Exactly, and you're not gonna see the masters debating tactics on an internet forum. Learning tactics and technique's requires hands on effort and expense. It's a lot easier (and therefore more popular) to sit in a chair and debate the theoretical merits of Glock vs. the world, AR vs. AK, snub vs. micro 9, shotgun vs. carbine etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.
I bought a 642 fifteen years ago because it would fit into a jeans pocket.
The data seem to indicate taht wit good reason, two attackers will be as likely as one. We have discussed that at length over the years.
Non-violent crime outnumbers violent crime by at least 3 to 1--probably vastly more than that since a lot of non-violent crime is not even reported or tracked. That is why I said: "In general..." The comment was made that we shouldn't worry about determined attackers because they are in the minority but the fact is that violent criminals are also in the minority and yet we are still worried about them or we wouldn't be talking about carrying guns.
If you don't understand the difference between a specific case and the general case then there must be many topics that confuse you.
Chicken or egg.
Yes, I agree. However, if you consider the idea of a firearm has a usage template similar to a fire extinguisher, then would you want a fire extinguisher that would only work on non-grease fires and an effective time of 90 seconds or one the same (or smaller size), same or less cost that be effective no more types of fires and an effective time of 200 seconds?
Not really, I still shoot both regularly, which just reinforces that the bigger guns ARE easier to quickly and properly get ahold of and shoot.
Exactly! Passersby and other motorists didn't notice, the teenager trying to impress your daughter didn't notice, your daughter may not have noticed, and even your dog did not notice and likely only wanted a biscuit.
