Originally posted by Wreck-n-Crew
Quote:
It is a pretty well established fact that the vast majority of defensive uses of handguns take place at relatively short distances,
Not all?
OK, every legally justified non-LEO defensive shooting that I'm aware in modern history of has taken place at short range. That being said, I'm sure that someone can come up with an instance of a legally justified non-LEO shooting at 25+ yards that I've not heard of, hence my reluctance to deal in absolutes.
Quote:
So, the $64,000 question seems to be how fast can you draw your gun and fire with a sufficient degree of accuracy against multiple determined attackers? Speaking for myself, I'm realistic enough about my skill level to realize that I cannot draw and fire more than a few rounds in the few seconds I'll have if attacked regardless of what type of handgun I'm using and I doubt that very many people could do much better. Therefore, I arrive at my previous assertion that I'm far more likely to run out of time and distance than ammunition.
If you say "odds are" I will leave you with your odds, but give me some meat with the potatoes when making an argument other than your perception of other peoples ability on average compared to yours. A gun in the hand can be used even if they make contact. Even if bigger and stronger. Advanced training is always an option.
OK, exactly how fast can you draw your gun from concealment and fire at least five rounds at no less than two targets while hitting each target at least once? Have you had the advanced training of which you speak? How many other people do you know that have had such training? You're missing my point here, I'm not talking about what is theoretically possible for someone who has had advanced training (most people haven't) and who cannot draw and fire more than 5 accurate shots in 2-3 seconds (most people can't). If you can do those things, then by all means carry lots of ammo, but in that case I'd hardly classify you as average.
Quote:
So, It seems to me that one's two best hopes for surviving an attack from multiple aggressors are as follows: either the gun's mere presence or first few rounds fired causes the aggressors to re-evaluate their life choices and seek their goals elsewhere or the defender's fire can cause the aggressors to pause, duck, or seek cover thus buying the defender enough time and distance to remove himself/herself from the situation. I honestly don't see more than 5-10 shots being necessary to accomplish either of those outcomes and if one of those two can't be accomplished, well most people are probably sorry out of luck anyway. Anyone who thinks that simply blazing away like some sort of action movie hero will save them if confronted by multiple determined attackers isn't being realistic and I hope, for their sake, that such a situation never presents itself.
A whole lot of big hope and assumptions. I respectfully disagree on the basis of experience and training with this statement in it's entirety. In reality if you ever need your firearm, you won't get to choose the scenario for which it is needed.
No, you don't get to choose the scenario. However, you cannot adequately prepare yourself for every possible scenario. It seems fairly obvious to me that the gun which would be the best choice if confronted by 5 average sized people with determined, but otherwise normal states of mind at moderate range would be different than the best choice if confronted by one exceedingly large individual who is under the influence of exotic chemical as very short range. I could likely, if I put my mind to it, come up with ten different scenarios which would be best handled with ten different guns, but since I cannot practically carry ten handguns on my person at all times it would be a pointless exercise. Instead, I've examined my own lifestyle and chosen what will best meet the threats that I'm most likely to face. I'm not trying to tell you that you're foolish or paranoid for not making the same choices as me because I don't know you or what you're most likely to face. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't assume that I'm foolish or naive for making a different choice than you.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
If your general philosophy is that you want to try to prepare for the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of having to physically disable an attacker with a handgun, then capacity is a real concern. I would say that an even more critical need for that person is some good training. Especially when faced with more than one determined attacker, you probably won't survive long enough to use all your ammunition if capacity is all you have in your "toolbag".
That's a very succinct and well-worded synopsis. If one is faced with multiple armed attackers willing to risk being shot to accomplish their goal, capacity is
not at the head of the list of things that will help them survive.
Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger
Scenarios are meaningless. Inventions of the imagination, created specifically and solely to prove the point of the imaginer.
Prepare for whatever you like. There's always a scenario that your imagination doesn't cover and for which someone who is "more prepared" than you will call you a fool for not recognizing all the while a "less prepared" person will call you paranoid.
Another excellent point. As I mentioned before, I could come up with ten different scenarios in which ten different guns would be best suited, but that's a pointless exercise since I'm not going to be carrying ten guns. Without knowing some rather intimate personal information, there is simply no way that one person can tell another what the best gun to carry is.
