You have to assess the risks of the area you are going to be in, or even areas to stay out of, and equip yourself accordingly. There are many areas, especially in my home town, where I don't feel I need to carry at all. Rather than not carry I grab the NAA and drop it in my pocket. And for the record, I train with the NAA. 22mag speer gold dots, which open reliably and penetrate to FBI standards are nothing to scoff at. Especially given that I can hit a gator aid bottle lid at 7yds with the gun. Just because you personally FEEL that a 15+1 9mm is the bare minimum for you, does not MAKE it the bare minimum, or MAKE it inadequate for everyone else. If you re going to start a topic of conversation i suggest you keep an open mind and try to learn why people do what they do and think what they think, vs bashing people over the head based on your personal preferences.
Here is my risk assessment:
I assess that if I have to defend myself I want at least a Glock 19 in hand.
I've not carried less than a Glock 19 in over 3 years, including summers.
This thread is about my personal preference.
I carry what I would prefer in hand if I had to defend myself, location not factored. Nothing less than a Glock 19 meets that criteria.
Opposite view from mine:
Anticipated threat, statistics, 3/3 something, psychic ability, Magic 8 Ball.
On a quick trip to the store, I'll bet my life on a pocket 380 in case somebody(s) try to kill me.
If I have to go to "indian country" then I bet my life on a 9mm + spare mag (whatever) in case somebody(s) try to kill me.
Between my philosophy versus the opposite, I'd rather err with my "overkill".
I'm not bashing anybody. If you prefer to risk your life on a NAA 22 or nothing, oh well, doesn't impact me.
If this thread is just you telling people what you are comfortable with and to heck with anyone else, then why even make it a thread?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t necessarily see it as other people trying to convince you. I see at as them explaining their rationale. To me that’s a completely legitimate use of a forum system. It’s about discussion, not talking at people. The latter is for a blog.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But I think think it shows a real lack of experience and wisdom.
I can understand a caliber preference: Some folks think that anything less than the 9mm Para simply will not stop a determined attacker.
I understand that line of thought.
What I don't understand is the notion than one needs to carry nothing less than a 15+1 round Glock 19 (probably with an extra magazine) everywhere they go, for self defense.
A Glock 43 9mm Para with 6+1 rounds is probably more than enough.
And it's lighter weight (which equals more comfortable to carry) and easier to conceal than the Glock 19.
Heck, even a 5 shot 9mm snub-nosed revolver is probably more than enough.
I can't see any self defense situation where you're going to need to shoot 16 rounds.
But it's a free nation (mostly), and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
But I think think it shows a real lack of experience and wisdom.
I never called you dumb.I suppose I'm pretty dumb to want to be able clear a malfunction and insert new magazine.
I never called you dumb.
And as I said before...it's a free nation (mostly) and it's your right to carry as much weight and bulk as you like.
Heck, carry a Glock 19 on your strong side (with an extra magazine of course, for those malfunctions), and at the same time, carry a Glock 43 in your weak hand front pocket (again, with a spare magazine, for those malfunctions) if that helps you sleep at night.
But, eventually, you'll come around to the truth.
I predict that in ten years time, you will change your mind about what is acceptable for self defense carry.
I've noticed over the years that young and inexperienced guys mostly carry full sized handguns.
And older and more experienced guys mostly carry compact or sub-compact handguns.
As always, there are exceptions (especially 1911 fans), but from my observations the above is true about 95% of the time.
It’s interesting to me that this conversation doesn’t seem possible without one side denigrating the other. If you carry too little you’re obviously not serious about self defense. If you carry too much you’re inexperienced and a poor shot. Both sides say people should carry what they find comfortable, but generally not without making one of the above comments before ending their post. I don’t understand why it becomes so dogmatic.
I'm a "1911 guy," so maybe the above doesn't apply to me. And I don't "push" capacity, but I am also not (IMHO) insecure in my abilities. I prefer to think that I am realistic.TBM900 said:Because with age usually comes wisdom and experiencepeacefulgary said:I've noticed over the years that young and inexperienced guys mostly carry full sized handguns.
And older and more experienced guys mostly carry compact or sub-compact handguns.
As always, there are exceptions (especially 1911 fans), but from my observations the above is true about 95% of the time.
Unfortunately not always (some simply never learn) but more often than not
Your sentiment also usually translates to those who actually hunt versus those who don't
Ive found that those who push caliber/capacity are usually very insecure in their abilities
Which is most always weeded out when they are put under pressure