Discussion in 'Handguns: General Discussion' started by Great Scot, Jan 29, 2020.
Yes, I was a professional in risk management, and I am most certainly not "out of my depth".
If the defining "stake" is our lives themselves, then would we not all simply switch to a slung long gun, where legal?
Clearly, that's rhetorical, as we all know that's not entirely practical, just pointing out that handguns themselves are a compromise as a fighting firearm, but do offer portability and concealability ... which many of us need or at least feel we need.
As to "statistically proven" I certainly would not make the argument that a .380 pocket rocket is the equivalent of a larger, proven defensive caliber in a frame that provides greater ease of gun-handling. But with that said, the work of Greg Ellifritz and others would seem to indicate the .380, for instance, is not the throwaway round that some still argue.
Anyhow, when it comes to everyday tooling around town, I guess I'm a still a proponent of the gun you have on you -- with the skills to place your shots and quality ammo, of course -- is better than the gun back at the house.
LC9S in a sticky holster in my right hip pocket, or IWB in a DeSantis "summer special" type holster at 4 O' clock. I can't get used to appendix carry. I may or may not have a spare mag, depending on the day's destination, time spent out in the world, what part of said world, and my whim.
AMT Backup 380 in a wallet holster
+1 on the Sig P365, don't like striker handguns but my Sig has the 1911 style safety which makes it acceptable to me.
I'm not following this comment - are you saying that you are a professional in risk management, or are you saying that he is and yet isn't doing it well?
Risk management, in my tutored and practical experience, is concerned with two dimensions : probability / likelihood, and consequence / impact. Risk management strategies include avoidance and mitigations. Carrying a weapon, for example, might be a mitigation strategy for dealing with predatory risks; not being around places that predators are known to congregate would be an avoidance strategy.
Head injuries while moving about my world are a good example of the interplay between probability / consequence and my selected avoidance / mitigation strategies.
The possibility / likelihood of falling on my ugly mug while riding the motorcycle is pretty low, but the consequence if that occurs is pretty severe. Accordingly, I choose both avoidance strategies (stay off loose and uneven surfaces, avoid traffic traps) and mitigation strategies (wear a helmet and riding suit, all the time, no matter the temperature). On the other hand, the likelihood of falling down while walking the dogs through the woods is far greater, but the consequence is pretty benign. In that example, I choose similar avoidance strategies (watch where I put my tennie-and-a-halfies) but virtually no mitigation strategies (other than carrying a cell phone).
As it pertains to the topic, I believe that the point here is that we all choose mitigation strategies against possible predation that are dependent upon the likelihood of encountering specific types of predators. Not only will I choose mitigation strategies against the concept of predation in general (carry a gun), but my decision tree will run a probability/consequence analysis against the types of predators I'm potentially gonna encounter so that my mitigations can be tailored for the most likely scenarios (snake shot / OC in the woods vs SD HPs for more social environments.
In my case, I always have a 9mm pistol on me at all times so it's kinda a moot question. I also have access to other weapons when out-n-about in public gathering spaces or in my home, because either my perception of probability is greater or the consequence of 'needing more firepower and not having it available' are more severe.
That's it in a nutshell!
That's a good way to put it. In the formal literature, the step after analyzing the risk (assessing likelihood and potential consequence) is to evaluate possible mitigation strategies, and the next i sto decide wither to accept the risk or to mitigate it.
But obviously, avoidance is a very critical element in staying safe.
Yes indeed! And as I mentioned, bears...
What many people looking at the carry of firearms for defense against human predation seem to miss is that once an attack occurs, what will be required to handle it will not be a function of how likely that occurrence might have been considered beforehand.
Full disclosure: there was a rime when I often selected my carry piece on the basis of my subjective assessment of likelihood as I headed out to go somewhere. Then a poster here challenged that idea--and rightly so.
That opened my eyes, and it should not have been necessary.
It was also embarrassing, personally. Long before that came up, I had co-authored the comprehensive risk management procedure set for a major corporation.
In the years following, I worked in its application, in system engineering, investment decisions, public financial reporting, the safeguarding of assets, pricing and entering into contracts, the design of internal controls....
I taught the subject. Yet when I strapped on a gun.....
So, when someone comes along who has not yet though it through, I think "been there, done that", and then try to help.
Well put, & succinct. Would that more people thought this way.
Mine are S&W 442-2,638-3 .38 SPL+P 5 shot revolvers or P365 9mm.
Ruger LCP in my pocket from the time i put my shorts on till i take them off at night 99% of the time. If i'm wearing blue jeans then the EC9S in an owb I just can't stand iwb. I carried a NAA .22lr for a long time back when i was working narcotics. But neither was a grab and go just what i had on me all the time if i felt I needed something bigger i would get it and it depended on what i was going to do.
My everyday carry is aS&W 9mm M&P Shield. But depending on different circumstances, sometimes a NAA 22Mag Black Widow or Kel Tec P32 in my pocket is what works for me.
Separate names with a comma.