jackdanson
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 859
I carry 35.. not including my car stuff.. rather have too much than too little.
Originally posted by oooxooo:When I took my CCW class they presented victim statistics broke up into three groups #1 people who complied with their attackers #2 people who resisted their attackers and were not sucessful and #3 people who resisted their attackers and were sucessful. The group that resisted and were not sucessful had the highest mortality rate.
Posted by welldoya:
If I lived in a place so dangerous that I felt I needed to carry 40 rounds of ammo everyday, I think I would move. Maybe it's like that in big cities or up north but not around here and I'll be danged if I'm going to walk around uncomfortable all the time in case I happen upon a shootout between the Bloods and the Crips. It's just not feasable. I could see LEOs doing it or even that guy who owned the jewelry store (of course he didn't have to carry it all day) but the average citizen? Come on, you're dreaming.
Posted by another okie:
In 1969 Richard C. Davis, founder of Second Chance body armor, emptied his six shot revolver at three robbers, then turned and ran. He was hit twice as he ran.
The holier than thou "Five is all you'll ever need" crowd has repeatedly assured us that we will NEVER need more than five rounds, and in the rare event we did, that it would be best just to run!
With a 2-stack 9mm, I feel more than fine with one mag of 13.
However, I remember reading quite a few news stories in which an multiple thugs flee the scene when an armed citizen kills just one of the attackers. Not even criminals want to be in a gunfight.
vanilla_gorilla said:Do you wish to bet your life or the lives of those you love on that, though?
vanilla_gorilla said:I have saved on my computer the story of the gun battle and legal battle of a guy who was assaulted by four thugs, only one of whom was observed to be armed. Our hero drew his trusty 1911 and Mozambiqued the armed thug, and his partner, instead of beating feet as so many insist thugs will do, bent over to retrieve the firearm from his obviously dead comrades' hands before receiving similar treatment himself. Only after two of their friends had fallen with their brains lying on the sidewalk did the other two decide to remove themselves from the fight.
That's a powerful lesson to me.
That story sounds pretty hinky to me. Are you sure your hero wasn't the "thug" himself? Maybe the reason he's facing a "legal battle" is because he tried to rob four guys and one of them drew his own piece.
Besides, I don't get your point about "betting your life." If this dude was carrying a 1911, he had, what, seven shots instead of six?
Big deal.
Vanilla_Gorilla said:Yeah, he could be the bad guy. Except for that whole witnesses and "not guilty" thing. Sure.
Vanilla_Gorilla said:A simple third grade reading comprehension course would have showed you that I was referring to the idea that "shoot one and all the others will run" is not something that is set in stone. Making such an assumption could get you killed.
How many times in the last 50 years has a citizen with a concealed weapon actually discharged more than 30 rounds in an act of self defense?
If it's 15 people chasing me, I'd be comforted more by my running shoes than any amount of ammo.
In a mob attack, I think it likely that if you shoot one or two - preferably the one(s) who appear to be the leader(s) - the rest will run off. I try to avoid areas where violence is known to be commonplace, but sometimes you can't. Ask Reginald Denny.
Defensory, haven't you ever heard the phrase "The further south in Florida you go, the further north you are ?"