Hand gun ownership in the U.S.

[carebear]

A thing to keep in mind is that handgun (in fact all firearm) carry is prohibited in all National Parks regardless of the state laws in which they are located. National Forests are OK, it's just the Parks.

There is a bill moving in Congress to correct this and make carry match the relevant State's laws. Currently the NPS is rejecting carry in contradiction of the DOI (their boss) who is willing to consider the issue.

Due to this Park Service ruling, much of, say, the Appalachian Trail is actually a "gun-free zone". At least for law-abiding citizens. Given the proximity to "civilization" of many Nat'l. Parks there is, of course, nothing to keep the criminal element from doing their recreating there as well.

For a good examination of how to be better aware of your personal safety in the wilderness (mindset, not weapons) I recommend the now out-of-print book "Trailsafe: Averting Threatening Human Behavor in the Outdoors" by Michael Bane.

It's still available for online purchase used through the usual outlets. I'm currently badgering him to get the updated edition released, he's a bit of a technophile so he's looking at some kind of computer file thing.

 

[Undertow]

Undertow what do you think of the quality of the Taurus? I was looking at them.

-Viola

Personally...buying a Taurus is like buying a wool felt hat. They're just fine and do the job like they're supposed to.

However, like a wool felt, you and anyone else that knows guns will see that it's not a good choice in the long run. Taurus is cheap, sometimes a bit shoddy. I've fired a 24/7 9mm, .357, .454 Casull and a .45 revolver. Not one single Taurus, in my opinion, shot better than a Smith. Not one looked better than a Smith. Not one felt as tight and seamless as a Smith. In fact, each one of them had a problem characteristic to their model.

The 9mm's trigger pull was squishy and took too long. The .357's cylindar release thumb button becomes loose from vibration and you can't tighten it. the .454 Casull was the best of them all and didn't have any noticeable problems. The .45 seemed a little light and loose. It fired fine, but when I fired the heavier Smith, I was more pleased.

And Taurus has a matte finish compared to the stainless finishes of new Smiths.

Why did I choose a Taurus .357? Because the guy sold it to me, like new, for $200 with a leather conceal holster.

 

[carebear]

I think Taurus has improved measurably in recent years. The Model 85 I had 12 years ago needed to go back to the factory. The Model 85Ti I bought 4 years ago is a nice little piece.

The trigger was a little rougher than the Smith, but that smoothed out with use.

 

[Fatdutchman]

Ah, another Smith and Wesson man!

The fit and finish of these things has always amazed me. Even in the '70's, when virtually every other gunmaker was turning out rough sloppy crap, S&W's were just as finely put together as they ever were. In the late '80's/early '90's, there was, perhaps, a slight decline in workmanship (but this period was the historical low point of all firearms quality, as far as I'm concerned), but the newest S&W's are once again, very well manufactured indeed...though I cannot say much for some of their styling and other product decisions.... Most everything now is available only in Stainless steel (or aluminum, or titanium, or "Scandium"...whatever that is), heavy barrels with full underlugs, the new thumbpiece, etc. The new J frames really look awful with the frame extended rearward. I assume done in order to accomodate that ridiculous little lock mechanism, which they would do VERY well to eliminate, though I'm sure they never will.

I have the "Thunder Ranch" model 22, but it is also now part of their "classic" line, and is supposed to be currently available, but in limited quantities. Most everything is nicely old fashioned...except for that stupid little lock. They all have the firing pin in the frame, rather than in the hammer nose, which only bothers me a little. They also have done away with the stud type cylinder retainer in the side of the frame, and have gone to an integral lug thingy. I wouldn't mind it being integral, but it extends up behind the recoil shield for no reason, and I don't find it particularly attractive. It COULD be filed/milled down to the classic design though... The safety lock could likewise be eliminated and the opening filled. I have thought about doing this, but doubt I ever will.

The trigger and hammer are investment cast now instead of forged. I'm sure that it will never cause problems, but I ain't crazy about that either. They could have at least milled/smoothed the parts before case hardening them, as they retain parting lines and the back of the trigger has open areas (which could well have been cast solid), and it just looks cheesy.

Even so, still top of the heap, as far as I'm concerned!

 

[Undertow]

I agree. Given a Taurus, a Ruger and a Smith, I would pick Smith overall. Every single Smith I've fired has been relatively well balanced, seamless and accurate. I like the way they look and feel much more than others. And I agree about all the points you listed.

I've never been able to get anything over to the Performance Center but I imagine they could take care of some of that for the right price. God only knows what kind of price, though...

 

[RIOT]

I had fired most types and the P226 always stood out for me. Gotta love that discharge ease. M92F's have proven reliable as well. But if you are looking for kick and a wake up call for your tangos, the Mk.23 is the gun for the job.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

By all means..I like my Smiths....but..also must mention the Colts. Though different in configuration than S&W..many stainless Python revolvers and small detective Mo. six shooters be glassy smooth...finely finished...and often,right outa the box.
HD

 

[Fletch]

Try this on for size

I put it to all of you that more than anything else, guns - especially handguns - are a political statement anymore.

I further put it to you that handgun owners are without exception political people, and overwhelmingly politically conservative (barring the occasional libertarian).

-They by and large believe in clearly separate and prescribed roles for men and women - especially for men; they're likely to use the word men where others might say people.
-They believe things about the society they live in that convince them that they will likely, perhaps inevitably, encounter violent crime.
-They believe in simple, black-and-white definitions of right and wrong, the existence of "evil" as a living thing that transcends the circumstances of people's actions, and the need for strict, ideally male or masculine-acting, authority figures.
-They believe that the use of violence in certain situations is not only inevitable, but necessary and to be encouraged.
-They distrust methods of nonviolent conflict resolution, and believe deeply in the concept of "weakness." They fear weakness in their own lives and in society, as much or perhaps more than violence.

Agree?
Disagree?
What is your experience and/or opinion?

 

[Viola]

I'll PM it to you so we don't get too political on the board. (but its friendly, not hate mail, don't worry!)

-Viola

 

[carebear]

I put it to all of you that more than anything else, guns - especially handguns - are a political statement anymore.

I further put it to you that handgun owners are without exception political people, and overwhelmingly politically conservative (barring the occasional libertarian).

-They by and large believe in clearly separate and prescribed roles for men and women - especially for men; they're likely to use the word men where others might say people.
-They believe things about the society they live in that convince them that they will likely, perhaps inevitably, encounter violent crime.
-They believe in simple, black-and-white definitions of right and wrong, the existence of "evil" as a living thing that transcends the circumstances of people's actions, and the need for strict, ideally male or masculine-acting, authority figures.
-They believe that the use of violence in certain situations is not only inevitable, but necessary and to be encouraged.
-They distrust methods of nonviolent conflict resolution, and believe deeply in the concept of "weakness." They fear weakness in their own lives and in society, as much or perhaps more than violence.

Agree?
Disagree?
What is your experience and/or opinion?

Disagree.

That opinion may fit your experience, but I submit your knowledge of the subject and experience don't reflect reality.

People who make the choice to carry weapons may fear crime, but that does not mean they in fact unreasonably fear crime. Carrying a gun simply means that they are prepared for the admittedly rare chance they might need it. Are you paranoid about house fires because you choose to carry expensive insurance year after year when 99% of homes won't ever burn?

Studies of handgun ownership do show higher numbers of people who self-describe themselves as "conservative", but it is not "overwhelming" and furthermore can be explained in large part when controlled for location. New York, San Francisco and Chicago, for example, are all highly politically "liberal" but also heavily restrict or ban handgun ownership. That skews the data as "liberal" folks who might like to legally own a handgun are forbidden to. When cities like Seattle and Portland, both more balanced politically, if not also actually skewing more liberal than conservative, are examined you find that handgun ownership correlates much less to political affiliation.

Handgun (and firearm) ownership has been shown again and again (you need to check out the studies) to be far more of an urban/rural issue than a particularly political one. Considering most of the major urban areas are restrictive, that means the correlation is affected by far more things than individual political preferences.

As far as the "traditionalist" mindset, that's stereotypical. I submit the growing numbers of women and minorities, across the political spectrum, who are shooting. Look at the Second Amendment Sisters or Pink Pistols for very vocal examples. And, really, "men" versus "people" is somehow indicative of something when, in fact, it is perfectly grammatical to use "man" as a synonym for "human"? Give me a break.

As concealed handgun owners we are all well aware that in fact we are held to a HIGHER level of care when it comes to violent or non-violent interactions. When you look at permit holders they commit violent crimes at a far lower level than the general population, lower even than law enforcement according to some studies. We train to avoid conflict whenever possible as we are well aware of the physical and legal repercussions (better usually than those who make no study of the subject of self-defense).

Furthermore, every study shows that when faced with a person determined to commit violence against you regardless of your best non-violent attempts to first avoid, escape or deescalate that violence you have only two choices left in the end, submit or fight. If you submit you place your safety and future completely in the hands of someone who has already demonstrated they are willing to use violence to achieve their aims. That to me is foolish. If you choose to resist, studies (FBI) say your best chance of suffering the least amount of harm is to fight back with a weapon as hard as you can. The most effective weapon for anyone of any size, sex, age or physical ability is the handgun.

Personally I find it quite sexist to tell a 100 lb. woman that if she can't talk a man out of raping her she should try to take him on hand-to-hand or with her car keys because it's somehow more "civilized".

As far as "evil" goes. Most gun owners (as should "non-" also be) are aware that the capacity for violence against others lies within all of us. That fact is stated by sociologists, psychiatrists and anyone with real life experience.

The important thing to remember is that it doesn't matter why any individual is unjustifiably violent to another, in that moment all that matters is that in fact the violence is unprovoked and unjustified and thus any responding violence in defense is perfectly legal and moral. I can be sad that his "bad childhood" or drug abuse led him to attack me, but that does not excuse his choices nor mean that I must allow myself to be harmed.

 

[Lincsong]

In 1991, one of the guys I grew up with wanted to walk the Appalachian Trail from one end to the other. (Doesn't it go from Georgia to Maine?????) I think he got as far as South Carolina and called it quits.

 

[carebear]

In 1991, one of the guys I grew up with wanted to walk the Appalachian Trail from one end to the other. (Doesn't it go from Georgia to Maine?????) I think he got as far as South Carolina and called it quits.

Where'd he start? (it affects how impressed I'll be)

 

[Lincsong]

He started in Georgia in the spring.

 

[carebear]

As far as guns or handguns being "political", let's look at the timeline.

Gun owners didn't get "political" until aggressive prohibitionists started getting laws passed that restricted perfectly law-abiding people from doing things they had been doing for a couple hundred years.

Let's say I decide hats are somehow "bad" for anyone to own and start getting laws passed to restrict their ownership and wear by you, me and the other non-criminals on this board.

Are you going to get "political"? Maybe get a little offended when you are lumped in with criminals over and over again?

How about when those "reasonable" laws are shown to actually not work and yet even more restrictive laws are proposed.

At what point is getting a bit political, purely in response to a political attack, reasonable?

 

[carebear]

He started in Georgia in the spring.

That's still quite a hike. I understand there's been quite a bit of private outdoor group work on the trail. Improving what's there and buying land to skirt areas where urban-ness has intruded.

 

[Lincsong]

I think his asthma got to him. I ran into him in 1994 and I forget the whole story.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Bore size?

25mm


Lee

 

[Diamondback]

25mm

Umm, yeah. If I found myself looking down that muzzle, fresh underwear'd be the least of my worries...

Gives the phrase, "Light 'im up!" a whole new meaning, though... lol

 

[MrNewportCustom]

Umm, yeah. If I found myself looking down that muzzle, fresh underwear'd be the least of my worries...

Gives the phrase, "Light 'im up!" a whole new meaning, though... lol

I doubt that surgical-taping Blue Ice packs under your shirt would do you much good, either.


Lee
__________________________

You always crack me up, DiamondBack!

 

[Diamondback]

Lee, Blue Ice and ThermaCare packs are for temperature-control, not body armor. Facing that, I'd want a full-body Nomex or asbestos suit like pit-stop firefighters wear on race-day...

Or a Bradley IFV, then I'd show you a real 25mm incendiary...

Still might hang ya with the jury though... and you can bet you'd be prosecuted for "carrying a gun without permission-slip", they've even busted people for squirtguns and airsoft!