I must disagree. I can walk anywhere in the US without having insurance. If I OWN a home I am not obligated to have any kind of insurance on it. Medical malpractice is the leading cause of death in the US (>788,000/yr) there is no federal law requiring medical professionals to have professional liability insurance. http://malpractice.burgsimpson.com/...ng-cause-of-death-in-us-second-in-canada.html Owning a gun is your right, not a privilege. Think about how many guns are in the US, then think about how many of said guns have never harmed anyone. I never understood why anyone would want to punish the many because of the actions of a few . Same thing with dogs, for example. If less than .05% of non stray dogs in your county had bitten someone, and even though your dogs had never bitten anyone, the county requires you to now buy "dog bite insurance." Makes no sense.
Knowing oneself is important and I agree so I stick with DA/SA for my carry which is usually a SIG MK25. I have had even too much trouble forgetting the safety at a range much less under duress. I have inadvertently fired a SA with the safety off before I wanted to at a range.
Why are crimson trace grips not more often recommended. Most people - overwhelmingly - are bad shots with a handgun, particularly while moving and under stress. I've never had a crimson trace fail and it makes close range aiming a piece of cake.
That's relatively simple. The manual of arms for lasers is still being written. A problem with them was they were initially unreliable and sold as an alternative to sights. The second is that CT had the patent for grip operated sights and aren't giving that up till it expires. For close range work, I don't consider them effective. For longer range and with time, they're very effective. Some of the groups shot with small snubs are impressive. It's pretty much ditto with compact semi-autos. You might not know this but there are three ways to mount a laser and each make a difference. You can mount them below the iron sights, on top of the iron sights or over the iron sights. Each has advantages and disadvantages. BTW CT makes a very good product, but there can be problems using speed loaders, especially with snubs. Lasers can be a very complicated subject with choices between red and green. There are also situations where you might not see the laser up close but will at a distance. This is probably something for a separate topic.
I've been having a laser discussion with myself for awhile. I have Trijicon night sights on my G19. The gent who installed them used red loctite on the front. They've gone dim. That makes for a nifty three dot sight in daylight, but my night option is back to square one. A little red laser would cost the same as changing to new sights, and the laser can move to a new gun.
When it comes to lasers, crimson trace is the ticket, IMO. Other lasers that require the shooter to do anything other than grip the gun I see as a liability in a defensive situation. Having a little red dot on your chest is the international sign for oh S***. For true close range "aiming", it's going to be instinctive point shooting. Taking time to ensure your laser or sights are on target does just that; takes time. Though it may be fractions of a second, that may be the difference between going home or going to the hospital. I do see the merits in lasers, like at night or for a situation where a flash sight picture would come into play. But I've found that some become dependent upon the laser. Had 4 guys come through a low light pistol course. All had lasers, did well. Turned the lasers off and it was a different story. Murphy's law is still king, so if a laser works for an individual then great. I recommend that if you do have a laser, use it as a force multiplier, not a primary. I recommend good tritium sights on a carry gun. Because many become dependent on lasers I tend to generally recommend against them. Yes some folks can use them correctly, as I see it. With training so many different people, you can get a feel for how a particular individual will react to certain scenarios, etc. Lasers are phenomenal when it comes to dry fire practice.
I respect and uphold your right to your opinion. You also make a valid point about the 0.05% of dogs biting someone. But that is the entire point of insurance coverage. Yes, only .05% are the problem and if we could locate just that .05% there wouldn't be any problem at all. But we can't. We don't know which dogs will end up biting someone so we have to insure all dogs against the possibility because all dogs have teeth and all dogs have the capability of biting. The same applies to concealed carry. Yes, 99.95% are never going to be a problem but we have no way to identify those that will be a problem. There have already been cases of road rage resulting in fatal outcomes and others that could have been fatal. I am sure that as an instructor you are more than aware that emotions like rage and anger aren't a good thing to have around guns. Hence the need for insurance IMO. People are people but when they do stupid things bystanders can be hurt in the process through no fault of their own. The insurance is not a penalty, but a sensible precaution, because otherwise it is we taxpayers who will be picking up the tab for the actions of others and that is just not right IMO. Why should We the People have to pay for the 0.05% of those who cause harm to innocent bystanders? Owning and carrying a firearm means taking on the responsibility and accountability for what happens when it is used. No one is being forced to have insurance if they keep their gun in their home and only ever use it at the range. But if they want to carry it around all day long then they are no longer in the privacy of their own home but instead they are outside and public safety for everyone comes first and foremost IMO. - - - Updated - - - https://www.google.com/search?q=concealed+carry+road+rage&rlz=1C1GIWA_enUS643US643&oq=concealed+carry+road+rage&aqs=chrome..69i57.7967j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
That's completely anecdotal. There are over 12 million CCW's and there are a handful over the years that have had these "road rage" incidents. Like I said.... this is not a prevalent problem. It's very rare. Anyone who fires a gun in public is responsible for where it lands and can be held civilly liable. You are trying to create a problem that just doesn't exist.
The problem exists and no amount of denial will make it disappear. The seriousness of the problem comes from the fact that lethal weapons are involved in public. States require that vehicle owners carry insurance so that the courts are not overloaded with lawsuits. There is no reason why the same cannot apply to CCW.
I'll repeat.... IT'S STATISTICALLY RARE. Courts are not overloaded with lawsuits involving CCW's. Show us hard stats that prove your opinion.
It doesn't matter how "statistically rare" it might be. What matters is that the probability is greater than zero. The insurance rates will reflect the degree of risk involved. But it does happen and people die and are injured as a result. That is why CCW insurance is necessary because We the People should not be held hostage and forced to pay out of our pockets for something we did not do. Or does the concept of personal responsibility not apply when it comes to CCW?
You have paid zero or next to zero. Thats how insignificant the number is. Personal responsibility is paramount when it comes to CCW. Thats why these incidents are so rare. People can be sued if they shoot an innocent. However the courts rarely have to handle these cases. The probablity is greater than zero that you will stab someone with a knife, in fact stats show that people are stabbed with kitchen steak knives more than CCW incidents involving innocents. Maybe you should have to get insurance next time you buy kitchen knives. FBI stats show we averarge 1500 stabbings with a knife each year...... far, far, far, more than CCW incidents that involve an innocent person getting shot.
Yet another attempt to diminish the value of human lives while ignoring the need to accept personal responsibility and accountability. The total cost of gun violence in this nation is estimated to be $229 billion each and every year. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america Please explain why We the People have to pay for the harm caused by those carrying concealed weapons irrespective of how little that amount might be because it is most definitely still a part of that $229 billion.
(It's a real shame this otherwise great thread has been taken over and derailed by a motherjones.com gun grabbing leftist.) So, anyway, I just put a Lasermax laser on my S&W Shield .40 that mounts in front of the trigger guard. It's really well engineered and difficult to tell that it's an add on. It has a little ambidextrous switch easily reachable with the trigger finger. Problem I have with it is the switch sometimes activates when I holster the weapon and kills the battery. I might look at a CT because it would not have that problem, or maybe a better holster would be the ticket. (My current one is an el-cheapo nylon IWB holster.)
Egad. Mojo to the rescue, eh? Household slips and falls account for many times the number of deaths from CCW holders. In keeping with your hue and cry, are we to demand that you buy insurance for every bar of soap?
Ironic that those demanding that spending be reduced switch over into abject denial that there is even a problem when provided with the opportunity to do something constructive about it.
How bout starting a thread about "ccw insurance", this one has been hijacked enough. - - - Updated - - - What kind of holster are you using?
I was giving some sort of credibility to you until this post. We have been discussing CCW's correct? You have no idea what part of the $229 million is attributed to CCW. Let me tell you something that you obviously do not know. When a CCW holder is arrested for an gun accident or crime... not just a gun crime but any crime, they immediately have their CCW revoked. Care to guess how often CCW's are revoked? Here is an example... From the Crime Prevention Research Center.... not a leftwing propaganda outfit like Mother Jones that you used. "Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2011, there were 168 revocations for firearms related violations in Florida Over that period of time permits were issued to over 2 million permit holders. 168/2 million = 0.008%" 168 times in 24 years...... Your idea that this is a problem has been debunked over and over again long before you came a long on this forum. It's old hat. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/co...en-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/ Now try this little report for the Texas Department of Public Safety..... https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf If you still think CCW is a problem after reading this then you didn't read it.
The continued attempts to diminish the importance of human life doesn't alter the reality of the risk posed to public safety. If the number was zero there would be a case to be made but since it isn't zero We the People have to deal with the reality of that $229 billion in spending. Why is this "sacred cow" immune from all other attempts to reduce spending? Why is this exception made when it comes to holding all life sacred? Why must We the People be forced to carry this tax burden?
CCW creates no tax burden. You want to talk how gun crime creates a tax burden, then thats a different discussion. Perhaps you should start another thread.
