TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

EEllis wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:I have just not seen any evidence to back up the claim that, as a group, oc or cc need better retention due to BG's taking guns out of holsters.

I think the point is that OCers need "better retention" so that BGs can't start taking their guns, not to put an end to something that's already become common... it's a proactive measure, rather than reactive.

At least that's my take on it.

Well I think a holster should, at a min, hold your gun secure through any possible activity a person might make. I also understand and and support anyone who feels better about having some form of retention in holsters to prevent someone else from grabbing their handgun when it's holstered. My issue is people who advocate such a thing based on a need. I have looked and cannot find enough incidents to support a belief that retention holster would have any statistical effect on guns being "Taken" from OCers. Right now I would be more concerned with being able to draw and shoot quickly when needed than some theoretical concern about being targeted by a gun grabber.

My take on it is LIBERTY. We don't need the gosh-darn gooberment legislating holsters.

Back when we were a free country, there was a concept of being accountable for making decisions and choices in one's life and then bearing the consequences of those choices.

We can debate back and forth on whether a retention holster is a better personal decision for managing life risk. That is fine, I love debating personal opinions. But we do not need personal opinions codified into statute.

That is for sure

Dave2 wrote:

EEllis wrote:I have just not seen any evidence to back up the claim that, as a group, oc or cc need better retention due to BG's taking guns out of holsters.

I think the point is that OCers need "better retention" so that BGs can't start taking their guns, not to put an end to something that's already become common... it's a proactive measure, rather than reactive.

At least that's my take on it.

Well I think a holster should, at a min, hold your gun secure through any possible activity a person might make. I also understand and and support anyone who feels better about having some form of retention in holsters to prevent someone else from grabbing their handgun when it's holstered. My issue is people who advocate such a thing based on a need. I have looked and cannot find enough incidents to support a belief that retention holster would have any statistical effect on guns being "Taken" from OCers. Right now I would be more concerned with being able to draw and shoot quickly when needed than some theoretical concern about being targeted by a gun grabber.

mamabearCali wrote:Oh I know the answer to that. No, the poor fellow did not have retention. It was a leather holster so it was a good fit, but no, no retention. I am on a I phone do it is hard for me but there is a video of the incident and I clearly remember the lack of retention.

We discussed at length in VA gun forum about whether even a thumb break could have helped. Poor man.

Let me put it like this...I like some retention on everything. Just because I have had odd things happen to me (kids add an excitement to life). I have had a toddler knock me over and my gun went flying in walmart once. Then once I had a belly band turn inside out and drop the gun on the floor in a Wendy's bathroom. So I like some retention even if I am CC. Just my style.

If you don't use retention I plead with you to keep your head on a swivel. Be aware. I am certain your draw would be faster than mine, but still. I don't want to be debating this over another good mans death.

First it isn't about debating about this man. It's trying to find out what info is valuable to the discussion. The more the info the better. Any chance of a link to the vid or more info on the incident? Second the only holster I own that my gun might come out of if you hung me upside down and shook me is a pocket holster for one of my .380's. My thought isn't that retention is somehow bad it's the claims of necessity by those who push the idea into civilian carry. A few events of any type are not necessarily statistically significant are no one would ever go outside when there was any possibility of lightning strike. I mean sure you get out of the pool if you are swimming but I would still walk outside, go to and from my car, try and stay out of the rain but otherwise not worry if I was camping, etc. I do that not because no one ever got hit by lightning, heck a guy at work was sent to the hospital a few moths ago due to a strike landing right next to him shocking the heck out of him, but generally speaking the statistical chance is low enough most people don't worry about it. I'm not trying to claim retention is never good. I have just not seen any evidence to back up the claim that, as a group, oc or cc need better retention due to BG's taking guns out of holsters.

joe817 wrote:

EEllis wrote: Yes a gun is much easier to remove from a holster if there is no retention but that fact alone without context means nothing. They don't even know if he was shot with his own gun just that he didn't have it when they found his body. Anything could of happened so I don't consider this support for retention holsters with what.we know about it now. That something could, if everything comes together right, support a point doesn't mean that it supports the point without, or until you find out, about that info.

You are arguing a point that does not need arguing. This is not a court of law. A tragedy has happened with the result of a good man, who realized the need to be armed, is now dead. God Bless his soul. I mourn for him and his family. He was wanting to do the right thing. And things went wrong. We are merely discussing how to possibly prevent future scenarios like this from happening in the future.

Enough said. I will not post further in this thread.

What is up with you guys? This is a subject that I am seriously interested in and want to have a real discussion. I'm not arguing about this poor man because we don't know anything to argue about. We don't really know what happened, we have no idea if he used a retention holster, we don't know what gun he was shot with. The only possible arguing I'm doing is stating that right now this news really can't used to make any valid point in a discussion.

mamabearCali wrote:The scuttlebutt around here (less then 15 miles from where this happened) is that he was shot by his own gun. Guy grabbed his gun he tried to get it back and was shot for his trouble. Can't try local rumor in court, but proximity to the event makes the story more reliable. Anyway, in this case retention might have helped. It sure could not have hurt.

Unless you go by MOJO logic because then I can say that the retention probably made him too slow off.the draw and got him killed and since there is nothing in the story that says that isn't true you really can't argue against it. Unless you are an assistant DA or some sort of law student for some reason I don't get.

joe817 wrote:

EEllis wrote:

joe817 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Found this in about 15 seconds with google.

http://m.timesdispatch.com/news/update- ... l?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Makes for a good argument advocating retention holsters. Thanks for posting.

Have you read the story? There is nothing in it that indicates a retention holster would of made a darn bit of a difference. It read more like the man didn't pull his gun and use it when he could of than anything else. If you get jumped and lose a fight holster retention will not keep your gun secure. It may keep your gun out of others hand while you fight but when the fight is done if you lose they can get your gun.

Yup. Sure did....
"Tyler’s handgun was taken from his person, and within 30 seconds he was shot with a handgun,” Johnson said. “At this point, we cannot confirm that he was shot with his gun.” He added, “We believe only one shot was fired, and that was the fatal shot.” Johnson said it was unclear whether Smith or Hamiel had been armed when they entered the store, but they are accused of robbing Tyler of his weapon.

Sure sounds like they grabbed it from the holster to me. No retention holster, grabbed from it, MUCH easier to grab, off body, than a retention holster. I'm sure you agree with me on that point.

Yes a gun is much easier to remove from a holster if there is no retention but that fact alone without context means nothing. They don't even know if he was shot with his own gun just that he didn't have it when they found his body. Anything could of happened so I don't consider this support for retention holsters with what.we know about it now. That something could, if everything comes together right, support a point doesn't mean that it supports the point without, or until you find out, about that info.

joe817 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Found this in about 15 seconds with google.

http://m.timesdispatch.com/news/update- ... l?mode=jqm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Makes for a good argument advocating retention holsters. Thanks for posting.

Have you read the story? There is nothing in it that indicates a retention holster would of made a darn bit of a difference. It read more like the man didn't pull his gun and use it when he could of than anything else. If you get jumped and lose a fight holster retention will not keep your gun secure. It may keep your gun out of others hand while you fight but when the fight is done if you lose they can get your gun.

mamabearCali wrote:There was a case here in Richmond. It happens, but is not common. As am occasional OCer I always have retention. Not just for bad guys but for curious little kids too.

If you could post or I'm a link because it is something I really am interested in and have had zero luck in finding any direct cases.

Charlies.Contingency wrote: So every other day is good enough for you? Please, you speak of it as it it doesn't happen, because you have not witnessed it yourself I suppose. I hate to say that I've gone from talking to somebody, to have them think they can pull out my glock my level III blackhawk duty holster. I say this, because I've been there, not because I'm some kid thinking I live in COD. Heed my concerns, or ignore them, you don't have to like them, nor do you have to conflict it openly.

Anything can happen anywhere but I did a search and couldn't find a single case of a civilians gun being taken while open carrying. I looked hard and found cases of people being robbed of their guns but none where someone just walked up and grabbed it. This discussion is not about police officers who have much different needs and are placed in much different position. It's about armed citizens who can make whatever calls they want on holster type but right now are being pushed by some towards a solution for a problem that just doesn't exist. The only time I would break out one of my sherpa holsters was if I was doing something avtive like 4 wheeling otherwise I would continue to use the same holsters I do now when I carry concealed. Those holsters by their very nature hold a firearm in closer to the body and make it harder for someone else to remove. I just read a bit about this very issue and the guy made some good points that I'll pass along. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/1 ... st-say-no/

For you, the danger of losing your weapon to an attacker is smaller than the danger of not being able to fire your gun quickly and accurately enough to win a gunfight. And once you recognize the danger of losing your gun, understanding that you need an inviolable “bubble” around your gun, the risk decreases further still. Avoid open carry, and you can round it down to zero. And use a non-retention holster.

Firearm retention training came out of a very real and statistically significant problem to police officers. We don't have that same situation here with civilian carry either open or concealed. We are just not seeing people having guns snatched away. Now if that changes , and it could if more people OC, then my belief may change

G.A. Heath wrote:The best way to OC is to dress professionally, carry a well maintained firearm in a well maintained and decent looking holster while acting in a professional manner.

How about just not screw around and otherwise just treat it as no big deal. I'm not going to wear a single thing different or act special. I also won't preach or act like I'm carrying for an reason other than because I want to. It would be like those occupy nutters saying they were living in a tent for me. Nope I'm doing it for me because it make sense for me when and where I do it and I think that is the best way of promoting OC.

A-R wrote:Use a very strong retention holster. Leather thumb snap at a minimum. Police type Level II Or III preferred.

If you don't believe this is necessary, I'd be happy to show you (using inert blue training guns) how quickly I can disarm you if you have no retention or even week retention (like a Level 1 Serpa).

Like trigger locks and other things, I don't believe this should be required by law. But good, conscientious open carriers should follow this advice religiously.

I have to say I don't agree. There is a reason duty weapons are carried in retention holsters but those reasons don't always cross over to every open carry situation. The other thing that springs to mind is we are not cops. We don't need to come in close proximity to others. I'm not wrestling with suspects trying to cuff people. Retention holster were developed to address a real problem that was seen with police. So far there has been zero evidence t hat there is any issues with OC and weapon retention that needs to be addressed.