Gun control / Anti gun control

[ComputerRepairTech]

You guys probably wont like my view on this but I think all guns should be banned except for hunting rifles. In my opinion you don't need a handgun, and most definitely don't need an assault rifle. These should only be available to law enforcement and military.

Now what about protecting my home? Well you can protect your home just as well with a rifle as you can with any other gun, unless you are a waiting for the mafia or cartels to come after you, then you best get a bigger gun

You could say its the all the criminals fault, but how did they get a gun in the first place? Maybe being able to get one should be harder? "Psych Evaluation!" Don't get me wrong, I believe in the right to bear arms, but lets face it, if we make guns harder to acquire then there will eventually be less incidents like this one.

/\_This

I agree 100%.

It may take a long time before pistols are off the street but in the end it will be worth it imho.

People talk about being vulnerable if pistols are illegal because only criminals will have them but if your walking to your car and someone pulls a gun on you then whats the plan exactly? You going to quickly slap him in the face and pull out your gun at lightning speed then blow him away so fast he doesnt get a shot off? If you're that fast im sure you could have done it with a taser too. Of course this doesnt take into account group situations where the criminal has a gun pointed at someone else and you're armed but lets be serious here what are the odds of you ending up in a situation like that outside your home (outside because inside you would have that rifle and still be fine)

 

[NETWizz]

/\_This

I agree 100%.

It may take a long time before pistols are off the street but in the end it will be worth it imho.

People talk about being vulnerable if pistols are illegal because only criminals will have them but if your walking to your car and someone pulls a gun on you then whats the plan exactly? You going to quickly slap him in the face and pull out your gun at lightning speed then blow him away so fast he doesnt get a shot off? If you're that fast im sure you could have done it with a taser too. Of course this doesnt take into account group situations where the criminal has a gun pointed at someone else and you're armed but lets be serious here what are the odds of you ending up in a situation like that outside your home (outside because inside you would have that rifle and still be fine)

"...your walking to your car and someone pulls a gun on you then whats the plan exactly? You going to quickly slap him in the face and pull out your gun at lightning speed..."

Each situation is different... You do what is needed for the best outcome even if that means you hand over money or whatever. All I know is that this guy in the car that pulled up next to you won't be turning in his gun(s) when the Government collects your guns, which puts you at an even greater disadvantage.

In the United States, you will NOT get pistols off the streets by making them illegal... Just like making Meth and Crack illegal hasn't gotten it off the street either.

Think more gun laws will work?

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

Each situation is different... You do what is needed for the best outcome even if that means you hand over money or whatever. All I know is that this guy in the car that pulled up next to you won't be turning in his gun(s) when the Government collects your guns, which puts you at an even greater disadvantage.

In the United States, you will NOT get pistols off the streets by making them illegal... Just like making Meth and Crack illegal hasn't gotten it off the street either.

Think more gun laws will work?

I know I would expect it to take lifetimes for pistols to be gone off the streets...we could offer cash incentives for turning them in to speed things up though?

 

[angry_geek]

Just like in Australia and Mexico. That turned out well.


Chicago has had several buy-backs. Each time, the crime stats go up.

 

[NETWizz]

Just like in Australia and Mexico. That turned out well.


Chicago has had several buy-backs. Each time, the crime stats go up.

Exactly... every-time crime goes up.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

A buy back does not increase crime it is not logical for that to take place...least not gun related crime.

Besides I am talking about after pistols are illegalized.

Are you suggesting that if pistols are illegalized and pistols are purchased back say retail price plus 100.00 gun related incidents will go up?

This is the best idea I could think of and I see no flaw in its logic that gun related incidents will decrease. Do you?

Will there be an increase in knife related incidents? yes very likely but it would surprise me greatly if the increase is any where close to the decrease of gun related incidents. I say that because people simply arent as brave when they do not have a firearm.

I do not deny the possibility of a crime spike regarding narcotic related incidents as who knows that they will be doing with that cash.

I am from SC the element im concerned about is the shady guy with a concealed pistol standing outside a store or in a neighborhood in particular communities like apartments etc.

 

[angry_geek]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/18/the-futility-of-chicagos-gun-turn-ins



Just one of the many articles about this. Buy-back programs just flat don't work, unless you consider success being disarming people who had no propensity whatsoever to use a gun or getting non-functioning crap off the street to be melted down for scrap.

 

[NETWizz]

A buy back does not increase crime it is not logical for that to take place...least not gun related crime.

Besides I am talking about after pistols are illegalized.

Are you suggesting that if pistols are illegalized and pistols are purchased back say retail price plus 100.00 gun related incidents will go up?

This is the best idea I could think of and I see no flaw in its logic that gun related incidents will decrease. Do you?

Will there be an increase in knife related incidents? yes very likely but it would surprise me greatly if the increase is any where close to the decrease of gun related incidents. I say that because people simply arent as brave when they do not have a firearm.

I do not deny the possibility of a crime spike regarding narcotic related incidents as who knows that they will be doing with that cash.

I am from SC the element im concerned about is the shady guy with a concealed pistol standing outside a store or in a neighborhood in particular communities like apartments etc.

Don't know if it would increase gun crime or not, but overall there are a LOT more crimes in disarmed areas.

How would they know the Retail price without a receipt?

I am from SC the element im concerned about is the shady guy with a concealed pistol standing outside a store or in a neighborhood in particular communities like apartments etc.

Is the guy a shady character because he has a gun? or just plain shady?

I am from SC too... and I am a guy... and I often carry a legally purchased Pistol, I follow ALL the laws in regards to carry and where not too (Specifically Section 23-31-210); moreover, I have an SC Concealed Carry permit.

This means that:

1. I have a clean criminal background
2. My finger-prints came back okay
3. I can buy firearms now without a background check
4. I have demonstrated firearm safety and proficiency
5. I have demonstrated knowledge of the laws
6. I know not to carry in Government buildings, schools, hospitals, correctional facilities... except rest stops are okay.
7. I know not to carry wherever there are signs saying not to carry OR where alcohol is served...
8. I recognize I cannot carry into a private home or church without permission.

When I carry I don't like to print because I don't want to scare people or give away my advantage. Okay, so where do I fall?

 

[mraikes]

...snipped...
Are you suggesting that if pistols are illegalized and pistols are purchased back say retail price plus 100.00 gun related incidents will go up?

...snipped...I am from SC the element im concerned about is the shady guy with a concealed pistol standing outside a store or in a neighborhood in particular communities like apartments etc.

They don't work like that. They aren't really "buy" backs, but rather rewards for turning in guns. The value of the firearm doesn't play into it. For example, San Francisco recently offered a flat $200 per firearm (which seems to be a common amount). So anyone with a firearm worth more has little incentive to participate.

Regarding the "element" you're concerned about, what's the incentive for him to turn in his illegal firearm when it's a tool of his trade? Add the certainty that the law abiding person and their loved ones he's pointing his gun at won't be armed and will have no recourse other than to succumb?

We can't stem the flow of untold numbers of full size adult human beings and mind-boggling amounts of illegal drugs from slipping across our borders. How would we stop easily disassembled and hidden firearms? Like everything else illegal, they'd flow easily into our nation but NOT into the hands of law abiding citizens.

Overall this thread is a funny kind of discussion. On one side we largely have the approach of the dreamers. Those whose desire for a perfect world extend to acting (and force others to act) as if we ARE in a perfect world regardless of reality. On the other side, are those who see the reality of threats to the lives and well being of ourselves and our loved ones and desire the the ability to stand against such threats when they occur.

Dawn Hochsprung's blood is on our hands. A couple of weekends of pistol practice and a $100 handgun safely locked in her desk, and the grieving our nation is experiencing would be very different. Foolish and false beliefs about what makes a weapon dangerous to innocents forced that brave and wonderful woman to lunge at an armed man with her bare hands. And god bless her forever - for the sake of our children - she did it.

Whether Lanza had a gun or, like the Chinese murderer the same day, a knife it's OUR fault no one in that school was allowed to properly defend themselves.

We cannot continue to degrade and erase the rights of 314 million people to defend themselves whenever and wherever threatened just because a tiny percentage of those people are nut jobs seeking to cause harm.

If more normal people could legally carry guns, the crazies would get off fewer shots.

 

[Screwloose]

they don't work like that. They aren't really "buy" backs, but rather rewards for turning in guns. The value of the firearm doesn't play into it. For example, san francisco recently offered a flat $200 per firearm (which seems to be a common amount). So anyone with a firearm worth more has little incentive to participate.

Regarding the "element" you're concerned about, what's the incentive for him to turn in his illegal firearm when it's a tool of his trade? Add the certainty that the law abiding person and their loved ones he's pointing his gun at won't be armed and will have no recourse other than to succumb?

We can't stem the flow of untold numbers of full size adult human beings and mind-boggling amounts of illegal drugs from slipping across our borders. How would we stop easily disassembled and hidden firearms? Like everything else illegal, they'd flow easily into our nation but not into the hands of law abiding citizens.

Overall this thread is a funny kind of discussion. On one side we largely have the approach of the dreamers. Those whose desire for a perfect world extend to acting (and force others to act) as if we are in a perfect world regardless of reality. On the other side, are those who see the reality of threats to the lives and well being of ourselves and our loved ones and desire the the ability to stand against such threats when they occur.

Dawn hochsprung's blood is on our hands. A couple of weekends of pistol practice and a $100 handgun safely locked in her desk, and the grieving our nation is experiencing would be very different. Foolish and false beliefs about what makes a weapon dangerous to innocents forced that brave and wonderful woman to lunge at an armed man with her bare hands. And god bless her forever - for the sake of our children - she did it.

Whether lanza had a gun or, like the chinese murderer the same day, a knife it's our fault no one in that school was allowed to properly defend themselves.

We cannot continue to degrade and erase the rights of 314 million people to defend themselves whenever and wherever threatened just because a tiny percentage of those people are nut jobs seeking to cause harm.

If more normal people could legally carry guns, the crazies would get off fewer shots.

^^^ this 100% ^^^ .............

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

You guys are taking what im saying but only bits and pieces of it and arguing that bit and piece of it.

Providing links to previous buy backs, talking about how previous ones work is unrelated to my suggestion of just removing pistols out of the equation. The whole cash for the existing pistols is just incentive to speed up the elimination which will no doubt take many many years but eventually pistols would be very rare. In our lifetime? probably not.

NetWizz, where do you fall? unless you have some anger management issues you wouldnt concern me at all. As long as you don't have some sort of anger issues and are responsible with your firearm then you do not concern me.

Mraikes, incentive would be money but depending on what hes done with the weapon so far I do not expect he would turn it in. What recourse do you have exactly when your out and someone pulls a gun on you? The guy with the gun is just going to watch you pull out your weapon and shoot him? Sure there would be some scenarios where you may be able to do that but I think your chances are better if you just give up your valuables. As for home protection shotguns and rifles will be just fine.

My idea does not really relate to those school shootings etc as many of them had weapons other than pistols. They usually get them legally though.......it was a tragedy but pales in comparison to the number of gun incidents that occur every day.

My concern is not stopping the crazies as they will always figure out something even if they have to drive their car through a crowd.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Screwloose, you need to trade your TN userid with Computerrepairtech. Your id is much more fitting for thought processes like this:

My concern is not stopping the crazies as they will always figure out something even if they have to drive their car through a crowd.

If you are using a gun against a person, it is either self defense or some sort of "crazy" act. If you are not interested in stopping crazies, then who exactly are you stopping?

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

Screwloose, you need to trade your TN userid with Computerrepairtech. Your id is much more fitting for thought processes like this:




If you are using a gun against a person, it is either self defense or some sort of "crazy" act. If you are not interested in stopping crazies, then who exactly are you stopping?

Did that really confuse you or did you just felt the need to throw out an insult?

He previously stated "If more normal people could legally carry guns, the crazies would get off fewer shots."

we all know what hes talking about.

 

[mraikes]

You guys are taking what im saying but only bits and pieces of it and arguing that bit and piece of it.

Providing links to previous buy backs, talking about how previous ones work is unrelated to my suggestion of just removing pistols out of the equation. The whole cash for the existing pistols is just incentive to speed up the elimination which will no doubt take many many years but eventually pistols would be very rare. In our lifetime? probably not.

NetWizz, where do you fall? unless you have some anger management issues you wouldnt concern me at all. As long as you don't have some sort of anger issues and are responsible with your firearm then you do not concern me.

Mraikes, incentive would be money but depending on what hes done with the weapon so far I do not expect he would turn it in. What recourse do you have exactly when your out and someone pulls a gun on you? The guy with the gun is just going to watch you pull out your weapon and shoot him? Sure there would be some scenarios where you may be able to do that but I think your chances are better if you just give up your valuables. As for home protection shotguns and rifles will be just fine.

My idea does not really relate to those school shootings etc as many of them had weapons other than pistols. They usually get them legally though.......it was a tragedy but pales in comparison to the number of gun incidents that occur every day.

My concern is not stopping the crazies as they will always figure out something even if they have to drive their car through a crowd.

Sorry, I responded specifically to a couple of your points and then was speaking more generally about this thread overall - not you in particular. My apologies for not making that clear.

As long as pistols are available anywhere on earth they will never be "out of the equation" here. Many illegal things cross our borders and land in the hands of criminals. What's different about small guns that make them the exception?

Regarding my recourse if accosted by an armed criminal; I have the recourse that should be available to all men; The choice between being a victim or resisting. And like surprising a schoolyard bully with a punch in the face, an active resistance can often cause a criminal to change their mind.

The concern you express about what's best "for me" shouldn't be of paramount importance. And you have a common overestimation of the accuracy and lethality of a surprised, hurried shot. The question is, will you force me to face that armed criminal with my bare hands or permit a law abiding citizen a reasonable defense?

Is it not better for society in both the short and long term to stop that person from ever again threatening/assaulting/killing someone?

Just as my son learns lessons about right and wrong from me, so does someone learn from that criminal. Someday that person may also choose to follow in criminal footsteps - representing a chain of threat that might be broken if only someone were willing and able to resist.

And while our viewpoints may differ significantly - I do agree with your last sentence about always having crazies among us.

It is BECAUSE I believe there will always be crazies amongst us that I also believe that those of us who are not crazy should be allowed to carry.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

Sorry, I responded specifically to a couple of your points and then was speaking more generally about this thread overall - not you in particular. My apologies for not making that clear.

As long as pistols are available anywhere on earth they will never be "out of the equation" here. Many illegal things cross our borders and land in the hands of criminals. What's different about small guns that make them the exception?

Regarding my recourse if accosted by an armed criminal; I have the recourse that should be available to all men; The choice between being a victim or resisting. And like surprising a schoolyard bully with a punch in the face, an active resistance can often cause a criminal to change their mind.

The concern you express about what's best "for me" shouldn't be of paramount importance. And you have a common overestimation of the accuracy and lethality of a surprised, hurried shot. The question is, will you force me to face that armed criminal with my bare hands or permit a law abiding citizen a reasonable defense?

Is it not better for society in both the short and long term to stop that person from ever again threatening/assaulting/killing someone?

Just as my son learns lessons about right and wrong from me, so does someone learn from that criminal. Someday that person may also choose to follow in criminal footsteps - representing a chain of threat that might be broken if only someone were willing and able to resist.

And while our viewpoints may differ significantly - I do agree with your last sentence about always having crazies among us.

It is BECAUSE I believe there will always be crazies amongst us that I also believe that those of us who are not crazy should be allowed to carry.

Lets pretend mexico/south america had a large number of fire arm manufacturers and wanted to bring in this more costly more difficult product over the border (comparing to narcotics) to a country that still has open access to firearms just not pistols even then do you believe the number of gun related incidents would not decrease substantially?

Active resistance will get you killed. All I am saying is the aggressor has the advantage in that situation.

They usually fairly close to be missing a shot like that and who said anything about bare hands id recommend a tazer gun and some fox labs pepper spray but I still would still give up my wallet and such first because I think my odds are better. If he tells me to get in a trunk though...lol im taking my chances with the tazer.

I'm not saying I don't understand your view point im just saying I can't think of a better idea of reducing gun related incidents and while I see the advantage to having a fire arm for self defense, statistically speaking it just doesnt work out that way often enough for it to be worth being legal in my opinion.

 

[mraikes]

Lets pretend mexico/south america had a large number of fire arm manufacturers and wanted to bring in this more costly more difficult product over the border (comparing to narcotics) to a country that still has open access to firearms just not pistols even then do you believe the number of gun related incidents would not decrease substantially?

Active resistance will get you killed. All I am saying is the aggressor has the advantage in that situation.

They usually fairly close to be missing a shot like that and who said anything about bare hands id recommend a tazer gun and some fox labs pepper spray but I still would still give up my wallet and such first because I think my odds are better. If he tells me to get in a trunk though...lol im taking my chances with the tazer.

I'm not saying I don't understand your view point im just saying I can't think of a better idea of reducing gun related incidents and while I see the advantage to having a fire arm for self defense, statistically speaking it just doesnt work out that way often enough for it to be worth being legal in my opinion.

Why would small handguns be more difficult to smuggle across the border than bales of pot? Pounds of heroin? Illegal aliens? Knockoff Gucci handbags?

Get me killed? You're stating that as if it's a given. You're incorrect. Yes, it might get me killed, but the odds (if I'm legally armed) of survival are greatly in my favor. Do you think they expect their victims to be armed? Even at close range, as I stated before you overestimate the lethality of guns. By and large, people aren't shot and then simply drop dead. The majority of people who are shot survive to show their scars.

And an unexpected weapon appearing in the hands of a prepared person when virtually all criminals are accustomed to easy pickings changes the advantage quickly. Is HE willing to give his life for my wallet? Not if he knew what was in it - LOL.

It's nice of you to allow me a tazer and pepper spray against someone who you already believe is certain to kill me. How many times can you pull the trigger on a tazer? I've never been tazered, but I have experience with pepper spray. It wouldn't stop me from shooting if I were the bad guy.

You have the freedom to give up your wallet to an armed assailant. It happens everyday. And then that thug moves on to the next person who may not be so lucky. Congratulations.

 

[angry_geek]

Lets pretend mexico/south america had a large number of fire arm manufacturers and wanted to bring in this more costly more difficult product over the border (comparing to narcotics) to a country that still has open access to firearms just not pistols even then do you believe the number of gun related incidents would not decrease substantially?

Active resistance will get you killed. All I am saying is the aggressor has the advantage in that situation.

They usually fairly close to be missing a shot like that and who said anything about bare hands id recommend a tazer gun and some fox labs pepper spray but I still would still give up my wallet and such first because I think my odds are better. If he tells me to get in a trunk though...lol im taking my chances with the tazer.

I'm not saying I don't understand your view point im just saying I can't think of a better idea of reducing gun related incidents and while I see the advantage to having a fire arm for self defense, statistically speaking it just doesnt work out that way often enough for it to be worth being legal in my opinion.

Just make sure you don't bring that TAZER into Illinois. The idiots here decided those should be considered a dangerous weapon and hence made them illegal.

 

[NETWizz]

NetWizz, where do you fall? unless you have some anger management issues you wouldnt concern me at all. As long as you don't have some sort of anger issues and are responsible with your firearm then you do not concern me.

No, I do not have any anger issues. i.e. Even if somebody pisses me off, I am not just going to shoot them. What makes us (human beings) a higher form of intelligence is our ability to reason and deal with situations tactically and diplomatically. I would MUCH rather deescalate a situation than engage a threat. For example, there IS a time and a place to shoot and a time and place to take pictures, write down descriptions, and call the police. If someone is stealing my wheels but not threatening anybody, I DO NOT shoot over property for example. In contrast if I am sitting at home and two guys break a window and jump in they are going to have guns pointed at them. If they have a gun or knife and break in, I am shooting first. I know my house much better than any gunman and in the dark would especially have a huge advantage.

Active resistance will get you killed. All I am saying is the aggressor has the advantage in that situation.

Not necessarily. It depends totally on every situation. In many cases, you may be right, but an armed citizen surprises an aggressor. If I am at IHOP sitting in the corner where I can look out the window and watch my car as well as see the whole restaurant and take easy concealment/cover around a second row of tables, I would have a tactical advantage if someone with guns barges in to rob or simply kill people. There are times when an active shooter comes in with no intent to do anything but kill innocent people, and without a gun you may have NO options if the exit is in front of you or behind the assailant.

Please watch this video; This is the type of situation that causes me to support citizens having guns in public:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis


This recording would have been much different if this woman was disarmed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExC7fE1LaY

 

[TechLady]

While we're throwing YouTube videos around as a "source," here then: http://youtu.be/8QjZY3WiO9s

I know, more liberuh propoganduh. Save your breath. (No, really).

However, you may like this. I disagree with most of it, but:

"A balanced approach to gun control in the United States would require the warring sides to agree on several contentious issues. Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks—or if a federal law put these in place—more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable. They should also acknowledge that requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows would not represent a threat to the Constitution. “The NRA position on this is a fiction,” says Dan Gross, the head of the Brady Campaign. “Universal background checks are not an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. This is black-helicopter stuff.” Gross believes that closing the gun-show loophole would be both extremely effective and a politically moderate and achievable goal. The gun lobby must also agree that concealed-carry permits should be granted only to people who pass rigorous criminal checks, as well as thorough training-and-safety courses."​

 

[NETWizz]

"A balanced approach to gun control in the United States would require the warring sides to agree on several contentious issues. Conservative gun-rights advocates should acknowledge that if more states had stringent universal background checks—or if a federal law put these in place—more guns would be kept out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally unstable. They should also acknowledge that requiring background checks on buyers at gun shows would not represent a threat to the Constitution. “The NRA position on this is a fiction,” says Dan Gross, the head of the Brady Campaign. “Universal background checks are not an infringement on our Second Amendment rights. This is black-helicopter stuff.” Gross believes that closing the gun-show loophole would be both extremely effective and a politically moderate and achievable goal. The gun lobby must also agree that concealed-carry permits should be granted only to people who pass rigorous criminal checks, as well as thorough training-and-safety courses."​

This is one contention I could agree with. Not the video though... I DO agree with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals! When ANY Federal Firearm's Dealer is at a gun show, they MUST run a background check, but I agree with you that it would not hurt to close the loophole where citizens can sell directly to other citizens without a background check. That said, if it is going to be the law, there must be a toll-free number a citizen can call when selling or giving a gun to another citizen to do a background check... in other words, don't expect citizens to have to go through a firearms dealer or gun shop and pay a crazy fee or anything. The Citizen's number should verify the spelling of the name and electronically complete a form 4473 on their end indicating the buyer/seller... and instantly send an email and/or txt message saying "Proceed" for example. Then they should mail both parties a completed form 4473...

Regardless, Government has no right to infringe my ability to sell a firearm privately, but if they want to make it the law that I have to run a background check and provide a way for me to do it, by all means it isn't a bad idea. I wouldn't sell a gun to anyone whom I thought was a criminal no matter what they offered me though.

I have a Concealed Carry Permit, and it DID take a rigorous criminal background check, thorough training, understanding of applicable law, classroom study, shooting proficiency, demonstration of safe handling, ability to follow oral and written instruction, written examination, finger prints, and fees... Literally, it took 90 days to complete the background investigation and process the paperwork. They had to do something like Fax all the Mental institutions and research my medical history to make sure I have never been admitted for example in addition to running finger-prints and a few other things. Bottom line is they are making sure you have NOT committed any crime of violence, never had any felony, are a valid citizen of the State (i.e. Residency usually takes 1 year), and a few other things.

I hear that soon they may start setting up phone interviews with every Concealed Carry Permit holder to assess their "state of mind" and basically make sure you will use it only in lawful self-defense. They might ask a question like, "Someone is slashing your tires... What do you do?" A: Get an accurate description and call the police. What they don't want to hear is that you would use deadly force when not at risk of severe bodily risk or harm... There ARE gun owners who would shoot a thief... I am NOT one of them.

This Springfield XDS is my Concealed Carry gun I carry when I dress light (i.e. no jacket) because I don't want anyone to know I have a gun... Don't want people acting weird about me or avoiding me. It shoots .45 ACP, which makes a pretty big hole, but it holds only 5+1 with the normal mag I use... I generally keep 2 more mags (a 5 and a 7) in a pant or jacket pocket.

This is NOT me in the picture, but this is all a member of the public would see:

The green is the gun.
Red is the only evidence of the gun... asside from the slight bulge.

The RED is the part of the Galco Tuck-N-Go holster that shows! I use a thicker belt to hide more of that tab! I like the Galco Tuck-N-Go holster because I can fully tuck a nice Ralph Lauren Polo shirt (or other slightly long polo), get a nice belt, some dress slacks, and go out for diner to a nice place, and I am the LAST guy (by the way I dress) that anyone would ever suspect would carry a gun. I feel it important to wear a holster where I can tuck my shirt because I don't want to look unkempt. Moreover, a long enough tucked shirt doesn't fly loose and visibly show my gun or have to be re-tucked... so I am NOT touching the gun every 5 minutes, not checking if my shirt is tucked, and honestly don't even feel the gun after a while... it to me feels like carrying a cellphone! I forget it is there sometimes.

On the outside, I then open carry an iPhone with a NICE Otterbox defender clipped on the belt hiding any slight bulge from the gun and the little tab from the holster.

I am an example of a citizen that responsibly carries, follows the law, isn't a criminal, and does everything I can do to exercise my rights without scaring the public. Although printing (gun shown through clothing) is legal, I feel it is being sloppy and that to carry concealed means just that. I don't even tell most of my friends or family! It is NOT an advantage if a criminal ever finds out you have a gun... you become target #1.

If I ever need to shoot, I can rip my shirt up with my left hand, draw with my right, push out, aim, and fire in about 1.5 seconds. I have practiced with this gun and many hundreds of dollars worth of ammo even drestoryed a few shirts practicing to get to this point, but I am confident. I have told my friends before entering their house... they were fine with it and many now carry, too. Regardless, I have gotten to the point I can fall asleep at a friend's house watching a movie with the gun still concealed... it is that comfortable


The Video Above is Inaccurate! Yes, brand new people touch their gun every 5 minutes through their clothing just to check if it is still there, they wear the wrong clothing and might un-tuck or expose if they reach up high on a supermarket shelf, etc. It takes practice to be comfortable carrying a gun. The first time you do it, it will be uncomfortable, strange, awkward, and you won't feel right, but that soon passes.