Why the hypocrisy on handgun capacity?

[wild cat mccane]

The P365 is a game changer. Volume alone proves the point.

Your typical 15 rounder looks massive next to it and Kahr/Diamondback are the only current production 9mm guns smaller.

It shoots with Sig xray sights that present to the eye just like the massive P226 Legion with Sig xray sights.

That's not a fad. It nearly killed off all single stack purchases when it came out. This is easily seen as all single stack sellers discounted their guns when the P365 came out, typically by $100.

 

[Rob228]

The P365 is a game changer. Volume alone proves the point.

I could not believe how small the P365 was when I first held one. Shot great too. I just can't justify another 9mm even if it fits the bill perfectly.

 

[totaldla]

The P365 is a game changer. Volume alone proves the point.

Your typical 15 rounder looks massive next to it and Kahr/Diamondback are the only current production 9mm guns smaller.

It shoots with Sig xray sights that present to the eye just like the massive P226 Legion with Sig xray sights.

That's not a fad. It nearly killed off all single stack purchases when it came out. This is easily seen as all single stack sellers discounted their guns when the P365 came out, typically by $100.

No, it is a fad. It is part of the "not really easy to shoot and too big to drop in your pocket" fad of guns for mal-informed first-time pistol owners. Just one of a plethora of handguns that are both mediocre shooters and concealers. Volume of sales? Hmmm, well the Judge and Governor sold well too...

IMHO of course.

 

[OldMarksman]

....whether it’s violent crime, wildfires, etc there are statistical differences in risk that vary by location and environment.

Certainly.

However, while relevant local statistical differences may well be important to individual decision making, one's individual experience cannot be.

It is likely that a substantial majority of people in almost all US jurisdictions have never met anyone who needed a concealed weapon, or are unaware of it. Until he met me, my long-time neighbor was in that category. That does not tell us anything about his risk exposure--just his awareness. That is also true of many of my fellow retirees.

But none of that is relevant to the subject of the OP. When a use of force incident does occur, the requirement will be what it is, regardless of how the likelihood of occurrence may have been assessed beforehand.

 

[TunnelRat]

However, while relevant local statistical differences may well be important to individual decision making, one's individual experience cannot be.

But none of that is relevant to the subject of the OP. When a use of force incident does occur, the requirement will be what it is, regardless of how the likelihood of occurrence may have been assessed beforehand.

One’s individual experience is part of that local data, just as in your own example. The key is to understand that the people a person knows is likely a very small subset of the overall data, even on a local level. Then as you said is the reality that even if a use of force incident hasn’t occurred in your local area doesn’t mean it can’t happen. But someone may look at that and decide they don’t “need” to carry X pistol or X capacity. Again, my main point in my responses is how risk assessment can vary person to person.

If the risk assessment was done with some degree of correctness there is hopefully some degree of correlation between the results of that assessment and the actuality. This of course isn’t a given. Finding access to meaningful data to make a good assessment isn’t always easy, especially in a field that is often anecdotal.

Chris Baker of Lucky Gunner looked in part of the often repeated rule of 3s (3 shots at 3 yards in 3 seconds). Specifically he looked at the distance question. Some of his findings in looking for data might be interesting to people interested in this topic.

https://youtu.be/l81Qs096Nho


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[totaldla]

One’s individual experience is part of that local data, just as in your own example. The key is to understand that the people a person knows is likely a very small subset of the overall data, even on a local level. Then as you said is the reality that even if a use of force incident hasn’t occurred in your local area doesn’t mean it can’t happen. But someone may look at that and decide they don’t “need” to carry X pistol or X capacity. Again, my main point in my responses is how risk assessment can vary person to person.

If the risk assessment was done with some degree of correctness there is hopefully some degree of correlation between the results of that assessment and the actuality. This of course isn’t a given. Finding access to meaningful data to make a good assessment isn’t always easy, especially in a field that is often anecdotal.

Chris Baker of Lucky Gunner looked in part of the often repeated rule of 3s (3 shots at 3 yards in 3 seconds). Specifically he looked at the distance question. Some of his findings in looking for data might be interesting to people interested in this topic.

https://youtu.be/l81Qs096Nho


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I liked that Lucky Gunner video - thanks for posting it.

 

[TunnelRat]

I liked that Lucky Gunner video - thanks for posting it.

You’re welcome.

Baker has a whole series of videos that cover home and self defense topics. His videos are some of the most even handed I’ve personally seen, in that he isn’t really trying to sell you a product and he doesn’t seem to let his own personal biases overly affect the message. A number of the topics are relevant to audiences of varying skill levels as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moonglum]

Apparently this is not enough to handle a threat despite the fact that 3 shots are what it usually takes to handle a self defense situation according to FBI stats.

Which FBI stats? Can you cite the report?

 

[gryphon1911]

It's all about the tactical advantage.

Any reliable gun is better than no gun. 10 rounds are better than 8, 15 is better than 10, and 20 is better than 15.

You carry what you can and what you want...but if you have the opportunity to better your position, why would you not?

You have to do your best to see and prepare for the worst case scenario and have a response ready.

From everything I've researched, from .380ACP and up, terminal ballistics are close enough to not make a huge difference. stopping threats average around 2 shots in center mass/head.

However, you gotta think, am I always going to hit the target with each shot? How many assailants do I need to engage? Will I need to employ covering/suppressive fire?

If an engagement takes more shots than what you are carrying, then usually that is a pretty dire situation...and I've never heard of anyone complaining that they had too many rounds left over after engagement. This is not "right sizing", this is your or someone else's life. Not heard of someone complaining after a self defense situation about having too many rounds left...usually, if they run dry, they were wishing for more and most that I know of upgraded their situation and purchased a new firearm with more capacity. Even mag changes can be problematic unless you practice habitually.

Do that research and find out what is the most prevalent crime in your areas of travel and at home and prepare accordingly.
You and your families/neighbors defense is an ongoing evolving thing. Times change, crimes change, tactics change...and so should you, accordingly.

 

[44 AMP]

Will I need to employ covering/suppressive fire?

If you're considering covering/suppressive fire, you've moved out of the realm of self defense and into the area of armed combat.

Remember that the law only justifies lethal force under certain specific conditions, and I think suppresive fire isn't likely to be one of them...

COMBAT and Self defense are not the same things, even though they do have some common elements.

Don't do what the TV and movie stars do, it won't work out as well for you as it does for them....

 

[cashel]

The amount of rounds one carries is directly connected to how Paranoid the person is
about their safety.
If you are a very Paranoid about a bad guy could get you, you will carry more rounds.
If you simply have a low level of Paranoia and you're just caring for protection of you and your family, you'll carry less rounds. If you're Paranoid about, you are not really a good shot you'll carry more rounds etc, etc, on and on and on. forever

There aren't any more rules, you carry based on how your brain works and what it tells you to do.

 

[gryphon1911]

If you're considering covering/suppressive fire, you've moved out of the realm of self defense and into the area of armed combat.

Remember that the law only justifies lethal force under certain specific conditions, and I think suppresive fire isn't likely to be one of them...

COMBAT and Self defense are not the same things, even though they do have some common elements.

Don't do what the TV and movie stars do, it won't work out as well for you as it does for them....

Again, you are not thinking through all possible scenarios. If you have a car full of gang bangers, or are trapped in a convenience store and you have more than one assailant and you have to fight your way to an exit door to get your loved ones out, suppressive fire might be your best bet to keep their heads down and for you to make your egress.

Not saying that should be the first option to "spray and pray", but you never know what you'll find yourself facing. Again, why not give yourself the tactical advantage of being able to respond like that if needed?

 

[gryphon1911]

The amount of rounds one carries is directly connected to how Paranoid the person is
about their safety.
If you are a very Paranoid about a bad guy could get you, you will carry more rounds.
If you simply have a low level of Paranoia and you're just caring for protection of you and your family, you'll carry less rounds. If you're Paranoid about, you are not really a good shot you'll carry more rounds etc, etc, on and on and on. forever

There aren't any more rules, you carry based on how your brain works and what it tells you to do.

I'm not sure I buy much, if any of that.

 

[TunnelRat]

Again, you are not thinking through all possible scenarios. If you have a car full of gang bangers, or are trapped in a convenience store and you have more than one assailant and you have to fight your way to an exit door to get your loved ones out, suppressive fire might be your best bet to keep their heads down and for you to make your egress.

Not saying that should be the first option to "spray and pray", but you never know what you'll find yourself facing. Again, why not give yourself the tactical advantage of being able to respond like that if needed?

In the situation you describe, I think I’d keep what rounds I had for shots on target rather than suppressing fire. I also don’t have the luxury of knowing for certain what/who might be in the direction I’m suppressing. Potentially killing a bystander to provide “suppressing fire” on a target that may well have moved doesn’t seem like something that will do well from a legal standpoint either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OldMarksman]

44 AMP nailed it.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

That said, all sorts of security camera videos on You Tube document cases where someone pumping gas or fishing or walking to their car in a mall parking lot was suddenly accosted by 2 or 3 people.

You can be set upon by more than one adversary...close range, immediately in your face.

 

[cashel]

People are giving all kind of stats trying to develop a reason for why/should people carry different amounts of ammo.
People that CC are a extremely small % of the population and the amount gun fights that happen with CC people are again a very very small amount and when compared with the very small amount of people that CC. So conceal carrying a gun is not natural, it's protecting oneself against something that one believes will happen that practically never happens. You may not like the word paranoid but that explains what one needs to be to carry a firearm. I happen to CC sometimes and yes I'm paranoid at some level that something could happen but the amount of rounds matters far less

If you extend that to driving a car, the possibility of you getting killed in a car crash are far greater than being shot and killed by a bad guy. How many rounds one carries is not material but the more paranoid one is the more rounds they will carry. I know a fellow that won't leave the house without carrying 4- 21 round mags. Will you say that is a natural thing to do, I say he's very paranoid.

 

[OldMarksman]

It's not the odds, it's the stakes.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

To quote a line from the Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Paranoia implies an *irrational* fear - a perception without any basis in reality.

Concealed carry of firearms represents a rational response to a potential encounter which, if it occurs, offers the victim very few options. In fact, two - submit or die. Frequently it may involve "submit AND die".

Therefore, seeking a third response involving neither submitting NOR dying - when both national and local statistics clearly indicate armed threats occur - is the opposite of "irrational".

CC may be described using many adjectives, but "paranoid" is not accurate.

 

[cashel]

Paranoia psychological definition...".Thinking and feeling you are threatened in some way even if there is no proof there is one' That's a fact, not my definition google it.