"Capacity isn't important" [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : "Capacity isn't important"


Pages : [1] 2

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 11:43
"Unfortunately, the need for ongoing concern still exists as this type of gang activity continued over this past weekend once again in Chicago. Roving gangs have been appearing in trendy areas downtown, and were responsible for committing attacks against average everyday citizens just this past Sunday in the Gold Coast.*CBS 2 reports “15-20 young men between 16-20 years old and black,” approached a man near Northwestern University, one of whom threw a baseball at his face, as the rest proceeded to beat him up."

Food for thought?

Unistat
06-08-2011, 11:47
Rahm will take care of it, right?

REA9mm
06-08-2011, 11:48
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

mrsurfboard
06-08-2011, 11:52
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

:agree:

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 11:56
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

This.

Statistics tell us that you're not going to need 14 rounds when you draw your handgun. And statistically speaking, as much as you might think you need to carry that RPG just in case, you're not going to be the exception to the statistics.

ancient_serpent
06-08-2011, 11:59
Not sure fighting 15 people with a handgun is feasible.

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 12:00
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

Good luck with that.

Ahmid
06-08-2011, 12:05
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.


I would not count on that. Why take the chance.
Sometimes one shot will incite a mob.
Be prepared...

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 12:09
I would not count on that. Why take the chance.
Sometimes one shot will incite a mob.
Be prepared...
And of course, none of the gangbangers will be armed....
And I shoot 1" patterns from 25 yds at the range so, I'd never miss in the adrenaline rush of a real confrontation....

baraco
06-08-2011, 12:09
I would not count on that. Why take the chance.
Sometimes one shot will incite a mob.
Be prepared...

well said!

HotRoderX
06-08-2011, 12:10
Not sure fighting 15 people with a handgun is feasible.

I agree with the above. If there close enough to warrant deadly force then chances are one goes down and they don't scatter your gonna get overwhelmed. If there far enough away then chances are deadly force is going to be viewed as obsessive since you did not run but could have. That is assuming there unarmed. Its almost a catch 22 either decisions would end badly.

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 12:13
I agree with the above. If there close enough to warrant deadly force then chances are one goes down and they don't scatter your gonna get overwhelmed. If there far enough away then chances are deadly force is going to be viewed as obsessive since you did not run but could have. That is assuming there unarmed. Its almost a catch 22 either decisions would end badly.
Why carry?

mrsurfboard
06-08-2011, 12:14
"Unfortunately, the need for ongoing concern still exists as this type of gang activity continued over this past weekend once again in Chicago. Roving gangs have been appearing in trendy areas downtown, and were responsible for committing attacks against average everyday citizens just this past Sunday in the Gold Coast.*CBS 2 reports “15-20 young men between 16-20 years old and black,” approached a man near Northwestern University, one of whom threw a baseball at his face, as the rest proceeded to beat him up."

Food for thought?

Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.

Berto
06-08-2011, 12:16
I would not count on that. Why take the chance.
Sometimes one shot will incite a mob.
Be prepared...

Which handgun do you take on mobs with?

CitizenOfDreams
06-08-2011, 12:17
If you don't use all 15 rounds, you can just leave the rest of them in the magazine. How many people ever complained about having too much ammo in a gunfight, or too many sheets of toilet paper on the roll?

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 12:17
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.

What about a handgun and my trusty TACTICAL PEN?! :mallninja:



:rofl:I'm sorry, I had to.:rofl:

HotRoderX
06-08-2011, 12:18
Why carry?


Was not trying to say people shouldn't carry. Just there are situations that even being armed with a high cap pistols your options are still dismal at best.

crash09
06-08-2011, 12:19
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.

I'm sure you're right, but the ones up front are coming with me...

vafish
06-08-2011, 12:19
This.

Statistics tell us that you're not going to need 14 rounds when you draw your handgun. And statistically speaking, as much as you might think you need to carry that RPG just in case, you're not going to be the exception to the statistics.

Statistically speaking I you won't need your seatbelt today so why bother wearing it.

Statistically speaking you won't get a flat tire today so why bother having one in the car.

Statistically speaking when I left the house today I won't need a gun at all so why bother carrying one?

If I relied on statistics to determine my carry gun I would not have had one on me the three times I have uses one for self defense.

I don't carry a gun for an average day I carry one for.the worst day.

Breadman03
06-08-2011, 12:21
You better be able to search and assess quickly. My tactics would be determined by my means of escape and who (family) I had with me. I would do whatever I had to do to prevent my family from being attacked.

SPIN2010
06-08-2011, 12:21
I would not count on that. Why take the chance.
Sometimes one shot will incite a mob.
Be prepared...

I agree as "Shoot and Scoot" comes to mind. The environment you are in at the time of the offense is a great factor. Always be aware of your surroundings and plan an escape path. IMHO

vafish
06-08-2011, 12:24
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.

Most gangs are made up of a large group of cowards.

Just watch them run when a cop car rolls up.

You drop the first couple and the rest will scatter. It's not like you are being attacked by a squad of marines.

Still I find a g17 and a spare mag comforting. And we all have to do what makes us comfortable.

firefighter4215
06-08-2011, 12:25
Which handgun do you take on mobs with?

Why, a 10mm of course!

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 12:27
Statistically speaking I you won't need your seatbelt today so why bother wearing it.

Statistically speaking you won't get a flat tire today so why bother having one in the car.

Statistically speaking when I left the house today I won't need a gun at all so why bother carrying one?

If I relied on statistics to determine my carry gun I would not have had one on me the three times I have uses one for self defense.

I don't carry a gun for an average day I carry one for.the worst day.

You're wrong. Statistically speaking, its fairly likely that you'll be the victim of a violent crime at some point in your life. Statistically speaking, incredibly unlikely that you'll need 30 bullets to end said crime. Do you prepare for every eventuality in your life? Carry a defib kit with you? Adrenaline needle? Quikclot, needle and thread? Splints for broken bones? Antidotes for snake venom? inflatable raft in case of flash flooding?

There is a point, and its no obscure as gun nuts would like to make it seem, where being prepared for something likely to happen becomes outright paranoia.

P.S. I've needed my gun to defend myself before, and just the sight of it ended the crime. The crime ended before I could line up a shot. I didn't need a billion rounds, a fancy laser light, 4 spare magazines, a bayonet lug, or any of that craziness.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 12:30
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.
Exactly. It is sad how poorly some folks understand gun use and tactics.

ssgrock3
06-08-2011, 12:31
I cannot imagine only shooting one shot if confronted by a mob and feeling my life is in jeopardy. Mag would probably be empty facer than I would like.

cowboy1964
06-08-2011, 12:36
Statistics tell us that you're not going to need 14 rounds when you draw your handgun. And statistically speaking, as much as you might think you need to carry that RPG just in case, you're not going to be the exception to the statistics.

Statistics tell us that you're not going to need any rounds, let alone ever draw your handgun.

eracer
06-08-2011, 12:36
Concealed full-auto MAC-11 with extra mags for me. That would pretty much put an end to the ".380 is not a viable SD round" argument.

cowboy1964
06-08-2011, 12:38
This isn't the first time capacity has come up here on GT. I've seen example after example where someone emptied their 1911 dry fighting off as few as one or two BGs. So how many rounds IS enough? 9, 12, 17?

I'm pretty sure no one has ever been in a fight and afterward their chief complaint was "geez, I had too much ammo".

Ahmid
06-08-2011, 12:38
Yeah, guess some of you guys are right. Since you can't carry a small sub gun you just might as well just sit there, get your brains beat out, watch them rape your wife or daughter. Then you would be lucky if they only sodomized you and not set you and your wife on fire and left to die.

cowboy1964
06-08-2011, 12:40
Yeah, guess some of you guys are right. Since you can't carry a small sub gun you just might as well just sit there, get your brains beat out, watch them rape your wife or daughter. Then you would be lucky if they only sodomized you and not set you and your wife on fire and left to die.

Yeah, guess some of you guys are right. A 5 shot snubby will ALWAYS be enough. Statistically speaking. If not, oh well, you played the odds, and lost.

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 12:44
The problem with the "statistically speaking" approach is that data always looks in the rear view mirror. But, "them times, they are a changin". Who ever heard of 'flash mobs' a year ago?

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 12:47
Statistically speaking I you won't need your seatbelt today so why bother wearing it.

Statistically speaking you won't get a flat tire today so why bother having one in the car.

Statistically speaking when I left the house today I won't need a gun at all so why bother carrying one?

If I relied on statistics to determine my carry gun I would not have had one on me the three times I have uses one for self defense.

I don't carry a gun for an average day I carry one for.the worst day.
Bad use of stats and probability. Chances of occurence to a specific individual at a specific time are a poor way to prepare. Overall lifetime chances and cost/benefit are much better, and are a much better way to look at most issues like this. Focusing on outlier events does little to tell us how to rationally prepare for something. The chances of needing a gun for SD are small, yet significant. The chances that one needs much in the way of capacity goes down as the capacity goes up.

ancient_serpent
06-08-2011, 12:47
Don't get me wrong, I'll fight if given no other choice, no matter the odds. I just don't see this as evidence I'm undergunned with a 1911 and three mags as my daily carry.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 12:50
Yeah, guess some of you guys are right. A 5 shot snubby will ALWAYS be enough. Statistically speaking. If not, oh well, you played the odds, and lost.
In a similar vein an AR-15 with a 100-round mag won't ALWAYS be enough. So no, a 5-shot snub won't ALWAYS be enough, but it will USUALLY be enough.

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 12:53
Statistics tell us that you're not going to need any rounds, let alone ever draw your handgun.

According to FBI statistucs, there were an estimated 429.4 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009. This means you have about a .45% chance of needing your weapon. We can say that some go unreported and bump it to maybe half a percent total. You have a 1 in 200 chance of needing your firearm for just yourself based on 2009 crime statistics. Thats not so ridiculously unlikely.

Now, if we were to multiply that 1/200 by x where x is the statistical probability of needing the number of bullets you think you need, we can arrive at another number exponentially smaller than 1/200. Its like being super prepared for an infinitesimally small probability. So much so that you'd be better off investing in some of the aforementioned items above.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 12:53
The problem with the "statistically speaking" approach is that data always looks in the rear view mirror. But, "them times, they are a changin". Who ever heard of 'flash mobs' a year ago?
Good point. Crime is going down, there is less and less violence in the country, and we are safer now than we have been for decades.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 12:55
Don't get me wrong, I'll fight if given no other choice, no matter the odds. I just don't see this as evidence I'm undergunned with a 1911 and three mags as my daily carry.
You're not. In fact, you're not undergunned with a 1911 and one spare mag!:supergrin:

BailRecoveryAgent
06-08-2011, 13:00
P.S. I've needed my gun to defend myself before, and just the sight of it ended the crime. The crime ended before I could line up a shot. I didn't need a billion rounds, a fancy laser light, 4 spare magazines, a bayonet lug, or any of that craziness.

http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk235/isrefel/Neuronantico/rambo.jpg

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 13:19
http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk235/isrefel/Neuronantico/rambo.jpg

Wrong stereotype.
http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/100/1009257/sons-of-anarchy-20090730000521083_640w.jpg

Much more appropriate, given I was on my bike.

mrsurfboard
06-08-2011, 13:20
I love these capacity posts. All the keyboard commandos come out and make me laugh.

REA9mm
06-08-2011, 13:22
Seems like some OC spray might be the best thing to combat these large groups of unarmed offenders.

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 13:33
Good point. Crime is going down, there is less and less violence in the country, and we are safer now than we have been for decades.

Perhaps in some places. Probably not a good idea to go for a stroll in Grant Park these days. I've lived in the same house for 26 years and there is no question that there are many, many more instances of violent crime. When I was a kid, we settled things with our fists and we stopped once our opponent was helpless. Now, they'd just as soon kill you as look at you. I also like to have choices so that I can adjust according to my read on the environment.

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 13:40
I love these capacity posts. All the keyboard commandos come out and make me laugh.

Geez, Surf, if we can't resurrect an "oldy, goldy" topic in the context of current events, they might as well shut CI down. But, I'm happy to learn that we are entertaining you. Enjoy!

Warp
06-08-2011, 13:42
This.

Statistics tell us that you're not going to need 14 rounds when you draw your handgun. And statistically speaking, as much as you might think you need to carry that RPG just in case, you're not going to be the exception to the statistics.

Statistics say you won't need a gun.

I like having 16 rounds in my G19. 11 rounds in my G26 is okay, but 16 is better. 5 in my 642 is only when push comes to shove...I want more than that.

dugo
06-08-2011, 13:50
This.

Statistics tell us that you're not going to need 14 rounds when you draw your handgun. And statistically speaking, as much as you might think you need to carry that RPG just in case, you're not going to be the exception to the statistics.

I personally have known some bad guys that might not stop, but, as you properly imply, they probably won't be there. At least, those are the odds.

So -- statistically speaking, of course -- I have to agree that the chances are that whoever attacks you will run before you are out of ammo, and not come back.

Certainly, probably so.

In other words, to be clear, we are sure that it is probable that the odds are very much in your favor.

Well ... of course, there is some chance that you could be the exception that statistics also prove could happen, but -- chances are -- you probably won't ... at least, not likely.

In other "other words", statistically, it will probably be someone else, not you; and -- even more -- not even too many of those other people are likely to have the worst happen, too, so it probably won't be hardly any of them, either. ... Ok, sure, maybe someone will have to deal with it ... but probably not you ...

So, in all probability ... chances are ... yes, we can be fairly sure and say with some degree of, though certainly less than complete, conviction that the odds are against the chance of it not going the way you bet that it will.

That's statistics, at least as it is often presented, thank you.

Sarcasm aside, it's not that I disagree in principal. I certainly think the odds are that everything will turn out the way I so very much hope, so I don't usually worry much about capacity, either. Just let's not foster a lot of confusion. Statistics and reality are not the same, and everybody deserves to place their own bets, eyes open.

Well, then, best of luck to all of us who bet on statistics.

Warp
06-08-2011, 13:51
Seems like some OC spray might be the best thing to combat these large groups of unarmed offenders.

15-20 men age 16-20...yeah, um, I wouldn't count on OC for that.

Berto
06-08-2011, 13:56
It's always a question of what degree of compromise you're accepting in a handgun.
You're still way head of the curve just being armed and prepared, nobody wants to get shot trying to impress their friends.

HKLovingIT
06-08-2011, 13:59
According to FBI statistucs, there were an estimated 429.4 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009. This means you have about a .45% chance of needing your weapon. We can say that some go unreported and bump it to maybe half a percent total. You have a 1 in 200 chance of needing your firearm for just yourself based on 2009 crime statistics. Thats not so ridiculously unlikely.

Now, if we were to multiply that 1/200 by x where x is the statistical probability of needing the number of bullets you think you need, we can arrive at another number exponentially smaller than 1/200. Its like being super prepared for an infinitesimally small probability. So much so that you'd be better off investing in some of the aforementioned items above.


Yeah but this is normalized across the whole U.S. right? So the odds are 1 in 200 overall but 1 in ? in the crappiest neighborhood in Chicago and 1 in ? in Mayberry population 500?

Yeah I know, don't go to that neighborhood. Some people have to live and work there.

HKLovingIT
06-08-2011, 14:01
Bad use of stats and probability. Chances of occurence to a specific individual at a specific time are a poor way to prepare. Overall lifetime chances and cost/benefit are much better, and are a much better way to look at most issues like this. Focusing on outlier events does little to tell us how to rationally prepare for something. The chances of needing a gun for SD are small, yet significant. The chances that one needs much in the way of capacity goes down as the capacity goes up.

David can you elaborate on that? Not sure I get ya. [not trolling]

Thanks

RYT 2BER
06-08-2011, 14:05
Statistics say you won't need a gun.

I like having 16 rounds in my G19. 11 rounds in my G26 is okay, but 16 is better. 5 in my 642 is only when push comes to shove...I want more than that.


:thumbsup:

I prefer the higher capacity stuff.... maybe it isnt statistically necessary, but it makes me feel better! :supergrin:

Warp
06-08-2011, 14:05
David can you elaborate on that? Not sure I get ya. [not trolling]

Thanks

I believe he is simply saying that the higher the capacity in question, the less likely it will be necessary.

It seems most individual comfort zones fall somewhere between 5 and 15, with 10 rounds typically being what most of us will think is "probably enough"

BailRecoveryAgent
06-08-2011, 14:10
Wrong stereotype.
http://tvmedia.ign.com/tv/image/article/100/1009257/sons-of-anarchy-20090730000521083_640w.jpg

Much more appropriate, given I was on my bike.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/poetrymaster/Arnold/Terminator3.jpg

HKLovingIT
06-08-2011, 14:10
I believe he is simply saying that the higher the capacity in question, the less likely it will be necessary.

It seems most individual comfort zones fall somewhere between 5 and 15, with 10 rounds typically being what most of us will think is "probably enough"

OK.

Also I would just like to note that this is not limited to Chicago. I live in the North East near a big but not ginormous city and just the other day we had a victim beaten in daylight by 10 "youths" until he was unconcious. It allegedly started as a robbery attempt but they did not in fact take anything.

There have been some other incidents of this type here with smaller groups but 4-6 seems common.

Perhaps this is a new form of entertainment for bored youth.

PirateLookingAtForty
06-08-2011, 14:36
Can anyone demonstrate a distinct disadvantage to having more rounds on board?

HKLovingIT
06-08-2011, 14:47
Can anyone demonstrate a distinct disadvantage to having more rounds on board?

Not so important:

Less time spent using a speed loader or doing a mag change.

More rounds onboard in case you have a bad round or two.

More important in my mind:

You might miss.

Your first shots may not incapacitate your assailant or assailants.

Neutral:

If you can carry it comfortably, then it doesn't really have a negative that I see.

Again, I do not expect to be in a multi-perp gunfight everywhere I go, nor any gunfight if I can help it, but if it doesn't bother me, what's wrong with carrying a P2000 with 12 versus a P2000SK with 9?

I only carry two guns on special occasions. Like going into said city and my range roving trips out in the meth/heartland. :dunno:

EDIT: Whoops misread your post that it said "disadvantage" I read it as "advantage" My bad.

Toorop
06-08-2011, 14:48
Not sure fighting 15 people with a handgun is feasible.

Glocktalkers don't miss.

Toorop
06-08-2011, 14:49
Which handgun do you take on mobs with?

Bruce Willis took them on with two Colt 1911s...:whistling:

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 14:49
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/poetrymaster/Arnold/Terminator3.jpg

PERFECT! I can't believe I didn't think of that one. I even wear the jacket he took off of the gay dancer in the second one, I think.

Nakanokalronin
06-08-2011, 14:50
Most muggings and gang related activity involves at least 2 thugs and up. First importance is to have a gun that is reliable and you can shoot well. Second is to get enough training and practice to be proficient with that gun. If one wants 13rds or 8+1 and a reload it shouldn't matter. If you can carry a G17 with a 33rd mag as a back-up go right ahead if you can pull it off. The capacity of the gun you choose should not really be looked down upon anyone who has a different carry set-up or style.

For me no matter what gun I choose to carry or what the capacity may be, I will always have at least one extra magazine. Weather I have a chance to reload my gun or not its not like I'm at a disadvantage with more ammunition in the gun or in an extra mag. All these statistics people are throwing out about never needing your gun is alright if your interested in the facts from the past. I'm wondering how those people that get attacked by a mob of thugs feels about these statistics and if they felt they would never need their gun.

Its better to have and not need then need and not have. I mean, you can spout all the percentages you want but you have no idea if you will be part of that 45%, 50% 2%, 1%, whatever % so percentages are all about situations that have already happened. Unless you have a crystal ball that predicts the future you do not know if you will ever need your gun or how many thugs you will encounter so why not be prepared? Being prepared could be a single stack mag with a back-up or a higher capacity gun. People need to stop pointing fingers and mouthing off about capacity and calibers. All one can do is make suggestions to what they think works best and let the end user decide for themselves.

Honestly, I think gun forums cause more confusion among enthusiasts than anything else out there. Everyone is going to have an opinion and most of the time it ends up hurting the person that asked the question in the first place.

A6Gator
06-08-2011, 14:50
approached a man near Northwestern University, one of whom threw a baseball at his face, as the rest proceeded to beat him up."

Clearly, the correct response for Rahm is to ban baseballs. Obviously, the gun ban has been so successful, we just need more baseball control...:rofl:

BamaTrooper
06-08-2011, 14:51
I agree with the above. If there close enough to warrant deadly force then chances are one goes down and they don't scatter your gonna get overwhelmed. If there far enough away then chances are deadly force is going to be viewed as obsessive since you did not run but could have. That is assuming there unarmed. Its almost a catch 22 either decisions would end badly.

What if you run but they catch you? Can 15 people strike you, effectively, at the same time?

...and did you mean excesive?

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 14:52
Yeah but this is normalized across the whole U.S. right? So the odds are 1 in 200 overall but 1 in ? in the crappiest neighborhood in Chicago and 1 in ? in Mayberry population 500?

Yeah I know, don't go to that neighborhood. Some people have to live and work there.

Oh yeah, depending on where you are you may need your gun a lot more. Ironically, most of the places you'll need it the most are places you can't carry it at all.

cowboy1964
06-08-2011, 14:54
Ok, so what is everyone's comfort level in terms of number of rounds (disregarding caliber completely). Only 5 makes me a bit nervous (especially given that I can't shoot a snubby for crap). 6+1 in a PM9 is ok. Very comfortable is 8+1. Anything more than that is just icing.

HKLovingIT
06-08-2011, 14:54
Most muggings and gang related activity involves at least 2 thugs and up. First importance is to have a gun that is reliable and you can shoot well. Second is to get enough training and practice to be proficient with that gun. If one wants 13rds or 8+1 and a reload it shouldn't matter. If you can carry a G17 with a 33rd mag as a back-up go right ahead if you can pull it off. The capacity of the gun you choose should not really be looked down upon anyone who has a different carry set-up or style.

For me no matter what gun I choose to carry or what the capacity may be, I will always have at least one extra magazine. Weather I have a chance to reload my gun or not its not like I'm at a disadvantage with more ammunition in the gun or in an extra mag. All these statistics people are throwing out about never needing your gun is alright if your interested in the facts from the past. I'm wondering how those people that get attacked by a mob of thugs feels about these statistics and if they felt they would never need their gun.

Its better to have and not need then need and not have. I mean, you can spout all the percentages you want but you have no idea if you will be part of that 45%, 50% 2%, 1%, whatever % so percentages are all about situations that have already happened. Unless you have a crystal ball that predicts the future you do not know if you will ever need your gun or how many thugs you will encounter so why not be prepared? Being prepared could be a single stack mag with a back-up or a higher capacity gun. People need to stop pointing fingers and mouthing off about capacity and calibers. All one can do is make suggestions to what they think works best and let the end user decide for themselves.

Honestly, I think gun forums cause more confusion among enthusiasts than anything else out there. Everyone is going to have an opinions and most of the time it ends up hurting the person that asked the question in the first place.

Sometimes it seems like there is an undercurrent here of don't carry a gun, because you will never need it anyway, and if you do carry one, don't be a ****** and carry anything bigger than a 5 shot revolver. If you do, well, you're a mall ninja cop wannabe tacticool paranoid.

Those who carry a G17 size or more than one spare mag, seem to attract a special ire.

HKLovingIT
06-08-2011, 14:56
Oh yeah, depending on where you are you may need your gun a lot more. Ironically, most of the places you'll need it the most are places you can't carry it at all.


That's the truth. Funny how that is. The places where citizen ownership and legal carry are heavily restricted are usually hell holes.

cowboy1964
06-08-2011, 14:57
Sometimes it seems like there is an undercurrent here of don't carry a gun, because you will never need it anyway, and if you do carry one, don't be a ****** and carry anything bigger than a 5 shot revolver. If you do, well, you're a mall ninja cop wannabe tacticool paranoid.

hose who carry a G17 size or more than one spare mag, seem to attract a special ire.

Yeah, and usually the reason for a particular gun choice is not the capacity, it's the other factors, like how well one shoots it. If someone shoots a full size Glock better than the other sizes, so be it. The extra capacity is a nice bonus.

I like the fact that Glocks generally hold 1-2 more rounds than other makes of the same size but it's not a deciding factor.

Cream Soda Kid
06-08-2011, 15:08
I don’t understand why this argument ever comes up. If you feel adequately prepared with a 5 shot revolver and don’t see a need for any more than that, then go for it, and good luck with that.

I feel better carrying my higher capacity 9 millimeter with a spare magazine. (sometimes magazines fail, necessitating a magazine change, if time allows).

But let’s keep this civil, and agree to disagree. Don’t call me paranoid or a “keyboard commando” and I won’t call you dumb. :tongueout:

John Rambo
06-08-2011, 15:13
Ok, so what is everyone's comfort level in terms of number of rounds (disregarding caliber completely). Only 5 makes me a bit nervous (especially given that I can't shoot a snubby for crap). 6+1 in a PM9 is ok. Very comfortable is 8+1. Anything more than that is just icing.

I'd be cool with 6. I think the average fired is something like 4? I figure that puts me high enough on the bell curve where I'm beating the odds. And life is about beating the odds. Just ask my silver bars that I bought while they were in the 40s. :faint:

With that said, my weapons carry 6+1 and 7+1. Always chambered.

vetmedglock30
06-08-2011, 15:18
Back in the 70s, I read an article in Time/Newsweek (?) about a South African police officer who stood down mobs several times with a .38. His said that after he shot tHe one with the "loudest mouth" the rest would "get real peaceful.". I do not want to test this out myself.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 15:42
Perhaps in some places.
No, not perhaps in some places. Pretty much everywhere in the U.S.
Probably not a good idea to go for a stroll in Grant Park these days.
Probably not a good idea to go for a stroll lots of places. That doesn't change the fact that crime is down pretty much across the board in the U.S.
over the last decade.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 15:45
Statistics and reality are not the same, and everybody deserves to place their own bets, eyes open.
When done right statistics are a very good description of reality, and the more one undestands them the better they can place those bets.

Sammael
06-08-2011, 15:47
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will return fire.

Fixed it for you.

LASTRESORT20
06-08-2011, 15:53
I would not count on that. Why take the chance.
Sometimes one shot will incite a mob.
Be prepared...


+2 with "prepared' as key-word..

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 15:57
David can you elaborate on that? Not sure I get ya. [not trolling]
Thanks
Warp hit it. The more one goes beyond the norm (higher capacity) the less likely it is that it will be needed. Let's do a real simple (albeit inaccurate) example:
Chance of getting into a situation where you will need a gun: 1 in 100.
In that situation, the chance of needing to actually fire the gun: 1 in 100.
If you fire the gun the chance of needing to hit the BG: 1 in 100.
The chance of needing to hit the BG more than once: 1 in 100.
The chance of needing to shoot another BG after shooting the first BG: 1 in 100.
The chance of needing to then shoot the second BG more than once: 1 in 100.
Put that in your calculator and see how quickly we move from a fairly high chance to nearly impossible.:wavey:

wprebeck
06-08-2011, 16:01
Most gangs are made up of a large group of cowards.

Just watch them run when a cop car rolls up.

You drop the first couple and the rest will scatter. It's not like you are being attacked by a squad of marines.

Still I find a g17 and a spare mag comforting. And we all have to do what makes us comfortable.

Its sometimes entertaining when folks dont know who they're talking to....in this ccase, you are speaking to a cop. One who works in a largish city, IIRC, and presumably has actually had real life encounters with gang members. That's in contrast to other folks, who think NYPD Blue is a ddocumentary.


Oh, and de homies bounce when da five oh be rollin up, cuz dey don wanna be goin back to de county, ya feel me? Dey don be trippen fo no sissy *** clowns, cuz de jus kill a fool*, ya know whut im sayin?

Censured for both TOS and agency policy violations....but, being fluent in the language and all, I can assure you that "fool" is not the correct noun used in this sentence.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 16:02
Can anyone demonstrate a distinct disadvantage to having more rounds on board?
The 26 pounds of 1,000 rounds of 9mm on one side makes you walk a little funny.:supergrin:

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 16:07
Its better to have and not need then need and not have.
but one cannot have everything they might need so everyone has to compromise. So would it be better to compromise based on actual data and information or based on some wild guess?
Unless you have a crystal ball that predicts the future you do not know if you will ever need your gun or how many thugs you will encounter so why not be prepared?
Shall we then assume that you carry around a heavy caliber rifle with you at all times in case of being attacked by a man-eating tiger? After all, unless you have a crystal ball that predicts the future you do not know if you will ever need your rifle, so why not be prepared?:whistling:

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 16:10
Ok, so what is everyone's comfort level in terms of number of rounds (disregarding caliber completely). Only 5 makes me a bit nervous (especially given that I can't shoot a snubby for crap). 6+1 in a PM9 is ok. Very comfortable is 8+1. Anything more than that is just icing.
I'm comfortable with whatever I'm carrying. It's a tool. I may have to use it differently than another tool, but I'm comfortable that I'll do the job, be it a 5 shot snub, a 7 shot auto, or a 17 round hi-cap auto, or pretty much anything else.

Nakanokalronin
06-08-2011, 16:18
but one cannot have everything they might need so everyone has to compromise. So would it be better to compromise based on actual data and information or based on some wild guess?

My point is having a higher capacity gun is not a disadvantage if you only had to defend yourself against one single thug. Statistics and percentages are fine to quote but even if its 100 to 1 I feel the 1 is a person that doesn't care about the statistics.

Why is anyone considering higher capacity or extra mags to be paranoid or overkill? I'm thinking its someone who carry's a snub or single stack gun with no extra magazines which is absolutely fine and will say to re-read my last post if anyone wants to twist my words around. I feel like I'm being dragged into a completely irrelevant argument about personal choices which is prevalent on these boards. Just re-read my post for my point of view.

Most muggings and gang related activity involves at least 2 thugs and up. First importance is to have a gun that is reliable and you can shoot well. Second is to get enough training and practice to be proficient with that gun. If one wants 13rds or 8+1 and a reload it shouldn't matter. If you can carry a G17 with a 33rd mag as a back-up go right ahead if you can pull it off. The capacity of the gun you choose should not really be looked down upon anyone who has a different carry set-up or style.

For me no matter what gun I choose to carry or what the capacity may be, I will always have at least one extra magazine. Weather I have a chance to reload my gun or not its not like I'm at a disadvantage with more ammunition in the gun or in an extra mag. All these statistics people are throwing out about never needing your gun is alright if your interested in the facts from the past. I'm wondering how those people that get attacked by a mob of thugs feels about these statistics and if they felt they would never need their gun.

Its better to have and not need then need and not have. I mean, you can spout all the percentages you want but you have no idea if you will be part of that 45%, 50% 2%, 1%, whatever % so percentages are all about situations that have already happened. Unless you have a crystal ball that predicts the future you do not know if you will ever need your gun or how many thugs you will encounter so why not be prepared? Being prepared could be a single stack mag with a back-up or a higher capacity gun. People need to stop pointing fingers and mouthing off about capacity and calibers. All one can do is make suggestions to what they think works best and let the end user decide for themselves.

Honestly, I think gun forums cause more confusion among enthusiasts than anything else out there. Everyone is going to have an opinions and most of the time it ends up hurting the person that asked the question in the first place.
Shall we then assume that you carry around a heavy caliber rifle with you at all times in case of being attacked by a man-eating tiger? After all, unless you have a crystal ball that predicts the future you do not know if you will ever need your rifle, so why not be prepared?Jeez man, WTH do I even bother on this board. Your killing me with the way your trying to start an argument about nothing. Rifles are not the normal concealed carry firearm allowed on a person. If open carry with a rifle was allowed and accepted across the U.S. I'm sure there would be many who would carry a rifle.

BamaTrooper
06-08-2011, 16:22
I suppose it depends on when/how you plan to use it? If your plan is to run away, extra ammo may not be needed. If you are planning on catching/stopping someone that is actively shooting people, you might want more ammo available.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 16:37
My point is having a higher capacity gun is not a disadvantage if you only had to defend yourself against one single thug.
My point is that having a higher capacity gun is not an advantage. More is not automatically better.
Statistics and percentages are fine to quote but even if its 100 to 1 I feel the 1 is a person that doesn't care about the statistics.
Probabilities, statistics, percentages, etc. drive pretty much whatever we do that involves making a decision. One can make the decision based on sound data or they can make a scientific wild-ass guess.
Why is anyone considering higher capacity or extra mags to be paranoid or overkill?
I'm not sure anyone is. It seems to me the main points have been more of a "yeah, it's nice, but who cares because it doesn't matter much."
Jeez man, WTH do I even bother on this board. Your killing me with the way your trying to start an argument about nothing. Rifles are not the normal concealed carry firearm allowed on a person. If open carry with a rifle was allowed and accepted across the U.S. I'm sure there would be many who would carry a rifle.
You're the one trying to make the argument that unless one has a crystal ball that predicts the future you should prepare for everything. So, how prepared are you for that man-eating tiger to jump out and grab you?

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 16:40
I suppose it depends on when/how you plan to use it? If your plan is to run away, extra ammo may not be needed. If you are planning on catching/stopping someone that is actively shooting people, you might want more ammo available.
Exactly. And the further analysis of that goes on to suggest that the weapon you have will also impact your plan as much as your plan can impact your weapon. One might handle a situation very differently with a 5 shot snub as opposed to a G17 with a spare mag.

NickC50310
06-08-2011, 16:50
Because of this, I will almost always carry a spare mag of ammo. 29 rounds total for my FNX .40.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 17:24
Because of this, I will almost always carry a spare mag of ammo. 29 rounds total for my FNX .40.
But...but...but...what if you are attacked by 30 guys!:rofl:

Nakanokalronin
06-08-2011, 17:29
:rofl: There's one on every gun board. whatever, LOL.

Eric SF
06-08-2011, 17:33
You're with one of your kids when the mob attacks. You drop 2-3 then the mob scatters. You exit the bus/train as fast as you can, although the gangbangers with guns find some cover and reengage you only seconds later. Are you happy with your low-capacity solution and the 10-round magazine ban, or are you properly prepared to exfil the area with a higher chance of success?

NickC50310
06-08-2011, 17:48
But...but...but...what if you are attacked by 30 guys!:rofl:

Hopefully that last guy isnt tougher than me! :rofl:

cole
06-08-2011, 18:12
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.

This. All this drivel about 10+ roving gangs supporting more capacity - which is just pro-9mm and anti .45acp in disguise - is just plain stupid because the above is the case if they don't scatter. Period. If they fight back, you'll have your last 10+ rounds in YOUR gun, and YOUR reload(s), used on YOU. Sometimes I'm not sure if internet people are serious, stupid or have just not really thought things through. :upeyes:

And, the same idiocy is happening here: for those of you who think 8 shots is enough... (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=112164) . Again, this is all the same-o anti .45acp and anti 1911 banter the 9mm camp spits out incessantly. I like 9mm. I like .45acp. I have both. I use both. Use what makes you feel warm-n-fuzzy and takes care of your dreamed-up SD encounters. :thumbsup:

vafish
06-08-2011, 18:34
Bad use of stats and probability. Chances of occurence to a specific individual at a specific time are a poor way to prepare. Overall lifetime chances and cost/benefit are much better, and are a much better way to look at most issues like this. Focusing on outlier events does little to tell us how to rationally prepare for something. The chances of needing a gun for SD are small, yet significant. The chances that one needs much in the way of capacity goes down as the capacity goes up.

Using stats that say you only need 3 shots in a gun fight can get you killed.

I have never spoken to a gunfight survivor or read an account of a gunfight survivor that said they wished they had less ammunition or a smaller gun on them.

I said everyone needs to do what they feel comfortable with.

I feel very comfortable with a G17, G19, or G23 on me and one spare magazine. The spare magazine is not just for more ammo they are also useful for clearing malfunctions.

Do I really think there is much chance of me being attacked by a gang of 15-20 thugs, Probably not. But it's nice to know I have more then 5 shots on me if I am attacked by a large crowd.

If you are comfortable with less that's fine with me.

jdavionic
06-08-2011, 19:01
Using stats that say you only need 3 shots in a gun fight can get you killed.

I have never spoken to a gunfight survivor or read an account of a gunfight survivor that said they wished they had less ammunition or a smaller gun on them.

I said everyone needs to do what they feel comfortable with.

I feel very comfortable with a G17, G19, or G23 on me and one spare magazine. The spare magazine is not just for more ammo they are also useful for clearing malfunctions.

Do I really think there is much chance of me being attacked by a gang of 15-20 thugs, Probably not. But it's nice to know I have more then 5 shots on me if I am attacked by a large crowd.

If you are comfortable with less that's fine with me.

+1...I carry a spare mag when I can do so for the same reasons. I've read others here say that you don't need a spare mag to clear malfunctions, just use the ejected mag. Having shot many matches indoors and outdoors, I would disagree with that assertion. I've seen rounds get shifted from hitting hard ground so that the tip of the first round is pointed down in the magazine. In outdoor matches, I've seen dirt in the mag where you would not want to rely on re-inserting the magazine.

Badger1911
06-08-2011, 19:07
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

+1

FWIW, I have and carry both 1911's and high capacity 9mms. I don't feel undergunned with either.

NMG26
06-08-2011, 19:11
+1

Cowards usually run in packs.

I'd like to think one shot is all it would take.

I'd like to think that I would just take one shot and wait.....be cool........wait and see if another is needed.

And have the coolness to do that again if necessary.

aujrb
06-08-2011, 19:24
All I need is enough ammo to hold them off until my wife and kids get away.

beforeobamabans
06-08-2011, 19:29
This. All this drivel about 10+ roving gangs supporting more capacity - which is just pro-9mm and anti .45acp in disguise - is just plain stupid because the above is the case if they don't scatter. Period. If they fight back, you'll have your last 10+ rounds in YOUR gun, and YOUR reload(s), used on YOU. Sometimes I'm not sure if internet people are serious, stupid or have just not really thought things through. :upeyes:

And, the same idiocy is happening here: for those of you who think 8 shots is enough... (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=4&t=112164) . Again, this is all the same-o anti .45acp and anti 1911 banter the 9mm camp spits out incessantly. I like 9mm. I like .45acp. I have both. I use both. Use what makes you feel warm-n-fuzzy and takes care of your dreamed-up SD encounters. :thumbsup:

Say what? Are you confused or have you just consumed too much beer tonight? This thread has NOTHING to do with caliber wars. For example, a G21 with 13+1 and a spare mag would be considered as adequate capacity by almost anyone. This thread is all about the folks that are comfortable with 6+1 vs. 10 or more +1. If you are going to carry, should you increase capacity (perhaps at the expense of caliber) and if not, why would you think less bullets of a larger caliber would be superior to several more of a smaller cal when encountering a large group of perps? This is a real dilemma that we all face every day, not some theoretical exercise. Get serious and make a real contribution or go back to your own "dreamed up SD encounters".

PirateLookingAtForty
06-08-2011, 19:35
The 26 pounds of 1,000 rounds of 9mm on one side makes you walk a little funny.:supergrin:

That depends on how strong you are :tongueout:

My point is that having a higher capacity gun is not an advantageOf course it is. Though my normal carry gun is a 12+1 9mm - sort of mid-cap - I'm not one who scoffs at a J-frame, but I have to say you've gone completely off the rails here.

More is not automatically better.But sometimes it is, and it's never worse.

PirateLookingAtForty
06-08-2011, 19:44
Sometimes it seems like there is an undercurrent here of don't carry a gun, because you will never need it anyway, and if you do carry one, don't be a ****** and carry anything bigger than a 5 shot revolver. If you do, well, you're a mall ninja cop wannabe tacticool paranoid.Some people choose a J-frame, or LCP or whatever, and don't want to admit that they've compromised effectiveness for convenience. Then they defend their choice with the same fervor they extoll their favorite beer, or sports team.

For the record, I own a J-frame, an LCR and a P3AT and occasionally I carry one of those as my primary. When I do, though, I am fully aware of the compromise I've made.

FireGuy
06-08-2011, 19:54
Back to the original post -
Rahm is upset because there are wolves preying on his sheeple. He's not upset that he banned the sheep dogs.

It does not matter how big your gun is, or how many rounds you like to carry if you are banned from having your gun. Go ahead and shoot one, two or twenty - the final outcome will be the same except you'll be getting it in a prison cell.:shocked:

You should be alarmed when the very people that claim the streets of their city are dangerous still want you to be unable to defend yourself from those dangers.:steamed:

cole
06-08-2011, 20:04
Say what? Are you confused or have you just consumed too much beer tonight? This thread has NOTHING to do with caliber wars. For example, a G21 with 13+1 and a spare mag would be considered as adequate capacity by almost anyone. This thread is all about the folks that are comfortable with 6+1 vs. 10 or more +1. If you are going to carry, should you increase capacity (perhaps at the expense of caliber) and if not, why would you think less bullets of a larger caliber would be superior to several more of a smaller cal when encountering a large group of perps? This is a real dilemma that we all face every day, not some theoretical exercise. Get serious and make a real contribution or go back to your own "dreamed up SD encounters".

O come on. You really think most folks are talking a 7+1 9mm vs. a 17+1 9mm or a 7+1 .45acp vs. a 13+1 .45acp? Maybe you are a rare exception looking at this debate objectively WITHIN caliber, but for most, this is a 9mm (capacity) vs. a .45acp (caliber) debate because high capacity (>10 rounds) .45acp handguns are too big for most to conceal.

So, as I stated, if you think a "capacity" debate is not steeped in caliber debate IMO you are kidding yourself or naive. No insult intended. The .45acp proponents pretty much never debate capacity or size, but will debate caliber, and 9mm proponents pretty much always will debate all with special emphasis on capacity.

Ruggles
06-08-2011, 20:12
Alving York got by with a seven round magazine, and he was taking on a whole platoon of krauts!

:)

degoodman
06-08-2011, 20:46
Say what? Are you confused or have you just consumed too much beer tonight? This thread has NOTHING to do with caliber wars. For example, a G21 with 13+1 and a spare mag would be considered as adequate capacity by almost anyone. This thread is all about the folks that are comfortable with 6+1 vs. 10 or more +1. If you are going to carry, should you increase capacity (perhaps at the expense of caliber) and if not, why would you think less bullets of a larger caliber would be superior to several more of a smaller cal when encountering a large group of perps? This is a real dilemma that we all face every day, not some theoretical exercise. Get serious and make a real contribution or go back to your own "dreamed up SD encounters".

I'm Baaaaaaack...

The reason we don't care too much about capacity relative to the number of opponents is that capacity doesn't make a material difference in the outcome of the encounter. Changing the amount of ammo available to you doesn't help you. True, it doesn't hurt you much either, that's why we say its irrelevant.

Here's the crux of the matter. When engaging multiple opponents, if you're at even odds against your opponent, or even outnumbered by only 2 to 1, you have a good chance of prevailing in the encounter. Raise the disparity to 3 to 1, and the chances of prevailing plummit. By the time you're talking 5 to 1 or greater, you are dead. You simply do not survive the encounter. There is not enough time for you to incapacitate 5 opponents before one or two of them put bullets in you.

The other problem here that the high-cap crowd really has trouble coming to grips with is that selecting a high capacity pistol as their only or primary carry pistol leads them to not carry nearly as much as they should. Here in the real world, where people have big-kid jobs that require professional dress in well-fitting clothes, pistols holding 8 rounds of .45 or 13+ of 9mm simply don't get carried. I don't care who you are, your life will dictate what pistol you can carry, not the other way around. And for most people who need to hold down a job to put food on the table and money in the shooting fund, the glock and spare high caps will be left at home because they are incompatible with professional dress that doesn't include untucked, oversized shirts or photo vests. Had they selected a .380 or J Frame, they'll have a gun when otherwise they might not have.

I also need to throw out there that if you find yourself walking the streets in the part of town where they'd stick the tube if they were giving the city an enema, with your wife and two small children at 1:22 in the morning, your biggest failure was not with selecting a primary handgun with enough capacity. Ask a cop, the people that are out in the worst part of town at oh-dark-thirty "minding their own business" really aren't, whether the newspaper article says so or not. And if you are a real, bona-fide good guy and you venture out into that kind of garbage because you think its a good idea, you get exactly what you deserve, because darwin doesn't care.

Oh, and make sure you consider both sides of any stats. the whole 1-in-100 argument about seatbelts and concealed handguns ignores one critical fact. The cost of carrying a pistol or wearing a seatbelt are very very small, but the consequences of not having them in the scenario where they're needed are extreme, and there really isn't time to put one on when that moment comes. Make sure you consider both the cost and the benefit when you're making comparisons.

Deaf Smith
06-08-2011, 20:54
Don't know about these Chicago gangs but it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Plenty of examples on the net where GGs had to empty their weapons, due to the circumstances, and reload.

Even an old one comes into mind. Lance Thomas and his famous shootouts in his jewelry store.

He emptied several revolvers in the first shootout and several 9mms in the second one. In fact I think he emptied a .45 in the third one.

Yes it's better to have and not need....

Deaf

Flatulence
06-08-2011, 20:58
15 against me and I am armed? I am getting the hell out of there. Those are bad odds even if none of them are armed.

Daryl in Az
06-08-2011, 21:11
I also need to throw out there that if you find yourself walking the streets in the part of town where they'd stick the tube if they were giving the city an enema, with your wife and two small children at 1:22 in the morning, your biggest failure was not with selecting a primary handgun with enough capacity. Ask a cop, the people that are out in the worst part of town at oh-dark-thirty "minding their own business" really aren't, whether the newspaper article says so or not. And if you are a real, bona-fide good guy and you venture out into that kind of garbage because you think its a good idea, you get exactly what you deserve, because darwin doesn't care.



The idea that you have to be in a "bad part of town" to get robbed is a fallacy. These days, at least in areas of the country where I've lived, BG's oft-times live in nicer areas. Drug dealers and such make good money sometimes, and they like nice things as much as good folks do.

Also, BG's often move to "richer" areas to do their deeds. After all, why rob the poor when you can rob the rich just as easily and get more for their efforts?

I oft-times carry a J-frame revolver. Likewise, I oft-times carry a Glock 23. Each has it's place, and there are places I must sometimes go where I don't mind the extra capacity and power of the 23.

In the end, it's a personal choice that I'd not deny anyone. If you like higher capacity, buy a hi-cap. If not, buy whatever suits your needs and preferences. What others think on this issue doesn't matter one whit in the choices I make.

Daryl

Warp
06-08-2011, 21:15
This. All this drivel about 10+ roving gangs supporting more capacity - which is just pro-9mm and anti .45acp in disguise - is just plain stupid because the above is the case if they don't scatter. Period. If they fight back, you'll have your last 10+ rounds in YOUR gun, and YOUR reload(s), used on YOU.

Example where this happened?

schaibaa
06-08-2011, 21:22
I carry a glock 19 ... compact enough, hi cap enough, pretty good compromise IMO.
I also carry a Kahr CW9 if I need something a bit smaller.

Since the likelyhood of actually needing to use your gun is already pretty low, I'm surprised people are using that argument against capacity. While we can argue the combination of the probabilities is extremely low - who cares? Carrying a medium sized gun is not that much more difficult/cumbersome than carrying a small gun. Carry what is comfortable for you (physically, and psychologically). If you're cool with 5 rounds - fine, if you feel better with 17+1 and an extra mag, that's fine too.

Anyway, not sure why this is a debate. The answer to any of these types of questions is 'if it works for you, cool'.

vafish
06-08-2011, 21:28
Its sometimes entertaining when folks dont know who they're talking to....in this ccase, you are speaking to a cop. One who works in a largish city, IIRC, and presumably has actually had real life encounters with gang members. That's in contrast to other folks, who think NYPD Blue is a ddocumentary.


Oh, and de homies bounce when da five oh be rollin up, cuz dey don wanna be goin back to de county, ya feel me? Dey don be trippen fo no sissy *** clowns, cuz de jus kill a fool*, ya know whut im sayin?

Censured for both TOS and agency policy violations....but, being fluent in the language and all, I can assure you that "fool" is not the correct noun used in this sentence.


How many cases have you seen where a roving gang of 10-15 individuals attacked one armed person, and continued to attack after that one person started shooting at them.

Please provide links to stories or police reports.

BailRecoveryAgent
06-08-2011, 21:35
Whether a 5 shot revolver or 17+1 G17, open carry is the solution. Problem solved, close the thread, move it to the stickies and lets get back to arguing the important stuff, grip plugs and the future of the .45GAP cartridge.

Good night.

Warp
06-08-2011, 21:47
The other problem here that the high-cap crowd really has trouble coming to grips with is that selecting a high capacity pistol as their only or primary carry pistol leads them to not carry nearly as much as they should.

False.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 22:12
Using stats that say you only need 3 shots in a gun fight can get you killed.
And there we see the problem. Way too many folks don't understand stats, as there are no statistics that say you only need 3 shots in a gun fight.
I have never spoken to a gunfight survivor or read an account of a gunfight survivor that said they wished they had less ammunition or a smaller gun on them.
And I've never spoken to a gunfight survivor who said that having more ammo or a bigger gun would have made them survive more. And of course I've known plenty of folks who carried big guns and lots of ammo who did not survive, so I question any sort of a causal relationship.
If you are comfortable with less that's fine with me.
As I said, I'm comfortable with whatever I'm carrying. As always, degoodman (welcome back, oh Wise One!:bowdown:) offers an excellent summation of the issue:
The reason we don't care too much about capacity relative to the number of opponents is that capacity doesn't make a material difference in the outcome of the encounter. Changing the amount of ammo available to you doesn't help you. True, it doesn't hurt you much either, that's why we say its irrelevant.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 22:22
Of course it is. Though my normal carry gun is a 12+1 9mm - sort of mid-cap - I'm not one who scoffs at a J-frame, but I have to say you've gone completely off the rails here.
It only matters if you can use it to some effect. And let's face it, few, if any CCW encounters will require that high capacity or allow it to be used.
But sometimes it is, and it's never worse.
Given the large number of folks who choose not to carry high capacity I would suggest they disagree with that.
Some people choose a J-frame, or LCP or whatever, and don't want to admit that they've compromised effectiveness for convenience.
Everyone does that to some extent. I simply question why some would argue that their compromise is better than another person's compromise. Nobody can be prepared for everything, we all make a decision that says "this is adequate for my needs." Usually we are right, sometimes we are wrong. Capacity is only one variable in making that determination.

crsuribe
06-08-2011, 22:25
With my .357 magnun loaded with ++++p+++++++++^2 I can get 5 kills per shot so I can face up to 3 enemies irl

crsuribe
06-08-2011, 22:26
Meant 30

For some reason the eidt button doesn't exist anymore

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 22:27
For example, a G21 with 13+1 and a spare mag would be considered as adequate capacity by almost anyone.
Why? What makes 13+1+13 adequate capacity, but 7+1+7 inadequate, or 6+6?
This thread is all about the folks that are comfortable with 6+1 vs. 10 or more +1.
Very arbitrary numbers that I'm not sure all would agree with as establishing the parameters.

Angry Fist
06-08-2011, 22:32
Capacity ain't important? Try mugging me.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 22:34
+1...I carry a spare mag when I can do so for the same reasons. I've read others here say that you don't need a spare mag to clear malfunctions, just use the ejected mag. Having shot many matches indoors and outdoors, I would disagree with that assertion. I've seen rounds get shifted from hitting hard ground so that the tip of the first round is pointed down in the magazine. In outdoor matches, I've seen dirt in the mag where you would not want to rely on re-inserting the magazine.
FWIW, proprer protocol for malfunction clearance with a single mag is to avoid throwing the mag on the ground.

TexasDog
06-08-2011, 22:45
Exactly. It is sad how poorly some folks understand gun use and tactics.Right. Once shots start outcome unpredictable.....cover, concealment, escape route, stealth, misdirection, last of all is the weapon. That a very bad day one has to think that one out.

degoodman
06-08-2011, 23:17
False.

For particular individuals, nothing is ever 100% true. But I stand by my statement.

In both my own personal observation, and the observation of a number of trainers in the area, a high percentage of new CHL Licensees, particularly young male licensees, feel that nothing less than a duty sized weapon of no less than 12-17 rounds capacity, plus one or more spare magazines will allow them to survive a lethal force encounter. They carry a G17/19/22/23 in something IWB Kydex, backed up by 2 tactical knives, a $150 LED flashlight, and a kubaton on their keyring.

There are specific examples to the contrary, but of those that start out this way, within 3 months fully 50% are not carrying daily, or not carrying at all. They simply could not sustain the life changes necessary to carry a full size pistol full time, so they left it home for this event or that, and pretty soon the gun was back in the safe to stay. Some spent small fortunes changing holsters, belts, clothing and cover garments in the process, with the same result.

Of those that did carry full time or close to it, 75% or more had switched to a smaller firearm, a majority of those being a J-Frame, Kel Tec or LCP class firearm. Some started the mouse guns as BUG's and just gravitated to them for full time carry, others switched up outright.

Was capacity the only consideration there? Absolutely not. But there is a definite correlation between capacity and size / weight of the gun. And the simple reality of the situation is that precious few of us, even the most dedicated carriers, cannot fit a full size firearm into our daily comings and goings where we can fit a J Frame or mouse gun semi-auto.

There are certainly people who can fit a duty sized weapon into their daily routine, and for those that stick with it, more power to them. 5.11 can sure use the business. But for the majority of armed citizens, a smaller, lighter, lower powered and lower capacity firearm is far easier to integrate into their lives, and that makes them more likely to have their firearm in their possession in a moment crisis. And while there are examples to the contrary, the circumstances that a 5 shot revolver fails to solve if the carrier does his part that a 15 shot pistol does are very narrow indeed.

David Armstrong
06-08-2011, 23:49
from degoodman:
Was capacity the only consideration there? Absolutely not. But there is a definite correlation between capacity and size / weight of the gun. And the simple reality of the situation is that precious few of us, even the most dedicated carriers, cannot fit a full size firearm into our daily comings and goings where we can fit a J Frame or mouse gun semi-auto.
Strongly agreed. One of the most common follow-up questions from my CCW students is advice on a small gun for daily carry. When I ask them what is wrong with the gun they have the answer is that it is just too big/inconvenient/heavy to carry all the time at work.

jdavionic
06-09-2011, 04:27
FWIW, proprer protocol for malfunction clearance with a single mag is to avoid throwing the mag on the ground.

Yes, however "stuff" happens and it tends to happen more when stress levels are high. If you want to count on never having it hit the ground, no issues. As I say, I carry an extra when I can do so. There are times when I do not. To me, carrying an extra helps mitigate some risks. When I don't carry an extra it just means that I've accepted these additional risks. That's fine for me. It may not be fine for others. Just highlighting that there is added risk without an extra.

JuneyBooney
06-09-2011, 04:38
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

That is the normal thought but it would be nice if some taxpayer money was saved while you are at it. :whistling: Now if we were all "Dirty Harry" and shot them with 44 mags I think gangs would slow down right quick.

Just1More
06-09-2011, 04:42
I thought Obama was going to fix these people?

dugo
06-09-2011, 05:49
You're not. In fact, you're not undergunned with a 1911 and one spare mag!:supergrin:


Well ... chances are. Not that I disagree in principle. As a technical matter, though, I just still think you don't really know whether you are/were undergunned until after the fact.

Deployment Solu
06-09-2011, 05:55
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.


Way!!! I'll take my chances of it not working, rather than just getting beat or killed by a mob of scum. Multiple, Multiple, Multiple, Multiple Target Drills. LOL!!!

dugo
06-09-2011, 06:20
When done right statistics are a very good description of reality, and the more one undestands them the better they can place those bets.

First of all, I think I agree with you about your conclusions in this arena, so this is only a comment on statistics. Heck, I even agree with your prior suggestions regarding reasoning with statistics, so I guess this is just a comment on your comment.

Anyway, I'd first note the phrase, "when done right". Maybe I am overly cynical, but I am convinced that that is very often NOT what happens. While there is certainly some wisdom here, this thread alone also contains enough evidence to make my point.

Further, I'd say that statistics are a good description (when done right) only of the past, and are only a suggestive predictor of the future. In the strict sense, they are certainly not a "description" of future events under discussion here, since those events have not occurred.

Sure, statistics are informative -- sometimes very informative. The point of my comment was just that statistics are only a way of assessing probabilities, not a substitute for flexibility and open mindedness. (On a side note, this is like that old agument in martial arts over forms versus reality. Misunderstood, form can be a trap. The person who understands form avoids developing expectations, and notices a way of expanding functionality, and the argument goes away.)

Here's the thing: As soon as we get overly-reliant on predictions and expectations, we lose psychological flexibility and artificially limit our repertoir of responses.

Bruce M
06-09-2011, 06:32
...
I have never spoken to a gunfight survivor or read an account of a gunfight survivor that said they wished they had less ammunition or a smaller gun on them...


.

I think I've heard that before :rofl:


I'm Baaaaaaack...


I also need to throw out there that if you find yourself walking the streets in the part of town where they'd stick the tube if they were giving the city an enema, with your wife and two small children at 1:22 in the morning, your biggest failure was not with selecting a primary handgun with enough capacity. ..
.

Hmmm may be a point there.

I also wonder how someone would self-rate their situational awareness when they get on the same block with the dozen gang members and don't immediately take a different quick direction.

My limited experience with gang members is that they are seldom especially brave or stalwart (or bright) individually. And I agree that most of the time once one of them is shot or shot at they will scatter like roaches whenthe light is turned on. However I would never want to bet on that as being behavior with all gang member/criminals. More than a few of them have no fear of death as burning in hell would be a significant downgrade from their current lives.

Crimp
06-09-2011, 06:53
Rahm will take care of it, right?

That $^&*! dirtbag communist will probably be one of the gang that attacks you.

knightgator
06-09-2011, 07:43
A lot of pages on this topic. Pretty sure the answer is as many rounds as you can comfortably carry depending on the situation. Small cap, large cap, Summer, Winter...many variables.

I do have to say that I sometimes loose sleep thinking that one day I may have to use my G17 as a very short club.

Of course the17 is a bit large...so I would probably carry something smaller with fewer rounds.

David Armstrong
06-09-2011, 08:00
First of all, I think I agree with you about your conclusions in this arena, so this is only a comment on statistics. Heck, I even agree with your prior suggestions regarding reasoning with statistics, so I guess this is a comment on your comment.

Anyway, I'd first note the phrase, "when done right". Maybe I am overly cynical, but I am convinced that that is very often NOT what happens. While there is certainly some wisdom here, this thread alone also contains enough evidence to make my point.
No disagreement on my part with that. Mathematics ability and understanding is pretty bad in this country, and understanding how to use statistical data is pure voodoo to many, if not most.
Further, I'd say that statistics are a good description (when done right) only of the past, and are only a suggestive predictor of the future. In the strict sense, they are certainly not a "description" of future events under discussion here, since those events have not occurred.
That is just a good example of what I'm talking about. Stats don't describe the future. They aren't designed for that. What the stats do is provide a framework for deciding how likely certain future events are to occur.
Sure, statistics are informative -- sometimes very informative. The point of my comment was just that statistics are only a way of assessing probabilities, not a substitute for flexibility and open mindedness. (On a side note, this is like that old augment in martial arts over forms versus reality. Misunderstood, form can be a trap. The person who understands form avoids developing expectations, and notices a way of expanding functionality, and the argument goes away.)
Agreed. My point is that the better one understands the stats the better they can understand how to utilize that flexibility and open-mindedness. Resources for most folks are limited, and thus that flexibility and open-mindedness need to be channeled to some extent.
Here's the thing: As soon as we get overly-reliant on predictions and expectations, we lose psychological flexibility and artificially limit our repertoir of responses.
I would think that true of over reliance on pretty much anything.

DonGlock26
06-09-2011, 09:39
I thought Obama was going to fix these people?

He organized that community. Now, he's organizing the US economy.


_

BailRecoveryAgent
06-09-2011, 10:48
I wouldn't feel undergunned with a lower capacity weapon like a G36(one that functioned well anyways:whistling:) or a 5 or 6 shot revolver. I would still carry a spare mag or a speed strip or two just in case, but I have no problem working a G23 into my daily routine. Its my only carry gun that I own and I don't ever leave it at home due to its size. Its my work carry gun, my days off carry gun and the only time I don't carry it is when I'm going to my daughters school or some other place where carry is forbidden.

I owned and carried a G19 for almost 10 years before getting my current edc G23. I wouldn't have a problem with something with lower capacity, but if carrying a larger weapon I'm familiar with and shoot well is of no inconvenience, why not carry the larger weapon?

Count me out as one of the ones who leave their weapon at home because of its size.

thr_wedge
06-09-2011, 10:51
I carry a Glock 17, plus a spare mag daily.

Why?

1) I already own it
2) I can comfortably conceal it
3) Extra mag is insurance to mag issue. This is probably not even necessary but I can carry without issue so I do. I have never had a mag issue in over 5000 rounds.

Would a smaller gun be easier to carry? Sure. How much easier? I can already carry in shorts/t-shirt and not a huge oversized t-shirt. Normal clothes work fine!

Now, that said, if I HAD a J-frame, sure I would carry that. Probably most of the time. But I don't and I am not going to go to out and buy something else when the 17 works for me everyday and I carry everyday.

dugo
06-09-2011, 10:56
... understanding how to use statistical data is pure voodoo to many, if not most.

... What the stats do is provide a framework for deciding how likely certain future events are to occur.

... My point is that the better one understands the stats the better they can understand how to utilize that flexibility and open-mindedness. Resources for most folks are limited, and thus that flexibility and open-mindedness need to be channeled to some extent.

I would think that true of over reliance on pretty much anything.

Well, regarding reasons for the misuse of stats, I guess I would want to include some intentional spin along with the misunderstanding factor; ... but yes, as you put it that way, I agree.

And, your closing (regarding any kind of over reliance) is true enough. I guess I could suggest that we don't have a clear line between reasonable reliance and over reliance, but I'd just be going around in circles.

In the end, most seem to realize that its a big-picture analysis, and number of rounds is not an isolated factor.

Warp
06-09-2011, 12:18
I
The other problem here that the high-cap crowd really has trouble coming to grips with is that selecting a high capacity pistol as their only or primary carry pistol leads them to not carry nearly as much as they should.



For particular individuals, nothing is ever 100% true. But I stand by my statement.

In both my own personal observation, and the observation of a number of trainers in the area, a high percentage of new CHL Licensees, particularly young male licensees, feel that nothing less than a duty sized weapon of no less than 12-17 rounds capacity, plus one or more spare magazines will allow them to survive a lethal force encounter. They carry a G17/19/22/23 in something IWB Kydex, backed up by 2 tactical knives, a $150 LED flashlight, and a kubaton on their keyring.

There are specific examples to the contrary, but of those that start out this way, within 3 months fully 50% are not carrying daily, or not carrying at all. They simply could not sustain the life changes necessary to carry a full size pistol full time, so they left it home for this event or that, and pretty soon the gun was back in the safe to stay. Some spent small fortunes changing holsters, belts, clothing and cover garments in the process, with the same result.

Of those that did carry full time or close to it, 75% or more had switched to a smaller firearm, a majority of those being a J-Frame, Kel Tec or LCP class firearm. Some started the mouse guns as BUG's and just gravitated to them for full time carry, others switched up outright.

Was capacity the only consideration there? Absolutely not. But there is a definite correlation between capacity and size / weight of the gun. And the simple reality of the situation is that precious few of us, even the most dedicated carriers, cannot fit a full size firearm into our daily comings and goings where we can fit a J Frame or mouse gun semi-auto.

There are certainly people who can fit a duty sized weapon into their daily routine, and for those that stick with it, more power to them. 5.11 can sure use the business. But for the majority of armed citizens, a smaller, lighter, lower powered and lower capacity firearm is far easier to integrate into their lives, and that makes them more likely to have their firearm in their possession in a moment crisis. And while there are examples to the contrary, the circumstances that a 5 shot revolver fails to solve if the carrier does his part that a 15 shot pistol does are very narrow indeed.


I did not realize that every "high-cap" pistol was necessarily a "full size" pistol.

Does this mean my G19 is not a "high-cap"?

dugo
06-09-2011, 13:25
Hopefully that last guy isnt tougher than me! :rofl:

Right! And it is always the last guy who gets to you just before you go down that is the tough guy, too! :supergrin:

(I hate it when that happens.)

dugo
06-09-2011, 13:33
... I agree that most of the time once one of them is shot or shot at they will scatter like roaches whenthe light is turned on. However I would never want to bet on that as being behavior with all gang member/criminals. More than a few of them have no fear of death as burning in hell would be a significant downgrade from their current lives.

It's all relative, I guess. With my luck, I'd prob'ly pull that guy ... the one who thinks shaking hands with the devil would be a relief from the daily grind, and just really wants to express his feelings.

dugo
06-09-2011, 14:33
I did not realize that every "high-cap" pistol was necessarily a "full size" pistol.

Does this mean my G19 is not a "high-cap"?

(Soapbox alert:soap:)


Side issue, but just to say: Not sure we should call a standard mag that is not artificially limited, "high capacity". It is a comparative ("Higher than what?") without a clear comparison, so the uninitiated mind will tend to play tricks with it. 'Course, we all know what it means here, so it doesn't effect us, but it does work like a kind of propaganda term out in the wider world.

(Stuff like this is often done by design, but sometimes it is by accident.)

People who don't know anything about firearms can get a vague negative impression: "high" seems to mean "higher than necessary", and gives us the feeling it is "too high". It is a small and subtle thing for one person to hear it once, but if a lot of people hear it, and they continue to hear it consistently, the impression is built up and reinforced over time. This tends to create a bias that operates on some people's reactions whenever the subject comes up.

Of course, these "loaded" terms are all around us, and many small parts add up.

It has been suggested that it is more accurate to call guns like the G19, which still have their full factory mag capacity available, "full capacity", or maybe "standard capacity". One with the 10-round limited mag would be something like "restricted capacity", or "reduced capacity", in that lingo.

garander
06-09-2011, 17:36
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.

it might not have been 15, but this guy in cleveland did pretty well against 8 or 10 last night. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/two_killed_during_night_club_r.html

thr_wedge
06-09-2011, 19:23
it might not have been 15, but this guy in cleveland did pretty well against 8 or 10 last night. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/06/two_killed_during_night_club_r.html

Good for the security guard, glad it worked out. He had the warrior spirit and did not give up despite very poor odds.

Interesting how two bad guys get shot in the chest and die and nobody leaves, but he touches off a shot in the ceiling and they all scatter?

That has to be the most biased article I have ever read though. They called the two dead bad guys "victims" and "shooting victims".

HKLovingIT
06-09-2011, 19:34
I guess in Cleveland you should CC this:

http://www.hendersondefense.com/store/pc/catalog/dracopistol_1033_general.jpg

cloudbuster
06-09-2011, 20:02
Unless you are armed with a full automatic weapon, or your name is Obi Wan Kanobi, there is no way you are fighting off 15-20 gang members with one handgun.

What, nobody has said this yet?

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

sprayed347
06-09-2011, 20:10
Back to the original post -
Rahm is upset because there are wolves preying on his sheeple. He's not upset that he banned the sheep dogs.

It does not matter how big your gun is, or how many rounds you like to carry if you are banned from having your gun. Go ahead and shoot one, two or twenty - the final outcome will be the same except you'll be getting it in a prison cell.:shocked:

You should be alarmed when the very people that claim the streets of their city are dangerous still want you to be unable to defend yourself from those dangers.:steamed:

ding ding we have a winner illinois really come on capone is dead and burried already morons I feel sorry for the people that are stuck with that mentality

cowboy1964
06-09-2011, 20:13
These kinds of gang/mob incidents are really in the news lately. Usually they don't escalate into actual shootings but it's not surprising that they are starting to.

.45Super-Man
06-09-2011, 20:18
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

Absolutely.

John Biltz
06-09-2011, 20:36
Not sure fighting 15 people with a handgun is feasible.Sure it is, surviving it might not be though.

Warp
06-09-2011, 21:03
(Soapbox alert:soap:)


Side issue, but just to say: Not sure we should call a standard mag that is not artificially limited, "high capacity". It is a comparative ("Higher than what?") without a clear comparison, so the uninitiated mind will tend to play tricks with it. 'Course, we all know what it means here, so it doesn't effect us, but it does work like a kind of propaganda term out in the wider world.

(Stuff like this is often done by design, but sometimes it is by accident.)

People who don't know anything about firearms can get a vague negative impression: "high" seems to mean "higher than necessary", and gives us the feeling it is "too high". It is a small and subtle thing for one person to hear it once, but if a lot of people hear it, and they continue to hear it consistently, the impression is built up and reinforced over time. This tends to create a bias that operates on some people's reactions whenever the subject comes up.

Of course, these "loaded" terms are all around us, and many small parts add up.

It has been suggested that it is more accurate to call guns like the G19, which still have their full factory mag capacity available, "full capacity", or maybe "standard capacity". One with the 10-round limited mag would be something like "restricted capacity", or "reduced capacity", in that lingo.

Agree

John Biltz
06-09-2011, 21:48
My opinion is if you fight a 5 shot revolver like its a g17, or a G17 like it is a 5 shot revolver you need some training in tactics. You should be using very different tactics. Greater resources give more tactical choices, less resources limit tactical choices. If your fighting against say a 3 mugger attack with a revolver you better have a fire distribution plan. Maybe it two in the closest, two in the next one and one for the last guy if he doesn't run. If you miss or he is still up after two shots you have a decision to make. With a G17 you fire distribution plan is probably shoot the closest until he goes down, repeat with next two guys.

I had a G17 when I got my CCW, I looked at it, thought about Phoenix in July and bought a G26. I knew I was never going to carry that thing in 110 degree heat. I still think its the perfect combination of capacity and size. Anyone carrying less is obviously irresponsible and anyone carrying more is obviously some mall ninja Rambo wanabe, after all this is the internet.

dugo
06-10-2011, 06:00
Interesting how two bad guys get shot in the chest and die and nobody leaves, but he touches off a shot in the ceiling and they all scatter?




Three time "convincer"? Good psych question. Maybe the first two shots got their attention and there was a pause in the action, then the cieling shot punctuated it.

Anyway, good for the security guard. That must have been like a real life zombie attack, and it sounds like he toughed it out. Like ya'll said, strong spirit.

David Armstrong
06-10-2011, 09:30
My opinion is if you fight a 5 shot revolver like its a g17, or a G17 like it is a 5 shot revolver you need some training in tactics. You should be using very different tactics.
That is the essence of the issue to me. What is the problem you want to solve and what tools do you have to solve it? Different tools may suggest a different solution.

Warp
06-10-2011, 10:48
That is the essence of the issue to me. What is the problem you want to solve and what tools do you have to solve it? Different tools may suggest a different solution.

True.

And that is not the time or place I want to limit my solutions any more than necessary.

Four_T_Five
06-10-2011, 10:59
Borrowed from someone much more knowlegeable than me:
"You are more likely to run out of time than you are to run out of ammunition."

Can you present "what ifs" that show a 33rd mag is a good idea? Sure, but the mission of a handgun is to allow you to escape alive. If you stand and fight a crowd with a pistol, it better be for a really good reason (such as your loved ones injured and immobile at your feet).

If the entire group rushes you - then yes, a handgun of any capacity won't be enough. But we aren't talking about trained warriors... we are talking about street thugs - cockroaches who most likely will start to look for an out when they see their pals brains landing on their shirts.

YMMV.

David Armstrong
06-10-2011, 11:53
True.

And that is not the time or place I want to limit my solutions any more than necessary.
Again, everyone chooses a compromise point that limits their solutions. How wisely you decide on that compromise point is really the only discussion, although many folks fail to realize that.

dugo
06-11-2011, 07:30
Again, everyone chooses a compromise point that limits their solutions. How wisely you decide on that compromise point is really the only discussion, although many folks fail to realize that.


This. ...Agree.

Everybody knows ya' can't really carry enough armament to cover every possible scenario, and you can't really find a gun/capacity that is as easy to carry as nothing.

And, as has also been said, the compromise point -- the ballancing act -- isn't just a single answer to a single question. It's a process, not a thing.

Daryl in Az
06-11-2011, 15:00
"Capacity isn't important"

Ok. All of us hi-cap fans have now read it on the 'net, so we know it's true.

Now go get all your mags and load them half full, 'cause they're lighter and easier to carry that way.

And like was quoted above, capacity doesn't matter.

Ok, so I'll still carry full mags when I'm out roaming the desert of souther Az. With drug runners and such infesting the country, you never know what you'll run into down here.

But capacity doesn't matter, so maybe I should reduce to just 1 round in the chamber, even in the desert here?

Somehoe it just doesn't seem right.

Daryl

dugo
06-11-2011, 21:12
Ok. All of us hi-cap fans have now read it on the 'net, so we know it's true.

Now go get all your mags and load them half full, 'cause they're lighter and easier to carry that way.

And like was quoted above, capacity doesn't matter.

Ok, so I'll still carry full mags when I'm out roaming the desert of souther Az. With drug runners and such infesting the country, you never know what you'll run into down here.

But capacity doesn't matter, so maybe I should reduce to just 1 round in the chamber, even in the desert here?

Somehoe it just doesn't seem right.

Daryl

I don't think many of us (if any) are really saying capacity cannot ever matter at all, just like nobody is saying you have to constantly carry more than it is possible to carry.

That "point of compromise" stuff that Armstrong was saying above hits it on the head.

Sure, capacity will matter more than almost anything, if you really need those extra rounds. That would be really important, but a rare thing.

At the same time, carrying a firearm has to be constant and consistent throughout many, many different circumstances, over long periods. To that end, comfort and convenience are not so critical, but they are continually important, all the time.

Watcha gonna do?

Snowman92D
06-11-2011, 22:11
Ok. All of us hi-cap fans have now read it on the 'net, so we know it's true.

Now go get all your mags and load them half full, 'cause they're lighter and easier to carry that way.

And like was quoted above, capacity doesn't matter.

Ok, so I'll still carry full mags when I'm out roaming the desert of souther Az. With drug runners and such infesting the country, you never know what you'll run into down here.

But capacity doesn't matter, so maybe I should reduce to just 1 round in the chamber, even in the desert here?

Somehow it just doesn't seem right.

Daryl

Daryl, I think you're better off trusting your instincts rather than a gaggle of keyboard commando types who've never been in a gunfight. As was noted in post #100, a M1911A1 was enough to get Sgt. Alvin York by...and CIA agent Johnny Mike Spann was overwhelmed and stomped to death by Taliban prisoners after killing four of them with a Glock 19. As you know, it goes way beyond ammo capacity.

dugo
06-12-2011, 05:34
Daryl, I think you're better off trusting your instincts rather than a gaggle of keyboard commando types who've never been in a gunfight. As was noted in post #100, a M1911A1 was enough to get Sgt. Alvin York by...and CIA agent Johnny Mike Spann was overwhelmed and stomped to death by Taliban prisoners after killing four of them with a Glock 19. As you know, it goes way beyond ammo capacity.

Duly noted.

Serious considerations. With due respect and reverence, and concerns for those he left, any more relevant details regarding the Spann killing? Anyone know how many rounds, if any, remained in his mag, for instance? Anything like that?

+1 to closing sentence.

happyguy
06-12-2011, 05:53
My comfort level is to have enough ammo on me for any "reasonable" (there's that word again) situation and enough to have a full gun for the ride home.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

dugo
06-12-2011, 06:28
Duly noted.

Serious considerations. With due respect and reverence, and concerns for those he left, any more relevant details regarding the Johnny MIchael Spann killing? Anyone know how many rounds, if any, remained in his mag, for instance? Anything like that?

+1 to closing sentence.

Well, did a quick search. His father has apparently done a great deal of investigation, and there is some conflicting news stuff. Didn't see a real analysis. It does appear, though, that he shot the gun out, possibly/probably after emptying an AK, also, and then continued hand-to-hand until overcome. Didn't see anything about what kind of rounds he was carrying in the G19 (HP or FMJ). Doubtful that a situation much like this would happen in civilian life, but one cannot completely rule out the possibility of something similar enough to take notice of, either.

By the way, any allegations that the prisoner uprising was caused by torture on that day seem to have been refuted, both by video and by prisoner testimony. The mainstream media may have failed somehow to adequately make that point.

jdavionic
06-12-2011, 06:57
Sure, capacity will matter more than almost anything, if you really need those extra rounds. That would be really important, but a rare thing.

Is it a "rare thing"? Do you have anything to support that assertion?

I've heard cases where having extra rounds was important. And of course, there are cases where it has not been important. And then there are cases where not even 1 round wasn't required. However have any of these been quantified?

Point being, it's a risk item where you may or may not need extra rounds or you may or may not need a extra mag for other reasons (dealing with a malfunction). I have not seen where this risk has been quantified by anyone.

So it boils down to your own assessment. To me, if you can carry extra, why not do so. If you cannot carry extra or choose not for other reasons, then so be it.

Daryl in Az
06-12-2011, 08:48
At the same time, carrying a firearm has to be constant and consistent throughout many, many different circumstances, over long periods. To that end, comfort and convenience are not so critical, but they are continually important, all the time.

Watcha gonna do?


Well, I'm "gonna do" the same thing I've been doing for more years than some here have been alive. I haven't gone a day without a firearm on me in many years, and don't intend to start any time soon.

The firearm is generally matched to whatever I'm doing that day. Sometimes it's a G23, sometimes a snub .38, and other times it's something else.

I.E., In the non-hunting season, I usually carry a G23 when outdoors. In town, often enough it's either that or the snub. During hunting season, it's often a SA .45 Colt.

I carry all sorts of firearms at verious times. Sometimes it's a hi-cap pistol, others a SA revolver. Depends on my mood and what I'm doing that day.

That said, I don't feel very comfortable packin' a .38 snub in the desert here. For some reason, it seems somehow inadequate for what I might run into.

Daryl

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 11:12
Is it a "rare thing"? Do you have anything to support that assertion?
You mean anything like the all the gunfight data that has been compiled by LE, the FBI, the NRA, and so on? If so, then yes, pretty much everything we have supports the idea that it is a rare thing. That is why we regularly see all the measurements of central tendency in non-military gunfights to be in the low single digits.

Seraph
06-12-2011, 11:35
Thankfully, it's very unlikely that a man will find himself in a gunfight, but, assuming a man finds himself in one...

Which is more likely to be important, a round in the chamber, or extra rounds in the bottom of the magazine?

:juggle:

jdavionic
06-12-2011, 11:44
You mean anything like the all the gunfight data that has been compiled by LE, the FBI, the NRA, and so on? If so, then yes, pretty much everything we have supports the idea that it is a rare thing.

Post one link to support your assertion then. Where's the data that quantifies the assertion that it is "rare", aside from you saying it is so?

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 11:46
Post one link to support your assertion then. Where's the data that quantifies the assertion that it is "rare", aside from you saying it is so?
Find your own links. I've told you where the data can be found, surely you can type it into the search engine yourself!:upeyes:

jdavionic
06-12-2011, 11:50
Find your own links. I've told you where the data can be found, surely you can type it into the search engine yourself!:upeyes:

That was the expected response from you. You make an assertion, then get called on it, and typically respond with the likes of 'the data is out there', 'go do your own research to back up my assertion', :upeyes:

You made the assertion, you can do your own homework to back it up.

Sammael
06-12-2011, 11:57
That was the expected response from you. You make an assertion, then get called on it, and typically respond with the likes of 'the data is out there', 'go do your own research to back up my assertion', :upeyes:

You made the assertion, you can do your own homework to back it up.

You're challenging his assertion, yet offering no proof of your own. :dunno:

jdavionic
06-12-2011, 12:07
You're challenging his assertion, yet offering no proof of your own. :dunno:

What are you talking about? Someone stated:

Sure, capacity will matter more than almost anything, if you really need those extra rounds. That would be really important, but a rare thing.

I didn't make the assertion. I just questioned his assertion of whether it is truly a "rare thing". Where did I say it was or was not? I simply asked the person that made the statement to provide support that it is indeed a "rare thing". Then Armstrong stepped in and further asserted it is indeed a rare thing. However, he refused to support that assertion.

PrecisionRifleman
06-12-2011, 12:08
I'm sure you're right, but the ones up front are coming with me...

I'm with you on this one!

Sammael
06-12-2011, 12:14
Wow, someone is touchy.

Maybe you should re-read my post. I never said you took one side or another. You questioned his assertion. Therefore, you are challenging his position, and apparently are now backpedaling just in case he offers up data to back up his claim.

:whistling:

jdavionic
06-12-2011, 12:21
Wow, someone is touchy.

Maybe you should re-read my post. I never said you took one side or another. You questioned his assertion. Therefore, you are challenging his position, and apparently are now backpedaling just in case he offers up data to back up his claim.

:whistling:

Not touchy. You're asking me to backup or dispute another person's assertion. I would love to see the facts confirming his assertion. That's what I'm asking for. I wouldn't be asking if I had them.

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 12:37
That was the expected response from you. You make an assertion, then get called on it, and typically respond with the likes of 'the data is out there', 'go do your own research to back up my assertion', :upeyes:

You made the assertion, you can do your own homework to back it up.
You asked if there was anything to support the assertion from dugo that needing high capacity would be a rare thing. I told you that there was plenty to support it, and what that was. If you are actually interested in that stuff it seems you might actually try to do a little work on your own instead of asking others to do it for you. Whether one posts a link or not does not change the validity of the information. Here is some of the information. If you don't agree with it feel free to do a little work yourself and find your own links..

NYPD: Average shots fired per officer in a gunfight, 1990-2000 is 5.2, with a range of 3.6 to 6.9.
We get lower number, when we look at shooting incidents, 1988-2001. 2.86

Metro-Dade 1988-1994, average 2.5 revolver, 3.2 auto.

LAPD, 1998-2002, 3.59

Claude Werner's NRA Armed Citizen Analysis: average 2

Ed Lovette research: mean of 3,

John Farnam is about the highest I can find, at 7 for LE.

So then yes, pretty much everything we have supports the idea that the need for high capacity is a rare thing. That is why we regularly see all the measurements of central tendency in non-military gunfights to be in the low single digits.

I would love to see the facts confirming his assertion.
Apparently you would not love the see them enough to do a little work on your own.:faint:

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 12:38
You're challenging his assertion, yet offering no proof of your own. :dunno:
Yea, he does that a lot.

jdavionic
06-12-2011, 12:51
Whether one posts a link or not does not change the validity of the information. Here is some of the information. If you don't agree with it feel free to do a little work yourself.
Last I checked, you were not setting rules for GT. IMHO, the carry issues section is one of the worst places to be making assertions without providing supporting data.

NYPD: Average shots fired per officer in a gunfight, 1990-2000 is 5.2, with a range of 3.6 to 6.9.
We get lower number, when we look at shooting incidents, 1988-2001. 2.86

Metro-Dade 1988-1994, average 2.5 revolver, 3.2 auto.

LAPD, 1998-2002, 3.59

Claude Werner's NRA Armed Citizen Analysis: average 2

Ed Lovette research: mean of 3,

John Farnam is about the highest I can find, at 7 for LE.


Looking at Werner's, it appears that dates back to timeline of the others. I believe Farnam's is from 2000. Has this changed since the Clinton ban expired in 2004?

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 13:19
Last I checked, you were not setting rules for GT. IMHO, the carry issues section is one of the worst places to be making assertions without providing supporting data.
Not sure what suggesting you make a minimal effort to investigate things on your own rather than having them spoon-fed to you has to do with any of that.
Looking at Werner's, it appears that dates back to timeline of the others. I believe Farnam's is from 2000. Has this changed since the Clinton ban expired in 2004?
Again, since you seem to be having a hard time understanding it:
pretty much everything we have supports the idea that the need for high capacity is a rare thing. That is why we regularly see all the measurements of central tendency in non-military gunfights to be in the low single digits.

RussP
06-12-2011, 13:21
Come on, guys...knock off the bickering. If you ask for a reference and don't get it, look it up yourself or ignore it. Trying to intimidate someone into acting is only going to get YOU in trouble.

Thanks

cole
06-12-2011, 13:30
Last I checked, you were not setting rules for GT. IMHO, the carry issues section is one of the worst places to be making assertions without providing supporting data.

Looking at Werner's, it appears that dates back to timeline of the others. I believe Farnam's is from 2000. Has this changed since the Clinton ban expired in 2004?

The "ban" limited capacity to 10+1rds. All the data (easily available via an internet search as was noted) provided typical shot counts well under that, often by atleast half, and typically far less. So, there is no reason to expect the ban to have any effect whatsoever either way.

You asked for data and it was provided. And, the data - of capacity typically not being relevant - stands until a preponderance of reputable new data conclusively refutes it. And, since you don't have this data that should end your debate, and others, on this point. But, I'll believe that when I see it.

Some choose not to carry, others arm up for "typical", some Rambo-up for day-dream worst case. And, after they make their choice they seek data to support it. Others, like me, look at the data, consider "typical", factor in lifestyle and attire, even destination, and choose accordingly. My experience has been those that begin "Rambo" end up more in the middle sooner than later And, even, many that always carry initially become more sporatic or stop carrying alltogether. Again, it's a lifestyle choice and choices change.

So, it's all about choice and being "right" or "wrong" will be only be determined by the VERY specific and VERY circumstancial/situtational encouter statistically VERY few will ever face anyway. So, you can only know after, if ever, whether you made the right choice, NEVER before.

jdavionic
06-12-2011, 14:38
So, it's all about choice and being "right" or "wrong" will be only be determined by the VERY specific and VERY circumstancial/situtational encouter statistically VERY few will ever face anyway. So, you can only know after, if ever, whether you made the right choice, NEVER before.

Thanks Cole. When I initially questioned Dugo, this is where I was heading. I was merely asking him to define what he meant by the term and cite that what is "rare" for one person may be deemed unacceptable risk for another person.

Ultimately, I see the point as the same as the infamous C1 vs. C3 debate...a person needs to do their own risk assessment. What is acceptable risk for me or you, may not be acceptable for another person. If there is a 1 in 100 chance of needing a magazine in a gunfight, is that "rare" enough for some to decide carrying a spare mag is not worth the trouble?

Warp
06-12-2011, 16:14
Two incidents of 2 rounds + one incident of 11 rounds = an average of 5. If the only information given is an "average of 5" that, to me, says I want to have quite a few more than that.

Daryl in Az
06-12-2011, 19:26
The "ban" limited capacity to 10+1rds. All the data (easily available via an internet search as was noted) provided typical shot counts well under that, often by atleast half, and typically far less. So, there is no reason to expect the ban to have any effect whatsoever either way.

You asked for data and it was provided. And, the data - of capacity typically not being relevant - stands until a preponderance of reputable new data conclusively refutes it. And, since you don't have this data that should end your debate, and others, on this point. But, I'll believe that when I see it.

Or, until someone decides not to honor the data, and CHOOSES for their own bad self what they want to carry?


Some choose not to carry, others arm up for "typical", some Rambo-up for day-dream worst case. And, after they make their choice they seek data to support it. Others, like me, look at the data, consider "typical", factor in lifestyle and attire, even destination, and choose accordingly. My experience has been those that begin "Rambo" end up more in the middle sooner than later And, even, many that always carry initially become more sporatic or stop carrying alltogether. Again, it's a lifestyle choice and choices change.

So, it's all about choice and being "right" or "wrong" will be only be determined by the VERY specific and VERY circumstancial/situtational encouter statistically VERY few will ever face anyway. So, you can only know after, if ever, whether you made the right choice, NEVER before.

No "Rambo" here, and i've been carrying pretty constantly since the mid-1980's. You get over that Rambo thiking after the first few years, and I carrieda 6 shot revolver 'till the late 1990's.

But I sorta agree with that last paragraph; 'cept that last line doesn't quite say it all. When preparing for the worst, does one prepar for the worst, or a "Typical" situation? It's up to them, and no one else can make that decision. You may not "know" what you'll need 'till it's over, but we CAN plan for what we forsee as a problem.

But don't take my word for it. Come on down to Southern Az, and I'll be more than happy to show you the sights. When we're done, you can tell me what you're comfortable carrying.

Believe me, one size doesn't fit all.

Daryl

Seraph
06-12-2011, 19:33
Rambo carries an M60, a short sword, and a bow with explosive arrows. I haven't seen a post in this crazy thread wherein someone suggested such a thing for an EDC loadout.

beforeobamabans
06-12-2011, 20:09
Rather than statistics, I think about the GT member who got ambushed by two perps while jogging. He was hit in the head with a club and knocked to the ground. He emptied his 1911, killing one and chasing the other off. I believe he was carrying 8 rounds. He was able to stop the threat against him but was laying there with his ammo gone. This seems to me to be a very likely scenario in today's society.

dugo
06-12-2011, 21:41
Is it a "rare thing"? Do you have anything to support that assertion?

I've heard cases where having extra rounds was important. And of course, there are cases where it has not been important. And then there are cases where not even 1 round wasn't required. However have any of these been quantified?

Point being, it's a risk item where you may or may not need extra rounds or you may or may not need a extra mag for other reasons (dealing with a malfunction). I have not seen where this risk has been quantified by anyone.

So it boils down to your own assessment. To me, if you can carry extra, why not do so. If you cannot carry extra or choose not for other reasons, then so be it.

Not sure I get what your initial challenge is about, since you seem to go on to agree with the gist of my post.

Seems like you missed the main point and got side tracked on a matter of semantics. 'Course, if you wanted to put some stats of your own, I will take a look at them ... I'd welcome anything substantive you could add.

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 21:42
Two incidents of 2 rounds + one incident of 11 rounds = an average of 5. If the only information given is an "average of 5" that, to me, says I want to have quite a few more than that.
that is why one should look at all the measurements (mean, median, mode) instead of just the one. In this case, given the thousands of points of data, one really doesn't need to worry too much about anomolies.

dugo
06-12-2011, 21:45
Well, I'm "gonna do" the same thing I've been doing for more years than some here have been alive. I haven't gone a day without a firearm on me in many years, and don't intend to start any time soon.

The firearm is generally matched to whatever I'm doing that day. Sometimes it's a G23, sometimes a snub .38, and other times it's something else.

I.E., In the non-hunting season, I usually carry a G23 when outdoors. In town, often enough it's either that or the snub. During hunting season, it's often a SA .45 Colt.

I carry all sorts of firearms at verious times. Sometimes it's a hi-cap pistol, others a SA revolver. Depends on my mood and what I'm doing that day.

That said, I don't feel very comfortable packin' a .38 snub in the desert here. For some reason, it seems somehow inadequate for what I might run into.

Daryl

Well, there you have it.

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 21:45
Or, until someone decides not to honor the data, and CHOOSES for their own bad self what they want to carry?
The two are not mutually exclusive. We all decide on what to carry and how much of it, some suggest that decision should be based on a realistic understanding rather than make-believe. But one still chooses what they want to carry either way.

dugo
06-12-2011, 21:46
You mean anything like the all the gunfight data that has been compiled by LE, the FBI, the NRA, and so on? If so, then yes, pretty much everything we have supports the idea that it is a rare thing. That is why we regularly see all the measurements of central tendency in non-military gunfights to be in the low single digits.


Thanks. I'm still catching up, here.

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 21:47
Rather than statistics, I think about the GT member who got ambushed by two perps while jogging. He was hit in the head with a club and knocked to the ground. He emptied his 1911, killing one and chasing the other off. I believe he was carrying 8 rounds. He was able to stop the threat against him but was laying there with his ammo gone. This seems to me to be a very likely scenario in today's society.
That is the problem. One can make decisions an what seems likely, or one can make decisions on what is likely.

David Armstrong
06-12-2011, 21:50
Thanks. I'm still catching up, here.
Your welcome, and no problem. Plenty of that sort of information out there if one wants to take the time to look. The problem, of course, is that way too many folks seem unwilling to discuss stuff like this from a logical point with real data and information.

dugo
06-12-2011, 21:56
That was the expected response from you. You make an assertion, then get called on it, and typically respond with the likes of 'the data is out there', 'go do your own research to back up my assertion', :upeyes:

You made the assertion, you can do your own homework to back it up.

I made the specific assertion you were questioning. DavidArmstrong was just trying to help you out with it. Apart from being argumentative, I don't see the point of your response. Sorry if I missed some reasonable intentions, but at first glance it looks like you are just trying to get a reaction. That does not incline folks to take extra trouble at your request.

Besides, if you want to find out something you don't know, then it will seem much more believable to you if you look it up yourself, rather than following someone else's suggestions on where to look. Please let me know if you find something contrary to what I understand to be the case. Always open to new information.

schaibaa
06-12-2011, 21:58
I'm not sure the 'it's a rare thing to need more than 2-4 rounds' is a valid argument when it's rare to need a gun in the first place. Also, it's not as if wardrobe/comfort compromise is linear with capacity..

If carrying a double stack hi-cap 9mm is X level of effort, is carrying a single stack .5X effort? or more like .85X effort?

Regardless... whatever you feel the most comfortable with is what's best for you. Everything is a compromise and if you feel the benefits of carrying fewer rounds (probably minor) outweighs the rare event that you'll need more than 5 or 6... go for it.

dugo
06-12-2011, 22:04
You asked if there was anything to support the assertion from dugo that needing high capacity would be a rare thing. I told you that there was plenty to support it, and what that was. If you are actually interested in that stuff it seems you might actually try to do a little work on your own instead of asking others to do it for you. Whether one posts a link or not does not change the validity of the information. Here is some of the information. If you don't agree with it feel free to do a little work yourself and find your own links..

NYPD: Average shots fired per officer in a gunfight, 1990-2000 is 5.2, with a range of 3.6 to 6.9.
We get lower number, when we look at shooting incidents, 1988-2001. 2.86

Metro-Dade 1988-1994, average 2.5 revolver, 3.2 auto.

LAPD, 1998-2002, 3.59

Claude Werner's NRA Armed Citizen Analysis: average 2

Ed Lovette research: mean of 3,

John Farnam is about the highest I can find, at 7 for LE.

So then yes, pretty much everything we have supports the idea that the need for high capacity is a rare thing. That is why we regularly see all the measurements of central tendency in non-military gunfights to be in the low single digits.


Apparently you would not love the see them enough to do a little work on your own.:faint:

Wo! Well, that satisfies me, anyway. Does that make you any more comfortable with the idea, Davionic? Seems like the least you could do now would be to go out there and confirm this stuff for yourself. Let us know what you learn, if anything.

dugo
06-12-2011, 22:14
I'm not sure the 'it's a rare thing to need more than 2-4 rounds' is a valid argument when it's rare to need a gun in the first place. Also, it's not as if wardrobe/comfort compromise is linear with capacity..

If carrying a double stack hi-cap 9mm is X level of effort, is carrying a single stack .5X effort? or more like .85X effort?

Regardless... whatever you feel the most comfortable with is what's best for you. Everything is a compromise and if you feel the benefits of carrying fewer rounds (probably minor) outweighs the rare event that you'll need more than 5 or 6... go for it.

This is not such bad logic in your first paragraph, I guess. (Although the suggestion was that comfort, etc. is NOT linear with capacity.)

I certainly have seen a lot of folks suggest that you don't need a gun at all, and -- most of the time -- they are right on probabilities. You could certainly argue that an unloaded gun would get you to success in more than nine-tenths of the probable situations where you would need a gun at all, so you should carry an unloaded gun. You might win either one of those arguments in some arenas. Not so much here, though.

... But the rest of your post seems ok.

dugo
06-12-2011, 22:30
Last I checked, you were not setting rules for GT. IMHO, the carry issues section is one of the worst places to be making assertions without providing supporting data.


Looking at Werner's, it appears that dates back to timeline of the others. I believe Farnam's is from 2000. Has this changed since the Clinton ban expired in 2004?

"Has this changed since the Clinton ban expired...?" ... Gosh, man, where you from?

(Semi-good natured sarcasm ... point being that outside of the propaganda around it the Clinton ban was famously pretty much irrelevant to everything except restricting guns from good citizens. I undserstand there was a study commissioned by congress which is relevant, if you want to find out for yourself. Again, you are tasking others to do things for you.)

Warp
06-12-2011, 22:39
That is the problem. One can make decisions an what seems likely, or one can make decisions on what is likely.

What is likely is that you will not need a firearm.

dugo
06-12-2011, 22:49
Your welcome, and no problem. Plenty of that sort of information out there if one wants to take the time to look. The problem, of course, is that way too many folks seem unwilling to discuss stuff like this from a logical point with real data and information.


Confirmation bias? The "dont' confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" factor.

I, personally, am right about everything, so I don't have to worry about it, of course, but I know is can be a problem for others. (:upeyes:)


(Ok, don't jump folks --- just kidding.)

Seraph
06-12-2011, 23:00
Rather than statistics, I think about the GT member who got ambushed by two perps while jogging. He was hit in the head with a club and knocked to the ground. He emptied his 1911, killing one and chasing the other off. I believe he was carrying 8 rounds. He was able to stop the threat against him but was laying there with his ammo gone. This seems to me to be a very likely scenario in today's society.

That was a chilling, and very sobering, account of a very close call. If the assailant hadn't fled, we might not have heard the story. Eight rounds, it turned out, were just enough, but the take-away from the story is that it's probably wise to have a little more than "just enough."

dugo
06-12-2011, 23:09
... And, after they make their choice they seek data to support it. Others, like me, look at the data, consider "typical", factor in lifestyle and attire, even destination, and choose accordingly. ...


Right: "... after they make their choice they seek data to support it."

They say that all of us have this tendency to recognize/accept data that supports our previously made decisions and fail to recognize -- or challenge disproportionately -- data that is contrary to our previously formed decisions. In some situations, as a defense mechanism, this helps us move forward rather than vacillate; but, it also means that if we indulge in it we can continue being wrong much longer than necessary. Cole describes the solution: information first, decision after, and keep mind open.

But first, we have to recognize when we are doing it. Easier said than done.

Seraph
06-12-2011, 23:18
I think that a man, using only common sense, can reasonably come to the conclusion that he wants to carry a sidearm, and at least one reload, without any need for compiling data to bolster a confirmation bias. On the contrary, I think there's a lot more rationalization being mutually confirmed among those who decide not to do so.

dugo
06-12-2011, 23:27
What is likely is that you will not need a firearm.

Well ... more likely than that you will, anyway. The stock response is good. Mention seat belts, fire extinguishers and locks on doors.

But we have generally gotten past that, here. The question now is, what if you do?

dugo
06-12-2011, 23:29
I think that a man, using only common sense, can reasonably come to the conclusion that he wants to carry a sidearm, and at least one reload, without any need for compiling data to bolster a confirmation bias. On the contrary, I think there's a lot more rationalization being mutually confirmed among those who decide not to do so.


It is certainly possible, although it works in either direction. Objectively looking up data for one's self might help resolve the latter, one way or the other.

Maine1
06-12-2011, 23:30
^ i like that.

Seraph
06-12-2011, 23:35
Well ... more likely than that you will, anyway. The stock response is good. Mention seat belts, fire extinguishers and locks on doors.

But we have generally gotten past that, here. The question now is, what if you do?

... And the answer is, it's better to have "too many" rounds on you, than it is to have "not enough." As was stated earlier, we won't know, until an encounter is over and done, whether we carried enough ammunition. I'd rather risk being called "Rambo" for carrying a few ounces worth of extra ammunition, than to come up short, even when the statistical likelihood of needing even one round is near nothing. Even with my "Rambo" loadout of a pistol and an extra mag or two, I might come up short, but at least I tried.

Seraph
06-12-2011, 23:38
It is certainly possible, although it works in either direction. Objectively looking up data for one's self might help resolve the latter, one way or the other.

While that makes sense, I imagine that those who look up data to help them with this decision are probably going to bias their search toward data that indicate not arming themselves for self defense. In other words, while I recognize that it could work in either direction, I doubt that it often does.

Warp
06-12-2011, 23:45
Well ... more likely than that you will, anyway. The stock response is good. Mention seat belts, fire extinguishers and locks on doors.

But we have generally gotten past that, here. The question now is, what if you do?

The more effective your available firearm and the more polished your skills, the better.

dugo
06-13-2011, 00:13
Thanks Cole. When I initially questioned Dugo, this is where I was heading. I was merely asking him to define what he meant by the term and cite that what is "rare" for one person may be deemed unacceptable risk for another person.

Ultimately, I see the point as the same as the infamous C1 vs. C3 debate...a person needs to do their own risk assessment. What is acceptable risk for me or you, may not be acceptable for another person. If there is a 1 in 100 chance of needing a magazine in a gunfight, is that "rare" enough for some to decide carrying a spare mag is not worth the trouble?

I think you are right that the discussion has some similarity to C1 vs. C3, and agree that it is ultimately a personal judgment call.

In my post, I did not suggest that a "rare" occurrence should be acceptable (or not) to anyone. In light of that -- and looking back at your initial inquiry -- I don't understand what you mean now by, " ... cite that what is rare for one person may be ... unacceptable .. for another ..."

To say it another way, some events are rare, but may have severe consequences. Other events are frequent or ongoing, or have residual effects, but the direct consequences may be (relatively) mild. Frequency and severity are both elements of risk assessment, and they may vary greatly.

My point was that a risk assessment involves consideration of both frequency and severity. Either type mentioned above might be unacceptable. You could have two unacceptable alternatives, and have to ... compromise. My post was commenting primarily on compromise.

I also do not recall you asking me to "define what (I) meant by the term", though it may not be necessary.

dugo
06-13-2011, 00:20
... And the answer is, it's better to have "too many" rounds on you, than it is to have "not enough." As was stated earlier, we won't know, until an encounter is over and done, whether we carried enough ammunition. I'd rather risk being called "Rambo" for carrying a few ounces worth of extra ammunition, than to come up short, even when the statistical likelihood of needing even one round is near nothing. Even with my "Rambo" loadout of a pistol and an extra mag or two, I might come up short, but at least I tried.


No argument with that, as stated in this post.

dugo
06-13-2011, 00:29
While that makes sense, I imagine that those who look up data to help them with this decision are probably going to bias their search toward data that indicate not arming themselves for self defense. In other words, while I recognize that it could work in either direction, I doubt that it often does.

Well, speculation aside, I guess the thing is to try hard to be objective enough to get past whatever bias we bring to the table, so we can actually find something out. The option would be to continue to be as innocent as we started out. Easy, but maybe not helpful.

dugo
06-13-2011, 00:30
The more effective your available firearm and the more polished your skills, the better.


Absolutely.

jdavionic
06-13-2011, 04:56
I think you are right that the discussion has some similarity to C1 vs. C3, and agree that it is ultimately a personal judgment call.

In my post, I did not suggest that a "rare" occurrence should be acceptable (or not) to anyone. In light of that -- and looking back at your initial inquiry -- I don't understand what you mean now by, " ... cite that what is rare for one person may be ... unacceptable .. for another ..."

To say it another way, some events are rare, but may have severe consequences. Other events are frequent or ongoing, or have residual effects, but the direct consequences may be (relatively) mild. Frequency and severity are both elements of risk assessment, and they may vary greatly.

My point was that a risk assessment involves consideration of both frequency and severity. Either type mentioned above might be unacceptable. You could have two unacceptable alternatives, and have to ... compromise. My post was commenting primarily on compromise.

I also do not recall you asking me to "define what (I) meant by the term", though it may not be necessary.

I think you're saying the same thing. Some people may be satisfied with a 1 in 100 odds of needing an extra magazine (for example), where others may determine that the severity of being wrong makes such odds unacceptable. It's all about choices.

On the latter, I simply asked you to support your assertion that it was a "rare thing". I made the point behind the question in the same post, which is the same point that has been reiterated including the last sentence in the above paragraph.
So it boils down to your own assessment. To me, if you can carry extra, why not do so. If you cannot carry extra or choose not for other reasons, then so be it.

Gallium
06-13-2011, 05:41
"Unfortunately, the need for ongoing concern still exists as this type of gang activity continued over this past weekend once again in Chicago. Roving gangs have been appearing in trendy areas downtown, and were responsible for committing attacks against average everyday citizens just this past Sunday in the Gold Coast.*CBS 2 reports “15-20 young men between 16-20 years old and black,” approached a man near Northwestern University, one of whom threw a baseball at his face, as the rest proceeded to beat him up."

Food for thought?


The three rules of basic survival are

1. Don't do stupid things.

2. Don't go to stupid places.

3. Don't hang out with stupid people.

How are you going to carry a high cap mag in downtown Chicago? Their restrictive gun laws may have more to do with the proliferation of predators than anything else.

'Drew

OD Green Glock 19
06-13-2011, 07:55
Capacity don't mean jack. That's why I carry a derringer.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 08:01
Well, speculation aside, I guess the thing is to try hard to be objective enough to get past whatever bias we bring to the table, so we can actually find something out. The option would be to continue to be as innocent as we started out. Easy, but maybe not helpful.

I agree with you on that. My position is that I don't need to consult any data to rightly conclude that carrying a sidearm + reload all the time, and not ever needing them, is far preferable to me than the remote chance of finding myself in the need for that stuff, and coming up short. Also, I only need to go outside and look around, to see that gunfights aren't regularly happening all around me. If something, whether a look out the window, or the study of piles of data, were to indicate to me that I was highly likely to get into a gunfight today, I'd carry something much more substantial than a handgun and a reload. Hell, I'd probably just stay at home, if possible. One might call it bias, but I consider it common sense. I also have a spare tire, a jack, a fire extinguisher, and a first aid kit, in my car, and never find myself in need of those. I'm much more likely to need a barf bag than my pistol, my fire extinguisher, or my first aid kit. That's why I have 4 barf bags in the glove compartment. I only hope 4 will be enough! :supergrin:

dugo
06-13-2011, 10:35
I think you're saying the same thing. Some people may be satisfied with a 1 in 100 odds of needing an extra magazine (for example), where others may determine that the severity of being wrong makes such odds unacceptable. It's all about choices.

On the latter, I simply asked you to support your assertion that it was a "rare thing". I made the point behind the question in the same post, which is the same point that has been reiterated including the last sentence in the above paragraph.

I'll buy most of that, and avoid dwelling on the "rare thing" issue. I don't think at the heart of it we all have such different ideas of how to approach the problem, as long as we take a forward approach, as cory (somewhere above) described. In the end, it certainly involves some kind of judgment call, anyway.

Glockdude1
06-13-2011, 10:49
I don't think this is an argument for higher capacity guns. Drop one and the rest will scatter.

:thumbsup:

dugo
06-13-2011, 10:50
Capacity don't mean jack. That's why I carry a derringer.


Ok, that's the first derringer suggestion I've heard. Since it goes beyond the low end of the capacity range under discussion, you might have gotten beyond the tolerance level of some of the "lower-capacity-is-acceptable" group, me included. However, better something than nothing, as they say.

Uh ... but you were making the point by exaggeration, right?

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 11:41
What is likely is that you will not need a firearm.

Agreed, and that works for most issues. But the overall lifetime chance of needing a firearm is not insignificant and the cost of doing so is fairly minimal to change your chances of success significantly. Where I tend to take issue is with folks who essentially argue the unlikely is likely and/or fail to recognize that being prepared for 99.999% of incidents really isn't that much better than being prepared for 99.99% of them.

OD Green Glock 19
06-13-2011, 11:47
Ok, that's the first derringer suggestion I've heard. Since it goes beyond the low end of the capacity range under discussion, you might have gotten beyond the tolerance level of some of the "lower-capacity-is-acceptable" group, me included. However, better something than nothing, as they say.

Uh ... but you were making the point by exaggeration, right?

No. I was merely being a smart#$%. During the warmer months I usually carry what I consider to be a low-capacity firearm(PPK) sometimes without a spare mag. My only contention with using these statistics to determine an appropriate minimum amount of ammo is that the average(4.xx rounds per defensive use of a firearm) may be misleadingly low if the population of data includes events where no shots were actually fired. Regardless, it makes the time pass a little quicker at work watching these same old arguments unfold.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 11:48
I think that a man, using only common sense, can reasonably come to the conclusion that he wants to carry a sidearm, and at least one reload, without any need for compiling data to bolster a confirmation bias. On the contrary, I think there's a lot more rationalization being mutually confirmed among those who decide not to do so.
Not really. Who is better armed, the guy carrying a Ruger LC9 and a reload (15 rounds) or the guy carrying a Glock 17 with no reload (18 rounds) or the guy carrying a S&W 65 with two reloads (18 rounds)?

LongGoneDays
06-13-2011, 11:51
Capacity IS important.

I have loaded mags hidden from myself all around my house. Sat it down and forget them all the time.
One or 2 in the truck. Box of about 6000 rounds in my closet.

I can't always count on getting to ANY of them in any situation. Minimum carry for me is 10 + 1 +10. The 2nd mag is usually a 17 rounder, known to carry a 10 & 17 rounder as well.

Why so many bulitz? The unknowing. Makes me feel better (not like Superman though). I can spray N pray if I want.
People getting riled up either way about this preference is silly. Stats dont matter to me. I carry what I can, carry a 7 shot 380 If ya want, I'll roll my eyes if I want.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 11:56
... And the answer is, it's better to have "too many" rounds on you, than it is to have "not enough."
Nobody disagrees with that, AFAIK. The question is how does one determine what that number should be. As you don't know you won't know that for sure until after things are over with. Again, we are all going to compromise, so how should one decide what is the best compromise for them?
While that makes sense, I imagine that those who look up data to help them with this decision are probably going to bias their search toward data that indicate not arming themselves for self defense. In other words, while I recognize that it could work in either direction, I doubt that it often does.
I would disagree with that idea. You assume a research bias that has nothing to support it, and in fact is contradictory. If one is looking up data to help determine what to carry for self defense the bias would almost have to be that one is looking for the best way to arm themselves for self defense.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 12:06
No. I was merely being a smart#$%. During the warmer months I usually carry what I consider to be a low-capacity firearm(PPK) sometimes without a spare mag. My only contention with using these statistics to determine an appropriate minimum amount of ammo is that the average(4.xx rounds per defensive use of a firearm) may be misleadingly low if the population of data includes events where no shots were actually fired.
It does not. That is a different stat.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 12:11
Nobody disagrees with that, AFAIK. The question is how does one determine what that number should be. As you don't know you won't know that for sure until after things are over with. Again, we are all going to compromise, so how should one decide what is the best compromise for them?

That part in red sounds familiar... Oh, that's because I said that already (actually reiterated it, after someone else said it previously, so that it's pretty well covered here):

... And the answer is, it's better to have "too many" rounds on you, than it is to have "not enough." As was stated earlier, we won't know, until an encounter is over and done, whether we carried enough ammunition. I'd rather risk being called "Rambo" for carrying a few ounces worth of extra ammunition, than to come up short, even when the statistical likelihood of needing even one round is near nothing. Even with my "Rambo" loadout of a pistol and an extra mag or two, I might come up short, but at least I tried.

And how does one make a decision on where they draw their own line of compromise? Well, for me, it has to do with firing a lot of different types of sidearms, and getting to know which ones are reliable, and help me with their various features to shoot well. I will determine, by trying different equipment, how I can conceal a chosen sidearm on my person effectively. In the same way, I determine how many reloads I can carry, without it becoming obvious, or obnoxiously tiresome (obvious will come before tiresome, since the stuff's really not that heavy).


I would disagree with that idea. You assume a research bias that has nothing to support it, and in fact is contradictory. If one is looking up data to help determine what to carry for self defense the bias would almost have to be that one is looking for the best way to arm themselves for self defense.

I think most guys are going to make a decision based on what's easiest, and most comfortable, and then will look for data that support their rationalization for drawing their line of compromise thus.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 12:37
That part in red sounds familiar... Oh, that's because I said that already (actually reiterated it, after someone else said it previously, so that it's pretty well covered here):
And should probably be covered again and again, as some seem unable to get the concept.
And how does one make a decision on where they draw their own line of compromise? Well, for me, it has to do with firing a lot of different types of sidearms, and getting to know which ones are reliable, and help me with their various features to shoot well. I will determine, by trying different equipment, how I can conceal a chosen sidearm on my person effectively. In the same way, I determine how many reloads I can carry, without it becoming obvious, or obnoxiously tiresome (obvious will come before tiresome, since the stuff's really not that heavy).
OK, so you apparently base your carry on strictly personal choice without any concern for actual need. And that is fine. Some of us prefer to include an actual risk analysis and cost/benefit calculation.

I think most guys are going to make a decision based on what's easiest, and most comfortable, and then will look for data that support their rationalization for drawing their line of compromise thus.
Some of us think that is a poor way to come to a rational and logical conclusion. But fortunately, as we have seen in this whole discussion, it really doesn't matter much where you compromise once you get past the "carry a gun" decision. But as for the original issue of why folks would do the research, if one is deciding what to carry (as stated) then the research is more open and honest. If one is looking for justification of a bis then yes, one will tend to focus toward the bias.

OD Green Glock 19
06-13-2011, 13:27
It does not. That is a different stat.

Do you have links to any somewhat recent data? Most of the stuff I have seen was either terribly outdated or never clearly specified what was used to define a defensive use of a firearm.

dugo
06-13-2011, 13:27
No. I was merely being a smart#$%. During the warmer months I usually carry what I consider to be a low-capacity firearm(PPK) sometimes without a spare mag. My only contention with using these statistics to determine an appropriate minimum amount of ammo is that the average(4.xx rounds per defensive use of a firearm) may be misleadingly low if the population of data includes events where no shots were actually fired. Regardless, it makes the time pass a little quicker at work watching these same old arguments unfold.

Valid Q regarding inclusion of no-shots incidents in shots-fired stats. I assume they would not be included, but have not confirmed that specifically. Armstrong can probably help us with that. (Any insights, David?) Others might know for sure, also.

As I tend towards a bit of smart&$$ery myself, I have to be careful to make room. Due respect for calling it.

Snowman92D
06-13-2011, 13:28
I think most guys are going to make a decision based on what's easiest, and most comfortable, and then will look for data that support their rationalization for drawing their line of compromise thus.

Excellent point...and the time they spend rationalizing and cherry-picking through "scientific" data would be better spent at the practice range.

dugo
06-13-2011, 13:29
It does not. That is a different stat.

There ya go.

dugo
06-13-2011, 13:42
Not really. Who is better armed, the guy carrying a Ruger LC9 and a reload (15 rounds) or the guy carrying a Glock 17 with no reload (18 rounds) or the guy carrying a S&W 65 with two reloads (18 rounds)?

is this a trick question? (Rhetorical Q.). To mis-quote somebody from another arena, "It is not the arm, it is the man."

As you seem to imply, We could count rounds and weigh other factors, but there's not enough difference in the armaments to overbalance the skill of the operator as the decisive factor.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 13:54
OK, so you apparently base your carry on strictly personal choice without any concern for actual need. And that is fine. Some of us prefer to include an actual risk analysis and cost/benefit calculation.

Again, we won't know "actual need," until an encounter has occurred. I base my carry preferences on experience gained from running actual guns, not calculators. When I've found a sidearm I can consider worthy, I then determine what I have to do to carry it, and a reload or two, discreetly, and as comfortably as reasonably possible. I don't need to consult a database to figure out whether I can carry a G19 and a reload on my belt, instead of a P3AT in my pocket. Cost, including ammunition: ~$575.00. Benefit: Armed with a reliable and concealable sidearm, plus a reload, just in case. Done. In the unlikely event I need the stuff, I'm most likely to end up with "extra" ammo at the end, whether I survive or not.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 13:57
is this a trick question? (Rhetorical Q.). To mis-quote somebody from another arena, "It is not the arm, it is the man."

As you seem to imply, We could count rounds and weigh other factors, but there's not enough difference in the armaments to overbalance the skill of the operator as the decisive factor.

Who would argue with that? But this thread, judging from the title, isn't about how much training someone has. It's about the "risk and cost/benefit" of carrying "extra" ammo.

OD Green Glock 19
06-13-2011, 13:58
Valid Q regarding inclusion of no-shots incidents in shots-fired stats. I assume they would not be included, but have not confirmed that specifically. Armstrong can probably help us with that. (Any insights, David?) Others might know for sure, also.

As I tend towards a bit of smart&$$ery myself, I have to be careful to make room. Due respect for calling it.

Yea some of the info I have read refers to defensive gun uses or defensive uses of firearms, but fail to specify whether or not they included ALL dgu's or only ones in which shots were fired. Considering the number of dgu's that end without shots being fired, it could significantly skew the results.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 15:52
Do you have links to any somewhat recent data? Most of the stuff I have seen was either terribly outdated or never clearly specified what was used to define a defensive use of a firearm.
What kind of data? There is plenty out there on these issues, but the trick is narrowing the issues down enough that one can use them. BTW, there is nothing wrong with outdated data unless you have some reason to believe that there has been some sort of a change in the issue that would have been big enough to significantly change the data.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 15:56
Valid Q regarding inclusion of no-shots incidents in shots-fired stats. I assume they would not be included, but have not confirmed that specifically. Armstrong can probably help us with that. (Any insights, David?) Others might know for sure, also.

As I said earlier, that is a different stat. In fact, you cannot include "did not fire" in any discussion of shots fired, as by definition there was not a shot fired. "Used gun but did not fire" is a part of the Defensive Gun Use (DGU) world, but it is not included in any shots fired data I've ever seen.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 16:08
is this a trick question? (Rhetorical Q.). To mis-quote somebody from another arena, "It is not the arm, it is the man."

As you seem to imply, We could count rounds and weigh other factors, but there's not enough difference in the armaments to overbalance the skill of the operator as the decisive factor.
Exactly. And that is the whole basis for the argument, IMO. Capacity is not important. The ability to run the gun and keep it running is what is important. If I have a compact 1911 and a spare mag for 15 rounds am I better off than with g19 and one magazine, but the same 15 rounds? And how does that compare with a Mdl 65 and 2 speedloaders for 18 rounds? I think most would agree one of those is high capacity, the other 2 are not. But does it matter? It's doubtful, and one can imagine specific situations where each of them would be a better choice than the others.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 16:11
Again, we won't know "actual need," until an encounter has occurred. I base my carry preferences on experience gained from running actual guns, not calculators. When I've found a sidearm I can consider worthy, I then determine what I have to do to carry it, and a reload or two, discreetly, and as comfortably as reasonably possible. I don't need to consult a database to figure out whether I can carry a G19 and a reload on my belt, instead of a P3AT in my pocket. Cost, including ammunition: ~$575.00. Benefit: Armed with a reliable and concealable sidearm, plus a reload, just in case. Done. In the unlikely event I need the stuff, I'm most likely to end up with "extra" ammo at the end, whether I survive or not.
And whether you realize it or not you have done the calculation process, only not in any formal way. Again, some of us think that calculation is better when done with actual facts and data instead of feelings. Don't know why so many seem to think that is a bad idea.
It's about the "risk and cost/benefit" of carrying "extra" ammo.
No, it is about the importance of capacity. Cost/benefit of carrying extra ammo is a different issue. Again, if I have a compact 1911 and a spare mag for 15 rounds am I better off than with g19 and one magazine, but the same 15 rounds? And how does that compare with a Mdl 65 and 2 speedloaders for 18 rounds?

talon
06-13-2011, 16:23
I would have to say 15 rounds with no reload required is "better" than 15 rounds that requires a reload. Kiss

I wont say 17 rounds is "better" than 15 rounds. etc. etc.

I will say a reasonable amount of rounds is better than an unreasonable amount.

I also think it is important not to confuse a range reload with a reload while being shot at.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 16:27
And whether you realize it or not you have done the calculation process, only not in any formal way. Again, some of us think that calculation is better when done with actual facts and data instead of feelings. Don't know why so many seem to think that is a bad idea.

Proving a gun yourself is the most direct way to getting some useful facts about its viability as a sidearm. It has nothing to do with feelings. Some of us think that referring to compiled data to rationalize carrying less gun is a bad idea.

No, it is about the importance of capacity. Cost/benefit of carrying extra ammo is a different issue. Again, if I have a compact 1911 and a spare mag for 15 rounds am I better off than with g19 and one magazine, but the same 15 rounds? And how does that compare with a Mdl 65 and 2 speedloaders for 18 rounds?

That's exactly what I mean about "extra ammo." When one suggests that statistics support carrying a lower capacity pistol, then one suggests that the carrying of a higher capacity pistol is the carrying of "extra ammo," or, in other words superfluous ammo. The underlying insinuation is that carrying a pistol whose capacity exceeds that prescribed by a statistical average is somehow foolhardy denial of facts. Rambo has been evoked in the illustration of this idea. I continually mention my choice to carry a reload to show that I'm hedging my bets by carrying even more superfluous ammo.

snwbrdr435
06-13-2011, 16:30
:50cal:Glock 18 and a spare mag

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 16:51
Proving a gun yourself is the most direct way to getting some useful facts about its viability as a sidearm.
Proving a gun has nothing to do with determining how many rounds one should carry or what capacity is acceptable in a gun.
It has nothing to do with feelings. Some of us think that referring to compiled data to rationalize carrying less gun is a bad idea.
Unless you are using actual data it has everything to do with feelings. And nobody has suggested using compiled data to rationalize carrying less gun. Although it is interesting how you phrased the statement. Would it be a good idea if referring to compiled data led one to rationalize carrying more gun??:dunno:
That's exactly what I mean about "extra ammo." When one suggests that statistics support carrying a lower capacity pistol, then one suggests that the carrying of a higher capacity pistol is the carrying of "extra ammo," or, in other words superfluous ammo. The underlying insinuation is that carrying a pistol whose capacity exceeds that prescribed by a statistical average is somehow foolhardy denial of facts.
Hmmm, talk about "rationalizing"! Please point to anybody who has said anything close to that. AFAIK, nobody has suggested carrying anything is a foolhardy denial of facts. And extra ammo, reloads and capacity are all different terms with different meanings. Perhaps that is the problem, you are trying to mix different terms? Again, I note that you failed to address the question: If I have a compact 1911 and a spare mag for 15 rounds am I better off than with g19 and one magazine, but the same 15 rounds? And how does that compare with a Mdl 65 and 2 speedloaders for 18 rounds?
Rambo has been evoked in the illustration of this idea.
No, Rambo was invoked as an example of carrying everything you can without really thinking about if it is needed or not.
I continually mention my choice to carry a reload to show that I'm hedging my bets by carrying even more superfluous ammo.
How do you know that you are hedging your bets, or that you are carrying superfluous ammo without thinking about the actual data? Maybe you have rationalized carrying less gun and don't even realize it? And again, carrying a reload is very different than carrying superfluous ammo.

brob2425
06-13-2011, 17:14
There is a point, and its no obscure as gun nuts would like to make it seem, where being prepared for something likely to happen becomes outright paranoia.

P.S. I've needed my gun to defend myself before, and just the sight of it ended the crime. The crime ended before I could line up a shot. I didn't need a billion rounds, a fancy laser light, 4 spare magazines, a bayonet lug, or any of that craziness.

A little late here, but I couldn't agree more. After lurking around gun forums for a while and seeing people saying their EDC consists of a primary, 3 spare mags, BUG + 2 spare mags/speed loaders, 2 knives, retractable baton, etc. you gotta wonder if it's a realistic precaution or just fantasy. I can picture these guys in their living rooms ducking and diving behind furniture as they play out hollywood gunfight scenarios in their heads. :supergrin:

Boot Stomper
06-13-2011, 17:21
I have a great solution to the Mob attacks. Don't live in Chicago, New York City St. Louis City or LA. This will greatly reduce the chance of the gang mob attack. :whistling:

John Biltz
06-13-2011, 17:21
I think saying capacity isn't important is just wrong. At one point all firearms were one shot with a slow reload. A lot of effort went into increasing that to where we are today and I doubt any of us think the effort wasted. Now capacity may not be important. Which is a different statement. My personal belief is that I'm more likely to need 10 shots than my magazine is going to fail so I don't need to carry an extra magazine because of that. I've never had a magazine fail. I also think it is easier to carry a gun with more bullets than carrying a spare magazine and its much faster and easier to shoot 10 rounds already in a gun than it is to do a reload. I used to carry a spare magazine and stopped because I don't think its worth the effort. My belief has evolved to where I think a small bug is a better idea than a spare magazine and might be easier to carry while also providing access denied to my primary hand. I will also say I've never carried a BUG but it would be my choice if I felt my threat level warranted it.

Unistat
06-13-2011, 17:43
A little late here, but I couldn't agree more. After lurking around gun forums for a while and seeing people saying their EDC consists of a primary, 3 spare mags, BUG + 2 spare mags/speed loaders, 2 knives, retractable baton, etc. you gotta wonder if it's a realistic precaution or just fantasy. I can picture these guys in their living rooms ducking and diving behind furniture as they play out hollywood gunfight scenarios in their heads. :supergrin:

Depends on where you live and work, man. And before you say it, a guy has to keep himself alive long enough to get the opportunity to move. :)

Btw, 1 G23, 1 G22 spare mag, 2 Benchmades, a neck knife, and a Leatherman. Use to add in a J-frame and a speed strip before I gave it to my dad.

Deaf Smith
06-13-2011, 17:59
Tom Givens, of Rangemaster, has had 56 students in gun fights.

http://www.rangemaster.com/

The ONLY students to fail, 2 of them, didn't carry their guns that faithful day!

He says that J .38 5 shots .38s are a thin reed to rely on. Same for small capacity pocket pistols. He points out more and more robbery teams are ALL armed and small capacity handguns will make it very difficult to defend against them.

So gang, I'd listen to him.

Read his newest news letter on his website.

Deaf

Seraph
06-13-2011, 18:01
Proving a gun has nothing to do with determining how many rounds one should carry or what capacity is acceptable in a gun.

Correct, but it's an example of a very rational way to pick a sidearm, that's not based on feelings.

... Would it be a good idea if referring to compiled data led one to rationalize carrying more gun??:dunno:

Yes, that would be an outstanding result, IMO, as long as one can pull it off discreetly.

... Again, I note that you failed to address the question: If I have a compact 1911 and a spare mag for 15 rounds am I better off than with g19 and one magazine, but the same 15 rounds? And how does that compare with a Mdl 65 and 2 speedloaders for 18 rounds?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to dodge a question. I guess I thought it was meant as a rhetorical question.

Assuming they all function reliably, and the person were able and willing to conceal them, they'd all be good options. Personally, in 1911's, I'd rather use a full size pistol, because my experience shows that they're generally more reliable than the compact versions. The Glock 19 is an excellent choice, for its reliability, but I'd carry a reload, for the superfluous ammunition, and the superfluous mag itself, in case something goes wrong with the first mag. The revolver would be a great choice, because it would be extremely reliable and accurate. In .357 Mag, it would also bring the most destructive potential. The obvious drawback is the low capacity, and the slower reload. An individual's ability to run a revolver, and the ballistic advantage of the .357 Magnum, may or may not combine to offset the disadvantage of the slow reload, but that's only an issue if the individual bothered to carry a reload. I personally don't run a revolver all that well.

Limited strictly to the three options you cited, I think I'd go for the Glock 19, even without a reload, for 15+1 rounds of 9mm in a good handling pistol that conceals extremely well.

No, Rambo was invoked as an example of carrying everything you can without really thinking about if it is needed or not.

Who carries everything they can?

How do you know that you are hedging your bets, or that you are carrying superfluous ammo without thinking about the actual data?

I only know because I read this thread.

Maybe you have rationalized carrying less gun and don't even realize it?

You might be right. Do you think I should consider carrying more gun?

And again, carrying a reload is very different than carrying superfluous ammo.

Amen.

degoodman
06-13-2011, 18:04
Proving a gun yourself is the most direct way to getting some useful facts about its viability as a sidearm. It has nothing to do with feelings. Some of us think that referring to compiled data to rationalize carrying less gun is a bad idea.



That's exactly what I mean about "extra ammo." When one suggests that statistics support carrying a lower capacity pistol, then one suggests that the carrying of a higher capacity pistol is the carrying of "extra ammo," or, in other words superfluous ammo. The underlying insinuation is that carrying a pistol whose capacity exceeds that prescribed by a statistical average is somehow foolhardy denial of facts. Rambo has been evoked in the illustration of this idea. I continually mention my choice to carry a reload to show that I'm hedging my bets by carrying even more superfluous ammo.

No, if you're inferring that from most of our comments you'd be taking things a step too far.

We're not suggesting that the carrying of a higher capacity pistol is bad. We are saying that the reasons often cited for carrying a high capacity pistol, such as the original example cited in this thread of a lone citizen faced by a tremendous number of opponents, are faulty based on compiled statistical evidence from numerous sources. If there is an underlying inference regarding carrying a higher capacity pistol, it is that the principle driver for that decision is personal preference, not objective analysis. I'm not trying to make this personal, but your assertion that this has nothing to do with feelings, but looking at compiled data is bad is about as contradictory as its possible to be.

If you'll look at what most of us are saying regarding high capacity pistols, its not the extra ammo that's the core issue. Its the extra gun that you have to bring along to carry that extra ammo that's the problem. Its a problem because most, not all, civilian carriers cannot make the life changes and compromises necessary to carry a higher capacity pistol full time. If that is their only available selection there are going to be times that they have to carry an alternate firearm, or often carry no firearm at all, and that is the problem.

The statistics support the idea that a lower capacity firearm is adequate for the majority of lethal force encounters. That doesn't mean that bringing more bullets is bad. For those situations where a lower capacity firearm does not result in a successful defensive gun use, more often than not the capacity of the fierarm was not the decisive factor that resulted in the failure of the good guy to win.

David Armstrong
06-13-2011, 18:15
Correct, but it's an example of a very rational way to pick a sidearm, that's not based on feelings.
Again, that is a different issue, not what is being discussed here. As to how rational it is.....well, like I said, that is a different issue.
Yes, that would be an outstanding result, IMO, as long as one can pull it off discreetly.
So your argument seems to be that it is a good thing to do if it leads to a result you approve of, but it is a bad thing to do if it doesn't.:faint:
Assuming they all function reliably, and the person were able and willing to conceal them, they'd all be good options.
Then it seems you would agree that capacity isn't that important, as the capacity for each of them differs to various degrees.
Limited strictly to the three options you cited, I think I'd go for the Glock 19, even without a reload, for 15+1 rounds of 9mm in a good handling pistol that conceals extremely well.
Which, I think, shows there is a difference between extra ammo, reloads, and capacity.
Who carries everything they can?
I'd suggest everyone who advocates the better to have and not need it school of thought. Either that or they don't believe their own rhetoric.
I only know because I read this thread.
If that is your only source, I'd suggest you might want to expand a bit.
You might be right. Do you think I should consider carrying more gun?
Don't know. I might think you should consider carrying less gun. I'd like more info on a number of issues before I'd feel comfortable making recommendations.

Seraph
06-13-2011, 18:25
If there is an underlying inference regarding carrying a higher capacity pistol, it is that the principle driver for that decision is personal preference, not objective analysis.

Recognizing the value in the potential to engage a greater number of targets before a reload doesn't require deep analysis, or recourse to mountains of data.

I'm not trying to make this personal, but your assertion that this has nothing to do with feelings, but looking at compiled data is bad is about as contradictory as its possible to be.

It's not personal, for me, at all, and I never stated that looking at compiled data was bad. In fact, I stated earlier that referring to compiled data was great, if it led one to what might ultimately prove to be the right choice.

If you'll look at what most of us are saying regarding high capacity pistols, its not the extra ammo that's the core issue. Its the extra gun that you have to bring along to carry that extra ammo that's the problem. Its a problem because most, not all, civilian carriers cannot make the life changes and compromises necessary to carry a higher capacity pistol full time. If that is their only available selection there are going to be times that they have to carry an alternate firearm, or often carry no firearm at all, and that is the problem.

No one should try to carry more than they can, but many people can carry more than they think they can, more comfortably, and more discreetly, than they think they can.

The statistics support the idea that a lower capacity firearm is adequate for the majority of lethal force encounters. That doesn't mean that bringing more bullets is bad. For those situations where a lower capacity firearm does not result in a successful defensive gun use, more often than not the capacity of the fierarm was not the decisive factor that resulted in the failure of the good guy to win.

As long as you can pull off carrying it, why not carry a little more gun than the minimum the statistics suggest?

degoodman
06-13-2011, 18:27
Tom Givens, of Rangemaster, has had 56 students in gun fights.

http://www.rangemaster.com/

The ONLY students to fail, 2 of them, didn't carry their guns that faithful day!

He says that J .38 5 shots .38s are a thin reed to rely on. Same for small capacity pocket pistols. He points out more and more robbery teams are ALL armed and small capacity handguns will make it very difficult to defend against them.

So gang, I'd listen to him.

Read his newest news letter on his website.

Deaf

Ugh.

I like Tom, but the garbage statistics he threw up there are part of the problem here.

To qoute:

"Rangemaster Student Involved Shootings
56 incidents to date. Of these, 10 were selected for a presentation at the 2010 Tactical Conference.
Of those ten representative shootings:
5 of 10 involved an armed robbery by one or two suspects;
3 occurred on mall parking lots, only one occurred in home;
In all but one, the range was inside the length of a large car/SUV;
4 out of 10 incidents involved 2 or more suspects;
Average number of shots fired 3.8 (low-1, high-11)."

Why did he pick those 10, why not the other 46? Cherry picking incidents, then presenting statistical summaries is kinda what got marshall and sanow in trouble. Bad juju.