American Man
New member
deleted... no point in arguing with those who have a God Complex.Could it be that some folks just aren't as paranoid as others??
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Your last gun fight..??
- Thread starter OneFreeTexan
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
American Man
New member
...
Last edited:
American Man
New member
I guess you are just the most amazing person in the world. Pat yourself on the back for being so superior to the rest of us who might put a little more effort or preparation into how we go about our daily business. I'm glad you have it all figured out.And some of us have been through more hell than most people can imagine.
And still managed to keep from getting paranoid.
Considering some of the situations some of you are advocating being prepared for I would not let that not paranoid premise be too large of a foundation for your arguments.
The OP was pretty clear if tongue in cheek. Very few people, operating as civilian CCW holders, have the experience to be considered direct subject matter experts in regards to the use of force. The expertise, if one wishes to call it that, is ultimately academic in nature
The OP was pretty clear if tongue in cheek. Very few people, operating as civilian CCW holders, have the experience to be considered direct subject matter experts in regards to the use of force. The expertise, if one wishes to call it that, is ultimately academic in nature
Last edited:
American Man
New member
Again, I find myself getting riled up. People want to throw in their cheap shots about paranoia and then slink back into their hole. I guess I should be used to to this by now... not directed at you.Considering some of the situations some of you are advocating being prepared for I would not let that not paranoid premise be too large of a foundation for your arguments.
The OP was pretty clear if tongue in cheek. Very few people, operating as civilian CCW holders, have the experience to be considered direct subject matter experts in regards to the use of force. The expertise, if one wishes to call it that, is ultimately academic in nature
Last edited:
American Man
New member
I was having difficulty editing my post. I was not directing anything at you.What hole? These conversations are generally had from relative safety for everyone involved. Most of us from the comfort of our desks or couches.
Remember the superiority complexes in these threads cuts both ways.
American Man
New member
Roger that... definitely time for me to take a break.What hole? These conversations are generally had from relative safety for everyone involved. Most of us from the comfort of our desks or couches.
Remember the superiority complexes in these threads cuts both ways.
I probably overstepped in reality. I’ve been pushing the line. I have an honest curiosity about why X is not enough but Y is overboard. The values of X and Y are fluid and I’m genuinely curious how one finds Goldilocks (just right). So I sometimes push more than I should in the matter
The key isn't arriving at some perfect number, the key is realistic expectations.
To see what I mean by that, it's best to examine a few of the more common unrealistic expectations:
1. It's unrealistic to assume that you will only be faced with one attacker.
2. It's unrealistic to assume that you will not miss.
3. It's unrealistic to assume that a single shot will disable/stop an attacker.
4. It's unrealistic to assume that your gun will function perfectly just like it does at the range.
Now, of course there ARE some situations where a person is faced with a single attacker, they fire a single shot that does not miss, the gun functions perfectly and the confrontation is over. The point is that you can't assume that's what's going to happen because your situation might involve 3 attackers, you might only hit with a third of the shots that you fire, it might take 2 or 3 good hits per attacker to disable them, and your gun might malfunction after 4 rounds are fired--requiring that you perform immediate remedial action to continue firing.
Anyway, so let's think about looking at this from a realistic perspective and from the standpoint of using a gun to solve a problem.
Let's say that the problem we want to prepare to solve is a scenario where we are confronted with 2 attackers who each must be shot 2 times to be stopped and we assume our hit rate is 50%.
Then it wouldn't make sense to carry a 5 shot personal defense gun because the odds of failing in the stated scenario with the given assumptions are over 80%. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that scenario is statistically likely, I'm just saying that if that scenario sounds like one you want to prepare for, then you might want to think about having more than 5 rounds on tap. If you had 8 rounds available, for example but kept all the other parameters the same, your chances of succeeding improve from about 1 out of 5 to about 2 out of 3. That's a big improvement over a 4 out of 5 chance of failing.
In other words, the goal shouldn't be to find the "magic number" of rounds, the goal should be to pick a number based on a reasonable analysis.
Way too many people end up with a capacity number driven by something that has nothing to do with a reasonable analysis of any realistic scenario and then try to rationalize why that number is a good one. I think it makes more sense to start with a reasonable analysis.
To see what I mean by that, it's best to examine a few of the more common unrealistic expectations:
1. It's unrealistic to assume that you will only be faced with one attacker.
2. It's unrealistic to assume that you will not miss.
3. It's unrealistic to assume that a single shot will disable/stop an attacker.
4. It's unrealistic to assume that your gun will function perfectly just like it does at the range.
Now, of course there ARE some situations where a person is faced with a single attacker, they fire a single shot that does not miss, the gun functions perfectly and the confrontation is over. The point is that you can't assume that's what's going to happen because your situation might involve 3 attackers, you might only hit with a third of the shots that you fire, it might take 2 or 3 good hits per attacker to disable them, and your gun might malfunction after 4 rounds are fired--requiring that you perform immediate remedial action to continue firing.
Anyway, so let's think about looking at this from a realistic perspective and from the standpoint of using a gun to solve a problem.
Let's say that the problem we want to prepare to solve is a scenario where we are confronted with 2 attackers who each must be shot 2 times to be stopped and we assume our hit rate is 50%.
Then it wouldn't make sense to carry a 5 shot personal defense gun because the odds of failing in the stated scenario with the given assumptions are over 80%. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that scenario is statistically likely, I'm just saying that if that scenario sounds like one you want to prepare for, then you might want to think about having more than 5 rounds on tap. If you had 8 rounds available, for example but kept all the other parameters the same, your chances of succeeding improve from about 1 out of 5 to about 2 out of 3. That's a big improvement over a 4 out of 5 chance of failing.
In other words, the goal shouldn't be to find the "magic number" of rounds, the goal should be to pick a number based on a reasonable analysis.
Way too many people end up with a capacity number driven by something that has nothing to do with a reasonable analysis of any realistic scenario and then try to rationalize why that number is a good one. I think it makes more sense to start with a reasonable analysis.
Do you carry all that on your person or carry a pack of some kind?That said, I and many others I know carry similarly.
Glock 17 or HK P30L with at least one spare on person. The usual EDC pocket dumps. And medical. A TQ and combat gauze are a must.
American Man
New member
You and some others on here lay out some pretty good detailed decision making process. What you number 1-4 as being unrealistic is spot on... and with number 4, combined with the stress of the situation, the gun may not be performing as expected because of the individual... for more reasons than just being a terrible shot... stress reactions, visibility... this might also be covered by #2 though.The key isn't arriving at some perfect number, the key is realistic expectations.
To see what I mean by that, it's best to examine a few of the more common unrealistic expectations:
1. It's unrealistic to assume that you will only be faced with one attacker.
2. It's unrealistic to assume that you will not miss.
3. It's unrealistic to assume that a single shot will disable/stop an attacker.
4. It's unrealistic to assume that your gun will function perfectly just like it does at the range.
Now, of course there ARE some situations where a person is faced with a single attacker, they fire a single shot that does not miss, the gun functions perfectly and the confrontation is over. The point is that you can't assume that's what's going to happen because your situation might involve 3 attackers, you might only hit with a third of the shots that you fire, it might take 2 or 3 good hits per attacker to disable them, and your gun might malfunction after 4 rounds are fired--requiring that you perform immediate remedial action to continue firing.
Anyway, so let's think about looking at this from a realistic perspective and from the standpoint of using a gun to solve a problem.
Let's say that the problem we want to prepare to solve is a scenario where we are confronted with 2 attackers who each must be shot 2 times to be stopped and we assume our hit rate is 50%.
Then it wouldn't make sense to carry a 5 shot personal defense gun because the odds of failing in the stated scenario with the given assumptions are over 80%. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that scenario is statistically likely, I'm just saying that if that scenario sounds like one you want to prepare for, then you might want to think about having more than 5 rounds on tap. If you had 8 rounds available, for example but kept all the other parameters the same, your chances of succeeding improve from about 1 out of 5 to about 2 out of 3. That's a big improvement over a 4 out of 5 chance of failing.
In other words, the goal shouldn't be to find the "magic number" of rounds, the goal should be to pick a number based on a reasonable analysis.
Way too many people end up with a capacity number driven by something that has nothing to do with a reasonable analysis of any realistic scenario and then try to rationalize why that number is a good one. I think it makes more sense to start with a reasonable analysis.
When I drive down to Sam's and most places it is about an hour. I don't just fill up 3 gallons in my car, I fill up the whole tank. Too many times I have been down to E because of unforseen circumstances, that maybe shouldn't have have been too unforeseen. Too many times an accident has caused me to be late for appointments so I leave an hour earlier for appointments. When I go to the woods, I pack about twice as much food for what I need. Is that someone being paranoid if nothing happens? I'd like to say any normal person would think it's common sense or just regular behavior, not paranoid. I carry some saws and chains for a tree that suddenly comes down... and occasionally with traffic backed up, a few people will actually help me. Some people don't carry anything like that. But maybe I am just paranoid about a tree falling in the road and need counseling... in between the times I am having to get out and move a tree out of the road of course... in those instances, everyone is glad to see someone out there getting the job done.
The worst things that have happened to people, start over every day with new people that may or may not have had a clue... whether it be the weather, a dog or pack of dogs, moose, bear, thug or thugs. I'd think that most people on here are aware of that when it rains sometimes it pours. I will admit I don't understand the rationale behind everyones decisions to do what they do or don't do. And from now on, I will not call anyone thick headed if they don't see things my way. And if someone wants to call carrying a semi auto with a spare mag paranoid, then so be it. I think I got a little smarter reading from some people on here and I appreciate that. And as for others... I have to practice that in one ear and out the other.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Do you carry all that on your person or carry a pack of some kind?
I think it'll give people a stroke to know what I carry in my bag. So we'll stick to what's on me, that'll at least be a mild one lol.
Right now, this moment:
Heckler and Koch P30L w/ 1 spare magazine
Left pocket: Combat Gauze and Surefire E1D Defender
Right pocket: Benchmade 810 Contego, SOF-TQ, keys.
Back pocket R: Wallet
Back pocket L: Phone
Sometimes depending on where I'm going and who I'm with a Glock 36 on my ankle and 1 spare as well.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
The key isn't arriving at some perfect number, the key is realistic expectations.
To see what I mean by that, it's best to examine a few of the more common unrealistic expectations:
1. It's unrealistic to assume that you will only be faced with one attacker.
2. It's unrealistic to assume that you will not miss.
3. It's unrealistic to assume that a single shot will disable/stop an attacker.
4. It's unrealistic to assume that your gun will function perfectly just like it does at the range.
Now, of course there ARE some situations where a person is faced with a single attacker, they fire a single shot that does not miss, the gun functions perfectly and the confrontation is over. The point is that you can't assume that's what's going to happen because your situation might involve 3 attackers, you might only hit with a third of the shots that you fire, it might take 2 or 3 good hits per attacker to disable them, and your gun might malfunction after 4 rounds are fired--requiring that you perform immediate remedial action to continue firing.
Anyway, so let's think about looking at this from a realistic perspective and from the standpoint of using a gun to solve a problem.
Let's say that the problem we want to prepare to solve is a scenario where we are confronted with 2 attackers who each must be shot 2 times to be stopped and we assume our hit rate is 50%.
Then it wouldn't make sense to carry a 5 shot personal defense gun because the odds of failing in the stated scenario with the given assumptions are over 80%. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that scenario is statistically likely, I'm just saying that if that scenario sounds like one you want to prepare for, then you might want to think about having more than 5 rounds on tap. If you had 8 rounds available, for example but kept all the other parameters the same, your chances of succeeding improve from about 1 out of 5 to about 2 out of 3. That's a big improvement over a 4 out of 5 chance of failing.
In other words, the goal shouldn't be to find the "magic number" of rounds, the goal should be to pick a number based on a reasonable analysis.
Way too many people end up with a capacity number driven by something that has nothing to do with a reasonable analysis of any realistic scenario and then try to rationalize why that number is a good one. I think it makes more sense to start with a reasonable analysis.
Hands down the best post I've seen here in a while.
I think I got a little smarter reading from some people on here and I appreciate that. And as for others... I have to practice that in one ear and out the other.
Yes. And you'll be fought tooth and nail for antiquated logic.
Weapons have progressed and things have changed. The criminals have changed their tactics and have adapted to it, but we shouldn't be of "statistics"? No. Pass...
I'd rather someone be "over" prepared for the worst day of their life than under prepared because the internet told them how their fight might be.
Thanks. I’d like to carry more but not sure I’d be able to keep my pants up. I do have a great belt. Mostly cuz I’m a 69yo ‘muffin top’...
Glock 26 with 15r mag-3 o’clock, IWB
11r mag left front pocket using a ‘SnagMag’
Keys, knife front right
Phone left rear
Wallet right rear.
Glock 26 with 15r mag-3 o’clock, IWB
11r mag left front pocket using a ‘SnagMag’
Keys, knife front right
Phone left rear
Wallet right rear.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
It's all about trial and error.
Do you wear long pants most of the time or shorts? I wear long pants 99% of the time.
Last time I was in South America, I used an ankle kit to carry my medical.
I might even do the same here since it frees up space in my pockets for more important things like bubble gum or beef jerky if I see a dog I want to pet.
Do you wear long pants most of the time or shorts? I wear long pants 99% of the time.
Last time I was in South America, I used an ankle kit to carry my medical.
I might even do the same here since it frees up space in my pockets for more important things like bubble gum or beef jerky if I see a dog I want to pet.
Could it be that some folks just aren't as paranoid as others??
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
I probably overstepped in reality. I’ve been pushing the line. I have an honest curiosity about why X is not enough but Y is overboard. The values of X and Y are fluid and I’m genuinely curious how one finds Goldilocks (just right). So I sometimes push more than I should in the matter
There are only 2 times when you have too much ammo. You are swimming or on fire.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
There are only 2 times when you have too much ammo. You are swimming or on fire.
I've been living by this for such a long time.
When I'd carry a 1911, I'd have 4 spare mags with me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.