The Armed Citizen - are we over thinking things?

[old curmudgeon]

You also wrote "It is a sum of all your posts that you knock police. Most police, especially members of this forum want citizens to be armed. I personally feel that every qualified citizen should have a concealed carry permit like a drivers' license that should be good in all 50 States."


You got two problems here.

Obviously you do not believe in Rights. You believe in permission. Every one else has already made the obvious connection about cars not being in the US Constitution.

The next problem is your statement about "most cops". If you are personally offended when I question cops... Then you must feel ALL cops are good guys. Well...

Operation Fast and Furious was put on by Cops... DOJ, DEA, BATF... They're cops. And I'd venture to say MOST of them would disagree with you... Especially DEA and BATF who spend a great deal of time harassing FFL holders under this current administration...

You have an issue with RIGHTS. Those are not granted by the all powerful and benevolent government. Rights as specified in the Declaration and Constitution as being granted by GOD. INALIENABLE!

I for one believe that my rights as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are not to be tampered with because some guy thinks I should have a "safety class" or be "permitted" to carry a gun? This is one of the issues!!!!

And face it police and the all knowing feds have done a piss poor job of keeping guns out of felons hands. IN FACT THE BATF, DEA, FBI, AND BORDER PATROL HAVE BEEN PUTTING GUNS IN THE HANDS OF FELONS!!!! All your laws and regulations have been unable to stop or curb ANY OF THIS!

I am gong to butt in to make a point, but first I would point out that 27145 said that he does not believe that a CCW applicant should have to jump through hoops. The indication there is that getting a CCW should be very simple and easy.

But the question you raise in the above quote is how the guy who just walks in a gun store and buys a gun as easily as he buys a loaf of bread is going to be educated as to the laws.

The CCW class I took did go through the most obvious and likely situations but really all it did for me is to make me aware of how many of the the laws conflict, how wildly different laws are from state to state and now dangerous it is to assume that you have the same right to defend wherever you are.

I remember one thread on one of the hunting boards, and this one was courtesy of the state and one of the leading universities in that state and monitored by a university person, where contrary to state law it was argued by many that one could ask a trespasser to leave his property and if he did not leave one could shoot him point blank on the spot.

A sure and certain ticket to prison in that state.

If I guy is going to carry in my presence, I would prefer that he understand the law for my safety as well as his.

That is really all a driver's license does. It certainly does not make you a better driver. It makes you aware of your legal responsibilities.

So how do we have zero government involved and accomplish that?

Remember that among other things, the Constitution does allow the government to protect us from harm by others. It is intended to protect our freedoms but not the freedom of others to physically harm us.

I am as anti big government, and little government as well, as anyone you know. But at the same time I would prefer that people not shoot me because I walked up to their front door to ask them if I can hunt this winter.

 

[celticfisherman]

If it is illegal for a felon to own a gun then when caught with one arrest them. Otherwise why am I persecuted because it is illegal for a felon to have a gun? Enforce the law. Instead a ccw is simply enforcing someone's will on your rights.

 

[cshoff]

I am gong to butt in to make a point, but first I would point out that 27145 said that he does not believe that a CCW applicant should have to jump through hoops. The indication there is that getting a CCW should be very simple and easy.

But the question you raise in the above quote is how the guy who just walks in a gun store and buys a gun as easily as he buys a loaf of bread is going to be educated as to the laws.

The CCW class I took did go through the most obvious and likely situations but really all it did for me is to make me aware of how many of the the laws conflict, how wildly different laws are from state to state and now dangerous it is to assume that you have the same right to defend wherever you are.

The bottom line is that it is always the individual's responsibility to make sure he/she knows the laws that relate to him/her and his/her participation in a certain activity. How an individual fulfills that responsibility is/should be entirely up to him/her. We don't mandate a person sit through a class to familiarize themselves with the laws surrounding home ownership before they can buy and live in a home. We don't mandate that a person sit through a class to familiarize themselves with the laws regarding noise abatement and/or excessive noise restrictions before they can buy and use a stereo. We don't mandate that a person sit through a class to familiarize themselves with laws regarding marriage and divorce before they can enter into a marriage. I'm not sure why firearms ownership/use should be any different.

I remember one thread on one of the hunting boards, and this one was courtesy of the state and one of the leading universities in that state and monitored by a university person, where contrary to state law it was argued by many that one could ask a trespasser to leave his property and if he did not leave one could shoot him point blank on the spot.

A sure and certain ticket to prison in that state.

Some states, including my state, have Castle Doctrine that not only covers a home or vehicle, but also any real property over which the actor has possession, authority, or control. That said, I am not sure which state was being referenced in the post you mentioned above. But this just illustrates how laws can vary greatly from state to state. Should we, therefore, be required to attend a class that covers the laws in any state in which we intend to enter/travel?

If I guy is going to carry in my presence, I would prefer that he understand the law for my safety as well as his.

That is really all a driver's license does. It certainly does not make you a better driver. It makes you aware of your legal responsibilities.

I driver license test simply verifies that the person applying for the license possess a basic ability to control/operate the vehicle and understand common road signs, so that he/she may qualify to participate in a STATE GRANTED PRIVILEGE. And even then, it barely scratches the surface of the entire body of traffic law in a given state.

So how do we have zero government involved and accomplish that?

Personal responsibility?

Remember that among other things, the Constitution does allow the government to protect us from harm by others. It is intended to protect our freedoms but not the freedom of others to physically harm us.

The Constitution actually is supposed to LIMIT what the government can do. The areas of criminal and civil law are left up to the people to determine and subsequently write into law, implement, and enforce through the representative form of government we use.

I am as anti big government, and little government as well, as anyone you know. But at the same time I would prefer that people not shoot me because I walked up to their front door to ask them if I can hunt this winter.

I fail to see how mandated training requirements will ever ensure that doesn't happen.

 

[old curmudgeon]

I am only pointing out that it is a problem.

One reason most of us are not in prison because of an unknown traffic law is that most traffic laws are based on common sense and are very nearly uniform in the various states.

The weapons laws and especially as related to self defense and CCW are radically different to the point of insanity.

By the way, I have not read the castle doctrine law in your state but I doubt that it would cover you under the conditions I described. The castle law usually protects you from prosecution and civil action if you are forced to defend yourself in your home, on your property and in your vehicle whether owned leased or rented and on or in which you have a legal right to occupy at the time.

Most would protect you if you asked a trespasser to leave and he attacked you, making it necessary for you to defend yourself.
It would not, in most states, allow you to shoot him just because he refused to leave, which was the claim of the persons to whom I referred.

There are some states, of which mine is one, that hold that if you instigate a confrontation that was until then not violent, regardless of whether it was with violence or merely nasty language that resulted in a violent reaction from the other party, you have given up your right to defend yourself with a firearm.

Whether that will apply to our castle doctrine I don't know because it will not go into effect until the end of the year and even after that it will not be settled law until some cases are tried and gone through the appeal process.

My only point is that the castle law is not a license to blow everyone away that is in sight on your property.

 

[cshoff]

I am only pointing out that it is a problem.

One reason most of us are not in prison because of an unknown traffic law is that most traffic laws are based on common sense and are very nearly uniform in the various states.

The weapons laws and especially as related to self defense and CCW are radically different to the point of insanity.

Actually, the majority of defense of justification laws that I've read, not just in my own state but in a number of others, are mostly "common sense" based. The problem is in the few that aren't, and they seem to get worse the closer to either coast that you get.

By the way, I have not read the castle doctrine law in your state but I doubt that it would cover you under the conditions I described. The castle law usually protects you from prosecution and civil action if you are forced to defend yourself in your home, on your property and in your vehicle whether owned leased or rented and on or in which you have a legal right to occupy at the time.

Yes, it's clear that you haven't read the defense of justification laws here in Missouri, or if you have, you didn't understand them. In Missouri, an individual may use deadly force against another person if said person is unlawfully entering, attempting to unlawfully enter, or remaining after unlawfully entering a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person, OR any private property that is owned or leased by the individual. No fear or threat of bodily harm needs to be established if any of those conditions exist, though other provisions of our statutes DO provide for the justified use of deadly force in the event they do.

Now with all of that said, we just added "private property" that you own or lease to our "Castle Doctrine" laws last year, so this is something new here in our state. The idea is that a person who is lawfully present on property he/she owns or controls, should be afforded the same protections as he/she would have in his/her home, dwelling, or vehicle. Case law doesn't exist on this provision here in Missouri yet, but if the courts rule consistently with how they have already ruled regarding dwellings and vehicles, it should be a very cut and dry precedent.

Most would protect you if you asked a trespasser to leave and he attacked you, making it necessary for you to defend yourself.
It would not, in most states, allow you to shoot him just because he refused to leave, which was the claim of the persons to whom I referred.

In Missouri, it WOULD. In fact, it would be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

There are some states, of which mine is one, that hold that if you instigate a confrontation that was until then not violent, regardless of whether it was with violence or merely nasty language that resulted in a violent reaction from the other party, you have given up your right to defend yourself with a firearm.

Yes, Missouri has a similar statute. You are justified in using PHYSICAL force if you reasonably believe such force to be necessary to defend yourself or a third person from what you reasonably believe to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless you are/were the initial aggressor; except that in such a case when the use of such force is justified under other provisions of our law, OR even if you were the initial aggressor but have since withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to the other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force.

It's really not as confusing as it may first appear.

Whether that will apply to our castle doctrine I don't know because it will not go into effect until the end of the year and even after that it will not be settled law until some cases are tried and gone through the appeal process.

My only point is that the castle law is not a license to blow everyone away that is in sight on your property.

I agree. That is NOT the intended purpose of these kind of statutes, nor should folks attempt to use or interpret them in that way.

 

[ladder13]

My only point is that the castle law is not a license to blow everyone away that is in sight on your property.

Why spoil the dreams of some, they can fantasize can't they?

 

[celticfisherman]

I am only pointing out that it is a problem.

One reason most of us are not in prison because of an unknown traffic law is that most traffic laws are based on common sense and are very nearly uniform in the various states.

The weapons laws and especially as related to self defense and CCW are radically different to the point of insanity.

By the way, I have not read the castle doctrine law in your state but I doubt that it would cover you under the conditions I described. The castle law usually protects you from prosecution and civil action if you are forced to defend yourself in your home, on your property and in your vehicle whether owned leased or rented and on or in which you have a legal right to occupy at the time.

Most would protect you if you asked a trespasser to leave and he attacked you, making it necessary for you to defend yourself.
It would not, in most states, allow you to shoot him just because he refused to leave, which was the claim of the persons to whom I referred.

There are some states, of which mine is one, that hold that if you instigate a confrontation that was until then not violent, regardless of whether it was with violence or merely nasty language that resulted in a violent reaction from the other party, you have given up your right to defend yourself with a firearm.

Whether that will apply to our castle doctrine I don't know because it will not go into effect until the end of the year and even after that it will not be settled law until some cases are tried and gone through the appeal process.

My only point is that the castle law is not a license to blow everyone away that is in sight on your property.

It's obvious that not only are you not up to date on castle law but you aren't up to date on self defense law most anywhere. The dude is right. SD law is 99% common sense.

 

[cshoff]

It's obvious that not only are you not up to date on castle law but you aren't up to date on self defense law most anywhere. The dude is right. SD law is 99% common sense.

I can't say that I would necessarily agree. He seems to have a much more realistic grasp of the average "Castle Law" than many do. However, it's exactly like he stated earlier - laws vary from state to state. Just because a person is familiar with the laws in one, doesn't mean he/she will be familiar with the laws in another.

 

[celticfisherman]

I can't say that I would necessarily agree. He seems to have a much more realistic grasp of the average "Castle Law" than many do. However, it's exactly like he stated earlier - laws vary from state to state. Just because a person is familiar with the laws in one, doesn't mean he/she will be familiar with the laws in another.

You're right. And I should clarify it's his painting others with a "blast away" attitude that is repugnant. You are still bound by #1 common sense and #2 true necessity. If you would willingly blast away at someone when there is another option... You (IMO) are no better than the criminal. Taking a life is a responsibility. I know of no one who treats it like he paints it.

 

[old curmudgeon]

It's obvious that not only are you not up to date on castle law but you aren't up to date on self defense law most anywhere. The dude is right. SD law is 99% common sense.

I don't have a lot of patience with people that make cheap shots. If you want to dispute something I have posted, fine. But the above statement is a cheap shot.

OK, that said, here goes.

Castle law does not give you all of the privileges you think nor does it give you the privileges claimed in the preceding post.

At least, not in this state, NC.

For instance, you can't even take lethal force against a person in your house that some here claim to be able to do in their yard or even on farm property they own out in the boonies.

Lets take in the house for starters.

You can shoot a guy crawling through your window and be OK with it.

If the guy gets in your house and threatens you with a weapon or leads you to believe by his actions that he intends deadly force, you can shoot him.

But now lets say you come home from work. You find the front door ajar. You enter the house and there is a guy in your house. Can you shoot him point blank, bang, no questions asked?

Not in this state. In this state, he first must make a move that any reasonable person would understand to be of lethal danger to you.

If you ask him to leave and he does not, you can't blow holes in him. You can take him by the arm and usher him out if you are man enough. Bounce him, so to speak.

But what if he resists? You can use more force, but not lethal force.

What if you use force and he pulls a knife? At that point, you can escalate your force but there again it is pretty easy to get into trouble.

Most prosecutors take the position that you are not a cop, you can't do the things cops do and the smart thing to do is call the cops to remove him.

The prosecutor will take the position that when you found the front door ajar that you should not have entered your home but that you should have backed off and called the cops.

In short, it is their position that only cops should go looking for trouble and that non cops that go looking for trouble are just that. Looking for trouble and subject to prosecution.

If you read the papers, you will see a case about once a month where someone looks out the window and sees a person removing property from his car, truck or tool shed and who goes out and shoots the guy.

The castle doctrine is not going to change that situation, which calls for you to call the cops.

The most frequent example of this is the convenience store owner who chases a robber out into the parking area and nails him there. A very definite NO NO that will put you in the wrong seat in court in this state.

Yet there are people here and on other forums who think that the castle doctrine gives them a blank check not only in the house but in their front yard, farm or wherever they own property.

Not so. In some other states maybe, but not here and definitely not in all.

NH still has the duty to retreat law.

So all states have not yet reached the point of common sense and I can assure you that there are many many laws in NC that defy common sense.




North Carolina

Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

===========================

Note that nowhere does this law state that you can zap a BG just because he does not want to leave.

 

[seagill]

are we over thinking things?

After reading this thread, I'd say it's a definite yes! Spending all of my day wondering if I'm carrying the right gun cuts into my beach time.

 

[oldman45]

Castle law does not give you all of the privileges you think nor does it give you the privileges claimed in the preceding post.

For instance, you can't even take lethal force against a person in your house that some here claim to be able to do in their yard or even on farm property they own out in the boonies.

Lets take in the house for starters.

You can shoot a guy crawling through your window and be OK with it.

If the guy gets in your house and threatens you with a weapon or leads you to believe by his actions that he intends deadly force, you can shoot him.

But now lets say you come home from work. You find the front door ajar. You enter the house and there is a guy in your house. Can you shoot him point blank, bang, no questions asked?

Not in this state. In this state, he first must make a move that any reasonable person would understand to be of lethal danger to you.

.

I would agree with the first sentence posted here and do not have much of a problem with any of the rest.

What I would add is that states have laws worded differently. This state pretty much allows shooting any individual that made home entry uninvited and appearing to be committing an illegal act. If I come home to find someone having broken into my home, he more than likely will be carried out in a body bag. LA law allows a shoot the burglar and shoot the car jacker. The law HERE does not allow shooting people on the property unless they are armed and making threatening movements.

 

[JayBird686]

Most of my friends and coworkers, who range from 21-35, definitely over think. Most of my cohorts think you need a high cap auto, with two backup mags. If I need 30 to 45 rounds to defend myself, I shouldn't have been in that place to begin with!

I guess I live by the idea of KISS, keep it simple stupid.

I carry a 442-1 and a speed strip, 110 grn Hornady Critical Defense, on me. In my car, there is an extra speed loader and speed strip. According to most of them, I am going to get killed because my gun has only five shots. I will take reliability, ease of use and comfort over a bunch of junk that makes it uncomfortable to move.

To me it comes down to competence and confidence in ones ability, as well as confidence in ones gun. Every range trip I practice with my carry, and at home I practice drawing with snap caps. I want to take more classes on concealed carry as well. The basic class for carrying a CCW in New Mexico is brief, I want to continue to learn.

As far as confidence in my carry weapon, my revolver will go bang everytime, all five times, barring a bad primer.

 

[oldman45]

With most of my friends and coworkers, who range from 21-35, definitely over think. Most of my cohorts think you need a high cap auto, with two backup mags. If I need 30 to 45 rounds to defend myself, I shouldn't have been in that place to begin with!

I guess I live by the idea of KISS, keep it simple stupid.

I carry a 442-1 and a speed strip, 110 grn Hornady Critical Defense, on me. In my car, there is an extra speed loader and speed strip. According to most of them, I am going to get killed because my gun has only five shots. I will take reliability, ease of use and comfort over a bunch of junk that makes it uncomfortable to move.

To me it comes down to competence and confidence in ones ability, as well as confidence in ones gun. Every range trip I practice with my carry, and at home I practice drawing with snap caps. I want to take more classes on concealed carry as well. The basic class for carrying a CCW in New Mexico is brief, I want to continue to learn.

As far as confidence in my carry weapon, my revolver will go bang everytime, all five times, barring a bad primer.

This post has so much truth, wisdom and common sense in it that it sould be a book in the bible.

 

[Moonman]

If your revolver DOESN'T go bang, just pull the trigger again, no major FTF Drill to go through wasting extremely critical time.

 

[cshoff]

Castle law does not give you all of the privileges you think nor does it give you the privileges claimed in the preceding post.

At least, not in this state, NC.

Yes, but in Missouri (the state I was talking about, specifically, in my post), it DOES. I just wanted to make it clear that the information in my post is correct as it relates to Missouri, but not necessarily in any other state.

 

[old curmudgeon]

Yes, but in Missouri (the state I was talking about, specifically, in my post), it DOES. I just wanted to make it clear that the information in my post is correct as it relates to Missouri, but not necessarily in any other state.

I think the only point on which we have not agreed is that I stated that the castle doctrine does not give you the right to shoot someone just because he refuses to leave your property.

You came right back with the reply that it does in MO.

I have read the law since and the only reference I find that would support your statement is in regard to a person who refused to leave your DWELLING or vehicle. And it specifically refers to dwelling and then defines what a dwelling is; as permanent, temporary, etc.

My statement that one can not shoot one for refusing to leave one's property was meant to refer to trespass cases where a trespasser is in your yard, on your farm land, hunting lease or similar.

The instance I specifically referred to was a thread on a hunting forum where some maintained that they could shoot a trespasser simply because he refused to remove himself from their land.

Nowhere in the MO law I have read does it allow one to shoot a trespasser simply because he does not leave, except in the case of this occurring in a dwelling or a vehicle.

What I believe the castle doctrine does for the person dealing with a trespasser outside his dwelling or vehicle is make it clear that if the property owner uses force, and at that point there is a distinction between force and deadly force, and the trespasser reacts with force that causes the property owner to fear for his life or safety, the property owner may then use deadly force.

An example would be that a property owner is allowed to take the trespasser by the arm and forcibly take him to the property line. If the trespasser pulls a knife, the property owner can defend himself with whatever means is available.

If my understanding is not correct, please furnish a link either to the specific clause in the law or a link to a court case that makes this point clear.

I am not being contentious, even though it appears that I am. It is my belief that quick shoot from the hip statements can trap the unwary who might read them and act on them.

Part of this thread began with the question of how a person carrying should be educated as to the law. Therefore those who post statements as to what the law allows should make an effort to be accurate.

And that includes me. If I MO law is not as I understand it, please furnish the link that will explain it.

 

[cshoff]

...........If I MO law is not as I understand it, please furnish the link that will explain it.

Below is the actual statute in addition to a reference link. I also took the liberty to emphasize the relevant portions of the statute that relate to private property:

Use of force in defense of persons.

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.

Section 563-031 Use of force in defense of persons.

Like I said, this new section of our law just went into effect on August 28, 2010, so it's just over a year old. A couple acquaintances of mine were actually responsible for writing this language which was eventually passed by our legislature and signed into law by our governor. People in Missouri now enjoy the same legal protections on their property as they do in their dwelling or in their vehicle.

 

[Springfeildkid585]

I just finished reading "The Armed Citizen" in the most recent American Rifleman. It's one of my favorite parts of the magazine and today it got me thinking.

We spend a lot of time debating calibers, revolver or semi-auto, magazine capacity, etc, etc. However, time and again, the stories in The Armed Citizen involve a home or business owner firing one shot and the intruder dropping dead right there or making it as far as the yard before expiring. A lot of times they have nothing more than a .22 or .38 and they do the deed just fine.

My question is, are ALL of these people just incredibly lucky or are we over thinking all the choices we "enthusiasts" make in arming ourselves? Maybe most calibers and bullet choices are adequate beyond what we are willing to admit and maybe human attackers aren't all that difficult to stop after all. I'm not saying we shouldn't use all the gun we can handle and shouldn't carry the best ammunition available. Just suggesting maybe, for those not in law enforcement or the military, we are all better armed than previously thought for the average bad guy encounter.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

I payed a visit to my father this weekend. When I realized what weekend it was, I regretted leaving my .45 at home, and asked if I could barrow the old .22 target pistol he taught me on when I was a kid. He looked at me and scoffed as he handed me his spare 9mm. I can honestly say I wouldn't have felt under armed with the .22, but was greatly relieved to have the 9.

 

[oldman45]

All these postings and I think we can agree that the police are better armed now than they were 10 yrs ago. We can also agree that more citizens are armed now than were 10 years ago. We can agree that the demand for used guns has driven the price up.

The caliber of gun is not going to matter until something happens. Then you will either have the right gun for the time or the wrong gun for a next time. Fortunately few will ever need the gun they carry but as long as they are comfortable with the gun they have, then fine.

Some of us overthink things in many ways. I have a generator for the house in case of extended power failure. Others make do without one but I figure it would be nice to have. I have guns in the home, cars, office and on my person. Might not ever need one again and if I do, I may not be able to get to one or be successful in using it. But I feel more comfortable having access to one. Just as the spare tire under the bed of my truck has been there for years without me needing it but I feel better having it as I drive over the 40,000 sq mile area I work.

We can second guess our choices for the rest of our lives but as Bill Jordon said, There is no Second place winner.