Three Reasons to Carry a Backup

Carrying a 2nd gun is not based on anticipated threat, location, risk assessment, or the beaten reply of "war zone" / "Mogadishu" 🙄 :barf:
It is options, if your primary gun is on your belt a 2nd gun in pocket affords the option to put your hand on it without revealing you are carrying.
If the 2nd gun is in weak hand pocket now you may be able to access a handgun easier if you dominant hand is unavailable.
Neither of those options are related to area, location or risk; those options are valid wherever.
 
The idea seemed extreme to me, but when I contemplated the idea of really needing one in a bad situation, I pushed the envelope. I tried adding my LCP MAX to my daily carry, and it proved practical and comfortable.

Now, it's my standard practice.

I do not expect to need either weapon, or my OC spray, for that matter, but that's not the issue.
 
Interesting points. A backup is less critical today with modern reliability and increased capacity especially for those who aren't paid to go into harms way.

An interesting point to me in the article is how the fight became physical after both guns malfunctioned. I think it's lost on many people that gunfights often begin or end that way. There's no such thing as a gunfight or fist fight. There's just fighting and the means of conflict can change at any time.

I prefer a fixed blade on my off side to a spare pistol.
 
Last edited:
As with any other type of 'gear', it remains up to the individual to do their own risk/needs assessment and determine both the desirability and practicality of carrying 'backup' gear items.

I don't carry around a spare pair of footwear or cellphone. :neener:

Joking aside, I do usually carry a spare folding knife, but that's more for the practicality of having cutting options (plain edge vs serrated edge, size of the blades for the tasks, etc).

The technology and reliability of most of today's firearms, notwithstanding whether someone has tinkered with one and rendered it different from how it came out-of-the-box, is quite a few technological steps ahead than the guns (and ammunition) of yesteryear.

Sure, having a secondary handgun available might prove prudent or advantageous under some exigent circumstances, and it's been recognized in LE that it might prove beneficial. Many agencies have either authorized them, or even issued them over the years.

All of that said, it's still wise to remember the importance of adhering to policy (LE), or local law (or licensing restriction?), regarding carrying more than 1 concealed handgun.

I don't often do so anymore, now that I'm retired. My daily risk is a bit different than when I was carrying an active badge and continually being sent to reported, or known, violent situations, etc.

Since lawfully carrying 1 handgun comes with the normal inherent risks - (security of carry method, retaining control of it, maintenance of both gun and carry method, etc) - it does double the usual things to consider when upping the number of handguns being carried.

Basically ... TANSTAAFL. ;)
 
Meh.

I file this under "options".

See, the logical extension of this leads to me carrying far more than I want, or can practically, carry.

Everybody has an opinion these matters, and my own is "if it floats your boat, have at it".

Five reasons to carry a "high capacity" firearm.

3 reasons to carry X number of reloads.

The positives of body armor.

EDC tool list.

Why it's important to carry basic first aid supplies.

The need for a bugout bag.


While I respect Massad for his wisdom and advice, I would have to say that there's a very important aspect of his chosen example for his "three reasons" that is glossed over. Namely that, good guy or bad guy, John Wesley Hardin was a "gunfighter", a person who quite literally lived and died by the gun. He killed his first man at 15, was sentenced to prison at 23 for murder, and was literally pursued by lawmen for most of his life.

Given that he was 42 when he died, that kind of implies that those nearly 50 people he killed averaged out to almost 2 people a year from the age of 15.

Maybe he really didn't kill anybody who didn't "need" killing...but he still lead a deliberately violent life, intentionally placing himself in circumstances in which killing someone else was the end result.

I would argue that ANYBODY who would lead a life like that ought to carry multiple weapons, plenty of ammunition, body armor, lots of backup support, and a ready means of fast escape. And an attorney on retainer.
 
Unless some is ordered/restricted in the gear they carry (employer), or individual choice may fall afoul of some law or ordinance (or licensing restriction?), why would it concern anyone what other adults choose to do?

I don't wish to impose my choices on others, and wish the same courtesy extended to me. :)

Can often make for some interesting, or contentious, discussions, though. ;)
 
Kleanbore said:
That's not a valid reason to decide against anything.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I was "against" it. I said that I considered it an "option", and it's one that may be more or less important for some than others.

If you're going to make it your life to go around deliberately inviting trouble like John Hardin did, then yeah...carrying two guns is a smart move.

That can also be applied to many other circumstances, true. Even as Massad said. If you're a police officer, a soldier, a bounty hunter...even a hiker/hunter. I can see this as a matter of course. And I've also carried two before...almost always when hunting, for example, because I have a sidearm in addition to the rifle/shotgun I'm carrying, for example.

John Hardin was a poor choice to make his point. Looking back on my stats I posted earlier, those upwards of 50 people he killed actually averaged out over 10 years (from 1868 to 1878 when he was sentence to prison) to 5 per year. And further, after serving 17 years of his sentence and getting out he sought and received a pardon, passed the Texas state bar exam and became a lawyer, and somewhere along the line found the time to commit negligent homicide over a bet he could knock a man off a soap box he was sunning himself on with a gunshot (who would die from the fall) and pistol whip someone else (whose father would shortly put a bullet through the back of his head for).

The man was LOOKING for trouble, and he was looking for it with a gun in his hand.

While it's admitted that nobody really knows what's true and what's false about the numbers and circumstances of the people he supposedly killed, the fact remains that John Hardin is a very poor example from which to draw reasons to carry a backup pistol. He was an outlaw and a gunfighter. OF COURSE he had reasons to carry more than one firearm.
 
See, the logical extension...
Click to expand...
Just about any reasonable measure can be extended to the point that it becomes extreme, that fact doesn't really bear on the validity of the initial measure.
I don't wish to impose my choices on others, and wish the same courtesy extended to me.
Click to expand...
Discussing a topic, providing reasons and experiences from personal life and history, does not rise to the level of "imposing choices on others".

Maybe we could wait to start complaining about that until it actually happens.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
John Hardin was a poor choice to make his point.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. He was obviously selected for name recognition.

Mas could have selected Jim Cirillo after he had retired, but (1) few readers would have known the name and (2) he never had to use either of his Glocks in anger.

It has to do with the art of journalism.
 
Sure, but that's the trick, isn't it?
Click to expand...
So people should be prevented from raising a topic if anyone in the potential audience feels it's not valuable or enlightening? Couldn't that reasonably be defined as imposing on other people's choices?

It seems to me that a better solution (especially if the true concern is for everyone to be able to do as they choose) would be for people who don't want to discuss the topic or don't find it useful/enlightening to just skip it and leave it to the people who feel differently.
I don't think so. He was obviously selected for name recognition.

Mas could have selected Jim Cirillo...
Click to expand...
It's going to be hard to make an argument that either Cirillo or Hardin are reasonable models for the average concealed carrier. That doesn't mean we can't learn lessons from their experiences, but it does mean that there is going to be discussion about context.

Lance Thomas might be a better example for people who need the context to be similar to theirs (i.e. non-military, non-LE) before they can accept that there's anything worth learning from others' experiences.

Another example could be the guy who was ambushed by his ex's boyfriend and shot 15 times and had to access his carry gun from his strong side using his weak hand arm since his strong side arm was shot to pieces. He fired from an unorthodox position (gun upside down because of the grip he was forced to assume by the awkward crossdraw) and it's not clear if he would have been able to fire a second time if he had needed to. A BUG could have simplified his situation.

If people will accept examples from LE (which many won't) the Miami shootout provides 3. McNeill was shot while unsuccessfully trying to reload with a badly injured hand--the official report seems to indicate that his BUG was in the shop for repairs. He had a great position early in the fight, had he been able to transition to a BUG rather than getting shot while trying to reload, things might have played out differently. Two other agents ended up fighting with their backup guns.
 
JohnKSa said:
...
Discussing a topic, providing reasons and experiences from personal life and history, does not rise to the level of "imposing choices on others".
Click to expand...
Didn't mean to infer it did. ;)

It's more that now that I'm no longer responsible for teaching and making sure folks conform to agency policy, I don't mind some polite discussion, but if/when someone has some other opinion or desire and wants to push a contrary opinion on me? Well, that's when I leave them to it and wish them well, and Exit, Stage Left, adopting the "Not my circus, and not my monkeys" tactic.

On this particular topic, though, even many of the best minds to have come along in the last 3-5 decades haven't exactly produced a solid consensus. If they haven't found common ground, it's not like the average gun owner and lawfully armed private person is going to find the secret. ;)

Yes, No & Maybe can serve different folks in questions like this one.
 
JohnKSa said:
So people should be prevented from raising the topic if anyone in the potential audience feels it's not valuable or enlightening? Couldn't that reasonably be defined as imposing on other people's choices?

It seems to me that a better solution (especially if the true concern is for everyone to be able to do as they choose) would be for people who don't want to discuss the topic or don't find it useful/enlightening to just skip it and leave it to the people who feel differently.
Click to expand...

Wait? What? Did I say that anyone ought to be prevented from discussing the topic? I'm perfectly willing, within the confines of polite discussion, to offer my own perspective (albeit it admittedly being influenced by my own LE training and experience). I thought my off-the-cuff comments in Post #5 covered my general thoughts.

When subjects like this come up among the gun owners at one of my cigar clubs, I'll offer my own opinions, explaining how they've been shaped by my training and experiences. They can disagree to whatever extent they wish, since it doesn't affect me and I'm not responsible for influencing, training or educating them. I've certainly ran across the occasional active or retired LE (line staff or trainer) and commercial/CCW firearms instructor, who have had some different experiences and training ... and therefore thoughts have varied.

It's not like it's a right/wrong, black/white topic in the broader sense, after all. ;)
 
Kleanbore said:
I don't think so. He was obviously selected for name recognition.

Mas could have selected Jim Cirillo after he had retired, but (1) few readers would have known the name and (2) he never had ro use either Glocks in anger.

It has to do with the art of journalism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, granted he's a well known historical figure from the "Wild West". At least, well known to those of use at least old enough to have grown up watching all those cowboy TV shows and movies that got us interested in the subject, anyway!

But there are plenty of more contemporary stories he could have used that would have been more relatable to the modern man.

But of course, it was published in Guns Magazine, a publication that isn't likely to be circulating much outside the tighter knit group of gun enthusiasts to the general public.
 
A lot of people seek to validate their choices in threads like this and sometimes get upset when they find out their personal choices aren't universally accepted. The truth is that everyone's circumstances are different unless they are in a military unit or a member of an LE agency where their choices are made for them by regulation, SOP or agency policy. Standardization is important to those people when performing their duties. For the rest of the time and for the rest of us, there are no right or wrong answers. There are only ways people chose to solve a problem and those solutions are not applicable to anyone but the person who chooses them.

This forum is a place to have conversations around these issues that bring together people from many different communities and experiences so that we can all learn from each other.
 
...if/when someone has some other opinion or desire and wants to push a contrary opinion on me?
Click to expand...
No one has. Perhaps we could wait for those complaints until it happens.
If they haven't found common ground, it's not like the average gun owner and lawfully armed private person is going to find the secret.
Click to expand...
There is no "the secret", it's going to be a different answer for everyone. In order for people to find the answer that works for them, they need to be informed. Exchanges like this one are a way that can happen, but there are others as well.
Did I say that anyone ought to be prevented from discussing the topic?
Click to expand...
The implication of your post was that if any member of the potential audience doesn't find the discussion enlightening or valuable then it shouldn't take place. Your repeated attempts to couch this discussion/exchange as an attempt to take away the ability of people to make their own choices, or an attempt to "push" an opinion seem to align with that general idea.

So, if I read you wrong, then I apologize. But it would be more appropriate to address the issues where you disagree rather than complain about people trying to restrict your choices or implying that everyone in the potential audience needs to feel a topic is enlightening or valuable before it should take place.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Yeah, granted he's a well known historical figure from the "Wild West". At least, well known to those of use at least old enough to have grown up watching all those cowboy TV shows and movies that got us interested in the subject, anyway!

But there are plenty of more contemporary stories he could have used that would have been more relatable to the modern man.

But of course, it was published in Guns Magazine, a publication that isn't likely to be circulating much outside the tighter knit group of gun enthusiasts to the general public.
Click to expand...

We could use Bill Jordan as a more modern American example. Was he one of the LE folks who endorsed the use of a .22MAG hideout gun?

I remember learning of a couple large agencies who approved the use of the old High Standard .22MAG derringer as a secondary weapon, admittedly back when those were still being produced. No doubt there were many others, or at least a lot more cops who decided on their own that the slim DAO .22MAG (or .22LR?) derringer was an ideal secondary/hideout option for up close. They went out of production in the mid-80's, I think?
 
fastbolt said:
We could use Bill Jordan as a more modern American example. Was he one of the LE folks who endorsed the use of a .22MAG hideout gun?

I remember learning of a couple large agencies who approved the use of the old High Standard .22MAG derringer as a secondary weapon, admittedly back when those were still being produced. No doubt there were many others, or at least a lot more cops who decided on their own that the slim DAO .22MAG (or .22LR?) derringer was an ideal secondary/hideout option for up close. They went out of production in the mid-80's, I think?
Click to expand...
Some company made a holster for them designed to attach to the strap of concealable body armor and they were marketed as a backup. I knew a couple guys who carried one that was as a third gun. I'm not aware of one ever being deployed in that role. I've said earlier that I have carried a Beretta 21 in .22LR in a pocket holster when that was the only gun I could reasonably conceal. The thing about carrying a weapon that size is that you have to be very aware of what you can and can't reasonably accomplish with it.
 
I think a lot of people balk at LEO experiences being used as justification for concealed carrier decision-making. I think that there are lessons to be learned even when the context is different, but I can see how people could have a different opinion on the topic.

Of course, finding situations where the context is exactly identical probably isn't going to happen, but there are some out there that people can probably identify with more closely. The problem is that it's much harder to find good solid experiences from the world of non-LEO concealed carry because non-LEOs:

1. Don't have badge cams.
2. Rarely have dash cams.
3. Rarely have any sort of useful after-action report published for their shootings.

That means that it's usually necessary to pick less than ideal examples and use them. So, the guy I mentioned who ended up shot 15x didn't use a backup gun, but it's not that hard to see how one COULD have helped him. Lance Thomas was a shop owner, not a guy mugged on the street or attacked in a road rage incident, so maybe he's not an ideal example of a concealed carrier, but we do see that he used backup guns effectively in some of his defensive encounters. We can look around for people who died with empty guns (if we can get a decent after action report that lets us know that's what happened) and assume that a backup gun COULD have helped. Etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Took Ayoob's MAG-20 class this weekend
Replies
2
Views
274
Hk Dan
H
PWC
  • Locked
Handloads vs commercial for delf-defense
Replies
5
Views
547
Kleanbore
K
threefeathers
  • Locked
Training classes to begin in Tucson and the dynamic little town of Ajo.
Replies
0
Views
176
threefeathers
threefeathers
trackskippy
Carry Options... Is your gun "shootable" under stress?
2 3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
4K
Barmcd
B
P
  • Locked
Draw Or Don't Draw?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
luzyfuerza
luzyfuerza
Back
Top