Why the hypocrisy on handgun capacity?

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.
Click to expand...
Most LE and civilian training today calls for firing rapidly at a moving attacker until the attack ceases. Due to the realities of speed and close-quarter shooting, that may necessarily result in the firing of more shots than the minimum that might have been necessary had the defender had complete knowledge and sufficient to evaluate it.
 
gryphon1911 said:
If you have a car full of gang bangers, or are trapped in a convenience store and you have more than one assailant and you have to fight your way to an exit door to get your loved ones out, suppressive fire might be your best bet to keep their heads down and for you to make your egress.
Click to expand...

When was the last time a car full of gang bangers attacked someone in the US that was not part of some gang on gang violence. I've lived in north Omaha and south loop of Chicago and your scenarios are very rare even in the most violent parts of violent cities.
 
reddog81 said:
When was the last time a car full of gang bangers attacked someone in the US that was not part of some gang on gang violence. I've lived in north Omaha and south loop of Chicago and your scenarios are very rare even in the most violent parts of violent cities.
Click to expand...
A lot of that happened last year during the "peaceful protests".
 
Opinions are like.... yadda, yadda. I have only one experience with a serious SD situation where someone required that I surrender my wallet and other valuables. Presentation of my Rossi snubby caused him to rethink the issue and depart. Even if it was a group, after the first one is shot, I doubt there will be any volunteers to be next.
 
Opinions are like.... yadda, yadda. I have only one experience with a serious SD situation where someone required that I surrender my wallet and other valuables. Presentation of my Rossi snubby caused him to rethink the issue and depart. Even if it was a group, after the first one is shot, I doubt there will be any volunteers to be next.
Click to expand...

But, but, but what if 20 of his homies came from around the corner armed with rocket launchers and full auto machine guns? I bet you would have wanted more than 5 shots then? You should abandon all logic, statics, common sense, and realistic probability. You never know what situation you might be in...
 
I am fortunate that work doesn't limit my clothing choices anymore; I get to dress as I choose.
My philosophy is always try to carry a handgun you would prefer in hand if you had to defend yourself and that is regardless of where, location not factored, everywhere.
I'll use two of my handguns as examples, Kahr PM9 and Glock 17 - both 9mm.
The Glock 17 is easier to shoot quick & accurate.
PM9 takes less effort to conceal.
Which gun would be most advantageous if I had to defend myself? The 17 because its easier to shoot quick & accurate.
Am I saying carry the 17 in a "good area" for a "quick trip to the store" - Yes.
PM9 is an acceptable 2nd gun (AKA back-up) in weak hand front pocket, can put my hand on it without revealing I'm carrying.

No mag limit: Glock 17/19/20SF
10 round mag limit: Glock 26/30SF, 1911
Revolver (snub) - okay as a back-up or 2nd gun but not a primary, not for me.
 
I am reminded of a scene in a movie (a comedy) where the good guy is armed and facing a gang of armed bandits.

The bandit leader challenges, saying "what you gonna do? shoot ALL of us??"
TO which the good guy replies, "No, but I can shoot YOU!"
at which point the bandit leader pauses and says "oh, yeah, I always forget that part,,,"

The last banzai charge I'm aware of was during WWII. And I don't think there have been any human wave attacks since the Korean war. AND those were in combat, against soldiers not private US citizens, and not in the US, either.

While you're considering what you'll need to carry for "covering fire" also consider what could really happen if you start shooting like an action movie hero...

What are you going to be doing, against that "carload of gangbangers" or group when SOME of them threaten you? Empty your 15shot pistol into the group??

Consider, that, if you do something like that, you could wind up in prison with the guys who attacked you. If you hit someone (even a bad guy) who was NOT an immediate threat, you could be guilty of assualt or even murder.

If you're not a cop, and you're not in the military on combat operations, you should NOT do what they do. Most of what they do isn't legal for a civilian to do, anyway.

If you're Chuck/Arnold/Sly/jeanClaude in a MOVIE, that's one thing. If you're a private citizen, I'd suggest you forget the action hero fantasies, and focus on reality.

They get to blaze away without consequences, you and I, don't.
 
Carry what you feel comfortable with on your hip, pocket, fanny pack or murse. Moreover, the old adage of Never Enough Ammo is a good starting point. :)
 
You carry what you are comfortable with not what someone else seems to think you should carry. I want reliability before all else followed by accuracy.

Kimber%201.png


Probably 90% of the time I don't even carry the additional two magazines. Never thought I would carry a Kimber let alone own one but a friend needed money and we know how that goes. I got fond of the little gun and it has proven itself reliable to me. Unlike the picture I do carry JHP ammunition. :)

Again carry what works for you not what someone else thinks you should carry.

Ron
 
The bandit leader challenges, saying "what you gonna do? shoot ALL of us??"
TO which the good guy replies, "No, but I can shoot YOU!"
at which point the bandit leader pauses and says "oh, yeah, I always forget that part,,,"
Click to expand...

Very similar scene in Stand By Me when the youngster with a 1911 is facing down a gang and when asked if he was going to shoot everyone he said "No Ace, just you".

It was a looong transition for me to mentally detach from some deployments but I am much more comfortable in my day to day life 'knowing' or at least believing that an attack is likely not going to be by determined individuals with a well thought out plan. I'm still prepared but I'm not on edge whenever I leave the door any more.
 
gryphon 1911...... There is not a single word in my statement that is racist, not one.

The ghetto is a place that's has a history of being without question the most violent places to live. Roving gangs, nightly shootings/stabbings, burglaries on and on. The majority of murders in any large city are generated in the ghettos. Most everyone that lives in a ghetto wants to leave it. These are facts and because many don't want to hear this, make no mistake, it's a fact.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Needless to say, this doesn’t apply to those who are not preparing for ‘gunfights’ or being attacked by multiple assailants armed with guns.

For those preparing for more realistic and likely self-defense against a single attacker armed with a weapon other than a gun – or not armed at all – a single round from a revolver is more than adequate.
 
For those preparing for more realistic and likely self-defense against a single attacker armed with a weapon other than a gun – or not armed at all – a single round from a revolver is more than adequate.
Click to expand...
If you want the most realistic and likely self-defense encounter, you won't even have to fire your gun, according to Kleck's data. So why not just carry an unloaded gun--or something that looks convincingly like a gun? Don't even bother with any worry about function or capacity.

Sort of like my drive to work. In decades of driving, I've only had to change a tire a couple of times. That's literally hundreds of thousands of miles and thousands of round trips and I only needed a spare twice. That means that the most likely and realistic outcome is that I won't need a spare. So I should just leave it at home, lighten the car a bit and give myself a bit more trunk space. Or should I?

Maybe I'm less concerned about the odds of needing a spare tire and more concerned about the ramifications of needing one and not having it--unlikely though it may be to need it in the first place...

Same with self-defense. If we want to prepare for the most likely outcome when we leave the house, it's that we won't need a gun. If we want to prepare for the most likely self-defense scenario it's that we won't need to fire our gun. Is that really what we want to prepare for? Or are we less concerned about the odds of needing a gun in the first place and more concerned about the ramifications of needing to fire X rounds and only having X-1?

I guess everyone makes their own decision--and then lives with it--and, of course, makes fun of those who "over-prepare" or "under-prepare" using their own decisions as the gold standard of comparison. :D
 
Even in a one-on-one gun battle, suppressive fire can be the only thing that allows you to return effective, accurate fire ...
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'd understand better if you gave me your definition of suppressive fire.
 
I feel like if you're talking about suppressive fire you have moved far outside the realm of self defense and are doing either fire and maneuver or fire and movement which are both offensive by nature.

Fire superiority is not a thing in a self defense situation; you own every one of those bullets and the damage they do. You are not putting up a massive front of lead to change the tide of the battle in your favor, you are identifying and stopping a threat.
 
As much as we would like to think that we make rational choices, we are all very susceptible to advertising, propaganda, status, peer pressure… whatever you want to call the scientific research into how to effectively change our psychology about our purchasing and lifestyle choices.

Let’s call it “propaganda”, to cover all those effects that overpower rational thought.

When propaganda is effective, I am not aware of it’s effect on me. Or sometimes, even when I am aware, it still pleases me to go along. Just for the feel-goods.

In my grandfather’s day, even my dad’s… men wore hats.

I mean really nice hand made hats, made of fine materials, for when dressed up for business attire. It was what they did, it was the fashion, and not having your hat made you … incomplete or incompetent or and outsider in some small way. The hat served no purpose, yet it was … just what they all wore. The details of the hat in some way defined the man among his peers and in his own self image.

A fella drives a huge Ford pickup to his accounting job in the city. The truck has never seen a gravel road, let alone a bail of hay or a 2x4. No way a trailer hitch is going on this V-8 beauty, it’s cherry!

No, he would not feel comfortable in a Chevy or GM… and he’ll argue about it with his pals. In reality, he’d be far ahead in every respect driving a Prius… but… advertising has overcome him and affected his self image. Honestly, he can’t drive standard transmission, might be a terrible driver, and might be better off in every way riding the bus to work. But that doesn’t sell trucks.

Because for every story about a heroic “good guy with a gun”, I bet I can find at least two about an FBI agent’s negligent discharge, or some lady dropping her purse with explosive result, or some kid getting ahold of a negligent parent’s gun… none of us like to think the WE are the idiot in the story.

But when I took flying lessons, all my instructors had either crashed or said “I have not crashed yet.” Because s### happens.
 
Last edited:
For those preparing for more realistic and likely self-defense against a single attacker armed with a weapon other than a gun – or not armed at all – a single round from a revolver is more than adequate
Click to expand...
It may be--or not.

In a recent incident, a man attacking an officer with a piece of wood kept coming and coming, It took 12 hits to stop him.
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy

Merriam-Webster said:
Definition of hypocrisy

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
// His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.

especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
// our conventional morality often serves as a cover for hypocrisy and selfishness — Lucius Garvin

2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
// a keen awareness of one's parents' hypocrisies
Click to expand...
If some people advocate large capacity handguns, and other people carry revolvers with limited ammunition capacity, that is not in any way hypocrisy. That is simply an example of differing opinions and different priorities.
 
We live in a rural/farming/small town environment.
i feel perfectly OK with a j-frame snub revolver plus one reload.

For those who feel undergunned if not carrying a hi cap pistol and several extra magazines, I would not care to live in an environment where that is necessary.

And I ain't no neophyte, been to war, came back.
 
e live in a rural/farming/small town environment.
i feel perfectly OK with a j-frame snub revolver plus one reload
Click to expand...
One's environment may influence the likelihood of a violent criminal attack, but there is little reason to expect that the nature of the attack would be any different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top