Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics, and Training' started by Bazoo, Nov 19, 2021.
Why what? Specifically?
Do you have a basis for that belief?
You said "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 [that It's not uncommon now to be facing three armed attackers]. I asked why.
My reading of self-defense data is that the first shot typically ends the assault. I would be interested to read any data that indicates that assailants have been willing to actually exchange gunfire, or otherwise continue an assault. At least, that there is a change in this behavior. I quote the relevant post: " It's not uncommon now to be facing three armed attackers" (emphasis added). That statement implies a change in circumstance. I have not seen anything that suggests such a change so that firearm choices appropriate for the past are no longer adequate.
Most realistic defensive training calls for shooting several shots very quickly.
Different subject. The Tuelller drill, for example, addresses contact weapons.
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.
I believe what we have practiced/trained with will influence this to a degree but that some guns are easier to shoot well than others.
Because you're experienced (said you carried for ten years) and you said you shoot them all well, both your experience and the gun's design and features will influence the results.
The key thing is to evaluate your performance with them objectively. If you do so, I guarantee you the results will not be equal.
The criteria are up to you. Some things to consider testing:
speed to draw from concealment and fire (Bill Drill for example)
accuracy at 10 yards, slow fire from ready (group of 5 for example)
same as above but one-handed
results from Dot Torture drill
accuracy at 7 yards rapid fire (mag dump basically)
results of FBI qualification drill
accuracy at 15 yards standing
accuracy at 30 yards and 60 yards kneeling (shoot a group)
accuracy at 7 yards point-shooting (from the hip or 3/4)
I recently tested myself with two guns: a 586 and a 686 (almost the same gun, but with different barrel lengths and different sites). I noticed a big difference in my performance. I can't in good conscience carry the one that I sucked with. I mean, there's no justification for it because it's not like it's half the size or weight.
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.
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.
I simply disagree. His statement was clearly about a change in pattern over time. There has not been one demonstrated.
I carry a firearm often, but I won't let some sort of panic about new threats determine my choices.
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.
This is pretty much exactly what I am talking about.
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?.
Of my carrying for the last ten+ years, I've always carried guns I didn't particularly love because they are better. Semi autos. I am a revolver man though. So my thread is meant to help me figure out how to get past knowing a semiauto is better, but being comfortable with a revolver.
If faced with a mob, I'd not be comfortable with any of them, but the 1911 would be my choice of the three I have. Then the gp100, then the blackhawk.
You've been struck by lightening?!
My aunt has been struck.
What was the results? Did it ignite ammo on your person? Melt your grips?
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.
No. you are saying the word 'now' carries no information content in that sentence. But that is incorrect. Compare:
"I walk to work."
"I now walk to work"
Those two sentences clearly have different meanings. The second implies a comparison of 'now' to 'then'.
With regard to proving the negative: did I ever say that I did? If an assertion is made, it is up to the asserter to support the statement. No such evidence was presented, therefore it stands as an unsupported assertion. Which it is. I simply pointed out that fact.
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.
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.
I carried a smith 642 a while. I wasn't real comfortable with it. Mostly because I could shoot a larger gun better. The sights being the main difference.
I practiced with it a fair amount and I could hit a 6" plate at 25 yards and a 12" at 50 yards. But with a gun like the gp100, I feel more secure.
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.
My problem with all this: Ruger, S&W, etc. and every single gun magazine ever have to gin up interest to keep people buying guns or accessories. Now, in a country with more than one firearm per citizen, this means creating demand where there really isn't need. 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.
In the gun industry, because they are marketing a self-defense product, this means generating fear and anxiety about personal safety. So, to create fear, they pump out a bunch of misinformation about how dangerous the world is. Who do you think pays for 'Self-Defense TV'? Who pays for the magazines like 'Home Defense', 'Concealed Carry', 'Personal Defense', 'Defense Carry', "PDW', 'Home Defense", etc., etc.! (These are all actual names of firearm-related magazines). Compound that with the political element, and they are in a prime position to take advantage.
News break - the world is safer now than it has ever been in history. 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! Or else you and your family might be killed by marauding ANTIFA gangs! So plunk down your $500! Plus some extra mags! And Tritium night-sights! Thanks for shopping with us! Your family will thank you! And don't let the socialists tell you that you don't need to buy it!
This is a hustle and I refuse to buy it. I am a gunowner (and a hunter and a reloader and a target shooter), and I enjoy shooting, and sometimes I carry (I have permits from 4 states). But I refuse to be shoved into a state of anxiety by deceptive data.
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:
Really? Why do you think that? How do you assess my need?
I see. It's business that you do not like.
Fear? I have not seen that. Nor have I seen much in the way of the kind of "misinformation" to which you are referring.
Not I. My shield EZ holds 8, and I've seen nothing from "the gun industry" about its viability.
That's fine by me.
How do you decide when to do so?
Those data mean little or nothing to today's citizens. Why are you so hung up on data from yesteryear?
And one more time, do not rely upon averages for risk assessment or risk management--or for anything else in the way of personal decision-making.
I live in a similar type area and I carry the same pistol. At some point I'd like to switch to the Glock 43X but the Smith and Wesson was a total steal when I bought it and it serves the purpose just fine. It's a good blend of capacity and concealability.
Separate names with a comma.