Is the caliber debate over?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hang, she did okay ONCE, I thought. Then I met him.

The guy she has been with for about six years is a moron, but he has his bright spots.

He used to live about thirty miles out of town in the drug capital of this end of the state at the back end of two miles of dirt road..I always carried my .357 with me out there at night. I picked him up at night to bring him to our house for the weekend, he noticed it and asked me if I was expecting trouble.

"No, just you."

The next week when I took him back I drove through taco bell on the way home, a girl in he car behind me jumped out of the car and had a seizure. I got out and was taking care of her, one of the workers jumped all over me about the cars in the drive through it had the keys, "move it yourself!"

Well, the pistol was in the passenger seat, he jumped right back out and told me no. The driver of the girl's car moved it, traffic resumed, emts carried her off, and they had thrown away my burrito.

I know, if I didn't drive a dodge and own a nine mm, none of this stuff would happen.
 
Not by a long shot:

When Hillary is elected, 9mm will dry up just as it always does during gun grabs by politicians.

While the 9mm was benefitting from modernization, so were other calibers. Currently the modern .40 loads are equal to or surpass the .45 in a platform that can carry 16 rounds.

Modern .40 designs like the HK VP and M&P as well as the Glock Gen. 4 series make the round pleasant to shoot. My Gen. 4 Glock 22 is easy to manage.

The FBI did not choose the 9mm due to the .40 not being effective. It was chosen because the bar has been lowered to accommodate people of diminished physical abilities,'for cost reasons and as part of the drive to globalize America. Many of the people currently on duty assignments would have not made the cut 30 years ago. I remember when state police agencies mandated a minimum height of 6'-0" or taller. Women were out of the question. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just stating the facts.

The 9mm is now adequate and will serve many well but there are still many of us who were young men when the .40 came about and we've watched it come into its own. It's not for everyone. It's rough on platforms but it is a violent round that gets the job done.
 
I love how the FBI's conclusion has suddenly become that of some unquestionable expert to some people when, prior to this decision and according to the same people, the FBI didn't know diddly.

I also get a chuckle from it. I don't have confidence in federal bureaucracies. I am not a law enforcement officer, so my needs are different. If I am going to look at any government agency for advice on firearms, it would be an agency that has significant experience in actually using them on. With any big city police department, we can look at experiences last week or last night. With FBI we have to keep going back to a shootout 30 years ago, or the infamous outdated "FBI load" for a 38 snub.
 
Not by a long shot:

While the 9mm was benefitting from modernization, so were other calibers. Currently the modern .40 loads are equal to or surpass the .45 in a platform that can carry 16 rounds.

Modern .40 designs like the HK VP and M&P as well as the Glock Gen. 4 series make the round pleasant to shoot. My Gen. 4 Glock 22 is easy to manage.

The FBI did not choose the 9mm due to the .40 not being effective. It was chosen because the bar has been lowered to accommodate people of diminished physical abilities,'for cost reasons and as part of the drive to globalize America. Many of the people currently on duty assignments would have not made the cut 30 years ago. I remember when state police agencies mandated a minimum height of 6'-0" or taller. Women were out of the question. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just stating the facts.

The 9mm is now adequate and will serve many well but there are still many of us who were young men when the .40 came about and we've watched it come into its own. It's not for everyone. It's rough on platforms but it is a violent round that gets the job done.

Maybe the bar stayed the same and the modernization that you note allowed the 9MM to surpass it.

Also in regards to modernization: it seems to be a premise you readily accept for the 9MM and .40. Does it not apply to the .45?
 
IMHO, the debate over 45 vs. 40 vs. 9mm is mostly about size vs. quantity. Some people like bigger bullets; others want larger capacity; and still others want a compromise. There's nothing wrong with any of these rounds.

I'm a capacity guy - if I can have a fist full of 9mm +p's in a normal full-sized handgun; or 7-8 rounds of 9mm in a micro 9, I'm happy. But, I also have a small 40 that I really like, an awesome 10mm and a couple of 45's I'm fond of shooting.
 
IMO, when the .45 acp is plus pressured to the level that it increases velocity by half again while remaining in the realistic pressure range and they find a bullet that will give exactly the required amount of penetration or a little more, without risk of collateral damage, has "manageable recoil" (meaning no more than a bit above that of a +p 147 grain 9mm) and a magazine capacity of at least ten then it will become acceptable to the people who consider the 9mm to be the best alternative to all other rounds. Maybe even then, when the .45 is "perfected" they won't accept it.

There's never, ever going to be common ground between true believers of 9 and 45.

I believe one thing. There is no comparing the two. about twice the weight, pretty close to equal velocities, larger bore, it can't be any more clear that one is more damaging than the other. Given one shot and a charging beast, would anyone seriously choose a 9?

It has seemed for years that the nine is chosen because it is good enough and has better convenience features, in a sense.

The 45 is chosen because people want all possible power when confronting a threat, in a normally robust steel frame, big, healthy butt kicking device that doesn't need 16 rounds.

How in the world could you find common ground between them, any more than you could find common ground between the people who carry a .7mm-08 after elk and those who carry a .300 ultramag?

The 40 is regarded by both camps as an unnecessary, and in most cases, a ridiculous attempt to compromise, when there is no need to compromise, and in the process of compromising, the entire principle and purpose of either cartridge is thrown out the window. The 40, from what I see has it's own group, who think that either of the others is inferior.

It's interesting. I don't think that either of the three are wrong. They are all effective and a shooter using any of those three well trained in that particular round is probably going to be just as effective at the other.

We could go all scientific on it with timers, energy, bore, jello cavity dimensions, whatecer each side wants to count, and it would probably come out with figures that neither side would agree on.
 
I believe one thing. There is no comparing the two. about twice the weight, pretty close to equal velocities, larger bore, it can't be any more clear that one is more damaging than the other. Given one shot and a charging beast, would anyone seriously choose a 9?

I think this is where the groups sometimes disagree without seeing why. I'm not certain any of the 9MM advocates intend to compare ONE shot of 9MM vs ONE shot of .45. I think the intent is to compare 2 shots of 9MM to one shot of .45 (or 3 shots of 9MM to 2 shots of .45 based on effective recoil recovery). Whatever the ratio was meant to me it was not meant to be 1:1.
 
No, you are right, the old quantity over quality argument is involved. Double magazine capacity, double weight, larger but not double diameter, and the consensus is that doubling the 9 mm (the 045) will equal two rounds of 9 mm, and factually, that's not right. A single round of .45 that punches through a lump of fatty gut won't equal two 9, one to lungs, one to heart.
Vice versa, two hits of nine that miss the vitals, dropping somewhere like the outer ribs or belly won't do too much unless the target is really susceptible to it, while a .45 to the heart is going to do every bit as much damage as anything else.

It's all based on assumptions. Assumptions can be stupid.

The .45 shooters assume that they will get their one or two shots into some place that is going to incapacitate without fail. The 9mm shooters assume that they will have two, four, or even fourteen rounds in the target without being incapacitated themselves.

There was a running gunfight in my town. Results were predictable. Guy jumped from a car with stolen .44 magnum, ran around a two block rectangle, fired all 6 rounds, police officers fired twenty or so, he had almost covered those six blocks of street and returned to the car when one officer hit him with a rifle, I think killing him.

What does this factual event say about the debate? either one would have failed completely, neither one achieved the goal, neither high capacity, or deadlier hits with a bigger bullet. None of those seven or so men managed to harm each other, the last man with an accurate and powerful weapon and the opportunity to make a single deadly shot put the guy down within seconds of getting him into range.

It bothered me a great deal knowing that 24 (i think) rounds of 9 mm were fired into open air, hitting buildings and cars, so forth. Not counting the .44 magnum.

Whatever is being fired, a heart or high torso hit is going to have a good chance of incapacitation, and I don't really believe that either of the three rounds is likely to provide an absolute and fail-safe hit.

I have always chosen 9 because there are many, many reasons that I don't trust myself to be successful with a single or double shot with a low capacity .45 and I feel that the proper ammo in 9 is a better way to gamble.

I have always leaned towards higher capacity for one reason. I want more opportunities to hit the stop switch, and the .45 does not present that to me. Three accurate rounds of anything to high center mass can blow a hole through nerves, veigns, etc, tht the .45 might miss with a single round.

I keep coming back to that the whole thing is a wash. Shooting the more powerful gun may incapacitate the shooter sooner. Shooting higher volume rounds in a smaller one may do it.

Either way, other than LE officers, needing 45 rounds of ammo in nine is probably so unlikely that I can't imagine it. I don't know the statistics, but the probability of a person going through even a second magazine in a gunfight during his lifetime must be obscenely small.

Of course, carrying double mags for a .45? Isnt that about the same capacity of a standard 9 mm?

The entire argument is mostly principle. how one person feels about the cost/benefit equation. Neither side is absolutely right or absolutely wrong, but that's how it is dragged out time and again. current developments that have retired ball ammunition have made it even murkier.

Personally, I'd much rather see a man using buckshot in any shooting situation. Even a near total miss will put a scattered group of 6 or so projectiles into a chest. Through lungs, heart, spine, arteries, so forth,maybe, I wish that cops could use them more often.

There are a number of events, very few, that really made a mark in my thoughts on the situation. Miami. the aforementiond local event. The armored killers in los angeles. Gunfights that involve really extreme results and unique resolutions. The cops took hunting rifles from a pawn shop!
 
I think this is where the groups sometimes disagree without seeing why. I'm not certain any of the 9MM advocates intend to compare ONE shot of 9MM vs ONE shot of .45. I think the intent is to compare 2 shots of 9MM to one shot of .45 (or 3 shots of 9MM to 2 shots of .45 based on effective recoil recovery). Whatever the ratio was meant to me it was not meant to be 1:1.

Even taking the analogy dead straight at a 1:3 ratio of .45 to 9mm, or 2;4, I can't decide, given he opportunity of a slow, but clean double tap or 4 that will probably be less accurate because of the rush to put all four on target before the second has taken his two rounds..

Picture this, a great big angry black bear is in the woods at your camp. Assume that you have NO OTHER CHOICE than to follow and kill him. Hypothetically, he carried off an arm that you want to reattach. One man has no right arm. you and the second man are reasonably good shots with only a rudimentary amount of combat training. two guns in camp, and the ammo was all used up in shooting targets the day before, and there are only four of 9 and two of .45. You know that the thing will likely charge, that's how the buddy got his arm bitten off at the shoulder, and carried off in a doggy bag.

both guns belong to you. Which will you give to the other guy to take to the west while you walk to the east?

I can't answer that. It'd be hard for a lot of people if they were being honest and took the thing seriously.

It's not that hard to take it to local events. If you have a banger shooting at you from thirty yards because you wore the wrong color t shirt into a gang infested area, which of the two or four rounds? Then ask if he's just standing across a room? since this is hypothetical, ignore any possible debate over reasonable belief and assume that escape is literally impossible. Maybe your electric wheel chair went dead and you can't move so much as a foot? Assume that you have already had a couple rounds bounced off of the walls beside you.

I'd also like to hear the answers to this. What if all of the events of the past 100 years were negated. Both rounds were limited to 10 round magazines, and only solid bullets, only round profile, only standard pressure and velocity? presume that both are on identical 1911 frames. The only variables are bigger or smaller. , faster or slower. What will people decide to do when they are no longer able to use the glock with modern hollow points, and are essentially restricted to these conditions?

Just some things that have kept me awake at night for years.
 
caliber debate????

About the 1986 Miami shootout and gun failure.....
The gunfight: 4/11/1986
Around 9:30 a.m., agents Grogan and Dove spotted the suspect vehicle, and began to follow. Two other stakeout team cars joined them, and eventually an attempt was made to conduct a traffic stop of the suspects, who were forced off the road following collisions with the cars of FBI agents Grogan/Dove, agents Hanlon/Mireles, and agent Manauzzi. These collisions sent the suspect car nose first into a tree in a small parking area in front of a house at 12201 Southwest 82nd Avenue, pinned between a parked car (on its passenger side) and Manauzzi's car on the driver side.

Of the eight agents at the scene, two had Remington 870 shotguns in their vehicles (McNeill and Mireles), three were armed with semi-automatic Smith & Wesson Model 459 9mm pistols (Dove, Grogan, and Risner), and the rest were armed with Smith & Wesson revolvers. Two of the agents had backup revolvers (Hanlon and Risner) and both would use them at some point during the fight.

The initial collision that forced the suspects off the road caused some unforeseen problems for the agents, as the FBI vehicles sustained damage from the heavier, older car driven by Matix.[8] Just prior to ramming the Monte Carlo, Manauzzi had pulled out his service revolver and placed it on the seat in anticipation of a shootout,[8] but the force of the collision flung open his door and sent his weapon flying. Hanlon lost his .357 Magnum service revolver during the initial collision, though he was still able to fight with his Smith & Wesson Model 36 backup gun. The collision knocked off Grogan's glasses, and there is speculation his vision was so bad that he was unable to see clearly enough to be effective (a claim disputed by the FBI's Medical Director, who stated that Grogan's vision was "not that bad"). Grogan is credited with landing the first hit of the gunfight, wounding Matix in the forearm as he leaned out of the Monte Carlo to fire the shotgun at Grogan and Dove.[9]

Manauzzi was wounded when Platt fired several rounds from his Ruger Mini-14 rifle, penetrating the door of Manauzzi's car. McNeill fired over the hood of Manauzzi's car but was wounded by return fire from Platt. Platt then fired his rifle at Mireles who was running across the street to join the fight. Mireles was hit in the left forearm, creating a severe wound.[8] Platt then pulled back from the window, giving Matix opportunity to fire. Due to collision damage, Matix could only open his door partially, and fired one shotgun round at Grogan and Dove, striking their vehicle. Matix was then shot in the right forearm, probably by Grogan.[10] McNeill returned fire with six shots from his revolver, hitting Matix with two rounds in the head and neck. Matix apparently was knocked unconscious by the hits and fired no more rounds.[11] McNeill was then shot in the hand and, due to his wound and blood in his revolver's chambers, could not reload.[8]

As Platt climbed out of the passenger side car window, one of Dove's 9 mm rounds hit his right upper arm and went on to penetrate his chest, stopping an inch away from his heart. The autopsy found Platt’s right lung had collapsed and his chest cavity contained 1.3 liters of blood, suggesting damage to the main blood vessels of the right lung. Of his many gunshot wounds, this first was the primary injury responsible for Platt’s eventual death.[12] The car had come to a stop against a parked vehicle, and Platt had to climb across the hood of this vehicle, an Oldsmobile Cutlass. As he did so, he was shot a second and third time, in the right thigh and left foot. The shots were believed to have been fired by Dove.[13]

Platt took up position by the passenger side front fender of the Cutlass. He fired a .357 Magnum revolver at agents Ronald Risner and Gilbert Orrantia, and was shot a fourth time when turning to fire at Hanlon, Dove and Grogan. The bullet, fired by Orrantia's revolver, penetrated Platt's right forearm, fractured the radius bone and exited the forearm. This wound caused Platt to drop his revolver.[14] It is estimated that Platt was shot a fifth time shortly afterwards, this time by Risner. The bullet penetrated Platt's right upper arm, exited below the armpit, and entered his torso, stopping below his shoulder blade. The wound was not serious.[15]

Platt fired one round from his Mini-14 at Risner and Orrantia's position, wounding Orrantia with shrapnel created by the bullet's passage, and two rounds at McNeill. One round hit McNeill in the neck, causing him to collapse and leaving him paralyzed for several hours. Platt then apparently positioned the Mini-14 against his shoulder using his uninjured left hand.[16]

Dove's 9 mm semi auto pistol was rendered inoperative after being hit by one of Platt's bullets. Hanlon fired at Platt and was shot in the hand while reloading. Grogan and Dove were kneeling alongside the driver’s side of their car. Both were preoccupied with getting Dove's gun working and did not detect that Platt was aggressively advancing upon them. Platt rounded the rear of their car and killed Grogan with a shot to the chest, shot Hanlon in the groin area, and then killed Dove with two shots to the head. Platt then entered the Grogan/Dove car in an apparent attempt to flee the scene.[17] As Platt entered Grogan and Dove's car, Mireles, able to use only one arm, fired the first of five rounds from his pump-action shotgun, wounding Platt in both feet.[8] At an unknown time, Matix had regained consciousness and he joined Platt in the car, entering via the passenger door. Mireles fired four more rounds at Platt and Matix, but hit neither.[18]

Around this time, Metro-Dade police officers Rick Frye, Leonard Figueroa and Martin Heckman arrived. Heckman covered McNeill's paralyzed body with his own.[19] Frye assisted Hanlon.[20]

Platt's actions at this moment in the fight have been debated. A civilian witness described Platt leaving the car, walking almost 20 feet and firing at Mireles three times at close range. Mireles does not remember this happening. Officer Heckman does not remember Platt leaving the Grogan/Dove car. Risner and Orrantia, observing from the other side of the street, stated that they did not see Platt leave the car and fire at Mireles.[21] However, it is known for certain that Platt pulled Matix's Dan Wesson revolver at some point and fired three rounds.[16][22]

Platt attempted to start the Grogan/Dove car. Mireles drew his .357 Magnum revolver, moved parallel to the street and then directly toward Platt and Matix. Mireles fired six rounds at the suspects. The first round missed, hitting the back of the front seat. The second hit the driver's side window post and fragmented, with one small piece hitting Platt in the scalp. The third hit Matix in the face, and fragmented in two, with neither piece causing a serious wound. The fourth hit Matix in the face next to his right eye socket, travelled downward through the facial bones, into the neck, where it entered the spinal column and severed the spinal cord. The fifth hit Matix in the face, penetrated the jaw bone and neck and came to rest by the spinal column.[23] Mireles reached the driver's side door, extended his revolver through the window, and fired his sixth shot at Platt. The bullet penetrated Platt's chest and bruised the spinal cord, ending the gunfight.[24]

The shootout involved ten people: two suspects and eight FBI agents. Of the ten, only one, Special Agent Manauzzi, did not fire any shots (his firearm was thrown from car in the initial collision), while only one, Special Agent Risner, was able to emerge from the battle without a wound. The incident lasted under five minutes yet approximately 145 shots were exchanged.[8][25]

Toxicology tests showed that the abilities of Platt and Matix to fight through multiple traumatic gunshot wounds and continue to battle and attempt to escape were not achieved through any chemical means. Both of their bodies were drug-free at the time of their deaths.[26]

So...what gun failed?
 
Last edited:
BrianDG one of the things that concerns me is this move towards the reflexive use of a higher number of rounds. I get it - shoot until the threat stops. But somehow we are telling people to fire 3-4 times before assessing and adjusting. Most people can, with time, be trained to "double tap". I question how many individuals who carry handguns (including law enforcement) can manage an accurate triple or quadruple tap? The only gun I have ever fired more than two rounds accurately with is my wife's compensated Glock and I think you can empty the magazine on target with that in about 2-3 seconds. That being said even with that when doing so one finds themselves concentrating on the target, sights, and recovery so much that I am not certain it is useful for defensive purposes.
 
It really doesn't matter, does it? The situation was extreme, and even though the current guns had worked properly in almost every other incident, this god awful mess prompted them to look for better choices and try to scientifically decide what makes a round effective and equip agents with the scientifically chosen components, isn't that exactly what happened? the powers at the FBI decided that they would rather have better weapons, so that in the very rare events like miami, the agents would have better chances, right?

Everything went wrong, tactics and weapons. The guys in question went far beyond reasonable expectations of what it would take to disable them. They were far better armed than was the normal expectation. They fought back like army rangers instead of drug dealing punks or the usual "white collar white guys" that they looked like.

It triggered concerns, and the search for better weapons was based on the fact that if even in only a few percent of cases, better weapons work better, that change should be implemented wherever it can.

Remember that the default round in the past was a .357 magnum frame with a +p .38. Upgrading weaponry is normal, and except for the press, I don't think that anyone in authority actually came right out and said that "these new weapons would have saved lives in miami."

As far as I know there is no "universal" weapon at the FBI now. They are given options suited to the needs. I don't believe anyone has to carry the caliber recommended unless it's the high risk ones who are ordered to carry the suggested ones.

Every time I see a troop of military walking around with their rifles tricked out and adjusted to the millimeter, it surprises me as this had never existed when I was growing up. You fit the rifle, not the other way.

Its not like that in civilian life. Even so, our PD has a good policy, there is an approved carry list. An officer can accept the default (a glock 9, iirc, federal hp rounds) or provide another approved weapon for himself. No alterations in ammo, only platform.
 
The FBI Miami shoot-out to me illustrates one of the major flaws of any handgun. IIRC from what I have read one of the very first shots made by the agents was an extremely difficult shot and was done well and ultimately was fatal. The problem is there is a major difference between a shot that is ultimately fatal and one that immediately physically incapacitates an adversary. Further there are so many variables to the later that it is hard to put ones finger on the exact criteria one should be looking for. As long as those variables exist alongside extreme examples the caliber debate will be alive and going strongly.
 
Lohman, I completely agree with that whole assessment. While it took years to convince people of the .45 double tap, the empty the magazine philosophy took over the mindset of everyone using a nine, it seems, and it is only because of two things, IMO. First, they think that they need to hit the target several times, and second, the more the better. With fifteen rounds, why not make sure that the target is not just disabled, but completely, absolutely, unable to even blink an eye aggressively?

Fifty feet, I can pie plate a magazine with my glock, (not spray and pray, controlled fire as soon as sights reach target again) but what in the world does that prove? If I can pie plate it with four, do i really need to use four times that many? Give the dude a chance to yell "OUCH!" and fall down!

At my range, it is the norm for guys to come in and go through a box of rounds in a few minutes, spraying until empty. A group came a few months ago and sprayed non stop with rifles and pistols, almost certainly burning through 1,000 rounds over a few hours, and maybe a barrel or two.

yes, I would have lost. Not a chance. I might as well have fought two guys with machine rifles.

I generally just shoot for bullseyes. I do some holster drills. I sometimes work on double or triple taps, and I'm not bad at that, but I don't fire as quickly as others. I never go closer than the fifty foot line. Shooting from ten lowers the bar.

Dying is not the be all and end all of making decisions. I would rather take the 80% risk if winning the encounter by using ordinary equipment and my own moderate skill level than to expend thousands of dollars and years of effort to try and raise that chance just a few percent. even those extreme efforts may not make a difference in my performance.

IMO, the average shooter encountered in a crime is a bonehead who may have never even test fired the weapon beyond a few rounds into the side of a building. Many of the others are shooting sideways with stolen guns. I think that unless the shooter has his victim already in the sights, even a moderately trained and equipped fighter has a strong chance of victory, especially since the boneheads may not expect his victim to fight back. Don't they all have to rack a round into the slide or cock the hammer before shooting, anyway?:rolleyes:

As someone says here, there is no noise more disturbing than a shot that you didn't expect to hear. It applies to the punk who's standing in front of you.
 
Exactly, lohman, this entire discipline from primer type up to which chamber of the heart that you hit has consequences. Trying to get accurate rifle rounds, even if you just settle on 150 grain .308, there are literally hundreds of reasonable choices of loads. A hit in the heart muscle but not the chambers may or may not hit the stop switch, not with any round, but a few centimeters difference may completely blow through the artery that feeds it.

I believe that most people never, ever consider the effects of just plain chance. Shootings are like snowflakes.

A woman was bonked on the head twice in a drive by with a .45, iirc, and both bullets skipped off of bone. WTH? She should have died, right?

Her variable may have been that she was yanking back from the window as the shot was fired, it may be that she had god in the car. Would she have survived two rounds of a .357 SWC that would not have been Quite so likely to deflect as a round ball?

This is what makes me crazy when caliber choices come up.

I believe that it was king solomons mines in which the guy debated using the military rifle or the express. The 7 mm full jacket may not kill the antelope at the far end of the mountain the express rifle would have. Accuracy or power? which to choose? The chief of the savages was going to eat him if he didn't prove that the boom stick could kill every member of his tribe. He couldn't afford to fail.

Well, elmer keith would have used the express and then killed the entire tribe with his souvenir warthog tusk if he missed. No need to discuss what would happen to jack o connor if his 7mm mil spec bullet didn't bleed the thing out right there as it fell.
 
yes, I would have lost. Not a chance. I might as well have fought two guys with machine rifles.



Dying is not the be all and end all of making decisions. I would rather take the 80% risk if winning the encounter by using ordinary equipment and my own moderate skill level than to expend thousands of dollars and years of effort to try and raise that chance just a few percent. even those extreme efforts may not make a difference in my performance.

I think you have hit on two valid points here. I do not have the time to train to be able to take out four or five smart and determined attackers. I hope that any who attacks me is either A) not smart or B) not determined. Either increases my chance of survival frankly more than any amount of training I could do. One has to accept that there are some scenarios we cannot reasonably be trained or equipped for - especially when the limit of our equipment is a concealed handgun (or two or three for some of you)

There are scenarios I will not live through. If some attacker wants to observe me for a long length of time, lay in wait with a rifle, abort the attempt when I take a different route home, and finally kill me there is little I can do to stop it. If I am suddenly in a location that is beset on by those intent on violence and armed with military firepower I probably cannot stop them. That is the fact of the matter.

However there are scenarios I can avoid. I will not stand (or kneel) and beg for my children's lives and do nothing while some predator attempts to harm or kidnap them in some way. May I die avoiding the scenario? Yes. May I be successful? I believe I have prepared in a manner that gives me that chance.

I am not Jason Bourne.

Once one accepts that, given real life limitations, they cannot win every scenario the choice in equipment becomes easier to make.
 
Just to throw in another similar thought.

Would we win a zombie apocalypse? They're untrained, slow, not so smart, etc, but compare that to a gang of bad guys chasing you around with knives and you have got a slingshot. We probably won't win against a horde of zombies anymore than we would win against a group of really cranked up aggressors. I look at riot cops and it makes my blood run cold.

The us military wins in body counts because we are usually the smart ones, use good equipment, and we try not to be the ones caught with our pants down.

This is going to sound stupid. I'm not worried about dying. What I am worried about is losing. I'm not setting my entire thoughts on getting home, I am putting my entire heart into just making sure that the bad guys don't accomplish what they want to do, killing someone.

It's different. Sit down and beg like a dog? Run like hell after tripping someone? Saves lives, maybe. Defense by surrender may save lives. Defense by aggressive attack may save lives. It's impossible to say with any clarity what could happen, but if I find myself or others at threat, If I am reasonably certain that the choices are die or fight, I'm not going to be the one who hands over the weapon and prays to god that I made the right decision.

That's all I should say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top