The Guns that Criminals Carry - Know yourself/Know your enemy
- Thread starter Tactical Jackalope
- Start date
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by gyvel:
It would influence the probability that a defender would have the need to use force, including deadly force, but once the incident occurs, the area would have nothing to do with the question of what the defender would be faced with.
How would that enter into the equation?
It would influence the probability that a defender would have the need to use force, including deadly force, but once the incident occurs, the area would have nothing to do with the question of what the defender would be faced with.
Old marksman,
The difference is that a LEO, knowing he must enter into such places, can draw his weapon and be ready. The discerning CCW holder won't put his/her self into those situations if at all possible.
The LEO intentionally walks into harms way, while the CCW holder has trouble thrust upon him suddenly...mostly.
The difference is that a LEO, knowing he must enter into such places, can draw his weapon and be ready. The discerning CCW holder won't put his/her self into those situations if at all possible.
The LEO intentionally walks into harms way, while the CCW holder has trouble thrust upon him suddenly...mostly.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by samsmix:
...except in one aspect.
If the person with whom a civilian defender has tangled takes off down the road, it is over.
However, the LEO would have an obligation to try to pursue and apprehend.
What that means to me is that the LEO would have the need to reload in more instances than the civilian defender, and a realistic opportunity to do so.
It is true that the LEO may be able to lawfully draw in circumstances in which a civilian defender would not.
True. But once the need for shooting arises, there is little difference....
...except in one aspect.
If the person with whom a civilian defender has tangled takes off down the road, it is over.
However, the LEO would have an obligation to try to pursue and apprehend.
What that means to me is that the LEO would have the need to reload in more instances than the civilian defender, and a realistic opportunity to do so.
Having read the OP, it's sort of interesting but seems to contain no actionable information. Yes, criminals frequently have non-functional guns. You can get an advantage by having one that works, is tested, has good HP ammo, etc. But you were going to do all that anyways, so there's nothing actionable there.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
I don't know why it's gone to 6 pages!
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Look in the mirror 
Tactical Jackalope
New member
I feel, so, special. 
boltomatic
New member
The reality is, a gun is a gun is a gun in civilian self defense. I've looked at a lot of statistics and research and the fact is MOST self defense situations where a gun is involved don't even involve any shots being fired and when shots re fired its rare that more than 2 or 3 are fired.
The fact is, the chances of a smaller bullet or magazine failing where a larger round or magazine would have saved your life are so small its almost not worth considering.
That said, carry whatever you want. Its a personal decision. But if you are concerned that you don't have enough "firepower" or "stopping power" I suggest you do some research on actual CIVILIAN self defense scenarios.
Also, remember that he who draws first wins. If you are accosted by a criminal at gun point you have a much better chance of survival by giving him your wallet or whatever he wants. Chances are he can pull the trigger faster than you can draw, aim, and fire. If he doesn't have a gun and you do, you have the upper hand no matter what and the odds of a smaller bullet failing you where a larger round would have worked are again very, very small.
This is what I learned from doing actual research, i.e. not anecdotal reports and unsupported arguments from keyboard commandos. Ive found police officers and soldiers are the biggest culprits of the stopping power myth because for them, more firepower actually does matter in many scenarios but for civilians the statistics on self defense scenarios show that 99% of the time a would be victim brandishes a .22 and the criminal runs the hell away. When shots are fired, its only a few shots. We all hear about that one time a criminal took 6 or 7 hits from a 9mm and proceeded to kill his victim, but that is extremely rare and he probably would have taken 3 or 4 hits from a .45 as well.
In conclusion, carry what you want to carry. The most important thing is that the gun fires when you pull the trigger and the bullets hit where you want them to hit. Its very unlikely that a failed attempt at self defense would have been successful if you had a larger round in the same situation and I base that conclusion off real life evidence, not what if arguments, conjecture, or emotion. I'm just a boring researcher who loves guns and lives in one of the top 50 most violent city districts in the country.
The fact is, the chances of a smaller bullet or magazine failing where a larger round or magazine would have saved your life are so small its almost not worth considering.
That said, carry whatever you want. Its a personal decision. But if you are concerned that you don't have enough "firepower" or "stopping power" I suggest you do some research on actual CIVILIAN self defense scenarios.
Also, remember that he who draws first wins. If you are accosted by a criminal at gun point you have a much better chance of survival by giving him your wallet or whatever he wants. Chances are he can pull the trigger faster than you can draw, aim, and fire. If he doesn't have a gun and you do, you have the upper hand no matter what and the odds of a smaller bullet failing you where a larger round would have worked are again very, very small.
This is what I learned from doing actual research, i.e. not anecdotal reports and unsupported arguments from keyboard commandos. Ive found police officers and soldiers are the biggest culprits of the stopping power myth because for them, more firepower actually does matter in many scenarios but for civilians the statistics on self defense scenarios show that 99% of the time a would be victim brandishes a .22 and the criminal runs the hell away. When shots are fired, its only a few shots. We all hear about that one time a criminal took 6 or 7 hits from a 9mm and proceeded to kill his victim, but that is extremely rare and he probably would have taken 3 or 4 hits from a .45 as well.
In conclusion, carry what you want to carry. The most important thing is that the gun fires when you pull the trigger and the bullets hit where you want them to hit. Its very unlikely that a failed attempt at self defense would have been successful if you had a larger round in the same situation and I base that conclusion off real life evidence, not what if arguments, conjecture, or emotion. I'm just a boring researcher who loves guns and lives in one of the top 50 most violent city districts in the country.
Constantine said:
And what fairy tale handgun would that be? I can't imagine one that would cover all the imaginable scenarios one could come up with. (Unless it's one of those movie guns that will fire forever without the need to reload.) Everyone has a minimum amount of firepower they are comfortable with. My minimum is less than yours and yours seems to be more than most.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by fastbolt:
There are two summaries that I know of that address civilian use of force incidents in which shots were fired.
One covered about five dozen incidents involving former trainees of Tom Givens' classes. The other was compiled in what appears to have been another Tennessee municipality.
The data are far too few, and the number of possible variables is far too large, to tell us much of anything useful.
Have you taken into account edged weapons?
In how many cases do you think you would be justified in shooting if you did not have a basis for a reasonable belief that the robber was armed?
How much realistic training have you had?
And than there is at the little matter of the the fact that no one consistently records much relevant data.
Whatever that means.
There are two summaries that I know of that address civilian use of force incidents in which shots were fired.
One covered about five dozen incidents involving former trainees of Tom Givens' classes. The other was compiled in what appears to have been another Tennessee municipality.
The data are far too few, and the number of possible variables is far too large, to tell us much of anything useful.
So, you you can ignore those data.
I'm not sure where you think you heard that, but most of us train to shoot more than three shots at the outset.
That may sometimes be true. It will be a judgment call.
Do you have any factual basis at all for that assertion?
Have you taken into account edged weapons?
In how many cases do you think you would be justified in shooting if you did not have a basis for a reasonable belief that the robber was armed?
How much realistic training have you had?
The number of variables exceeds the number of equations.
And than there is at the little matter of the the fact that no one consistently records much relevant data.
Posted by OldMarksman:
It means that a lot of gun owners like to place an inordinate amount of emphasis and importance on divining subtle nuances and characteristics of make/model/caliber/ammunition when it comes to thinking about choosing a handgun selected as a dedicated defensive weapon, but in the end it's still just a handgun. It's a piece of equipment.
The when, why & how of its potential usage deserve more attention than some folks seem inclined to give.
Putting the cart before the horse can risk creating unnecessary problems for achieving the actual goal and getting the tasks done.
That's all.
It means that a lot of gun owners like to place an inordinate amount of emphasis and importance on divining subtle nuances and characteristics of make/model/caliber/ammunition when it comes to thinking about choosing a handgun selected as a dedicated defensive weapon, but in the end it's still just a handgun. It's a piece of equipment.
The when, why & how of its potential usage deserve more attention than some folks seem inclined to give.
Putting the cart before the horse can risk creating unnecessary problems for achieving the actual goal and getting the tasks done.
That's all.
OldMarksman
Staff
Oh. Okay.
I thought maybe you were equating the effectiveness of a .22 Short and a .38 Special.
I thought maybe you were equating the effectiveness of a .22 Short and a .38 Special.
I simply don't know how any insight can be gleaned from the article. Apart from it already being pretty much widely known that nearly all criminals will be armed with concealable weapons, what else is presented that is actionable? That some criminals aren't exactly careful when it comes to loading their firearms? Are we supposed to plan on that? Ridiculous.