9mm or .40? Advice please.
- Thread starter hjm
- Start date
brandon_h3
Moderator
Right on the money...
Blackhawk, you hit the nail square on the head.
And I consider this an idea that he has a license to kill:
"If you shoot someone with an ineffective caliber you also run the risk of having the BG continue his actions towards you. I would rather shoot once or twice and be done with it. You have to also deal with the psychological trauma involved with shooting someone with an ineffective caliber and not having them stop and having to shoot over and over."
Interesting. "Be done with it"....does that mean you have killed this person? Ok Rambo, that's not your job. Your job is to stop this individual's attack. If follow-up shots are necessary with a smaller caliber gun, then so be it.
Yes, I can tell you what attitudes need to be changed. The attitude that you must kill in order to stop an attack!!! The idea that bigger is better, that 50 yard groups actually matter!!!!! You can shoot out to 1000 yards if you want, but don't you dare try to use that in court.
BTW, we didn't have to pass a quiz, but the guy's answer to the question made the CC instructor very nervous, understandably. A quiz wouldn't be a bad idea.....
I have talked to too many cops who were involved in "personal defense" lawsuits and most of the time the "victim" was successfully sued. Watch out guys, don't base your decision totally on the legal results......but they must be considered.
Blackhawk, you hit the nail square on the head.
And I consider this an idea that he has a license to kill:
"If you shoot someone with an ineffective caliber you also run the risk of having the BG continue his actions towards you. I would rather shoot once or twice and be done with it. You have to also deal with the psychological trauma involved with shooting someone with an ineffective caliber and not having them stop and having to shoot over and over."
Interesting. "Be done with it"....does that mean you have killed this person? Ok Rambo, that's not your job. Your job is to stop this individual's attack. If follow-up shots are necessary with a smaller caliber gun, then so be it.
Yes, I can tell you what attitudes need to be changed. The attitude that you must kill in order to stop an attack!!! The idea that bigger is better, that 50 yard groups actually matter!!!!! You can shoot out to 1000 yards if you want, but don't you dare try to use that in court.
BTW, we didn't have to pass a quiz, but the guy's answer to the question made the CC instructor very nervous, understandably. A quiz wouldn't be a bad idea.....
I have talked to too many cops who were involved in "personal defense" lawsuits and most of the time the "victim" was successfully sued. Watch out guys, don't base your decision totally on the legal results......but they must be considered.
Handy,
You just inspired me!
I'm not a proponent of either bigger or smaller calibers. I'm a proponent of the RIGHT caliber for the particular owner. Almost any caliber bullet placed right in the perp has more stopping power than a .50 BMG in the tree trunk behind the perp after missing him.
I'm interested in the Taurus PT-145Ti. I don't WANT one, mind you. A 17 ounce .45 going off in your hand has got to be a memorable experience! I don't think I'd be able to do the 10"x10' trick with one though.... Then again, I had trouble doing it with a .22 Ruger auto too. It just didn't point right for me.
I'm a proponent of the CCW pistol/owner combination that the owner can do the 10"x10' trick naturally and consistently. There's no telling what caliber or make of pistol that might be before the owner tries out what's available and practices to build confidence and proficiency.
You just inspired me!
I'm not a proponent of either bigger or smaller calibers. I'm a proponent of the RIGHT caliber for the particular owner. Almost any caliber bullet placed right in the perp has more stopping power than a .50 BMG in the tree trunk behind the perp after missing him.
I'm interested in the Taurus PT-145Ti. I don't WANT one, mind you. A 17 ounce .45 going off in your hand has got to be a memorable experience! I don't think I'd be able to do the 10"x10' trick with one though.... Then again, I had trouble doing it with a .22 Ruger auto too. It just didn't point right for me.
I'm a proponent of the CCW pistol/owner combination that the owner can do the 10"x10' trick naturally and consistently. There's no telling what caliber or make of pistol that might be before the owner tries out what's available and practices to build confidence and proficiency.
brandon_h3,
Now this is getting interesting:
Again, I say it is a play on words. If I ask you where you would shoot to stop a confrontation what would your response be? The extremities? Your response would be shoot to center of mass. If I asked you where you would shoot to kill someone, what would your response be? Again, shoot to center of mass would be your response.
Shake
Now this is getting interesting:
Now you are starting to scare me. Tests and quizes are exactly what the antis want. Make it incrementally a little harder each year and pretty soon you deny people the ability to protect themselves because they lack the mental capacity to pass a very difficult quiz.
I'm not saying that 50 yard groups do matter, but to say that accuracy of a gun doesn't matter is advocating one of the very issues you brought up which is the chance of harming an inocent bystander. If you have the choice between a gun that shoots minute of angle and one that shoots minute of barn at 25 yards, which would you prefer. To use an inaccurate weapon is not responsible. I'd consider 25 yards an appropriate distance to test a gun's accuracy. Accuracy does matter.
Shooting targets at 50 yards and engaging in combat with a criminal at 50 yards are two different things. Is anyone here arguing that one should engage at those distances? I think you are arguing a point that no one contradicts (unless I missed something?).
Wouldn't the fact that you shot an attacker many times with a small caliber look worse in court than if you had delivered a double-tap with a larger caliber and ended the confrontation?
Again, I say it is a play on words. If I ask you where you would shoot to stop a confrontation what would your response be? The extremities? Your response would be shoot to center of mass. If I asked you where you would shoot to kill someone, what would your response be? Again, shoot to center of mass would be your response.
Shake
Interesting that I am labeled a "Rambo" for advocating the use of deadly force with the intent of killing the individual if necessary. You can cushion the words "Kill" with all the interesting phrases such as "shooting to stop the action" or whatever other term you may want to use to say that you intend to main, seriously wound, permanently cripple, or kill the individual you want, but if you shoot an individual you are doing exactly that.
I'm curious as to how much training you have gotten concerning weapons and use of force. Was it all from your Concealed Carry Permit instructor who supposedly almost denied a person a conceled carry permit based on the answer that he would kill an individual?
I have recieved training from Military, Law Enforcement and Corrections Instructors and I have yet to see an instructor advocating "crippling shots" or "wounding shots" as part of deadly force. In all of the training that I have recieved I have been told that if you do indeed have to use deadly force that you need to do so by shooting center mass with the most effective weapon at your disposal. Prior to using deadly force you have exhausted all possibilities of de escalating the confrontation by using secondary weapons such a O.C. and if possible (for civilians) retreat. If you have exhausted all measures then you are justified to use Deadly Force.
If that mentality makes me a "Rambo" then I guess just about every LEO in the nation as well as Soldier is one also. Lets go ahead and add everyone who believes the same way as I do..a nation of "Rambos".
I seriously doubt you would find anyone in the Law Enforcement field that would tell you to use a small caliber because there are better chances of just wounding rather than killing the individual and that you should strive to wound rather than kill. Given that mentality all of our Law Enforcement Officers should stop their quest for continual upgrades for more effective weapons and just go to something like a .22. We just want to wound em..right?
You keep saying..My Concealed Carry Instructor..and I believe. How about giving me some advice from some professionals out there that deal with these situations on a daily basis. I'm sure many would concur with my statements.
One final note....It may be fine for you to believe the way you do, but what about your loved ones? Do you want them to wound someone or make a choice on whether or not to kill them, or would you attempt to arm them with the most effective caliber possible? My wife keeps a 9mm Hi Power with 14+1 rounds of +P JHP's at her disposal in case of emergencies. If an individual attempt to threaten her life or the lives of my children she will use deadly force by shooting Center Mass until such threat has ceased. She will not shoot with the intent of wounding him. Her attacker has already shown a serious disregard for human life by attacking my family and she will do what is necessary. For that very reason I can leave home comfortable knowing that my family will be cared for in my absence.
Good SHooting
RED
Shake,
"I don't know about you, but a .50 BMG in the tree behind me would definitely stop me in my tracks!"
Can you image the Covert version of it? I imagine Taurus would come out with one, model PT-150BMGTi, that weighs in at 19 ounces w/o magazine. Of course since each cartridge weighs in in the pounds area and is about 6" long, it would make a significant CCW print! The CCW owner would want to make sure there's clear terrain behind him because the recoil will definitely propel him out of the vicinity with its 16,000 foot pounds of energy....
"I don't know about you, but a .50 BMG in the tree behind me would definitely stop me in my tracks!"
Can you image the Covert version of it? I imagine Taurus would come out with one, model PT-150BMGTi, that weighs in at 19 ounces w/o magazine. Of course since each cartridge weighs in in the pounds area and is about 6" long, it would make a significant CCW print! The CCW owner would want to make sure there's clear terrain behind him because the recoil will definitely propel him out of the vicinity with its 16,000 foot pounds of energy....
Covert Mission
New member
Pampers,
re:
THIS is a common attempted solution that LE agencies engage in: upgrading calibers to try and find a "magic bullet" to compensate for their officers' poor shooting skills. If they would instead invest the gun money in ammo and range time, they would be better off. So agencies go from 9mm to .40, to .45, to .357 and around and around. Glock will gladly take their guns in trade, refurbish them and sell them with hi-caps
Handgun knockdown/stopping power is exaggerated and even mythical at times, in any caliber you can practically carry/shoot (eliminating the .454 Casull, for example). Shot placement is more important by a big margin, and then caliber may become a factor. Put the holes where they need to be, and then if you can make them big, more the better. My local Sheriff's Dept went to the 10mm only to find that many of their officers couldn't qualify with full-power loads, so they went to 10mm Lite, about the same as .40. What's the point?
There are enough anecdotes of bad guys surviving hits with even slugs, or 6-12 .45acp rounds before being stopped to convince me that you MUST put the bullets in the right place. My shot to shot times and accuracy improved about 10-15% by swtiching from a Glock 22 .40cal to a Glock 9mm, and ammo is enough cheaper that I can shoot 40% more practice ammo for the same dough. Plus, I don't feel the least bit undergunned with a hi-cap full of 124gr +P Golden Sabres. I slso carry a 1911 .45 at times, but don't feel more well armed with it at all. Take care
re:
THIS is a common attempted solution that LE agencies engage in: upgrading calibers to try and find a "magic bullet" to compensate for their officers' poor shooting skills. If they would instead invest the gun money in ammo and range time, they would be better off. So agencies go from 9mm to .40, to .45, to .357 and around and around. Glock will gladly take their guns in trade, refurbish them and sell them with hi-caps
Handgun knockdown/stopping power is exaggerated and even mythical at times, in any caliber you can practically carry/shoot (eliminating the .454 Casull, for example). Shot placement is more important by a big margin, and then caliber may become a factor. Put the holes where they need to be, and then if you can make them big, more the better. My local Sheriff's Dept went to the 10mm only to find that many of their officers couldn't qualify with full-power loads, so they went to 10mm Lite, about the same as .40. What's the point?
There are enough anecdotes of bad guys surviving hits with even slugs, or 6-12 .45acp rounds before being stopped to convince me that you MUST put the bullets in the right place. My shot to shot times and accuracy improved about 10-15% by swtiching from a Glock 22 .40cal to a Glock 9mm, and ammo is enough cheaper that I can shoot 40% more practice ammo for the same dough. Plus, I don't feel the least bit undergunned with a hi-cap full of 124gr +P Golden Sabres. I slso carry a 1911 .45 at times, but don't feel more well armed with it at all. Take care
brandon_h3
Moderator
hehe
You'll have to clarify this statement. Are you advocating using weaker calibers so that criminals aren't killed?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Need I say it again.....your job isn't to KILL HIM, it's to stop his attack!!
Read Blackhawk's post.......it is very very true.
You keep saying..My Concealed Carry Instructor..and I believe. How about giving me some advice from some professionals out there that deal with these situations on a daily basis. I'm sure many would concur with my statements.
My CC instructor is a 15 year cop, and he's been there, done that on a daily basis. He's done a little of everything, and is a walking book of knowledge. He is not my only source of information. Using one source would be silly, so I have several sources.
I'm curious as to how much training you have gotten concerning weapons and use of force. Was it all from your Concealed Carry Permit instructor who supposedly almost denied a person a conceled carry permit based on the answer that he would kill an individual?
No, it wasn't all from him. He didn't almost not pass someone because because he said he would kill someone, but since the idea is to STOP THE ATTACK, NOT KILL THE PERSON, his answer was very very wrong. He wasn't asked if he would kill, he was asked if in a confrontation you're supposed to shoot until the attacker is dead and he answered yes.
Interesting that I am labeled a "Rambo" for advocating the use of deadly force with the intent of killing the individual if necessary.
How can you kill "if necessary" if you're intentionally carrying a gun that has a known high one shot kill ratio? You're saying you want a high caliber gun to maximize the potential of death, and that isn't the purpose of carrying concealed.
My wife keeps a 9mm Hi Power with 14+1 rounds of +P JHP's at her disposal in case of emergencies. If an individual attempt to threaten her life or the lives of my children she will use deadly force by shooting Center Mass until such threat has ceased.
Exactly, and death may be necessary, but isn't ALWAYS NECESSARY! Remember, death is forever. Once you've taken this guy's life, you are a killer, whether you label it a self-defense death or not. You just killed (notice I didn't say shot, I said killed) someone's son/daughter, husband/wife, brother/sister and hope you can live with knowing that. I am BY NO MEANS SAYING NOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF, I am simply saying think twice before killing someone.
After a cop gets in a shootout and hits the bad guy with one shot and it doesn't stop him, so a follow up shot is necessary, should the cop automatically think his gun isn't big enough and upgrade? Jeez, our cops would be carrying those guns that shoot 30-30 or 30-06 rounds if that's the case. How about shooting center mass and letting the rounds do their job?
Now you are starting to scare me. Tests and quizes are exactly what the antis want. Make it incrementally a little harder each year and pretty soon you deny people the ability to protect themselves because they lack the mental capacity to pass a very difficult quiz.
Who said it had to be very difficult? The driving test is almost word for word what it was in the 50's, so why would it get "incrementally harder and harder?" We don't let people drive cars without passing a test, can't sell insurance without passing a test, why not have to pass a test to carry a firearm? I can't believe you want someone who may be mentally gone to walk around with a gun. That part scares me. Yes, you have a right to bear arms and personally I guess I think everybody should be able to carry one concealed without any permit..........BUT........since we do have to have one, why not let that opprotunity wein (spelling??) out the ones who aren't mentally competent to carry a firearm? Just a suggestion.
I have recieved training from Military, Law Enforcement and Corrections Instructors and I have yet to see an instructor advocating "crippling shots" or "wounding shots" as part of deadly force.
I never said anybody told me to use a small caliber gun, this is how I am reacting to the "stop the criminal, not kill him" thing. In fact, my CC instructor said that my .380 was big enough, and to always shoot center mass, but a more effective weapon would be the 9mm or .45. I had the smallest weapon of everybody there, but my group was smaller than everybody else's too. Is a .45 really effective if it shoots a big hole in a wall somewhere instead of hitting the bad guy, or a .380 that knocks him where it hurts? Shot placement is always more important that shot size.
This debate is so much fun!
You'll have to clarify this statement. Are you advocating using weaker calibers so that criminals aren't killed?
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Need I say it again.....your job isn't to KILL HIM, it's to stop his attack!!
Read Blackhawk's post.......it is very very true.
You keep saying..My Concealed Carry Instructor..and I believe. How about giving me some advice from some professionals out there that deal with these situations on a daily basis. I'm sure many would concur with my statements.
My CC instructor is a 15 year cop, and he's been there, done that on a daily basis. He's done a little of everything, and is a walking book of knowledge. He is not my only source of information. Using one source would be silly, so I have several sources.
I'm curious as to how much training you have gotten concerning weapons and use of force. Was it all from your Concealed Carry Permit instructor who supposedly almost denied a person a conceled carry permit based on the answer that he would kill an individual?
No, it wasn't all from him. He didn't almost not pass someone because because he said he would kill someone, but since the idea is to STOP THE ATTACK, NOT KILL THE PERSON, his answer was very very wrong. He wasn't asked if he would kill, he was asked if in a confrontation you're supposed to shoot until the attacker is dead and he answered yes.
Interesting that I am labeled a "Rambo" for advocating the use of deadly force with the intent of killing the individual if necessary.
How can you kill "if necessary" if you're intentionally carrying a gun that has a known high one shot kill ratio? You're saying you want a high caliber gun to maximize the potential of death, and that isn't the purpose of carrying concealed.
My wife keeps a 9mm Hi Power with 14+1 rounds of +P JHP's at her disposal in case of emergencies. If an individual attempt to threaten her life or the lives of my children she will use deadly force by shooting Center Mass until such threat has ceased.
Exactly, and death may be necessary, but isn't ALWAYS NECESSARY! Remember, death is forever. Once you've taken this guy's life, you are a killer, whether you label it a self-defense death or not. You just killed (notice I didn't say shot, I said killed) someone's son/daughter, husband/wife, brother/sister and hope you can live with knowing that. I am BY NO MEANS SAYING NOT TO DEFEND YOURSELF, I am simply saying think twice before killing someone.
After a cop gets in a shootout and hits the bad guy with one shot and it doesn't stop him, so a follow up shot is necessary, should the cop automatically think his gun isn't big enough and upgrade? Jeez, our cops would be carrying those guns that shoot 30-30 or 30-06 rounds if that's the case. How about shooting center mass and letting the rounds do their job?
Now you are starting to scare me. Tests and quizes are exactly what the antis want. Make it incrementally a little harder each year and pretty soon you deny people the ability to protect themselves because they lack the mental capacity to pass a very difficult quiz.
Who said it had to be very difficult? The driving test is almost word for word what it was in the 50's, so why would it get "incrementally harder and harder?" We don't let people drive cars without passing a test, can't sell insurance without passing a test, why not have to pass a test to carry a firearm? I can't believe you want someone who may be mentally gone to walk around with a gun. That part scares me. Yes, you have a right to bear arms and personally I guess I think everybody should be able to carry one concealed without any permit..........BUT........since we do have to have one, why not let that opprotunity wein (spelling??) out the ones who aren't mentally competent to carry a firearm? Just a suggestion.
I have recieved training from Military, Law Enforcement and Corrections Instructors and I have yet to see an instructor advocating "crippling shots" or "wounding shots" as part of deadly force.
I never said anybody told me to use a small caliber gun, this is how I am reacting to the "stop the criminal, not kill him" thing. In fact, my CC instructor said that my .380 was big enough, and to always shoot center mass, but a more effective weapon would be the 9mm or .45. I had the smallest weapon of everybody there, but my group was smaller than everybody else's too. Is a .45 really effective if it shoots a big hole in a wall somewhere instead of hitting the bad guy, or a .380 that knocks him where it hurts? Shot placement is always more important that shot size.
This debate is so much fun!
brandon_h3,
Yes, this debate is a lot of fun.
I honestly think you need to examine your whole motive behind carrying a concealed weapon. I carry a concealed weapon because I am responsible for my personal safety and the safety of my immediate family. I carry because the livelihood of my family depends on ME. I carry because I refuse to accept that some criminal someday may decide that my life or the lives of my children and wife are less important than his immediate goals.
You cannot carry with the hope that someway somehow the criminal who is attacking you might just pull through if you happen to hit him. In a lethal force encounter, you can't pause after one shot to assess how the criminal is feeling after taking a slug. You will get yourself or yourloved ones killed doing this.
Shake
Yes, this debate is a lot of fun.
You are correct. However, that statement is sorely lacking. My job is to stop the criminal BEFORE he causes serious bodily injury or death to me or a family member. In my opinion that demands that I use an adequate cartridge and place my shots to his center of mass. I will not settle for a weenie cartridge in the hopes that somehow the bad guy will pull through in the end.
You ignore the fact that many of us have been to many training courses with instructors who have every bit as much (if not more) experience as your CC instructor (both military and LE).
Again, a "high one shot kill ratio" has a double meaning. Guns that work well for self defense are those that stop the criminal in the quickest way possible. Do you not want to stop the encounter in the quickest way possible? We are going in circles here.
No, that is flat out wrong IMO. If a person happens to die while trying to inflict serious bodily injury on myself or on my immediate family, I would not be a killer, I would be a survivor. I would have just saved my wife's husband, my children's father, my brother's brother, my sister's brother, and my parents son from death.
I honestly think you need to examine your whole motive behind carrying a concealed weapon. I carry a concealed weapon because I am responsible for my personal safety and the safety of my immediate family. I carry because the livelihood of my family depends on ME. I carry because I refuse to accept that some criminal someday may decide that my life or the lives of my children and wife are less important than his immediate goals.
You cannot carry with the hope that someway somehow the criminal who is attacking you might just pull through if you happen to hit him. In a lethal force encounter, you can't pause after one shot to assess how the criminal is feeling after taking a slug. You will get yourself or yourloved ones killed doing this.
Yes, and we are the ones who get to make up the rules. If you think the antis wouldn't make changes, you don't know them.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said I wanted to give lunatics CC permits (you said this). You are kidding yourself if you think the antis won't use every tool at their disposal to make it harder for people to get CC permits. Look at what California is doing with handgun testing. Have you seen what is coming down the pike there (obviously not). The handgun tests will get continually more difficult to pass and eventually there iwll be no handguns tha pass. You just might find yourself not being "mentally there" enough to pass. That should scare you.
And who said it wasn't. Again, we are playing on words. You say shoot to stop, yet you advocate shooting to center of mass. Again I ask, if you want to kill someone (theoretically speaking) where do you shoot? Answer: to center of mass. If you want to stop a lethal force encounter, where do you shoot? Answer: to center of mass.
Shake
So that there is no confusion.
I believe that if you carry a concealed weapon, you should be ready and willing to use it should your life or the lives of your immediate family be in danger (by an assailant who has the ability, means and demonstrated intent of causing serious bodily injury or death) and you are left with no other alternative. I believe that you should practice religiously with that firearm.
I believe that you should carry the largest caliber that you can shoot well, that maximizes your ability to terminate the encounter in the quickest manner possible while minimizing danger to yourself or you loved ones. All of the above with allowances given for size and concealability.
I believe that you should shoot to stop the encounter as quickly as possible which involves placing multiple shots to the criminal's center of mass. The result of acheiving your objective will most likely mean death or serious injury to your assailant. Surviving a lethal force encounter will not make me a criminal or a killer, but a survivor. It will prove me to be someone who takes his family responsibilities seriously.
I believe that life is sacred. In the event that a criminal attempts to take my life or the lives of my loved ones, he will likely lose his. Why? Because I will shoot to center of mass until he stops. I would never be happy to have taken a life, but I will not be sad that I chose my life or the life of a loved one over his.
Anyone who carries a concealed weapon without understanding and being prepared for the potential consequences of a lethal force encounter shouldn't be packing.
Shake
I believe that if you carry a concealed weapon, you should be ready and willing to use it should your life or the lives of your immediate family be in danger (by an assailant who has the ability, means and demonstrated intent of causing serious bodily injury or death) and you are left with no other alternative. I believe that you should practice religiously with that firearm.
I believe that you should carry the largest caliber that you can shoot well, that maximizes your ability to terminate the encounter in the quickest manner possible while minimizing danger to yourself or you loved ones. All of the above with allowances given for size and concealability.
I believe that you should shoot to stop the encounter as quickly as possible which involves placing multiple shots to the criminal's center of mass. The result of acheiving your objective will most likely mean death or serious injury to your assailant. Surviving a lethal force encounter will not make me a criminal or a killer, but a survivor. It will prove me to be someone who takes his family responsibilities seriously.
I believe that life is sacred. In the event that a criminal attempts to take my life or the lives of my loved ones, he will likely lose his. Why? Because I will shoot to center of mass until he stops. I would never be happy to have taken a life, but I will not be sad that I chose my life or the life of a loved one over his.
Anyone who carries a concealed weapon without understanding and being prepared for the potential consequences of a lethal force encounter shouldn't be packing.
Shake
Blue Duck357,
I now see your point. I admit it eluded me initially. I concede you had the point well in hand while I rambled about two points in the bush. Forgive my presumptive nature in my previous post.
.
My solitary objection was that Trooper Coates .357 Magnum rounds somehow managed to "drop" his adversary. Trooper Coates shot placement was quite excellent, considering he had already taken multiple rounds to his bullet resistant vest in the struggle and the downward angle to his inversely prone assailant at the moment of his return fire.
Trooper Coates was in a fight for his life with a 300+ lb adversary demonstrably intent upon killing him. Regretably, the slimeball's sheer girth was sufficient to stop the fired Silvertips short of their optimum goal. May none of us ever face such a situation in our own lives.
Handguns have a limited usefulness in the arena of self-defense and this real-life scenario is demonstrative of just how badly things can go, even when one chooses (or has been directed to) one of the premier chamberings.
Conversely, the .22 LR fired by Coates adversary was the deciding factor in the fight. A fortuitous one for the perp, as it were. Had that single event not manifested itself, Trooper Coates would surely have prevailed that fateful day.
He has been called to higher duty.
I now see your point. I admit it eluded me initially. I concede you had the point well in hand while I rambled about two points in the bush. Forgive my presumptive nature in my previous post.
.My solitary objection was that Trooper Coates .357 Magnum rounds somehow managed to "drop" his adversary. Trooper Coates shot placement was quite excellent, considering he had already taken multiple rounds to his bullet resistant vest in the struggle and the downward angle to his inversely prone assailant at the moment of his return fire.
Trooper Coates was in a fight for his life with a 300+ lb adversary demonstrably intent upon killing him. Regretably, the slimeball's sheer girth was sufficient to stop the fired Silvertips short of their optimum goal. May none of us ever face such a situation in our own lives.
Handguns have a limited usefulness in the arena of self-defense and this real-life scenario is demonstrative of just how badly things can go, even when one chooses (or has been directed to) one of the premier chamberings.
Conversely, the .22 LR fired by Coates adversary was the deciding factor in the fight. A fortuitous one for the perp, as it were. Had that single event not manifested itself, Trooper Coates would surely have prevailed that fateful day.
He has been called to higher duty.
To all the Wartime Veterans...from one Wartime Veteran to Another. Happy Veterans Day!
To all the Law Enforcement Officers out there who have ever taken life in the line of Duty. Thank you for doing your job and protecting us.
To anyone who supports the death penalty. Thank you again.
I guess I had just better pass a round of thanks to all the fellow "Killers" out there.
Good Shooting
RED
Wow...alot of information and emotion...I like it.I agree with shot placement over caliber, but both combined is
the true answer...big enough gun/style of bullet and correct
placement is the only way ...but its still no guarantee it will
stop the bg. Your chances are very very good, however.
In regards to kill the bg/stop the threat. I have to agree with both. Let me explain. In my analysis the are very close to the
same thing. I will shoot until the bg is down and no question,
isnt getting up. A wounded bg with a gun is more of a threat
to you and yours than before he was wounded....shock, fear,
adrenaline etc assist the bg recovery a hell of alot. Therefore
I am damn well gonna make sure he doesnt get up.
And yes, if I did this. I would have taken a life. I am not what I
think of when you her the word "killer". I am literally a "killer"
but not in the sense most people associate bg's with. I have a
conscience and will consider the situation for the rest of my life.
But, if in the same situation I would do it again. Me/myne or them. NO CONTEST!
Shoot well
Brandon,
Besides reiterating your philosophical perspective, I have yet to read anything from you that states what you're actually advocating.
Is there some particular caliber that meets your moral guidelines?
Should everyone carry one less than what they would consider minimum (.40 to 9mm, 9mm to .380, .380 to letter opener, etc.)?
Suppose you won whatever it is you're arguing for; what do you want the losers to do? If you don't know, then you're just arguing to argue, rather than to affect change in people's choices.
That would make me mad.
Besides reiterating your philosophical perspective, I have yet to read anything from you that states what you're actually advocating.
Is there some particular caliber that meets your moral guidelines?
Should everyone carry one less than what they would consider minimum (.40 to 9mm, 9mm to .380, .380 to letter opener, etc.)?
Suppose you won whatever it is you're arguing for; what do you want the losers to do? If you don't know, then you're just arguing to argue, rather than to affect change in people's choices.
That would make me mad.