Guns in an outcall

[endurance]

The run like hell option can be used with or without the gun, we are talking about the case where you have to fight. This case would actually be even worse for your odds (as the knife guy) than the Tueller drill since they have probably already drawn.

None of what you said is persuasive towards not having a gun - it is mostly reciting google.

Originally Posted by Centaur

The Tueller drill models ranged tactics. It compares how long it takes to draw a sidearm vs how quickly a knife fighter can close the range between them. If someone attempts to pull a gun on you at short range (a few meters, precisely how far depends on speed), there are techniques you can use to disarm them. However, they require repetitive practice under a skilled instructor to be used effectively. Their odds of success go down against an opponent trained to counter them. The best defense against a gun attack for someone without proper self-defense training is to run like hell. Distance and motion decrease accuracy. Even if you are armed with a gun, run like hell to cover before returning fire and, if you are not a trained soldier or a law enforcement professional, and if you have any opportunity to escape, do not waste it returning fire. If someone already has a gun trained on you at short range, do what they say until you have an opportunity to escape, at which point run like hell.

[endurance]

I have trained in martial arts and pistol tactics. Some of the issues are addressed even in a simple CHL class. If someone is breaking into your house and you don't have the option to leave (maybe you have family elsewhere in the house) and have to fight unarmed vs a gunman you are screwed unless you are fighting a retard. Tell me what technique you have trained in that you will use against someone armed across the room. You just haven't been awakened to your ignorance yet.

"it's not like chuck noris made up moves."
Some punchlines just write themselves (no pun)

There are plenty of other scenarios where you would have time to get your gun. Obviously if he is on you it is too late, but most people that have trained with weapons also have set out an environment that will help buy time in the event of a breakin (layers of precautions.)

One thing that we can agree on is that you'd probably get yourself shot. You are stubborn and know everything, but won't do one of the simple things that could save your life.

Originally Posted by Secret_Amore

it's not unrealistic just like with operating a gun if your trained in a skill you can use it. clearly you've never taken weapon self defense. if you can be proficient with guns you and be proficient with weaponry self defense. it's not like chuck noris made up moves.

and how exactly do u plan to pull out your gun with someone already pointing one at you? AND if you have the time/speed/skill to pull yours out and not spoke them into shooting you why the fuck can't you just take the gun from them?

personally...well i would like to say i'd be compliant and not do anything to antagonize someone until i could get the fuck out But i know myself and that would be a lie. I'd probably get my ass shot because I'd be defensive/antagonist and just plain all around fuck no your gonna have to shoot suborn...unfortunately my personality isn't suited for being told to do something with a weapon on me. I would be such a fucking dumbass and give the person attacking me a hard time.

[Centaur]

Originally Posted by endurance

The run like hell option can be used with or without the gun, we are talking about the case where you have to fight.

Actually we're talking about guns in an outcall. You want to have a particular debate with a nonexistent opponent, and you've assumptively and incorrectly acribed motives to me so you can "debate" a position I don't hold and haven't stated I hold.

Originally Posted by endurance

None of what you said is persuasive towards not having a gun - it is mostly reciting google.

Probably because I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone else against having a gun. I would like anyone who buys a gun to learn to use it correctly, and to make regular pilgrimages to a range for some practice. But hey, don't let me or reality get in the way of your internet shadowboxing.

[Victoria Columbari]

Tuscon, I don't mind guns actually; i probably wouldn't notice it if it was concealed. Honestly if you pointed it out to me i would just ask you to put it out of sight/out of reach.

[endurance]

Originally Posted by Centaur

Actually we're talking about guns in an outcall. You want to have a particular debate with a nonexistent opponent, and you've assumptively and incorrectly acribed motives to me so you can "debate" a position I don't hold and haven't stated I hold.
Probably because I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone else against having a gun. I would like anyone who buys a gun to learn to use it correctly, and to make regular pilgrimages to a range for some practice. But hey, don't let me or reality get in the way of your internet shadowboxing.

You had to interject a lot of meaningless verbose hot air in between a response I had to one of someone else's points. Twice now, basically - so please knock it off with the cooler head prevailing bs.

[TxHarleyGuy]

Originally Posted by Victoria Columbari

I have a question for you all, providers and hobbyists both. How do you feel about going to an outcall and the gentleman having a gun? Not that anything bad as happened to me, but I have been to a few OC where there has been a gun and it hasn't really bothered me as most people in TX has one. It was brought up in conversation with a friend and was told I should be more careful about it. Now the guns have never been like next to the bed or anything, and I really don't think the clients realized their gun was in plain sight and I chose not to make a big deal of it. Guys, how would you feel about a lady asking about it or bringing it up? Ladies, do you ask the gentleman to put up or ignore it? Just curious and would like some opinions/advice on this.

V

As someone who has some rather extensive training in firearms/CHL instruction, I won't even begin to engage the ol' guns vs no guns debate. I know what works for me and leave others to make their own determinations to that end. I will, however, speak to the OP's initial question regarding guns left in plain sight when entering someone's home.

Personally, I find the actions of anyone who is expecting company (provider or otherwise) leaving a firearm in plain site (be it by design or unknowingly) to be incredibly irresponsible. The exception(s) being a display case or something akin to rifles being on a rack on a wall. But to have a gun laying around? No. That's just foolish in my opinion.

The whole concept/idea behind 'concealed' is that it is just that - CONCEALED. If one is doing their job correctly, no one is or should ever be the wiser. Nor should any announcements be made to that end as well; i.e. "Oh btw, I'm carrying, is that okay with you?" Just my opinion, mind you.

[Centaur]

Originally Posted by endurance

You had to interject a lot of meaningless verbose hot air in between a response I had to one of someone else's points. Twice now, basically - so please knock it off with the cooler head prevailing bs.

Nice to meet you too.

[Guest030824]

Victoria it is on my belt and I just lay my pants on top of it. No one has objected before and I don't anticipate any one saying anything in the future. I was raised in Oregon and I carried a 44 in the open until I went in to the Army. Working in the woods all of the time it was a tool for protection.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dante0322

Interesting fact. Since CHL was passed (after court ruling) in Illinois crime has reduced 30%!

Another interesting fact. New York City has about the most restrictions for getting a CHL of any city in the U.S. and in 2013 set a record low for homicides.

How about this from June, 2012:

"I don't know if you can contribute it all to conceal carry," Hilton said, but he insisted some part of that drop in crime is due to more responsible, armed citizens. More than 275,000 North Carolina residents hold active concealed weapons permits, a little less than three percent of the population.

"The tools that we have show a long-term, steady decline in violent crime and property crime both nationally," said James Brunet, an associate professor and crime expert at N.C. State's Department of Public Administration. "We really don't exactly know why. We've had so many different crime policies over the past 20 years which may have contributed to the drop, but we can't disentangle them."

Brunet said it's unlikely that any one policy is the "magic bullet" that has lowered crime.

"There's no firm, solid evidence that the growth in concealed weapons permits has contributed to a drop in crime rates," said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston.

Among the reasons most criminologists think crime is dropping, he said, are better policing strategies, an end to the crack cocaine epidemic and high rates of incarceration. Even the fact that more Americans have cameras in their phones, and are able to capture crime as it happens, may have contributed.
Fox notes that crime rates have dropped even in states like Massachusetts, which have very restrictive gun laws.

Source: http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccap...tory/11204311/

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by TxHarleyGuy

As someone who has some rather extensive training in firearms/CHL instruction, I won't even begin to engage the ol' guns vs no guns debate. I know what works for me and leave others to make their own determinations to that end. I will, however, speak to the OP's initial question regarding guns left in plain sight when entering someone's home.

Personally, I find the actions of anyone who is expecting company (provider or otherwise) leaving a firearm in plain site (be it by design or unknowingly) to be incredibly irresponsible. The exception(s) being a display case or something akin to rifles being on a rack on a wall. But to have a gun laying around? No. That's just foolish in my opinion.

The whole concept/idea behind 'concealed' is that it is just that - CONCEALED. If one is doing their job correctly, no one is or should ever be the wiser. Nor should any announcements be made to that end as well; i.e. "Oh btw, I'm carrying, is that okay with you?" Just my opinion, mind you.

Well said. The only objection I might have is if someone with a concealed handgun tried to enter my home and did not declare that he/she had the handgun I would not take kindly to that act at all.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by endurance

One thing that we can agree on is that you'd probably get yourself shot. You are stubborn and know everything, but won't do one of the simple things that could save your life.

Do you drive a car? You're four times as likely to die driving a car as you are of being a victim of a homicide. Drive a motorcycle? About 8x.

Do you drink? Smoke? Not exercise? Doing any of those things will statistically kill you faster than being a victim of a homicide. Obviously no guarantees.

Point is, to me there is so much emphasis among gun owners about how protected they are since they own a gun when there are so many other things that can be done to statistically prolong your life.

[Centaur]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Point is, to me there is so much emphasis among gun owners about how protected they are since they own a gun when there are so many other things that can be done to statistically prolong your life.

Respectfully, that sounds like a false dichotomy. The fact that gun owners are no more protected by their concealed carry from high cholesterol does nothing to negate that they may be more protected from assault. It's not an either/or choice. If your point is that someone with high cholesterol can't be serious about improving their odds through a concealed carry, the same argument could be made of someone who doesn't ride motorcycles because of the higher risk. Ultimately it's an argument that can be made against anyone who fails to do take every possible precaution. But the argument is flawed. Every precaution is part of a cost-benefit analysis, conscious or unconscious. Someone may find the cost of carrying a concealed firearm lower than that of giving up motorcycles or butter.

On top of which, while it may be made as a generalized argument, it can hardly be leveled against pseudonymous interneters since you simply have no way of knowing how they eat or what they drive.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Centaur

Respectfully, that sounds like a false dichotomy. The fact that gun owners are no more protected by their concealed carry from high cholesterol does nothing to negate that they may be more protected from assault. It's not an either/or choice. If your point is that someone with high cholesterol can't be serious about improving their odds through a concealed carry, the same argument could be made of someone who doesn't ride motorcycles because of the higher risk. Ultimately it's an argument that can be made against anyone who fails to do take every possible precaution. But the argument is flawed. Every precaution is part of a cost-benefit analysis, conscious or unconscious. Someone may find the cost of carrying a concealed firearm lower than that of giving up motorcycles or butter.

On top of which, while it may be made as a generalized argument, it can hardly be leveled against pseudonymous interneters since you simply have no way of knowing how they eat or what they drive.

You are correct -- it is not an "either-or choice". Owning a gun may or may not protect you from assault. If you or anyone else believes that owning/carrying a gun keeps you safer than not doing so, by all means go ahead and do it. I may disagree but it is your right to do so, within certain restrictions.

All I'm pointing out is that many individuals carry guns and falsely believe that this is the #1 thing that they can do in their life to protect themselves from death. I have been told by individuals on other forums that I HAVE to own a gun to protect me and my family. Meanwhile, they may be doing other things that statistically will shorten their life. I simply laugh at individuals who carry and at the same time weigh 350 pounds, totally out of shape, and may smoke or drink excessively. To me it's an oxymoron -- carrying a gun to protect your life and doing everything else to shorten it.

[Victoria Columbari]

Tuscon, that is the best way to do it. No one noticing it.
I am not joining the debate; I just wanted to know how others feel seeing one and how they handle it. I am enjoying reading everyone responses though.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Victoria Columbari

Tuscon, that is the best way to do it. No one noticing it.
I am not joining the debate; I just wanted to know how others feel seeing one and how they handle it. I am enjoying reading everyone responses though.

I feel so used.