Who participating in this thread has actually had to fire at another person in SD?
Baltimore, Maryland, 1973. Resulted in the death of a shotgun-wielding robber.
The only reason for the persistent defense of the reliance upon .380 for personal self defense has to be that the defendor does not really believe that any gun will ever be needed by them for self defense and so they are more concerned with convenience than they are in effectively arming themselves against an attack. Hey, good for you! But............why are you here again?
Supercilious nonsense. Too many other factors are involved in self-defense, including, but not limited to, physical abilities and dis-abilities, availability of a firearm that one can control and shoot accurately, mode of dress, laws, availability of holster systems, ammunition, and a myriad of other circumstances.
The caliber "required" can be used as though it were superior, right up until the ammunition chosen for the purportedly superior caliber is wrong for the job. There are as many actual test results available for .380's that meet minimum penetration specs, as don't. This was the subject of past threads, look them up. Rifles and shotguns have been found lacking in "stopping power" on a routine basis in documented LEO, and military, encounters. So, the use of ANY handgun may be derisively referred to as:
that the defendor does not really believe that any gun will ever be needed by them for self defense and so they are more concerned with convenience than they are in effectively arming themselves against an attack. Hey, good for you! But............why are you
There is no mention of caliber in the First Rule of Gunfighting. The ONLY mention of caliber in the set of such Rules, as promulgated in professional schools, is to use the heaviest caliber that you may control, and carry with you.
Simplistic statements such as were made result in those who cannot afford the latest, and supposedly greatest, "serious defensive" firearm to be lost to the community.
A reliance on such pollyannaish statements that 'europeans used to carry them' leaves out that this was done a badge of authority and given up as useless upon the rise of terrorist and criminal activity throughout Europe.
Again, supercilious nonsense. The truth is that the European Police of the early 20th century were much more likely to become involved in a gun fight than the average American cop. Revolutionary groups ran amuck, smuggling was a national pastime in many areas, and locals were much more likely to fight than submit due to the ease of escape to surrounding nations. In Asia, especially in Hong Kong, the British were embroiled against murderous gangs. The choice of firearm chosen by Fairbarn was the .380 Colt for the Hong Kong Police. These men killed people.
Europe's criminal element after WWII was a bare shadow of itself. The rise of Terrorism, sponsored by Communism at the time, required a more military response, and heavier weapons, as that was what the terrorists were armed with, and they operated in military fashion.
We deal with few terrorists here as citizens. We also deal with few of the mythical 250 lb., drug-crazed, weight-lifters. For them, NO PISTOL is sufficient. NONE.
Arrogantly assuming to tell people that their reasons for carrying any gun, or caliber, is due to something that is an opinion, at best, of a fertile imagination, is ludicrous.