Ladies and gentlemen, you can spin this debate anyway you want to but the fact remains that 99._% of the people that get designated as VICTIM on a police report, earn that title because they were unarmed. As it relates to the "enough gun" discussion, I repeat .... not because they had the wrong gun - they had no gun.
That paradigm is as old as dirt and it will never change.
The path of least resistance will seldom get you where you need to be.
The situation that got me to ignore the potential penalties for carrying was an employee got fired, which caused a loss of visa, which apparently caused a loss of their mind. Very graphic threats of active shooter-ing the business resulted, the guy was caught watching the business a few times in Creeper fashion, restraining orders, etc. I figured unless I was the first one shot (which was unlikely based on where I sat and he had no reason to target me specifically), draw time wasn't going to be a big deal, but the potential distances involved meant I was way ahead with a 5" 1911 vs a pocket gun. The company was a help desk/call center and was mostly big open bays.Originally Posted by David S.
Not really. The gun isn't a talisman that keeps you from being a victim.
That is key. Have a five shot revolver. Just have a plan to end the fight when it doesn't magically stop the bad guy. And have a plan for what to do when that five shot goes click on round six if that's what you needed to end the fight. But we could say the same thing about a Glock 19? Absolutely. The plan just needs to kick in a bit sooner with the five shot.
Does that mean a five shot plan is equal to the Glock 19 plan? No. But the self conversation it takes to make a plan mitigates a lot of the problems. And to be fair it also leads a lot of people to find a middle ground/gun such as a Shield, 42/43, etc type pistol.
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
So here's my the issue with these notion of "any gun is better than no gun" and the notion that simply being armed prevents you from being victimized (which is essentially the OC argument in a nut shell) is that it promotes a type of self delusion that leads to people getting in situations they shouldn't. They are over confident (and young cops are, as a whole, already suffering from this) and get their selves into situations they shouldn't because "I've got a gun." On the non-LEO side, why bother to seek training if just having a gun keeps you from being victimized?
Example from the recent PoliceOne news:
Off duty LEO decides to engage someone shooting up in the air. With his LCP. Which he shoots dry. Which leaves him using his prisoner as a human shield while a second shooter takes shots at him and all he can do is threaten with an empty gun. Would he have engaged with no gun? So tell me how "any gun is better than no gun" was better.
On the civilian side for cases I've worked:
1) Craigslist serial robbers who've never injured anyone, guy with an empty chamber pulls and gets killed. Was any gun better than no gun?
2) Serial carjackers, up to around 9 in two days without injuring anyone, guy reaches for off body carry and catches a bullet in his head. Was any gun better than no gun?
3) OC passenger of motorcycle targeted for gun grab, resulting in a legally bad shoot from the OC person. Was any gun better than no gun?
The people who complied lost property. The people who decided their magic talisman firearm could save the day died. Explain to me how any gun is better than no gun. Or how it keeps you from being victimized.
Then there are the host of criminal on criminal shootings. My absolute favorite is a dope turf war between Ugly and Porkskin. Ugly had a NAA revolver on a necklace. Porkskin had a .357 mag snubby. Porkskin (who had a lot of organic body armor, probably 350-ish pounds) walked to a church and asked for help. Ugly laid there and twitched. Neither were great shots but .357s to the gut seemed to work better than .22s to the gut. (Why this is my favorite is more of a roll call story thing)
A bit of a script flip, but a c-store robber shoots an IPD officer in the back of the head with a .25. The IPD officer thinks he's been punched, turns around, sees the gun, and ends up killing the robber. Was any gun better than no gun for the robber? It's tough to say shot placement and then in the same breath allow the carry of a cartridge that can't reliably penetrate after the shot is placed. The .25 isn't a reliable penetrator of the skull, won't break large bone, etc. The .32 is better, it's at least a fairly reliable suicide gun. Still nothing I'd carry unless my hands deteriorate to the point that's as good as I can get.
Our department policy sets the floor at .380 for anything you can qualify with for backup/off duty use. To suggest that caliber is irrelevant and shot placement is all that matters is ignoring how easy the mouse guns deflect, how little they penetrate, and how even with shot placement that would have let a duty caliber do it's job the mouse gun may fail. They will qualify you on a G42/43, but you will be told it's not a fighting handgun and that a Glock 26/27 is the recommended floor for off duty carry. They recognize the reality that not everyone will carry a double stack, but does not pretend all guns are equal to spare your feelings or to allow you a false sense of confidence.
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 08-01-2017 at 10:16 AM.
All true, but my point was armed/unarmed isn't what makes people victims. There's plenty of armed victims, and plenty of people who would still have been victims even if armed with an AK. What keeps people from being victims is largely mindset. Not acting like prey and not going where predators dwell sort of thing.
I agree with that also. I know people who have a self defense plan that looks very similar to mine but they don't carry any arms. I can respect that. If a person doesn't/won't/can't carry a pistol then having a comprehensive plan is even more important than if armed (or we can argue just as important). But once the gunfight is needed/starts/etc then that plan might be inadequate. Hence, when you need a gun, you need a gun. At that point it's back to, how much gun do we need.
So two different arguments or perhaps an extension on the same plan to cover more needs?
What you do right before you know you're going to be in a use of force incident, often determines the outcome of that use of force.
You are missing my point. I have used the work OPTION over and over. That is what having a small gun (or a large one for that matter) is. One is decent, two is better, three...get my point? If you have nothing, you have eliminated a potential option you might otherwise have.
You're an idiot to take any type of enforcement action off-duty. Period. Defend life when necessary yes, but deciding to "be the police" without backup, gear, and radio is foolish. If you decide to take action with a 380, or a 9mm or an AR for that matter, off-duty and out of uniform, then you are a fool.
Becoming overconfident in a small gun is folly, but if having one as a "last ditch" option can save you, then why not?
It's both.
She is physically tiny. Her physique and current wardrobe limits (a physical or "hardware" issue) limits her concealment options with that particular gun. My 442 or her Shield look like full size guns in her hand. So there is a limiting factor that most of us posting here probably don't have to deal with. It took a lot of effort to get her comfortable with the full-size M&P (which she is now).
She is under the false impression, one that seems to be propagated in this very thread, that a gun firing anything less than 9mm +P is useless and not worth carrying (a software issue). Hence, she believes that the smallest option available to her is the Shield and since she can't conceal it under her current wardrobe she carries it off-body in a purse.
As stated, in an ideal situation, she would change her wardrobe and figure out a way to conceal the Shield on her body. The reality is that she probably will not, so I would like her to realize (software) that a small gun as a "back-up" to the gun in her purse is an option to consider.
I got your point. I just disagree with it. Recommending a .25 for an off duty LEO is an option, but not one I agree with or find valid. I disagree with your first post that we should rethink calling them weak and ineffective. Even if they are allowed, their weakness should be emphasized, not glossed over.
Reply With Quote