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!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.
Your basis for that assertion?Just owning a gun increases the rate of suicide, homicide ...
Safety (self preservation) is my only goal in carrying a firearm....safety should never be a primary goal. Some things are more important.
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.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.
If the tactic is necessary, I'd much rather be alive to defend myself in court and explain my actions than be dead.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
If the tactic is necessary, I'd much rather be alive to defend myself in court and explain my actions than be dead.
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.Which FBI stats? Can you cite the report?
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.If the tactic is necessary, I'd much rather be alive to defend myself in court and explain my actions than be dead.
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.
I have little use for low-capacity semi-autos.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.