I like the guitar ownership analogy.
There’s a particularly good book on the subject you can get here, for what it’s worth. And if you buy the book through that link, not only does our host get a cut but so does my father!
“…only carry it when I think I might need it.”
Do you only buckle your seatbelts when you think you might be in an accident?
I’d love to follow all of that advice, but never in these sorts of articles does anyone ever address the cost of ammo. 100 rounds a month to train? For my .40 S&W that’s ten clips — two boxes a month, at $20 a box!? Sorry, but I’m just as committed to feeding my family as I am to protecting them.
Forty bucks a month can feed an entire family? Who knew?
Cable/Satellite TV bill: $30/month for locals, $75/month for low-end, $150/month for all the bells and whistles.
Cell phone bill: $30/month per man, woman, and child for unlimited data plans for a teenager’s iPhone, on top of the calling and texting plans starting at $10-30/mo per line.
Cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco: $20-$250/month
Dinner out every Friday night, family of four: $80/week, $320/month
If one can’t find $40/month in their budget to protect their life and the lives of their families, it’s usually because they’re not willing to give up other “necessities” such as those listed above or others.
Besides, if one knows that they are going to go through 100 rounds/month to keep their skills honed, one doesn’t buy ammunition by the box, they buy it by the case, or buy quality brass to shoot and hand-load.
How can you choose between beer and bullets? It is like deciding which testicle to cut off.
Notice I left beer completely out of the conversation. 😉
9MM is cheaper and I shoot around 600 rounds a month of it.
That argument tells me you are not serious about protecting your family. Real protection costs money, doesn’t matter if it’s life insurance or life “assurance”. If you’re so poor that you can’t afford ammunition, why did you buy a .40? Sell the gun and buy a .38 or even a .22 that you can actually practice with.
Indeed. I take the 9mm out only annually to stay familiar, but I shoot the .22LR regularly for fun.
I almost exclusively practice with what I routinely carry, a Glock 19 and when it isn’t a 19, it is usually a close variant, AKA another Glock. Rarely do I shoot a non-Glock pistol.
In both the semi-automatic and revolver scenarios, the shooter is purposely reducing his round count and increasing the amount of time it will take to get the gun in the fight. Should you be attacked with deadly force, time is likely not something you will have on your side and you may need every round you have.
It seems a fair trade off to me. I doubt this author would even dream of advocating concealed-carry for someone unwilling to handle a gun responsibly. So he’s already willing to compromise the shooter’s safety for the safety of others.
Karl, I don’t understand your reply – maybe you read this differently than I did. I believe the author’s point was that having an empty chamber is not safer if you actually have to use the gun. Are you arguing that people are such poor gun-handlers that the empty chamber is better than carrying the gun as it was designed? There are some really good safeties these days.
Are you arguing that people are such poor gun-handlers that the empty chamber is better than carrying the gun as it was designed?
Yes. Keep in mind he also advocates treating every gun as if it were loaded (which incidentally is one of his reasons for chambering a round, so that you never get in the habit of assuming your gun isn’t loaded), for very similar reasons.
Comments are closed.