how many rounds

[OldMarksman]

Posted by str8tshot:

I read in the thread that some are worried about the legal defense of how much ammo they carry, did they reload, is the threat real etc.

The first might go to state of mind--maybe.

The second, not so much, if the actor was able to do so and if the answer to the third is (still) yes.

The third has to be assessed before drawing, before shooting, and before continuing to shoot.

That line of thinking, at least in my mind, should be answered before the decision to carry a firearm. A perfectly logical conclusion to those primary concerns would be not to carry. Much like the decision not to carry because a person is not willing to kill someone else.

WHAT??!!?

 

[briandg]

A funny little story. a few miles north of here, a guy was having wife trouble. It resulted in him taking a 30-30 out the door and sticking it in her face as she drove away. He "accidentally" pulled the trigger and the follow up shot was a "hunter's instinct to send a double tap to make sure the game is dead."

Yes, no joking, honest to god. he took that defense to court.

Regarding the idea of a hemophiliac or other particularly fragile person, in a situation where a 200 pound thug has laid hands on that person, that person is immediately, automatically in danger of losing his life. a broken nose can do that. The immediate decision is whether or not killing the attacker is necessary.

BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY.

many jurisdictions have laws protecting the individual. Very few prosecuting attorneys are going to prosecute a little old man who has hemophilia and arthritis for shooting a person who presented a clear and present danger to the other person's life, unless the case against the shooter is absolutely, totally clear. Every prosecuting attorney has to face the public. the public may just burn him at the stake if he sends the retired math teacher to prison when the old man was the victim.

a friend of mine online is about 70 years old, and crippled. he was attacked by a pit bull. he belted it with a cane. the owner of the dog beat the -CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- out of him. He has brain damage now. Since it happened in his neighborhood, the owner of the dog is nearby at all times. I advised that he get some sort of weapon, mace, stun gun, etc, and that if that dog's owner showed up, expressed a threat of any sort, and approached him in a threatening manner, that he use whatever he has IMMEDIATELY. The person almost killed him the last time. If he will violate the terms of the sentence and try to assault him again, his life probably depends absolutely on putting the guy down instantly.

I had a lot of people tell me that this was a really bad idea, that he should wait until the guy hits him.

Gimme a break If the guy hits him once, he will probably die.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by volkstrm
Well the way I see it & for guys like RJM I think you need to look at it this way also. You never know what, when & where something will go down no madder where you are. All hell can brake loose. A riot can brake out at anytime & you can be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Also you could be some place where a sicko shooter is trying to kill a lot of people or a terrorist attack going on & people will kill you if you have what they need to stay alive. That is why when I carry(that's all the time) I have a full mag in the gun & two ex mag's plus 200 rounds in the glove box of my truck. So if I am carrying my 9mm full size it 16+1 2 full mag 16x2=32 that's a total of 59 rounds. If the 9mm compact it 14+1 2 mag's 14x2=28,total 43. If my 40 s&w it's 12+1 2 mag's 12x2=24,total 37. all with the 200 rounds in the glove box. I almost never carry my 45acp because of low round count sig,220combat 8+1 & cz97b 10+1. All you have to do is watch the news to see all the sick things that happen today. And if I get stuck in that mess I want to have a way to fight my way out to live not just be rolled over & killed. Remember the lowlife scum riot for nothing today!

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you are attacked by a rioting mob that is willing to brave gunfire to take whatever it is that they want from you, your number is probably up regardless of whether your gun holds 8 rounds or 800 rounds. Fending off multiple determined attackers with a handgun, particularly if those attackers have a plan, isn't generally a winning situation for the defender.

If you really carry a full-size 9mm and 59 rounds of ammunition regularly, that's good for you. However, most people simply will not carry that much weight and bulk regularly. We can all talk about how a gun is supposed to be comforting instead of comfortable and whatever other cliches we like, but the fact of the matter is that carrying a full-size gun and multiple reloads is uncomfortable and inconvenient. One thing that I've learned over the years is that people are incredibly adept at rationalizing not doing things that they don't want to do even if they know they should.

How many times have most of us rationalized not carrying by saying to ourselves "I'm just running to the store for a loaf of bread," or "I'm just going to such-and-such, that's a pretty safe place." I'm honest enough to admit that I've rationalized not carrying like that before. However, a snub revolver or small, single-stack semi-auto that I can slip in my pants pocket is a lot harder to rationalize not carrying. It can go in my pocket when I get up in the morning just like my keys, wallet, and pocket knife do and it's not uncomfortable or inconvenient to keep it there all day long. Regardless of how many people might attack me, I think the small, light, low-capacity gun that I have with me is far superior to the big, heavy, high-capacity gun I rationalized leaving at home.

 

[BlueTrain]

I'd say, judging from posts on this forum, you're much more likely to need a gun if you stayed at home instead of going to the supermarket. Just my impression.

 

[shafter]

If you need to use a gun it's going to be the worst day of your life. Why would you deliberately handicap yourself in preparation for that day? The streets are crawling with people on drugs that give people freakish stamina and toleration to pain and these people aren't just in the "bad part" of town and they aren't always alone.

I used to be a fan of carrying a 5 shot .38 but more and more these days I'm choosing something with more power and more capacity.

 

[Grizz12]

I didnt read all 7 pages but here is my .02

Its better to have the extra rounds and not need them, than to need them and not have them

 

[briandg]

Btw, the old man that I referenced earlier disappeared from his accounts shortly after the attack and nobody could make phone contact.

He is presumed dead.

 

[tallball]

According to FBI statistics, violent crime has been steadily decreasing since 1991.

It seemed appropriate to mention that here, since it seems that there are those who incorrectly believe the opposite.

I looked it up last night. If I recall correctly, it's now about half of what it was in 1991.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That is meaningless if you do manage to get into a critical incident.

That's what folks don't get. The extra rounds are for when you are in the fight, not a statistics table on risk ever happening.

 

[849ACSO]

This is coming from a 20+ year LEO, and just from my observations.

The average person is best suited with what they can shoot well and WILL carry. I carry a 1911 commander on and off duty. I also carry a spare mag. I do this because, unlike a ccw holder, I may find myself in a situation when I have a DUTY to act, and won't have the option to be silent and just worry about me. Therefore; the likelihood of me dealing with multiple assailants becomes more of reality for me than a civilian ccw person. (ie - if you witness a bank robbery where there is no IMMEDIATE threat of being shot, you should do just that, be a good witness. I don't neccesarily have that option.)

I train with that gun and have for years. Now that I have said TRAIN, I have found that most folks go to the range, shoot a bunch of ammo, and don't TRAIN. That's marksmanship, not training. The average heart rate during a lethal force encounter will near 200bpm. Motor skills are severely impaired. How many of you have ever sprinted 100 yards to get you heart rate up then make good shots on a target at 7 yards? That heart rate will be about 140 to 160. Do a few pushups then try to shoot. Do you have dummy rounds to train in malfunction drills? Likely not.

The next thing is a gunfight normally starts as something else that goes too far (fist fight/strong armed robbery, etc.) so, is likely going to be at 7 yards or less and one, MAYBE 2 assailants.

All of that said, most non LEO folks are well served by a revolver. If you can't hit a target at 7 yards, under stress with a 2" barrel with all 5 or 6 (or 7 or 9) shots, a longer barrel and more ammo won't help you.

Again, most real gunfights may involve of shooting positions causing malfunctions to a semi auto. Can you clear it quickly and get back to business? Probably not. I see veteran police officers, who we force to TRAIN, literally have a 2 second bout of "oh sh*t" before they figure out there was a click and not a bang before they can get around to clearing the problem. A revolver malfunction drill is pretty simple. If it don't go off, pull the trigger again. Short of broken equipment, it will eventually go off.

There's a whole laundry list of why a revolver is a much better option for the average ccw folks, that we could have an entire forum about it, but you get the idea.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is an excellent post and brings up a long standing debate in the firearms community of how to deal with folks who carry a gun / have one at home/ only have a truck or car gun but do not train with such.

The revolver serves them well for the 'average' mugger type incident. Folks who carry a full size semi and extra ammo but have no real training with it - is this a liability?

It's an empirical question. We really don't know how many gun fails there are with that subsample of folks in critical incidents.

Certainly, I'm for folks have significant training with carry guns.

 

[OldMarksman]

Post #170...

...really nails it.

The takeaway point, in my opinion, is not really that one would rely upon a revolver, but that one should avail oneself of some relevant training.

That's not just for skill development. It's also to give the trainee some idea of what he or she will be expected to do.

One of the things about people who have not taken some training is that they do not know what it is that they do not know.

 

[briandg]

If the fbi UCR report shows a steady drop in violent crime, it is totally meaningless in this context. Go back to that report, filter out the simple bar fights, simple street robbery, shoplifters who fight back, parking lot punchings, and other minor alterations. Now, count up crime using guns,death and injury by guns, number of LE murdered, fatal beatings, other extremely violent crime and those committed by hardened felons. Get back with us with stats on aggravated assault and rape, guns involved in felony crimes, and give us factual numbers. Then put in links to the pages.

 

[str8tshot]

The first might go to state of mind--maybe.



The second, not so much, if the actor was able to do so and if the answer to the third is (still) yes.



The third has to be assessed before drawing, before shooting, and before continuing to shoot.

OK, not the point I was making but thanks for the insight.

WHAT??!!?

If a person's PRIMARY concern is a defense against prosecution, those things should be considered before deciding to carry.
If I am more worried about legal consequences than I am dying in a violent encounter, a logical conclusion would be not to carry a gun in the first place. Understand your priorities before you decide to carry a gun, then work to mitigate the risks after the decision. The tone of this thread has been one of fear of prosecution over how many rounds to carry, do I get prosecuted for reloading, if I shoot twice instead of once will I go to jail. The real question is are you in danger? If so, continue the defense until you are not in danger, regardless of how many rounds you shoot or times you reload.

 

[adamBomb]

This is coming from a 20+ year LEO, and just from my observations.

The average person is best suited with what they can shoot well and WILL carry. I carry a 1911 commander on and off duty. I also carry a spare mag. I do this because, unlike a ccw holder, I may find myself in a situation when I have a DUTY to act, and won't have the option to be silent and just worry about me. Therefore; the likelihood of me dealing with multiple assailants becomes more of reality for me than a civilian ccw person. (ie - if you witness a bank robbery where there is no IMMEDIATE threat of being shot, you should do just that, be a good witness. I don't neccesarily have that option.)

I train with that gun and have for years. Now that I have said TRAIN, I have found that most folks go to the range, shoot a bunch of ammo, and don't TRAIN. That's marksmanship, not training. The average heart rate during a lethal force encounter will near 200bpm. Motor skills are severely impaired. How many of you have ever sprinted 100 yards to get you heart rate up then make good shots on a target at 7 yards? That heart rate will be about 140 to 160. Do a few pushups then try to shoot. Do you have dummy rounds to train in malfunction drills? Likely not.

The next thing is a gunfight normally starts as something else that goes too far (fist fight/strong armed robbery, etc.) so, is likely going to be at 7 yards or less and one, MAYBE 2 assailants.

All of that said, most non LEO folks are well served by a revolver. If you can't hit a target at 7 yards, under stress with a 2" barrel with all 5 or 6 (or 7 or 9) shots, a longer barrel and more ammo won't help you.

Again, most real gunfights may involve of shooting positions causing malfunctions to a semi auto. Can you clear it quickly and get back to business? Probably not. I see veteran police officers, who we force to TRAIN, literally have a 2 second bout of "oh sh*t" before they figure out there was a click and not a bang before they can get around to clearing the problem. A revolver malfunction drill is pretty simple. If it don't go off, pull the trigger again. Short of broken equipment, it will eventually go off.

There's a whole laundry list of why a revolver is a much better option for the average ccw folks, that we could have an entire forum about it, but you get the idea.

A lot of great points here. Some I have not really thought about. Thanks for the info.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by str8tshot:

The tone of this thread has been one of fear of prosecution over how many rounds to carry, do I get prosecuted for reloading, if I shoot twice instead of once will I go to jail.

Hardly.

In 175 or so posts, it has been mentioned that carrying an unusually large number of magazines could enter into the question of state of mind. It has been mentioned that if one is able to reload and does so because of necessity, there would likely not be a legal issue. And it has been pointed out that if there isn't reason to believe that the threat is "real" one should not draw, much less shoot.

Whether one is "more worried" about those issues than about other things is nt an issue. One had better understand them.

 

[briandg]

I don't like the stand your ground laws. If they are made absolute, so that all it takes is fear for one's life, without any qualifications,there will be many unjustified killings. If we add Hundreds of restrictions and limitations to it, we wind up right where we started. Uncertain of our rights and responsibilities, an in danger of doing something wrong. Add that to the one obvious problem with the legal system, the fact justice can fail when a hostile legal system brings the full resources to bear on a person who gets their attention, and the shooter can lose.

As long as there are bad guys, the good guys risk loss of life, freedom, property. That can't be changed.

Otoh, IMO, castle laws are good as they are. The only restrictions on deadly force is that a legitimate fear be evidenced. Unless the shooting involves someone who was in the home with permission, the scenario is pretty clear.

 

[drobs]

This is coming from a 20+ year LEO, and just from my observations.

The average person is best suited with what they can shoot well and WILL carry. I carry a 1911 commander on and off duty. I also carry a spare mag. I do this because, unlike a ccw holder, I may find myself in a situation when I have a DUTY to act, and won't have the option to be silent and just worry about me. Therefore; the likelihood of me dealing with multiple assailants becomes more of reality for me than a civilian ccw person. (ie - if you witness a bank robbery where there is no IMMEDIATE threat of being shot, you should do just that, be a good witness. I don't neccesarily have that option.)

I train with that gun and have for years. Now that I have said TRAIN, I have found that most folks go to the range, shoot a bunch of ammo, and don't TRAIN. That's marksmanship, not training. The average heart rate during a lethal force encounter will near 200bpm. Motor skills are severely impaired. How many of you have ever sprinted 100 yards to get you heart rate up then make good shots on a target at 7 yards? That heart rate will be about 140 to 160. Do a few pushups then try to shoot. Do you have dummy rounds to train in malfunction drills? Likely not.

The next thing is a gunfight normally starts as something else that goes too far (fist fight/strong armed robbery, etc.) so, is likely going to be at 7 yards or less and one, MAYBE 2 assailants.

All of that said, most non LEO folks are well served by a revolver. If you can't hit a target at 7 yards, under stress with a 2" barrel with all 5 or 6 (or 7 or 9) shots, a longer barrel and more ammo won't help you.

Again, most real gunfights may involve of shooting positions causing malfunctions to a semi auto. Can you clear it quickly and get back to business? Probably not. I see veteran police officers, who we force to TRAIN, literally have a 2 second bout of "oh sh*t" before they figure out there was a click and not a bang before they can get around to clearing the problem. A revolver malfunction drill is pretty simple. If it don't go off, pull the trigger again. Short of broken equipment, it will eventually go off.

There's a whole laundry list of why a revolver is a much better option for the average ccw folks, that we could have an entire forum about it, but you get the idea.

All this talk or malfunctions and clearing drills, I can tell you carry a 1911...

 

[BlueTrain]

I keep wondering how, after a hundred years of widespread use, even to the exclusion of revolvers in many instances, people still believe automatic pistols are basically unreliable and difficult to use, even for a woman. I also question the belief that it is necessary to shoot a box or two of ammo every weekend to remain proficient enough to hit a target from across the room and a fairly large target at that. One might be better served by taking some kind of advanced tactical driving course. There are far more dangerous and careless drivers and accidents on the roads than there are roving gangs of killers in the streets.

At least there are where I live.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by briandg:

I don't like the stand your ground laws.

My first thought when I read that was that, like many other people, your understanding of the so called "stand your ground" laws is flawed.

If they are made absolute, so that all it takes is fear for one's life, without any qualifications,there will be many unjustified killings. If we add Hundreds of restrictions and limitations to it, we wind up right where we started. Uncertain of our rights and responsibilities, an in danger of doing something wrong.

Are you referring to laws that exist?

Add that to the one obvious problem with the legal system, the fact justice can fail when a hostile legal system brings the full resources to bear on a person who gets their attention, and the shooter can lose.

That's a fact, with or without so called "stand your ground" laws.

As long as there are bad guys, the good guys risk loss of life, freedom, property. That can't be changed.

So, that makes you dislike certain laws?

Otoh, IMO, castle laws are good as they are.

Somehow I suspect that you do not understand them very well, either.

The only restrictions on deadly force is that a legitimate fear be evidenced.

I'm afraid there is a lot more to it than that.

Unless the shooting involves someone who was in the home with permission, the scenario is pretty clear.

More to it than that, too...

Here is something to read on both subjects.