Why what? Specifically?The question was "why".
Why what? Specifically?The question was "why".
Do you have a basis for that belief?Carrying a small auto, or a j-frame is like a seatbelt+airbag. Unless you are on the racetrack, you are extremely unlikely to need more.
Why what? Specifically?
Do you have a basis for that belief?
Most realistic defensive training calls for shooting several shots very quickly.My reading of self-defense data is that the first shot typically ends the assault.
Different subject. The Tuelller drill, for example, addresses contact weapons.. I would be interested to read any data that indicates that assailants have been willing to actually exchange gunfire
Not necessarily.That statement implies a change in circumstance
You missed me.I have not seen anything that suggests such a change so that firearm choices appropriate for the past are no longer adequate.
You missed the whole point. The poster posted a change in which three assailants are 'now common' (as opposed to what was previously common). I have seen nothing to support that assertion. If a j-frame was adequate in 1975 then it is now, as well.Most realistic defensive training calls for shooting several shots very quickly.
Different subject. The Tuelller drill, for example, addresses contact weapons.
Not necessarily.
You missed me.
We are told that if one is attacked, one is at least as likely to be attacked by more than one person as by one.
And why not? Given the choice, would you choose to offer violence alone, or with extra eyes, ears, and weapons?
Do not be misled by having practiced shooting a single target.
No.You missed the whole point.
He said "not uncommon"--and incidents with one assailant are not uncommon.The poster posted a change in which three assailants are 'now common' (as opposed to what was previously common).
Forget the past. A J-frame may suffice--or it may not.If a j-frame was adequate in 1975 then it is now, as well.
I simply disagree. His statement was clearly about a change in pattern over time. There has not been one demonstrated.No.
He said "not uncommon"--and incidents with one assailant are not uncommon.
"Now" does not necessarily mean "now, but not before", but it if did, that would mean nothing.
Forget the past. A J-frame may suffice--or it may not.
Try one in realistic training before selecting one for primary carry. I retired mine long ago.
Do you have some evidence to support this? Three armed attackers is common? Unless you are involved in the narcotics distribution industry, or are employed by personal protection services in Papua New Guinea, I have a hard time believing this.
Just turn on your nearest cities local fake news channel. They generally report the random violence ok sometimes.
70+ YO man jumped by 2 attackers this last weekend.
12+ ferals fighting at a gas station the week before.
When I carry my Jframe, I'm betting heavily that my opponent is completely inept. If he isn't, I'm dead. Because a Jframe is nearly worthless.
Had he said "now, unlike times past", that would indicate a change. But he did not. "Now" does not necessarily indicate a change.I simply disagree. His statement was clearly about a change in pattern over time
So, you now claim to be able to prove a negative?.There has not been one demonstrated.
You've been struck by lightening?!I am not saying not to carry a gun. I carry one. But I am saying that we need not to get to absurd about it. It is like airbags and seatbelts in cars - wearing one is fine, but if we were told to wear crash helmets and neck braces for the .00001% possibility of a head-on collision with a dumptruck, most of us would balk.
Carrying a small auto, or a j-frame is like a seatbelt+airbag. Unless you are on the racetrack, you are extremely unlikely to need more. Obviously, lightning can strike, but it is pretty rare (although I have been struck twice).
It knocked me down. I was a kid both times. It's no joke, I will tell you. I could feel my hair standing up before.You've been struck by lightening?!
My ain't has been struck.
What was the results? Did it ignite ammo on your person? Melt your grips?
Had he said "now, unlike times past", that would indicate a change. But he did not. "Now" does not necessarily indicate a change.
But so what? When attacks do occur, attacks by more than one person are not uncommon.
So, you now claim to be able to prove a negative?.
Had he said "now, unlike times past", that would indicate a change. But he did not. "Now" does not necessarily indicate a change.
But so what? When attacks do occur, attacks by more than one person are not uncommon.
So, you now claim to be able to prove a negative?.
You said "there has not been one demonstrated". You cannot know that. You may not have seen anything on the subject, but a number of us have--here on THR, and on The Best Defense TV, and in other sources.With regard to proving the negative: did I ever say that I did?
You said "there has not been one demonstrated". You cannot know that. You may not have seen anything on the subject, but a number of us have--here on THR, and on The Best Defense TV, and in other sources.
They have told us that attacks by multiple attackers were not uncommon at the time the information was provided. We cannot infer from that that such attacks had previously been uncommon.
But again, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? What matters is NOW.
As has been discussed at length here over the years, there is not comprehensive collection of data relating to such things for civilian use of force incidents. No one compiles the statistics. And if someone did, it would mean little.All that evidence is anecdotal.
Why would today's concealed carrier care about that?I am saying that we have no reason to think it happens more now than in previous years or decades.
If you say so..Consider this:An assertion about something being a 'common' occurrence (if we are to take the words seriously) is a statement about the statistical probability/likelihood of an event.
All that evidence is anecdotal. I am not saying it never happens. I am saying that we have no reason to think it happens more now than in previous years or decades. Since the homicide numbers have generally decreased since peaking in the 1980s (when it was roughly twice today's murder rate), we might actually think the opposite. An assertion about something being a 'common' occurrence (if we are to take the words seriously) is a statement about the statistical probability/likelihood of an event.
I hope you are not using something like 'Best Defense TV' for understanding long-term statistical trends in violent crime.
As has been discussed at length here over the years, there is not comprehensive collection of data relating to such things for civilian use of force incidents. No one compiles the statistics. And if someone did, it would mean little.
From what few data have been summarized, we can reasonably conclude that if one is attacked, it is about as likely that there will be more than one attackers as one. Common sense supports that.
Why would today's concealed carrier care about that?
If you say so..Consider this:
The Allure and Shortcomings of Statistics and Actual Data
From yesterday's news: there were two car-jackings in St. Louis. In one, there was one armed perp. No shots were fired. A car was taken. In the other, there were two armed men. The victim was wounded, and the car was taken.
i would not base my choice of firearms on such things had been two dozen such incidents.
I'm not going to do your homework for you. Even if I did, would it help?
You're welcome to believe what you want to, and you're welcome to not do the research yourself. I'm sure someone can point you towards a non biased search engine.
The trends are definitely pointing away from what we were taught 10 years ago. Good luck.
Really? Why do you think that? How do you assess my need?Now, in a country with more than one firearm per citizen, this means creating demand where there really isn't need.
I see. It's business that you do not like.This is no different than what Apple do by coming out with a new model and making older ones obsolescent, or the fashion industry, where you need to have this year's clothes. Or the auto industry. Or the appliance industry, because your old washing machine isn't digital.
Fear? I have not seen that. Nor have I seen much in the way of the kind of "misinformation" to which you are referring.In the gun industry, this means creating fear, because they are marketing a self-defense product. So, to create fear, they pump out a bunch of misinformation about how dangerous the world is.
Okay.News break - the world is safer now than it has ever been in history.
Not I. My shield EZ holds 8, and I've seen nothing from "the gun industry" about its viability.But, if you listen to the 'gun marketing industry', you will be instilled with the anxiety that maybe your 8-round Shield isn't enough, so you better get the new Shield with 13 rounds!
That's fine by me.This is a hustle and I refuse to buy it.
How do you decide when to do so?....sometimes I carry.
What data?But I refuse to be shoved into a state of anxiety by deceptive data.
Those data mean little or nothing to today's citizens. Why are you so hung up on data from yesteryear?There are actually good statistics on the rates of violent crime. I get mine from the DOJ. Here is a graph of murder rates in the USA over the last 50 years. And for a broader picture:
Not meant to rude and or condescending but I don't belong to the concealed carry of the week/day/hour club in regards to weapon type and or caliber. For myself my EDC is the S&W Shield 9X19mm with the (8) round capacity magazine. Yes I have other handguns revolvers and semiautomatic pistols in differing calibers. We reside in a rural county. I'm not concerned with interactions with domestic and or wildlife animals. We have black bears which can be a nuisance. Dogs are problematic but our walking stick is a long handle shovel shaft. Your ability to contact others such as law enforcement and or paramedics with a cell phone is of more importance than the weapon type and caliber that you carry.