Maybe we should do away with the concealed carry and everyone carry in plain sight. Pretty sure Mr. Holmes would have had second thoughts had everyone in the theatre had a glock strapped to their hip.

 

I had an argument with a friend over the weekend who didn't believe anyone (adult and legal to own a gun) could open carry a handgun on their hip without having a special license or permit in Kentucky.

I had an argument with a friend over the weekend who didn't believe anyone (adult and legal to own a gun) could open carry a handgun on their hip without having a special license or permit in Kentucky.

My co-workers were shocked when I told them that.

I had an argument with a friend over the weekend who didn't believe anyone (adult and legal to own a gun) could open carry a handgun on their hip without having a special license or permit in Kentucky.

 

And in Kentucky you can carry a wide range of weapons. Granted, you may get a lot of weird looks, but it is legal.

I'm sure he wasn't sitting still. Hitting a moving target in that small of a spot right in the middle a crowd with all the smoke and confusion is a dicey proposition. Especially given that a lot of weapons carried in pockets are not known for their accuracy at distance. Anyone that pulled out a handgun in that situation and went after the shooter would likely have been victim number 13. This would truly been a situation to only use you handgun as a last resort if cornered or something.

You responded this to my "Shoot him in the face" post. I said that due to the question being asked, where could you shoot him wearing body armor, a balistic helmet and a gas mask...the obvious place to shoot him would be to aim at his head and hope to hit him in the face. That's not a perfect scenario but it would be where to aim.

 

How comfortable would you be getting yourself to within 30-40 feet (if you weren't originally)? How confident would you be that you wouldn't hit one of the other 400 people running for their lives in the smoke and confusion? How confident would you be that you could hit him somewhere that wasn't armored while he was moving and shooting back? How confident would you be knowing that if you didn't put him down with your first shot that you would likely draw about 50 shots back in your direction. From an assault rifle. At short range. Don't you think it is more likely that you would have run and only tried to shoot as a last resort? Wouldn't it be wiser to do so?

I would shoot for a couple of reasons; to draw his fire away from my family or others or to kill/stop him. While it wouldn't be an easy shot, your first shot or two would be your best chance to hit him. He too would be in the middle of the same chaos. One of my weapons as an internal laser, that while possibly giving away my position, I would feel confident of my shots hitting at or very near little red dot within the range your speaking of.

 

I understand what you're saying and I respect your opinion but I own 2 of the 3 types of guns he used in this incident, I understand their capability. They are all semi-atuomatic guns, I'm going to shoot when/if I get the chance and hope it does the job, I'm not carrying my gun to wait to get cornered and then hope for the best.

Exactly

I had an argument with a friend over the weekend who didn't believe anyone (adult and legal to own a gun) could open carry a handgun on their hip without having a special license or permit in Kentucky.

 

My co-workers were shocked when I told them that.

Yep can wear them on your hip like Matt Dillon if you want to. This is an easy bet to win, nobody believes this.

Yep can wear them on your hip like Matt Dillon if you want to. This is an easy bet to win, nobody believes this.

 

I know...my argument was with a lifelong hunter and gun enthusiast. He straight up did NOT believe me.

 

Yep can wear them on your hip like Matt Dillon if you want to. This is an easy bet to win, nobody believes this.

 

I know. Pretty crazy what people believe the gun laws are compared to the reality.

 

Also, I had a co-worker who thought you had to have a concealed carry to legally own a handgun.

Frum: Fear drives opposition to gun control

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/23/opinion/frum-guns/index.html?c=&page=3

 

And a gun in the house is not a guarantee of personal security -- it is instead a standing invitation to family tragedy. The cold dead hands from which they pry the gun are very unlikely to be the hands of a heroic minuteman defending home and hearth against intruders. They are much more likely to be the hands of a troubled adolescent or a clumsy child.

 

In the land of the Second Amendment, nobody will take your guns away. But if you love your children, you should get rid of them voluntarily.

 

That statement is stupid. If you have kids you should get rid of your guns? How about you just put them in a safe place away from the kids?

That statement is stupid. If you have kids you should get rid of your guns? How about you just put them in a safe place away from the kids?

So you don't believe there is an added risk of an accidental shooting in a house with guns versus one without?

So you don't believe there is an added risk of an accidental shooting in a house with guns versus one without?

 

I think there is an added risk if they're there, but I would agree that to say "if you love your children, you should get rid of [your guns] voluntarily" is pretty ridiculous. There is an added risk to driving on the expressway versus driving on highways - and I dare say it's a MUCH bigger risk than the risk of an accidental shooting. Does that mean if parents parents love their children, they should always opt to take the highway instead of driving on the expressway with their kids in the car?

So you don't believe there is an added risk of an accidental shooting in a house with guns versus one without?

 

Is that what I said?

FKYW pulling a Clyde on you.:thumb:

 

I think there is an added risk if they're there, but I would agree that to say "if you love your children, you should get rid of [your guns] voluntarily" is pretty ridiculous. There is an added risk to driving on the expressway versus driving on highways - and I dare say it's a MUCH bigger risk than the risk of an accidental shooting. Does that mean if parents parents love their children, they should always opt to take the highway instead of driving on the expressway with their kids in the car?

 

:thumb:

FKYW pulling a Clyde on you.:thumb:

 

:lol: I thought the same thing.

FKYW pulling a Clyde on you.:thumb:

 

By pulling a Clyde you mean, "asking brilliant questions", correct?