single action for c /c

[Gun Runner]

I have a single action on my CCW, only reason is ifin I run into a game warden and my shirt or jacket has it covered or at least the grip is covered. Had a discussion with a game warden and he said that most wordens will cite you for carrying consealed if they even spot the holster below your shirt or jacket bottem. Have already had 2 meetings with game wardens and after showing my CCW they just got in there vehicles and left.

Gun Runner

[varmintman]

Jimster, was that in hopkins? Dan

[Savage]

i'd shot him too if he didnt put it down or would have pointed it at me.

Absolutely! Anyone who thinks otherwise has never dealt with an armed threat. If I tell him to drop a fork, he'd better comply?

Savage
 

[jimster]

i'd shot him too if he didnt put it down or would have pointed it at me.

Absolutely! Anyone who thinks otherwise has never dealt with an armed threat. If I tell him to drop a fork, he'd better comply?

Savage
 

Ya I think it was Hopkins, we were reading about it and it didn't sound too good, then some people we work with that lived there told us about it.  It was some time ago.
I don't think my point was if he should have been shot or not...I think I agreed with someone maybe having to shoot him. Did you read what I posted?
Maybe they all needed to take turns shooting, maybe have the others ones spot for them until it was their turn to shoot. ?  From what I read and herd on the news and at work and from my brother in law, it was an embarrasing deal all the way around. 
 
 
 
 

[Savage]

i'd shot him too if he didnt put it down or would have pointed it at me.

Absolutely! Anyone who thinks otherwise has never dealt with an armed threat. If I tell him to drop a fork, he'd better comply?

Savage
 

Ya I think it was Hopkins, we were reading about it and it didn't sound too good, then some people we work with that lived there told us about it.  It was some time ago.
I don't think my point was if he should have been shot or not...I think I agreed with someone maybe having to shoot him. Did you read what I posted?
Maybe they all needed to take turns shooting, maybe have the others ones spot for them until it was their turn to shoot. ?  From what I read and herd on the news and at work and from my brother in law, it was an embarrasing deal all the way around. 

Looks like most of those officers need to be placed on administrative leave (Unpaid) until they can improve their qualification scores. And yes, I read your post. Wasn't suggesting you were questioning the justification of the use of lethal force. It irritates me the way the media downplays the lethality of the weapon the subject was brandishing. Although it's unlikely he would have gotten off more than one shot, and potentially killed only one person. No one wants to be first in line. The officers performed as they were trained, they fired until they ran out of ammo or until the threat was gone.   I'm sure in the article there was much emphasis on the "Single Shot .410".  Dead is dead, whether from a ball point pin in the eye socket, or a direct hit from an RPG.
 Savage
 
 
 

[StrawHat]

There is a big difference in shooting a qualifying score and shooting at a person.  It is easy to train for the one, not so easy for the other.

[Savage]

There is a big difference in shooting a qualifying score and shooting at a person.  It is easy to train for the one, not so easy for the other.

Substitute "Marksmanship" for "Qualification Scores"  if it makes you feel better.
Savage