one would describe it as written, "99.9% of situations an average person might run into" -- this is my opinion from having read numerous reports and accounts of incidents from various sources. 99.9% of the time, caliber and capacity have no bearing at all on outcome for an average citizen in an armed encounter. By that I mean someone who is not armed as part of their profession, security, military, police, etc. by 99.9%, I mean 99.9%, having read and looked at data from several reports, a .22 NAA revolver, has the same impact on a situation as any larger handgun 99.9% of the time. It actually may be more effective, because someone is more likely to have it on them -- so, if you took all the reports and looked at unarmed people, and added how effective even a little .22 pocket pistol would have been for those unarmed persons, it would be easy to argue a .22 pocket pistol would be the most effective self defense weapon in the history of the world, if they carried one.
Do you guys take all this that seriously?
- Thread starter mcb
- Start date
- Status
one would describe it as written, "99.9% of situations an average person might run into" -- this is my opinion from having read numerous reports and accounts of incidents from various sources. 99.9% of the time, caliber and capacity have no bearing at all on outcome for an average citizen in an armed encounter. By that I mean someone who is not armed as part of their profession, security, military, police, etc. by 99.9%, I mean 99.9%, having read and looked at data from several reports, a .22 NAA revolver, has the same impact on a situation as any larger handgun 99.9% of the time. It actually may be more effective, because someone is more likely to have it on them -- so, if you took all the reports and looked at unarmed people, and added how effective even a little .22 pocket pistol would have been for those unarmed persons, it would be easy to argue a .22 pocket pistol would be the most effective self defense weapon in the history of the world, if they carried one.
Your analysis and your conclusions make little sense whatsoever.
bdickens
Member
Well, by that logic since most DGU don't involve any shots fired, one should just carry an unloaded gun.
FL-NC
Member
I only take what I do seriously. If anyone wants to know why I do things a certain way, I will share. What works for me may not be best for everyone.
When addressing risks which entail very serous potential consequences, competent risk managers will pay a lot of attention to mitigation--even if the likelihood of occurrence is very low ("less than remote", in professional jargon).
Consider food and drug purity, air safety, nuclear reactors, containment of contagious organisms--one can go on and on.
Being violently attacked by a criminal is not at all a likely event, but the consequences can be extremely severe.
Therefore, many of us do elect to mitigate the risk.
OP
OP
mcb
Member
That is the point of this thread in larger part, IMHO we as a community over emphasizing the consequence with little weight giving to the odds when selecting what we CCW or take to the field hunting.
I personally realize that despite my exposure to this particular consequences focus planing prevalent to firearms forums in general it has not translated into my real world life and what I select to use and I was wonder if anyone else felt similar? Hence the thread title.
Again, the odds analysis make little sense as the odds favor never having to fire a shot.
I can see that for convenience a smaller pocket gun is a compromise. It's better to have a gun than not. Folks have used the NAA minis successfully. However, we haven't seen them deployed to stop an intensive rampage. The interesting case are those folks who carry a large revolver (as in that shut down thread). A SW 686 offers nothing over a Glock 19 or similar gun for the same space displacement.
When one says you carry what works for you, that means little has how many have actually engaged in a gun fight. Not talking about deterrence but an intensive incident. Or even in some realistic FOF scenarios.
The issue what is the best carry IF you are in the intensive fight, not if you are not in the fight. Some just don't get that.
I can see that for convenience a smaller pocket gun is a compromise. It's better to have a gun than not. Folks have used the NAA minis successfully. However, we haven't seen them deployed to stop an intensive rampage. The interesting case are those folks who carry a large revolver (as in that shut down thread). A SW 686 offers nothing over a Glock 19 or similar gun for the same space displacement.
When one says you carry what works for you, that means little has how many have actually engaged in a gun fight. Not talking about deterrence but an intensive incident. Or even in some realistic FOF scenarios.
The issue what is the best carry IF you are in the intensive fight, not if you are not in the fight. Some just don't get that.
TomJ
Contributing Member
I live in a Chicago suburb with a very low crime rate. We have a shooting once every couple of years or so, and the last two both involved 4 assailants shooting a person who was getting into their car in our suburb's downtown area. Neither victim did anything wrong and they were shot anyway. Threats vary, depending on where you live. We obviously don't worry about bear attacks, but gangs from nearby areas are an issue. Conversely people living in rural areas may need to be concerned with wildlife attacks but not gangs. Use common sense, and do what's best to protect yourself and your loved ones.
bdickens
Member
Based on the statistics I have seen, pretty much any scenario that requires a citizen to fire a gun in legal self-defense could be described as a long-odds, worst-case scenario. I understand what you're saying, but it's important to get that particular fact out in the open.
That fact means that when a bunch of folks who regularly carry a loaded firearm talk about the potential uses of it, it's reasonably accurate to say that everyone in the discussion is preparing for a long-odds, worst-case scenario. Once we understand that, then it's all just details from that point on.
There's a second thing to keep in mind.
The nature of humans is that we rationalize very effectively, often without realizing that we're doing it. So once we have made a decision on what to carry, from that point on, we're more in the mode of defending our equipment than in the mode of looking at it with a critical eye. Worse, because we're so good at rationalizing things, we often end up defending our choices using arguments that have nothing to do with the real reasons we made those choices.
For example, I'm thinking of a guy I know who carries. One of his carry guns is a small DA/SA, decocker/safety, hammer-fired, stainless steel, 7 shot, .380ACP pistol. I know for a fact, that he bought this gun many years ago and I also know how he picked it. He looked through one of the big, nearly exhaustive buyer's guides that some of the popular gun rags used to publish now and then. He looked for the smallest stainless steel .380ACP pistol he could find in the guide based on the dimensions published in the buyer's guide. However, if you were to ask him today why he carries it, he would almost certainly talk about why he likes the safety, how the stiff DA trigger is actually an asset for the way he carries it, how accurate it is, etc. He would probably talk about other carry pistols and why this one is a better option for him. I'm about 99% sure he wouldn't tell you how he actually made his purchase decision 3 decades ago, nor would he mention most of the carry pistols he would compare it to today weren't available when he made his decision and so their features didn't even enter into his decision-making process.
Ok, back to long-odds, worst-cases and how rationalization applies. We tend to defend our actions because that's how our brains work. Our brains do things for us, and when the value of what our brains do is questioned, our brains immediately explain (rationalize/defend) their actions. And they're really good at it. For example:
What I if told you,
you read the first part
of this sentence wrong?
The first thing your brain does when you get to the punchline is to tell you that it was right and the punchline is wrong. That's the way our brains work. In this case it's pretty simple to go back and prove that your brain was wrong. In more complicated situations, it may be so difficult that it's almost impossible. There's simply nothing that will convince us that we (our brains) are wrong and we go on forever believing that the rationalization/defensive process is reality, and not just an automatic function of our brains.
So, regardless of how you (your brain) came up with what you think is a reasonable scenario to prepare for, you're going to defend it pretty strongly. And you're going to argue that other scenarios that other brains think are reasonable aren't reasonable. While the other brains are doing the same thing.
This results in a strong tendency to automatically divide everyone in the discussion into three groups.
Group 1. Well-adjusted, reasonable people like me who make the same decisions and choices I do.
Group 2. Paranoid people who are clearly afraid all the time and therefore choose to carry a larger gun, with more rounds/reloads than I do and who train more than I do.
Group 3. Ignorant sheeple who choose to carry fewer rounds than I do and who train less, and may not carry as regularly.
Anyway, that's why such discussions tend to play out exactly the same way every time. If there were really a lot of rational thought taking place, then new data, new evidence would make the discussions play out differently. But there's not, so everybody falls into their normal positions which are insulting to most of the other folks in the discussion who are similarly entrenched and dismissive of opinions other than their own. Eventually someone goes over the line and says what they're thinking and it gets locked until the next time.
bdickens
Member
Wrong.
Wildlife attacks are exceedingly rare and largely a morbid fantasy of urban dwellers. I live in a rural area and I have heard of many more assaults and even murders in my area than the grand total of 0 wildlife attacks.
Oh, and some don't seem to realize that "rural" and "wilderness" are not the same.
Last edited:
TomJ
Contributing Member
Growing up in and still living in the Chicago area, my knowledge of wildlife is limited to a couple of rabbits that have made themselves at home in my yard (I have no plans to shoot them) and seeing the occasional skunk, possum or coyote (I won't shoot them either). A few years ago I took my sons on vacation to Glacier National Park. My oldest son was in his late teens at the time, a dedicated weightlifter and excelled in Kempo Karate. As many of us in our youth do, he thought he was indestructible (he's a little older and smarter now) and thought I was being overly cautious carrying a Ruger 454 Casul and blowing a whistle from time to time as we hiked. The day after we got home he jokingly texted me a picture of a soldier in full battle gear with an attack helicopter behind him, with a caption saying "this is dad on vacation". That morning a man was attacked and killed by a grizzly in the area we stayed and hiked. I get that these kinds of attacks may be rare, but they're hardly the "morbid fantasy of urban dwellers" and I won't criticize someone who lives in an area such as Glacier National Park for carrying a firearm for protection against wildlife.
bdickens
Member
"Largely the..."
GunnyUSMC
Member
Even a realists knows that an 8oz glass that only has 4oz of water is either half empty or half full. But you are most likely the one that sees it as half empty, or at lest that is my impression by your reply’s in this topic. You also seem to look for conflict where there is none.
But then you did miss the point of my post, which was pretty simple.
That question , in reference to gun handling , selection and discipline , and stated as the premise for a thread results in :
Terribly flawed topic. "Cabin fever" has nothing to do with it. I revise my response from the first page to: NO , I do not take my gun selection at all seriously. I grab whatever happens to be randomly lying about my house or truck. .25 acp , Desert Eagle , grease gun , whatever.
Armored farmer
Member
OP
OP
mcb
Member
Sure, terribly flawed, I do that on occasion but I would like to think I am learning from my mistakes, but in this case I think you take me out of context.
I am simply asking if you let these super long odds scenarios, that we frequently discuss on the internet, to drive what you carry or hunt with?
For example, do you let the Westgate shopping mall attack in Kenya drive what you carry here in the US or do you de-emphasis such extreme long-odds events in your CCW selection process? I am fairly sure what I carry would be insufficient or at least a significant handicap if I was caught up in the Westgate mall attack, but I am not changing what I carry because of that realization.
My worst case possible scenario where I live is that a group of four or five attack me, but if I put a bullet in one or two it's going to be over. My P-365 is more than capable of that and more, assuming I have it, and I'll be the first to admit I don't have it often enough, which is all the time.
So, do I carry a 19 round semi auto, an AR with three mags, and a bolt gun with me at all times so I am prepared for any scenario? Nuts.
So, do I carry a 19 round semi auto, an AR with three mags, and a bolt gun with me at all times so I am prepared for any scenario? Nuts.
Trey Veston
Member
I think I'm fairly rational and have changed my firearm selection based on fact-based numbers and from considering other's opinions in threads like this.
However, everyone should consider their own unique environment in their decisions.
I live in a very low crime area. By statistics, my town has 1/20th the crime of the national average. The two larger towns I work and shop in have roughly half the crime as the national average.
But in regards to scenarios and statistics involving fatal encounters, over the past ten years or so, 75% of the murders in my area involved one gunman killing multiple people at distances from 10' to 100 yards. Active shooter scenarios. 75%.
So, I don't have to look up horrible mall shootings or church shootings on the internet to justify carrying a pistol that is accurate at longer distances and has a higher capacity.
For the woods, I regularly hike and fish in areas with lots of large predators such as bears, wolves, and mountain lions. I've had dozens of encounters with all three over the years. Never had to fire a shot, but I still am comforted by having either 15 rounds of hot 10mm or six rounds of 300 grain hot .45 Colt loads.
My environment and experiences influences my choices in firearm selection more than some guy on the internet in the midwest who thinks a 7-shot pocket .380 is adequate for 99.9% of realistic encounters. His reality is not my reality.
Zaydok Allen
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 13,274
In answer to the original question, I take it somewhat seriously. I think it’s good to discuss the worst case scenarios and try to make well informed decisions on equipment, training, and frequency of practice. But as has been pointed out, we all live in a bit different circumstances and some folks have different potential situations that are or are not possible.
Hope for the best but plan for the worst.
These conversations don’t have a huge influence on my decisions. I think briefly about the type and number of potential threats, and then I carry a gun I think will resolve a bad situation.
I have tried to stay out of these debates in the past or to simply share and move on. Unfortunately I’ve allowed myself to get sucked in a few times lately.
Regarding the notion above that animal attacks are largely nonsense, to that I’d say balderdash. I have a proliferation of wild animals roaming through my yard. I’ve been attacked by dogs, and bit once, chased by hawks that were way to close for comfort, charged by deer in the rut, had a mountain lion follow me, chased by a domestic bull (I’ve never ran that fast before), and charged by coyote. It happens. I have also spent significant time in black and grizzly bear country. Take them seriously because when you manage to meet the wrong one it ain’t going to be a good time.
Hope for the best but plan for the worst.
These conversations don’t have a huge influence on my decisions. I think briefly about the type and number of potential threats, and then I carry a gun I think will resolve a bad situation.
I have tried to stay out of these debates in the past or to simply share and move on. Unfortunately I’ve allowed myself to get sucked in a few times lately.
Regarding the notion above that animal attacks are largely nonsense, to that I’d say balderdash. I have a proliferation of wild animals roaming through my yard. I’ve been attacked by dogs, and bit once, chased by hawks that were way to close for comfort, charged by deer in the rut, had a mountain lion follow me, chased by a domestic bull (I’ve never ran that fast before), and charged by coyote. It happens. I have also spent significant time in black and grizzly bear country. Take them seriously because when you manage to meet the wrong one it ain’t going to be a good time.
Yes, exactly. I wouldn't recommend not loading it personally, but the studies I've looked at do imply this would be statistically effective.
A double stack mag fed pistol and some reloads would be a decent compromise for such a situation. Several guys who weren’t police and who actually had pistol permits found themselves in the Westgate mall during the attack.
Very little training other than the mandated CHL course consisting of a few hours, a five shot revolver and no reload probably would not be such a good choice.
huntsman
Member
Worse case scenario or not I dance with the one I brought.
beyond that try not to over think.
beyond that try not to over think.
Last edited:
OP
OP
mcb
Member
I chalk it up to justifying owning multiple firearms.
until I started CC I owned 1 handgun a KGP141, kept it next to the bed and when I went in woods it went with me in a simple flap holster.
It wasn’t a house gun or a woods gun it was all of that and more, it was my gun,
Now I own more handguns, one for this, one for that and some I’m not sure of.
So when I play the only own one game I like to think I could really make the choice but having only owned 1 gun at least I know I could do it again, I think
For me justifying owning firearms comes from buying my next competition gun or my next hunting firearm. I have only made the effort to evaluate and buy a CCW handgun twice. There is nothing appealing to me about a CCW gun, it is a tool I put on for a job. My competition guns and my hunting guns are more interesting and more fun. Now I have carried a few of my competition guns over the years but I did not buy them for CCW they simply got used for that, they were bought for competition.
Last edited:
- Status
