J-frame: Enough?

[briandg]

That is exactly why the laws are written as they are now, and the reason that we have a legal system of several levels. With many current laws saying that retreat is not required and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor even before charges can be laid, there is protection for you and your wife on the legal prosecutorial front.

If you have done something that sends you to trial, we then have a jury of "intelligent and rational" people who decide whether you acted properly, and a judge that will have the last word on your punishment.

Caught in circumstances beyond your control, you cannot expect 'justice' to fall into your lap, it quite often fails.

 

[Lohman446]

I've been thinking about this more than I should. Is the .38 enough? It depends what enough means. The vast majority of law abiding civilian individuals will not actually use a firearm in their lifetime. Someone noted above, and I will accept it as true, that most uses of a firearm in self defense will involve less than three shots.

Enough for what? Its not about being enough to overcome any possible attack on your person or those you are willing to protect with deadly force. Face it we cannot do that and our best chances of overcoming an attack involve a long gun and if were discussing long guns no doubt someone would point out travelling in a Bradley combat vehicle would be within reason.

I am not a "carry a gun everywhere I go every time" though I do tend to carry a gun virtually everywhere I take my children. As noted above retreat can rapidly become less of a viable option when others are involved.

Few of us are ever going to actually need that firearm for self defense. Fewer still will need to fire a shot as the show of the firearm will end the threat or make retreat possible. Even fewer will need to fire more than one, two, three... well you get the idea. The people who will need more than 5 shots in a gun fight? An extremely rare group. Its made even rarer when you consider "need more than five but less than X" with X being the amount of rounds they actually carry.

But back to the question: enough for what? I believe we actually carry are guns for comfort. It is highly likely I am never going to use my gun and yet I go through the trouble of carrying it many places. When I take my kids hiking or to the playgrounds I carry a firearm because it gives me a level of protection that I feel more comfortable with than if i was unarmed.

So if carrying a gun is really about making you feel comfortable with the level of protection you have for yourself and those you would defend the question becomes far less empirical. It changes from being quantitative in nature (will X shots be enough) to being qualitative (am I comfortable enough with this gun) and becomes, even more than it was, a personal decision.

Is the J frame enough? If you answered yes to the question than it is. If you really had to think about it, wonder, and it still nags at you? Nope.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Reteach, I just now saw this... Sorry...

"I decided this a long time ago, when I started carrying: If I ever do get into a gun fight, the only thing I have to do to win is not lose. There was a member on this forum whose tag line was a quote from Mike Irwin. It went something like "My carry gun is really just the starter pistol for the old guy mad dash tactical retreat." [I bet Mike can correct my inexact memory.] As a civilian, I do not need to, and do not want to, run toward the sound of gunfire."


I made that comment back in 2009, that my handguns are really just my "starter pistol on the fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."

That's still a philosophy to which I adhere.


I believe that it was mavracer who made my quote part of his signature linen.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's Ayoob's take on this debate plus some interesting comments on other carry issues:

https://gundigest.com/handguns/concealed-carry/5-concealed-carry-myths-busted

We've really just gone around the same issues here which boil down to:

1. The gun for deterrence and the single mugger-ish confrontation.
2. The more intense incident based on number of opponents, difficult of shots and malfunctions.

I assume we will do this topic again in a month or two with the same results and opinions. Just remember, Gov. Cuomo, Nancy, Chuck and Diane will see that common usage and reasonable restrictions will make 5 is enough the mantra for self-defense and kiss your higher cap semi handguns and rifles good bye if they have their way.

 

[Chainsaw.]

How many scoops in a shovel? How many bl8nks in an eye? Enough? Or not? But you'll know if the moment comes along.

 

[KyJim]

I assume we will do this topic again in a month or two with the same results and opinions.

And probably another caliber war thread.

Just remember, Gov. Cuomo, Nancy, Chuck and Diane will see that common usage and reasonable restrictions will make 5 is enough the mantra for self-defense and kiss your higher cap semi handguns and rifles good bye if they have their way.

It doesn't matter what we say here. The gun grabbers deny the unassailable fact that the MSR is in common usage but they still want them.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

They are not in common usage in NY or CA, with their neutered guns. Thus, CA and NY are the world. Ever see that map of the USA?

I hate the term MSR by the way as it indicates the gun is for sport and not for the purposes of the 2nd Amend. Said that before.

However, I am concerned that the focus on self-defense from Heller and later seems to abandon the defense against tyranny.

But that isn't relevant to this thread and I'm bad for bringing it up. Stop that Glenn.

 

[briandg]

"I decided this a long time ago, when I started carrying: If I ever do get into a gun fight, the only thing I have to do to win is not lose.

Really interesting point there. It has a whole lot of extra bits tied into it, such as I don't have to kill the guy to win, either.

If we could ever miniaturize a tazer to the size of a
G19 and give it a fifteen round capacity and 100 foot range, how many people would flock to buy them? Ohh, boy, I think that I would.

The average CW carrier isn't interested in less than lethal rounds, at least I've not seen many posts from them. In fact, it seems that almost every carrier at least makes an effort to get the most dangerous kit possible. How many times have we ever heard "i want to find a bullet that will cause the least possible harm to they guy who has just threatened my life or safety?"

I think that the repeating concealed carry multi round tazer would never make it into the stores because NOBODY is going to use an ltl weapon that might fail to give him the win. Would the guy who carries .45 acp say to himself 'hey, I don't want to hurt the guy too badly, I just want to make him leave me alone.' He probably won't carry fmj, either.

 

[Lohman446]

To me (as well as Tom Kaye the president of a major manufacturer of rounds for the FN303 less lethal launcher) the term is "less lethal" not "less than lethal" in that it does away with the implication that somehow these rounds do not pose a lethal risk.

Less lethal rounds are still dangerous and can kill an individual. Further they do not carry the same physiological impact a traditional "lethal" round carries. Note that most police officers use them when time or circumstances permit the use of traditional lethal rounds should the less lethal round fail.

They would have to fall somewhere between mace and a firearm and if you have time to cycle through a whole kit of things to use at different times you had time to retreat in most cases.

Add to it some idiot would insist shooting his buddy with these taser rounds is perfectly safe...

Reanswering (not making a second post): I carry a round that balances the ability to create physiological damage with an ability to control recoil. It is NOT the most powerful round available or the one most likely to kill. It is chosen by several law enforcement agencies. While I am fully aware that said round MAY cause severe injury or death my only interest in using lethal force is in stopping my attacker be it by ending his or her motivation or creating a physical impossibility for him or her to continue. If someone told me they used a "less lethal" round I would instantly question if they actually believed they had justification for lethal force.

 

[reteach]

I just now saw this... Sorry

You kinda answered my comment in another post. Thanks for the specifics. I've use that statement [at least my poor version of it] in discussions with friends. They all get it and most have agreed with its real meaning.

briandg - I would carry a less lethal weapon if it proved to be 100% reliable and really did stop an attacker. The Star Trek phaser on stun would be a wonderful thing to have. But until they invent that, we have to deal with stopping an attack, protecting ourselves and loved ones, with just exactly the right amount of deadly force.

 

[reteach]

If I ever do get into a gun fight, the only thing I have to do to win is not lose.

I can't take credit for this idea. I read this somewhere, but I cannot remember where. The original referred to the Continental Army during the American Revolution.

Still, as briandg points out, there's a lot to think about in that simple statement. It's author wasn't thinking about ccw or individual self defense, it certainly applies to my attitude about a gun fight.