Quantcast

So what are we telling the anti-gun folks, really?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Old Dog, Nov 19, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    In another thread (Handguns sub-forum), a poster asked everyone's opinion on their most important personal considerations for concealed-carry handgun selection.

    After four pages of that particular thread, I can see that (since presumably, most of us posting in this forum carry concealed weapons at least some of the time in some capacity, i.e., citizen or on the job), a distinct majority seems to indicate that size and weight are their most important considerations.

    With the reduction in size and weight comes the concurrent reduction in capacity. Many posters in the referenced thread state they are comfortable carry 5 to 8 shot handguns, e.g., J-frame revolvers or "micro" semi-automatics such as LCPs, etc. Even the 1911 guys who claim to carry full-size 1911s are limiting themselves to 8 or 9 rounds, max.

    Now, THR is not the only firearms forum where this subject comes up on a regular basis. I don't know what the numbers would indicate, but in every forum I routinely peruse, it sure seems as though the vast majority prefer small handguns for carry.

    So, what is the take-away here? Hey, we're all letting those in the anti-gun movement know that most of us are totally okay with limiting our handguns' capacity to less then 10 rounds. It's almost as though we're helping them make the case that "high-capacity" (what we know as standard capacity) handguns are not only not required for self-defense, most of those in the gun community don't want to carry them.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. badkarmamib

    badkarmamib Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,936
    That might track, if EDC was the only reason for owning firearms... If we are going to educate the antis, we need to quit pigeon-holing the sport into only-hunting, only-self-defense, only-preppers, etc. Based on the one thread, I can see your point, but we need to paint ourselves with a broader brush, which is why we have multiple areas on this forum.
     
  3. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    4,386
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    It is what it is. No one is going to start carrying a P226 IWB because they are worried about what the Antis think.
     
    Dibbs, readyeddy and ATLDave like this.
  4. Chevelle SS

    Chevelle SS Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    820
    Location:
    Michigan
    J-Frame in the pocket beats a Glock 17 at home.
     
  5. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,069
    I'm a lot more worried about telling the broader populace that, unless they are right-wing in their views across the board, they have no place among people interested in gun rights. That costs us a lot more than the size of the gun in our waistband.
     
    AZAndy, shoobe01, Keith G and 6 others like this.
  6. Hokie_PhD

    Hokie_PhD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,593
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    I think you’re drawing a false conclusion.

    My first handgun was a PF9 because it was small. I switched to an XDs 45 for more “firepower” and am now thinking of adding a M&P 9 compact to the mix.

    The PF9 is nice for pocket carry when wearing dress clothes. The XDs is good for EDC but I like the 9 compact as it comes with 15 round nags and can use full size 17 round magazines.

    My thought is when I go to the more populated areas where ANTIFA and BLM mobs are more likely to stop traffic and harass people like they did in Portland carrying 15+1 in the 9 Compact and a few 17 round mags may be wise.

    Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t ever want to have to use that, but I’ve been unarmed in a college shooting and I’d rather have a gun and lots of ammo than like I was an praying for help and unarmed.
     
  7. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,328
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    They literally do not care, nor are they actually interested in parsing the nuances involved in choosing a carry gun. Insofar as they're concerned, you shouldn't be able to carry a gun at all unless you're an agent of the state.

    Debates over magazine capacity restrictions are not governed by any rational thought process at all, but rather by what they believe they can legislatively get away with. There's no rational approach, other than what's the lowest number they can get away with without suffering a political backlash. In California that's 10 rounds, in New York, it turns out that 7 rounds was acceptable until the courts said no, in Colorado it's 15 rounds. If you read the proposals from anti-rights groups, especially the ones circulated internally, some of them go so far as floating pistol limitations at 6 (presumably to match traditional revolvers) and rifle limitations to four or less.

    The premise of your entire post is an attempt to parse rationality from madness, and is an exercise in futility.
     
    CraigC, Milt1, armarsh and 10 others like this.
  8. Zerodefect

    Zerodefect Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,142
    Location:
    Yakutsk, Sakha Republic
    They don't even know where the bullets go.

    You're giving them too much credit. All they know is that less is supposed to be better. They had no idea how fast we could reload a 1911, all those years ago.
     
  9. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    And I'd offer this remark as a splendid example of the hubris most of us in the gun culture are overly endowed with.

    And then I would say that you need to get out more. I've witnessed first-hand the debate among the anti-gun faction in my state, and they're using every single resource they can access for "information" that supports their positions.

    If you characterize those in the anti-gun movement as "madness" and not governed by "rational thought process" then you are deluding yourself. I almost hate to admit it, but there are most assuredly those on the other side capable of rational thought and possessed of high intelligence and yes, even critical thinking skills. I thank you for your "thoughts" on the topic, but I wasn't seeking out those using their clever wordsmithing skills in an attempt to invalidate my entire post.
     
    LoonWulf, jdc1244 and cheygriz like this.
  10. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,069
    A few times I have been discussing magazine capacities with some of my gun-skeptic friends and shown them video of my fat carcass shooting a USPSA stage. It's fun then telling them that I reloaded twice during the stage... they are shocked, because they never saw it happen. It's not because I'm blindingly fast - it's because TV's and movies have trained them to think that reloading is a laborious process that requires hiding behind a sofa or cop car and fumbling with things for quite a while. The idea that it can be done while running and in 2 seconds or less blows their minds.
     
  11. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,069
    You're quite right that there are many anti-gun people who are intelligent (and most of them are even well-intentioned), but, no, they generally do not delve as deep as you are suggesting. Knowledge of gun stuff is "dirty" knowledge, and the huge majority of them don't want to know it.
     
  12. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    The huge majority of them don't need to know it either (most of them we need not worry about); but the devious folks coordinating their efforts and information campaigns not only look for this information, but are capable of using it against us.
     
  13. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    Not to mention the fact that large numbers of gun-owners vote for what we consider "anti-gun" measures and candidates, precisely because they themselves feel perfectly comfortable with that old Model 10 snubby and a four-shot 870 as their home-defense weapons, and their only rifles are bolt or lever actions that they use for hunting. The Fudd faction is far larger than many want to believe.
     
    shoobe01, DoubleMag, medalguy and 3 others like this.
  14. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    4,386
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    Even this is unacceptable to the far left who compare ICE to Nazi stormtroopers and feel the civilian police themselves should be disarmed.
     
  15. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    4,886
    Smaller handguns are the "in" thing right now. Thanks to a free market economy, producers make what customers want. And right now that is the single stack 9mms, 5 or 6 shot small frame revolvers etc. Does this "show" the opposition that we consider high capacity magazines are less important? I don't think so. Because for every small gun out there, you are likely to have a bigger one. Or an AR-15 with stacks and stacks of 30 round magazines. The firearm I carry most right now is a Walther PPS. Does this mean I don't think my P99 is less important? Nope. At the very least I am going to carry the P99 on Thursday to visit my mother in law. Mostly because the holster is more comfortable for long drives.
     
  16. LRDGCO

    LRDGCO member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    689
    The ideas that the anti-gun activist movement 1) is bound by logic; 2) recognizes any right to keep and bear arms, and; 3) are prepared to stop at something short of a ban on firearms ownership by private citizens, are false. The objective of the anti-gun movement is to disarm private citizens and ensure that the means of force rest exclusively with the government. John and Jane Q Public neither understand the complexities of gun control, nor are they interested. If the 'debate' around 'gun control' even vaguely hinged on whether gun owners were perhaps undermining their position by emphasizing the size and weight, and therefore capacity, of firearms, that would suggest a recognition by those seeking control of the right of the private citizen to own and carry firearms. We should be so lucky.
     
  17. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,069
    There are very, very, very few motivated anti-gunners who think "magazine capacities should be limited, but I do think average people should be able to walk around with guns all the time."
     
  18. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,051
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    I don't disagree with that statement ... but, their movement is incremental. The restrictions are put forward one piece at a time. Witness: California.
     
  19. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,069
    Same as anti-abortion folks. They'll take any new restriction they can get. They want thing X to go away entirely. Anything that removes part of X is good.

    They don't actually care about whether people are carrying smaller guns, just as anti-abortion activists don't actually care about the utility of surgical equipment in clinics. If/when you beat them on that restriction, they just move to something else.

    It's like Soviet red army doctrine - attack broadly, see where you make progress, then take ground where you can. There's no sense making a symbolic demonstration that some particular piece of territory is important to you - they're going to attack it. If you manage to fend them off, they'll see how other attacks go. Your feelings about it don't particularly matter.

    Let me ask it this way, Old Dog: If every person who CC'ed carried a gun with 11+ rounds, do you suppose there is a single anti-gun activist who would concede that magazine limits are a bad idea?
     
    LRDGCO, Chevelle SS and Justin like this.
  20. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,328
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    Believe as you will, and if you want to carry water for the grabbers, go ahead.

    I've gotten out plenty, to include interfacing with anti-rights advocates in real life. And yes, they will, in some instances mine pro-gun sources and trot out fudds to support their positions in order to generate the perception of consensus, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with them trying to find a "reasonable" number for enforcing an arbitrary limitation.

    Believe them to be rational at your own peril. I've had more than one anti-rights advocate tell me, to my face, I should be thrown in prison for owning what amounts to a plastic box with a spring in it. I've seen them outright lie and misrepresent their own motivations and end goals as well as the motivations of the average pro-gun person. Heck, five minutes of perusing the twitter accounts of the various head honchos of the anti-rights side should disabuse you of any notion that they're motivated by finding some sort of rational balance in regards to gun rights. Their policies and proposals are not driven by sanity or rationality in regards to the 2nd amendment or gun ownership in general, and are governed only insofar as what the electorate will tolerate at any given moment.
     
  21. huntsman

    huntsman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,231
    Location:
    ohio's northcoast
    I’m not hung up on capacity, 14, 9 and 7 all acceptable.

    The anti gun folks don’t really concern me because I don’t believe in compromise and assume neither do they.

    so lets just dispense with the common sense crap draw a line in the sand and do battle on constitutional reality.
     
  22. George P

    George P Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2018
    Messages:
    3,686
    My SIG P365, the same size as the Kahr CM-9 I own, carries 12+1, putting it fairly close to much larger pistols with 15+1 capacity.

    Size and weight DO matter to a lot of us. The gun you carry is better than the one you leave at home because it is a bother.
     
  23. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,411
    Location:
    Virginia
    I don't think that antigunners care that some people who carry are comfortable with a small magazine capacity. They simply want nobody to carry.
     
    LRDGCO and ATLDave like this.
  24. Madcap_Magician

    Madcap_Magician Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,091
    Location:
    MN
    It isn't that they don't delve deep, it's that they, like us, only search for information that verifies, supports, and justifies their position.
     
    Lady Blue Steel and cheygriz like this.
  25. ATLDave

    ATLDave Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,069
    Sort of, sort of not. I'm amazed - particularly over the past 3-4 years - how often I will find myself in a discussion with a good friend or respected colleague who is ordinarily a highly-intellectually curious person who suddenly becomes affirmatively averse to even hearing knowledge about firearms. (To be clear, I rarely, if ever, bring up the topic. It usually occurs when they incorrectly assume that I agree with their negative views on guns and/or when a 3rd mischievous friend throws the subject on the table.) The whole subject has become so taboo in their minds that inviting them to join me at a range sometime (an approach that used to work very, very well) now draws revulsion. It gets a similar reaction as if a pro-choice person invited an anti-abortion person to actually attend an abortion! If you argue "technical" points (and we are talking about regulating technology), the mere knowledge of how firearms work is treated as a damning indictment of one's character.

    I'm not someone who gets angry in discussions. I can happily discuss issues with people all over the political spectrum and stay friends afterward. Yet I have found this has become a very difficult subject. I can discuss it without getting upset, but many people on the other side simply cannot. Which is very troubling to me, and worrisome from the standpoint of our republic.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice