Do you take money into consideration when.....?

[12Pump]

One thing I take into consideration over just the money I paid is how it would look to a prosecutor or jury. Mas Ayoob once wrote that if you are going to have a shotgun for defense at home, have one that is as plain as possible and with no fancy name to it, which some manufacturers like to use for marketing purposes. From a legal standpoint, image can help or hurt you.

For this reason, I wouldn't want an AR15 used in my defense in the home. The whole thing about how I just sprayed down someone with a high capacity assault rifle just like the one so many murderers have used to kill school children would not look good in court.

That said, I do own an AR15, but my reason is to have it for a possible future when such concerns may no longer be an issue, and more range and firepower may be needed. A societal collapse would be an example.

 

[tcoz]

12Pump, I think within the home you'd have no problem with whatever weapon you choose to defend your "castle" with. Outside the home on the street may be a different story but obviously nobody would carry an AR for defense on the street.

 

[Cee Zee]

The whole thing about how I just sprayed down someone with a high capacity assault rifle just like the one so many murderers have used to kill school children

Uh, no. Those AR's have NOT been the primary weapon used to kill school children. Almost all school shooting have been done with a handgun. It's bad enough when the gun grabbers paint a thing as evil. We don't need to do that too. AR's are used in a very small percentage of crimes including mass shootings. Those mass shootings are not on the rise either. They have held to a steady rate for decades. Only the media and the gun grabbers would have you think otherwise.

Meanwhile back at the thread. I've been thinking that there certainly are "some" guns I would not want to have confiscated as evidence for any reason. But the reason isn't sentimental as much as it is economical. If I was lucky enough to own a Sig P210 I wouldn't want that to be carted off to be used as a fun gun by the LEO's operating the evidence locker. I know this stuff happens. My friend was busted selling drugs (many, many years ago and he paid the price for it). They confiscated a "machine gun" from him that was actually a east European gun from WWI that never worked when it was brand new and if it did work they stopped making ammo for it almost 75 years earlier anyway. But it was "sent to Washington for testing" but somehow got "lost" on the way. It stumbled onto the mantle of a state patrolman. It was discovered as part of an auction of that LEO's stuff after he died. He was doing the same thing with it my buddy was. Using it as a display item. The LEO's wife nearly got sent to prison herself for trying to sell that gun. Funny they managed to prove that it didn't work when she was up on charges for it. My buddy magically got released from prison (he was sent there on the gun charge) after it was proven that gun didn't work. These things do happen. Probably not often but maybe more often than we might think. I've seen a good bit of corruption in government in my life. I had a job that put me around quite a bit of it at one time. That was a long time ago too but I know fishy things happen.

Anyway I wouldn't want a $3000 pistol being used as a range toy by someone besides me unless they wanted to pay me for it. That's my only point here. I'm not here to knock our law enforcement people. Most of them are fine upstanding citizens who do a job most wouldn't want to do. I cleaned toilets for a whole summer once but I wouldn't want to be a cop. It's just not in my nature. Neither was cleaning toilets BTW. But I needed the money for college.

 

[Fast Frank]

I bought my carry pistol specifically for that purpose.

I wanted a 1911, because that's what I have found to work best for me.

I wanted no corrosion, so a plain stainless finish was chosen.

I wanted Night sights.

I wanted a good trigger, but not super light. This pistol needs to be safe.

The pistol needed to be totally reliable.

I bought a Kimber stainless TLE 2 in .45 ACP. It's pretty much billed as a cop's pistol.

At first, reliability was sketchy. I suffered through a long break-in process and devoted quite a bit of time to the "Fluff And Buff" process. The pistol now has a long history of firing and feeding 100% and I trust it explicitly.

That pistol cost me over $1000 dollars, and many people might consider it expensive. Naturally, I developed some affection for the pistol during the time I was working the bugs out of it.

I have been carrying that pistol for a little more than ten years now. I own several other handguns, but if you hear me say "My Pistol" this is the one I'm talking about. It's clearly my favorite. I shoot it better than any other.

Like most of the guys that posted before me, I'm baffled at the idea of carrying something other than my favorite pistol.

If the time comes when I need to snatch out a handgun and plug a bad guy to keep him from hurting me or mine- I want that comfortable familiarity on my side. When it happens, having a pistol that I have fired many thousands of rounds through in my pants will be a big advantage for me.

I see that pistol as being like a faithful dog, willing to give it's life for me.

If it gets impounded or whatever because it saved my life, I will be sad. Of course I will.

But I will be alive.

And I can get another 1911. I don't want to, but you can bet I will if it comes down to that.

 

[Fast Frank]

ooops! Double Tap!

 

[boatdoc173]

Im curiouse as to who takes money or sentimental value into consideration when deciding on a defensive fire arm. Weather it be an hd gun or a ccw.
Im asking this because most recently i am. Im not talking about: manufacturer, caliber, worth, collectors value or the like. Im curios strictly as to money spent or collectors value.
I use to carry my g27. After learning that the possibility of not getting your firearm even in the event of a court justified self defense ruling got me to thinking about pricy and sentimental fire arms.
The g27 was my first pistol. I won my first comp with a g19. My most expensive handgun is my sig p220 elite. My first 1911 was a sig c3. So here are some sentimental and pricey firearms of mine. Since learning this, i wont carry any of them. I carry my s&w shield a lot recently because its cheapet and doesnt mean much. Its also reliable and i trust it. What say you guys?

I have that idea too. I LOVE my collection including my defense guns(glock 19 or glock 23) . One reason I chose the glocks though is ease of replacement after a justified defense--the cops will trash whatever gun they take into evidence-- I can get glock easily and they are much less expensive than say a Sig, H+K, Wilson combat,CZ.....

it took time and $$ to get my collection together-- JMHO

 

[Cee Zee]

Naturally, I developed some affection for the pistol during the time I was working the bugs out of it.

I might develop something other than affection for a pistol that was having bug issues. Actually I went through something similar with my Sig P220, which I found out was the ammo I was using, and I went on to carry it for over a decade. I would still trust it but I have decided pistols with higher capacity might give me a needed edge some day. Not likely I guess but maybe and maybe is enough reason to go that route. I really like the pistol I'm carrying now even though it isn't quite as accurate as the Sig but not many pistols are IMO. I'm sure there are plenty of them around but they're generally geared for target shooting instead of combat. That Sig is an excellent pistol. I just wish it had more capacity. I carried a Taurus PT-145 for a good while too. It is an excellent pistol and no doubt my best pistol for carrying concealed. It's perfectly reliable (it has never failed) and very accurate. It just doesn't have the capacity I want either even though it holds more .45 rounds than any pistol it's size I have ever seen.

 

[12Pump]

Uh, no. Those AR's have NOT been the primary weapon used to kill school children. Almost all school shooting have been done with a handgun. It's bad enough when the gun grabbers paint a thing as evil. We don't need to do that too. AR's are used in a very small percentage of crimes including mass shootings. Those mass shootings are not on the rise either. They have held to a steady rate for decades. Only the media and the gun grabbers would have you think otherwise.

Sorry, but I thought my sarcasm was evident. I was speaking in a way that a prosecutor would like a jury to think. Also, ARs may not have been used in the majority of school shootings, but they've been used in the ones most people remember the most--such as Sandy Hook. That's why a prosecutor would just love to go after someone who used an AR rifle to defend themselves. It looks like an easy win for them.

 

[Cee Zee]

Sorry, but I thought my sarcasm was evident.

Sorry if my brain doesn't keep up sometimes.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Economics is a factor in all of it. What can you afford? What can you afford to practice with? How much can you practice? Is that ONE sentimental firearm the only one in your possession?

Not everyone has the luxury of multiple choices.