I recently got into handguns and training.

I recommend everyone who has access to it go into training where you take a real handgun that's been modified to shoot laser and has CO2 recoil. The setup is that you have a screen (perhaps all around you), playing out a scenario. You're in a convenience store, and something may happen that requires you to defend yourself.

Even with a fair amount of training, the adrenalin surge is significant, and the time you have to respond is very limited. Doing this eliminated any illusions I had regarding guns and safety. There's little time to rack the gun to put a round in the chamber. And if you haven't done it, it's not easy to rack a gun (you need the right grip, angle, etc). And racking can fail. Even I, with very limited experience, have experienced multiple failures while racking.

People mentioned videos where people practice doing all this, and time themselves. I saw a video where someone 3 yards away draws a machete and runs at the other person. The time he has to draw and defend is just not enough at 3 yards. One needs to actively dodge the machete while drawing. Adding the complexity of racking is almost a guaranteed failure. The person drawing was very experienced (and a handgun trainer), knew the attack was going to come, and still had a low success rate.

Other things I've had to unlearn:

"Why didn't they just shoot at the legs?" At short notice, in an emergency scenario, aim is very poor. People train for these situations to get a reasonable likelihood of hitting a person without needing to spend time aiming. And the primary way to do it is to aim at the body - not arms/head/legs.

"Why did they have to shoot the person 3 times?" See above. Aim is hard, and there's a good chance of missing. When your life is on the line, you are not going to shoot once and check if it hit. You'll shoot 3 rounds quickly. When I did the simulator, I often shot 4-6 rounds without even realizing it (and was told by the instructor to keep it down).

This may be hard for some to believe/digest. As I said, I didn't believe it until I was put in those (simulated) situations.

Another thing I thought was crazy: People sleeping with a loaded gun by their bed. A guy did a video where an intruder was in the house and running towards their room. They timed different scenarios (unloaded with magazine on the side, different gun safes, etc). He succeeded only with one particular gun safe, and only with the gun fully loaded.

If I ever keep a gun at home, it will not be for "defend against an intruder in the middle of the night". It's just too risky to keep a loaded gun next to your bed. But if you have good reason to believe someone is after you, this is the only way to go.

Having said all that, if I carried a gun, I'd likely not have a round in the chamber. But that's really me saying I'm not going to carry a gun for safety purposes.

▲

recursivecaveat 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> saw a video where someone 3 yards away draws a machete and runs at the other person.

It's probably best to be realistic about what is possible. If somebody tried to whack you on the sidewalk with a machete, they would win 100% of the time, because you're not living 24/7 in a hyper-alert paranoid state keeping an incredibly close eye on everyone 360° around you. Unless you've drawn your weapon 100s of times in near-miss scenarios on people who look like they might be grabbing a weapon because their phone is in a coat pocket or something, it's just the truth. If you're going to live in a society you just kind of have to accept that you could hypothetically be killed in broad daylight by a very-motivated someone with no real opportunity to defend yourself. Happens to organized crime members all the time, and obviously they have way way more reason to be paranoid than regular people.

▲

gottorf 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> If you're going to live in a society you just kind of have to accept that you could hypothetically be killed in broad daylight by a very-motivated someone with no real opportunity to defend yourself.

This is absolutely true, but security in depth, right? Just because it's easy for you to die in public, whether from a premeditated attack or an accident, doesn't mean it's pointless to add on a few layers to make that less likely. After all, everything happens in the margins.

▲

relaxing 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> everything happens in the margins

including accidentally shooting yourself, accidentally shooting the wrong person, getting shot by someone else who misread who was the good guy with the gun and the bad guy with the gun, and turning it on yourself when the pressure of it all gets to be too much.

	▲	BeetleB 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with you on this. Keep in mind that your point is orthogonal to the topic of whether you should have a round in the barrel or not. Everything you say here applies to both cases. (Well, OK, there's a tiny marginally higher chance of accidentally shooting yourself).

▲

BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed. I know someone who owns a gun and lives in a very sketchy area. The previous tenant in the apartment was a drug dealer, so sketchy people keep knocking on the door.

Making it very clear that he owns a gun effectively drives all of them away.

But that's where you make clear you have a gun. Concealed carry, by definition, is hiding that fact. There are pros and cons to open carry, but IMO, if you want the gun to act as a deterrent, open carry probably is a lot more effective than concealed carry.

▲

BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Completely agree.

But let's extend the distance to 5 yards. Or 8 yards. Or whatever. There is a distance threshold where racking vs not racking makes a difference. It's not a thin threshold. You probably gain a decent number of yards by not having to rack.

Lots of things can go wrong while carrying a handgun (with or without a round in the chamber). I don't recommend people do it unless they are aware of a specific threat. But once you are under a specific threat, then it doesn't really make sense to carry it without a round in the chamber.

▲

probably_wrong 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Another thing I thought was crazy: People sleeping with a loaded gun by their bed.

To me this sounds like not putting your seatbelt on in case you ever need to get out of your car underwater: you're improving your chances at a statistically-unlikely event (home invasion) by making your chances worse at a much likelier event (accidental discharge).

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

relaxing 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> But if you have good reason to believe someone is after you, this is the only way to go.

What pray tell is this hypothetical threat? Who is this attacker who comes in your bedroom in the middle of the night to use lethal force against you, but gives you time to rouse, grab your weapon, and acquire target? Or they wake you by running in with full knowledge committed to memory of the layout of your house and your sleeping arrangements so that they can beat you to your gun safe? They’ve cased the joint but they’re not going to wait until you come out to get in your car in the morning?

If you believe someone is after you, your resources would be better spent getting support from others, or physically securing your living space, or getting the hell out of dodge.

▲

BeetleB 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> What pray tell is this hypothetical threat?

I said "if you have good reason to believe someone is after you". That precludes hypothetical threats.

People sometimes make enemies who threaten to kill them. Some of them actually try to kill them. Some of them are people who know them and their house/apartment intimately. Start looking around. Lots and lots of cases of people who get out on bail and kill the person in the next few days.

> They’ve cased the joint but they’re not going to wait until you come out to get in your car in the morning?

If you're going to kill someone, are you going to do it that openly, when it may be easier to do it in the home?

> If you believe someone is after you, your resources would be better spent getting support from others, or physically securing your living space, or getting the hell out of dodge.

I actually agree, with the caveat that only the last one works, and is not feasible for many.

▲

relaxing 2 days ago | parent [-]

A lot is feasible if your life is at stake. Living through a wild west fantasy of beating your murderous ex to the draw is probably the least feasible.

If forced to choose between rampaging through someone’s house in close quarters combat, or waiting outside for them to come to me, I’d pick the latter.

▲

BeetleB 2 days ago | parent [-]

> If forced to choose between rampaging through someone’s house in close quarters combat, or waiting outside for them to come to me, I’d pick the latter.

And many wouldn't.

> A lot is feasible if your life is at stake.

I won't argue the point - people have different opinions on this, and it's not a topic you're going to get a "clear correct" answer for. The point still stands: Some people choose not to leave, and then their options become limited. They often have to live the rest of their life in fear, and not everyone can get a new identity.[0]

Also, as I and others have pointed out - just the mere fact that you have a gun, are trained to use it well, and keep it on/near you at all times will deter a significant percentage of problematic people.

The other thing to point out - this thread is filled with the extremes (including my examples). It's not always the case that someone has planned to kill someone. There is a continuum of threats.

BTW, try living in the rural[1] parts of my state, where everyone has a gun, and the police funding is low, and often the 911 operator will tell people "Sorry, we're out of resources and it'll take at least 30-60 minutes to get to you. Do what you can to defend yourself"[2] People routinely take advantage of the fact that the police will not get there in time, and not having a gun is inviting such folks.

[0] A coworker's father recently passed away. When it happened, he revealed to me that he had lived much of his life in fear that his father would show up at the door with a gun and shoot him. Even when he lived in a different state. Not exaggerating to say he was relieved when he died. Weirdly enough, he got a gun only after his father died.

[1] And by rural, I still mean a proper city where you have neighbors next to you, etc.

[2] Paraphrasing an actual 911 call.

	▲	relaxing 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> many people wouldn’t Yeah, many people are stupid and/or crazy or just hotheads making rash decisions in the heat of the moment which kind of blows apart your rational calculus of armed deterrence. I don’t know what your state is. I live in a rural part of my state, and the open warfare you’re describing doesn’t sound like anything I’ve heard about. I think it might be time to move, friend. Whatever’s holding you there can’t be worth your life.

▲

sugarplant 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

im curious where you live where home invasions dont happen. i live in one of the safest states in the US and home invasions happen here.

people actually do commit random violence in home invasions by the way. your having chosen not to look into it at all or read the news ever doesnt negate this. its to say that random violence in home invasions is common, but the point is that it does happen. and i think people should have a very effective means to defend themselves.

theres even been a serial killer that committed home invasions by claiming to be police upon breaking in. this also happened recently with those politicians that got assassinated.

if you dont want to have a firearm thats your choice. dont see why you think this is necessary for other people though.

▲

relaxing a day ago | parent [-]

of course home invasions happen, but they’re rare. and the number involving guns is much smaller. look up the statistics instead of getting scared watching the news.

so a police officer shows up at your door. you’re going to greet them with a gun drawn? that will get you killed.

i do own a firearm, but i don’t walk around with it like a cowboy. and i discourage others because of all the risks mentioned.

	▲	dmoy a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> look up the statistics https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt As of 2010, about a million home invasions per year in the US, 250k of which end up with the occupier (owner, renter) being a victim of some violent crime. Not a lot ending in death though. Also I think the numbers went down a bit from 2010.
	▲	sugarplant 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>and the number involving guns is much smaller. lol. a threat of violence can exist without the gun. im glad you are confident in your ability to beat any random, unknown stranger (especially tweakers) in a tussle. as someone with bjj and boxing experience i would say this is unbelievably arrogant though. >look up the statistics instead of getting scared watching the news. ive seen the same ones that the other guy replied to you with. this is almost not worth replying to because you are just being snide and dismissive. to reciprocate, do you realize that the statistics (which you havent actually read) aren't the governing force of what happens to you in your life? statistics are a model of reality. for example, what do you think the odds would say that between when i replied to your post yesterday and now, that i experienced a break in where someone was trying to climb into my son's room at 3 in the morning? do you think my first thought was about the statistical likelihood of it? for the record i live in one of the safest states in the US. life isn't a spreadsheet with numbers on it, genius. if you are comforted by those numbers, good for you. telling others to not be scared of bad things happening to them is peak dork arrogance.