-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Am I being ridiculous?
- Thread starter pinklady
- Start date
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
pinklady wrote:
99.9% of bad guys are cowards and will not even stay in an area or follow through on crimes when they notice someone else besides them packing heat. It's a proven deterrent. He is no more in danger Open Carrying than he is driving around the valley in the Mormon 500 every day. He is actually in more danger from misinformed and ignorant law enforcement than he is the criminals.
Kevin
pinklady wrote:
Yes, you are being ridiculous.
99.9% of bad guys are cowards and will not even stay in an area or follow through on crimes when they notice someone else besides them packing heat. It's a proven deterrent. He is no more in danger Open Carrying than he is driving around the valley in the Mormon 500 every day. He is actually in more danger from misinformed and ignorant law enforcement than he is the criminals.Kevin
imported post
I wasn't just talking about"bad guys".... I am talking about him. I think if he is "packing" he is way more willing to help and becomes more vulnerableto dangerous situations vs. if he wasn't "packing". Does that make sense?
I wasn't just talking about"bad guys".... I am talking about him. I think if he is "packing" he is way more willing to help and becomes more vulnerableto dangerous situations vs. if he wasn't "packing". Does that make sense?
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
pinklady wrote:
Sure it makes sense.
If he is the type of gun carrier that goes looking for opportunties to, uhm, help people in distress.....then, logically, a ballistic vest would reduce his vulnerability.
Does your hubby open carry now? Does he concealed carry?
pinklady wrote:
Sure it makes sense.
If he is the type of gun carrier that goes looking for opportunties to, uhm, help people in distress.....then, logically, a ballistic vest would reduce his vulnerability.
Does your hubby open carry now? Does he concealed carry?
imported post
Yes my Husband does open carry, if he had it his way his entire family would open carry! ( Only after they took the courses needed and only after they had their permits) He fully believes in exercising our rights and strongly believes that is one of them. Dont get me wrong, he would NEVER go looking for a fight, but he would never turn his back on someone who needed help. He'd be the first one there!
Yes my Husband does open carry, if he had it his way his entire family would open carry! ( Only after they took the courses needed and only after they had their permits) He fully believes in exercising our rights and strongly believes that is one of them. Dont get me wrong, he would NEVER go looking for a fight, but he would never turn his back on someone who needed help. He'd be the first one there!
Utah_Patriot
Regular Member
imported post
Okay here is my feeling on a vest
They are very hot it is like wearing a winter coat in the summer.
You spend 800 or higher for a good fitting vest that has a 5 year life.
I wear one for ten hours a day plus overtime I can't wait to get it off by the end of the day. They limit some movement and not to mention the sweat and the smell by the end of the day.
Also please consider this all it takes is a head shot or a groin or leg shot. The armour will not protect against this.
So in short you would not be helping him by getting him a vest unless you have money to waste. Not to mention
I had to get a letter from my department in order to buy a vest that was taylored to me and fits me like a glove.
Sure you can buy a vest off line or from someone but is it really going to save him I say no
Thanks
Zachary
801-448-7574
Okay here is my feeling on a vest
They are very hot it is like wearing a winter coat in the summer.
You spend 800 or higher for a good fitting vest that has a 5 year life.
I wear one for ten hours a day plus overtime I can't wait to get it off by the end of the day. They limit some movement and not to mention the sweat and the smell by the end of the day.
Also please consider this all it takes is a head shot or a groin or leg shot. The armour will not protect against this.
So in short you would not be helping him by getting him a vest unless you have money to waste. Not to mention
I had to get a letter from my department in order to buy a vest that was taylored to me and fits me like a glove.
Sure you can buy a vest off line or from someone but is it really going to save him I say no
Thanks
Zachary
801-448-7574
turbodog
Regular Member
imported post
I'm with Gunsfreak4791 on that one. The expense and complications of a vest are bad enough for police officers who truly do go in the line of fire, for a civilian they would be even more so. Check your states laws on the possession of body armor, some places prohibit it. Police, who already look sideways at those who open carry, are really gonna be putting your husband under a microscope if the see him wearing a vest. They may understand the logic of carrying a handgun for self defense but they might also assume a vest means he's out looking for trouble.
A bullet-proof vest on a civilian is just a bad idea ma'am.
I'm with Gunsfreak4791 on that one. The expense and complications of a vest are bad enough for police officers who truly do go in the line of fire, for a civilian they would be even more so. Check your states laws on the possession of body armor, some places prohibit it. Police, who already look sideways at those who open carry, are really gonna be putting your husband under a microscope if the see him wearing a vest. They may understand the logic of carrying a handgun for self defense but they might also assume a vest means he's out looking for trouble.
A bullet-proof vest on a civilian is just a bad idea ma'am.
Hef
Regular Member
imported post
You have no right to demand that he wear body armor as a condition of approving his carrying a firearm. If he wants to wear it, it should be his choice. So, yes, you are being ridiculous.
You have no right to demand that he wear body armor as a condition of approving his carrying a firearm. If he wants to wear it, it should be his choice. So, yes, you are being ridiculous.
mqondo
Regular Member
imported post
Hef wrote:
Hef wrote:
She said that she thinks he should wear one, not demanding that he does so. I think she has a valid concern for her husbands life. Once she learns a little more about Open Carry, she will be less concerned, I'm sure. As previously stated, Open Carry would help keep the bad guys away. Situations where he is going to help people, I would be a little more concerned with people trying to get his gun, not actually trying to shoot him. If he has a good retention holster, like a Blackhawk Serpa, it would be much harder for them to take it without a pretty good fight. If he was aware of his surroundings, and didn't let people get behind him when he was helping them, he would be able to make sure that they didn't try anything. When I am cruising around, even when carrying concealed, I check around me to see who is around me, and making sure they are not trying to sneak up on me or anything.
wrightme
Regular Member
imported post
pinklady wrote:
It seems as if you have a "fear" of something happening. I doubt if there is a valid 'concern' to base that fear upon.
Do you hear of people who help others getting shot? If so, you may have a valid concern.
If you do not hear of people who help others getting shot, you only have a "fear" of something unknown.
If your husband is someone who tends to help others, that is likely not something you can change. If there is a valid concern based upon his choice (or need, or desire) to help others, he is as likely to need the vest whether he OCs, CCs, or doesn't carry. IMHO.
pinklady wrote:
I do not agree with you.
It seems as if you have a "fear" of something happening. I doubt if there is a valid 'concern' to base that fear upon.
Do you hear of people who help others getting shot? If so, you may have a valid concern.
If you do not hear of people who help others getting shot, you only have a "fear" of something unknown.
If your husband is someone who tends to help others, that is likely not something you can change. If there is a valid concern based upon his choice (or need, or desire) to help others, he is as likely to need the vest whether he OCs, CCs, or doesn't carry. IMHO.
Hef
Regular Member
imported post
mqondo wrote:
mqondo wrote:
You're right. I guess "demand" wasn't the right choice of vocabulary.
Bennelli
Regular Member
imported post
Just have him practice his draw and be aware of his surroundings.
:cuss:This is for all the nasty remarks to Pinklady's question:cuss:
Just have him practice his draw and be aware of his surroundings.
:cuss:This is for all the nasty remarks to Pinklady's question:cuss:
leeland
Regular Member
imported post
gutshot wrote:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot6.htm
"Lessons learned:
Everything we think of as "cover" CAN be defeated by someone who is determined. If a group of special forces guys wants to kill you, a concrete bunker isn't going to stop them....snip...Concrete is not a magical bullet shield, and the type of concrete we as police officers or civilians might need to take "cover" behind one day if everything goes bad is only going to be "cover" for so long before it goes away."
gutshot wrote:
Obviously this was meant as sarcasm (which I thought came across as kind of rude) but let's check the ever useful Box of Truth site to see how he might fare in this situation:
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot6.htm
"Lessons learned:
Everything we think of as "cover" CAN be defeated by someone who is determined. If a group of special forces guys wants to kill you, a concrete bunker isn't going to stop them....snip...Concrete is not a magical bullet shield, and the type of concrete we as police officers or civilians might need to take "cover" behind one day if everything goes bad is only going to be "cover" for so long before it goes away."
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
pinklady wrote:
You might want to let your husband know, however, that sometimes the phrase, "no good deed goes unpunished" has weight in situations involving self defense with a firearm. You have to know when it is lawful to engage a suspect and when it is not in every situation. For example: you are at a convenient store buying some chips and a drink or something. A guy walks into the store with a shotgun and points it at the teller and demands cash. You are in the isle to the right and behind the guy. He hasn't seen you because you ducked down and mooved toward the back of the store when he came in. What do you do? What are the rules of engagement in this situation? Well, people are going to tell you 50 different ways to handle it, but which way is the most lawful and will cover your ass the best, while at the same time, help stop the crime in progress? Do you sneak up on the guy and plug him in the back without saying anything. Do you go for a head shot or the torso? Where do you want to position yourself for the best shot if you decide to do this? Is it lawful to shoot someone in the back like this to stop an armed robbery? If he doesn't know all of the answers to these questions, then he shouldn't be carrying with the intent of helping others in trouble?
Personally, I would move to a position where I could keep my sidearm pointed at him without being noticed and simply observe his actions. If he just takes the cash and runs, then the situation has alleviated itself, the guy is caught on the camera, and the cops can take it from there and take my statement as a witness. If I see that the cash isn't all he is after, and he makes a move to kill the teller, I would squeeze off a round in center mass of his torso to "stop" the attempted murder of the teller and immediately repositon myself two isles in the other direction and move toward the front to assess whether the shot has effectively "stopped" the felony in progress. If the suspect is still active and points his shotgun in a threatening manner after loud verbal requests do decist, then I would have no choice but to proceed with a life-ending head shot as I was trained to do. There are endless scenarios that one must prepare for mentally so that they will know how to react properly and lawfully in any given situation, and odds are, if you don't do it right, you will end up going to jail, and your life can be changed forever just because you wanted to be the good guy and help somebody else in a bad situation. The statute below is a good example of some of the legislation that exists that will be used against you if soemthing goes wrong even if you were justified in using deadly force in self defense.
76-2-105. Transferred intent.
Where intentionally causing a result is an element of an offense, that element is established even if a different person than the actor intended was killed, injured, or harmed, or different property than the actor intended was damaged or otherwise affected.
Enacted by Chapter 199, 2004 General Session
Thanks for posting, and welcome to the forum. If you ever decide to OC, this is a great place to get information and gleen knowledge that will help you understand and follow the law as well as prepare you for LEO encounters and other situations you may find yourself dealing with while out in public places.
Kevin
pinklady wrote:
I understand your concern and sympathize with your point of view as his wife. However, you needn't worry too much about your husband and his stance on helping others while armed. OC will help protect him from harm while he is out and about. Also, the statistical chance that he will actually be engaged in a situation involving use of deadly force in defense of self or others is relatively low, although not improbable. It is admirable that you are worried about your husband and love him enough to put yourself out there in a forum of strangers to seek advise in the issue. I wish my X was as compassionate and caring toward me.
You might want to let your husband know, however, that sometimes the phrase, "no good deed goes unpunished" has weight in situations involving self defense with a firearm. You have to know when it is lawful to engage a suspect and when it is not in every situation. For example: you are at a convenient store buying some chips and a drink or something. A guy walks into the store with a shotgun and points it at the teller and demands cash. You are in the isle to the right and behind the guy. He hasn't seen you because you ducked down and mooved toward the back of the store when he came in. What do you do? What are the rules of engagement in this situation? Well, people are going to tell you 50 different ways to handle it, but which way is the most lawful and will cover your ass the best, while at the same time, help stop the crime in progress? Do you sneak up on the guy and plug him in the back without saying anything. Do you go for a head shot or the torso? Where do you want to position yourself for the best shot if you decide to do this? Is it lawful to shoot someone in the back like this to stop an armed robbery? If he doesn't know all of the answers to these questions, then he shouldn't be carrying with the intent of helping others in trouble?
Personally, I would move to a position where I could keep my sidearm pointed at him without being noticed and simply observe his actions. If he just takes the cash and runs, then the situation has alleviated itself, the guy is caught on the camera, and the cops can take it from there and take my statement as a witness. If I see that the cash isn't all he is after, and he makes a move to kill the teller, I would squeeze off a round in center mass of his torso to "stop" the attempted murder of the teller and immediately repositon myself two isles in the other direction and move toward the front to assess whether the shot has effectively "stopped" the felony in progress. If the suspect is still active and points his shotgun in a threatening manner after loud verbal requests do decist, then I would have no choice but to proceed with a life-ending head shot as I was trained to do. There are endless scenarios that one must prepare for mentally so that they will know how to react properly and lawfully in any given situation, and odds are, if you don't do it right, you will end up going to jail, and your life can be changed forever just because you wanted to be the good guy and help somebody else in a bad situation. The statute below is a good example of some of the legislation that exists that will be used against you if soemthing goes wrong even if you were justified in using deadly force in self defense.
76-2-105. Transferred intent.
Where intentionally causing a result is an element of an offense, that element is established even if a different person than the actor intended was killed, injured, or harmed, or different property than the actor intended was damaged or otherwise affected.
Enacted by Chapter 199, 2004 General Session
Thanks for posting, and welcome to the forum. If you ever decide to OC, this is a great place to get information and gleen knowledge that will help you understand and follow the law as well as prepare you for LEO encounters and other situations you may find yourself dealing with while out in public places.
Kevin
leeland
Regular Member
imported post
pinklady wrote:
It's difficult to tell from your short message, (maybe you can clarify):
Are you saying you feel that others will see his weapon and be more likely to shoot him? (i.e. he is in more danger than if he was conceal carrying)
Or, are you saying that his OC of a weapon causes him to alter his actions in a way that will place him in greater danger (i.e. looking for trouble)
Some questions you might ask yourself to help sort this out:
-Do statistics show that people who OC are targeted more by criminals than those who do not OC?
-Has your husband found himself in many situations in the past where he feels he would have been justified in drawing/firing a weapon in his own defence or the defence of another?
-In these situations, were the aggressors armed and likely to return fire?
-Is the kind of environment or situations he finds himself in likely to change because he carries a weapon? (see other comments about "looking for trouble")
pinklady wrote:
You obviously are concerned, and I think it's great that you are trying to talk to those with experience open carrying weapons. For what it's worth, I personally do not feel that my open carrying a weapon has increased the odds of me getting shot.
It's difficult to tell from your short message, (maybe you can clarify):
Are you saying you feel that others will see his weapon and be more likely to shoot him? (i.e. he is in more danger than if he was conceal carrying)
Or, are you saying that his OC of a weapon causes him to alter his actions in a way that will place him in greater danger (i.e. looking for trouble)
Some questions you might ask yourself to help sort this out:
-Do statistics show that people who OC are targeted more by criminals than those who do not OC?
-Has your husband found himself in many situations in the past where he feels he would have been justified in drawing/firing a weapon in his own defence or the defence of another?
-In these situations, were the aggressors armed and likely to return fire?
-Is the kind of environment or situations he finds himself in likely to change because he carries a weapon? (see other comments about "looking for trouble")
thx997303
Regular Member
imported post
And please ignore the rude comments left here, unfortunately there is always a few who misunderstand your good intentions.
And please ignore the rude comments left here, unfortunately there is always a few who misunderstand your good intentions.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
thx997303 wrote:
thx997303 wrote:
+1
chillidogs
Regular Member
imported post
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
?pinklady wrote:Yes, you are being ridiculous.
Kevin
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
b1ack5mith
Regular Member
imported post
i disagree. it isnt ridiculous that she feels for his safety. granted, they are big, bulky and make you look funny, (not to mention cost) but i do understand that you worry for your husband. he is in really no danger while OCing, bad guys are chickens!
i disagree. it isnt ridiculous that she feels for his safety. granted, they are big, bulky and make you look funny, (not to mention cost) but i do understand that you worry for your husband. he is in really no danger while OCing, bad guys are chickens!