A thread to advocate not downgrading carry based on location.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, most of this thread has been preaching and doesn't answer the OPs question. It seems there are many who have opinions but not about the question asked.

Uh...what question did OP ask? I don't see any questions in the OP. In fact, I don't see a single "?" in the OP.

You think you're really better prepared to take on two people ARs or one guy with an AK because you carry a G19 instead of a G42?

Yes.


BTW, nobody said better = excellent or foolproof or even good. Better is just...better. Maybe you would like to phase it as a "less bad" chance.
 
A thread to advocate not downgrading carry based on location.

Sounds nice and simple ... in theory.

You're discussing a simple equipment issue and not considering other influences, circumstances and possible situational developments which might change things for some folks.

I'd be more inclined to wonder if some folks "assumed" they were automatically better prepared, and therefore maybe a little more relaxed, less attentive and more susceptible to being caught off guard ... just because they may have some unconscious degree of over-confidence based upon how they were lawfully armed.

Equipment issues are ... equipment issues.

Mental awareness and preparedness ought not be compromised, nor artificially bolstered, simply because someone chose to lawfully arm themselves with a specific type of handgun, for any or all types of situations.

Consider that handguns carried as sidearms are usually considered 'back up' personal weapons to some folks are 'primarily' armed with larger small arms (rifles), and that's mostly a situational thing (no anticipation of having to be under arms with other, larger weapons in some circumstances ... and yet we, as private citizens, feel that handguns are just dandy, and sufficient, in the role of being our daily 'primary weapons'. LE are usually supplied with other options, meaning shotguns and rifles.

I under stand your point and apparent premise, but smaller handguns have always, and probably always will, serve an important role when it comes to allowing options for the lawfully armed American citizen. Even "pocket" guns.

Risk assessment.

Using your premise, it can easily be argued (wrongly) that anything less than a "full-size fighting handgun" might be insufficient, and therefore "compact" pistols aren't as good as "full-size" choices.

Perspective and assumption can be tricky business. ;)

Now, I've got to leave and go somewhere where a large belt gun would be perhaps a bit impractical, so a LCP is going to be pocket-holstered. Awareness and mindset is going to remain the same, out of long standing habit and training, whether I'm armed (with anything) or unarmed, though.
 
BTW, nobody said better = excellent or foolproof or even good. Better is just...better. Maybe you would like to phase it as a "less bad" chance.

Nope the fact you think you're better off means you are probably worse off. Mindset is way more important than hardware.
I'd also add that in both cases it would be unlawful to carry a gun at all.
 
Didn't see this mentioned, so pardon me if I'm addressing something that's already been discussed. Some people carry for both human AND non-human threats. I've been told that a mountain lion has been reported on a trail outside of town that I walk on regularly. I have no way to substantiate the story, but there definitely are a few of these animals in our state. If presented with more evidence of it's presence, I might want to start carrying a .40 or a .357 during my trail walks instead of a 9mm. Don't really want to debate whether 9mm is adequate for mountain lion or not - just saying that predatory animal threats could require more potent calibers than you'd otherwise carry.
 
Nope the fact you think you're better off means you are probably worse off. Mindset is way more important than hardware.
I'd also add that in both cases it would be unlawful to carry a gun at all.


Yes yes of course, anybody who thinks a Glock 19 is more capable than a pocket .380 is worse off lol
 
Agree totally. The only variable I work off of is I may "downgrade" from my G-19 to my G-43 in the summer, only because of the difficulty in CC due to seasonal clothing. No derringers or purse guns in my inventory.
 
Reminds me of the Texas Ranger parable:

An old lady at a Texas BBQ saw the 1911 on a Ranger's hip and quipped, "Expectin' trouble?".

The Ranger replied, "No, Ma'am; If I was expectin' trouble, I'd have brought my rifle."

Good one.
Expect trouble = don't go there.
Likely that vast majority of people who have to defend themself did not expect to.
 
While I think a armed society is a safer society we need to move past just have a gun. We need to carry enough gun.
I agree, though again we could get into different opinions on what "enough gun" is, and enough gun for what situation. That's a big part of why I'd love to see open carry become a more common thing. If everyone open carried, weight would be the only reason to carry a smaller gun with less capacity, but concealment would become a nonissue largely.

You are entirely missing my point. It is not possible for you to be free of harm outside of your home. Our society is too mobile. Our perceptions often don’t match reality. It is easily to ignore the California shootings as weirdos, hippies and other crazies live there. This leads to the question how many weirdos, hippies and crazies live in Newton? Well, we can count Ford as one.

What makes you think your community and neighborhood is any different?

How many people are there like that are living in your neighborhood? We had a serial killer living less than 1/2 mile away from us. It will hit when the reality of violent crime comes to your community.

Well, with respect, you are off base here. I'm not missing your point, I just see society and the world we live in differently than you, and do not believe that the horrendous acts of violence that the media plasters all over tv and radio are truly indicative of our society. But that doesn't mean I don't think they can happen, and I'm aware that there is potential danger as soon as you walk out your door, and while you are in your home for that matter. Despite living in a nice community, violence has come here.

I choose not to let it bother me, but that doesn't mean I'm not ready to confront violence if it comes my way. I choose to carry a gun I am comfortable with, which is mostly the same gun all the time, but not always, to give most people a lot of space, and I keep a very wary eye open.

What makes me think my community is any different? Absolutely nothing.

I've been in proximity to a number of bad situations and crimes.

I grew up in Milwaukee in the 80's and 90's. Remember Jeffrey Dahmer?

When I was a teenager the neighbors across the street moved out, and drug dealers moved in. One Saturday morning the SWAT team showed up at 7:00 a.m. and arrested all of them. As it turns out they were dealing dope, and stolen guns.

Then there was the girl I went to high school with that lived two blocks away. Her brother tied her up with wire, threw her in the bathtub, and beat her to death with a shotgun. Then he proceeded to roam my neighborhood aimlessly with shotgun in hand. He was sitting on his front porch when the cops confronted him, and a standoff for several hours ensued. It ended when he put the barrel under his chin and pulled the trigger.

Eventually I moved to the community I live in now about ten years ago which is a quiet hill town in the west, with a population of 1900 or so permanent inhabitants. Nonetheless......

Meth dealers were selling from the drive through window of the fast food restaurant across the street from my office.

A gun involved suicide took place last year about a mile from my home.

There were a number of garages and homes burglarized in my area by addicts looking for loot to sell for drug money a few years ago.

The larger town to the north has had three cops murdered in the last four years.

I have had a person pull a gun on me while I was working, but I diffused the situation. Consequently, that is what woke me up to carrying my own gun to begin with, though my employer prohibits carrying on the job.

The worst incident was three years ago. A returning young veteran of the middle east with apparent PTSD came home and found out that his girlfriend had been sleeping with a local cop while he was gone. The night he found out via phone, he left the local bar he was in, got in his truck and proceeded to shoot up our local high school. Then he drove his pickup down main street shooting out the window at local storefronts and at a few folks on the street. He then crashed his pickup truck through the front doors of our sheriff's office and took off on foot. The cops cornered him about a block away, and had to gun him down. I woke up to the gunfire as the standoff ended, a block and a half from my home. They had to bring a fire hose out to wash the blood off of the parking lot where this went down.

I see these incidents as outliers and not something that is common where I live. I acknowledge that your life circumstances, locality, and general attitude may dictate a very different philosophy. So while I understand your point, and I can understand why you'd disagree, I simply refuse to allow some bad things going down now and then to dictate my attitude towards the world, or to force me to totally change my dress habits and carry scheme when I doubt very much that I need a higher capacity gun in my location. But again, that's JMO, and what's right for me may be wrong for others. Anytime you have a larger population, you will likely have a proportionally higher crime rate. That just comes with people being people. If I still lived in Milwaukee, I'd probably have started carrying a higher capacity gun from the get go.

Perhaps where I struggle with this is in the way the OP made the initial statement. I don't think one should ever "down grade" what they are carrying. I think you should carry the largest gun you can comfortably carry, to ensure consistent carry, with the most capacity possible, and to suite your setting, as a minimum. If entering a location or situation that has obvious risk, avoidance first, and if avoidance is impossible perhaps an "upgrade" is warranted to a larger higher capacity gun.

Sorry for the super long post, but it's an interesting topic of discussion.
 
Last edited:
There is a rather large gap between a pocket gun and a full size gun.

Pocket gun generally meaning a small single stack .380 or maybe a slim single stack ~6 round 9mm or a 5 shot snub nose revolver. Full size being a semi auto duty type pistol that probably holds about 17 rounds with a significantly longer sight radius, barrel, and grip.

Lots of compact and sub compact pistols in between those. A Glock 26, Sig P320sc, M&P9c, P30sk, etc whatever...much easier to carry and conceal than a pocket gun, but shoot much more like a full size, and can take full size magazines


IOW...pocket gun or full size gun is a false dichotomy
The statement you quoted Warp was meant to make the point that for some people, a small gun is sometimes all a person is willing or able to carry, and if that is the case, it may be the best choice for them, as they will consistently carry it. If a gun is not considered convenient by the user, a lot of users will not carry consistently.

In no way was I trying to imply that carry options are restricted to full sized guns or pocket guns only. I carry a mid-sized myself.
 
BSA1 said:
A common question on forums is what kind of small gun should I choose to slip into my pocket when going to convenience store at night? Convenience store are among the highest target for armed robberies. Therefore it would make more sense to be well armed rather than just having a small low powered gun chosen just on how well it fits the pants pocket.

I work nights as a roving security guard for the local utility. I spend my entire shift driving around checking various items of utilities infrastructure for vandalism, theft and sabotage. My uniform includes an full duty belt and ballistic vest and I'm armed with an M&P40 and 2 reloads.

I said all that to say this:

I don't stop at convenience stores at night period. Not even with that full battle rattle on because I know that they're at high risk for robberies and I don't want to walk into one some night and get shot by a robber who thinks I'm a cop. It's always better to avoid a confrontation with a criminal than to win one.

Having said all that

After lugging all that crap around all night I don't even notice my M&P9FS and 2 reloads I wear when when I'm not at work

In case anyone is wondering my point is that if I think twice before going to a convenience store with all that crap I'm sure as hell not gonna do it with just an LCP
 
Last edited:
Yes yes of course, anybody who thinks a Glock 19 is more capable than a pocket .380 is worse off lol
I didn't say it wasn't more capable it does hold more rounds and is more powerful, thinking that added capability is going to make any difference against a guy with a rifle is the problem.
And I probably should have said G43 so you wouldn't have started a caliber pissing match.
 
It's not the size of the gun in the fight it's the size of the fight in the gun owner.

It's both.


Of course, as we have all probably seen....mindset > skillset > toolset...but it's not like you can simply write off the toolset because you have such a great mindset and skillset that a lesser tool will be just as good...you'd still be better off with 'more gun' or 'more tool' or whatever verbiage you want to use.

Of course that isn't always possible, or convenient, o what a person chooses. Which is perfectly fine. I just don't like this "a pocket gun or mousegun is fine because mindset" thing...it's still going to limit you. Which again is fine...just be aware that more gun is going to increase your potential to stop a psycho or a robber or a trio of them or whatever.

/ramble
 
So a wonder gun with magic bullets is all that's needed then?

Why are you deliberating misrepresenting my posts by selectively quoting phrases out of context and ignoring the bulk of the post in order to create an argument?

Here it is again, since you seem to have skipped over it:

"It's both.


Of course, as we have all probably seen....mindset > skillset > toolset...but it's not like you can simply write off the toolset because you have such a great mindset and skillset that a lesser tool will be just as good...you'd still be better off with 'more gun' or 'more tool' or whatever verbiage you want to use.

Of course that isn't always possible, or convenient, o what a person chooses. Which is perfectly fine. I just don't like this "a pocket gun or mousegun is fine because mindset" thing...it's still going to limit you. Which again is fine...just be aware that more gun is going to increase your potential to stop a psycho or a robber or a trio of them or whatever.

/ramble"
 
If people only made their carry decisions based on their estimation of the threat level of the area they were going to be in, then basically your premise is correct.

A lot of times other factors effect what I carry.

I had a business meeting the other day and attire was a suit, dress shirt and tie.

My business slacks don't accommodate a wide belt and a dress belt isn't going to hold up a full-sized pistol very well, not to mention that business slacks aren't going to conceal a full-sized gun very well.

The Rohrbaugh R9 disappears into my front pocket.

You could make a case for not being lazy and applying rigorous discipline to be as prepared as possible, but its difficult for me to exercise that kind of discipline. If I'm making a meal and I realize I'm missing a few ingredients and I have to run down to the store - it takes some discipline to strap on the leather, versus throwing a pocket pistol in the front pocket and jumping in the car.

But that's also another reason why I like having a separate car gun. My full-sized nine with 19+1 rounds of ammo is always at hand when I'm driving, so it somewhat mitigates not having a full-sized pistol on my person at all times.
 
Why are you deliberating misrepresenting my posts by selectively quoting phrases out of context and ignoring the bulk of the post in order to create an argument?

You tend to be a bit long winded and I don't like copying the whole post.

Of course, as we have all probably seen....mindset > skillset > toolset...but it's not like you can simply write off the toolset because you have such a great mindset and skillset that a lesser tool will be just as good...

I don't carry a pocket gun because I believe superior mind set will overcome gun inadequacy, I don't see guns as adequate/inadequate they're just tools in the end the only thing that can be inadequate is personal effort.

you'd still be better off with 'more gun' or 'more tool' or whatever verbiage you want to use.

You may believe it but that doesn't make it true. In a situation were there are no absolutes, The one absolute is having A Gun is better than not.
 
I didn't say it wasn't more capable it does hold more rounds and is more powerful, thinking that added capability is going to make any difference against a guy with a rifle is the problem.
And I probably should have said G43 so you wouldn't have started a caliber pissing match.

Why wouldn't a gun that is easier to shoot accurately under stress and holds more rounds make a difference? Rifles and the scum who shoot up places with them aren't magic or indestructible. The odds are against you, but not impossible and the better able you are to shoot your pistol, the more likely you can stop the threat.

In a mass shooting situation, if you hit the deck immediately, you will probably have a good shot on them where they don't see you since they are shooting at the people running like chicken with their heads cut off. It would be nice to have a gun with a decent grip size and sight radius to make that shot IMO.

The biggest difference will be training. How many people have had realistic training, especially involving force on force scenarios?
 
Posted by 460Kodiak:
The assumption that the same cartridge and ammo capacity is needed in a "bad" area vs a "good" area is not necessarily true in my mind. Crime statistics can shed light on that as far as numbers of attackers in gang inhabited areas vs. Beverly Hills CA type area. I believe you are more inclined to encounter multiple attackers in the "hood" than an upscale residential area, or a nicely groomed downtown. So cartridge is the same, but capacity needs may not be.
Any "statistics" to support hat conjecture?

When you look at the average number of shots fired in a self defense situation, it is pretty low I believe, as in like three shots per incident.
That's been stated numerous times, with little factual support. But even if it were valid, what would an average mean for risk management?

So there is a flaw in the logic in general that more than a pocket gun or five shot revolver is needed.
Well, that's not really "logic", but by combining some wounding effectiveness analysis ("where do I have to hit an assailant to stop him") with some simulations ("how can I make that happen"), one will most likely come to the conclusion that the number of times that more than a five shot revolver would likely needed is much larger than the alternative.

... it is IMO erroneous to think that carrying a larger gun with more capacity is the answer when in a "bad area". It isn't. Avoiding the danger in the first place is the answer. If it's unavoidable, then you need to make life changes to avoid said areas, not firearm choices.
Good thinking.

My personal opinion is that a person should carry whatever that person is comfortable with, and that is convenient enough that they will make carrying a gun a habit.
I would agree, provided that that "comfort" level reflects informed judgment--and a knowledge of what it may take to stop an attacker, and of how many shots may be required to stop an assailant rushing at five meters per second at close range

That doesn't necessarily mean it will always be the same gun every single day. You just need to be familiar enough with that gun and cognizant of what gun you are carrying so use is automatic.
Probably not a good idea to very if you can avoid it.

The OP's point is very well put. It is a well established tenet of risk management that the selection of a mitigation approach, once it is decided that mitigation is appropriate, be based on what it would take to mitigate a risk once it materializes, and not on the likelihood of occurrence.
 
This discussion usually veers off towards some wanting to justify or rationalize carrying a smaller gun of either marginal power or capacity while believing they are protecting themselves as though they carried larger higher capacity.
I am guilty of carrying smaller guns at times but I never try to convince myself that I'm as well off as with a 9mm+ with 10+ RDS of ammo.
 
Why wouldn't a gun that is easier to shoot accurately under stress and holds more rounds make a difference?
You've answered your own question.

The biggest difference will be training.

I've shot my pocket guns enough that with the exception of the LCP they're just isn't much difference in how well I can shoot them. and
if you hit the deck immediately, you will probably have a good shot
Yes you're going to get one maybe two shots off before you have their attention, capacity isn't likely to be a factor.

Any "statistics" to support hat conjecture?
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that there are more criminals where there are more crime.
 
Posted by mavracer:
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that there are more criminals where there are more crime.
...and therefore, an increased probability of criminal assault.

But the question had to do with whether the likelihood of an attack by multiple assailants is higher in an area in which the crime rate is higher.

A higher number of criminals residing in the area of 12th and Market than around Hollywood and Vine may not translate to a larger number of participants in a particular attack.

I'll suggest the following: given a choice, most violent criminal actors will attack when they are accompanied by one or more others. Better odds of success, better "intelligence" on when to strike and when not to.

We have scant data , but what we do have seem to suggest that, when a violent attack does occur, the chances that two or more attackers will be involved are higher than the likelihood that there will be only one.

I've seen nothing to suggest that varies according to neighborhood.

I live a short distance from one of the violent crime capitals of the country. There are robberies and murders in the news almost every day. Most seem to involve a couple of attackers.

I see about the same thing in better neighborhoods. A perp without an accomplice seems likely to choose discretion.

Of course, the likelihood of an attack is a lot higher "downtown".
 
When you look at the average number of shots fired in a self defense situation, it is pretty low I believe, as in like three shots per incident.
Arriving late to the party, as usual, but this caught my eye. If folks are going to quote "averages" it'd be nice if some documentation was provided. The one average I know is that there is no average number of shots fired.

We had a case locally a couple weeks ago where one shooter fired 46 rounds (with a Glock, and yes, he reloaded). But, I digress.

I'm supporting Kleanbore's last post, he's right on the money here.

I'm starting to feel fortunate that I live in a region where it's entirely possible to carry a full-size pistol every day, even in the "warm" months (both of them).

For me, I'm simply not going to get up every morning and ponder where I'm gonna be going and then have to figure out how I'm gonna dress or what gun I will carry. For some of you, perhaps when you're older, you'll also figure out other ways to simply your lives, and how to not have to make so many ultimately trivial decisions throughout the day.

I dress, and carry, the same way every day (easy when you're old and don't have to be a slave to fashion), expecting that no matter where I go or where I am, bad trouble may occur. The daily news confirms that I am not particularly paranoid.
 
We have scant data , but what we do have seem to suggest that, when a violent attack does occur, the chances that two or more attackers will be involved are higher than the likelihood that there will be only one.
Do you have any statistics to back that up.
I've seen nothing to suggest that varies according to neighborhood.
I have, in high crime areas it's often 3 or more, in my neck of the woods it's 1 or 2.
They just can't travel in packs without drawing attention here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top