Jim Watson
Member
No shootouts myself, no vote, but three acquaintances expended one, two, and three rounds respectively.
People should carry what they shoot well, a chambering that is effective yet again, they shoot well, and has as many rounds as you can carry, and you shoot well.
I can't explain it. And it ticks me off because I want to be better with the revolver than the semi.
Are sworn law enforcement not civilians anymore? Did that change with the militarization of police in the last 20 years?
No, not by the accepted definition, and neither are firefighters.Are sworn law enforcement not civilians anymore?
No, not by the accepted definition, and neither are firefighters.
From Dictionary.com:
noun
a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
What does one do with a poll designed to collectively gather how many rounds are likely to be fired in a civilian defense situation? There are many studies that do prove, lets just say less than 5 rounds are typically the case. If these types of studies are going to be what one uses to base their carry sidearm on, then one would be inclined to not carry at all, or to carry an empty gun, as the vast majority of concealed carry holders never draw their weapon, OR they draw and never have to fire. It is equally as silly to base complacency at 5 rounds maximum with your carry gun, as it is to base carrying an empty firearm based on statistics. We carry for the "unlikely event" that we will need to have a defensive firearm because the loss of such an event (your life) is greater than we are willing to risk against the unlikeliness that we will ever encounter said situation. Same can be said for limiting yourself to 5 rounds because of statistics. I'm quite positive that no matter where you poll, or what study you read, you'll find support that 5 rounds will "likely" be enough. On that same token, if we are going to base our defenses around statistics, you would never need to carry at all. Why draw the line at 5 rounds? Everyone knows you're not likely to be involved in a civilian shooting based on statistics, so why carry at all? Whatever answer you just thought of for that question, apply it to "why not carry something with more rounds if you can shoot and carry it well?"
Gee whatever happed to all the "old guys" with revolvers that claimed:
"If you can't ger er done with 6 rounds" you are a really bad shot!
What would Jelly Bryce or Elmer say?
Can you cite a credible source for that?Most statistics show that typically only 1-3 shots are actually fired in the vast amount of common assaults.
Can you cite a credible source for that?
I have not been able to find any credible source of "statistics", nor has anyone else here over the last decade.Perhaps you should do your own research. I am sure anything I post will be contested by you and have no desire to get into that argument. If you feel differently that is fine. Not going to take the bait.
I looked it up ... this is what I found.Can you cite a credible source for that?
Overall, shots were fired by the defender in 72% of incidents. The average and median number of shots fired was 2. When more than 2 shots were fired, it generally appeared that the defender’s initial response was to fire until empty. It appears that revolver shooters are more likely to empty their guns than autoloader shooters. At least one assailant was killed in 34% of all incidents. At least one assailant was wounded in an additional 29% of all incidents. Of the incidents where shots are fired by a defender, at least one assailant is killed in 53% of those incidents.