Concealed Carry Overkill?

[Old Fuff]

In my part of the world (South/East Arizona) multiple assailants is not unheard of but scarce, and are generally of two kinds. One is muggers or carjackers, who like to pick women or the elderly as victims – for obvious reason. These represent a threat of sorts to the Old Fuff because he fits the latter victim profile. But in real life they don’t like armed victims of any kind, and if they are so unfortunate as to pick one, once they know they disengage and move out quickly.

On the other hand you occasionally hear of a hit-tem out of Mexico that is after a specific person who has offended someone in the drug business. I am not so employed and never have been, so my personal danger would be being caught in a crossfire situation. This could happen I suppose, but I don’t lay awake at night worrying about it.

Because past experience has shown me that I have the skill to consistently hit the K-Zone of a B-27 silhouette target at 100 yards (not feet, which is easy) with my Detective Special .38 (which among older revolver shooters is not a rare accomplishment) does not mean that I would actually do so in a shooting incident. It simply means that if the situation dictated that I should, I could. “Should” is highly unlikely to happen, but it doesn’t hurt to have this easily attained skill.

Since I got into reading this thread I have been trying to remember of any shooting incidents that happened in this area, and didn’t involve a law enforcement context, where someone ran out of shots and had to reload, or just plain ran out of ammunition. I know of two where a combatant panicked and blew out a whole magazine as fast as he could pull the trigger (with most shots going wild) but other then that, none.

If in real life ordinary CCW carriers armed with small pistols or snub-nosed revolvers were repeatedly, or even rarely being caught at serious disadvantage in practice – rather then theory – it would seem that the negatives would be widely reported, after which the popularity of such arms would drop or at least diminish. So far as I know this has not been the case. However for those that worry about such things one or more fully loaded large-cap magazines provide an extra feeling of security, and if nothing more then a feeling this factor should not be discounted. Beware though of “spray & pray syndrome.” Which can cause some serious after-shooting consequences.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

...I am of the FIRM opinion that once you are in a REALLY need a gun situation,you will find that you will NEVER EVER say ,gee I wish I had brought less ammo or a smaller gun.

Yes,I have been there and done that a few times and the only thing I could have wished for was to not be there. Or to have a lot of friends with guns with me - and to have a MUCH bigger gun and more ammo...

I would love to hear from any here and following this thread - if they are about to actually change their ' load out' due reading all this information.

I dont really expect to be told that any will change [ type 'A' remember ] but I am very curious.

And if you do change,from what TO what ,would be my question.

I didn't change what I carried as a result of this thread, but as a result of changes in work environment, and a lot of reading about the efficacy of handguns and so-called stopping power.

Years ago I carried a Ruger P90 concealed on the job because I used to be a big believer in the magic .45ACP round. I carried 7+1 in the gun and a spare 7-round magazine. In those days, working the night shift, I usually dealt with one or two folks at a time, sometimes maybe four.

I later changed to a Glock 19 with 15+1 rounds of 9mm in the gun and a spare 15-round magazine. I did so because I still worked alone at night, with lots of money on hand, but found myself increasingly dealing with larger numbers of questionable characters. Sometimes a truckload. On average, this was somewhere between four and eight guys.

I figured if worse came to worst, I might end up reloading my .45 in the midst of a defensive shooting well before I'd want to, and that I could keep shooting longer with the 9mm before having to reload. Thus the 9mm was simply the more efficient choice.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by scaatylobo: I would love to hear from any here and following this thread - if they are about to actually change their ' load out' due reading all this information.

I have done so, as related in Post #81.


JohnKSa and Skribs were instrumental--John through some analysis posted in another thread, and Skribs by challenging part of my risk management analysis.

Reports of violent criminal attacks are becoming more and more frequent in our area, and those involving only one attacker are rare. Incidents in which firearms have been used by defenders have seldom been reported.

 

[Rexster]

I am going to say that 5 assailants is incredibly unlikely. Someone posted stats of a few hundred incidents a while back, and it was something like 25% 1 assailant, 55% 2, 20% 3, and 1% 4 or more attackers. (The 101% is due to me rounding the decimals), Thus, while I can see it being reasonable to prepare for 4+ (should you be in the situation, the unlikeliness of being in that situation is irrelevant) I am mainly planning for 3.

I'm actually considering making the same model gun my primary and backup, so I carry one spare magazine and it works for both. Alternatively, I would carry duty and compact, which most manufacturers allow the larger magazine to work in the compact.

True enough, five is unlikely, but three or even four happen often enough to really concern me. The last bloody mess of a scene I photographed, a couple of weeks ago, involved three bad guys, plus possibly a get-away driver. (Though still a first responder, I have the added responsibility of photographing crimes scenes that do not yet involve a dead body.)

While I have no scientific or statistical basis for it, I tend to think of my five-shot
revolvers as good for one or two bad guys for each gun, before reloading.
Therefore, a pair of SP101 revolvers seems a good idea, in order to be prepared for a trio. I see a 4" 6-shot revolver as being much more capable, due to better
shootability factors. To be clear, this is my personal comfort level, not scientific.

Being able to reload is important, because with today's proliferation of mobile
communication devices, bad guys can get reinforcements on the scene rather quickly. I see this while working patrol at night, as the relatives of downed bad guys, or a bad guy in custody, start congregating and causing problems for
us, within minutes. The initial gunfight or incident may be over, but the gathering crowd can develop a collective courage that is scary. Obviously, a private citizen is not obligated to stick around as a hostile crown gathers, but having a fully-topped-up weapon as one exfils seems a good idea to me.

 

[Old Fuff]

The last bloody mess of a scene I photographed, a couple of weeks ago, involved three bad guys, plus possibly a get-away driver. (Though still a first responder, I have the added responsibility of photographing crimes scenes that do not yet involve a dead body.)

By any chance were they associated with the drug business? It sounds like they might have been looking for trouble and found it.

 

[Rexster]

By any chance were they associated with the drug business? It sounds like they might have been looking for trouble and found it.

Fuff, we don't yet know. The complainant has a clean record. Interestingly, the blood happened when the complainant's mama opening the door, to see what the fuss was about. A bad guy in the front yard fired at mama, but jerked his trigger, and hit a fellow bad guy in the hand.

Then, to top it all off, there was another incident at the same residence, a week later, in which the complainant from the first incident was shot, along with his girlfriend, by a gunman firing through the closed front door. That happened on my night off, and the Homicide Division and CSU handled that one, anyway, as the girlfriend was so critical. Still, no peep about drugs in the house, or criminal behaviour by the complainants. The PD PIO and news media in this area will usually mention stuff like that.

 

[Lawdawg45]

This is the most ridiculous notion of the thread.

Just because you shoot as a hobby, no one is going to question why you trained so much if you're involved in a shooting.

smalls, I wish your opinion was fact, but it's not. I've seen it several times in the past few years and as I've said numerous times, there is no depth to which some Defense Attorney's will not sink to. The mis-perceptions of some here are exactly why I post what I post, but if you have personal experience to the contrary I'd be glad to hear it.

LD

 

[Lawdawg45]

I for one am enjoying this thread.

I am getting a good bit of humor from all those that have never been in harms way,telling those that have ,or prepare for it = EXACTLY what they need and why.

I am not at all surprised by any of the posts,but amused by them - heck yea.

I am of the FIRM opinion that once you are in a REALLY need a gun situation,you will find that you will NEVER EVER say ,gee I wish I had brought less ammo or a smaller gun.

Yes,I have been there and done that a few times and the only thing I could have wished for was to not be there. Or to have a lot of friends with guns with me - and to have a MUCH bigger gun and more ammo.

But as most of those that will CCW,we are type 'A' personalitys and as such you cant 'tell us' anything we dont already know.

I would love to hear from any here and following this thread - if they are about to actually change their ' load out' due reading all this information.

I dont really expect to be told that any will change [ type 'A' remember ] but I am very curious.

And if you do change,from what TO what ,would be my question.

I had the same question with the thread on the Colorado theater shooting. 99% of the posts followed the thought of "I'm trading my LCP in for a 1911", but a post incident evaluation showed the best weapon in that particular scenario would have been a fixed blade through the body armor.........quite the opposite response to most.

LD

 

[Old Fuff]

Then, to top it all off, there was another incident at the same residence, a week later, in which the complainant from the first incident was shot, along with his girlfriend, by a gunman firing through the closed front door. That happened on my night off, and the Homicide Division and CSU handled that one, anyway, as the girlfriend was so critical. Still, no peep about drugs in the house, or criminal behaviour by the complainants. The PD PIO and news media in this area will usually mention stuff like that.

Sounds like a good ol' personal Texas feud... Hopefully no non-combatants or peace officers will get caught in the middle.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Lawdawg45: ...as I've said numerous times, there is no depth to which some Defense Attorney's will not sink to.

How does the subject of what a defense attorney might bring up have to do with the discussion here?

 

[Old Fuff]

How does the subject of what a defense attorney might bring up have to do with the discussion here?

I would think that in some jurisdictions it might be a factor to take into consideration, although perhaps not an especially compelling one.

For example, if one carried a revolver they might consider having it modified to double-action only (DAO) if that wasn’t the case already. There is plenty of case law where someone has been ensnarled in a criminal or civil action charging supposed wrongful death, caused by unintentional touching of a revolver’s “hair trigger” after the hammer was cocked – even although there wasn’t substantial evidence that this was what happened. Some of these cases were successful where others weren’t.

Self defense can be a can-of-worms, where one is left to prove (or at least convince) the authorities, courts, juries and judges that their action was necessary and justified, and I can see that the choice of a weapon can have both a positive or negative impact on this.

 

[Lawdawg45]

How does the subject of what a defense attorney might bring up have to do with the discussion here?

It directly correlates to the person/persons training for a 100 ft shot in a mass casualty shooting or the person who feels they need a BUG and multiple extra magazines. I have personally seen these type of persons grilled on the witness stand and are made to look like modern day "Tackleberry's" hoping for a fight, and I've seen several exonerated from criminal charges but drained in civil litigation from suspects family members. I've also seen a Grand Jury return an indictment recommendation for a person who wasn't in danger, but took a long distance shot. I merely posted to make people aware of the possibility of consequences for their actions.

LD

 

[Kleanbore]

Dawg, I'm sure you meant to refer to a the possible tactics of a prosecutor.

Of course there's some level of risk.

Which risk do you consider most serious?

• Being faced with a situation in which a long range shot could save a life, but having to nothing because of a lack of skill;
• Being faced with a situation in which a long range shot could save a life, and acting, with the resultant injury to a third party arguably attributable to a lack of practice;
• Having ones' state of mind questioned because one had practiced long range shooting.

How might things have turned out had the park operator not been able to take the long range shot that protected the deputy sheriff from the rifle-armed murderer?

Are you familiar with the long-range defensive shot described in Lessons from the Street?

If the evidence supports immediate necessity; if third parties, if any, would have been justified in the use of deadly force; and if there is no evidence that the defender did anything to intitiate or escalate the situation, I would put the defender's having practiced marksmanship in the asset category.

 

[sgt127]

I've had this debate with myself for 30 years. Still haven't found a solution. That said, unless I am in DEEP concealment mode, I always carry one reload for whatever I'm carrying.

I started as a rookie cop carrying a 1911 on and off duty. Four spare mags on my duty belt and, two off duty. That got heavy.

Then a 1911 and one spare mag.

Got tired of always having to wear a cover garment. got a Detonics and a spare mag.

I gone throught the whole list of off duty guns. And, imagine when and how, I might need one. For pure self defense, I don't think you can beat a short barrel revolver and a speed strip or speeloader. I still carry a 3" 65 often.

If a mall shooting, Columbine, Aurora CO shooting happens, I know I am going towards it. After thirty years of being a cop, there is no way I won't. That really doesn't apply to an average Joe carrying a gun for personal defense. You would not be expected to and, its likely not in your mindset to do so. Nor do you have a badge and the authority to scream "Police" and hope like hell you don't get shot by responding cops. Anytime I have gotten into something off duty, the FIRST thing I did was ID myself to the first responding cop and then stick to them like glue. In other words, there are situations I can envision MYSELF getting into that capacity MIGHT be a concern. But, thats so rare, its almost a non issue.

In all the years I have carried a gun, I have yet to run out of ammo. Even if I am carrying a revolver.

With A gun, you are already ahead of the curve. If you carry one reload, you should be able to handle anything that comjes your way. (like, a jam in an auto) If you can REALLY shoot that one gun well, I think you should consider yourself as prepared as you can be. And, you won't have the back problems so many cops have from carrying around all the crap the do for thirty years.

 

[tarosean]

With A gun, you are already ahead of the curve.......
And, you won't have the back problems so many cops have from carrying around all the crap the do for thirty years.

+1 I am just as comfortable with a jfame as a 92fs or 1911. I don't carry extra ammo or BUG thou.


And you know there is a donut joke in there...

 

[David E]

+1 I am just as comfortable with a jfame as a 92fs or 1911. I don't carry extra ammo or BUG tho.

When you carry the 1911 or the 92, do you only load 5 rds?

 

[TAKtical]

I never carried a spare mag because my EDC is a glock 17 that holds 17 rounds. But after a certain florida incident where 30-40 people armed with baseball bats, crowbars, hammers, and all other types of weapons, swarmed an old mans house for asking a few kids to stop playing in his yard, I now carry a 20 round mag in my 17 and two spares. Hopefully I will never need it but its comforting to be prepared for any situation.

 

[tarosean]

When you carry the 1911 or the 92, do you only load 5 rds?

Of course not.. I don't feel under gunned with any of them nor find myself wishing I had carried more ammo. Dress is primarly the only reason for changing CCW.. It works for ME.

 

[Guillermo]

It works for ME

If you have not needed your sidearm, it works just as well as not having been armed.

 

[huntsman]

I've had this debate with myself for 30 years. Still haven't found a solution. That said, unless I am in DEEP concealment mode, I always carry one reload for whatever I'm carrying.

I started as a rookie cop carrying a 1911 on and off duty. Four spare mags on my duty belt and, two off duty. That got heavy.

Then a 1911 and one spare mag.

Got tired of always having to wear a cover garment. got a Detonics and a spare mag.

I gone throught the whole list of off duty guns. And, imagine when and how, I might need one. For pure self defense, I don't think you can beat a short barrel revolver and a speed strip or speeloader. I still carry a 3" 65 often.

If a mall shooting, Columbine, Aurora CO shooting happens, I know I am going towards it. After thirty years of being a cop, there is no way I won't. That really doesn't apply to an average Joe carrying a gun for personal defense. You would not be expected to and, its likely not in your mindset to do so. Nor do you have a badge and the authority to scream "Police" and hope like hell you don't get shot by responding cops. Anytime I have gotten into something off duty, the FIRST thing I did was ID myself to the first responding cop and then stick to them like glue. In other words, there are situations I can envision MYSELF getting into that capacity MIGHT be a concern. But, thats so rare, its almost a non issue.

In all the years I have carried a gun, I have yet to run out of ammo. Even if I am carrying a revolver.

With A gun, you are already ahead of the curve. If you carry one reload, you should be able to handle anything that comjes your way. (like, a jam in an auto) If you can REALLY shoot that one gun well, I think you should consider yourself as prepared as you can be. And, you won't have the back problems so many cops have from carrying around all the crap the do for thirty years.

This is the most realistic and practical post of this thread.

Thank you Sir.

 

[tarosean]

If you have not needed your sidearm, it works just as well as not having been armed

I was robbed at gunpoint in the late 80's and since i made the choice to carry after that incident, I've yet to need it. Chances are that I will never will. However one will always be with me when I'm allowed (6m a year Im in other countries where I am not allowed a gun, period.)

 

[tomrkba]

Always carry at least one full reload. I like to carry a Glock 17 or 19 magazine because it fits in the Glock 26, gives me extra capacity, and reliably works. The most I'll carry is two spares. A backup gun is not a bad idea if it's small. I sometimes carry one and include one reload for that, but those magazines are very small.

One gun is just fine for just about anything you'd ever run into. I like sgt127's post.

 

[Guillermo]

I've yet to need it

the point is that it "doesn't work for you" but rather "you hope it will work for you".

Good luck

As for me, I carry a reload.

 

[Lawdawg45]

Dawg, I'm sure you meant to refer to a the possible tactics of a prosecutor.

Of course there's some level of risk.

Which risk do you consider most serious?

• Being faced with a situation in which a long range shot could save a life, but having to nothing because of a lack of skill;
• Being faced with a situation in which a long range shot could save a life, and acting, with the resultant injury to a third party arguably attributable to a lack of practice;
• Having ones' state of mind questioned because one had practiced long range shooting.

How might things have turned out had the park operator not been able to take the long range shot that protected the deputy sheriff from the rifle-armed murderer?

Are you familiar with the long-range defensive shot described in Lessons from the Street?

If the evidence supports immediate necessity; if third parties, if any, would have been justified in the use of deadly force; and if there is no evidence that the defender did anything to intitiate or escalate the situation, I would put the defender's having practiced marksmanship in the asset category.

No Sir, I was referring to a Defense Attorney involved when the suspect shooter survives and he and/or his family are litigating for 7 figures. These are also questions I've personally seen a Grand Jury ask a defendant post shooting. As far as the elderly gentleman in Texas, if the suspect has any family living, I can guarantee they've already been contacted by an Attorney wanting to file a wrongful death suit on the suspects behalf. As is evidenced by some of the comments on this thread, we need to discuss local legal aspects as much as holsters, grips and ammo.

LD

 

[fastest45ever]

Lawdog45:

As is evidenced by some of the comments on this thread, we need to discuss local legal aspects as much as holsters, grips and ammo.

And local shooting conditions. However, most of that is banned by the rules.

What we can discuss is the wide variety of different court systems, since CCW shootings generally fall under state law, their different court structures, appellate structure, if the judges are elected, if the LEO and prosecutors are elected, and the general past history of the area involved.
After typing that, I realize a lot of these general issues are useless in discussion. It's going to come down to your town, your sheriff, your DA, your judges, and your peers in the jury box. So the general read is the ENTIRE process that determines your shooting being justified is a political process, specific to one particular town, county, or state.

Nothing could be harder, or less valuable to discuss on an across the board basis.

It gets even thicker when you bring up a park shooting. Was it a Federal park? Different law
State park?
What state, what law? What area?
KNOW YOUR AREA, KNOW THE PRIOR COURT CASES. Base your CCW
on what has happened in the past, in your area. If you live in Alaska
it's probably going to be different then New York, or California.

The only thing these kinds of discussions make crystal clear is your situation is likely to be unique, and any advice given in general, is most likely going to be wrong for your area.
For example I would have thought Fish in Arizona would have been fine with his carry selection, yet it was made an issue at trial.