Good reasoning from Mas, as usual.
Have you seen his EDC article? He carries two guns, spare ammo for each, two phones, two wallets. I don’t have enough pockets for that.
Each must assess their own situation, convenience and risk tolerance (odds are low, but stakes are high).
I'd like to see that article, have a link? That's definitely some serious dedication...Originally Posted by Norville
I searched my history, and google w no luck, sorry.
Not sure if it was one of his usual outlets or a guest post / article.
Civilians having gunfights with criminals are random events occurring within communities. In a Texas border town the bad guy might have a different profile than a street criminal in a lily white Iowa community. Predicting with a high confidence level the bad guy's experience, skill level, mental health, and intent is not possible.
When I was active as in before poor health, I never carried a spare mag unless traveling. The reason was that I was too damn lazy. Those who do dress with a spare mag are merely taking precaution. Decades ago, I traveled with a loaded 870 riot gun as I made a score of trips between Texas and Mississippi. The same trooper in Tyler, Texas, would stop me because he wanted to buy my Marine Magnum.
I wrote this awhile ago in an argument that 5 is enough and you are nuts if you carry more. If can't do it in 5, you ain't getting the job done - Quote for a clerk in an Austin gun store (kind of a pompous jerk on several occasions). Added some new nuances.
Anyway:
From the desk of President Joe Biden:
It is necessary to keep handguns from the evil doers in our society. Selling even law abiding citizens handguns eventually creates a stock that may filter into the hands of criminals or rampagers through theft or unsupervised private sales. Join me in banning handguns in civilian use. As the experts on the gun forums say:
Still the odds of you ever having to use a gun defensively are still so incredibly slim. Even if you do, you will only fire 3 rounds at most. One round of 9mm will blow your lungs out. Why should civilians have such weapons when the odds of usage are so low - as said in the forums of gun supporters!
Given these odds why supply the instruments of thousands of suicides and the lethal tools of urban gun violence? We support the 2nd Amendment and the supporting use of bolt action rifles for hunting. As Senator Amy Klobuchar said as she ran against me, in evaluating gun laws: “Would this hurt my Uncle Dick in the deer stand?” As I said, a simple shotgun shot through the door or in the air will suffice. Semiautomatic weapons are too hard for the average citizen to master.
A handgun ban will not hurt Uncle Dick but will save lives!
Thank you.
President Joseph Biden.
------------
My point repeatedly is that you may carry what you want but to say that a 5 is enough gun is optimal is just foolish. It is a compromise due to circumstance or based on a misunderstanding of risk and statistics. The average doesn't always happen and one should think about a reasonable criterion in the more intense critical incidents. That level of significance is (from reasonable professionals) a semi and a reload. Spouting the mantra of carrying more isn't optimal is just evidence for the banning of higher capacity guns as the latter have the potential for rampages and gang usage.
Gunfights are, themselves, statistical anomalies, so, the accounting department of my brain could well conclude that I should carry more water, snacks, and dog treats, rather than carry any firearms, at all. One of my major hobbies is photography, so, I could carry a couple of extra lenses, rather than any handguns or ammo. Who needs guns, anyway?
As I see it, a defensive weapon allows me the opportunity to cast a vote, in the event of a gunfight. Spare ammo, and/or a second gun, allows me to vote more often.
Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.
Don’t tread on volcanos!
Tom Givens has described the problem as time in the fight. Also, that the lower capacity guns are described as one opponent guns. Now voting isn't the correct metaphor as you only should vote once.
This is one of the oldest debates in the modern gun world. There is no reason for not having an extra mag that makes sense. Why does this go on? So you are lazy, so you think you will only have an one opponent fight that has everything go well. Your gun works. You hit your target. The hit is effective - sure. Most drives in my car go well on a probability basis, but I still wear my seat belt for the low occurrence accident that would have launched me through my windshield. I still have sequela from that one.
Yes, I sometimes carry a J when constrained by dress, but there is a speed strip with me.
In our society today, my thought process has always been: "What's the worst that could happen?" To rely on a minimum number of bgs, shot location, firearm working flawlessly - when you have an alternative - could be fatal. Having a gun is absolutely required. Having the means to survive in the event of any unforeseen circumstances should be just as obvious.
Last edited by 11B10; 06-05-2022 at 10:31 AM.
"We are the domestic pets of a human zoo we call civilization."
Laurence Gonzales - "Deep Survival."
I believe Clint Smith may have commented on this as well.
My take, if you can carry extra do it.
Other things besides running out can happen that would require a spare source of ammunition.
What would it hurt to carry an extra magazine, a little more discomfort?
Better to have it and not need it, vs need it and not have it.
Last edited by dpadams6; 06-05-2022 at 01:33 PM.
Reply With Quote