Stop saying I should get a semi auto, I love my revolvers!

[44 AMP]

the fact that he was carrying an extra mag was used by the prosecuting counsel as one means of establishing intent.

An allegation easily discredited by having a local LEO testify as to how many spare mags he carries daily with no intent of committing murder

Perhaps. But perhaps not. What the jury takes away from any argument is as variable as the jury itself. But consider these points as rebuttal to using the number of mags an office carries to discredit the original argument (extra mag=intent)

#1) Number of mags is the officer's duty equipment, he doesn't pick it.
#2) Officers are required by their jobs to go in harms way.
#3) Knowing they are going to be in harm's way, depts. make them carry spare mags. The officers intend to go in harms way, as part of their duty to protect us. etc., etc.

"The defendant chose to carry extra ammo, showing his understanding that it might be needed, because he intended to go in harm's way. Unlike an officer, he was not obligated by his job, or an oath, he chose to do it, on his own. He intended to go into a high risk situation, and he did, when he didn't have to. He sought the confrontation. This case is a result of that."

One can phrase it a lot of different ways, but the argument can be made, and once made, the jury will consider it.

(the example I just gave would not apply to a lot of defensive shootings, but does, to a degree in that one case.)

We carry a spare mag, speedloader or even a back up gun, intending to go about our normal daily lives and business. Not seeking trouble, but prepared so that if trouble finds us, we have a chance of going home alive.

This case was (as I understand it) not that.

 

[weblance]

I carry a revolver. There... I said it. Its a 5 shot. I recently decided if I was going to only have 5 fast shots, it better be the most effective round, and gun I WILL carry. Its a Bulldog in 44 Special. I dont want to be in an extended gunfight with it, but for social work, I feel comforted that its easy to carry, and I always have it available. I also carry two 6 shot speed strips.

 

[Limnophile]

consider these points as rebuttal to using the number of mags an office[r] carries to discredit the original argument (extra mag=intent)

#1) Number of mags is the officer's duty equipment, he doesn't pick it.
#2) Officers are required by their jobs to go in harms way.
#3) Knowing they are going to be in harm's way, depts. make them carry spare mags. The officers intend to go in harms way, as part of their duty to protect us. etc., etc.

#1 -- It seems wise to do as the police do. In fact, many CCW trainers are police officers or former police officers. And, given an FBI-reported hit rate as low as 20%, no carry sidearm has adequate capacity in a single magazine to reasonably ensure success in a self-defense encounter.

#2 -- Officers are not required to go in harm's way any more than civilians are. In fact, they operate in the same environment. SCOTUS has ruled (Castle Rock v Gonzales, 2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect a citizen from harm. I suspect you know this, instinctually if not explicitly, and that this knowledge is factored into your decision to own and carry defensive arms.

#3 -- A redundant argument. See my replies to #1 and #2 above.

That said, I believe anyone who discharges a firearm in self defense or the defense of others should expect to be encumbered by serious and expensive legal challenges. If such challenges do not materialize, consider yourself fortunate. With 2nd Amendment-hating modern liberal-progressives in power and the media quick to judge, one can find himself in deep trouble very easily.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

Officers are not required to go in harm's way any more than civilians are.

Oh yes they are. The have a duty to stop criminal action and to apprehend suspects. Civilians have neither.

In fact, they operate in the same environment.

That is irrelevant.

SCOTUS has ruled (Castle Rock v Gonzales, 2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect a citizen from harm.

That has to do only with the subject of governmental liability to people who sustain damages.

 

[Limnophile]

This post from three years ago, along with this one, told me a lot.

John's analysis uses the binomial model with a success rate of 0.30 and a minimum of 2 successes (hits) per target required to obtain a physiological stop. I used the same model in the early '80s, but with a lower success rate of 0.17, to eliminate revolvers from consideration as effective self-defense guns.

The problem with this model is there is no guarantee that 2 hits will stop an assailant. I've refined the model by applying IDPA scoring rules, where a single hit to the -0 or -1 zones is regarded as an incapacitating shot. Given that 55% of an IDPA target consists of those two zones, the FBI-reported hit rate (20% for me as one who has no combat experience or combat simulation training) becomes the binomial model success rate of 0.20x0.55 = 0.11, with a single incapacitating shot being required to obtain the desired physiological stop. All models are flawed, but at least these assumptions have hooks to hang on.

44 AMP has ridiculed my characterization of revolvers as suboptimal for self defense. As I recall he accurately narrowed my characterization to the issue of handgun capacity, which is but one of many factors to consider in choosing a handgun for self defense. If deep concealment is the overriding factor, I know of no handgun that has adequate capacity that can be deeply concealed. If stopping a charging grizzly bear is the overriding factor, I know of no semiauto pistol capable of firing a sufficiently powerful round for that job.

In the early '80s I formed a preference, which persists to this day, for a handgun that has adequate capacity while being carriable and concealable. Concealability led me to compacts, and the search for adequate capacity confined my search to magazine-fed semiautos. So what in my mind is an adequate capacity? My opinion: One that will give me at least a 95% of physiologically stopping an assailant.

Applying the IDPA binomial model described above, I need a pistol with a capacity of at least 26 rounds. Since no such pistol exists, I need to carry at least one spare magazine. My 14+1 CZ 75 Compact with a single 16-round extended magazine more than does the job. With a 6-shot revolver I would need to carry four speedloaders. That's doable, but I don't have faith in my ability to reload fast enough to make carrying four speedloaders meaningful.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

So what in my mind is an adequate capacity? My opinion: One that will give me at least a 95% of physiologically stopping an assailant.

Applying the IDPA binomial model described above, I need a pistol with a capacity of at least 26 rounds.

Aren't you forgetting little things like how much ground an attacker moving around his van at five meters per second can cover in the time you might the shooting that many rounds at him, after having drawn? I suggest that you might well be cut short in mid-magazine.

Since no such pistol exists, I need to carry at least one spare magazine. My 14+1 CZ 75 Compact with a single 16-round extended magazine more than does the job. With a 6-shot revolver I would need to carry four speedloaders. That's doable, but I don't have faith in my ability to reload fast enough to make carrying four speedloaders meaningful.

Do you really think you would be able to reload anything even once during an ambush by a violent criminal actor from close range?

At some point, unless you are trying to end the violent actions of a criminal for reasons having to do with law enforcement duty, there is a practical maximum.

What is it? I do not know.

 

[44 AMP]

WELL...

So what in my mind is an adequate capacity? My opinion: One that will give me at least a 95% of physiologically stopping an assailant.

Applying the IDPA binomial model described above, I need a pistol with a capacity of at least 26 rounds.

Since no such pistol exists,

Oh, but such a pistol does exist. It might not be as small a package as you like, but it does exist. Several come to mind, in fact. AR,AK pistols are a couple that would meet your 26rnd need.

Likewise an UZI. There is even a Tommygun pistol, with a 50 rnd drum.

Smaller, and so slightly more practical is the Calico 9mm with a 50 rnd mag. (you could go for the 100rnd mag, and really up your odds of hitting!
(based on statistical models, anyway...)

They exist. Might not meet your other qualifications, but they do exist.

 

[DaleA]

I carry a revolver. There... I said it. Its a 5 shot. I recently decided if I was going to only have 5 fast shots, it better be the most effective round, and gun I WILL carry. Its a Bulldog in 44 Special. I dont want to be in an extended gunfight with it, but for social work, I feel comforted that its easy to carry, and I always have it available. I also carry two 6 shot speed strips.

Weblance-just because I agree with you and think the .44 special would be darn near perfect for almost any social situation and that a five shot Bulldog qualifies as a SERIOUS self defense gun don't think I didn't see what you did there with your two 6 shot speed strips for a five shot revolver. I'm not as asleep as most folk think I am.

 

[Limnophile]

Officers are not required to go in harm's way any more than civilians are.

Oh yes they are. The have a duty to stop criminal action and to apprehend suspects. Civilians have neither.

They have a moral duty to do so, because they signed up to do just that. But, they have no legal duty to do so. Remember all the LEOs standing around watching businesses in Ferguson, MO being looted, vandalized, and burned? I don't think think any of them lost their jobs -- for standing around anyway.

Civilians generally have no legal duty to stop criminality or apprehend criminals, but I think they have a moral duty to do so when they can.

The key difference is that LEOs are afforded legal protections for doing their moral duty, protections that are often withheld from civilians doing the same.

In fact, they operate in the same environment.

That is irrelevant.

How so?

SCOTUS has ruled (Castle Rock v Gonzales, 2005) that police have no constitutional duty to protect a citizen from harm.

That has to do only with the subject of governmental liability to people who sustain damages.

It has everything to do with one having no reasonable expectation of being afforded personal or property protection by government authorities. We can be thankful that so many cops do a good job, despite being granted permission to be slackers.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

They [(police offiers)] have a moral duty to do so [(enforce the law)], because they signed up to do just that.

More than that, it is their job.

But, they have no legal duty to do so.

I have no idea that that means. But if they fail to perform their duties, they have no special legal protections to prevent dismissal.

Remember all the LEOs standing around watching businesses in Ferguson, MO being looted, vandalized, and burned? I don't think think any of them lost their jobs -- for standing around anyway.

They were acting under departmental direction. The belief, highly publicized at the time, was that the level of violence would have been made worse had they tried to arrest people at the time.

The key difference is that LEOs are afforded legal protections for doing their moral duty, protections that are often withheld from civilians doing the same.

Morality doesn't enter into it.

The "key difference" is that civilians may be excused for using force, including deadly force, only when they have not themselves instigated a confrontation and when they have done everything safely possible to try to avoid it. Police officers are expected to act, within departmental policy restrictions, to enforce the law.

That's why they are trained in, and equipped for, using a continuum of force.

Or as 44 AMP put it, "officers are required by their jobs to go in harms way; ... the officers intend to go in harms way, as part of their duty to protect us. etc., etc.".

Yes, that is their duty. That the courts have found that citizens are not entitled to recovery of damages from the community in the event that that protection fails is simply a matter of reality. Police officers cannot protect all of us all of the time, and we therefore cannot expect them to. Therefore, many of us carry firearms.

But make no mistake about it--they are expected to try.

Back to the subject, that is why they carry high capacity pistols, extra magazines, tasers, clubs, handcuffs, and radios.

 

[Limnophile]

Aren't you forgetting little things like how much ground an attacker moving around his van at five meters per second can cover in the time you might the shooting that many rounds at him, after having drawn? I suggest that you might well be cut short in mid-magazine.

All such factors are incorporated into the FBI's reported hit rate of 20 to 30%. Whether one is afforded no more than a half magazine of shots is mathematically irrelevant. A brief gunfight simply affords less likelihood of a hit by affording fewer shots.

Do you really think you would be able to reload anything even once during an ambush by a violent criminal actor from close range?

I know that my chances of a successful reload is much better with a semiauto than with a revolver. And a high capacity reduces the likelihood of having to resort to reloading.

At some point, unless you are trying to end the violent actions of a criminal for reasons having to do with law enforcement duty, there is a practical maximum.

What is it? I do not know.

I'm not sure how law enforcement duty has anything to do with the subject. In WA the law acknowledges a citizen's right to make an arrest for a felony and to use an appropriate level of force in doing so.

In a debate bellyaching about a position you disagree with is unproductive, unless you offer an alternative with supporting rationale. I've provided my rationale for carrying a high capacity semiauto pistol with at least one spare mag so that the total rounds available is at least 26. If you care to dispute any of my assumptions, I'm willing to entertain any alternative offered.

After having a CPL for three years I have to admit that I see a role for a pocket handgun for me. I don't know of any comfortably pocketable pistol that, even with two spare mags, give me my desired 26-round loadout. Obviously, I have concluded that there are times when deep concealability is more important than having a comforting ammo capacity.

I considered a J-frame type revolver for pocket carry, because the one day I ankle carried a CZ 83 I was surprised to see how much lint accumulated on the gun. But, with only 5 shots available without a slow, low-capacity reload, the pocket- or ankle-carried revolver doesn't seem very effective.

 

[44 AMP]

44 AMP has ridiculed my characterization of revolvers as suboptimal for self defense. As I recall he accurately narrowed my characterization to the issue of handgun capacity, which is but one of many factors to consider in choosing a handgun for self defense....

Yes, I did that. Didn't realize it might be considered ridicule, no insult was intended. And I did specifically refer to round count being the issue, because that is what the OP was about. People telling him he needed to dump his revolver for a hi-cap auto because it held more rounds.

None of the other factors about what does, or does not make a good self defense pistol were mentioned.

If stopping a charging grizzly bear is the overriding factor, I know of no semiauto pistol capable of firing a sufficiently powerful round for that job.

I'm not sure what you would consider powerful enough to do that job. I've seen a lot of posts from people believing only a .500 something or other is enough. I think a round in the .44 Magnum power class is enough, and I own several semiauto pistols in that category.

Robert E. Pedersen took a 14 foot 1,500lb polar bear with a .44 Magnum. bear was at 25yds (not charging but coming towards him. He fired 5 rapid shots into the chest area, and the bear "dropped in its tracks".

based on that alone, I don't think the power of the .44 Mag would be an issue.
Stopping a charging animal isn't the same as one that isn't. Shooter's job is much more difficult. The cartridge's job is exactly the same.

I have a Desert Eagle .44 Magnum. Also have .44AMP and .45 Win mag pistols. Same power class as .44 Magnum. The Desert Eagle is sill in production, and can even be had in a .50 caliber version. Semi automatic pistols with the power to stop a charging grizzly do exist.

Somewhere there's some shooter who could do it, I'm sure. But unless/until he, and the gun, and the bear all meet up, we'll not know for certain.

Even though I'm the greatest shooter to ever walk in my shoes, I have doubts that I could do it. I have a lot of personal experience with the guns, with charging bears, not so much...(seen some videos, they are scary fast!)

If it were absolutely gonna happen that I had to do it, I'd wager all my money (at high odds) on me. My reasoning is simple.
#1, if I survived, anything not eaten by medical bills would be profit
#2 if I don't, I won't care.

 

[AZAK]

If stopping a charging grizzly bear is the overriding factor, I know of no semiauto pistol capable of firing a sufficiently powerful round for that job.

"A grizzly bear that emerged from a thicket and charged two backpackers in the backcountry of Denali National Park and Preserve was shot and killed by one of the two who was carrying a .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol, according to park officials."
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.co...-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943

Lots of folks up here carry semi-autos for bear including chambered in: 45 Auto and 10mm Auto, 45 WinMag, 44 Mag, etc...

Lots of folks up here carry revolvers in differing chamberings too.

Some carry 12 gauges, some carry rifles.

My first line of defense is still good old bear spray (look up the stats on success with that in Alaska); with rifle and hand gun as back up and in that order.

 

[Brotherbadger]

Shoot whatever u like and be happy with it and allow the next man to do the same .

Agreed. Shoot what you like, and carry what you shoot well.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

I've provided my rationale for carrying a high capacity semiauto pistol with at least one spare mag so that the total rounds available is at least 26. If you care to dispute any of my assumptions, I'm willing to entertain any alternative offered.

Again, I repectully suggest that in a self defense encounter in which a violent criminal actor engages from close range and advances very rapidly (say, at five meters per second), a defender will be unlikely to have the time to use all twenty-six rounds before having been slashed or stabbed, particularly if he or she must reload.

The defender will not be justified in using deadly force at all, unless is is immediately necessary to do so because an attacker has the ability and opportunity to harm him very seriously, the defender has a basis for a reasonable belief that he is in jeopardy, there is no alternative, and the defender did not instigate the encounter. And then, the defender may use no more force than is reasonably necessary to defend himself.

If at any point during the defense any of those factors cease to exist, justification no longer exits. The defender may not pursue the attacker to end a fight.

The sworn officer with a duty to enforce the law acts under a different set of rules. He may well have to reload more than once, and have more than one opportunity to do so.

Yes, in Washington, a civilian may use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon, under rare and strictly limited circumstances in which he is assisting a sworn officer and acting under his direction.

The idea that a defender may somehow increase his odds of success to 95% by carrying more rounds is based on an assumption that he would somehow have the time to expend all of those rounds before being overcome. I don't see that assumption as realistic.

That's why I mentioned the concept of a practical maximum. And again, I do not know what that number might be.

 

[2damnold4this]

The idea that a defender may somehow increase his odds of success to 95% by carrying more rounds is based on an assumption that he would somehow have the time to expend all of those rounds before being overcome. I don't see that assumption as realistic.

I agree. If we were somehow able to carry an infinite number of rounds, that would be no guarantee that we would be successful in a defensive encounter. I do think that having fifteen rounds on tap gives an advantage over having five but that advantage is not three to one. I suspect that if the first few rounds don't cause the attacker(s) to break off the attack or be disabled, the chances of a bad outcome rapidly increase.

If someone is still trying to harm me after I've fired five or six shots, it's because they're either too enraged to care about the consequences or they think they can harm me without being injured. Either situation is a bad place to be.

 

[Limnophile]

Oh, but such a pistol does exist. It might not be as small a package as you like, but it does exist. Several come to mind, in fact. AR,AK pistols are a couple that would meet your 26rnd need.

Likewise an UZI. There is even a Tommygun pistol, with a 50 rnd drum.

Smaller, and so slightly more practical is the Calico 9mm with a 50 rnd mag. (you could go for the 100rnd mag, and really up your odds of hitting!
(based on statistical models, anyway...)

They exist. Might not meet your other qualifications, but they do exist.

I was thinking more conventionally, like a Glock 26 with a 33-round mag. But, yes, none is adequately concealable.

 

[Limnophile]

They [(police offiers)] have a moral duty to do so [(enforce the law)], because they signed up to do just that.

More than that, it is their job.

Which is why it's their moral duty. They freely accepted the job.

But, they have no legal duty to do so.

I have no idea that that means. But if they fail to perform their duties, they have no special legal protections to prevent dismissal.

The SCOTUS ruling I cited spells it out clearly. Have you ever heard of an LEO losing his job because he chose not to do his duty? If you ave, you haven't heard of many. Unionized government bureaucrats are very rarely fired. A cop may lose his job for criminal activity, or for angering a group with special protections while performing his duty (ala Ferguson or Staten Island), but not for choosing not to do his duty (ala Ferguson riots).

Remember all the LEOs standing around watching businesses in Ferguson, MO being looted, vandalized, and burned? I don't think think any of them lost their jobs -- for standing around anyway.

They were acting under departmental direction. The belief, highly publicized at the time, was that the level of violence would have been made worse had they tried to arrest people at the time.

So it's somehow okay when a police force en masse decides to ignore its duty?

The key difference is that LEOs are afforded legal protections for doing their moral duty, protections that are often withheld from civilians doing the same.

Morality doesn't enter into it.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but in a civil society morality is everything. Our Founders and Framers knew that. Unfortunately, the civil society in this country is under assault and crumbling rapidly.

The "key difference" is that civilians may be excused for using force, including deadly force, only when they have not themselves instigated a confrontation and when they have done everything safely possible to try to avoid it. Police officers are expected to act, within departmental policy restrictions, to enforce the law.

That's why they are trained in, and equipped for, using a continuum of force.

Or as 44 AMP put it, "officers are required by their jobs to go in harms way; ... the officers intend to go in harms way, as part of their duty to protect us. etc., etc.".

Yes, that is their duty. That the courts have found that citizens are not entitled to recovery of damages from the community in the event that that protection fails is simply a matter of reality. Police officers cannot protect all of us all of the time, and we therefore cannot expect them to. Therefore, many of us carry firearms.

But make no mistake about it--they are expected to try.

Back to the subject, that is why they carry high capacity pistols, extra magazines, tasers, clubs, handcuffs, and radios.

Given that LEOs' lives, jobs, and treasures are generally not at risk when they opt to shirk their duty, the expectation you speak of is obviously not very high. It is for this very reason that LEOs who do perform their duty should be lauded.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Limnophile:

The SCOTUS ruling I cited spells it out clearly.

In the case cited, the Court ruled that the a community cannot be held liable to a crime victim for damages in civil court because the police had not prevented the crime.

And that is completely reasonable. The police cannot be everywhere at once.

A cop may lose his job for criminal activity, or for angering a group with special protections while performing his duty (ala Ferguson or Staten Island), but not for choosing not to do his duty (ala Ferguson riots).

I am not aware of any police officer choosing to not do his duty in Ferguson.

So it's somehow okay when a police force en masse decides to ignore its duty?

Come now! That's not what happened at all! Elected and appointed officials decided that police intervention would lead to bloodshed, and the police were ordered to stand back.

And their duty was therefore to do just that.

Given that LEOs' lives, jobs, and treasures are generally not at risk when they opt to shirk their duty, the expectation you speak of is obviously not very high.

I have no idea where you got that impression.

 

[DA/SA Fan]

This thread is getting boring. The more/bigger/more powerful rounds you can carry the better you are equipped to survive any threat to your life or those around you. A gun is nothing more than insurance. How much do you need? Where I live I feel safe with a Beretta Tomcat. Sure there are many "possible" scenarios that could call for more/bigger/more powerful and I usually carry a 14+1 10mm or a 17+1 9mm and even with the Tomcat I carry 2 extra mags on my belt. If I were to walk out of my house with a 5 shot revolver though I would still feel safe. Especially in these times where terrorism can be thrown into the mix of possible bad days you can't be over prepared but like insurance you don't know how much you will use until you need it. and you hope you never will. Carry what makes you happy but carry!