anonimoose
New member
we're over-thinking certain aspects of CCW
Thesis:
The civilian CCW community overthinks, overanalyzes and overemphasizes the specifics of calibers, ammunition selection, make/model/type and other firearms minutiae with regard to defensive firearms. Responsibly carrying a firearm -- any firearm -- is 99% of the battle.
Caveat:
This post focuses purely on the use of firearms for personal defense and not for law enforcement, military, sport, hunting and/or recreation.
Background:
Two statements prompted this post -- the first from an individual on an unmentioned forum who wrote (I'm paraphrasing here) that he prepares each day as if he will get into a gun fight. The second from multiple individuals who habitually throw out the worst case hypothetical (again, I'm paraphrasing here) -- what if you get jumped by a small group of drugged-up crazies? Is your 7-shot non-4x caliber gun gonna be enough gun then?
Discussion:
Let's take a look at some numbers. If we take Dr. Gary Keck's (pro-CCW) research to heart, we learn that in those cases where civilians used their firearms in response to a violent attack, less than 47% actually pointed their firearms at the criminal -- a verbal warning or brandishing of the firearm was enough to stop the crime over half the time. In less than a quarter (22%) of the cases did the civilian defendants actually fire their firearms and of that number, just two thirds fired intending to hit their attackers (i.e., they weren't just warning shots). All told, in just 8% of all cases did the caliber of the firearm actually "matter" in that the civilian gun owners hit their targets and wounded or killed the attackers.
Now, let's take a look at the FBI's national crime statistics: there were 1,318,398 violent crimes in 2009 (out of a national population of 307,006,550). Let's assume for a moment that every single one of those victims had a firearm (if only that were true). Taking into account Dr. Keck's research and making some statistical assumptions (8% of 1,318,398 of 307,006,550), you come to the rough analysis/conclusion that in 2009, caliber "mattered" (or would have mattered) for only 0.0343% of all Americans. Of course, this isn't even taking demographics into account. Are you male or female? How old are you? Are you a member of a minority group? What is your socioeconomic status? Do you live in an urban, suburban, or rural area? Your chances of encountering violent crime dramatically increases (or drops) depending on who you are, where you live and what you do.
Thus, I would argue that in the average calendar year, for the average American CCW permit-holder who doesn't go looking for trouble, the chances of getting a gun fight with a group of drugged-up crazies in which the caliber of your weapon actually matters is even smaller than that 0.03%. (And I say that if you prepare each day as if you're going to get into a gun fight, you need to find a new job or bring a rifle with you...!) And yet we obsess over that 0.03%. We argue about the sufficiency of this caliber or that and we nit/henpeck every single little detail and we (often) bash each others' choices. A vocal minority even scoffs at those who aren't willing to radically alter their dress, budget and lifestyles in order to accommodate large caliber, high capacity concealed firearms. After all, those lazy gun-owners who buy a mouse gun and then "fire a little, carry a lot [in the pocket]" are really no better than the rest of the sheep flock, aren't they?
But wait -- there's more. In 2005, there were 6,420,000 auto accidents in which 2,900,000 Americans were injured and another 42,636 killed. Can we agree that it's far, far, far more likely that the average CCW permit-holder will get into a car accident tonight than will engage in a gun fight in which rounds impact on target? Well then why aren't these responsible gun owners preparing every day as if they're going to get into a car accident that may injure or kill them just as violent crime would? Why aren't they being equally vocal and zealous about changing their lifestyle and consistently driving under 70mph, since the stopping distance at that speed is roughly 194 feet and the average illumination distance for headlights is only 180 feet? Why aren't they obsessing about crash test ratings and consumer safety reports? Why aren't they meticulous about keeping the internal cabin of the vehicle free of any non-secured heavy objects like books, tools, bags, dogs!, etc (all of which can fly around in an accident and cause trauma)? Do they preach the gospel of only driving large capacity, heavily constructed trucks because you never know when you're going to round the bend on some random country highway and accidently run into a bunch of drug-crazed deer in the middle of the road? (God knows that you wouldn't survive if you were driving that tiny little import!) Shall we take a look at the statistics for other life-threatening scenarios? Fires? Disaster/emergency preparedness? Heck, heart disease?
Conclusion:
If you're consistent about taking measures to protect your own life and others, kudos to you. But I gotta say, if you're that CCW permit-holder who's got the Sig 226 in a custom OWB holster (with a spare mag and the Sig 238 as a bug) because dammit, your life is worth the extra dollars...and yet you drive like a maniac, drink like a fish, smoke like a chimney, think radon is a type of laser gun, eat fries like you're trying to deprive every Frenchman in the world, think donating blood is for do-gooders only and have no absolutely no qualms about going to the ATM after dark -- maybe you should rethink the focused application of your time, money and energy on the 0.03% likelihood that your 155gr Speer Gold Dot JHP will actually hit someone tonight. Maybe you shouldn't bash the decision-making of others who are proactively taking steps to safeguard life -- in a real, wholistic sense -- which includes but is not limited to responsible firearm ownership/usage. Maybe that consistently reliable gun owner who fires a little but always (ALWAYS) pocket carries the LCP or PF-9 because he takes CCW seriously has got 99% of it -- make that 99.9657% of it -- figured out.
Thesis:
The civilian CCW community overthinks, overanalyzes and overemphasizes the specifics of calibers, ammunition selection, make/model/type and other firearms minutiae with regard to defensive firearms. Responsibly carrying a firearm -- any firearm -- is 99% of the battle.
Caveat:
This post focuses purely on the use of firearms for personal defense and not for law enforcement, military, sport, hunting and/or recreation.
Background:
Two statements prompted this post -- the first from an individual on an unmentioned forum who wrote (I'm paraphrasing here) that he prepares each day as if he will get into a gun fight. The second from multiple individuals who habitually throw out the worst case hypothetical (again, I'm paraphrasing here) -- what if you get jumped by a small group of drugged-up crazies? Is your 7-shot non-4x caliber gun gonna be enough gun then?
Discussion:
Let's take a look at some numbers. If we take Dr. Gary Keck's (pro-CCW) research to heart, we learn that in those cases where civilians used their firearms in response to a violent attack, less than 47% actually pointed their firearms at the criminal -- a verbal warning or brandishing of the firearm was enough to stop the crime over half the time. In less than a quarter (22%) of the cases did the civilian defendants actually fire their firearms and of that number, just two thirds fired intending to hit their attackers (i.e., they weren't just warning shots). All told, in just 8% of all cases did the caliber of the firearm actually "matter" in that the civilian gun owners hit their targets and wounded or killed the attackers.
Now, let's take a look at the FBI's national crime statistics: there were 1,318,398 violent crimes in 2009 (out of a national population of 307,006,550). Let's assume for a moment that every single one of those victims had a firearm (if only that were true). Taking into account Dr. Keck's research and making some statistical assumptions (8% of 1,318,398 of 307,006,550), you come to the rough analysis/conclusion that in 2009, caliber "mattered" (or would have mattered) for only 0.0343% of all Americans. Of course, this isn't even taking demographics into account. Are you male or female? How old are you? Are you a member of a minority group? What is your socioeconomic status? Do you live in an urban, suburban, or rural area? Your chances of encountering violent crime dramatically increases (or drops) depending on who you are, where you live and what you do.
Thus, I would argue that in the average calendar year, for the average American CCW permit-holder who doesn't go looking for trouble, the chances of getting a gun fight with a group of drugged-up crazies in which the caliber of your weapon actually matters is even smaller than that 0.03%. (And I say that if you prepare each day as if you're going to get into a gun fight, you need to find a new job or bring a rifle with you...!) And yet we obsess over that 0.03%. We argue about the sufficiency of this caliber or that and we nit/henpeck every single little detail and we (often) bash each others' choices. A vocal minority even scoffs at those who aren't willing to radically alter their dress, budget and lifestyles in order to accommodate large caliber, high capacity concealed firearms. After all, those lazy gun-owners who buy a mouse gun and then "fire a little, carry a lot [in the pocket]" are really no better than the rest of the sheep flock, aren't they?
But wait -- there's more. In 2005, there were 6,420,000 auto accidents in which 2,900,000 Americans were injured and another 42,636 killed. Can we agree that it's far, far, far more likely that the average CCW permit-holder will get into a car accident tonight than will engage in a gun fight in which rounds impact on target? Well then why aren't these responsible gun owners preparing every day as if they're going to get into a car accident that may injure or kill them just as violent crime would? Why aren't they being equally vocal and zealous about changing their lifestyle and consistently driving under 70mph, since the stopping distance at that speed is roughly 194 feet and the average illumination distance for headlights is only 180 feet? Why aren't they obsessing about crash test ratings and consumer safety reports? Why aren't they meticulous about keeping the internal cabin of the vehicle free of any non-secured heavy objects like books, tools, bags, dogs!, etc (all of which can fly around in an accident and cause trauma)? Do they preach the gospel of only driving large capacity, heavily constructed trucks because you never know when you're going to round the bend on some random country highway and accidently run into a bunch of drug-crazed deer in the middle of the road? (God knows that you wouldn't survive if you were driving that tiny little import!) Shall we take a look at the statistics for other life-threatening scenarios? Fires? Disaster/emergency preparedness? Heck, heart disease?
Conclusion:
If you're consistent about taking measures to protect your own life and others, kudos to you. But I gotta say, if you're that CCW permit-holder who's got the Sig 226 in a custom OWB holster (with a spare mag and the Sig 238 as a bug) because dammit, your life is worth the extra dollars...and yet you drive like a maniac, drink like a fish, smoke like a chimney, think radon is a type of laser gun, eat fries like you're trying to deprive every Frenchman in the world, think donating blood is for do-gooders only and have no absolutely no qualms about going to the ATM after dark -- maybe you should rethink the focused application of your time, money and energy on the 0.03% likelihood that your 155gr Speer Gold Dot JHP will actually hit someone tonight. Maybe you shouldn't bash the decision-making of others who are proactively taking steps to safeguard life -- in a real, wholistic sense -- which includes but is not limited to responsible firearm ownership/usage. Maybe that consistently reliable gun owner who fires a little but always (ALWAYS) pocket carries the LCP or PF-9 because he takes CCW seriously has got 99% of it -- make that 99.9657% of it -- figured out.
Last edited:
R, but what's the problem with preparing for the worst case scenario? Sure you MIGHT be able to just brandish your LCP, but what if you happen to rearend a car full of Teed off Samoans or something? Prep for the worst. Hope may be a campaign slogan it aint a strategy.
