Looking for actual events where handgun wasn't enough.

[Glamdring]

I know shotguns, carbine, & rifles are easier to shoot and usually more powerful than handguns.

But I am trying to figure out if that has ever really mattered for regular home or business defense. Not looking for LEO or military situations. I know that it matters there. I also suspect that experience is perhaps wrongly swaying thoughts about home defense.

So if anyone has any data, not opinion I would like to see it. You can PM me if it isn't something you want to post.

 

[Hanzo581]

I think you will be hard pressed to find the specific data you are looking for. How would someone gauge the point at which their handgun was ineffective but that a long gun would have been?

 

[Glamdring]

Well that is sorta the direction my thinking has been going. I don't think there is any evidence for it. Which leads me to suspect it probably isn't true. Or perhaps more clearly "long gun" = "better" but "handgun" = "good enough"

 

[230therapy]

Tyler, Texas Courthouse shooting. Police had handguns versus the armored up bad guy with semi-automatic AK-47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

Mark Wilson also engaged Arroyo with his 1911. He was killed because he took his eye off the bad guy while ducking behind cover to reload.

The encounter was ended by a rifle bullet to Arroyo's head.

Video is available.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Off the top of my head there is the Tyler courthouse shooting where a disgruntled man opened fire on his wife and son outisde the courthouse with a semi-auto MAK-90. A local resident with a CHL engaged him with his 1911 hitting him in the back and chest but the BG was wearing body armor, returned fire hitting the samaritan, then put 3 more rounds in him when he was down, killing him.

Just looking through the Armed Citizen stories in American Rifleman, it seems like often people that engage bad guys with handguns either miss, or hit the BG and he runs off (sometimes dying, sometimes recovering at the hospital, sometimes escaped), whereas most that use a rifle or shotgun end things right there.

 

[Glamdring]

Note I said NOT LEO or military situations.

 

[Hanzo581]

The situation they posted wasn't a LEO, it was a CCW person engaging a bad guy with body armor, and in turn being killed.

It is still pretty simple, out and about? You're probably carrying a handgun...in your home why not go with the biggest caliber, highest capacity weapon you can comfortably shoot? (Of course taking into account over-penetration).

 

[robmkivseries70]

IIRC there was a CC permit holder at a Mall in Washington that was wounded as well. I don't know if his weapon failed or he froze at the moment of truth, but he took some 7.62 X 39 as a result. ETA: For those people whose hand gun failed to do the job, it's possible they aren't around to report the problem!
Best,
Rob

 

[JoeSlomo]

Firearm choice is all about "potential" imo, and what compromises you are willing to make.

More powerful arms, with higher capacities, offer the greatest potential to be effective at stopping a determined threat, or threats, but you still have to do your part.

For home defense, I will always choose an AR style rifle, as they are powerful, and have a high ammo capacity, and this, imo, offers me the greatest potential to protect my family and I from harm.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Firearm choice is all about "potential" imo, and what compromises you are willing to make.

+1 very good point. CCW holders carry a handgun because a rifle just isn't practical or concealable. You could take out a threat with a single shot derringer in .22lr but why limit your potential?
It's very rare you'll have to defend yourself. Of those unfortunate enough to have to, it's very rare that a handgun wouldn't do the job if you can hit your target in a disabling place. Is that what you are getting at?

I'd rather have the odds (that I have control of) in my favor and go for "overkill" than find out at the worst possible time that my choice is not effective and am in deep trouble.

 

[shockwave]

Just looking through the Armed Citizen stories in American Rifleman, it seems like often people that engage bad guys with handguns either miss, or hit the BG and he runs off

True. The incident the OP is looking for is that shootout where the crazed husband was shooting at the cop who was taking cover behind his car and firing into the gunman's garage. The gunman took multiple hits and just wouldn't go down.

For some stupid reason I train with speedloaders and carry big caliber, and I like powerful cartridges. Yet I know that this is defense against the 1/10 of 1-percent ultimate disaster scenarios. In nearly every case, a Ruger .22 will get the job done.

For the OP here, yes, a handgun is not enough when you are confronting bank robbers armed with AK-47s and wearing body armor, but how likely is it that these guys will be breaking into your home to steal... what? Do you have a cache of blue diamonds?

 

[Glamdring]

Okay, I was talking about non LEO non military involving home or business defense. Because generally a carry permit doesn't allow you to have M4 slug over your shoulder.

That is why I was limiting it to home or business, a regular person could have long gun there or handgun or both.

I am trying to get some real data. Have been working on this question for several months and didn't come up with even one case where I could say "Well this person was prepared and willing, he just didn't have a long gun so that is why he lost".

I am not trying to discourage anyone from having or using shotgun or rifle/carbine! I have both plus two handguns for home defense.

This is more related to training people who don't like guns or do but don't have much spare time or money, but take personal security or family security seriously. Think a single parent. Or parent who is running show at home alone while other one is overseas in the military.

If handgun seems to do as well as long gun then if money or time budget is tight handgun + carry permit is the way to go hands down IMO, when time or money budget is restricted.

 

[Glamdring]

Or maybe this way of explaining it makes more sense. Skill with gun matters FAR more than type of gun. Assuming carry permit, then handgun should be first shelf defense gun acquired. And training and practice put in to attain basic skill level.

Can argue about exactly how much ammo is need for that, but I feel 500 rounds is the minimum. 1-1.5K is probably a better number.

So if you accept my argument that handgun should come first, because you can have it with you always not just at home. Your going to have to stick minimum of $600 or so in just handgun and practice ammo plus $400-800 for training.

If you add long gun you will double that. But if you get a 2nd identical handgun, or smaller version of main handgun, like Glock 26 to go with Glock 17, the skills & ammo for the first one transfer over so you only have cost of second gun.

 

[uspJ]

There have been a good bit of cases where a ccw holder used his handgun and the BG ran off to die or was apprehended. Are you asking for instances where the GG was killed because his weapon wasn't sufficient, or are you asking for instances where a handgun did not put the BG down immedietly?

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

This is more related to training people who don't like guns or do but don't have much spare time or money, but take personal security or family security seriously. Think a single parent. Or parent who is running show at home alone while other one is overseas in the military.

So if you accept my argument that handgun should come first, because you can have it with you always not just at home. Your going to have to stick minimum of $600 or so in just handgun and practice ammo plus $400-800 for training.

I think if someone is just getting into guns they probably aren't going straight for a carry permit and would be more open to having a long gun like a pump shotgun at home for $350 (including a few boxes of practice loads and a box of buckshot) than the time required to become proficient with a handgun. That's just my observance.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I know shotguns, carbine, & rifles are easier to shoot and usually more powerful than handguns.

But I am trying to figure out if that has ever really mattered for regular home or business defense. Not looking for LEO or military situations. I know that it matters there. I also suspect that experience is perhaps wrongly swaying thoughts about home defense.

If you know rifles and shotguns are more powerful and easier to shoot I don't understand what you are advocating. Are you saying we should make it harder and use handguns as a matter of policy? There was a thread with a man defending his home with a shotgun from two armed men. Reading that I don't think he would have made it with just a handgun as it was he fired 4 rounds and never missed and was wounded in the fight. My policy is to make it easier for myself in general and when my life is at risk in particular. Its not a sport.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

IIRC there was a CC permit holder at a Mall in Washington that was wounded as well. I don't know if his weapon failed or he froze at the moment of truth, but he took some 7.62 X 39 as a result. ETA: For those people whose hand gun failed to do the job, it's possible they aren't around to report the problem!

You are talking about the Tacoma Mall shooting. The CC permit holder was Brandon (Dan) McKown. His gun worked just fine. McCown never fired it. He never attempted to fire it. He drew it (he claims), then feared he was breaking the law, and reconcealed it. Then for some strange reason, left cover by standing up. He then yelled at the shooter who promptly shot him several times (5).

This is not an incident where a handgun wasn't enough. It is an incident where the CCW person screwed up.

The Tyler Courthouse shooting is a good example. Yes, the police were involved, but so too was Mark Wilson and his handgun wasn't enough to stop the perp who promptly killed him.

However, if you are looking for situations where a handgun wasn't enough, look at all the business and home gunfights where the business owner or resident lost the battle.

 

[mbt2001]

While Hollywood has an unrealistic idea of guns, the movie Brooklyn's Finest has a fantastic FTS seen at the end. Most of the movie, guns just zapped people dead, however in the last scene, Richard Gere is in a tense situation, fires one shot center mass and the guy goes berserk, almost killing Gere.

That is a relatively realistic example of failure to stop.

 

[Al Thompson]

If handgun seems to do as well as long gun then if money or time budget is tight handgun + carry permit is the way to go hands down IMO, when time or money budget is restricted.

Too simple an answer, IMHO. I don't think you'll get a quantifiable answer to your question either. As Rob pointed out, people who lose gunfights are sometimes dead. It's very hard to actually have as detailed a gunfight as Tyler that we can study for lessons.

If you think about it, every gunfight that someone armed with a handgun lost could be a case of "not enough gun". On the other hand, Tyler, Miami, LA and other shootings where rifles were involved clearly shows the superiority of long guns over short ones.

As far as exactly what weapon, there are a lot of variables there. I once sold a young lady a single shot shotgun as my manager was able to adjust the price to get her a reliable weapon with ammo that she could afford. Was it optimal? No, but it worked.

Carry permits here take a minimum for 3 months to acquire. You have to take the course and submit the application. The state has 90 days to issue after that and they are in no hurry.

As far as the numbers you posted for training, IMHO you can train someone (done it many times) to adequately defend themselves with a 2 or 3 hour range session. This does not mean they are proficient (which is where I think your going), just adequate.

 

[easyg]

I used to prefer, and recommend, long-guns for self defense and home defense.
But over the years I have learned that most folks simply will not have the long-gun at hand when they need it the most.
It will be in the gun cabinet, or in the closet, or under the bed, or in another room, etc...but it will not typically be within arms reach when a threat presents itself.
So, while long guns are more effective than handguns (in most cases), they are still not as practical as handguns.

 

[ProShooter]

We had one here in Richmond, Va. The Golden Food Market robbery.

Good guy was carry a SA western revolver with cowboy loads. Got into a gun fight the bad guy who had a revolver. Good guy's gun broke in pieces and after hitting the bad guy with 3 shots, good guy had to use his broken gun as a club and beat the bad guy over the head.

 

[longhair75]

This might not be exactly what you are asking about, and it is anecdotal, so might not be the sort of data you can use.

A friend of mine was working security at an event at a VFW club. There was a disturbance in the parking lot. When my friend went out to stop the disturbance, it was a bunch of teen aged gang bangers. One of them pulled out a gun, and my friend was shot five times. The kid had a Raven Arms .25 caliber pistol. Two of the rounds didn't make it through my friend's leather jacket. My friend got to the kid and broke his arm in the process of disarming him. The kid went to jail. my friend was back to work in three days.

 

[LiquidTension]

I forget the guy's name, but a gun shop owner many years ago ended up using I believe a S&W 76 and an AR to stop a group of people breaking into his store. The AR was used to put rounds into a vehicle.

 

[Kleanbore]

That is why I was limiting it to home or business, a regular person could have long gun there or handgun or both.

I am trying to get some real data. Have been working on this question for several months and didn't come up with even one case where I could say "Well this person was prepared and willing, he just didn't have a long gun so that is why he lost".

I agree with Hanzo581 and Al Thompson: I seriously doubt that you will ever compile enough data to yield a quantifiable answer.

Consider first that there the number of instances involving home defense or the defense of a business in which firearms are actually fired is very small.

Second, as has been mentioned, detailed reports on what transpired are largely non-existent.

Third, the number of "pairs" in which all of the other significant variables were the same, and shotguns, carbines, and rifles were used in one instance and handguns in the other is no doubt miniscule if it is not zero.

Fourth, unless there has been a trial and acquittal and the defense against civil suit is air tight, the participants had undoubtedly been advised by counsel to discuss the details with no one.

When things happen very infrequently and/or when records are not available, and when a lot of variables are involved, historical data are often much less than useful for purposes of analysis.

If one had the time, the money, the facilities, the expertise, and the desire to do so, one could design and conduct a number of simulation exercises that could shed some light on the matter. It is also possible that exercises at some of the FoF training centers could be illustrative.

However, looking for actual experience is unlikely to bear fruit.

 

[Glamdring]

Thanks. The responses are getting better.

I am not sure I agree about not being able to get data. I'm pretty sure it is out there it just isn't organized.

Anytime lethal force is used and police involved there are going to be reports.