Thread: Handguns for Self Defense in the USA.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Not entirely true, usage is sopost to be on an approved range only but guns are not held by the range they are held by the owner I am fairly sure.

in my limited experience, "club guns" are held by club officers/armourers, on their endorsed FALs.

Originally Posted by petronious_arbiter

in my limited experience, "club guns" are held by club officers/armourers, on their endorsed FALs.

Yes but endorsed owners keep their arms in their endorsed storage at home/work or wherever their storage is, so handguns are not "strictly confined to dedicated ranges"

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

Not entirely true, usage is sopost to be on an approved range only but guns are not held by the range they are held by the owner I am fairly sure.

He means the USE OF privately own handguns are restricted to dedicated, approved ranges. B folks keep theirs at home, otherwise we wouldn't be able to travel for comps.

Glad I live in quiet ol' NZ like quiet ol' Rarotonga, it's pretty peaceful overall.

Originally Posted by Kscott

He means the USE OF privately own handguns are restricted to dedicated, approved ranges. B folks keep theirs at home, otherwise we wouldn't be able to travel for comps.

Glad I live in quiet ol' NZ like quiet ol' Rarotonga, it's pretty peaceful overall.

But something I never realised and only learnt of when talking to the Local AO (because it's the biggest loophole he wants changed) is that people with C endorsement for re-enactments can, in some situations, legally carry a pistol while in their costume. For example filling up with fuel on the way to a reienactment.

Originally Posted by SiB

Yes an interesting read. Thank you.

You'll probably be aware private handguns are strictly confined to dedicated ranges here in NZ.

Obtaining a handgun licence endorsement is a strict process, and whilst there are several members on this forum who are endorsed, I think it would be fair to say most of us have little, if any familiarity with using them.

Using them for self protection (as opposed to target shooting here in NZ) is a concept most of us can only read about or see in movies.

That's not to ignore those with military backgrounds, but I'd venture to suggest the number of handguns you'd expect to be kept/owned in one of your streets, would well exceed the number in one of our major cities!

Nevertheless, we are all fascinated by them; this is a hunting and shooting forum after all.

Thanks for your contribution!

NZ is better right now than some US States and Territories with gun laws regarding ownership and type.

But glad I could throw some fuel on the fire and give you guys a different perspective.

Good to have a different perspective.

Originally Posted by Rushy

Good to have a different perspective.

Glad I could be of service

Glad I don't have to deal with any of that. Good luck I spose.

In your perspective as a police officer;

Does CCW effect your interaction with the public, positive/negative/indifferent, or would interaction be the same regardless?

How do you feel it effects overall public safety?

Would I be right to assume that the majority of gun violence (and all violence) victims are themselves criminals?

Originally Posted by Beavis

In your perspective as a police officer;

Does CCW effect your interaction with the public, positive/negative/indifferent, or would interaction be the same regardless?

How do you feel it effects overall public safety?

Would I be right to assume that the majority of gun violence (and all violence) victims are themselves criminals?

CCW Permits actually make my interaction with the public better. In Florida, to get a CCW Permit, you have to pass a background check, take a course put on by a certified instructor, have finger prints and photo taken and kept on file. The law abiding do that. Criminals don't. When I worked uniform and I did a traffic stop, if the driver informed me that they were carrying and had a CCW. I'd relax a little and now that they'd clear the FCIC/NCIC check since they had a permit.

As for the overall public. Florida has over one million active CCW permits and that isn't counting those issued to out of state residents. We're the 3rd most populated State in the US and we have over 27 million calling Florida home. Our crime rate is lower than many other places in the US. NYC and Chicago for example have far higher crime rates. Their gun laws are very restrictive and their permit system to carry is even harder. Also remember, in Florida a permit is only needed to carry not own. We're "Shall Issue"; meaning if you qualify for the carry permit. You're issued one. Florida started this in 1987 and our crime rate has dropped every year. In the 1980s we were stuck in the Cocaine Drug Wars.

Gun violence itself for the most part is crime on crime. Chicago is having a surge of gun crime right now. It's mostly thugs and gangbangers killing each other over turf and drugs. A lot of it is cultural. The law abiding are just that.... law abiding. They don't break laws.

Being on duty and off duty are different things for a cop and there is no “on duty” for John Q Public. Both share the same reasons for carrying. Personal protection when out and about in public. A cop might carry because of department policy (many agencies require their off duty sworn to still be armed) or possibly because they bump into their “clients” when out of uniform. I’ve had that happen a number of times. It is a very unsettling feeling; even worse when they remember you and you don’t. Which has happened to me.

Your private citizen carries for various reasons. Troubled past with an ex that makes threats. Business that involves lots of cash transactions. Having to work in more unsavory neighborhoods. Troubled economic situation and sadly having to live in a rougher part of town. Etc… No matter what, they choose to exercise their Constitutional Right and carry for protection.

But like I said in the first part of this thread. Simply carrying doesn’t make one safe. Guns are tools, the mind is the weapon. A famous US Supreme Court case in 1981 stated the following; “Police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.” Translated to plain English; it means police do not have a duty to protect you individually. So that means you have to protect yourself and be trained and understand the responsibility that comes with carrying.

Okay, so you’ve made the decision to carry for personal protection. Now comes the nuts and bolts of the issue. What are you actually going to carry. There is a huge variety out there on what to carry. Fullsize service pistols like a Glock 17, Beretta 92FS, 1911, Sig P229, S&W Model 686, Ruger SR45, etc…. then you have your compacts, subcompacts, and pocket guns. We’re not even talking about carrying a revolver versus a semi-auto yet.



So let’s get into carrying a fullsize service gun. What are the pros and cons you might ask.

Pros – Longer sight radius, usually a greater ammunition capacity, less recoil due to mass and size, fullsize grip.

Cons – Heavier, larger, harder to conceal under clothing and limits clothing options.

Now why would you carry a fullsize pistol? Possibly costs is a reason. Quality guns aren’t cheap and maybe all you can afford is one. Maybe you want to carry your department issued pistol or maybe you were trained on a service pistol in the military and you did well. Maybe you compete and you have muscle memory down pat. Carrying a fullsize pistol is doable and many do it every day.


Ruger Single Action Revolver in traditional leater IWB holster.


Glock 17 and a cop’s duty rig.


Glock Model 20 in an Alien Gear Hybrid IWB holster.


Sig P Series and a 1911 carried IWB.


Fullsize Glock carried OWB.

Now let’s look at the compact models real quick. The compact pistols are a balance between the two extremes. You have a pistol that is a master of none, jack of all trades pistol. It can be used as a duty pistol, it can be carried concealed, and it offers the majority of the pros of a fullsize pistol without some of the cons. You usually lose some barrel length, grip length, and capacity. But you get a pistol that wears a little better.

Lets look at some of the options out there. Here you have a Browning Hi-Power (which is a service size pistol that is pretty slim and sleek), a Glock 19, a Sig P225/P6, and a S&W Model 3913.







The Hi-Power holds 13+1, the Glock 19 holds 15+1, the Sig P225/P6 holds 8+1, and the S&W 3913 holds 8+1. As you can see. They all pretty much are similar in size and width. Some are single stack and some are double stack. But like I said….. going over the actual guns are for another post.


S&W Model 5926. It is considered by some to be a compact pistol.


Beretta Model 84F in .380 Auto. One of the larger compacts in a smaller cartridge.

Now you have the subcompact.



These are given various names. Baby Glocks, mighty midgets, and Goldilocks Guns, etc… But the majority of people choose to carry these. They’re lighter, smaller, and are still capable to provide adequate protection. Originally, these guns were chambered in cartridges that were viewed here in the US as “not duty capable”. Normal chamberings like 9mm Kurtz, .32 Auto, 9x18mm Makarov, and .22LR. The one common subcompact carry piece that ruled the roost for many years and still has a loyal following is the snub nosed revolver in .38 Special. For generations that cartridge served as the standard bearer for law enforcement and the military. The FBI, LAPD, NYPD, and numerous other agencies issued it until the early 1990s. Today it still serves as a backup gun for many cops. But with modern advances in design both for ammunition and pistols. You now have subcompacts chambered in service cartridges like 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. The older weaker loads aren’t left in the dust either. Modern hollow point design has given new life in these smaller cartridges and .380 Auto has especially seen a new resurgence in popularity and capability.


S&W Model 4013 TSW in .40 S&W. 9+1 in capacity and packs a punch when needed.


Glock 26 in a DeSantis Ankle Glove. 10+1 capacity of 9mm.

The majority of the subcompact are the smallest versions of their fullsize cousins. Usually the same design, controls, and chamberings. Magazines form their larger brethren usually work in the smaller guns. But a lot of folks carry these because while there is plenty of trade off. You still have a good pistol that can be used.





Then you have the pocket pistols.


Two true pocket pistols that rule the market right now. Ruger LCP in .380 Auto a a Kel-Tec P32 in .32 Auto.

Both are extremely light, compact, and easy to carry. A Samsung Galaxy S5 cell phone takes more space in your pocket than one of these little guys. They are remedial sights if any, a capacity of 7 or less, and chambered in smaller cartridges like the .380 Auto, .32 Auto, or .25 Auto. They’re referred to as Belly Guns, Phone Booth Fighters, pocket pieces, corner store milk run guns, etc… These are guns to carry when you’re limited by dress, social environment, work restrictions, and simply needing deep cover. Pocket pistols are guns you carry when you can’t carry a gun basically.

Next posting with be about methods of carry. Both for men and women.

In New Zealand there are calls to arm Police.

Would you say that weapon retention in an arrest situation is paramount? Therefore are you more likely to draw your weapon as well as have a partner covering you, if you are arresting someone?

My fear regarding arming Police in New Zealand,is that there will be a spate of suspects shot due to weapons being drawn during or prior to arrests.

Secondly,I feel that the carrying of a Pistol creates a barrier between the Public and the Police.Bear in mind that the Police in New Zealand have traditionally been unarmed.

Originally Posted by norsk

In New Zealand there are calls to arm Police.

Would you say that weapon retention in an arrest situation is paramount? Therefore are you more likely to draw your weapon as well as have a partner covering you, if you are arresting someone?

My fear regarding arming Police in New Zealand,is that there will be a spate of suspects shot due to weapons being drawn during or prior to arrests.

Secondly,I feel that the carrying of a Pistol creates a barrier between the Public and the Police.Bear in mind that the Police in New Zealand have traditionally been unarmed.

This is a three part question.

1. Weapon retention is clearly paramount when it comes to making an arrest for apprehending a suspect. The training and equipment comes in to correct any issues with that. When dealing with a possibly combative subject officers are usually trained to keep their gun side away from the suspect. The holsters themselves aren't simple holsters. They are what we call Level 3 retention holsters. Meaning that there is three separate motions that has to be done to draw the firearm from the holster.

As for cover when having another officer on scene; that depends on the arrest. The majority of my arrests are peaceful and no firearm needs to be drawn. Also in my career I have made a rest without additional officers on scene.

When dealing with a violent subject and attempting to apprehend and place into custody more officers is always better than less. There's nothing wrong both and tactics, officer safety, and scene security I'm having one officer holster his weapon while another provides cover during the arrest. It is even better when you have three officers on scene so one can provide cover with a non-lethal device like a taser and the other can provide cover with lethal force if necessary.

2. For law enforcement in the United States; drawing a weapon while constituting lethal force does not mean you have to pull the trigger when it is drawn. Plenty of times I've pointed a weapon at someone and plenty of times the message of surrender has gone through their thick heads and they stop resisting. For American law enforcement; lethal force is only authorized when there is the belief and fear of great bodily harm or death. Meaning that the subject has the ability the motive and the opportunity to take violent action against the police officer on scene or the General Public. So if I arrived on scene and a subject was armed with a butcher knife and someone was lying in a pool of blood in front of him that constitutes the use of lethal force. It also is no different than if I am speaking to someone and they suddenly become violent and draw a weapon or attack me. I could also use lethal force to defend myself.

Proper training in the use of force will prevent officers from drawing and going trigger-happy when needing to deploy said force. If your patrol officers are to be armed they need to have good proper training and mindset first and foremost before they even attempt qualifications. Proper firearms training isn't just the mechanical aspects of shooting a lot of it does go into mindset. The United States has an estimated number of 1 million - 800,000 police officers and out of the millions of encounters with law enforcement the majority are peaceful, civil, and no violence is taken.

3. The last part of your post is more cultural and there is no direct answer to that. I personally don't have an issue with law enforcement being armed but I understand from a cultural mindset and your country that traditionally law enforcement has not been armed. Will public perception change seeing police armed? Yes. Will it be negative? Unknown.

Things do change with time and with that social norms change too.

Back in the 1970s there was an effort to change the paramilitary look of American law enforcement. They went from the traditional Class B uniforms to that of a pair of slacks, button down shirt and tie, and a blazer with the guns hidden from public view by the Blazer. They also replaced the traditional police badge with a cloth patch on the left side of the jacket. The experiment was a disaster. Assault on Law Enforcement Officers went up and so did crime because there was no cultural authority vested in that image of police. Law enforcement went back to the traditional Class B uniform and now that is even changing with the current status of events. Gone are the traditional Class B uniforms and they are being replaced with combat boots, cargo paints, external vest with Ballistic plates, department marked polo shirts, and baseball caps instead of the traditional police officer service cap.

Originally Posted by norsk

In New Zealand there are calls to arm Police.

Would you say that weapon retention in an arrest situation is paramount? Therefore are you more likely to draw your weapon as well as have a partner covering you, if you are arresting someone?

My fear regarding arming Police in New Zealand,is that there will be a spate of suspects shot due to weapons being drawn during or prior to arrests.

Secondly,I feel that the carrying of a Pistol creates a barrier between the Public and the Police.Bear in mind that the Police in New Zealand have traditionally been unarmed.

That boat has sailed. The last two NZ constables Ive bumped into have both been holding AR15's. After experiencing that my opinion changed, it was a crap experience but probably better for the officers haha. Having them armed in shopping malls is not so bad (I'm originally an Aussie but been here for 10yrs). They just cruise around doing their thing. Having them say "why were you speeding mate?" tends to result in you saying "Sir..." instead of "F off C#@t" like half the dropkicks that live here in NZ.
As for will we be better off in the long run? No, but not because the police will be armed. The general trend is that criminals get guns and that supply only builds over time. There are freakin heaps more guns on the loose in Australia nowadays and that's despite ALL the draconian laws they inflicted on law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by Dead is better

That boat has sailed. The last two NZ constables Ive bumped into have both been holding AR15's. After experiencing that my opinion changed, it was a crap experience but probably better for the officers haha. Having them armed in shopping malls is not so bad (I'm originally an Aussie but been here for 10yrs). They just cruise around doing their thing. Having them say "why were you speeding mate?" tends to result in you saying "Sir..." instead of "F off C#@t" like half the dropkicks that live here in NZ.
As for will we be better off in the long run? No, but not because the police will be armed. The general trend is that criminals get guns and that supply only builds over time. There are freakin heaps more guns on the loose in Australia nowadays and that's despite ALL the draconian laws they inflicted on law abiding citizens.

Ha ha kettle black, I've seen the form of your countrymen in person and on the TV too