a handgun is only for when you can't get to a long gun for self defense.
- Thread starter cajun47
- Start date
- Status
Rexter already brought up a bit of this, but I have another angle on it. IMO Dinkeller used the best gun for THAT situation. Even though he hesitated, it still was not enough time to retrieve a long arm. The only real possible option I could see is if he took cover in his squad car and was able to get a long arm out of a cab mount. HOWEVER, the bad guy still would've been able to close in on him before a long arm could be manuvered for any advantage. By the time the bad guy presented a view of the M1 carbine, Dinkeller probably should've been shooting his sidearm, not taking time to take out his own long arm.
In law enforcement, locked shotguns or rifles (either in the cab or trunk) are for when you have time before you know you're going to need it (as in taking it out before responding to a call or if for some reason time at the scene allows it). Dinkeller didn't know he needed any gun until his only option was his sidearm.
And now, if I never see that video again I'll be a happy man.
NMGonzo
Member
My shotgun and my AR are not as handy as my handguns.
But when the dogs are barking at night I go and check with the shotgun in hand and the pistol on my waist.
During the daytime, it's just the pistol.
But when the dogs are barking at night I go and check with the shotgun in hand and the pistol on my waist.
During the daytime, it's just the pistol.
I have to agree with Bubba and others, how do you justify self defense if it took a rifle to reach out to "defend" yourself?
Unless some is shooting at you with a rifle or shotgun you can hardly justify that a handgun isn't sufficient for defense.
Unless some is shooting at you with a rifle or shotgun you can hardly justify that a handgun isn't sufficient for defense.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
It really isn't quite that simple (though close).
As many others have said, what most folks think of as "self-defense" happens up close and VERY fast, 90% of the time. You may have the time to get to a handgun on your belt, hopefully.
Home defense may be a little different, as we hope that our layers of security afford us some amount of warning so that we may have time to retrieve a more powerful weapon. Nothing wrong with using a shotgun (or even a carbine) at home-defense distances, and there are realistic advantages to doing so.
The idea that we may really need to reach-out-and-touch-someone in a self-defense scenario is pretty far-fetched, however. There have been a few reports of some citizen being shot at from more than a few yards away, but that is a very unusual situation. Except for being "sniped" from ambush, which you really can't defend against in any practical way (and, Malvo & co. aside, how often does this happen?) what kind of robbery or assault takes place from 100 yds. away? And if it were to happen that way, the proper response would generally be to MOVE -- vacate the area entirely and notify the police -- not go get your rifle, return to the area, and shoot back.
In an instance of massive civil unrest where you could possibly be justified in defending a perimeter ... maybe ... you could need to take a shot at some distance. But, again, that's a specific situation that comes with plenty of warning.
"Self-defense" happens close, fast, and when you aren't expecting it. A handgun EXISTS for this situation.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Elmar66 said:
It's not about "a fair fight", it's about defending yourself. Self defense is about wining the battle that has been brought upon you. It's about putting an end to the aggression. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to shuffle through a bag full of guns to come up with the 'appropriate' weapon. I don't even have the strength to carry a bag full of guns.
When I go to the mall, I take the Suburban and I do not tow a full sized sedan and a mini just in case I don't buy enough to fill up the Suburban. The Suburban covers it all just fine. It's not "too much vehicle", it's just "vehicle". On the same token, it's not "too much gun", it's just "gun".
Woody
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Woody, I think you missed his point. He's repeating the common (and largely factual) point that the longer the DISTANCE you have to shoot in a self-defense scenario, the more questionable the justifiability of that homicide. That's what he meant by, "...reach out to 'defend' yourself." Outside of some pretty unique circumstances (some "castle doctrine" situations on your own land -- and only in some states), if you shoot someone from 50+ yards away (and likely even closer than that) you're going to have some heavy-duty explaining to do as to why you had to take that shot.
Of course, if you MUST defend yourself in some instance where you happen to have a rifle or shotgun handy, by all means USE them!
But your analogy of going to the mall with several vehicles is ironically apt. There is a chance that you may find yourself at the mall and in need of a defensive weapon. And, of course, the most powerful defensive weapon you own would be nice to have under those circumstances. However, vanishingly few of us would have our carbines or shotguns or MBRs with us in Victoria's Secret or the Cinnabon.
Which all goes back to my previous point about not keeping a rifle or shotgun in the car just in case I want to run outside to get it and then run back inside to shoot it out with the bad guys. If I can get out, I'm LEAVING!
Of course, if you MUST defend yourself in some instance where you happen to have a rifle or shotgun handy, by all means USE them!
But your analogy of going to the mall with several vehicles is ironically apt. There is a chance that you may find yourself at the mall and in need of a defensive weapon. And, of course, the most powerful defensive weapon you own would be nice to have under those circumstances. However, vanishingly few of us would have our carbines or shotguns or MBRs with us in Victoria's Secret or the Cinnabon.
Which all goes back to my previous point about not keeping a rifle or shotgun in the car just in case I want to run outside to get it and then run back inside to shoot it out with the bad guys. If I can get out, I'm LEAVING!
Is your "stuff" worth your life? Isn't that what insurance is for? If the suspect is really out to hurt you, what's to stop them from hiding in a blind spot and picking you off like a rabbit? Just seems like way too much of a risk to prevent loss of material items.
Also, I suspect there's very good reason why SWAT teams, etc train extensively in close quarters, building clearing scenarios.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Sam1911 said:
If someone is charging me from 50 yards with ax, spear, sword, pitchfork, firearm or whatever weapon in hand, I'm taking the shot, be it with a hand gun or long gun. If someone is after you, does it matter how far away you perceive the threat and act? If there is no perceived threat, then yeah, don't shoot no matter what weapon you hold. 'Course the person might approach in a nonchalant, passive manner and whip out something right when they reach you. So, there is no "right" answer. It's what you perceive as a threat that will cause/justify your response.
I don't often frequent Victoria's Secret or even Cinabon - though I've peeked - but I would be carrying the biggest arm allowed by the law if I were to - eh - shop there. Carrying the carbine stuffed in my pants might be problematic - and certainly raise a question of how happy I was to be shopping there. But then, in either store, it would be difficult to be more than 50 yards or even 50 feet away from a threat.
As for the big guns kept in the trunk, you're right. I wouldn't rush back in after making it out alive except under extreme circumstances like a family member being trapped, or to do the right thing in the case of an unfettered mass murderer on a spree. And then, it would only be if my hand gun were empty or ineffective.
My long gun in the trunk is only for SHTF, EOTWAWKI, or hunting convenience.
Bottom line, do what you gotta do with what you have to avoid being carried by six. You'll have a chance to talk to the twelve. Otherwise, your assailant will make the choices for you.
Woody
KodiakBeer
member
No, but certain principles are. What's mine is mine. I live a long distance from the nearest cop, and I'm not going to sit in my bedroom with a rifle and shotgun while somebody carts my stuff away.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That might be justifiable and/or the right thing to do, or it might not. (I'd try verbal dissuasion and give them just about every chance to cease and desist before firing at them. And I'd probably also be trying to retreat to a position of cover.) But how often does this happen? Is this a very realistic self-defense scenario? Someone psychotic enough and/or suicidal enough to charge a man, who is armed with a rifle, with a contact weapon from 50 yds. away? Yeah, if that happens, you've got a legally defensible shoot, in many states. I said there were a few cases where that would be true.
Is this enough reason to spend your days toting a rifle everywhere you go? Even among our most enthusiastic self-defense fans, "I carry a rifle everywhere in case someone charges me with a pitchfork from 50 yds. away" is going to sound ... what's the word? ... ahh, yes... "Nuts."
Yes. It can. If you can reasonably escape, warn off the attacker, and/or use some other means of deescalating the situation. "Means, motive, and opportunity," remember? Someone charging you with a pitchfork doesn't really have the means to harm you until they are fairly close. Finding just about ANY other way out of the situation other than killing them is going to be a better outcome.
Look up the recent thread from one of our members who nearly shot a man waving a knife at him. He probably would have been justified in killing him at almost any point. Fortunately for all involved, the man suddenly dropped the knife, apologized, and admitted he had Alzheimer's and was disoriented.
Really? I mean, REALLY? You carry the largest firearm allowed by law when you go shopping? Let's assume that for the sake of argument, that's just an M1A or Garand or even an AR-15. When you go get your groceries or visit the dentist or go peek at Cinnabons (?) you lug that rifle along with you?
If so, wow. But not very many other folks do.
(If that was a joke, I apologize. I can't figure which way you meant it.)
Officers'Wife
Member
Hmmm, then are you saying if the opponent is armed only with a knife you can hardly justify the use of a handgun? How about if attacked by a dog it's only fair to only use your teeth. Self defense is the act of removing a deadly threat, period- end of sentence. If your intention is peaceful enjoyment of your life and someone else has the intention of visiting violence on you that person has lost his expectation of that mythical creature, a fair fight.
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
SWAT tactics utilize multiple members with multiple firearms, flash-bang grenades, battering ram, bullet proof vests, etc. They converge on a building/location because they've been called to a specific, known contained situation. Then, only after negotiations have broken down do they breach the building, from the outside, ready to take down (or kill) anyone that needs it. Often, they have a sniper providing support from across the street.
Are you saying that's the same thing as a homeowner investigating a suspicious noise or reacting to a sudden home invasion? And are you saying that the same weapons that may be ideal for a TEAM in a dynamic entry are also ideal for the lone homeowner investigating a noise or repelling a home invasion?
I sincerely hope not.
KodiakBeer
member
I'm saying a rifle or shotgun is superior to a handgun, when you have one available. In a home situation I have one available, and I'm using it. I'm not going to deliberately handicap myself by choosing a handgun as a primary weapon when I have more effective weapons available.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Sam1911 said:
I can see some clarity is necessary. In Oklahoma, the largest arm that you can carry on your person is a pistol of .45 caliber or less, not over 16" in length, and must be carried concealed. (We don't have open carry restored here yet.) Anyone with a valid CHL may keep a magazine loaded and not chamber loaded rifle or shotgun hidden in the interior of their vehicle, though.
I was serious. I was, however attempting to interject a little humor with the Victoria's Secret and Cinnabon quips.
Woody
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh. Well, in that case, sure. What a strange law!
sniper5
Member
I keep both available-shotgun and handgun. What I grab depends on what I feel I'll need. A line Clint Smith once used goes something like: "If I KNOW I'm going into a gunfight I'm not going to bring a handgun. I'm going to bring a shotgun, a rifle, a machine gun, or an RPG!"
Interestingly enough, while I think a handgun is better for most self defense scenarios, I think the rifle, with it's superior range, is useful for defensive situations. I don't discount long range situations, but for the most part, I would suggest that they are situations which call for the defense of others.
Let's say there's a guy shooting up the parking lot when you pull into the mall. Or your son's school.
Or, let's find something probably more likely. You are sitting in your car sipping your coffee, watching your eight year old daughter play at the local play ground, when suddenly a van opens up, a guy starts running at your daughter, and before you can react, your daughter is being carried off. You reach for your rifle and start running toward them, but you are still 50 yards off when he throws her in the van and starts moving around the van to get into the driver's side. If you are a good shot, you may just be able to drop the guy before he gets to cover, but you'd never get within range to stop him without the gun.
Unlikely scenarios? Yes, but if we discounted the unlikely, I'd have to call everyone who carries on a regular basis a paranoid nutjob.
Let's say there's a guy shooting up the parking lot when you pull into the mall. Or your son's school.
Or, let's find something probably more likely. You are sitting in your car sipping your coffee, watching your eight year old daughter play at the local play ground, when suddenly a van opens up, a guy starts running at your daughter, and before you can react, your daughter is being carried off. You reach for your rifle and start running toward them, but you are still 50 yards off when he throws her in the van and starts moving around the van to get into the driver's side. If you are a good shot, you may just be able to drop the guy before he gets to cover, but you'd never get within range to stop him without the gun.
Unlikely scenarios? Yes, but if we discounted the unlikely, I'd have to call everyone who carries on a regular basis a paranoid nutjob.
NotSoFast
Member
What about when you're out of ammo for the long gun and they're still coming?
I can think of other reasons why a handgun is a better choice.
1) It's difficult to conceal a long gun for CCW.
2) It gets tiresome carrying a shotgun around the house all the time.
3) A handgun is more maneuverable in tight spaces.
Yes, a long gun would be preferable at all times but ideal doesn't equal reality.
KodiakBeer
member
Which is why we go to rule #1: a handgun is only for when you can't get to a long gun for self defense.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And Rule 1A says that that's 70%-80% of the time.
This is getting very circular, don't you think?
KodiakBeer
member
Sounds about right! Pretty much just in home defense.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Sam1911 said:
Yup. But it's what we got.
Woody
David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
Hey, Cowboy, come up to Heartland Outdoors Sunday night and shoot the match!
You'll have fun, as it's geared around practical guns in practical holsters........but you'll have to leave your long gun at home (or in the truck)
PM me if you're interested.
(thread hijack over)
You'll have fun, as it's geared around practical guns in practical holsters........but you'll have to leave your long gun at home (or in the truck)
PM me if you're interested.
(thread hijack over)
- Status
