Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 67 of 67

Thread: Maryland Shooting

  1. #61
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Quote Originally Posted by jd950 View Post

    I predict the internet is about to be deluged with "Shoot his ass!" GIFS and memes.
    Since pretty much every internet source on which the video was posted decided within a few hours that we should not be allowed to hear the commentary and deleted the audio, I retract my prediction. I suppose I should have realized that would happen.

  2. #62
    Member MVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    MI
    Quote Originally Posted by Clusterfrack View Post
    Fighting people with sticks can be tricky. Moving back put the LEO right on the X. Understandable but not the right answer. Does typical FoF DT training include getting attacked by sticks, clubs, or bats?

    ]
    Not sure I can speak to "typical", but all FOF I have done has addressed impact, edged, and ballistic weapons.

  3. #63
    Where the video continues after the aggressor collapses (not shown in this video clip) the aggressor's legs aren't moving, which suggests to me the last shot disrupted his spinal cord compelling him to fall down.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul D View Post
    It is stuff like this that makes me debate whether I should be carrying a my Glock 43 for deep concealment at all. When I practice with it, half of the ammo is used for immediate incapacitation drills. It is definitely harder to hit a smaller target with a smaller gun, but I only have at most 9 rounds so I better make them count.
    I cannot tell you how many times my thoughts have run the same route as yours, Paul.

    Whenever I even get close to thinking about trading what little terminal ballistic performance offered by a full-size pistol there really is in any given ''full-power'' service caliber for the ''convenience'' of a more compact pistol (3'' - 3½'' barrel) in a lesser caliber, videos like the one seen in the OP make me reconsider the reduction of performance (both terminally and ergonomically) that just might make a difference in how things will end on the unfortunate day that I am forced by the actions of another to act in my own/loved ones' defense. Going to a cartridge that offers even less performance—like a .380—makes even less sense to me when considering changing those parameters.

    My ''plain-jane'' stock (except for some Heinie target sights) Glock 17 lays flat enough not to 'print' in (I carry 3 o'clock OWB 99% of the time) and the additional 1'' - 1½'' barrel length (which is really an asset) isn't much of an issue to conceal with the right cover garment even in the summer.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 06-16-2021 at 08:33 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

  5. #65
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    I am not saying you guys are wrong; just adding another element for consideration. Our normal thought processes lead us to initially think to ourselves that it took “X” number of rounds to incapacitate someone in a situation like this. I.E., the last round was the one that “worked.” With the exception of certain limited and hard-to-achieve shot placements, or a shot that immediately disables a limb, incapacitation is often not immediate, based on my experience and training. People can continue to be functioning and aggressive for quite some time after suffering significant wounds that will eventually incapacitate or kill after sufficient blood loss, or other factors. And, when a bullet wound does immediately incapacitate, it may be as much a psychological reaction to being shot as a physiological one. I have seen people fall down and act like they are dying with “minor” GSW, and others keep fighting with catastrophic injuries. When bad guy fell in this incident, it could have been from the first round, or the second, or the last, or the cumulative effect of all them...I have no details as to where those rounds ended up or what kind of ammunition was involved, etc.

    In other words, in this situation, the aggressor might have stopped his aggression just as soon had he only been shot once or twice and the subsequent shots may have made no real difference to the timeline. If so, then gun capacity and caliber are not significant. I am not saying that is the case, of course, and in a defensive situation, more ammo and better ammo is a good thing, but there are many factors that go into the incapacitation issue.

    Besides, from his movements and facial expression, I am fairly sure the bad guy was a zombie, and they are harder to incapacitate, or so I am told.







    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    I cannot tell you how many times my thoughts have run the same route as yours, Paul.

    Whenever I even get close to thinking about trading what little terminal ballistic performance offered by a full-size pistol there really is in any given ''full-power'' service caliber for the ''convenience'' of a more compact pistol (3'' - 3½'' barrel) in a lesser caliber, videos like the one seen in the OP make me reconsider the reduction of performance (both terminally and ergonomically) that just might make a difference in how things will end on the unfortunate day that I am forced by the actions of another to act in my own/loved ones' defense. Going to a cartridge that offers even less performance—like a .380—makes even less sense to me when considering changing those parameters.

    My ''plain-jane'' stock (except for some Heinie target sights) Glock 17 lays flat enough not to 'print' in (I carry 3 o'clock OWB 99% of the time) and the additional 1'' - 1½'' barrel length (which is really an asset) isn't much of an issue to conceal with the right cover garment even in the summer.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by jd950 View Post
    I am not saying you guys are wrong; just adding another element for consideration. Our normal thought processes lead us to initially think to ourselves that it took “X” number of rounds to incapacitate someone in a situation like this. I.E., the last round was the one that “worked.” With the exception of certain limited and hard-to-achieve shot placements, or a shot that immediately disables a limb, incapacitation is often not immediate, based on my experience and training. People can continue to be functioning and aggressive for quite some time after suffering significant wounds that will eventually incapacitate or kill after sufficient blood loss, or other factors. And, when a bullet wound does immediately incapacitate, it may be as much a psychological reaction to being shot as a physiological one. I have seen people fall down and act like they are dying with “minor” GSW, and others keep fighting with catastrophic injuries. When bad guy fell in this incident, it could have been from the first round, or the second, or the last, or the cumulative effect of all them...I have no details as to where those rounds ended up or what kind of ammunition was involved, etc.

    In other words, in this situation, the aggressor might have stopped his aggression just as soon had he only been shot once or twice and the subsequent shots may have made no real difference to the timeline. If so, then gun capacity and caliber are not significant. I am not saying that is the case, of course, and in a defensive situation, more ammo and better ammo is a good thing, but there are many factors that go into the incapacitation issue.

    Besides, from his movements and facial expression, I am fairly sure the bad guy was a zombie, and they are harder to incapacitate, or so I am told.

    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    I cannot tell you how many times my thoughts have run the same route as yours, Paul.

    Whenever I even get close to thinking about trading what little terminal ballistic performance offered by a full-size pistol there really is in any given ''full-power'' service caliber for the ''convenience'' of a more compact pistol (3'' - 3½'' barrel) in a lesser caliber, videos like the one seen in the OP make me reconsider the reduction of performance (both terminally and ergonomically) that just might make a difference in how things will end on the unfortunate day that I am forced by the actions of another to act in my own/loved ones' defense. Going to a cartridge that offers even less performance—like a .380—makes even less sense to me when considering changing those parameters.

    My ''plain-jane'' stock (except for some Heinie target sights) Glock 17 lays flat enough not to 'print' in (I carry 3 o'clock OWB 99% of the time) and the additional 1'' - 1½'' barrel length (which is really an asset) isn't much of an issue to conceal with the right cover garment even in the summer.
    While I mostly agree with your line of thought as it relates to the futility of attempting to guess the number of bullets that it takes to incapacitate a particular subject or which specific round might've been ''the one'' that brought an end to the subject's actions, I am not sure why you quoted my latest post. Rather, my post, addresses the balances/compromises of a given cartridge's terminal performance vs. the relative convenience and comfort of carrying a smaller firearm. I didn't comment on anything regarding your line of thought. Perhaps I missed something?


    The guy was a zombie. Obviously he was craving brains and that is why he was using a stick to crack the cop's skull open.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection. www.quantitativeammunitionselection.com

  7. #67
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    I was just trying to identify the comments I was discussing and should have responded to the earlier posts instead of the last post by you. Sorry to sidetrack your comments.


    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    WI am not sure why you quoted my latest post. Rather, my post, addresses the balances/compromises of a given cartridge's terminal performance vs. the relative convenience and comfort of carrying a smaller firearm. I didn't comment on anything regarding your line of thought. Perhaps I missed something?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •