Why do you carry?

[diginit]

Honestly. I have a 45. But I carry pepper spray. I have no desire to scatter someone's brains all over the street if they are unarmed. Since most SHTF situations are very close range, It seems sufficant. It's better that a taser or stun gun because the effects are long lasting. Whereas a stungun or taser will only subdue for 30 seconds. Then the attacker is active and really mad. If you use a gun, you tell the entire neiborhood your location and probably go to jail. Self defence or not. Unless you're a LEO. Not to mention the guilt trip. Even if you are LE.
Too bad that only honest citizens obey the law.

 

[threegun]

Tuttle, My criteria for a carry gun is simple. First the weapon must be reliable and accurate. Second it must be capable of deep penetration and bone busting. Third it must have enough capacity to engage multiple foes. All in a package that I can shoot, handle, and conceal.

This of course assumes comfort and proficiency with your chosen handgun.

For me front line calibers are 38 special/9mm and up.

Mordis,

Are we talking small gun/decent caliber or small gun small caliber.

We were debating puny calibers vs larger calibers. I feel that ones carry gun caliber should be able to do the basic things to our foe (human bad guy) to force them to stop an attack. This includes forcing them to stop via blood loss (the most reliable way to stop someone). This means that my caliber choice will have to penetrate deep and possibly through bones. Others feel that since the occasions of a bad guy needing to be forced to stop are rare, any caliber properly used will suffice.

 

[David Armstrong]

People I know(the few I know that carry puny anyway) carry puny because they will not carry bigger from laziness.

There is always a problem with trying to make broad assumptions based on one's own limited knowledge. Let me ask you--are you lazy? After all, you are carrying a compact Glock .40 instead of a full-size Glock .45.

Then give them all the facts not just your biased version.

Nothing biased about it. If you have actual facts that contribute to the discussion dealing with caliber for non-military, non-LE, typical CCW use, bring them out. The facts are very simple: Caliber is probably the least important variable in the DGU environment. Small calibers and guns have been shown to be just as effective at solving the problem as larger in virtually all DGU sitiuations. Historically there is no indication that smaller calibers lead to lower survival rates in CCW situations.

Personally?? No stats today.....wonder why? You reckon they might agree with me?

No, I reckon it is because you used a term that is rather vague and can be interpreted by different folks in different ways. That requires a "personally" as it is a value condsideration. Lifetime need of a gun also varies significantly based on lifestyle. That is the problem. You keep mixing up specific issues and general issues and trying to treat them the same based on what you wnat them to show.

Your facts are not wrong.

Then why do you keep arguing about them?

Its your aggressive adherence to those stats that I have a problem with.

Strange. The facts are not wrong, but pointing them out to people and suggesting they understand them and use them when appropriate is a problem with you. That is where we differ. I think the best-informed person is most likely to make the best decision as opposed to someone who bases a decision on bad information or falsehoods.

You live in a world of numbers but only when they support your argument.

In a long series of silly things you have siad, that has to be near the top. Not only is it silly on its face but it also happens to be factually incorrect.

Numbers say you will never need your gun.....still you carry (against the numbers).

And that is part of that whole cost versus benefit argument that you seem incapable of understanding.

Then you cry foul when others go against the numbers (and recommend carrying bigger calibers). Thats the nonsense David.

What is nonsense is you making things up all the time. I have not and will not do any such thing. I cry foul when you recommend things and then try to justify that recommendation on falsehoods and/or irrelevant statements.

If making bigger deeper holes in an attacker doesn't equal a better chance at surviving...then I stand corrected.

So, once again we see that in spite of all your claims, when it comes down to actual facts you cannot provide any to support your position.

Come to Florida and lets shoot together.

What has that got to do with experience, training, and actual DGUs? I'll note that once again you have tried to change the subject rather than respond to the issue.

It does but if your cartridge lacks the ability to penetrate deeply or through bones, both of the above are for not.

And there is another claim you make that has no basis in reality. Most DGU incidents get taken care of without any great ability to penetrate deeply or through bone.

Folks who expect trouble only carry puny as a BUG.

Folks who expect trouble generally don't rely on a handgun at all.

...after all statistics say you will never need to even brandish your gun....

You keep making these wildly inaccurate statements. That one, like many others, is just flat wrong.

 

[threegun]

Let me ask you--are you lazy? After all, you are carrying a compact Glock .40 instead of a full-size Glock .45.

Nope not lazy. The .40 and .45 both are capable of deep penetration and bone smashing....which is one of my criteria for a primary carry gun. I never said the gun or caliber had to be the biggest available only that the chosen caliber should be able to penetrate deeply and after bone is hit.

BTW David I own a couple of 21's and have easily concealed them in the past.

Historically there is no indication that smaller calibers lead to lower survival rates in CCW situations.

How many civilian gun incidents have you reviewed? Where can this information be found? Most importantly what was the outcome for those rare few that caliber did matter?

No, I reckon it is because you used a term that is rather vague and can be interpreted by different folks in different ways. That requires a "personally" as it is a value consideration. Lifetime need of a gun also varies significantly based on lifestyle. That is the problem. You keep mixing up specific issues and general issues and trying to treat them the same based on what you want them to show.

I said " History and all the information available shows we will likely never need a gun. ". Breaking down the odds based on personal lifestyle doesn't change my statements truth. "We" meaning fellow civilians and the odds are WE will never need a gun. In fact I would just love to see the stats that indicate that folks living a more risqué lifestyle are likely to need a gun in their lifetime. Since you always demand proof from me I thought you would provide some to back your claim.

Then why do you keep arguing about them?

Strange. The facts are not wrong, but pointing them out to people and suggesting they understand them and use them when appropriate is a problem with you. That is where we differ. I think the best-informed person is most likely to make the best decision as opposed to someone who bases a decision on bad information or falsehoods.

I don't argue about your stats rather your willingness to potentially place life and limb on those stats. You do so with a bias toward puny and against those of us who recommend heavier calibers.

BTW what are my "falsehoods" or "bad information"? I feel that a chosen caliber should be able to penetrate sufficiently, is that bad info? I'm concerned that puny will fail to stop a determined attacker and heavier gives you a better chance of doing so, is that a falsehood?

In a long series of silly things you have said, that has to be near the top. Not only is it silly on its face but it also happens to be factually incorrect.

Factually incorrect???????You recommend and advocate puny based on stats. You even said your personal odds of needing a gun in your lifetime are higher because of your lifestyle compared to other civilians life style. You are the king of statistics and they do seem to govern your every move. From you telling us not to start a gunfight because the numbers say it will raise the odds of someone being harmed to you suggesting that civilian will likely never need to even fire a gun much less face a determined attacker......you are the odds king.

BTW Thanks for all the stats they are helpful at times.

And that is part of that whole cost versus benefit argument that you seem incapable of understanding.

And part of the contradiction you seem incapable of understanding.

What has that got to do with experience, training, and actual DGUs? I'll note that once again you have tried to change the subject rather than respond to the issue.

I've never been in a shoot out. I've never attended formal training. I don't work in law enforcement. What I can do is fight with a handgun, rifle, and shotgun better than most. My training is a soup of what many schools teach. My competitive experience is close to 2 decades worth. I have studied many shootout videos. I have tons of FOF against friends and co workers (although nothing formal). I can fight with a knife and bare handed better than most. SO WHAT!! Does that make my words any more true? Does your experience make your words more true? You made the statement to lower my credibility and strengthen your own. I just put my money were my mouth is.

And David I would welcome and treat you as a friend even though we seem to butt heads alot.

 

[threegun]

Most DGU incidents get taken care of without any great ability to penetrate deeply or through bone.

Whats your point and how does it make deep penetration and bone smashing any less advantageous? Most folks will never need a gun either. The get through life without carrying one. Many still chose to carry one. Yet when I bring this up you ignore it.

Folks who expect trouble generally don't rely on a handgun at all.

Only if they know when trouble is coming David. Since few have crystal balls they carry a sidearm. I have yet to see a single one carry puny.

You keep making these wildly inaccurate statements. That one, like many others, is just flat wrong.

The fact that most folks never need a gun proves my statement. You are aware that most civilians get through life without ever needing a gun. Very few (on average) civilians carry a firearm. Of those who carry few will need said firearm ever. Think about it.

 

[cjw3cma]

I live in an area of southern Oregon where L.E. is not "just a click away" and 99% of the time response is up to me - so that's why I carry. There are any number of 4-legged creatures that one can come upon just off of the roadway (and some of those pesky 2-legged "animals" that you NEED to be armed when you run into them). My carry choice is my S&W 40 cal. with a couple of spare mags.

 

[c4v3man]

I carry because I can, and because I don't want fear to dictate when and where I can go "within reason". I don't go to bars, but if I want to go and grab some dinner late at night with the wife, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to do so safely.

I carry a P3AT (although, I'm going to start carrying my P7M8 now that I have it) to work because of the dress code at the office. I am unable to conceal my HK USP Expert 45. I do that on the weekends or after hours. I know that there is a slight chance that I will need a gun this year (I think there was a post earlier stating that 1 in 275 or so are in a violent confrontation per year according to the FBI published stats) but that the chance that I'll need 45 caliber power are even less than that (significantly less). I feel protected carrying 13 rounds of .380 +p CorBon hollowpoints, that I know I can keep on a paper plate at 25 feet firing at a reasonably fast pace.

I don't need someone else to try to force their opinion of what I need to carry on me. I have no problem with stating your opinion, but once it's out there, let it go. You're only hurting your cause by badgering others in my opinion.

Don't quote me on the 1 in 275, that's just what I believe was posted earlier.

 

[David Armstrong]

Nope not lazy. The .40 and .45 both are capable of deep penetration and bone smashing....which is one of my criteria for a primary carry gun.

So let's see...you are not lazy by compromising on the criteria that you think are important, but others are lazy because you don't agree with their criteria and compromise. Seems a litle odd.

BTW David I own a couple of 21's and have easily concealed them in the past.

OK. Not sure what that has to do with anything, though. I own a couple of 1911s and have easily concealed them in the past. I've owned a S&W N-frame and easily concealed it in the past.

How many civilian gun incidents have you reviewed?

Off the top of my head I'd say between 1500 and 2000. I'd try to be more precise but most of my office is still in storage while repairs from Hurricane Rita continue.

Where can this information be found?

Some of it is academic in nature, but most of it can be found with just a little searching, depending on the data you are wanting to find. Lot's of it ends up in newpapers, "it happened to me" sections of magazines such as the NRA Armed Citizen column, various biographies, and so on.

I said " History and all the information available shows we will likely never need a gun. ".

And I said that is pretty vague. "Likely never" might mean one thing to one person, something else to another.

Breaking down the odds based on personal lifestyle doesn't change my statements truth.

Well yes, actually it does. See the above note.

I would just love to see the stats that indicate that folks living a more risqué lifestyle are likely to need a gun in their lifetime.

Lifestyle is one of the prime indicators of likelihood of victimization. The fact that you don't know that info or don't understand how it applies is rather telling.

I don't argue about your stats rather your willingness to potentially place life and limb on those stats.

Got some bad news for you. Everybody does that, in multiple ways. The problem with many is that they have no idea of what the actual stats are so they cannot make an informed decision.

You do so with a bias toward puny and against those of us who recommend heavier calibers.

Nonsense. I have no bias toward small guns or large. If you want to carry a big gun, by all means do so. If you want to carry a small gun, by all means do so. Just realize that it really doesn't matter much in the overall scheme of things.

BTW what are my "falsehoods" or "bad information"?

I think we just pointed out a couple of them right there. We can throw in your constant denial of the effectiveness of small calibers, your insistence that certain factors are important in DGU incidents that aren't and so on.

Factually incorrect???????

Yes.

You recommend and advocate puny based on stats.

Nope. Incorrect again. Pointing out that something is adequate for the job at hand is neither a recommendation nor an advocacy.

You even said your personal odds of needing a gun in your lifetime are higher because of your lifestyle compared to other civilians life style.

Nope. Incorrect again. Starting to see the pattern?? I never said any such thing.

You are the king of statistics and they do seem to govern your every move.

Nope. Incorrect again. Stats certainly come into play in deciding what to do (as is true of everybody) but they do not govern my every move. If so I wouldn't do all those things that are contra-indicated by the stats.

And part of the contradiction you seem incapable of understanding.

Huh??? Gonna have to be a bit mosre specific there, as there is no contradiction indicated in the statement you have quoted.

What I can do is fight with a handgun, rifle, and shotgun better than most.

And you know this how---given that you have never been in a gunfight or attended any training??

My competitive experience is close to 2 decades worth.

Should I ever need information on how to play the shooting games, I will keep you in mind.

SO WHAT!!

I agree, so what? But you are the one who posted it, not me. I fail to see anything of any relevance in it, but again, I didn't post it.

Does your experience make your words more true?

When you have someone who has been in the field and is discussing what has actually occurred in actual incidents, yes, I would consider that information to be more accurate than someone whose experience has been playing games. By your own statement, you can find nothing wrong with my facts. I would consider somebody like Clint Smith, or John Farnam, or others of their ilk, to be better at describing and discussing what actually occurs during training and gunfights than somebody who has not trained and interacted with with many fighters.

You made the statement to lower my credibility and strengthen your own.

No. I feel no need to sstrengthen my credibility. I'm pretty much an open book and have been doing this stuff a long time. But whenever someobody is going to talk about how important something is for a DGU, and how to survive shootouts, and other stuff like that I think it important to find out just where their ideas come from.

 

[David Armstrong]

Whats your point

Umm, did you miss it? Let's try again: "Most DGU incidents get taken care of without any great ability to penetrate deeply or through bone."

how does it make deep penetration and bone smashing any less advantageous?

I never said a thing about it being less or more advantageous. What I have said is that it rarely matters at all.

Yet when I bring this up you ignore it.

No, that is incorrect. I have not ignored it, I have said over and over that is an issue of cost versus benefit. I realize you can't understand that for some reason, but I have said it. I will also point out a basic flaw in your premise, as getting through life without carrying a gun is very different from never needing a gun.

I have yet to see a single one carry puny.

As we have mentioned before, your limited experience in this area is a poor way to decide what the broader implications and realities are.

The fact that most folks never need a gun proves my statement.

First, as mentioined above, that is a questionable claim itself. But second, and more important, it does nothing to prove the false statement you gave, which was, "...after all statistics say you will never need to even brandish your gun." Statistics do not say that at all. Once again, you are incorrect.

Think about it.

I did. Sounds like you agree with me that small calibers/guns are adequate for the great majority of DGU incidents.

 

[pax]

This has wandered significantly off topic from the first post in the thread, and civility is declining.

Closed.

pax