of the 9m/m Luger and it's various incarnations (.380ACP, 9x18, 9x19, 9x21, 9x23, 9m/m Makarov, et al) does not impress. Google <Martin Fackler> and you'll see - he was pretty much the authority on objective analysis of terminal ballistics. There are loads that the 9m/m can become useful with, but you can do so much better. Hell, even the .38 Special is better - and we passed over the .38 Special as being inferior (at the time) to the 9m/m Luger when the DoD type-accepted the .45ACP and M1911 pistol.

If you're after a wheelgun, or a dirt-simple sidearm, pick a smallish .357 Magnum. This will give you the option of using any .38 Special or .357 Magnum load at will. If you want an auto, the .40 S&W is markedly superior to the 9m/m - even with the JTC/FMJ "hardball" rounds. Although I do favour the .45ACP in the various 1911/1991 variants over all - unless I want something very heavy (at which point, I'll step up to the .44 Special/Magnum or larger.)

You can also check out sites like packing.org for information on travel with firearms (loaded or not, concealed or not,) as it's a good jumping-off point for research into the Armed American.

One thing I can't stress enough - before you decide to buy a sidearm for carry, find a range that rents various pistols, and spend a few days trying them out. I've long advocated rigorous training with a carry sidearm, but by trying them out before you actually buy one, you have a better idea of what's involved in handling various models and you can see what fits your hands and what fits your strength. When you're done shooting, see if the guy behind the counter will show you how to strip and clean it (most will) and that is a further element in your education. Not everyone needs to be able to strip their pistol blindfolded, hanging upside down, with their hands behind their back - but you should be able to do it almost automatically when you're looking at it. Again, revolvers are easier to clean - crane out the cylinder to get the chambers, brush out the barrel. You probably only have to strip and lube the lockwork every couple of years or so.

Feel free to ask if you have any other questions - there are plenty of us around here who have rather wide experience with firearms, and that's yet another tool you should make use of (especially since most gunners are ready and willing to teach the next generation :clap: )

[KRAKER]

google blackwolfccw.com I took my class with this guy. The classes are at his house and his prices are good.

[rockwerks]

google blackwolfccw.com I took my class with this guy. The classes are at his house and his prices are good.


A little far away for me to travel, but thanks! ITs funny, even if I didnt plan to carry a gun Im statistically safer because many of you do

[SCW]

I looked into much of this as well when I got my permit. Most notable was Floriduh where crime was like 150% the national average. After 5 years of Shall-issue laws on the books, in spite of what the limp-wristed tulips warned of, crime went to 74% the national average.

More important was the number of permit holders who commited a crime after receiving the permit, the exact number escapes me but IIRC it was 4 people out of 85,000. Pretty low odds, and a pretty good bunch of people.

[BruceB83]

Anybody want to start a pool on how long it will take for Stump to get in here and start calling people "gun freaks"???

[rockwerks]

Anybody want to start a pool on how long it will take for Stump to get in here and start calling people "gun freaks"???

Probably not too long, but its hard to avoid the facts. Countries that have armed citizens have lower crime rates.

I guess if owning a Jeep makes me a jeep freak then the gun will go hand in hand

53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. That is the line that got me thinnking

[OverlandXJ]

Anybody want to start a pool on how long it will take for Stump to get in here and start calling people "gun freaks"???


I'm going to ask this just once. Gun threads were not in mind when i asked for this forum to be created, but i have no problems with them if kept cordial.

As one of the MODS in this forum i will nuke any thread or post that crosses that line. Treat others as you would like to be treated and we wont have problems.

Thanks...

[BruceB83]

I'm going to ask this just once. Gun threads were not in mind when i asked for this forum to be created, but i have no problems with them if kept cordial.

As one of the MODS in this forum i will nuke any thread or post that crosses that line. Treat others as you would like to be treated and we wont have problems.

Thanks...

So which one is it...??? I'm not being an a$$...just asking. And I completely agree with you.....nuke it like we should have nuked the Middle East!!!

We already have a gun forum.

Its called The Adventure Forum.

Guns were one thing it was intended for. If the off-topic mods would do their job, they would move those threads there.

[OverlandXJ]

So which one is it...??? I'm not being an a$$...just asking. And I completely agree with you.....nuke it like we should have nuked the Middle East!!!

Like i said, it wasnt in my mind when i asked for this forum. There was a thread by Scrappy requesting feedback on the idea... some here requested guns be included within the perameters. Again, i have no problems with it... but i do ask we conduct ourselves as adults.


Now back to the original topic.

[rockwerks]

Like i said, it wasnt in my mind when i asked for this forum. There was a thread by Scrappy requesting feedback on the idea... some here requested guns be included within the perameters. Again, i have no problems with it... but i do ask we conduct ourselves as adults.


Now back to the original topic.

I dont see anyone not being an adult here, we tend to tease each other in every forum.

[Kejtar]

Right to carry, and open carry.

I applaud your general decision, but I honestly think you should pick something better than any 9m/m, if you haven't already. The history of performance of the 9m/m Luger and it's various incarnations (.380ACP, 9x18, 9x19, 9x21, 9x23, 9m/m Makarov, et al) does not impress.
x2 US military went to 9mm to standardize with NATO and there is talk about going back to .45ACP. Before anyone else jumps the gun and says: .45ACP isn't end all as one stop shot is a myth, I'll agree. Deal is that the .45ACP requires less rounds to stop then a 9mm. In a defensive situation that's what counts. Also there is a .40 (10mm short ;) or FBI handicap :D ) that's probalby at this point most commonly used by law enforcement. Yes it's important to have a gun you can control and conceal if needed but any of the calibers I've mentioned can be easily concealed and controlled should the proper firearm be chosen.


If you're after a wheelgun, or a dirt-simple sidearm, pick a smallish .357 Magnum. This will give you the option of using any .38 Special or .357 Magnum load at will. If you want an auto, the .40 S&W is markedly superior to the 9m/m - even with the JTC/FMJ "hardball" rounds. Although I do favour the .45ACP in the various 1911/1991 variants over all - unless I want something very heavy (at which point, I'll step up to the .44 Special/Magnum or larger.)
Looks like we're on the same page ;)

One thing I can't stress enough - before you decide to buy a sidearm for carry, find a range that rents various pistols, and spend a few days trying them out. I've long advocated rigorous training with a carry sidearm, but by trying them out before you actually buy one, you have a better idea of what's involved in handling various models and you can see what fits your hands and what fits your strength.
Group of us here in CA is helping a new shooter go through just that right now. Every so often one of us gets approached (either in passing casual conversation or someone refers a person) and since we hangout almost weekly at the range we bring enough armament to outfit a platoon and have them available to try out and discuss pros and cons of various firearms. Ask around: there's bound to be a group like that in your area. Also checkout www.defensivecarry.com .

[OverlandXJ]

Brian, look at the quote in my original reply. That is what i was responding to. I agree, thus far all conversation has been done in an adult manner... but we dont need to "invite" friction.

Teasing is one thing, blatant attacks as i'v seen in gun threads on the OT forum is another.

I'm a Vet, own guns, just want to see gun topics discussed in a civil manner. I dont think i'm asking for too much.

[rockwerks]

Brian, look at the quote in my original reply. That is what i was responding to. I agree, thus far all conversation has been done in an adult manner... but we dont need to "invite" friction.

Teasing is one thing, blatant attacks as i'v seen in gun threads on the OT forum is another.

I'm a Vet, own guns, just want to see gun topics discussed in a civil manner. I dont think i'm asking for too much.

civil manner.............now thats going too far! LOL, thanks John

[rockwerks]

My main objective is a side arm for Alice, that is easy to use and compact, and actually looking at a Makarov

we dont have any type of rental or shooting ranges here in Flagstaff area.

[Kejtar]

My main objective is a side arm for Alice, that is easy to use and compact, and actually looking at a Makarov

we dont have any type of rental or shooting ranges here in Flagstaff area.
Hmmm in that case call up whoever does instructing for CCW and ask them about where you can try out some firearms. They might have an intro to firearms class or something in the area where various firearms are available to be tried out. Heck, if you were closer to me I'd say we can meetup someplace half way and hit the range.

[BruceB83]

Brian, look at the quote in my original reply. That is what i was responding to. I agree, thus far all conversation has been done in an adult manner... but we dont need to "invite" friction.

Teasing is one thing, blatant attacks as i'v seen in gun threads on the OT forum is another.

I'm a Vet, own guns, just want to see gun topics discussed in a civil manner. I dont think i'm asking for too much.

Dude...I wasn't "inviting friction"...lol...believe me, you don't have to invite him, I think he does searches for topics with "gun" in the subject and then seeks the people out and verbally bashes them. It's inevitable that the Stump finds the thread...that's all I was saying because we just got through about a week of constant gun bashing by Stump and him calling everybody a gun freak.

On topic, there is a town in here in GA that requires citizens or heads of households (of certain types) to keep at least 1 firearm in their house. It's Kennesaw, GA. Search "Kennesaw gun laws" in google and you can read about it. The law exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. After the law was passed, the town saw a 89% decrease in residential burglary. Check it out, see what you guys think.

[Kejtar]

On topic, there is a town in here in GA that requires citizens or heads of households (of certain types) to keep at least 1 firearm in their house. It's Kennesaw, GA. Search "Kennesaw gun laws" in google and you can read about it. The law exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. After the law was passed, the town saw a 89% decrease in residential burglary. Check it out, see what you guys think.
Yup, I read about that. IIRC after first two shootings (right after the law was passed) resulting in death of the BG in the first one and severe injury in the second one the forced entry bulgraries nearly immediately stopped.

[RedHeep]

Don't forget that in shall issue states, while the statistics show that gun related crimes drop significantly, petty crime rates increase.

Criminals are criminals regardless. If they're afraid of using guns because a citizen might shoot them, they'll turn to burglaries and other crimes to make a living.

With that being said, I'm a CCW license holder and I encourage everyone to do it.

packing.org was taken down a year ago because the owner went back to law school.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/ is a good resource.

[5-90]

x2 US military went to 9mm to standardize with NATO and there is talk about going back to .45ACP. Before anyone else jumps the gun and says: .45ACP isn't end all as one stop shot is a myth, I'll agree. Deal is that the .45ACP requires less rounds to stop then a 9mm. In a defensive situation that's what counts. Also there is a .40 (10mm short ;) or FBI handicap :D ) that's probalby at this point most commonly used by law enforcement. Yes it's important to have a gun you can control and conceal if needed but any of the calibers I've mentioned can be easily concealed and controlled should the proper firearm be chosen.

I know - but "what is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right." Y'ask me, a military sidearm should chamber just about the largest round that can be handled easily - ammo gets heavy, but I'd rather shoot someone once or twice than six or eight times, if it comes to it.

I'm not a huge fan of the .223/5.56x45m/m round for military work, either. The original AR concept was in .30-06, then in .308 - and that would have been fine. But, it was watered down into the 5.56x45, and that's pretty much the 9m/m of rifle rounds, when used with NATO ball.

Speaking of which, I seem to recall that we're not "strictly limited" to FMJ ball ammo under the Geneva Convention and the Hague Accords (and, by extension, the Law of Land Warfare) - I may have to check into that again. Going to a soft allow or a hollowpoint for greater energy transfer makes the 9m/m border on useful - ditto the 5.56x45m/m.

But, we're still better off just using a bigger pill.

[Kejtar]

I know - but "what is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right." Y'ask me, a military sidearm should chamber just about the largest round that can be handled easily - ammo gets heavy, but I'd rather shoot someone once or twice than six or eight times, if it comes to it.
Yup. I know of someone who is a coroner. He said that depending on how many are in a body he can tell you without looking at the holes the caliber used. The more holes the smaller the caliber and the number of holes in relation to the change in caliber rises logarithmically.


I'm not a huge fan of the .223/5.56x45m/m round for military work, either. The original AR concept was in .30-06, then in .308 - and that would have been fine. But, it was watered down into the 5.56x45, and that's pretty much the 9m/m of rifle rounds, when used with NATO ball.
Oh yeah! I agree: 30-06 and .308 just rocks :)


Speaking of which, I seem to recall that we're not "strictly limited" to FMJ ball ammo under the Geneva Convention and the Hague Accords (and, by extension, the Law of Land Warfare) - I may have to check into that again. Going to a soft allow or a hollowpoint for greater energy transfer makes the 9m/m border on useful - ditto the 5.56x45m/m.

I don't think you're right here. I believe it's a fairly strict restriction.

But, we're still better off just using a bigger pill.
Grenades :D Btw, you think I"m joking? Had an interesting conversation with someone who's father passed away couple years ago. He retired from the army as a general. Anyways, as the story goes, when they were clearing out his house, they found a grenade tucked in underneath the bed. He was the old school cold war soldier: believed in always being prepared and having a gun and a grenade handy. Even after he retired :) Now that's what I call preparadness. He also left behind a really nice 1911 collection. He joined up for WWII and from the sounds of it had one from each campaign till he retired (and he served in Korea and Vietnam too).

[5-90]

Yup. I know of someone who is a coroner. He said that depending on how many are in a body he can tell you without looking at the holes the caliber used. The more holes the smaller the caliber and the number of holes in relation to the change in caliber rises logarithmically.


Oh yeah! I agree: 30-06 and .308 just rocks :)


I don't think you're right here. I believe it's a fairly strict restriction.

Grenades :D Btw, you think I"m joking? Had an interesting conversation with someone who's father passed away couple years ago. He retired from the army as a general. Anyways, as the story goes, when they were clearing out his house, they found a grenade tucked in underneath the bed. He was the old school cold war soldier: believed in always being prepared and having a gun and a grenade handy. Even after he retired :) Now that's what I call preparadness. He also left behind a really nice 1911 collection. He joined up for WWII and from the sounds of it had one from each campaign till he retired (and he served in Korea and Vietnam too).

Outstanding - a field general!

As I said, I wasn't sure if we were actually limited or not. I have to reread the Law of Land Warfare (at the very least. I should still have a copy...)

I just find it funny that back in 1910 or so, we decided that the 9m/m wasn't worth the .38 Special we were replacing at the time - and we accepted the .45ACP instead. Now, we're taking the 9m/m because everyone else is using it. Just because it's popular doesn't make it right - the 9m/m sucked when it came out, and it's not improved. How many variations on the 9m/m do we have? Now, look at the .40 and .45. We've got two .40 calibre rounds (the 10m/m and the .40 S&W) that actually fill different niches, and the .45 has only recently spawned the .45 GAP (which I'm not so sure is a good idea - but I don't know enough about it yet. Seems like an answer in search of a question, tho...)

Frankly, I'd rather have a .22 with CB caps than a 9m/m - but I'm funny that way (I can do more with the .22, and that pill has a habit of increasing trauma through tumbling. The 9m/m doesn't - it just drills holes.)

[rockwerks]

I believe I found a dealer in the state that can get me a CZ-52 for a song. any thoughts?

[98XJSport]

I figure one of the reasons for switching to 9mm was to reduce the number of dead and increase the number of injured. Not an uncommon tactic.

[Kejtar]

I believe I found a dealer in the state that can get me a CZ-52 for a song. any thoughts?
yikes, that's a bit of a small caliber. I really suggest going at the very least with a 9mm but preferrably with a .40 and .45.

CZ does make nice firearms. CZ 75 or CZ P01 woudl be my recomendation ;)

[RichP]

I just find it funny that back in 1910 or so, we decided that the 9m/m wasn't worth the .38 Special we were replacing at the time - and we accepted the .45ACP instead. Now, we're taking the 9m/m because everyone else is using it. Just because it's popular doesn't make it right - the 9m/m sucked when it came out, and it's not improved. How many variations on the 9m/m do we have? Now, look at the .40 and .45. We've got two .40 calibre rounds (the 10m/m and the .40 S&W) that actually fill different niches, and the .45 has only recently spawned the .45 GAP (which I'm not so sure is a good idea - but I don't know enough about it yet. Seems like an answer in search of a question, tho...)


The decision to go with the 9mm M9 was political, NATO, it was a compromise and standardization of ammo as all the other NATO members used 9mm as their standard sidearm. NATO adopted our .223 and .308 so this was a trade off to appease the other members. While it can be argued that sidearms do not play that big a part in land warfare when they do get used it's usually desperation point. I remember seeing south viets carrying M-14's and M-1's, we ran out of M1 carbines, it was a relief to them when we adopted the 16.
I was going thru a small arms instructor refresher course when the M9 stuff went down. I will say one thing though, qualification scores went up alot on the officer and NCO qualifications when the 1911 went away and the M9's arrived, they were less 'strenuous' for the novice shooters which was about 90% of the corps. Back in the 90's qualification was a 2x a year event for them, while the line grunts shot weekly the officers and NCO's did not.
There are alot of people know that now regret not having the .45 round in the inventory which is one of the reasons the SF people have gone back to them, you can silence a .45, you can't silence a 9mm without special ammo unless the silencer slows it down to subsonic speed. My take on it anyway.

[5-90]

The decision to go with the 9mm M9 was political, NATO, it was a compromise and standardization of ammo as all the other NATO members used 9mm as their standard sidearm. NATO adopted our .223 and .308 so this was a trade off to appease the other members. While it can be argued that sidearms do not play that big a part in land warfare when they do get used it's usually desperation point. I remember seeing south viets carrying M-14's and M-1's, we ran out of M1 carbines, it was a relief to them when we adopted the 16.
I was going thru a small arms instructor refresher course when the M9 stuff went down. I will say one thing though, qualification scores went up alot on the officer and NCO qualifications when the 1911 went away and the M9's arrived, they were less 'strenuous' for the novice shooters which was about 90% of the corps. Back in the 90's qualification was a 2x a year event for them, while the line grunts shot weekly the officers and NCO's did not.
There are alot of people know that now regret not having the .45 round in the inventory which is one of the reasons the SF people have gone back to them, you can silence a .45, you can't silence a 9mm without special ammo unless the silencer slows it down to subsonic speed. My take on it anyway.

The suppressor doesn't "slow down" the pill - you have to down-load it slightly to get below Mach (~1050-1100fps. Suppressed loads typically have a MV of 950-1000fps, just to give some room. Mach speed varies with temperature.)

Reason? For the unitiated, a firearm suppressor works similar to the muffler under your vehicle. It will disperse the gas pulse behind the bullet, but it can't do anything about the "sonic boom" - which is why the projectile needs to exit the muzzle at less than Mach 1.

Most pistol calibres (9m/m and up) can be loaded down to subsonic speeds without great difficulty - but it's easier to do with the .45ACP (since most commercial loads run in the transsonic range anyhow - 1000-120fps) and it's big enough to have useful energy at low speeds anyhow. Rifles can also be loaded down to subsonic speeds - there are some commercial .22LR rounds available that make a bit less noise than popcorn (without a suppressor!) and look up the "Whisper" series - notably the .300 Whisper and .50 (or .500?) Whisper. They're meant as short-range precision suppressed rifle rounds.

[RichP]

The suppressor doesn't "slow down" the pill - you have to down-load it slightly to get below Mach (~1050-1100fps. Suppressed loads typically have a MV of 950-1000fps, just to give some room. Mach speed varies with temperature.)

Reason? For the unitiated, a firearm suppressor works similar to the muffler under your vehicle. It will disperse the gas pulse behind the bullet, but it can't do anything about the "sonic boom" - which is why the projectile needs to exit the muzzle at less than Mach 1.

Most pistol calibres (9m/m and up) can be loaded down to subsonic speeds without great difficulty - but it's easier to do with the .45ACP (since most commercial loads run in the transsonic range anyhow - 1000-120fps) and it's big enough to have useful energy at low speeds anyhow. Rifles can also be loaded down to subsonic speeds - there are some commercial .22LR rounds available that make a bit less noise than popcorn (without a suppressor!) and look up the "Whisper" series - notably the .300 Whisper and .50 (or .500?) Whisper. They're meant as short-range precision suppressed rifle rounds.

Depends on the suppressor and whether it is part of the barrel or not. There are ones that will bleed off the gases and slow the round down, the trick is to get the action to cycle or not cycle depending on use. High Standard had one that fired 22LR, had to be manually cycled depending on the spring you used, it was the barrel. Another one was developed for the Bren10 that worked well, for 10 rounds anyway.

[5-90]

Depends on the suppressor and whether it is part of the barrel or not. There are ones that will bleed off the gases and slow the round down, the trick is to get the action to cycle or not cycle depending on use. High Standard had one that fired 22LR, had to be manually cycled depending on the spring you used, it was the barrel. Another one was developed for the Bren10 that worked well, for 10 rounds anyway.

Hm - I'd forgotten about those. Still, the best round to be suppressed would be loaded to subsonic MV anyhow - less work for the suppressor, so it lasts longer.

And, if you want to really suppress a firearm, you're better off keeping the breech closed anyhow. Not too many rounds will tolerate cycling and stay quiet (there's still the expulsion of gas from the open breech,) and a bolt-action rifle works great for suppressed rounds! That's why the DeLisle Bulldog carbine used the bolt-action Enfield action and a .45ACP cartridge. Damn, but that thing is quiet with issue ammo!

[rockwerks]

yikes, that's a bit of a small caliber. I really suggest going at the very least with a 9mm but preferrably with a .40 and .45.

CZ does make nice firearms. CZ 75 or CZ P01 woudl be my recomendation ;)

with the velocity of the smaller round it has nearly the same stopping power of a .40 SW and able to defeat class 2 body armour

[Kejtar]

with the velocity of the smaller round it has nearly the same stopping power of a .40 SW
ummm no.
and able to defeat class 2 body armour
Not too sure about that one either.

[rockwerks]

ummm no.

Not too sure about that one either. read it all in one of the online gun mags, and saw a video on U tube of the penetration, this round and the .223 where the need for nato to update their body armor

[Kejtar]

read it all in one of the online gun mags, and saw a video on U tube of the penetration, this round and the .223 where the need for nato to update their body armor
hmm so if that was the ned to upgrade armor then that means it was already upgraded?
There is a reason why no LE agency carries for example FN57 handguns. The high velocity in a small caliber means penetration but it does not pack the same punch. Also there is a problem.with how far will the round go after it passes though your intended target.
Also quite a few LE agencies have a requiremnt for their officers to carry at least a 9mm for their off duty firearms because of studies they have conducted as to caliber efficiency. There is an FBI doc out there someplace that covers the caliber to efficiency fratio.

[JohnX]

I have seen ballistic testing done which shows 9mm to have just as much or more muzzle energy than a .40. Only problem is, if the round goes through the intended target, most of that energy is not transferred. With a heavier round at a slower velocity, the round stops in the target and transfers 100% of available energy.

If you do intend to do battle with someone wearing body armor....I would suggest something slightly more powerful than the average Handgun round (and yes, then velocity matters)

[rockwerks]

I have seen ballistic testing done which shows 9mm to have just as much or more muzzle energy than a .40. Only problem is, if the round goes through the intended target, most of that energy is not transferred. With a heavier round at a slower velocity, the round stops in the target and transfers 100% of available energy.

If you do intend to do battle with someone wearing body armor....I would suggest something slightly more powerful than the average Handgun round (and yes, then velocity matters)


the round used in the CZ52 is actually a machine gun round, used in the bren and other machine guns

[Kejtar]

the round used in the CZ52 is actually a machine gun round, used in the bren and other machine guns
Yes.. but there you got something else going for you: multiple rounds impacting same target at a high rate of fire.

I think the rule of a thumb in a concealed carry community is that self defense calibers start with 4 or bigger numbers. 9mm is acceptable but not recommended.

[5-90]

Yes.. but there you got something else going for you: multiple rounds impacting same target at a high rate of fire.

I think the rule of a thumb in a concealed carry community is that self defense calibers start with 4 or bigger numbers. 9mm is acceptable but not recommended.

9m/m borders on acceptable, but it's got a history of overpenetration. That's its problem - it's got useful energy, but doesn't transfer it well.

A key element in "terminal ballistic effectiveness" isn't the energy that the projectile has, it's the energy that it transfers to the target. That's why larger rounds tend to be better for defensive use - because the larger pill transfers more of its energy.

The .40 S&W and .45ACP transfer more of their energy (as well as various incarnations of the .38 revolver - S&W Short, Special, .357 Magnum, .357 Maximum, ...) which is what makes them more useful from a defensive standpoint.

The 9m/m becomes closer to acceptable when used with a soft alloy hollowpoint, or something else that will expand to 1.75 calibres or better.

Think of it this way - if you were going to be punched by a rather large man; would you rather he hit you squarely? Or glanced off of you? The glancing blow transfers much less energy - so it won't affect you as much as the square hit will.

Same thing with ballistic performance - if the round overpenetrates and leaves the target, it did not transfer all of its energy (probably not even most of it...) and that means that most of it was wasted. If I'm going to shoot someone who intends me harm, I'd rather get his full and undivided attention immediately, rather than have to shoot him six or eight times. The .40, .45, and various .38s will usually serve that purpose neatly (the .38 Special may not have as much energy as the 9m/m, but you have a wider choice of usable bullet profiles - and I'd rather use a .38 Spl. LWC or SWC than a 9m/m round of any particular flavour, any day.)

[Capt. Nemo]

I think it's ironic that two of the most outspoken and seemingly knowledgeable people on this subject (Kejtar and 5-90) are from a state that makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a CCW permit. Not knocking anyone, just an observation...

More to the topic, it's great to talk about calibers and stopping power, but it doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit anything with it. In addition, access to your weapon at a moments notice is very important as well. How/where you carry might dictate the caliber because of the size of the gun and what you're comfortable with.

[JohnX]

the round used in the CZ52 is actually a machine gun round, used in the bren and other machine guns
My post wasn't directed towards that round specifically...just the fact that overpenetration (be it 9mm or otherwise) is not the optimal way to transfer available energy.

[Kejtar]

I think it's ironic that two of the most outspoken and seemingly knowledgeable people on this subject (Kejtar and 5-90) are from a state that makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a CCW permit. Not knocking anyone, just an observation...
I wouldn't be too sure about that if I was you ;)

More to the topic, it's great to talk about calibers and stopping power, but it doesn't mean a thing if you can't hit anything with it. In addition, access to your weapon at a moments notice is very important as well. How/where you carry might dictate the caliber because of the size of the gun and what you're comfortable with.
Agreed. That's why couple times the recommendation was to try different guns before choosing one from the web or buying one just for the sake of a great price ;)

[Capt. Nemo]

I wouldn't be too sure about that if I was you ;)

The knowledgeable part, or the CCW part...





I'm sure about the CCW part :)

[5-90]

I think it's ironic that two of the most outspoken and seemingly knowledgeable people on this subject (Kejtar and 5-90) are from a state that makes it nearly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a CCW permit. Not knocking anyone, just an observation...

Heh. As I've said so often, I'm not "from" California - being a Californian is a temporary inconvenience. I'm a transplant - and I don't identify myself as a California, so much as a "displaced and expatriated American."

You are probably more conscious of your "rights" when they're taken away from you (after all, if they're truly rights, can they be taken away? It's more like a "privilege" than a "right" anymore...) Goes with "You don't know what you've got until it's gone." I'm mildly surprised that some yoyo in Sacramento hasn't decided to try to ban knives again - some years back, they wanted to ban all knives with a blade over two inches long. Yes, including steak knives, table knives, butter knives, ... Dumb.

[Kejtar]

I'm sure. Nearly impossible.
OK, here's the deal: it all depends on the county you're in. Each county has different requirements. Almost all rural counties it's not a problem to obtain a CCW. From ones containing major cities, SF forget it, LA forget it unless you're famouse or stinking rich, SD forget it unless you own a big business that has a fair amount of cash flow and you do deposits, OC if you got a good cause not an issue.

To list some other counties in CA: SB not that big of a problem, Ventura: hard to say, El Dorado not too hard, Lassen: doable, Modoc: not a problem, Kern IIRC doable, Placer doable.

I dont know stats and rules for all, but quite a few issue. State does not revolve around SD, LA and SF as those residents would like to think :D


For more info on CCW in CA checkout www.calccw.com

[KRAKER]

In AZ. If you can buy a gun... why don't you have a CCW.

[Capt. Nemo]

OK, here's the deal: it all depends on the county you're in. Each county has different requirements. Almost all rural counties it's not a problem to obtain a CCW. From ones containing major cities, SF forget it, LA forget it unless you're famouse or stinking rich, SD forget it unless you own a big business that has a fair amount of cash flow and you do deposits, OC if you got a good cause not an issue.

To list some other counties in CA: SB not that big of a problem, Ventura: hard to say, El Dorado not too hard, Lassen: doable, Modoc: not a problem, Kern IIRC doable, Placer doable.

I dont know stats and rules for all, but quite a few issue. State does not revolve around SD, LA and SF as those residents would like to think :D


For more info on CCW in CA checkout www.calccw.com

I'm familiar with the CCW bs here in CA. Most of it has to do with the Sheriff of the county, the population of the county (which goes along with what you said), and the reasoning for your NEED to carry. Giving the reason that you have the right to carry is not good enough for a permit in most instances.

[rockwerks]

I have been reading about transfer and the Mak 9x18 rounds in JHP that are projecting the pill at only around 900 to 1000 fps with shallow penetration of around 4" to 6" @ 98 grains

[JohnX]

I have been reading about transfer and the Mak 9x18 rounds in JHP that are projecting the pill at only around 900 to 1000 fps with shallow penetration of around 4" to 6" @ 98 grains
Do tell...whats the muzzle energy on a 98 grain round travelling 1000fps?

[5-90]

Do tell...whats the muzzle energy on a 98 grain round travelling 1000fps?

KE = (M*V*V)/450240; where -
M = Projectile mass (grains)
V = Projectile speed (fps)
KE = Kinetic Energy (foot-pounds)

[Kejtar]

9mm makarov

95 JHP 1000fps 930fps @ 50 yards 211muzzle energey 182@ 50 yards ME

9mm luger
147 JHP 990fps 941fps @ 50rds 320ME 289 @ 50 yards ME

.40
180 JHP 930fps 889fps @ 50 yards 346ME 316@ 50 yards ME

45ACP
230 JHP+P 950fps 904fps @ 50 yards 462ME 418@ 50 yards ME

This is a quick rundown of the cartridges and the 9mm makarov is very weak when it comes to the muzzle energy. Also the ME energy loss @ 50 yards in the 9mm Makarov seems to be about 13% while all the other calibers have it under 10%. Granted you dont shoot defensively @ 50 yards, but it is a good distance to get a feel for the round.

[Stumpalump]

Is Makarov higher than .380?

[Kejtar]

Is Makarov higher than .380?
it's very close: depending on which cartridge you choose they flip flop on balistics performance.

Thing is that while .380 ACP is not the best performing cartridge out of the bunch it does offer in the proper frame the size and concealability that the 9mm Makarov can't.

Looking at smaller cartridges:
.32Auto
71 JHP 905fps 855fps @ 50 yards 129ME 115ME @ 50 yards

.25Auto
45 JHP 815fps 729fps@ 50 yards 66ME 53ME@ 50 yards

.22 LR HV
30 HP 1575fps 1294fps@ 100 yards 185ME 112 ME @ 100 yards

The above cartridges IMHO you can get lucky with, but they don't really carry much of a punch. Short of damage to a vital nerve area, they most likely will not get noticed till after.

[5-90]

Is Makarov higher than .380?

The 9m/m Makarov is probably the smallest of the common 9m/m rounds at 9x17. The .380ACP is about 9x18m/m, then the common version (Luger/Parabellum) at 9x19. The larger iterations (9x20, 9x21, and 9x23, I think) were mainly developed for competition - trying to "make Major" using a midget round. (Look up the rules for IPSC calibre categories to know more.)

The 9m/m Makarov is also pretty much only available in the ComBloc surplus Makarov pistol, while you have more options with the .380ACP (I had a Colt Mustang that wasn't too bad - phonied up a "wallet holster" to carry the thing in my pocket, and practised drawing with my thumb over the hammer so it wouldn't snag on the way out - and I could "rack" (damn censor...) it once I cleared my pocket.) You can still do better than the .380, but you can do worse.

I've also not seen much selection in the way of Makarov ammo (just about all of that is ComBloc surplus or Wolf as well,) but you have options with the .380. There may be more Mak options out there - I've not kept track.

And yes, the Mak has a smaller pill and less energy, but you are likely to transfer more energy into the target if you hit - and that's what defensive handgunning is all about. That's why I don't like the 9x19 - overpenetration means less energy transferred, which means you didn't hit your target as hard as you should have. That's why you have to shoot someone several times with a 9m/m - where my second shot with the .45 is more pro forma than anything else ("If it's worth shooting, it's worth shooting twice.") A good double-tap should land about an inch and a half to two inches apart at 10 yards - you don't want to put the second round down the same hole, or why are you sending it?

[rockwerks]

The 9m/m Makarov is probably the smallest of the common 9m/m rounds at 9x17. The .380ACP is about 9x18m/m, then the common version (Luger/Parabellum) at 9x19. The larger iterations (9x20, 9x21, and 9x23, I think) were mainly developed for competition - trying to "make Major" using a midget round. (Look up the rules for IPSC calibre categories to know more.)

The 9m/m Makarov is also pretty much only available in the ComBloc surplus Makarov pistol, while you have more options with the .380ACP (I had a Colt Mustang that wasn't too bad - phonied up a "wallet holster" to carry the thing in my pocket, and practised drawing with my thumb over the hammer so it wouldn't snag on the way out - and I could "rack" (damn censor...) it once I cleared my pocket.) You can still do better than the .380, but you can do worse.

I've also not seen much selection in the way of Makarov ammo (just about all of that is ComBloc surplus or Wolf as well,) but you have options with the .380. There may be more Mak options out there - I've not kept track.

And yes, the Mak has a smaller pill and less energy, but you are likely to transfer more energy into the target if you hit - and that's what defensive handgunning is all about. That's why I don't like the 9x19 - overpenetration means less energy transferred, which means you didn't hit your target as hard as you should have. That's why you have to shoot someone several times with a 9m/m - where my second shot with the .45 is more pro forma than anything else ("If it's worth shooting, it's worth shooting twice.") A good double-tap should land about an inch and a half to two inches apart at 10 yards - you don't want to put the second round down the same hole, or why are you sending it?

all the maks are 9x18

[Kejtar]

all the maks are 9x18
Well, they are still underpowered ;)

[rockwerks]

Well, they are still underpowered ;)
LOL

[5-90]

all the maks are 9x18

I know - I was talking about the 9m/m auto pistol family in general. As I recall, they work out to 9x17 (.380ACP,) 9x18 (Makarov,) 9x19 (Luger,) 9x20, 9x21, & 9x23 (the last three are competition rounds.)

[rockwerks]

9mm makarov

95 JHP 1000fps 930fps @ 50 yards 211muzzle energey 182@ 50 yards ME

9mm luger
147 JHP 990fps 941fps @ 50rds 320ME 289 @ 50 yards ME

.40
180 JHP 930fps 889fps @ 50 yards 346ME 316@ 50 yards ME

45ACP
230 JHP+P 950fps 904fps @ 50 yards 462ME 418@ 50 yards ME

This is a quick rundown of the cartridges and the 9mm makarov is very weak when it comes to the muzzle energy. Also the ME energy loss @ 50 yards in the 9mm Makarov seems to be about 13% while all the other calibers have it under 10%. Granted you dont shoot defensively @ 50 yards, but it is a good distance to get a feel for the round.

there are several new rounds out there that are in the 280ME range these days and a few more expected in the near future.


http://alandp0.tripod.com/9x18/

[Kejtar]

there are several new rounds out there that are in the 280ME range these days and a few more expected in the near future.


http://alandp0.tripod.com/9x18/
OK, they're probably playing with the pressures then. Anyways, you'll do at the very end what you want to do but keep in mind that that is not a recommended SD caliber.

[JoesXJ]

To list some other counties in CA: SB not that big of a problem, Ventura: hard to say, El Dorado not too hard, Lassen: doable, Modoc: not a problem, Kern IIRC doable, Placer doable.

As far as counties that will issue, you can add Fresno and Madera to that list also. ;)

[Capt. Nemo]

As far as counties that will issue, you can add Fresno and Madera to that list also. ;)

I'll believe it when I see it... :soapbox:

[JoesXJ]

I can assure you that Madera County will issue a ccw, got mine last June.

[rockwerks]

For a CCW in AZ I need a one day 40.00 class. 60.00 to ATF and a gun would also help

[thebluebuffalo]

i carry every where i go. sig p220, sig p245, s&w .38 special, or karh mk9 depending on what i'm wearing and where i'm going. on road trips i keep an ar pistol in the trunk.

[rockwerks]

just found thiload graph for the maks. all the available rounds and custom loads

http://www.victorinc.com/9x18mm.html

[Kejtar]

just found thiload graph for the maks. all the available rounds and custom loads

http://www.victorinc.com/9x18mm.html
OK, that's all and good but let me ask you the following question:
1. Are you planning to reload?
2. If so are you going to trust your reloads for SD purposes?
3. If you are going to buy custom loads did you look into how much it's going to cost you? To stay proficient with a firearm you have to practice which means you have to shoot which means you have to have ammo.

.45 is .45. 10mm was a solution to a non existant problem. .40 was a result of a lawsuit causef by a weak armed cadet @ FBI and 10mm. Everything else is .45 set on stun.

[rockwerks]

OK, that's all and good but let me ask you the following question:
1. Are you planning to reload?
2. If so are you going to trust your reloads for SD purposes?
3. If you are going to buy custom loads did you look into how much it's going to cost you? To stay proficient with a firearm you have to practice which means you have to shoot which means you have to have ammo.

.45 is .45. 10mm was a solution to a non existant problem. .40 was a result of a lawsuit causef by a weak armed cadet @ FBI and 10mm. Everything else is .45 set on stun.

yes planning on reloading, My dad taught me many, many years ago, and Id trust any reload as well as Id trust any store bought. That all being said I can buy 1000 rounds of JHP in Mak for under 160.00, for that I can practice alot. How much is cheap .45?

[5-90]

OK, that's all and good but let me ask you the following question:
1. Are you planning to reload?
2. If so are you going to trust your reloads for SD purposes?
3. If you are going to buy custom loads did you look into how much it's going to cost you? To stay proficient with a firearm you have to practice which means you have to shoot which means you have to have ammo.

.45 is .45. 10mm was a solution to a non existant problem. .40 was a result of a lawsuit causef by a weak armed cadet @ FBI and 10mm. Everything else is .45 set on stun.

".45 set on stun" - I like that.

However, let me say that it is not RPT not recommended to handload for self-defense! The argument can (and has!) been made that you've loaded rounds to cause more potential for wounding than factory ammo.

If you want to find a "less lethal" option, get a 12 gage and find LL ammo. Or, get a stick or a baseball bat.

Using handloads for practise isn't a bad idea - or for competition, or for hunting. However, no matter how meticulously you follow a formula for a handload, and no matter what you design the round to do, the opposition's lawyer (I'll damn near guarantee that you're going to have trouble...) is going to argue that you've tried to design the round to be even more malicious than factory ammo, and odds are even or better that the judge will listen to that nonsense - especially if it's a civil trial.

Stick to factory loads for self-defense.

[rockwerks]

".45 set on stun" - I like that.

However, let me say that it is not RPT not recommended to handload for self-defense! The argument can (and has!) been made that you've loaded rounds to cause more potential for wounding than factory ammo.

If you want to find a "less lethal" option, get a 12 gage and find LL ammo. Or, get a stick or a baseball bat.

Using handloads for practise isn't a bad idea - or for competition, or for hunting. However, no matter how meticulously you follow a formula for a handload, and no matter what you design the round to do, the opposition's lawyer (I'll damn near guarantee that you're going to have trouble...) is going to argue that you've tried to design the round to be even more malicious than factory ammo, and odds are even or better that the judge will listen to that nonsense - especially if it's a civil trial.

Stick to factory loads for self-defense.

Im sure I would, but the question remains you much for 1000 rounds of .45

[goodburbon]

the opposition's lawyer (I'll damn near guarantee that you're going to have trouble...) is going to argue that you've tried to design the round to be even more malicious than factory ammo, and odds are even or better that the judge will listen to that nonsense - especially if it's a civil trial.



I'm a bit confused on this one "more malicious"? You're shooting the sonofabitch, not cutting his hair. Its a defense situation, the #1 goal is to get out alive. "Neutralize the threat" is the name of the game, not "neutralize threat while inflicting as little harm as possible".

[Kejtar]

Im sure I would, but the question remains you much for 1000 rounds of .45
I admit it: more. IIRC it's ~$230 for a 1000 rounds.

[Kejtar]

".45 set on stun" - I like that.

Haven't heard that before? I wish I could take credit for it, but unfortunately I can't.

However, let me say that it is not RPT not recommended to handload for self-defense! The argument can (and has!) been made that you've loaded rounds to cause more potential for wounding than factory ammo.
...............
Using handloads for practise isn't a bad idea - or for competition, or for hunting. However, no matter how meticulously you follow a formula for a handload, and no matter what you design the round to do, the opposition's lawyer (I'll damn near guarantee that you're going to have trouble...) is going to argue that you've tried to design the round to be even more malicious than factory ammo, and odds are even or better that the judge will listen to that nonsense - especially if it's a civil trial.


YUP. At the very end you sadly have to consider courts. You might live in a state where rules are better but what happens if you travel?

[buschwhaked]

x2 US military went to 9mm to standardize with NATO and there is talk about going back to .45ACP.

I might be wrong on this, but the reason NATO went with the smaller rounds (9mm/5.56mm) is because of it's ability to wound vs. kill. The theory is, in a conventional conflict (i.e-fighting Cold War Russia in a non-nuclear conflict), wounding an enemy soldier actually removes more soldiers from the battlefield than killing him. If a soldier is killed, his body can be left in place and recovered after the battle.

The Russians, just like the Americans (though not to as serious of a degree) will not leave a wounded soldier on the battlefield to die. Therefore, men must be removed from the fight in order to move the wounded to the rear for treatment. If a soldier is completely incapcitated it will take at least two soldiers to carry him any significant distance. So this, in effect (although termporarily) doubles or triples the amount of combat power lost.

I believe in the right to carry, but probably not to the degree that others posting on this forum are. But keep in mind that most of the non-RTC states have a higher population concentration which has a significant impact on crime rates. The worlds population doubles every 43 years, and this is a real problem for places like the UK because they're a frikin island.

To point out these statistics as proof that the RTC results in a reduction of violent crime fails to look at the whole picture.

[HotwiredXJ]

I might be wrong on this, but the reason NATO went with the smaller rounds (9mm/5.56mm) is because of it's ability to wound vs. kill. The theory is, in a conventional conflict (i.e-fighting Cold War Russia in a non-nuclear conflict), wounding an enemy soldier actually removes more soldiers from the battlefield than killing him. If a soldier is killed, his body can be left in place and recovered after the battle.

To point out these statistics as proof that the RTC results in a reduction of violent crime fails to look at the whole picture.

I am not sure if that is speculation or not. The 5.56 was designed to tear a gash in the torso upon entry, tumble along and take out as many organs as it can. It doesn't do it very well, in fact, it just sorta leaves a little .22 hole, but that was the purpose. The Russians designed an AK to fire a very simular round, this was during Vietnam war, it wasn't as effective as the 7.62x39, but if it worked for US, then it would work for them(at least that is what they thought)
The reason the US switch to the m-16 from the M-14 was political/good old boy deal making. The M-14 was and is still a better rifle, and the 7.62x51 is more powerful, and more deadly then the 5.56. The current M-4, however is a much better urban combat rifle due to it's size(smaller for close quarter combat) then the m-16 or the m-14.

I don't think that any country employees the maim rather then kill policy. I carry, and I can tell you that if my life is in immediate danger, I will not miss, I will not hesitate, and I sure as hell will not maim.

[Capt. Nemo]

I can assure you that Madera County will issue a ccw, got mine last June.

That's great. Really. But it goes along with what we've been saying - California CCW's are really only issued (IF issued at all) in counties where the population is very little. Madera County has a population of approximately 150,000, or roughly the population of a 1/4 mile radius of my house. The chances of you actually needing to use your weapon are slim to none (I know, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it...) - and the state knows that.

[Kejtar]

That's great. Really. But it goes along with what we've been saying - California CCW's are really only issued (IF issued at all) in counties where the population is very little.
Explain Orange County then? San Bernardino? Riverside?
I know, better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
AMEN
and the state knows that.
Well.. the state is not shall issue for other reasons... they don't care about common joe. Pelosi is anti CCW and anti gun (Ok I know I"m oversimplifying but for the sake of discussion it's close enough) and yet she carries.... explain that one to me.

[5-90]

I'm a bit confused on this one "more malicious"? You're shooting the sonofabitch, not cutting his hair. Its a defense situation, the #1 goal is to get out alive. "Neutralize the threat" is the name of the game, not "neutralize threat while inflicting as little harm as possible".

It's a product of the same mentality that now requires "CAUTION: Contents are Extremely Hot!" on coffee cups. I'm not arguing with you - if I'm going to shoot some silly bastid, I'm fully planning on shooting him dead and putting an extra in the brainpan as I go by to make sure he doesn't "come back to life" on me.

I don't fire warning shots - "I have a gun pointed at you" is a warning. If I'm going to shoot you, I'm going to do my level damndest to kill you outright.

I don't see the problem. I also placed well in Applied Logic. Apparently, lawyers have not - and I think that's most of the issue. However, it has happened before (because of some ultraliberal lawyers,) and it's likely to happen again.

[Capt. Nemo]

Explain Orange County then? San Bernardino? Riverside

I'm not saying they don't issue at all, but that it's near impossible to get them in the more populous counties. I'm sure they're not just handing them out down there.

At any rate, I think we'd all agree that California is ridiculous when it comes to anything gun related.

[CharlesS]

Speaking as a resident of San Diego, CA; it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to acquire a CCW.... Even the people that carry large sums of money.... have problems acquiring one...
Generally the easiest way to acquire a CCW is to KNOW SOMEONE otherwise you stand a better chance of getting hit by a bolt of lightning....!!!
Recently visited Texas and Florida....; while there I investigated what was required to acquire a CCW. Both states seem to have the same requirements....; valid DL, local residential address, no criminal record and a Handgun Safety Course is preferred.
You can either have a loaded gun on your person; carried out of sight (ie. under jacket, sweater or shirt) or in the glove compartment or rear window gun rack.
California has entirely too many conservative liberals.... IE. Boxer and Feinstein.

THE FLACK JACKET IS ON !!! :D

[Kejtar]

Yup... you're right SD is not easy at the moment. But I believe you're up gor a change in the Sheriff's Department which might have some effect on the issue.

[HotwiredXJ]

I agree with you, if you think it is bad now!!! Wait until this election is over. If you don't already have a CCW or a Carry Permit(grin) and own a firearm, you may as well go buy a sling shot, cause you ain't getting one.

[CharlesS]

Have to agree on that.... Very doubtful the Handgun Control issue will get any better in the near future... With the way things are going... I can only see it getting worse..... :patriot:

[thebluebuffalo]

Have to agree on that.... Very doubtful the Handgun Control issue will get any better in the near future... With the way things are going... I can only see it getting worse..... :patriot:

you can say that again. you better get your permits and guns now. you may have to wait four to eight years before getting that right back........

[buschwhaked]

Does being ex-military/current military effect your ability to acquire a CCW? Just curious, thinking about getting one myself here soon. I live in Colorado, so I know it's definitly going to be easier than Cali, but my residence could change relatively soon (w/in a year) so I was more curious about the nationwide attitude towards vets getting CCW's.

[HotwiredXJ]

Not really, you can score some points with the instructor at the handgun saftey class. But unfortunatly, you have to stand in the same line as Civi's.