How Do You Evaluate What's Necessary For EDC

[TunnelRat]

I'm almost positive I'm going to say this wrong but if Kleck is the recognized expert then his terminology is what's accepted. I agree there is a huge difference between a defensive display and a gun fight but apparently DGU is the accepted term.

Accepted by whom?

To an extent I think there’s an exaggerated emphasis put on terminology when it comes to firearms and the use of firearms. If a term gets a point across then I’m all for it. But here we have a term that apparently covers just drawing a firearm to dissuade an attack as well as actually shooting another person. That’s a bit nuts to me. Why not just say what you mean directly than leave that kind of ambiguity?

At a certain point I think the terminology becomes more about showing you’re “in the know” then what is actually gained by the terminology. And I say this as someone that’s done 29 training courses over a span of years and many instructors. Absent safety practices I’ve encountered instructors with varying philosophies and term usage. These were all people that had spent multiple decades of their lives in a combination of the military as well as law enforcement. Consensus hasn’t been overly common, in my experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnKSa]

Kleck was specifically trying to quantify how many times guns are USED in self-defense. H realized that most of the time when someone uses a gun in self-defense, the gun isn't even fired.

The anti-gunners had been trying to make the point that self-defense with guns was almost non-existent because they were only counting the times when someone was actually killed and it was ruled justifiable homicide. They were then using that statistic and arguing that if guns were only very rarely used for self-defense, that was one more strike against them.

Kleck's point was that trying to keep track of how often guns were useful for defense by only tracking dead attackers was massively under-reporting the actual usefulness of guns as defensive tools. It would be sort of like judging the effectiveness of law enforcement using ONLY the number of people legally killed by police and legally executed each year as if that is the only reasonable measure.

His study tracked all uses. Uses that involved the death of the attacker, those that involved only an injury to the attacker, those where the gun was fired and the attacker wasn't hit, those where the gun wasn't fired, and even those where the gun wasn't even actually displayed. The term he used to encompass all of those uses was 'Defensive Gun Uses' or DGU.

It was, in fact, specifically intended to encompass ALL possible uses of a gun for self-defense not just dead attackers, or even just shootings.

Was he wrong? Well, as far as I know, he coined the term so it's a little tricky to say that his definition isn't correct.

 

[TunnelRat]

I don’t believe I said he was wrong. My argument is it’s a term that seems to me overly broad. I understand his reasoning for it being that way in terms of calculating population statistics, but in the context of myself saying that I’ve had X number of defensive gun uses, there’s a dramatic difference between me displaying a firearm and me shooting a person, both in terms of the potential legal repercussions and the general perception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnKSa]

If it seems broad, it's probably because that was Kleck's explicit intent.

 

[TunnelRat]

And as I said, that makes sense in certain contexts. In terms of a person describing his or her personal defensive use of a firearm, it does not make sense, imo. Not when a person can be explicit in how he or she used that firearm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JohnKSa]

In terms of a person describing his or her personal defensive use of a firearm, it does not make sense, imo. Not when a person can be explicit in how he or she used that firearm.

It sounds like what you're saying is that it doesn't make sense to use the term in contexts in which it doesn't make sense to use the term. I definitely agree with that. Not because there's a problem with the term, but because that is a statement that could be applied accurately to any term.

What I don't understand is the implication that there's something wrong with it because it's broad and all-encompassing, not specific or descriptive. It is, by intent of the person who came up with it, not descriptive. It is expressly intended to be broad and all-encompassing and expressly intended to be non-specific and general as to the type of gun use.

It's kind of like saying: "I object to the term 'mathematics' because it's overly broad. It applies to arithmetic, to algebra, calculus, even to disciplines that don't involve the use of numbers at all. People should be specific instead of talking about 'mathematics'." General terms exist for a reason, just as there are reasons for more specific, descriptive terms to exist and be used.

in the context of myself saying that I’ve had X number of defensive gun uses, there’s a dramatic difference between me displaying a firearm and me shooting a person, both in terms of the potential legal repercussions and the general perception.

Yes, there are dramatic differences. The term DGU isn't intended to downplay those differences, it's intended to be a convenient collective term that encompasses all different kinds of gun uses (referring to the gun without even showing it, displaying one, drawing one, pointing one, shooting one, injuring someone with one, killing someone with one) that highlights the fact that guns are useful for self-defense in many different ways--specifically in many ways other than just killing an attacker.

Is it a useful term? Well, if a person wants to comment on all the times they have used guns defensively without being specific or descriptive about the incidents, I can't think of a better term than DGU. But they don't have to use it--a person can certainly be specific or descriptive if they choose to be.

 

[Moonglum]

And as I said, that makes sense in certain contexts. In terms of a person describing his or her personal defensive use of a firearm, it does not make sense, imo. Not when a person can be explicit in how he or she used that firearm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was very explicit. I said I've had a couple of defensive gun uses but I've never had to shoot anybody or even shoot at anybody. How much clearer do you want it?

Is there a specific reason you're trying to pull this thread off topic?

 

[TunnelRat]

I’m responding to its use in the context in which it was used. I feel like that’s fairly obvious.

I do not dislike all broad terms in general and yes they have their roles. I did not mean to convey a disdain for broad terms in general, merely to point out their potential limitations when used in regular conversation with others that may not be familiar with that term (notwithstanding that the originator of that term may well have both understood and specifically intended for those limitations).

I agree firearms can be employed in a number of ways, including not being discharged.

The point about discretion through use of a term is a good one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TunnelRat]

I was very explicit. I said I've had a couple of defensive gun uses but I've never had to shoot anybody or even shoot at anybody. How much clearer do you want it?

Is there a specific reason you're trying to pull this thread off topic?

I was having what I thought was simply going to be a short discussion with John and it continued. Sometimes discussions evolve and additional discussions appear. I can certainly stop discussing with John. I will say there aren’t a finite amount of words allowed to be posted in a thread and no one else was commenting so I’m not sure I’m causing harm. Regardless, I’ll respect your wishes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skippy]

I think this is an interesting conversation and not off-topic of the OP at all. I lean toward JohnKSa's interpretation of Kleck's definition off a DGU.

If the intent is to stop a threat and displaying a firearm does indeed stop the threat, then the intended result happened, whether there was actual gunfire or bloodshed or not.

Isn't "stopping the threat" the point?

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

 

[CDW4ME]

Of the handguns you own, what would you carry in the "bad" part of town, or an area of greater anticipated threat?
Strive to carry that everywhere, anywhere, anytime.
Because "bad" people are mobile and not completely nocturnal.

 

[Moonglum]

Of the handguns you own, what would you carry in the "bad" part of town, or an area of greater anticipated threat?
Strive to carry that everywhere, anywhere, anytime.
Because "bad" people are mobile and not completely nocturnal.

then why not "strive to carry" an AR pistol?

 

[FireForged]

Of the handguns you own, what would you carry in the "bad" part of town, or an area of greater anticipated threat?

Strive to carry that everywhere, anywhere, anytime.
Because "bad" people are mobile and not completely nocturnal.

Handguns are very minimalistic weapons but there are still circumstances where carrying a full size semi auto and reload is not practicable. That being said, it only makes sense to considering an honest assessment of risk and go from there. There are reasons that profiles, risk assessments, crime statistics and threat levels exist. Sure, anything can happen anywhere and anytime ( we get it), but carrying weapons is already a pain in the rear and I am simply not going to carry a 4.5" 19 round XDM everywhere I go. Sometimes is going to be a Ruger 380 LCP in the front pocket. I will stick with a thoughtful consideration of risk.

I will construct a plan to mitigate danger based on what I deem to be the most likely type and style of threat within my particular landscape. I accept that I might be wrong and if so, thats on me.

 

[JohnKSa]

I think we all make some level of concession to convenience when we choose a carry gun.

The important thing is that we understand what those concessions mean in terms of capability.

There's a strong tendency for people to rationalize, and that can result in unrealistic expectations of the capability of the system composed of us, our carry method, our carry gun and carry ammunition.

In the immortal words of Inspector Harold Francis Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations."

 

[Moonglum]

Can we "Like " a post here?

 

[TunnelRat]

I think we all make some level of concession to convenience when we choose a carry gun.

The important thing is that we understand what those concessions mean in terms of capability.

There's a strong tendency for people to rationalize, and that can result in unrealistic expectations of the capability of the system composed of us, our carry method, our carry gun and carry ammunition.

In the immortal words of Inspector Harold Francis Callahan, "A man's got to know his limitations."

The only thing I will add to this is that the tendency to rationalize goes both ways (not to say John was excluding this). By this I mean people will rationalize not needing more than a J frame and people will rationalize needing the AR9 in the backpack, as the OP mentions. It’s been my experience that when it comes to firearms most people take the choices they make seriously. Understandably, as on some level they think these choices might have a direct impact on their personal well being. Along with that seems to be the tendency to get defensive if they encounter someone else making a different decision, especially if it runs counter to their own. This isn’t unheard of in other areas, but firearms and the decisions related to them seem to make this more notable.

Whether it’s topping off a magazine, doing a press check, or carrying an AR9 in a backpack, I think the key is that we all make our own choices. Others may well disagree with the choices we make. Like John says the caveat is to know the limitations imposed by our choices. Certainly it is rewarding to read others doing the same as ourselves (confirmation bias is real). Sometimes it can be of value to think through the thought process of someone else to understand their decisions and consider potentially incorporating those into our own setup. If we end up not incorporating anything fair enough, but I know personally I can fall into the trap of being close minded at first. Discussions such as these are great for working through that decision process with others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zoo]

Sometimes it can be of value to think through the thought process of someone else to understand their decisions and consider potentially incorporating those into our own setup. If we end up not incorporating anything fair enough, but I know personally I can fall into the trap of being close minded at first. Discussions such as these are great for working through that decision process with others.

I agree with that, TR. While one risks being regarded as a troll, it is necessary at times in facilitating the ability of others to understand perspectives other than their/our own.

 

[stephen426]

When I started carrying, I had a Glock 26. That was 10+1 and could take full sized Glock mags. I didn't carry all the time and I did not carry a reload. I switched to a Kahr PM9 which was only 6+1 or 7+1 with the extended mag. Even though it was only 3-4 rounds less, I decided to start carrying spare mags. I made a pocket mag holster out of shipping envelope cardboard, Tyvex from a mailing envelope (for the inside line to be smooth and water resistant), and coated the outside with duct tape. Don't judge. It lasted for several years.

I switched to a Glock 43 due to the better trigger and had to make a new mag pocket holster. I decided to do it right and I bought some Kydex and Cordura and sewed my own. I put the plus two extensions from Ghost and was up to 23 rounds. Someone brought a Springfield Armory Hellcat and I made the mistake of shooting a few rounds through it. That is now my carry gun and I carry it with the flush fitting 11+1 and carry two 13 round mags (for a total of 38 rounds). I have an extra 13 round mag I can carry, but I don't use it because it has more of a chance of printing.

I practice at the shooting club using the Hellcat most of the time, and I carry the extra mags in my weak side back pocket like I always do. I can reload as fast as the other guys so I don't feel there is an issue with speed.

Do I feel I need 38-40 rounds of ammo? Nope. It is a lot easier and more stable to carry 2 mags so they don't shift in my pocket. It helps to keep them upright and properly oriented, and it looks more like a wallet than a spare mag.

 

[Viper225]

My normal everyday carry is a Glock G38.3 IWB with a factory 8 round magazine +1. I have carried for years and I am comfortable most days with 9 rounds on my person.
Sunday Church Security the round count goes up with 2 spare magazines on the belt, and some times when I wear a vest two more in the front pockets. These magazines all have +2 extensions upping the round count on a 45GAP magazine to 9 rounds. With people depending on me I do not plan on running out of ammo if things go bad.
Traveling out of town I will normally carry a double magazine pouch, and again some times the vest with two additional magazines.
Living close to a town like Mayberry I consider the threat level to be about as low as anywhere you can live.
We each need to determine the threat level where we live, work, and travel and arm ourselves accordingly for each threat level.

Bob R

 

[Nanuk]

Of the handguns you own, what would you carry in the "bad" part of town, or an area of greater anticipated threat?
Strive to carry that everywhere, anywhere, anytime.
Because "bad" people are mobile and not completely nocturnal.

Absolutely.

When I started carrying pistols for defense in the early 1980's I had a one question test.

"Is this the gun I want to be carrying if I am involved in a gunfight?".

Understanding that we have little control about what fights find us is part of the battle for the civilian CCW carrier.