westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
I ask myself and I wonder to what degree handgun purchasing decisions are based on fantasy. I could ask the same question about clothing or vehicles, but since this is a firearm forum I'll try to focus on guns and carry guns in particular. I'm sure there are people that have convinced themselves and will assert in the replies that their choices are entirely logical and they have a wholly rational justification for them along with claims that they are free from any influence of vanity, much more so any fantasy.
Personally, I have to use my imagination in deciding what handgun to carry. The circumstances in which I would need it are fantastical, but nevertheless possible. Even so, I don't carry one because I live within a fantasy of my imagination, but because I have very real responsibilities and being in possession of emergency life-saving equipment when it is needed is included in those. Even though the probability of a need arising in my workplace for a fire extinguisher, or an AED is remote, not being prepared by having these things available would constitute negligence. Not only do I regard the possession of my equipment a responsibility, but also the skill to use it to the standard that I've been trained in.
Nevertheless, my responsibilities can be fulfilled with fairly wide latitude in choice of equipment. A lot of people equip themselves in a way that is least burdensome. They choose small, light guns with simple actions that are also cheap. They're understandably aversive to heavy guns that are hard to carry, big guns that are hard to conceal, more complex actions that demand more training or are otherwise prone to operating errors, and costly guns that shoot expensive ammo. Other people are more imaginative. They think of all the contingencies where those guns would be inadequate. They're also able to use their imagination to find ways to carry more effective guns and even more than one extra magazine, not just to resolve potential magazine failures, but to have sufficient resources in the event of a protracted stand-off with multiple attackers.
I don't fault people for preparing for the most outlandish contingencies. They may fault themselves if the result is an outlandish solution, but that is none of my concern. If they're imaginative enough, they can be prepared for the improbable without being absurd. Afterall, if we only prepared for the probable, we wouldn't carry at all. So long as we're preparing for the unlikely but possible because of the risk involved of being unprepared, we could consider that if the improbable occurs, we really don't have any assurance that it will occur in some probable manner. Once we've overcome the improbability of being in an improbable circumstance, the probability of everything else going as expected isn't promised to be as the statisticians would claim, simply the product of the probabilities. They'd say if we toss two coins, the chances of the first landing tails is 1/2. The chance of the second landing tails is also 1/2, and so the probability of both landing tails is the product of 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4.
I have used similar reasoning to come to the conclusion that since the probability of a defensive use of a handgun is extraordinarily low, multiplied by the low probability of needing to fire it (if we went by that one we wouldn't load our guns), multiplied by... the probability of needing to fire weak hand only, to clear malfunctions, reload, perform a "tactical reload", or aim with a broken or obstructed reflex sight... are diminished to absurd odds. So I chose a gun and grips with which I'm most effective with two hands. I chose a reflex sight because I shoot better with it so long as it's working. When I was faced with a dilemma of tradeoffs, I made the choice based on probabilities instead of worst-case scenarios. The thing that's different about worst-case scenarios, compared to coin tosses, is that they tend to come in packs. An unfortunate event is often related to another and they can form a chain of events that isn't modeled by independent coin tosses. Instead, they form clusters.
I've carried a big, heavy gun with large smooth grips and a reflex sight. I have a compact-size one with slimmer, textured grips and rugged sights. I chose to carry the big one because I perform best with it so long as conditions are ideal. Why sacrifice performance under ideal conditions to give preference to performance under improbable circumstances that require firing one-handed with the gun and hand covered in water, blood or vomit after the gun was smashed in a drop or crash?
I recently had one of my hands crushed. It will heal in time, but it's disabled for a while. It has made me realize that when violence happens, a whole lot of things can go wrong all at the same time. My worst case scenarios aren't about six attackers with body armor and fully automatic weapons. Instead, I'm thinking about what if I get attacked because a predator notices my disability? What if their opening move is a crushing blow from a baseball bat that breaks my arm? What if I'm in a car crash and smashed up before the bullets start flying? What if my gun takes a hit that disables it?
I haven't carried two guns since I stopped carrying j-frames. I put all my allowance for carry into one bigger, higher performance gun. One trainer has repeatedly emphasized the advantage of carrying more than one gun. Not only that, but he has also raised doubt that the second gun should be a diminutive mouse gun in case the bigger, more effective primary gun wasn't able to get the job done. Another trainer relates a story of how he jumped off a balcony to shortcut descending stairs inside an apartment complex. When he landed, his clamshell holster popped open, dashing his 6" revolver into the swimming pool. He had to enter an apartment with his ankle gun drawn. He did police work, but who is to say that as a civilian victim of violence, I won't get thrown off the balcony? or knocked out of my shoes by a car? It's not an unreasonable string of improbabilities. Violence accompanies violence.
So what do you think? Is your plan based on a risk assessment that factors probabilities or on worst case scenarios? I suppose a lot of people don't equip themselves to be ready for an unexpected USPSA match in the open division, but maybe they carry a G19 and a spare magazine, so they're better prepared for the unfortunate than someone who just carries a derringer or P32. If you're like that, would you consider carrying a second gun or scoff at the improbability of needing it? If anyone carries one gun and three magazines, what is your rationale for that instead of a second gun? I suppose a lot of people practice one hand and weak side because drills popularize those things. What else have you thought of or considered for operating with severe disability or injury? Do you wear glasses? Can you see without them? Do you not wear eye protection? How do you keep them on?
Personally, I have to use my imagination in deciding what handgun to carry. The circumstances in which I would need it are fantastical, but nevertheless possible. Even so, I don't carry one because I live within a fantasy of my imagination, but because I have very real responsibilities and being in possession of emergency life-saving equipment when it is needed is included in those. Even though the probability of a need arising in my workplace for a fire extinguisher, or an AED is remote, not being prepared by having these things available would constitute negligence. Not only do I regard the possession of my equipment a responsibility, but also the skill to use it to the standard that I've been trained in.
Nevertheless, my responsibilities can be fulfilled with fairly wide latitude in choice of equipment. A lot of people equip themselves in a way that is least burdensome. They choose small, light guns with simple actions that are also cheap. They're understandably aversive to heavy guns that are hard to carry, big guns that are hard to conceal, more complex actions that demand more training or are otherwise prone to operating errors, and costly guns that shoot expensive ammo. Other people are more imaginative. They think of all the contingencies where those guns would be inadequate. They're also able to use their imagination to find ways to carry more effective guns and even more than one extra magazine, not just to resolve potential magazine failures, but to have sufficient resources in the event of a protracted stand-off with multiple attackers.
I don't fault people for preparing for the most outlandish contingencies. They may fault themselves if the result is an outlandish solution, but that is none of my concern. If they're imaginative enough, they can be prepared for the improbable without being absurd. Afterall, if we only prepared for the probable, we wouldn't carry at all. So long as we're preparing for the unlikely but possible because of the risk involved of being unprepared, we could consider that if the improbable occurs, we really don't have any assurance that it will occur in some probable manner. Once we've overcome the improbability of being in an improbable circumstance, the probability of everything else going as expected isn't promised to be as the statisticians would claim, simply the product of the probabilities. They'd say if we toss two coins, the chances of the first landing tails is 1/2. The chance of the second landing tails is also 1/2, and so the probability of both landing tails is the product of 1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4.
I have used similar reasoning to come to the conclusion that since the probability of a defensive use of a handgun is extraordinarily low, multiplied by the low probability of needing to fire it (if we went by that one we wouldn't load our guns), multiplied by... the probability of needing to fire weak hand only, to clear malfunctions, reload, perform a "tactical reload", or aim with a broken or obstructed reflex sight... are diminished to absurd odds. So I chose a gun and grips with which I'm most effective with two hands. I chose a reflex sight because I shoot better with it so long as it's working. When I was faced with a dilemma of tradeoffs, I made the choice based on probabilities instead of worst-case scenarios. The thing that's different about worst-case scenarios, compared to coin tosses, is that they tend to come in packs. An unfortunate event is often related to another and they can form a chain of events that isn't modeled by independent coin tosses. Instead, they form clusters.
I've carried a big, heavy gun with large smooth grips and a reflex sight. I have a compact-size one with slimmer, textured grips and rugged sights. I chose to carry the big one because I perform best with it so long as conditions are ideal. Why sacrifice performance under ideal conditions to give preference to performance under improbable circumstances that require firing one-handed with the gun and hand covered in water, blood or vomit after the gun was smashed in a drop or crash?
I recently had one of my hands crushed. It will heal in time, but it's disabled for a while. It has made me realize that when violence happens, a whole lot of things can go wrong all at the same time. My worst case scenarios aren't about six attackers with body armor and fully automatic weapons. Instead, I'm thinking about what if I get attacked because a predator notices my disability? What if their opening move is a crushing blow from a baseball bat that breaks my arm? What if I'm in a car crash and smashed up before the bullets start flying? What if my gun takes a hit that disables it?
I haven't carried two guns since I stopped carrying j-frames. I put all my allowance for carry into one bigger, higher performance gun. One trainer has repeatedly emphasized the advantage of carrying more than one gun. Not only that, but he has also raised doubt that the second gun should be a diminutive mouse gun in case the bigger, more effective primary gun wasn't able to get the job done. Another trainer relates a story of how he jumped off a balcony to shortcut descending stairs inside an apartment complex. When he landed, his clamshell holster popped open, dashing his 6" revolver into the swimming pool. He had to enter an apartment with his ankle gun drawn. He did police work, but who is to say that as a civilian victim of violence, I won't get thrown off the balcony? or knocked out of my shoes by a car? It's not an unreasonable string of improbabilities. Violence accompanies violence.
So what do you think? Is your plan based on a risk assessment that factors probabilities or on worst case scenarios? I suppose a lot of people don't equip themselves to be ready for an unexpected USPSA match in the open division, but maybe they carry a G19 and a spare magazine, so they're better prepared for the unfortunate than someone who just carries a derringer or P32. If you're like that, would you consider carrying a second gun or scoff at the improbability of needing it? If anyone carries one gun and three magazines, what is your rationale for that instead of a second gun? I suppose a lot of people practice one hand and weak side because drills popularize those things. What else have you thought of or considered for operating with severe disability or injury? Do you wear glasses? Can you see without them? Do you not wear eye protection? How do you keep them on?
