Do we need Hi-Capacity in everyday Carry?

[Brit]

I wonder if the Gentleman from Canada knows there is a wide-open concealed carry law, alive and well issued by the RCMP. All issued good for one year only. Has to be reissued each year.

It is called A Cross Canada permit? This allows you to carry a documented handgun, anywhere in Canada.

I once was an expert witness in the case of a young Lady. In the high court in Toronto. She was not the permit holder, her roommate was.

The roommates S&W Revolver, named on the piece of paper, was a 4" barreled .357 Mag. with Target sights, big wooden target grips, and had gone through the S&W accurizing shop Mod 686? (whatever it was called, sorry) why this young lady needed a gun to protect herself? She was a Cook in a Lumberjack Camp out West in Canada. When she received the Permit, she went to a local gun store, the only one for many miles. Who had this BIG gun in stock, which also managed to be the most expensive one in the shop!
She lived in a big double-wide, that was SECURE!
I do not believe she ever fired it. Anyhow, a short time after receiving permit, and gun! She quit her job, and headed to her friend in Toronto, by train!

Were it went in a drawer, in the S&W Cardboard box it came in. Plus a 50 round box of .357 lead Semi Wadcutters? Full power rounds.
I will give you the short version. The Newfy roommate, borrowed the S&W to go and rob a diamond store on Younge Street, the longest street in Canada.
She went into a Costume Jewelry store, by mistake! And shot the Indian Owner through the chest, accidentally. (I helped with that) He recovered.
The money was needed for her sick mother and the other 9 children in New Foundland. If you want all of the story? It would take ten pages.

The Homicide Sgt. Bert Novis delivered the .357 to the Court. He is long retired. He stuck his hand in the big envelope, grabbed it out by the barrel, and handed it to the Crown prosecutor, who walked towards me, in the Witness box, dry firing the revolver pointed at the floor. I pointed out to the Judge neither one of them had proved the revolver. The Crown said, "The Sgt. would not have given me a loaded weapon?" Bert just shrugged his Shoulders
and lifted his hands.

After I destroyed the Crowns testimony, wasn't hard, max of 8 and a half years was reduced to 4. This young Lady was 5 ft tall, with tiny hands.
I know, a long-winded story to point out the very rare case of a Cross Canada Permit being granted, but trust me, I have left a lot out.

 

[davidsog]

So what did the Committee of Needs decide?

 

[manta49]

I question that manta49. If I have failed to stop the threat with 5 rounds it’s already highly likely I’m on the wrong side of the equation.

I would take into account missing with some shots possibly all, i would also not rely on 5 shoots even hits stopping an attacker. So for me why not have the extra capacity just in case.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

It's surprising how often MISSED SHOTS never come up in these discussions.

WE all seem to assume we won't miss our target and the hits will all be to critical spots in the attacker's body!!​

I've been playing with a Remington RM380 and thinking about making it a carry weapon -- but the topic of "misses" has caused me to think that either my SR9c or CZ P07 (or FN9c or H&K VP9SK) will be a much-better carry weapon. The 6-7 rounds of the RM380, when you add MISSES to the picture, doesn't seem as appropriate as I once thought...

Rethinking it all, I suspect I'll only carry the RM380 when I can't carry something larger ... and THAT isn't likely to happen very often.

 

[Lohman446]

The use of legitimate force is almost always predicated on a violent threat of severe physical harm. If I miss five times, if I score five ineffective or slowly effective hits, or any combination thereof said violent attack has likely already found a violent end that is detrimental to me health. As others have noted in this thread it is likely on runs out of time before one runs out of ammo. If I run out of ammunition and am forced into close quarter combat with a wounded aggressor or find myself in close quarter combat with an aggressor who has failed in his or her violent intents for that much time I’ll likely be ok.

Nothing against those who have the ability to use more ammunition but if I need 15 rounds and have the time to use it I don’t have the skills to still be alive. My attackers will have already succeeded.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

Just so the point doesn't get lost, you can't know the future. You can't know if you will be attacked, how you will be attacked, or by how many aggressors. You can't know how it will go down, if you'll be injured, or if you'll be on your feet as it does.

In preparing for an open-ended future, we try to cover what bases we can. As we do, understanding the diversity of defensive encounters is valuable. I continue to recommend the Active Self Protection channel on YouTube towards that end.

 

[Lohman446]

The point is not lost. The counter point I would offer is that I stand a chance against a single competent and determined armed attacker though I acknowledge said attacker has the advantage of action over reaction. Maybe against two competent and determined attackers I get lucky. Three? Ok I have some outside chance if everything falls right I guess. Four? Nope. Let’s be honest. I lack the skill to overcome four competent and determined attackers even if luck is on my side and truth be told even a single competent and determined armed attacker poses a hurdle I am not certain to clear. Once we start discussing incompetent or undetermined attackers the scenario changes and I feel confident I am well enough equipped and prepared for such. It’s not a matter of knowing what might happen it’s a matter of knowing what one’s limits are. No reason to have a Ferrari if you only have the skill to drive 80MPH.

 

[m&p45acp10+1]

I like the fact that I need not have a pistol with 25 rounds of ammo loaded into the magazine. Yet I can and do have it. (FN 509 Tactical.) It also has a 17 round flush fit magazine. I have as of yet to carry it anywhere but on the range. I tend to carry my LCP with 7 rounds in my pocket. I have carried the 10+1 M&P as well as a Stoger Cougar 9mm with 15 rounds.

The heat here makes me not want to carry anything other than the pocket gun.

 

[Nanuk]

I just want a 30 caliber clipazine.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

The use of legitimate force is almost always predicated on a violent threat of severe physical harm. If I miss five times, if I score five ineffective or slowly effective hits, or any combination thereof said violent attack has likely already found a violent end that is detrimental to m[y] health.

Your logic, above, is a lot like the logic of most of us use when we subconsciously think we won't miss what we're aiming at while also assuming that our shots will have a nearly immediate effect We ignore the other alternatives and possibilities that may be equally likely.

As others have noted in this thread it is likely one runs out of time before one runs out of ammo. If I run out of ammunition and am forced into close quarter combat with a wounded aggressor or find myself in close quarter combat with an aggressor who has failed in his or her violent intents for that much time I’ll likely be ok.

And what if your aggressor is NOT wounded and still has rounds left? Or is carrying a big pointed stick, a baseball bat, or a long piece of rebar?

One reason your might not have enough time is that you started with 5-6 rounds rather than 10 or 15 -- especially if the bad guy you're shooting at is moving around.

You've offered some simple fatalistic or optimistic scenarios, but they are the extremes, which ignore many other possibilities between those extremes.

In the following video (done by a LEO who got into a shootout with a bad guy who was carrying concealed), both parties used their weapons, and both of them made good and bad hits. A lot of rounds were exchanged by both shooters, and most of their shots hit their targets, but only a couple were stoppers, and only one was CNS hit. None of this took a lot of time. It's an interesting video.

https://youtu.be/jIx0Y25aTfU

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There are so many things that go into this... I can discuss the case of the off-duty tactical officer and competitive shooter who happened upon a robbery in McDonald’s. He shot the robber until the robber dropped, just as he’d been taught. However, he shot so quickly that even though 10 of the 11 rounds were fatal, he burned through all the ammo he had before he observed and reacted to the bad guy dropping. The whole thing was over in less than three seconds.

In this case, there was only one robber and so he’s a hero. But what if there had been two?

Then we can get in to discussions on how trained people regularly make only 33% hits in real gunfights and maybe 1/3 of that 1/3 of hits actually have the potential to stop the fight in the next 30 seconds. How big does that ten round magazine look now with just one assailant?

Finally, I’ve got a dozen plus stories, including a few I can’t tell yet, of CHLs who ended up involved in mass shootings. These guys were using their every day carry against guys with rifles, and in some cases, body armor. That’s an unusual situation but for the normal people who got caught in it, it didn’t make them feel any better to know they were a statistical anomaly.

At the end of the day, the first rule of surviving a gunfight is “Have a gun.” Will a 6 shot .22LR be an optimum choice? Hell, no. But it beats the red dot equipped custom Glock 19 and three mags I left at home because it was a pain to carry.

 

[Pond James Pond]

So in other words, carry what you realistically can for something you can realistically conceal and shoot well.

What is realistically portable, what is concealed and what is good shooting are all for that particular person to decide.

 

[Brit]

I was once at a Guest Speaker lecture (IALAFI) the Female Officer speaker was shot in the upper chest, from the rear by a young gangbanger, who along with his girlfriend, had followed her home, this Officer was in uniform, but carrying her gun belt over her shoulder, as she walked towards her house. When she was shot in the back. Through and through.

The house was occupied by 3 ladies. One was observing, via a window, and saw the whole incident. I believe his pistol malfunctioned, the Officer drew her Berretta 92 from her carried holster, chased him around the vehicle, and shot him dead. The nurse roommate ran out and kept her alive till the ambulance arrived, and the Parra Medics took over.
The girlfriend ran away and was found hiding, hours later.

This was a long time ago, my memory might have not been perfect here, but I believe I have retrieved the gist of it.

Just as an observer, two points, only two shots fired, gang bangers quite often steal, swop, to obtain firearms that are crap. And on average, Police Officers have guns they have fired, and they work right out of the gate, so to speak.

 

[Lohman446]

And what if your aggressor is NOT wounded and still has rounds left? Or is carrying a big pointed stick, a baseball bat, or a long piece of rebar?

One reason your might not have enough time is that you started with 5-6 rounds rather than 10 or 15 -- especially if the bad guy you're shooting at is moving around.

Then I will either win in close quarters combat or I will meet the Valkyries wondering how, in a relatively peaceful modern society living a peaceful lifestyle and not having gone looking for problems, I possible managed to be killed in battle. In the end the difference will be a couple decades of my life not lived which, aside from those closest to me, will be meaningless to the world in general.

If my attacker has not overwhelmed me before my gun is empty then my attacker was either not competent or not determined. I am not the off-duty tactical and competitive shooter that is going to put 10 rounds in a target so quickly that the target will not have time to drop. If my attacker is not competent or not determined I still have a chance in close quarter combat because I have not gone with a defensive strategy of gun or nothing.

Edit: To be clear, and to the original question. I can only speak for what I need as I know (or believe I know) my unique situation and skill set. I do not know those of others. So I can only speak to what I "need". I cannot speak to what the rest of you need. So I cannot speak to "we". I do believe that accepting that one's right to effective self defense is a natural right and then placing artificial limits on it is at best highly suspect. Arguing that "I" know what is best for another fully competent and law abiding member of society is at best immoral paternalism and likely an indication of egoism if not narcissism.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

So in other words, carry what you realistically can for something you can realistically conceal and shoot well.

What is realistically portable, what is concealed and what is good shooting are all for that particular person to decide.

It's the sweet spot in the balance between maximum capacity, maximum power, what you can shoot well, what is suited for carry, and what you can reasonably walk around with concealed all day. That sweet spot will be different for different people, the weather on a given day, what we are wearing, and what we are doing.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

To be clear, and to the original question. I can only speak for what I need as I know (or believe I know) my unique situation and skill set. I do not know those of others. So I can only speak to what I "need". I cannot speak to what the rest of you need. So I cannot speak to "we".

A very rational statement and I mostly agree with it. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything I said in my earlier response that advocated imposing anything on you or anyone else. I was simply pointing out that your argument was based on two almost polar-opposite extremes that seemed to ignore many other possibilities that are equally or more likely to occur.

I do believe that accepting that one's right to effective self defense is a natural right and then placing artificial limits on it is at best highly suspect. Arguing that "I" know what is best for another fully competent and law abiding member of society is at best immoral paternalism and likely an indication of egoism if not narcissism.

Like you, I believe natural rights are important, but unless these concepts are enforced by the powers of the society in which we live, they remain little more than interesting ideas. It's hard to impose any limits on a natural law, as there's nothing there to limit. It is just an idea that exists only in our heads.

The rights to life, liberty, property, to select the people who govern us, to worship or practice the religion of our choice (or to NOT to worship or practice) as we see fit can all be quickly taken away -- and often are.

Such rights existed before there were formal laws because the members of a community shared values and enforced them. That these rights exist in the real world today is typically due to the fact that they are often made real thru laws created to give them effect.

Arguing that you have the natural right to life is credible only because others share that same belief -- and an unspoken shared belief that what is best for you is also best for everyone.

 

[Lohman446]

Natural rights, ultimately, are enforced by the individual. You have the right to defend your life, your liberty, and your property though the exact definition of property was somewhat contested even when Locke was theorizing on it.

You have the natural right to protect your life. We as a society seem to accept and understand this. If, however, we as a society remove the tools of effective self defense we have removed the right in all but name. It takes society to begin to enforce all but the most basics of right.

Put simply if you were dropped into an unknown land with seemingly no society most of us would not argue that you have the right to defend yourself as effectively as possible from the perils that would threaten you. I maintain that right exists until agreed upon laws of society remove it. For instance you may forfeit your moral right to self defense should you murder another individual in cold blood - I am not arguing that you have the right to defend yourself against legitimate arrest under the laws of society that you have lived in and as such agreed to. This may be getting off topic though

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Natural rights, ultimately, are enforced by the individual. You have the right to defend your life, your liberty, and your property though the exact definition of property was somewhat contested even when Locke was theorizing on it.

I would contend that what you describe above is not a RIGHT but a FREEDOM. What you call a natural right (such as self defense) is just a belief that you can do something until you find otherwise.

That seemed to be your definition of a right when you wrote the following:

I maintain that [a] right exists until agreed upon laws of society remove it.

And I maintain that a freedom exists until agreed upon laws of society outlaws it or gives it force by condoning and protecting it. If condoned, it becomes a LEGAL RIGHT.

LEGAL RIGHTS are powers that an individual can exercise even when doing so may actually harm others. Such powers are arguably more potent than freedoms.​

RIGHTS are society's way of maintaining freedoms in complex social situations. Natural rights, on the other hand, are ideas or guidelines that have no power behind them; legal rights are enforceable powers condoned and supported by society. Without society's support, a natural right remains an idea which, if acted on, will be considered either a freedom or an illegal act.

If you are dropped into an unknown land with no established rules, you have no rights -- but you arguably don't need them. You're free to do as you wish until someone who is more powerful, richer or smarter convinces you that you can't. In such a society, there is no social system in place to condone or enforce your actions, or punish those who disagree with your beliefs or behavior.

 

[Brit]

As I have said B/4 I come from quite a rough upbringing, not my family life, just the places I lived in.
As a person who started all of the fights, I was in! It is no surprise that I only lost one! The one I did not start.

People who do not fit into a place, stand out like a sore thumb! And sometimes it is not what they are doing, just how they are, how they dressed, standing, just some little vibe as in an off musical note? Missing it? Not so good.

 

[Geezerbiker]

When I bought my carry gun I considered a Glock 19. I liked the 15 rounds but I went for a more concealable S&W Shield. I carry a spare 8 round mag and I hope I never need to use either. Regardless I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to carry something with more rounds.

Tony