Common Sense Question ?

[ATLDave]

Do not see how there is any difference regardless of whether public servant or not. If you are in a life and death circumstance, ideally a rifle - or a shotgun - is the logical choice.

It is a simple matter of the fact that a rifle is a far more reliable "stopper" than a handgun. Not a matter of what you do for a living.

How your actions are viewed later absolutely does depend on what you do for a living. Let's just play out the situations:

Soldier in a war zone gets in a gunfight, uses pistol to fight his way back to the rifle in his vehicle, returns and kill numerous enemy combatants: Good job, soldier. Killing the enemy is your job! Here, take this medal. And don't leave your rifle behind next time.

Cop on the street gets into a gunfight, uses pistol to fight his way back to his rifle in his patrol car, returns and kills criminal assailant:. You're going to have to go on leave while the state investigative bureau determines whether your use of force upon return was reasonable. You'll probably be OK, since your job was to apprehend or stop the guy, and going back with a rifle was probably a prudent way to do that. Try not to freak out over the next 2 weeks while your future is decided.

Civilian on the street gets into a gunfight, uses pistol to fight his way back to his trunk gun, returns and kills criminal assailant: You were doing ok right up until the point you abandoned your retreat and went back into the fight voluntarily. Now you're the aggressor and/or engaged in mutual combat. You have the right to remain silent...​

 

[murf]

my pistol is my primary weapon.

my life saver is my common sense and my gun handling skills.

murf

 

[Madcap_Magician]

So this question is basically a solid 30% of all threads in all gun forums, ever, and it sustains the life of gun forums because it is of deep emotional concern to most members and also because the answer is unknowable.

 

[RPZ]

How your actions are viewed later absolutely does depend on what you do for a living. Let's just play out the situations:

Soldier in a war zone gets in a gunfight, uses pistol to fight his way back to the rifle in his vehicle, returns and kill numerous enemy combatants: Good job, soldier. Killing the enemy is your job! Here, take this medal. And don't leave your rifle behind next time.

Cop on the street gets into a gunfight, uses pistol to fight his way back to his rifle in his patrol car, returns and kills criminal assailant:. You're going to have to go on leave while the state investigative bureau determines whether your use of force upon return was reasonable. You'll probably be OK, since your job was to apprehend or stop the guy, and going back with a rifle was probably a prudent way to do that. Try not to freak out over the next 2 weeks while your future is decided.

Civilian on the street gets into a gunfight, uses pistol to fight his way back to his trunk gun, returns and kills criminal assailant: You were doing ok right up until the point you abandoned your retreat and went back into the fight voluntarily. Now you're the aggressor and/or engaged in mutual combat. You have the right to remain silent...​

Injecting the "return" element is just a little misleading here. There have been threads dealing with whether or not anyone would intervene in the case of active shooter(s) in a public place. The defense of third parties is quite legal in many jurisdictions.

Depending on your location - like on your own property or property under your control - defending property, perhaps family or other third parties you might be perfectly within your rights intercepting armed badguy or badguys. Depends on your State laws of course.

Regardless, getting to your rifle - or shotgun - wherever you are, is not necessarily synonymous with running back to fight a duel with anyone. It is simply availing yourself of the most effective fighting impliment should you need to decisively stop a continuing deadly threat or threats.

 

[RPZ]

Stopping power isn’t the only consideration in the logic of civilian defensive weapon selection.

After claiming “logic” to it - could you spare the time to run through said? Describe the everyday circumstance in which a rifle could be deployed? We’ve been down this road - there’s little to no practicality in a plan to “fight back to your long gun” for the civilian. LEO’s carry handguns, and keep long guns in their cruiser. They have a reason and logical pathway to “use the handgun to fight back to their long gun.” If a civilian evades danger and reaches their vehicle, the logical obligation is to further retreat from danger - else as was pointed out above in the Cooper quote, the rifle would be used offensively. The only two paradigms I can believe is remotely feasible is home invasion. Even for an in-vehicle attack, evasion is the best option, and leaving the vehicle is an offensive move - whereas inside, the long gun isn’t as well maneuvered as a handgun.

Unless you’re walking down the street or sitting at work with a rifle slung on your shoulder, the “logic” of the real world application says you won’t have a long gun readily at hand in the instant of threat, and by the time you retreat to reach the long gun, the threat is relieved.

I refer to my other post above. Sometimes a vehicle can be a death trap. You might find yourself in circumstances where you can't drive away quickly without endangering people on foot for example.

A good friend of mine described an incident his brother had at a gas station not far from home one night. While at the pump a small group of gang bangers were converging his way with their attention on him. He opened the rear passenger door and grabbed a shotgun on the back seat. He didn't point it at anyone, but as soon as they saw it they turned tail and ran like scalded cats.

 

[CDW4ME]

Use this question: Of the pistols I own, is the one I'm carrying the one I'd prefer to defend my life with?
If the answer is no, then why are you carrying it?
Limited by work clothes is an acceptable reason.
Wanting to wear "skinny jeans" or tuck in shirt to "look nice" eating at ____ is not. (examples)

I carry a 1911 IWB and a Glock 43 in weak hand front pocket.
If I unexpectedly had to defend my life with a pistol a 1911 in 45 acp or 10mm is best I can do.

 

[375supermag]

There is an old story about a Texas Ranger. He was attending a social event with his family, wearing his issue sidearm. A woman approached the Ranger and said “I see you are wearing a pistol, are you expecting trouble?” The Ranger replied politely, “Why no ma’am, if I was expecting trouble, I would have brought a rifle.”
Pistols aren’t what you bring to a fight, they are what you have when you don’t expect a fight. They are designed to keep you alive long enough to get to a rifle. They make it easier to “have a gun.”
Given that the pistol is not a primary weapon, how much pistol is enough?
The S&W M&P Shield 9mm is my life saver what is yours?

Hi...
I typically carry a Springfield Armory 1911A1 in .45ACP.
Occasionally carry a Colt Combat Commander in .45ACP.
Once in a while I carry one of my Colt Troopers in .357Magnum and on a few occasions I have carried a Taurus DA revolver in .44Spl.
At home the Springfield Armory is always close at hand, backed up by a 12ga. autoloader and an SKS in 7.62x39.
I do not typically keep a shotgun or rifle in my vehicle as a backup gun.

 

[ATLDave]

RPZ, all of those scenarios are theoretically possible, but astronomically unlikely for any given individual to encounter. It is, therefore, absurd to claim that the purpose of a handgun is to allow you to get to a long arm. If that actually happens once a decade to a civilian, that's a lot.

 

[RedlegRick]

I keep it simple, carry what I got, and do my utmost to avoid ever having to use it for more than punching paper. I don't carry a car gun for the simple fact I don't have one that would work for it aside from a 12 gauge single shot.

My plan is simple: if I have to use it, it will be while on the retreat from the scene, and once I'm away, to stay that way.

 

[RPZ]

RPZ, all of those scenarios are theoretically possible, but astronomically unlikely for any given individual to encounter. It is, therefore, absurd to claim that the purpose of a handgun is to allow you to get to a long arm. If that actually happens once a decade to a civilian, that's a lot.

Astronomically unlikely for who? Anyone who lives in a house with a front and back yard? Anyone who lives in rural America? Anyone who lives in a town with gang activity? Who are these magically protected people? I'd like to find this wonderful place you speak of.

 

[ATLDave]

Yes to all of those.

 

[RPZ]

Yes to all of those.

Then there is no need to have a handgun either.

 

[ATLDave]

We are discussing the likelihood of a situation in which a criminal is faced with a civilian armed with a handgun, the civilian uses the handgun to "fight", and the criminal sticks around long enough for the civilian (having already "fought" using the handgun) to bring a long gun to bear - all in a circumstance where the civilian is legally-justified throughout in continuing to use lethal force against the criminal. You think that happens a lot? Or as often as other situations in which a gun can legally be used in defense?

 

[Varminterror]

Agreed - a civilian has a frequent enough risk which requires a defensive firearm, but the circumstances in which the fight duration is long enough to “fight their way back to a long gun” is mostly Internet forum lore and Hollywood entertainment.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think handguns are very much under rated. Everyone "says" a rifle or shotgun is a better choice, and it is somewhat. But with the best loads, in common cartridges like 9mm, 40, 45, and 357 you see actual stop percentages at or near 90% if the shooter hits what he is aiming at. I think a rifle, or shotgun is more likely to give good hits, especially as range increases. But handgun rounds are more than adequate at close range.

Even in the military tactics are changing and handguns are being used more and more as front line weapons where close quarters fighting is likely. The unconventional wars we have been involved in recently has proven their effectiveness.

Did you ever see a squad of infantry go into action armed ONLY with pistols?

 

[RPZ]

We are discussing the likelihood of a situation in which a criminal is faced with a civilian armed with a handgun, the civilian uses the handgun to "fight", and the criminal sticks around long enough for the civilian (having already "fought" using the handgun) to bring a long gun to bear - all in a circumstance where the civilian is legally-justified throughout in continuing to use lethal force against the criminal. You think that happens a lot? Or as often as other situations in which a gun can legally be used in defense?

We are? Don't see any of that in the opening post.

I have to agree with the quoted Ranger. A handgun is what you have at all times, a rifle is what you want if you are expecting (or already) have trouble.

Enough pistol is very subjective, since none of them, at least in the service pistol context, are very decisive stoppers. My minimum is usually a .380.

 

[RPZ]

Agreed - a civilian has a frequent enough risk which requires a defensive firearm, but the circumstances in which the fight duration is long enough to “fight their way back to a long gun” is mostly Internet forum lore and Hollywood entertainment.

The "...fight your way back to..." is erroneous. It does not apply.

The pistol is on hand, but if you have an accessible long gun, get it, if you can.

 

[ATLDave]

We are? Don't see any of that in the opening post.

From the OP: "They are designed to keep you alive long enough to get to a rifle. "

And then my reply: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/common-sense-question.838058/reply&quote=10859044 Which was where the difference between the validity of the notion that a handgun is "for" fighting your way back to the rifle between soldiers, cops, and civilians came in.

The "...fight your way back to..." is erroneous. It does not apply.

OK, now we're on the same page.

 

[Varminterror]

My day today has and will consist of:

Breakfast with my father in law for a late Father’s Day, after his doctor’s appt.

Visit to our downtown office for a meeting.

Lunch with an equipment provider.

Back to the office to drop off colleagues.

Gym/dojo after work.

Home Depot to pick up some polyurethane.

Groceries at Dillons on my way home.

Guess how many hours of that day I will have access to a long gun... Guess how much greater my risk exposure is to threat outside of the home vs. in home...

 

[RPZ]

From the OP: "They are designed to keep you alive long enough to get to a rifle. "

And then my reply: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/common-sense-question.838058/reply&quote=10859044 Which was where the difference between the validity of the notion that a handgun is "for" fighting your way back to the rifle between soldiers, cops, and civilians came in.



OK, now we're on the same page.

I've said as much all along. I have stated that the rifle or shotgun is a weapon of choice for specific reasons.

So let me put it another way; a pistol is to help keep me alive, while I am getting my rifle.

Col. Cooper has been quoted as saying that pistols are defensive arms, rifles are offensive. I am not suggesting he was contradicting himself, however, in "The Art of the Rifle" he states "The rifle is the queen of personal weapons". I agree,

 

[ATLDave]

So let me put it another way; a pistol is to help keep me alive, while I am getting my rifle.,

If you're not a soldier or a cop, nope. Either you won't need the pistol at all, or, by the time you "get to the rifle" the fight will be over.

 

[RPZ]

My day today has and will consist of:

Breakfast with my father in law for a late Father’s Day, after his doctor’s appt.

Visit to our downtown office for a meeting.

Lunch with an equipment provider.

Back to the office to drop off colleagues.

Gym/dojo after work.

Home Depot to pick up some polyurethane.

Groceries at Dillons on my way home.

Guess how many hours of that day I will have access to a long gun... Guess how much greater my risk exposure is to threat outside of the home vs. in home...

I know other people that keep long guns in their vehicles about all the time.

 

[ATLDave]

I'm sure you do. You think there's a good chance that they will get into a fight, use the pistol (i.e., shoot at someone), have that person stick around while they return to their vehicle (or pop the trunk or whatever), and then continue fighting?

 

[Varminterror]

I know other people that keep long guns in their vehicles about all the time.

And we’ve been down the fallacy of that paradigm. I know other people who honestly believe hot water freezes outside faster than cold water...

 

[RPZ]

Fallacy? Dont know where you live, part of the country etc, your social circles etc. Here there are whether you like it or not.