Do we need Hi-Capacity in everyday Carry?

[Nanuk]

BRIT;

https://www.policemag.com/363559/lapd-officer-stacey-lims-lethal-force-encounter

 

[Brit]

Nanuk.

Well, that is the Officer! I guess my memory sucks! Which I knew.
I love the way she had the walk to the door routine down pat! Pistol under the thigh, then under the armpit. You could not be more ready than 16 rounds in your hand ready to go, double-action first shot.

I have a similar situation to speak of, but not at this time. I do not want to take away from this wonderful woman's extraordinary story. Stacy go girl.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Geez....It's 2019 and about to be 2020 and we still use this shortsighted method of thinking: "If I need more than X amount of rounds then I guess I'm screwed"

You're really going to think and say that if the fight for your life happens? Really?
If you want to carry a low capacity pistol, there is no issue at all. Thank God you're carrying and I'm happy. But don't sell the idea as in any way better than a higher capacity double stack. Based on the gun fight you've created in your range mind.

That's just wrong. More is better and if you want to carry less, fine. Just be aware that it IS a handicap in comparison.

Missed shots, non-vital hits, multiple attackers, barriers, etc. All things that keep a higher capacity pistol as a better choice.

 

[Lohman446]

But don't sell the idea as in any way better than a higher capacity double stack

You have created, and thoroughly eviscerated, a straw man. Think of the poor straw man... Who made the argument in this thread you are referencing and seemingly upset by?

It is no surprise that I only lost one! The one I did not start.

Action > reaction. This is one of the fundamental problems those considering self defense run into. By the time the bullets are flying its probably too late. You cannot simply react to what an aggressor is doing. At some point you have to get ahead of the curve.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

You have created, and thoroughly eviscerated, a straw man. Think of the poor straw man... Who made the argument in this thread you are referencing and seemingly upset by?

I don't think so.

I wouldn't try to talk a person out of carrying less ammunition in their gun as anything better. If I was to, it'd be for size and concealment reasons. Not because of the "average" number of gunfights.

Better to have it and not need it. Deterring someone from carrying a higher capacity single stack when you don't have to be doing that based on that notion is just...wrong.

 

[Lohman446]

I wouldn't try to talk a person out of carrying less ammunition in their gun as anything better. If I was to, it'd be for size and concealment reasons. Not because of the "average" number of gunfights.

Better to have it and not need it. Deterring someone from carrying a higher capacity single stack when you don't have to be doing that based on that notion is just...wrong.

Straw man. The idea that you set up an argument that was never actually made and destroy said argument. Its generally impressive and its pretty readily done because straw men are just that.

However I called it as a straw man because I am trying to find where anyone made the argument here that having less shots is better. Your arguing against a premise that was never offered.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Well, I'm saying that citing the reason to carry less ammo as a source is wrong. And it is. If you choose not to see that, that's your prerogative.

 

[Lohman446]

Well, I'm saying that citing the reason to carry less ammo as a source is wrong

Which source? The funny part is we don't disagree with a part of your premise. The concept that all other things being equal having more ammunition, even to the point of excess, if preferable to having too little ammunition to the point of not having enough.

I'm trying to find where I, or anyone else, made the argument that having less ammunition was preferable?

The closest argument I can come up with is that I have argued there is a limit to how much ammunition one is going to carry and make use of. Otherwise we would take your argument into absurdity and point out you (probably) do not carry 1000 rounds everywhere you go. You would like point out this was a logical fallacy in that I had made an argument of the absurd. We would then point out that everyone has some limit the carry because we don't all agree that X (60?) rounds is the right amount to carry.

I still would claim you have created a straw man by building up the alleged premise (carrying less is better) and then destroying it rather effectively. The thing is no one ever made the argument that less is better.

I have made the argument that my skill set limits the amount of ammunition that is useful to me. I have acknowledged I may have miscalculated and such may result in my demise. I have simply noted my demise is ultimately unavoidable and outside of some close people it would impact a few decades difference in my demise is not of import to the greater society.

Edit: I should also point out that I have been very careful to speak only for the "me" and noted that everyone is different and has a different skill set, perceived level of ability, and perceived threat. I cannot speak to what the "we" need but some of you apparently do feel the need for high capacity magazines. I have argued that is your right and demanding that it be limited would be, in my opinion, immoral and unnecessary paternalism.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

There are many ways to say something without saying something blatantly.

Why are you arguing with yourself? Just say that's not what you meant and move on.

My comment is mainly for other people who may read these posts wrong.

It's been mentioned various times that one doesn't *need* more than X number of rounds. Same way you have the capability of reading my apparent triggering responses, read the other response that say that. That is my reply. No strawman. lol, you seem to love saying that.

 

[Lohman446]

It's been mentioned various times that one doesn't *need* more than X number of rounds.

What is the number of rounds one needs? I'm going to guess you don't carry 1000 rounds.

/I think I predicted this line of argument.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

As many as they can comfortably carry.

As many as it takes to stop THEIR fight.

And they should not be deterred or hindered by anybody for doing so.

How many gun fights or force on force training exercises have you been in?

-- I already know your response. --

 

[Lohman446]

Gun fights? None. Force on force on training. Countless But you probably don't mean self defense training in martial arts or staff training. Training against individuals attempted to "simulate" shooting you in "advanced handgun training" classes (blue guns) - twice though I am still skeptical of the actual use of said training in real world situations.

Playing games where people were firing projectiles at you - this goes into the countless though it was never good training or simulation (agreed upon rules of sport). I will give you that we widely preached the concept of "accuracy by volume" but again that was always just a game and equipment was not limited by concealability. Carrying thousands of rounds was not uncommon.

As many as it takes to stop THEIR fight.

Your advocating for zero. It has taken exactly zero shots to stop every fight I have ever been

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Of course.

Sim-munitions are a great way to have a real-life feeling of a gun fight. Most people who carried low capacity pistols (guy in class had a Shield so they dropped only 7 rounds in his mag every time) in the force on force classes did not go on to carry the same pistol when they left. They mentioned changing out to their wonder nine of some flavor.

It really puts things into perspective when one applies what they're learned in the next best thing alongside real gun fighting. Even weapons manipulation becomes a whole different animal with that adrenaline rush.

Just something for the new people coming into this to consider. I don't want any of them being thrown off by antiquated anecdotes.

Missed your edit:

Your advocating for zero. It has taken exactly zero shots to stop every fight I have ever been

A fight avoided is a fight won. No one debated that, Mr. Strawman.

We're talking gun fights, are we not? In correlation to capacity. A higher capacity will always be better suited. To go one higher, a rifle will always be better suited, and to go one higher than that, not being there will always be better suited.

 

[fastbolt]

This isn't a "contest", guys.

FWIW, I've known cops who were involved in on & off-duty shootings who still continued to choose 5 & 6-shot revolvers, or short single stack pistols, on their own time.

Capacity is just one of the factors typically expressed as being appropriate for someone to consider when choosing an off-duty, retirement or CCW weapon.

As someone who has primarily trained and helped teach cops, but has also helped teach private citizen classes, I make it a practice not to denigrate or question someone's choice of weapon when they show up for training, quals or a class. Instead, I simply put them through the usual paces and let them discover for themselves whether their choice offers them advantages that suit their anticipated needs, or reveals an unexpected disadvantage.

Bottom line, it's not for me to make their choice, and I'm not the one who might have to live or die with their decision.

I have my own considerations and choices to make. Over the course of my career and years of training and training others, that's resulted in my deciding that my normal "needs" can be met with small 5-shot revolvers and small pistols that use mags which only hold as little as 6rds ... and up to larger pistols that have 10 & 12rd mags.

I don't care what others choose, or are required/restricted to use. When I'm wearing my Firearms Instructor hat I'm only concerned about what they can do with what they're using.

 

[Lohman446]

A fight avoided is a fight won. No one debated that, Mr. Strawman.

Brit can tell you about a lot of fights that were won without firing a shot.

Of course simunition training, designed to showcase firearm training, is going to highlight firearm useage. It would be like someone coming out of a NASCAR race and advocating for left turns. Are you certain they actually are representative of real life scenarios? I'm sure some are. I am sure some are not

Ever watch martial arts training for a knife attack? Its laughably scripted and inspires dangerous self confidence. Very easy for training to model unrealistic scenarios based on the bias of the trainer.

Example: I was in a firearms class that required firing seven rounds at a time. I knew this and came prepared. The older gentleman next to me was using a five or six shot revolver and necessitated reload. It made him look bad. Watching him trust me you would much rather have him next to you in a gun fight then me.

Edit: I'll take FASTBOLT's advise and go to my corner and shut up (it was worded better)

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

fastbolt

Of course, I agree with that 100%

My gripe is the people telling others that they don't *need* a higher capacity pistol for EDC when they choose one and citing statistics as their source.

I mentioned how I don't mind anyone carrying a micro 9mm or 380, as long as their carrying. But to tell someone who is carrying a full-sized pistol that they don't need it is just wrong. Not their place and the same points could be argued back to them as to why they might.

 

[totaldla]

I finally hit the title, above. Do we need Hi-Capacity in everyday Carry?
As law-abiding citizens, in our everyday life?

No, I don't. The first few years I had my CHL I bought into all the martial arts BS and carried a G19. But one day I realized I'm not a Cop, I don't do Cop business and I don't have to engage in long gunfights with bad guys.
Now I carry an 8 shot, 9mm, Keltec PF9 always. I can put those 8 rounds on target @ 20yds consistently. Plenty for any hero fantasies I might have.
If I expect to get into a fight, I carry a rifle.

 

[fastbolt]

fastbolt

Of course, I agree with that 100%

My gripe is the people telling others that they don't *need* a higher capacity pistol for EDC when they choose one and citing statistics as their source.

I mentioned how I don't mind anyone carrying a micro 9mm or 380, as long as their carrying. But to tell someone who is carrying a full-sized pistol that they don't need it is just wrong. Not their place and the same points could be argued back to them as to why they might.

I've typically found that it's much easier to always try and rise above petty arguments regarding things like "caliber", "capacity", brand names", etc.

I've seen people who carry up to 50 or more rounds of ammunition on their person, with double stack mags virtually filling their belt line ... but having watched them react to demanding qual and training scenarios, it wouldn't have surprised me if they turned out to be the lunch of just about any "bad guy" who might decide to attack them.

I've seen others who only carry 5 or 6-shot revolvers (or even diminutive .380's ) who exhibited the calmness of nerve, skills and abilities that made me suspect they'd easily "command" their immediate environment in most any nasty deadly force incident which might occur.

Would the hi-cap ammo and magazine laden person fare even worse if they were using a 5 or 6-shot weapon? Probably ... presuming they even survived to use that minimum number of rounds.

Would the "low cap" weapon carrier fare better if carrying a weapon holding more rounds? Sure ... if those extra rounds were needed.

This is where risk assessment (and experience, including experiential knowledge) can come into play when making choices.

If folks get to choose for themselves, then they must face the realization that they're responsible for any consequences of their choices, as well as their actions. That goes for all of us.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

That all comes down to training. I've also seen the opposite occur where the tactical Timmy out did the older gentleman.

That training comes from people who have done these things and a majority of them advocate higher capacity instead of lower capacity firearms. While also and secondly advocating something, anything to carry!

Given the assumption that their followers also train.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I have made the argument that my skill set limits the amount of ammunition that is useful to me. I have acknowledged I may have miscalculated and such may result in my demise. I have simply noted my demise is ultimately unavoidable and outside of some close people it would impact a few decades difference in my demise is not of import to the greater society.

I'll agree that you've never said that less was better -- and also that your argument was YOUR plan, and yours alone -- and not proposed for anyone else. You seem to have spent a good deal of thought refining your likely course of action in a self-defense situation and its justification.

The part of your rationale and justification I find difficult to grasp, however, is that you seem to think that your skill set (whatever that may be) is likely to be effective in situations where only a relatively few shots will ever be fired and the whole event will never take more than a few minutes. Is that realistic?

What if an armed attacker with a handgun is a poor shot, is nervous, backs away and then reengages, is impaired (drugs or liquor), or the event takes place over a longer period of time because the surroundings offer cover but few escape routes? What if you can make it to cover? It might not take more rounds than you carry, but it might take a lot longer to get out of harm's way. Time and the rounds available are not necessarily a fixed ratio. That said, I'll agree that most recorded civilian self-defense events seem to be 1-4 rounds over an unknown time frame. There can be exceptions -- but it's the exceptions -- like being attacked in the first place -- that we're all trying to address.)

Some very poorly-skilled people have survived very perilous situations simply because they were determined to live, didn't give up, and just continued the fight.​

Ever watch martial arts training for a knife attack? Its laughably scripted and inspires dangerous self confidence. Very easy for training to model unrealistic scenarios based on the bias of the trainer.

Unlike the training offered for most of the martial arts, most handgun trainees get their training very irregularly or infrequently. And there is really little way to TEST whether the trainee has mastered the skills being taught (and can demonstrate them a day or week later.) To make matters worse, there also isn't a really consistent body of basic skills being taught -- content can vary greatly from one instructor to the next.

This discussion and the one about wound ballistics titled "A gel expert explains" on The High Road forum have caused me to rethink my planned use of a small .380 pistol for daily carry. I had spent time and money improving the gun with after-market parts, and practiced enough to become somewhat proficient and comfortable with the gun at the range. I'd argue that this particular gun is about as effective as a true .380 pocket gun can be.

Over the past week, after reading a lot of the links in the The High Road discussion, I have come to understand that I was unconsciously assuming that any of my shots that DID NOT miss (which could be just one or two hits, given the chaos of such battles) -- even if they were not Central Nervous System (CNS) hits -- were likely to deter or stop most attackers. That probably is NOT going to be the case.

I now believe that most center-fire rounds are unlikely to stop an attacker quickly without a CNS hit, but that 9mm or or higher caliber rounds will likely to do a better job of slowing down or stopping an attacker than a small .380. (I also acknowledge that most of these small pocket guns are harder to shoot accurately if only because of so-so triggers and marginal sights.)

I've now rethought my rationale and my unconscious justifications for it, and I now think I'll almost always be carrying a slightly larger higher-caliber gun with bit more capacity. Why? I want to be able to be ready for more of those exceptions.