Do you guys take all this that seriously?

[Elkins45]

When I received my carry permit in 1997 I carried a cannon everywhere it was legal, partly because of the novelty of finally having legal CCW. As the years have passed my gun has gotten smaller and my diligence about always being armed has gotten more lax. It remains to be seen whether that will be significant.

Now bears, that’s another story altogether! I can’t even begin to tell the story of how much time and money the quest for the perfect bear defense handgun has cost me. But on the bright side I guess it’s kept me occupied and out of trouble. A man’s got to think about something when he’s not working, I guess...

 

[Hartkopf]

I do not take these threads seriously and never get stressed over internet urinating contests. I know I can comfortably carry 18 rounds of 9mm or 16 rounds of 40 S&W for 16 hours a day. And I practice often with what I carry.

I know anybody advocating a 5 shot revolver is 100% correct. Until he is 100% wrong. I also go by the most over used saying in firearms; It’s not about the odds, it’s about the stakes.

 

[film495]

yes and no. the nature of the topic is serious, but I've gotten over the worst case scenario thinking - is this good enough is that good enough? they are all good enough, and I go back to the notion that I just don't want to always be completely defenseless, not that I think can cover each and every possible situation that will ever possibly arise. reality is any firearm covers something like 99.9% of situations an average person might run into, so - spending too much time on the .1% chance that different equipment can make doesn't seem valuable to me, when that mental nrg can be spend on tactics, operations, training, etc. or any other pursuit or interest.

 

[mcb]

I do not take these threads seriously and never get stressed over internet urinating contests. I know I can comfortably carry 18 rounds of 9mm or 16 rounds of 40 S&W for 16 hours a day. And I practice often with what I carry.

I know anybody advocating a 5 shot revolver is 100% correct. Until he is 100% wrong. I also go by the most over used saying in firearms; It’s not about the odds, it’s about the stakes.

I agree with your first sentence and partially the reason for this thread. We have lots of those thread and I sort of came to the realization that they don't have that much influence on me especially the more extreme and rare the scenarios we discuss. I was curious how many other are of similar mind?

And thus conversely I find your last statement in your post holds almost no weight for me. The odds influence me as much if not more than the stakes.

 

[Iggy]

Never mind.

 

[CDW4ME]

Take it seriously? No.
I can't force people to be right.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

You have to remember that not all people are the same. There are those that see the glass as half full and others that see the same glass as half empty. But then those two same people may see a bottle of beer in the opposite way.
People are wired differently. I know some that can’t function unless they think of worst case scenario. I’m just not like that.
I worked the streets in the most dangerous parts of the city. I was always prepared for things to go sideways, and sometimes they did. But most often worst case scenarios never happened.
Most worst case scenarios come from movies or wild imaginations most of the time. Now don’t get me wrong. If being prepared for worst case scenarios is what gets you through the day and it works for you, then carry on. We are all wired a little different and there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[bdickens]

...There are those that see the glass as half full and others that see the same glass as half empty....

Then there are the realists who see 4oz of water in an 8oz glass...

 

[Bfh_auto]

If you want a on word answer, No!!!
If you want a long winded cabin fever one;
I carry based off what I comfortably carry. Most of the time it's a Taurus spectrum 380.
In winter, or more "dangerous areas" I carry a M&P 40C.
If I'm in the field or woods, it's my 357 Black hawk in a cowboy rig for comfort.
The OMG bear arguments are purely for trolling. The multiple assailant argument means you probably made multiple bad choices and should be prepared because you knew it was probably coming.

 

[TJ AK-74]

I take carrying a gun very seriously. I carry the same gun 99.9% of the time. The only times that I do not carry it are when I am legally required to not carry or the very rare times that I need to carry a smaller gun to not accidentally expose the fact that I am carrying. I do factor worst case scenario into my selection but I do not actually carry what I would carry if knowingly going into such a scenario, as it is simply too ridiculous, expensive, and inconvenient to carry an M2 .50BMG, M107 .50BMG, AR15, AR10, AK47, AK pistol, AR pistol, 12ga pump, Glock, 1911, revolver, M203 40mm, AT4, RPG7, M134a minigun, claymore, HE grenades, and K-bar while wearing full body armor driving around an M1 tank with air support from helo gunships, F22s, B2s, B52s, and Nuclear ICBMs. I think my 30 rounds of .40 S&W from my Glock more than covers anything I am likely to come up against, barring any type of major SHTF scenario. If not, I guess it's just my time to die.

 

[Hartkopf]

I agree with your first sentence and partially the reason for this thread. We have lots of those thread and I sort of came to the realization that they don't have that much influence on me especially the more extreme and rare the scenarios we discuss. I was curious how many other are of similar mind?

And thus conversely I find your last statement in your post holds almost no weight for me. The odds influence me as much if not more than the stakes.

If you have trouble shooting or carrying a Glock 17 then I guess you have more to consider. Since a Glock 17 is less noticeable or annoying than my keys or wallet, there is no reason for me to downsize and even have to worry about odds or stakes.

 

[GEM]

The OMG bear arguments are purely for trolling. The multiple assailant argument means you probably made multiple bad choices and should be prepared because you knew it was probably coming.

How so? Did the folks at San Bernadino see that was probably coming? Did the shoppers at the Kenya Mall see it as probably coming. Note that the citizen defenders commented on how they realized they were short on ammo.

Did the folks in that Jersey City Kosher store see it as probably coming? If they did because they were Jewish, that in fact makes my point that the intense incident is to be considered as a reasonable contingency.

In my own life, several incidents indicate to me that multiple assailants are probable. Crime reports indicate more than one are not uncommon. I could get the links for that but google will do it for doubters.

BTW, a bear has been seen strolling around our local nice neighborhood park trails. OMG!

 

[bdickens]

The multiple assailant argument means you probably made multiple bad choices and should be prepared because you knew it was probably coming.

Why, that's mighty sanctimonious of you.

I suppose the attractive woman wearing a miniskirt had it coming too...

Note that the citizen defenders commented on how they realized they were.

Worth repeating.

 

[Ernie Bass]

How so? Did the folks at San Bernadino see that was probably coming? Did the shoppers at the Kenya Mall see it as probably coming. Note that the citizen defenders commented on how they realized they were short on ammo.

Did the folks in that Jersey City Kosher store see it as probably coming? If they did because they were Jewish, that in fact makes my point that the intense incident is to be considered as a reasonable contingency.

In my own life, several incidents indicate to me that multiple assailants are probable. Crime reports indicate more than one are not uncommon. I could get the links for that but google will do it for doubters.

BTW, a bear has been seen strolling around our local nice neighborhood park trails. OMG!

Been checking crime reports in my city for decades, multiple attacks are rare. In fact gun fights are rare. I guess I could worry about going into a building where a bomb may have been planted, or store or restaurant, and on and on. but no do NOT worry. I do not want to live my life like that. I spend more time on situtional awareness more than the internet or experts.
I hunt a lot, but do not worry about a Grizzly attacking me in North Carolina farm area either. Do not need a rifle for Griz where I live. I would imagine there are some on the internet that would say I am crazy for not being prepared for that Griz. Lol, I let them do all the worrying.

 

[Browning]

Do I consider what I’m carrying and what I train with very seriously? Yes, I do.

Do I consider what others carry very seriously? Not really. Not unless I believe that it actually adds to my capabilities.

I’ve actually had a few situations go bad. When they go bad, they go bad fast. If you’ve been shot, stabbed or had your skull fractured you don’t want that to happen again. I’ve had all those things happen. I realize that most haven’t, so they’re going to have a different perspective.

Many consider carrying a pistol with a 15 rd mag, two 17 rd spares, pepper spray and a knife as well as at least one pistol course a year, once a week range sessions, weight training and martial arts courses where you’re rolling with guys better than you to be excessive and akin to rolling around in an Abrams tank with with air support or “preparing for Fallujah”. That’s fine, I don’t really care. They haven’t had holes punched in them. They likely haven’t seen it happen to anyone else either.

On the ambulance I also get occasional reminders why I carry what I do and train.

But no, I generally don’t take what other people carry all that seriously. Unless they have some experience in these matters ... in which case they generally support being prepared and well trained.

PS : I’ve had a few bear encounters. In every case once they saw me they took off one way and I took off the other. I still prepare a bit extra when I go in the woods.

-Edit : Spelling

 

[film495]

as an aside, I guess I take it a little more serious over the last month or so, and keep flip flopping back and forth between an old CZ .32 ACP small pistol to a full size Beretta 92 9mm with 3 15 round mags, so - yea, part of it is circumstances, level of urgency/risk etc. I also recently went over my old 30-30 checked it over and made sure I knew right where the ammo is and moved it to the front of the cabinet where I can grab it fastest.

I've never had any type of encounter - and hope to high heaven I never do.

 

[jmr40]

I've had a drivers license since 1974. In the last 30 years I average driving about 20,000 miles per year. Prior to August 6, 1983 I didn't wear a seatbelt. Since that date, (when I was a passenger in a car that slid across the centerline on wet pavement and hit a pickup nearly head on) I've worn one every one of those miles. Fortunately no one in either vehicle had life threatening injuries, but we were all lucky.

I haven't needed seatbelt once since, but I still wear it. And so far I've not had to pull a gun on anyone and hope I never do. There have however times when I've felt more comfortable having a gun with me. Just as there have some times when having the seatbelt buckled has been comforting. Just like the seatbelt I like to be prepared, and if practical would err a little on the side of being over prepared than under prepared.

I like full size revolvers well enough, but have never been truly comfortable with the smaller ones. It's not ammo capacity as much as the fact that I just shoot a semi better and find it easier to carry. For a while a G43 was my preferred EDC gun and it's ammo capacity isn't much more than most revolvers. But lately my Sig 365 has won me over for just about everything. With the 10 round mags it is easy enough to carry just about anywhere IWB, and with 12 round mags I don't feel under gunned even compared to full size pistols. Sometimes I'll stick an extra magazine in my pocket, but usually not.

Bears... I spend a lot of time outdoors, and a lot of it in bear country. I'm around bears when camping and hiking and see them often. While the threat is still quite low, I'm probably far more likely to truly need a gun for bear defense than human defense. Left alone bear aren't usually a problem. I've been in close proximity to many of them, some with cubs, and never felt the least bit threatened.

Bears become a problem when fed by humans, either intentionally or unintentionally. You'd be surprised at how many other hikers will see a bear, put food down and back away to get a better photo of the bear. Or they are careless with their food and trash. Once bear learn that humans are an easy source of food they become a threat for the next guy to come along. I can't control what the hikers did who came along the same trail an hour, or day ahead of me.

Even then I don't feel the need to carry a cannon. I move up to a little larger G29 with some hotter 10mm loads when in bear country.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Why, that's mighty sanctimonious of you.

I suppose the attractive woman wearing a miniskirt had it coming too...

Not at all. Just that you can stack the odds in your favor or against you by the choices you make.
When I'm buying something from Craigslist or Facebook market place, I go better armed than if I'm running to the grocery store.
Meeting an unknown person isn't necessarily a great choice. Where I meet them is a second possible bad choice. The time of day is also a possible bad choice. Whether I go alone is another. The final choice is what firearm for protection?
See how each choice can change the outcome?

 

[Armored farmer]

I carry the guns that I like, and shoot well. If that gets me killed by a gang of meth-heads riding Grizzlies through my woods, then so be it. I am prepared for that day too.
I do know that I happen to like my model 66, but I'm not going to waste any finger skin trying to convince others to like it too.
Coming at the question from the flank. I would much rather face a squad of politicians armed with G19s than one well trained, well practiced pistolero with a 5shot snub

 

[theotherwaldo]

Where I am, multi-person druggie home invasions are pretty common.
It's amazing how many drug gang members can't read house addresses and attack the wrong house.

You don't have to make a poor personal choice to get attacked... .

 

[bdickens]

carry the guns that I like, and shoot well...but I'm not going to waste any finger skin trying to convince others to like it too....

To me, that's much more reasonable than basing your decision on a misguided reliance on statistics or on cute little catch phrases that some long-dead writer tossed out 50 years ago. And then trying to convince me that I should make the same decision for the same reasons.

 

[Kleanbore]

they are all good enough

Good enough for what?

reality is any firearm covers something like 99.9% of situations an average person might run into,

How would one describe "99.5% of situations an average person might run into"?

The multiple assailant argument means you probably made multiple bad choices and should be prepared because you knew it was probably coming.

What is it that has led you to believe that, in the rare instance in which you are victimized by violent criminals, it will likely involve a single assailant?

Those data that have been submitted here and that can be validated, and what we have learned from The Best Defense TV, and tell us that if one is attacked, the likelihood of being attacked by on or more persons is as likely as that of being attacked by one.

Look at it this way: if you intended to put yourself in danger by criminally attacking someone, would you prefer to go out into the jungle alone, or to have another set of eyes, more muscle, and a driver with you?

Have you ever considered how much more quickly, and how much more safely, two burglars and a driver can empty a house of valuables and get away than one bad guy?

Have you ever discussed that with your local police officers?

I have begun to wonder whether so many people have come to believe that the single assailant scenario is most common not for any good reason or objective knowledge, but because they have become so accustomed to practicing on single torso target on the square range.

 

[bdickens]

When I'm buying something from Craigslist or Facebook market place, I go better armed than if I'm running to the grocery store.
Meeting an unknown person isn't necessarily a great choice. Where I meet them is a second possible bad choice. The time of day is also a possible bad choice. Whether I go alone is another. The final choice is what firearm for protection?
See how each choice can change the outcome?

No, I absolutely do not.

Explain to us how getting attacked when going to the grocery store is somehow going to be less bad than when going to meet someone from Craigslist.

 

[rust collector]

No, I do not take all that I see here seriously. Nor do I expect others to do as I suggest. It's an information exchange, and I dine a la carte. Take what you can use, and feel free to disregard the rest, and don't muck it up for others.

 

[GEM]

And thus conversely I find your last statement in your post holds almost no weight for me. The odds influence me as much if not more than the stakes.

So, if you fly, do you fashion your seat belt? There are 44000 flights a day by some estimates. How many crash in a given day? Seat belts are uncomfortable, so do the odds influence not to.

Carrying a gun is not comfy. The odds are you never use it. Why carry it?

Thus, the statement makes no sense. As far as the gangs of meth heads, folks who say that are just embarrassing themselves with silly comments, showing little understanding of the real issues.