Do examples, incidents, matter to you?

Contra the common misunderstanding, the singular of data is anecdote. Anecdotes matter because they teach us things, and if you pile up enough anecdotes you have useful data.

There are rare situations in which 6 rounds gets you killed, and more let's you win. None the less, 6 rounds is usually enough. . . and I carry 25.

There are situations in which 25 rounds gets you killed. . . but they're rarer, and I'd walk funny if I carried 100 rounds.

Yes, they do matter, but only after we have sufficient information about the incident to understand what really went down. Initial reporting from the current world of "journalists" generally seems to be ready for immediate deposit in the outhouse.
At the 2019 NRA Expo in Fort Worth I spent two hours in John Correia's seminars learning from his analysis of 30,000+ security videos of incidents. His analyses caused me to change from pocket carry of a 5-shot .38SP snubby to a double stack 9mm in a proper IWB holster.

I use videotaped events (of which ASP videos are one example) to devise scenarios for training. I set these up, and then work on the skills necessary to resolve them.

Basics I've learned from doing this:

1) Train for up close and personal conflict. Grappling, hand-to-hand skills, preparing to get punched all matter. Practice what YOUR body is capable of doing.

2) Speed is everything. Speed of decisionmaking. Speed of threat recognition. Speed of presentation and time to first shot on target.

3) Move! Get off the line of attack. Gain distance. Get to cover/concealment. Don't fall down--footwork matters. Get into any position that use of cover might require (be ready to roll on the ground). Practice shooting effectively from those positions.

4) No mouse tools. Snubbie in the pocket is slow, if hand is not on the grip already. Reloads are slow so carry lots of ammo in the magazine. Recovery after a shot is slow, so carry a heavier gun. Bigger tools with more ammo onboard are faster.

5) Train your decision-making mind. Put lots of scenarios into your mind, and practice making good, moral, legal decisions in those scenarios.

Tweaking the scenarios widens the range of learned skills.

Tools matter some. Skills with those tools are more important. But mental agility and preparation are everything!

Examples and incidents are a good general way to see where the community opinion pool is headed. Somewhat like case law, but not nearly as clear cut. Most examples start out clearly biased one way or the other, and that's fine. I like to reinforce or rethink once in a while, as I am not the fountain of knowledge or experience.

If those 6 examples influence my carry decisions how much credence should I lend to the reported 2 million successful defenses a year most without a single round fired?

I carry a Glock 19 almost exclusively but capacity is a secondary concern. The first concern was it had to be on my employer's approved list.

I had a CZ75B that had a higher capacity than my Glock19 but the company wouldn't approve it for duty use.

I could have bought a Glock 17 (higher capacity) but it would have been a pain in the ass to conceal.

So, again, capacity isn't a primary or even secondary concern. The odds of me needing a gun on any given day are low, lower still in retirement. They don't change based on what I'm carrying or even if I'm carrying. The fact that the Glock 19 has a standard capacity is nice and I'm certainly not going to sell it and go buy something smaller but if circumstances dictate a Glock 43 (less than half the capacity of a 19) I'm not going to fret over it

Seems like two separate topics here.

Yes, I do think videos of actual violent encounters are extraordinarily useful.

No, I don't think the presented videos make a convincing argument against citizens carrying revolvers.

I don’t pay too close attention to a few specifically selected points of data that probably suffer from at least a partial case of confirmation bias.

However, the point is still taken that these are real possibilities and yes I do pay attention to them.

CDW4ME said:

I've seen some people on gun forums post that they carry two snubs.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt. Heck, there was an incident written up by - I believe - Mas Ayoob regarding a jewelry store owner who had guns positioned all over his shop and used just about all of them during one break-in. I'm sure the video, if available, would have been fascinating - and I'd have been tempted to use it to mock people for only carrying one high capacity gun with only three spare mags.

On a more serious note, I do think we have to limit our conclusions about CCW when we are presented with LEO incidents, so while I watch such videos at every opportunity, I'm not sure how applicable they are to my own situation.

As for the video showing the ladies defending themselves from the shotgun-wielding crook, I congratulate them heartily, and take a number of "how not to do it" lessons from them. Among other things, I believe that it is a great example of the idea that your gun should be worn rather than stored. Had the young lady been able to produce a handgun of any sort the instant the goblin had his back turned, it might have been a much shorter video.

not really. I could produce billions of hours of endless videotape of people who don't carry and go about their lives where nothing happens, but they have a nice day. so, based on this theory, and a few videos, the overwhelming evidence points to no need to carry at all in comparison.

I only watched the first video, and I don't really see where how many rounds the gun holds makes a difference, except maybe the older woman runs out of rounds and has no plan or ability to reload. The biggest thing that stands out to me, is that as soon as they have chased the guy out of the store, they appear to try to lock the door, but - then there is no effort to retreat to a back room or safe room anywhere to get out of harms way. you're not obligated to hide I guess, but I sure would. The 2nd thing that jumped out at me was not the number of rounds, but - maybe a 20 gauge pump shotgun loaded with buckshot might have been a better firearm to have stuck under the counter there. Pistols really aren't that great in general is what I see.

Generally speaking I think those two did better than a lot of people would have. Being in a situation like that is all bets are off, you might think you know how you're behave, but - if you haven't done it, and I haven't - stress makes the mind do weird things under pressure. I don't know how it worked out for them as far as injuries or what not, but - you can see that they are kind of prepared for the situation. They've thought it through and both have guns, but their confidence to keep the guy from walking back in through 0the door, I find it hard to believe if they were reasonably practiced, that anyone would get through that door, even if the two people on the other side had .22 LR revolvers. I guess this is why they say keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.

IMHO, the best option for them would have been, instead of getting guns and hiding behind the counter, would have been to try to flee to a back room in that moment. I know I'm not getting in a gunfight if I have any other option. I get it, you're not obligated to run or hide, but - sometimes and IMHO most often, if that option is available take it.

.38 Special said:

Seems like two separate topics here.

Yes, I do think videos of actual violent encounters are extraordinarily useful.

No, I don't think the presented videos make a convincing argument against citizens carrying revolvers.

Click to expand...

I agree with the above response by adding the exclusive statement changing "revolvers" to "non-high capacity weapons".

The examples presented by the OP are outliers in the far end of the defensive encounter bell curve. Are they interesting and thought provoking?- Absolutely! Do they happen with frequency? No.

In a perfect world, we all would be able to carry the most effective duty sized weapon of our choice at all times. However, for many individuals who don't operate in the "retired, no kids, do what I want, where I want" crowd, there are FAR MORE considerations concerning EDC than just the "the best weapon". The implications of exposure in a NPE environment, such a work, social, youth or religious setting, may take precedence over the concern of not having a enough capacity for a extremely rare incident.

For my two-legged threat EDC, I am satisfied that my carry of 5 - 9 round capacity platforms is sufficient for 99% of what I may face, and can be effectively managed for my lifestyle in certain NPEs that I must frequent. Moving up to a high-capacity, duty-type platform might get me to 99.9%, but at far greater risk of NPE exposure, and I am not willing to take that chance for EDC.

Others may make a different determination, like the OP, and that is OK, but my reasoning is just as sound and logical. You don't require the input of Ayoob, Correia, Cunningham, Ellifritz, Pincus, Smith, Vickers or Yeager to select a carry gun that meets your needs in your various areas of operation.

Make your own choice!

.455_Hunter said:

I agree with the above response by adding the exclusive statement changing "revolvers" to "non-high capacity weapons".

The examples presented by the OP are outliers in the far end of the defensive encounter bell curve. Are they interesting and thought provoking?- Absolutely! Do they happen with frequency? No.

In a perfect world, we all would be able to carry the most effective duty sized weapon of our choice at all times. However, for many individuals who don't operate in the "retired, no kids, do what I want, where I want" crowd, there are FAR MORE considerations concerning EDC than just the "the best weapon". The implications of exposure in a NPE environment, such a work, social, youth or religious setting, may take precedence over the concern of not having a enough capacity for a extremely rare incident.

For my two-legged threat EDC, I am satisfied that my carry of 5 - 9 round capacity platforms is sufficient for 99% of what I may face, and can be effectively managed for my lifestyle in NPE. Moving up to a high-capacity duty type platform might get me to 99.9%, but at far greater risk of NPE exposure, and I am not willing to take that chance for EDC.

Others may make a different determination, like the OP, and that is OK, but my reasoning is just as sound and logical. You don't require the input of Ayoob, Correia, Cunningham, Ellifritz, Pincus, Smith Vickers or Yeager to select a carry gun that meets your needs in your various areas of operation.

Make your own choice!

Click to expand...

Exactly so. I really need to swear off the "capacity" threads, as they always end up in the same place and I often end up being ruder than I should. I'll just say "There are two kinds of gun owners: those who get worked up about what other people carry, and everyone else" and then show myself out.

.38 Special said:

Exactly so. I really need to swear off the "capacity" threads, as they always end up in the same place and I often end up being ruder than I should. I'll just say "There are two kinds of gun owners: those who get worked up about what other people carry, and everyone else" and then show myself out.

Click to expand...

My only concern about what others carry is directly related to safety, not tactical score points. Somebody carrying a 3 lb pull / 1/4" travel striker trigger is way more of a concern to me than somebody carrying a semi-auto in condition 3.

Kleanbore said:

...BUT once the :LEO or the citizen is attacked, the defensive shooting is the same.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree with that assessment. The scope of a civilian's engagement is generally restricted to what is necessary to stop or avert the current attack in their immediate proximity, and generally not to pursue and/or close the distance to the perp to effect arrest. A citizen who fires at a c-store armed robber does not chase the robber down the street, but a LEO who fires at a c-store robber does chase the robber down the street. The LEO has a mandate to keep pursuing with lethal force, the citizen does not. The LEO window of engagement is much larger and has a far higher probability of ammo consumption in a short amount of time.

Kleanbore said:

An officer may not "keep pursuing with lethal force". He may not employ deadly force except as necessary to defend himself or others against a deadly force attack.

Once the LEO or the citizen is attacked, the defensive shooting is the same.

Click to expand...

Sorry- That is incorrect.

An LEO will continue to pursue and and engage an armed suspect after an initial encounter, while the citizen does not.

Let's play a scenario game...

You are getting a tub of ice cream for your pregnant wife at 10 pm at the c-store. While looking at the varieties, the perp comes in a pulls a weapon on the clerk, announcing a robbery. You try to avoid drawing attention to yourself, moving behind a pallet of sodas and placing your hand on your weapon. Unfortunately, but the perp sees you and starts aggressively heading your way, forcing you to engage. You fire three shots with the perp turning and making a bee line out of the store and down the street. The armed citizen does NOT follow him and press the engagement, even though he is still armed and a threat to the community.

An LEO, either responding or entering into the same situation, will not break contact after firing at the robber, even if the robber runs away. They will continue to pursue and engage until the threat to the community is ended.

That is the difference, and the LEO has far higher probability of needing a higher supply of ammo immediately on-tap than the citizen defender.

Kleanbore said:

But neither may shoot until the perp attacks again, except under very rare circumstances.

Click to expand...

That is correct, such as firing shots at the pursuing officer(s), pointing and/or not dropping his weapon when confronted.

The armed citizen should never really be in a "pursuit".

I do agree that in the initial engagement, the LEO and citizen have a similar path of drawing and firing, with the citizen or undercover LEO perhaps having more of an ability to operate in stealth mode prior to active engagement compared to uniformed LE. However those paths diverge once that initial engagement concludes- however that may occur.

Stories help us understand and remember what we just learned. So, in all fields, examples are great.

But ONLY WHEN they are examples of things you need to know about. The typical. Or for mishaps (and armed incidents), the normal-bad. Sometimes, outliers with the understanding that this odd thing happened AND there's no reason to believe it won't happen again so: be reasonably prepared for it.

Only watching YouTube videos of quickie mart robberies or reading the Armed Citizen column in whichever NRA magazine is trying to draw statistical conclusions from anecdote.

We're primed to accept dangerous outlier data because our brains are set up for living in tiny villages surrounded by stuff that wants to eat us. The only way to hear that a jaguar came out of the jungle and ate a baby is if it happened /right over there/ and so there's a legit chance the same jaguar comes over to eat your baby in the coming week. We have to be careful to not let anecdote induce bias when we have a world of info, over long periods of time, flooding into us.


Specifics: I carry a pistol with two magazines. How many rounds? Barely matters and varies based on how permissive an environment, etc. But always Two magazines. Why? Very very very common failure modes are magazines. Least reliable part of the system. Other stoppages? Many ways to address them involve ditching the magazine, clearing the gun, then reloading. So, even if I need to two rounds to fix a problem, but the gun stops after one: I need a second magazine to be nearly 100% sure that I can always, always get two rounds out. I have RDS on all carry guns because it's head and shoulders better than irons for hits. I have WMLs on all because it's dark half the year, and that's outside. Dark basements, power outages, whatever; 85% of police shootings are in low light and that's a hint if a bad thing happens, 24x7, it is at least even odds it'll be darker than I want. And so on. Plan for likely worst cases, without going so overboard you won't leave the house or carry the belt fed machine gun and armor you might need.

I think the videos and examples serve best to point out the chaos and unpredictability of a gunfight. Every person that talked with (that has never thought about it or researched) thinks it would be like a High Noon situation.

As to capacity, I prefer to use the weight/bulk to sport 2 guns (both on the small side, p365 and LCP). With all of the adrenaline and commotion, I could foresee dropping your gun or not being able to clear a jam in the middle of the chaos.

If the incidents are proximal, yes. By raw data, I know the chance of using my firearm are very, very low. Almost non existent. But if I know of crimes going up in my area, I care about those and how it affects my routine. For example, the state's largest mall is about 40 minutes away. Years ago I shopped there often. Great food court and places I liked going. They still had a Sears store with a large tool section. Now, no. Shootings happen almost daily in the parking lot and there have been 3 shootings inside the mall in the last year, that I know of. Despite the uncommon shootings in the area, the shopping and food selection declined. So I have multiple reasons not to go there.

Our area of residence has a weekly paper that has the County Sheriff's Dept. and the major population center Police Dept. reports. Reading those reports one may ascertain the level of reported criminal activity. Shooting incidents are extremely rear to almost non existent. In twenty five plus years of residence. Could we have a major shooting incident tomorrow yes under all things are possible. We don't reside in Mayberry but on the other hand its not a center of major criminal behavior either.