Discussion in 'General Firearm Discussion' started by boogerhook, Feb 22, 2016.
Great that he requires them to carry, but his choice of gun to give them is stupid.
Are you saying you would turn one down even if it was free??????
I'm thinking what he meant to say (without the rudeness) is,
..."While I may have picked a different gun (XYZ in caliber x), it was certainly nice to see he was following through on his pro-gun views in such a generous way."
yup, you don't have to load it with shot shells - 45 colt will do equally fine...
all things considered a revolver is not a bad uniform fire arm across the company
The shot shells for it seem pretty bad for self defense, even the slug, so that leaves you with 45LC. Probably not a huge practical difference in performance compared to 45ACP, but the Colt doesn't have the modern and still developing loads that you can get with 45ACP, and it's more expensive and less available.
If I were to give my employees a free gun, I'd probably just give them Glock 17s. Cheap, dependable gun, cheap, available ammo (as cheap and available as it gets anyway), easy recoil. Oh, more than 5 tries too. If they're already into guns, they'll already have one they like that they can bring. If they're NOT, then I want them to have a cheap and easy to use/handle gun to get rolling with.
While I like the idea, the judge would not be my choice in the provided gun for an majority employee base made up of women. I would allow them to purchase (and reimburse for) a CC of their choice. I applaud the notion though.
Cheers on the Broncos there. Nice ride into the sunset for Manning - and good teaching moment for da Newton ;-) But I digress...
Yes, I would have picked a different gun as well, however I can see the psychological message of a Judge/Governor type - and I guess that was part of his plan. I still think that revolvers aren't the worst option, especially when equipping people new to firearms and maybe not all that much into it. Many benefits: no safeties, click and shoot, malfunction? shoot again, etc. Capacity is a problem when you are in a prolonged gun fight, but with an average 33% hit rate even 5 rounds are going to be successful in majority of encounters.
The Judge would not be my first choice either, but at least Hornady, Winchester and Federal are making decent ammunition for it now.
For people who may not spend the practice time to become proficient, I think its a pretty decent choice, especially loaded up with buckshot. Im not especially a Taurus fan, but to each their own.
Im divided on his mandate though. Some people shouldn't have/carry guns.
Could be he is thinking in a office there would be lest chance of a bullet passing through walls and hitting someone else.
One of my first civilian jobs I had after the army was working at a pawn shop.
All employees were required to get a CPL .
( which the owner paid for )
And carry a handgun. ( which if bought through the shop you got a great discount )
My first carry gun bought through the shop , was a Ruger Security Six with a 2 3/4 inch barrel in .357 magnum.
Not a bad deal or way to go for my first carry gun.
The owner was very picky about who worked in her shop.
We did not have any " shop counter commandos "
And oddly enough no trouble with store robberies either...
While I applaud the company efforts, I know from experience that not all people have the mentality to "pull the trigger" nor the desire too.
Forcing a pacifist to carry a gun is beyond stupid IMO. If it's optional or a prerequisite for getting hired then I think that's more appropriate.
Point 1: WAIT A MINUTE . . . You people are missing the whole point.
When the word hits the street that bad guys are facing a load of buckshot they will have serious second thoughts about attacking these offices.
Can you say San Bernardino????
Point 2: Nobody here was asked to give the owner an opinion!!!!!
Sorry boss, but if you don't want a slew of opinions on an article then you probably shouldn't post said article....
p2: the question is whether this would be a good idea for other businesses too
Then I'll stick with my previous post #14.
P2=Most definitely. Just the gesture is positive. Providing whatever handgun is moot as long as it has the capability to eliminate effectively. Looked to me that the woman was carrying a Glock, so maybe he had an open policy on your preference to carry what you like.
As I stated earlier I worked in a shop where everyone carried.
No one there at that time had a issue with carrying or using said carry pistol.
But Joe13 makes a excellent point. Not everyone is willing to draw down on someone and or shoot at someone.
And that is okay.
If you own or carry a gun for self / home / store defense you have to know how and when to use it. Maybe more importantly you need the will the use it , on someone.
A grim but often over looked fact.
The choice to carry is a life altering choice. It is never to be taken for granted or lightly.
Separate names with a comma.