I have to admit to not being familiar with the holster you are talking about but I have a hard time believing that you carry such a holster and keep it concealed. How do you quick draw something like that when it is hidden in clothes or in purses? For that matter if it is that quick draw what keeps it from slipping out? I would imagine like police holsters it is strapped. Glock's own safety recommendations go against that as apparrently even they see the possibility of accidents occurring. It depends on the situation. I've been through several exercises disarming pistols and if you're so dependent on your firearm you are SOL if you lose it whereas if you aren't you can still act. I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the police but that doesn't change the fact that police are better trained than most civillians. Further while many CHL holders may be around guns their whole lives that doesn't mean they are familiar with pistols and pistol tactics. Police training focuses on that. On top of that there is a bigger weeding out process for the police than CHL. So you already have a more select group of people in law enforcement. I will admit I don't have stats but I will say without looking somethign up that there is 0% chance of your martial arts skills being used against you and very little chance of hurting bystanders. I've seen and handled many holsters and all of them I've seen outside of the old west style have straps to secure the guns which are supposed to be used to keep your gun from slipping out.
Just one more thought regarding martial arts based self-defense vs guns. I don't want to deny the lethality of guns vs hands and even with the best training disarming or stopping someone with a gun is very dangerous. My point is that relying on guns for self-defense is breeds a very false sense of security since it takes a lot of training including psychological to be able to effectively use a gun. It takes a lot of training too to use hand to hand based self-defense but that is something you always have with you and can't be used against you. There are also many side benefits too to martial arts such as improving physical fitness and building confidence which you don't get from just learning to shoot.
In all your study of holsters (to me seems to be basically police duty and "old west" holsters) have you ever seen a IWB holster? You know NOTHING of them. You are arguing with me with NO REAL FACTS OR EXPERIENCE!!!
OK holsters 101 This is a duty holster or a general purpose holster. It has a strap, and is made out of a heavy thick material for durability and protection of the gun. Holds an extra mag for convienience. It is worn on a belt. Has a single loop for the belt to go through in the middle. Makes it alot thicker and more cumbersome. It covers up alot of the grip. As you can see only 2 finger slots are uncovered. Not the best to pull out fast becauser you would have to readjust your grip. The holster sits perpidicular to the belt. Making it difficult to draw. This is a high speed Kydex IWB holster. Thin because it is made of Kydex and the clips are on the outside of the holster. Also makes it much more stable. The entire grip is open. The retaining method is not a strap but a depression adjusted by the 2 large bolts in front of the trigger guard. Extremely stable extremely fast. The clips also have holes to adjust the cant of the gun allowing for a faster draw.
What makes you think that a martial artist will act on his/her skills while a gun owner won't? Most martial arts aren't practical and are less easily implemented than pulling a trigger. Why would you think that one would more easily land a strike or take someone down as opposed to pulling a trigger from practically point blank? And sorry to inform you, but your "weapon disarmament" exercises were an exercise in futility. If sh*t hit the fan, you and everyone of your classmates would more than likely wet themselves before attempting something as foolish as disarming someone with a gun. Talk about creating a false sense of security. You've obviously got one if you think attacking an armed man whilst unarmed is any kind of option, let alone a *better* one than being similarly armed yourself. This ain't TV. Speaking of which, there was a special on the discovery channel a while back about martial arts. They interviewed a Green Beret about what kind of martial arts they were taught. Getting to the point, one of the hosts asked him what he'd do if faced with an assailant with a knife. Not gun, but knife. The Green Beret said: "I'd give that assailant all my money." That should tell you something right there. On the otherhand, worse case scenario, someone who panicked with a gun would at least have the chance to permanently stop his assailant or at least buy enough time to escape to safety. I can't say the same about charging in, fists flailing, creating LESS distance between assailant and victim as opposed to having a gun.
Then we'd be having this same debate regarding "no blade zones." That and you'd have to deal with sci-fi nerds painting their blades to look like lightsabers.
Honestly, with all the things going on in this country, I'm pissed that gun control will now become a big issue for the elections, when IMO, it isn't as important as other things and is an issue the country is still split on. Y'know which dudes are really enjoying the media focus on this? Don Imus and George Bush.
Well, it is unnerving that this guy had a receipt for one of the guns in his backpack. I bet the person who sold that to him will be getting a visit from federal authorities if he/she already hasn't
Yeah, I just found out he was a resident alien after I posted this. I posted in the other thread that he's been here since he was 9 or 10.
The wacko-with-gun shooting scenario is not a symptom of poor gun control legislation. In the hangout thread we have comparisons to Canada, which shares much of the same culture and influences, yet has a homicide rate significantly less than that of the US. I think it's 20%, but may be less. Yet, on occasion, some wacko lets loose. 14 women were killed in Montreal about 10 years ago in Canada's worse shooting. Lined up in the classroom and shot. There have been other incidences as well. It's almost impossible to stop the wacko. And there's not an epidemic of these cases in the US either. So it's dishonest to use this situation as 'exhibit A' for the pro-gun control crowd. I am very much in favour of gun control laws. I don't understand the need to be packing heat when going out for groceries. And I'm disturbed that some of you are out there all prepped to duel it out old-west-style. Ban all handguns as far as I'm concerned. But that's a different thread.
One part of me feels relieved the dude is dead and the shooting is over. The other part of me feels relieved that he wasn't Chinese. No disrespect to Koreans, but I worry about blanket stereotypes and racial backlash against Chinese people as I'm of Chinese descent. When news came out that the shooter was Asian before the shooter was id'ed, I thought to myself: "uh oh, I really hope he ain't Chinese." I know it sounds really ethnocentric to say so, but that was honestly my initial reaction to this bit of news. Did any of you guys feel that way too? Admittedly, I believe in the model minority stereotype. It beats being part of a frowned upon minority class imho. theSAGE
I doubt it. Once I hit grad school my main friends were chinese. And honestly its quite hard to tell them apart from some Japanese or Koreans. I can tell apart a TYPICAL chinese from a TYPICAL korean and a TYPICAL japanese buy not everyone looks the same. Any racial backlash (there will be noone to very little) will be directed towards all Asians. It is not uncommon for you to be relieved it was not a chinese. I am relieved it was not another crazy camo wearing tech fearing redneck.
I was damned glad he wasn't of Scottish/English/Irish descent. I was really worried. D&D. I'm Kidding!
He was Asian, when people look at us, how many would be able to tell the difference between Chinese, Korean or Japanese?
