Being unable to shoot more than one assailant at a time is not an assumption, it's a fact.
You can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger.
Please explain to me how an auto is going to make you less screwed than a revolver, when being attacked by multiple attackers.
Only Cow Yun Fat and Jackie Chan can fight more than one man at a time, and only in movies (fiction, ever heard of it?).
Jim Cirillo did not have the ammo available to him that we have now.
And, the fact that it was his job to get into gunfights with armed assailants is very relevant. His job was to confront extremely violent pairs/groups of men who were robbing businesses. His involvement in multiple gunfights was a forgone conclusion.
The same is not true for us. We can avoid most situations where a weapon would be required. We can avoid bad areas (most of the time). He could not. It was his JOB to intervene in such situations.By the very nature of his job, he was going to get into gunfights with multiple assailants.
He also was not doing it alone. Had he been doing that job by himself all that time, he would have been dead, regardless of what gun he had, short of full auto and head to toe armor.
Lance Thomas? What does an overpaid athlete have to do with this?
I'm kidding.
In some ways, your example of Lance Thomas is a great one.
In other ways, it's not.
His profession of being a Rolex dealer put him into a high risk situation in any city.
Jewelers tend to have good security for good reason. I knew one who kept an Uzi under the counter. Yes, an actual Israeli Uzi.
Lance's decision to go with autos over revolvers was based on his personal feelings that they would serve him better than his revolvers would. Truth is, they did not.
His revolvers never jammed on him, as did his SIG 9mm.
He ended his first fight with only 3 of 5 rounds from a Chief's Special.
In his fights, he was lucky enough to have had the majority of his assailants not be fully committed to the violent act. Some of them stayed and fought, others had stronger wills to live.
He was an extreme case. An exceedingly rare case. The vast majority of people who get into armed confrontations (among non-LEOs) do not experience what he did.
He also did just as well with his revolvers as he did with his autos, except that he appeared to have to shoot the BGs more times with his autos than with his revolvers.
Could have been ammo choice, but it's damned foolish to try to make an argument against a 125 grain .357 magnum projectile being the top of the heap in terms of handgun manstoppers.
Yes, some men require a lot of killin'. That being the case, how would any handgun fare better than a load of 12 gauge buckshot that failed to stop a BG?
I can see where a 12 gauge slug would fare better, but not a revolver nor autopistol round.
I stand by my factual statement about mall ninjas. I've never met one who didn't fit my description.
You wouldn't be a mall ninja, would you? You protest as though it hits too close to home.
Feel free to disagree with me all you want. It's a free country and you are allowed to do so. But, once I become dictator, you're going to the gulag.
BTW, I have and still do carry autos AND revolvers.
Sometimes I carry a 1911, SR9, PT99, CZ82, CZ52, PT111, TZ75, Witness .45, M45 Firestar. Not all at the same time. Might as well carry a cop, as to carry that much iron.
Sometimes I carry a Colt, Smith, Ruger, Taurus .38, Smith, Ruger, DW .357, Charter .44 Spl, Taurus .44 Mag, Ruger .44 Spl, Ruger .45 Colt, Ruger .44 Mag, Ruger .32 H&R, Smith .32 S&W Long.
Depends on my mood.
My Smith 36 is the one that goes everywhere with me.
Sometimes my Taurus Judge goes loaded with .410 birdshot. It's a snake gun for me, and nothing more.
Anyhoo, have a nice day.
