Actual civilian gunfights

[David E]

Most of the law abiding citizens don't carry anything. Badguys typically carry a deadly weapon of some sort before accosting someone. If you are being attacked, it's probably by an armed badguy, who 40% of the time (or more) there are multiple attackers.

If an AK armed badguy is the problem, jumping to the conclusion that a responsibly armed citizen with a smart gun choice is just as dead as the 5-shot snubby armed good guy is quite a leap. The AK armed badguy won't likely attack from 10 feet or less. The scenario coming to mind is a jihadist shooting up a mall. If your best shot was 50 yds away, a Glock 19 or M&P or 1911 will make that shot all day. A 2" snubby, while capable, won't be as easy to connect with...and you might only get one chance.

Unlikely? Yes, but more possible each day.

 

[eazyrider]

Well David in that scenario, I guess your right. I am going to start carrying my AR to the mall. Good luck with that 50 yard pistol shot under fire. I guess if we are still talking what ifs then we better up the stakes to a 50 yard head shot because if he is a jihadist he probably won't go down on a psychological kill,so you need to make a physical kill. Of course if you don't get one on your first couple of shots then your position is given away. Course that is when body armor with a rifle plate comes in handy.

 

[fastbolt]

This subject is a difficult one for which to get any definitive answers because such statistics are gathered specifically dealing with such things.

Now, of the homicides reported by LE, where private citizens have been determined to have committed a justifiable homicide? (The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.)

The FBI's UCR data contains statistics of what's reported to them by LE. This data can be found by scrolling down the page at the following link, as well as some other data:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...o-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

You'll find this data specifically contained within Table 15 on the above page:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls

It can be contrasted with the number of justifiable homicides by LE in Table 14, BTW.

While you'll notice there's a breakdown available of the weapons used by civilians in the justifiable homicides, the number of shots fired isn't listed.

I don't tell folks what I think they should carry in the way of firearms lawfully carried as dedicated defensive weapons. I can only make such decisions for myself.

How I make such decisions for myself is based on a variety of considerations, but mostly it involves the use of my experience & training, and assessing the potential risk I perceive to exist for whatever I'm going to be doing, wherever I'm going to be doing it.

This typically results in me choosing to carry a variety of handguns, but that's mostly because I own, train, practice & qualify with a variety of them (since I've been a firearms instructor for more than 20 years). I could certainly "get by" with fewer, or only one, if need be (another subject).

Suffice to say that depending on the day, my planned activities and where I plan to engage in them, as well as my inclination for even being armed that day, I'll carry a 5-shot .38 Spl or .357 Magnum, or a pistol with a magazine capacity of 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 12 rounds. The pistol caliber will be either 9mm, .40 S&W or .45 ACP. Yes, I typically carry spare ammunition in speedloaders, speedstrips or magazines.

Now, that's what I've decided is appropriate for me, depending.

Do I anticipate the possibility of more than a single attacker? Sure.

Does it keep me awake at night? No.

Will the potential sometimes influence my choice in which weapon I choose? Yes, but only so far as it becomes a factor in my regular daily risk assessment and decision of whether I should be armed that day, which varies.

Do I claim to be able to predict the future? Of course not. However, neither am I willing to walk around armed like I'm going to be working a high activity patrol beat and responding to calls of violent crimes in-progress all day or night, either.

That's me and my thoughts, and how they've come to influence my choice when I was carrying an off-duty weapon and now that I'm carrying in retirement. Suit yourself.

I'd think it reasonable to expand such concerns to include the other factors I've often mentioned in such thread topics, though, meaning I think it's prudent for an individual to give some attention and consideration to their own knowledge of the laws involving the use of deadly force and what's involved in lawfully carrying a handgun for defensive, as well as their experience, training, skillset and mindset ... and chosen equipment (holster & weapon). It's just a handgun ...

Remember, you can never call a bullet back once it's fired. Give some thought to being able to accurately & effectively use whatever ammunition is being carried, since there are serious potential consequences for hitting things which aren't the "intended target".

And, yes ... sometimes I'll wonder at folks who have decided to carry more handguns, magazines, speedloaders and ammunition on their person as private citizens than I used to carry when I was working in LE. It's not my decision to make for them, though. I do, however, sometimes wonder about their level of training & skill, as well as their experience when it comes to functioning under stress.

Then again, I wonder about more folks in that regard as it pertains to their ability to operate a motor vehicle on any given day.

Just my thoughts.

 

[David E]

Well David in that scenario, I guess your right. I am going to start carrying my AR to the mall.

Now that's just asinine.

Good luck with that 50 yard pistol shot under fire.

The point that you miss (accidentally or on purpose) is that some guns are more limited in their effectiveness than others. "A gun is a gun is a gun" philosophy is a false premise from the get-go, but many people still fall under that spell.

A 5-shot snub or sightless .380 may be enough up close against a single attacker, but their effectiveness falls sharply when distance, a difficult shot and/or multiple assailants enter the mix.

Any gun with you beats any gun not, but that doesn't mean all guns are equally effective.

 

[Wanderling]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but it's hit on something I've been interested in.

A friend of mine is a lawyer, although he's doing mostly corporate law, so he himself says he's not an authority on self defense shootings. However he's made a point that he only carries a gun with a single full mag. He believes that if you ever kill someone in an SD situation which is not 100% clear, having more than one mag on you, or a gun modified in any way to make it more accurate / have a lighter trigger pull, or even having a good knife in addition to the gun, is going to make it much harder to defend the shooting in court. Basically, the lawyer for the other side is going to present you to the jury as a trigger happy Rambo wannabe who maliciously modified his gun to be more deadly, that goes out every day looking for a fight. Don't know if this is true or not, but it definitely doesn't sound far fetched.

 

[David E]

I hope your friend is a better lawyer than he is a firearms/tactics instructor.

Cops carry reloads, usually more than one. Are they evil for doing so?

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the defendant carried an extra, loaded magazine because, as the police instructor testified, is how he was trained. Indeed, every police officer in America carries one or more reloads on duty and are encouraged to do so off duty as well...."

Enhancements that make the gun more accurate means there's less of a chance if hitting an innocent bystander. I'd rather be on trial for shooting the right guy than for shooting the wrong one because I thought a 27# trigger pull would be somehow easier to defend in court.

 

[NM Mountainman]

There are two rules of thumb to keep in mind when dealing with statistics:

1) 55 % of all statistics are made up ;-)

2) Statistics are helpful in measuring differences between groups and making decisions involving groups. They usually tell you very little or nothing about specific individuals or specific individual situations.

Statistics about gun fights are useful to LEO agencies to help make decisions about how to equip and train groups of LEO's. The statistics do not help us understand or predict what the next gunfight in the LE agency will be like.

 

[Wanderling]

I hope your friend is a better lawyer than he is a firearms/tactics instructor.

Cops carry reloads, usually more than one. Are they evil for doing so?

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the defendant carried an extra, loaded magazine because, as the police instructor testified, is how he was trained. Indeed, every police officer in America carries one or more reloads on duty and are encouraged to do so off duty as well...."

Enhancements that make the gun more accurate means there's less of a chance if hitting an innocent bystander. I'd rather be on trial for shooting the right guy than for shooting the wrong one because I thought a 27# trigger pull would be somehow easier to defend in court.

Cops can do many things that an ordinary citizen can't.

E.g. imagine that a criminal robs someone at a gunpoint, then runs away. If a cop runs after him, corners him, engages in a firefight and shoots him, the cop is a hero. If an ordinary citizen does it, he'll be prosecuted for manslaughter. This is not his job. A CPL holder only has a gun to protect himself or others in case of immediate danger, once the danger is gone, the shooting is unjustified. In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.

 

[SaxonPig]

A lawyer will try to make an issue of anything. Will it work depends on the judge and jury. Bear in mind that many judged are anti gun and the jury will be selected based on their ignorance about guns.

 

[Sam1911]

A friend of mine is a lawyer, although he's doing mostly corporate law, so he himself says he's not an authority on self defense shootings. However he's made a point that he only carries a gun with a single full mag. He believes that if you ever kill someone in an SD situation which is not 100% clear, having more than one mag on you, or a gun modified in any way to make it more accurate / have a lighter trigger pull, or even having a good knife in addition to the gun, is going to make it much harder to defend the shooting in court. Basically, the lawyer for the other side is going to present you to the jury as a trigger happy Rambo wannabe who maliciously modified his gun to be more deadly, that goes out every day looking for a fight. Don't know if this is true or not, but it definitely doesn't sound far fetched.

We hear that kind of thing frequently. And it does make it clear that your friend is not well-versed in self-defense law. That's understandable -- most lawyers aren't.

A cop can do quite a few things that a citizen is not justified in doing, but carrying reloads and/or spare magazines does not -- at all -- fall into that category.

A presecutor could make nearly any claim s/he wants to about what your choice of equipment and/or ammo says about you. Any defense attorney worth paying will make swiss cheese out of that argument. Especially if your gun and/or ammo is similar to what is carried by the local PD. That's about the most unassailable justification of your selection possible -- in the unlikely event that your equipment choice is even called into question.

Arguing that you should choose a sub-optimal firearm, give up reloads and or fail-safe mags, or otherwise choose your equipment poorly just so you won't look like a "Rambo" is pointless and self-defeating.

Carry a Glock: "What do you think, that you're some kind of COP?"
Carry a SA revolver: "What do you think, that you're some kind of COWBOY?"
Carry a Beretta: "What do you think, that you're some kind of ARMY GUY?"
Carry a DA revolver: "What do you think, that you're DIRTY HARRY?"
Carry a Walther: "What do you think, that you're JAMES BOND?"
Carry a H&K: "What do you think, that you're a NAVY SEAL?"
Carry a Lorcin/Jennings: "What do you think, that you're some kind of GANGSTA?"
Carry a 1911: "What do you think, that you're some kind of CRAZY GUN NUT?"

Whatever. Carry what you shoot best.

 

[Stophel]

eazyrider: "If I come across a mad man with an AK then I will lose"

Not if you're a better shot than he is. Just because he has 30 rounds at his disposal does NOT mean he can use all of them effectively... or any of them, for that matter. And your one shot might well keep him from using all of his.

 

[Greg528iT]

Carry a 1911: "What do you think, that you're some kind of CRAZY GUN NUT?"

That should be someones signature.

 

[Loosedhorse]

having more than one mag on you, or a gun modified in any way to make it more accurate / have a lighter trigger pull, or even having a good knife in addition to the gun, is going to make it much harder to defend the shooting in court

Could be.

I've "heard" that having a single-action (1911) gun can make the case more expensive to defend, that having "unusual" ammo (think Harold Fish's 10mm), will, too; etc. Carrying only what your local PD carries for gun and ammo would be easiest to defend (and carrying nothing easier than that!).

Of course, not having a spare mag if you run out of ammo or the gun jams because of a mag problem could get you dead. Weigh the alternatives, and decide.

As to the OP: an "extended" gunfight would require that both parties choose to be in the gunfight for an extended period of time. Easy to see with police, as they are duty-bound to persist, so it will depend on the mood and armament of the criminal(s).

For a private citizen, it could happen if either the attacker or the defender has an ensconsed position, and the only way out for the other party is through that position (that is, if neither party feels they have a safe avenue of retreat until they shoot the other).

Unlikely? Maybe; depends where your gunfight occurs. Not sure I'd want to bet that an extended gunfight couldn't happend to me, especially if all it "costs" me is a magazine on the hip.

 

[mljdeckard]

To assume that you won't need a knife or a reload is just as disingenuous as to assume that nothing bad can happen to you in the first place.

A second magazine has much more to do with clearing a malfunction than having more shots. When you carry a knife and a flashlight, you learn that there are a lot of things they come in handy for besides defensive uses. The reality is, you are going to have to cut a lot more things than you are going to shoot ion real life.

 

[David E]

E.g. imagine that a criminal robs someone at a gunpoint, then runs away. If a cop runs after him, corners him, engages in a firefight and shoots him, the cop is a hero. If an ordinary citizen does it, he'll be prosecuted for manslaughter. This is not his job. A CPL holder only has a gun to protect himself or others in case of immediate danger, once the danger is gone, the shooting is unjustified. In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.

What does ANY of that have to do with carrying a spare reload??

 

[Bobson]

The more I think about this, the more I realize there must be about 100 different ways people might approach the topic in search of an answer.

For me personally, if I carried a weapon daily right now (I don't yet, but plan to soon), I would carry an extra magazine or two. I would also carry my own handloads in my EDC and any spare mag(s), provided that I was as skilled a reloader as many of you are.

People here sometimes playfully mock others for being too paranoid. The recent "gun in the bathroom" thread comes to mind.

I don't care if you EDC a Hi-Point, or if you EDC an Ed Brown Custom 1911, 2 spare mags, strictly handloaded JHPs, and have a SIG P239 strapped to your ankle as a BUG. Both people recognize the potential for being attacked. The only difference is that one is more willing to burden himself to prevent himself from being a victim. Nothing about his equipment makes me think either individual is out looking for trouble.

 

[Greg528iT]

In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.

What does ANY of that have to do with carrying a spare reload??

It's an example of how we as citizens operate under different rules than police.
To say,
The local PD carry back ups, therefore I can carry back up magazines.
The local PD can chase down and confront a BG therefore I can chase down and confront a BG.
Uses the same basic logic, but is NOT true in both cases.

 

[Wanderling]

The more I think about this, the more I realize there must be about 100 different ways people might approach the topic in search of an answer.

For me personally, if I carried a weapon daily right now (I don't yet, but plan to soon), I would carry an extra magazine or two. I would also carry my own handloads in my EDC and any spare mag(s), provided that I was as skilled a reloader as many of you are.

People here sometimes playfully mock others for being too paranoid. The recent "gun in the bathroom" thread comes to mind.

I don't care if you EDC a Hi-Point, or if you EDC an Ed Brown Custom 1911, 2 spare mags, strictly handloaded JHPs, and have a SIG P239 strapped to your ankle as a BUG. Both people recognize the potential for being attacked. The only difference is that one is more willing to burden himself to prevent himself from being a victim. Nothing about his equipment makes me think either individual is out looking for trouble.

And if you're on the jury, the guy is lucky.

However I can imagine something like this: "This man carried two - two ! - guns with several ! magazines (insert dramatic gestures and tragic voice by the prosecutor) - and he claimed the was doing it for self defense ! Every day he walked out of his house armed to the teeth with two guns and almost fifty bullets ! And a nasty looking knife ! (presents the "stockpile" to the jury). What do you think he was really up to ?"

Now I picture someone like my mother-in-law on the jury, and it doesn't look good for the defendant.

Remember, it's the shooter/survivor story vs the dead body. There's often no witnesses. So you can look either as a reasonable citizen defending yourself from a deadly thread, or a crazed Rambo-like wannabe roaming the streets armed to his teeth. If you remove the pro-2A people and anti-gun people and only have the everyday citizens on the jury, who have various degrees of common sense but most have never owned or carried a handgun, your "arsenal" may become a very important point in consideration.

I will ask my friend - who's carrying btw- if he knows of any real life trials. That was a debate we've had almost a year ago and I walked out of it convinced in his point of view.

That's partially why I will try to carry my G17 first, when I get my permit. It holds 3x the capacity of a revolver yet it's only a single mag. If I need more than 17 rounds for SD, I'm in such a bad situation that a second or third mag won't help. If it's too difficult to carry it, I may get a smaller gun but with at least 8-9 rounds in the mag. I don't believe I would need more for most any SD.

 

[Pilot]

I carry one mag, and that's in the pistol. Whether its 15+1 or 8+1 capacity, I feel well armed. I just don't feel like having Batman's Utility Belt on me when I am doing by daily stuff.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The local PD carry back ups, therefore I can carry back up magazines.
The local PD can chase down and confront a BG therefore I can chase down and confront a BG.
Uses the same basic logic, but is NOT true in both cases.

I don't follow your logic.

Of course a private citizen can carry back-up magazines. Of course a private citizen can chase down and confront a bad guy (for example, if he's abducted your spouse, and you are in hot pursuit).

How would any of that imply a belief that a private citizen should, for example, stand on a corner with a radar gun, and issue citations for speeding?

Obviously, when someone here talks about LE carry spares, they are talking about the tactical decision of an entire profession whose job it is to stay out of gunfights when they can, and only engage in them when they must--same as non-LE.

What's different between LE and non-LE are the parameters around "must," not around tactics. Saying we should all consider the tactical decisions of the police is NOT the same as suggesting we have full police powers (and indemnities).

However I can imagine something like this: "This man carried two - two ! - guns with several ! magazines (insert dramatic gestures and tragic voice by the prosecutor) - and he claimed the was doing it for self defense ! Every day he walked out of his house armed to the teeth with two guns and almost fifty bullets ! And a nasty looking knife ! (presents the "stockpile" to the jury). What do you think he was really up to ?"

Absolutely a possibility. And if you are unable to articulate your reasons for carrying reloads, etc. to a jury, or unwilling to hire recognized experts who will explain why such carry is "routine good practice," then the risk from such a prosecutor's claim is high indeed.

Sure: carrying reloads may mean that your eventual defense will be more expensive. It may even mean you have a higher risk of your defense failing. And not carrying reloads may mean your risk of being killed or crippled by your attacker is higher.

Judge the risks for yourself and act accordingly--I'm pretty sure that's what we all do already.

 

[David E]

It's an example of how we as citizens operate under different rules than police.
To say,
The local PD carry back ups, therefore I can carry back up magazines.
The local PD can chase down and confront a BG therefore I can chase down and confront a BG.
Uses the same basic logic, but is NOT true in both cases.

I guess I missed your whole "logic" part....

I carry a spare reload not because cops do or that they carry backup guns, but because it's a prudent thing to do.

Every training class I've taken expected you to have at least two spare mags on your belt.

"Why did you'd have an extra reload?"

"Because that's how I was trained."

They may try to make me out as some evil dude who premeditated shooting someone in defense of his life, but silly arguments like that can easily be shot down.

A common mistake people make here is placing Problem #2 (explaining your actions in court) ahead of Problem #1 (surviving the deadly encounter)

 

[Greg528iT]

I guess you guys forgot about DavidEs response to

Originally Posted by Wanderling View Post
E.g. imagine that a criminal robs someone at a gunpoint, then runs away. If a cop runs after him, corners him, engages in a firefight and shoots him, the cop is a hero. If an ordinary citizen does it, he'll be prosecuted for manslaughter. This is not his job. A CPL holder only has a gun to protect himself or others in case of immediate danger, once the danger is gone, the shooting is unjustified. In many states, you are required by law to disengage / retreat whenever possible without putting yourself in danger of being shot.

I was only following the line of thought that had been previously posted about
If Law enforcement carrys back up magazines I should as well, to Wanderling's post that, Law Enforcement can and are expected to chase down a suspect and shoot if required too, having tried to rob someone and fled. (I didn't escalate it to, kidnapping a wife or child)

If you chase down a suspect, corner and shoot him when no ones life was danger after he fled, you can BET you will be charged with something.
I was ONLY addressing the "just because a law enforcement officer does it, make it perfectly acceptable for me to do likewise" argument.

As we know, there are many many instances where a law enforcement officer crosses the line from acceptable to illegal.

 

[Wanderling]

I guess I missed your whole "logic" part....

I carry a spare reload not because cops do or that they carry backup guns, but because it's a prudent thing to do.

Every training class I've taken expected you to have at least two spare mags on your belt.

"Why did you'd have an extra reload?"

"Because that's how I was trained."

They may try to make me out as some evil dude who premeditated shooting someone in defense of his life, but silly arguments like that can easily be shot down.

A common mistake people make here is placing Problem #2 (explaining your actions in court) ahead of Problem #1 (surviving the deadly encounter)

No, both are very serious problems. Ending up dead is worse than serving a murder sentence & having all of your family assets go towards paying off the dead robber's relatives and attorneys on both sides.

It's a decision everyone has to make on their own, based on the factors at hand.

To me, having a 5 shot revolver is probably borderline; a gun with 8-9-10 rounds is enough; a gun with 15-17 rounds - which is about 3 times the capacity of a revolver, and double the capacity of a WW2 era auto - is more than enough and there's no reason to feed the potential sharks. But then I don't expect to be involved into a prolonged shootout with a gang of Glock-wielding gangstas reloading their 17 rd mags. In a typical SD situation, based on what I read, I'd expect to face one or two assailants who will retreat after the first couple of shots are fired. There's been some info posted here, that in most cases people involved into a shooting would empty their entire mag but not reload; which seems to make the mag capacity more important than the number of spare mags.

 

[Stophel]

People seem to be more terrified of lawyers than drugged-up armed robbers and rapists and gangbangers.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I was only following the line of thought that had been previously posted about...

...you chase down a suspect, corner and shoot him when no ones life was danger after he fled, you can BET you will be charged with something.

I am not sure if you are claiming that your line of argument (since we don't have police duties/powers we shouldn't carry spare ammo) is cogent, or claiming that the fact that it is uncogent isn't really your fault, because you're only parrotting Wanderling.

I can only repeat: private citizens and police share some strategic goals for an armed encounter (like survival), but not others (like apprehension of the suspect). For our common goals (like survival), we can expect our strategies and tactics to be similar; so private citizens can use LE's tactical decisions (like carrying spare ammo) as a valid guide.

For the goals we do not share, we can expect our strategic decisions (like whether or not to pursue) to be different. The fact that we do not share all goals does not mean we would not share tactics concerning our shared goals.

So: any such argument (that since private citizens do not generally have the power and duty to pursue suspects therefore private citizens should not carry spare ammo) is specious.

which seems to make the mag capacity more important than the number of spare mags.

Unless, again, your mag fails.