Why the hypocrisy on handgun capacity?

I know a fellow that won't leave the house without carrying 4- 21 round mags. Will you say that is a natural thing to do, I say he's very paranoid.

That or he watched Rambo or Commando one TOO many times.
 
[QUOTE ] It's not the odds, it's the stakes. [/QUOTE]

So lets see, if you live in a country that never ever had a earthquake do you buy earthquake insurance?
If in your country the temperature never reached a temperature above 65 degrees would you install air conditioning in your house. It's all about odds. now if you live in the ghetto thats another story. Do you live in a ghetto?
 
More gun is not always better for CCW. You got to have it with you for it to count. While more rounds is certainly better in a crisis, it's more important to have a gun you can handle well. I'm not a fan of the ultra compacts nor the big 2 pound plus autos for CCW.
 
Cashel wrote:

“ So lets see, if you live in a country that never ever had a earthquake do you buy earthquake insurance?
If in your country the temperature never reached a temperature above 65 degrees would you install air conditioning in your house. It's all about odds. now if you live in the ghetto thats another story. Do you live in a ghetto?”

That statement assumes that all violent crime only occurs in a “ghetto”. To me that is a racist/classist statement and is absolutely untrue.
 
gryphon1911 said:
Cashel wrote:

“ So lets see, if you live in a country that never ever had a earthquake do you buy earthquake insurance?
If in your country the temperature never reached a temperature above 65 degrees would you install air conditioning in your house. It's all about odds. now if you live in the ghetto thats another story. Do you live in a ghetto?”

That statement assumes that all violent crime only occurs in a “ghetto”. To me that is a racist/classist statement and is absolutely untrue.
Click to expand...
Does all violent crime occur in a “ghetto”…no. Do most violent crimes occur in impoverished towns/neighborhoods? Absolutely. Poverty along with drug use is a perfect recipe for violent crime. This is a fact!

I’ve lived in an inner city drug infested neighborhood and now live a diverse middle class suburb. Huge difference in violent crimes between both.
 
I EDC a 7 round S&W 686+ with 125gr 357 or a 6+1 Kahr K40 with 180gr 40s&w. With that, I am more armed and better prepared than most of the others in this country and in the entire world.

That is enough for me and will be enough to defend my life with. I am not a gangbanger, drug dealer, L.E., living in a war torn country, etc. I do not have ridiculous fantasies about getting into a shootout with a gang of criminals who are also armed with guns, taking on drug cartels, having to take out heavily armed assault rifle wielding terrorist who have bombs on their back, or being invaded by Russia. My goal is to get away to safety and not to killing everyone or to catch and detain criminals.

The odds of ever needing a gun is extremely low. The odds of having to fire one in self defense is even lower. The odds of having to get into a gun fight while having to mag dump 15 to 30 rounds are even lower. Despite the 24/7 365 social media, internet gun forums, and online and TV news reporting of bad news and the sky is falling, violent crime is actually lower now than it has been 20 years ago and before then. Not only that, but there are more guns in the country than ever before and more armed law abiding citizens carrying outside of the home than ever before in the history of the country and the planet.

I support other's right to legally and responsibly carry what they what, but I roll my eyes and turn a deaf ear to all their fearmongering hyperbole. For decades until present day, revolvers, 6-7 +1 striker fired pistols, and 1911s have cumulatively been carried or used for home defense by hundreds of millions of citizens. Until I see statistics proving and hear about an epidemic of dead gun owners who were found lying next to their empty sub 10 round handguns, I don't care about the unfounded capacity OPINIONS of other more fearful gun owners. No harm in having it and not needing it, but I feel like it is pointless.

9UUJTaK.jpg
 
Last edited:
Just owning a gun increases the rate of suicide, homicide and accidents. If you want to be safe don't own a gun. I don't want to be safe. I want to be free. More rounds doesn't equal more safe.
 
I envy the folks, like the OP, who are able to predict what their gunfight will look like; how many assailants there will be, and how many rounds they'll need to neatly dispatch them.

Sadly, I don't share their prescience; I prepare to handle the worst possible scenarios that could occur, within the limitations imposed by weight and concealment. I typically carry a 12+1 pistol with two spare magazines, because larger guns and more magazines make daily life difficult. If guns were weightless and invisible, I'd carry an M-2; sadly, there are choices that have to be made.

I'll add that if I could accurately predict what MY gunfight would look like, I'd likely try just a little harder and predict WHEN it would occur; then I'd just stay home that day. :)

Larry
 
There isn't any link I can post that you would find adequate so just google the danger of gun ownership and take your pick. Left wing gun grabbers always dig up these stats and there's some truth to it but what they don't consider is that safety should never be a primary goal. Some things are more important. Free countries will always have more gun related deaths and I'm fine with that.
 
Springfield just released an about full sized Hellcat with 15rnds.


We can agree to disagree, but slim will be the new standard, probably. Single stacks models that get double stack upgrades will not exist in 5 years.

We can come back in 5 years and see who is right.
 
Sigkid79 said:
I’ve seen critics jump on semi-auto concealed carry firearms that hold anywhere from 7-10 rounds. Apparently this is not enough to handle a threat despite the fact that 3 shots are what it usually takes to handle a self defense situation according to FBI stats. Reading some posts here, you’d think that anything less than a full-size pistol that holds 15+ rounds is inadequate.

My 2 concealed carry firearms are a 10-round Glock 43x, and a 12-round Sig Sauer P365x. When the conversation of the 43x comes up, the first thing I hear is , “have you picked up the Shield Arms 15-round mag yet?”. My response is “no”. Reason being?…… It’s a concealed carry that is lightweight and I want to keep it that way. 5 more rounds will just add more weight to the firearm, plus 10-rounds is sufficient enough to handle any self defense situation that I may encounter. This is a defense weapon. Not a battle weapon.

Why dont I see the same criticism when it comes to revolvers? The majority of revolvers that carry adequate self defense rounds are limited to 5-6 rounds. Yet I see nothing but praise for revolvers as concealed carry self defense weapons. Not only do they hold much less rounds, but they’re also more difficult to reload. Especially during a high stress situation.

Now I have nothing against revolvers. I’m just perplexed to the criticism that semi auto’s with low round capacity’s receive vs the extremely low capacity of that of revolvers.
Click to expand...
I guess it's all a balance of firepower vs convenience. Sometimes I carry a 380 in my pocket. Sometimes a Glock 20. Sometimes everything in between. More is better. More is worthless if you don't have it with you. If size and concealability were not a factor, I would carry a AK-47 all the time.
 
A lot of that depends on the changing demographic. A lot of politicians are gentrifying the downtowns near me and pushing the "undesirables" out of the city and into the suburbs. There have been spikes in crime flowing out of the downtowns in many cities.

Places that were once considered affluent are now having to come to the hard realization that the crime is coming to them. While I agree the the crime is worse in other areas rife with poverty, drug abusers...we cannot say that it is as isolated there as it once was even a few years ago.
 
TunnelRat said:
In the situation you describe, I think I’d keep what rounds I had for shots on target rather than suppressing fire. I also don’t have the luxury of knowing for certain what/who might be in the direction I’m suppressing. Potentially killing a bystander to provide “suppressing fire” on a target that may well have moved doesn’t seem like something that will do well from a legal standpoint either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If the tactic is necessary, I'd much rather be alive to defend myself in court and explain my actions than be dead.
 
gryphon1911 said:
If the tactic is necessary, I'd much rather be alive to defend myself in court and explain my actions than be dead.
Click to expand...


I believe that’s a false dichotomy. I don’t believe when faced with seemingly insurmountable odds as in your examples that the best course of action is to use the finite ammunition I have to provide “suppressive fire”, nor do I believe that’s more likely to see me survive than not doing that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Moonglum said:
Which FBI stats? Can you cite the report?
Click to expand...
I believe he is probably referring to L.E. in the line of duty shooting stats. I have no idea what the stats say, but I would not find it unusual that most many L.E. shootings are 3 shots. Most agencies train shoot two to center mass, evaluate, and if threat still present, one to head. In stress, that turns into three shots to center of mass. Just my guess. Can't back it up.
 
If the tactic is necessary, I'd much rather be alive to defend myself in court and explain my actions than be dead.
Click to expand...
Woe to the defendant on the stand who had chosen to fire to facilitate escape rather than to employ deadly force to stop an imminent deadly force attack. Too much like warning shots--a ticket to jail.
 
Why dont I see the same criticism when it comes to revolvers? The majority of revolvers that carry adequate self defense rounds are limited to 5-6 rounds. Yet I see nothing but praise for revolvers as concealed carry self defense weapons. Not only do they hold much less rounds, but they’re also more difficult to reload. Especially during a high stress situation.
Click to expand...

Returning to the original question, I would say that the above-noted limitations of revolvers were a significant factor in discussions some year back. They still are, but the movement to smaller and smaller pistols has narrowed the margin. So perhaps that causes less emphasis on the difference in capacity than there used to be?

A geezer perspective there, from a guy who changed carry from a revolver to a pistol, because of capacity concerns, a dozen or so years back.
 
Returning to the original question, I would say that the above-noted limitations of revolvers were a significant factor in discussions some year back. They still are, but the movement to smaller and smaller pistols has narrowed the margin. So perhaps that causes less emphasis on the difference in capacity than there used to be?

A geezer perspective there, from a guy who changed carry from a revolver to a pistol, because of capacity concerns, a dozen or so years back.
Click to expand...
I have little use for low-capacity semi-autos.

I recently acquired a Ruger LCP Max for pocket carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top