"If I'm going into a bad area..."

[fastbolt]

Actually, it is a fundamental tenet of risk management that it would not biological.

The likelihood of occurrence does not define the nature of the mitigation strategy needed.

Do not feel criticized. In a prior life, I had a central role in risk management for a major corporation. I should have understood this issue very well. Notwithstanding my supposed knowledge of the subject, I chose to carry a J-Frame when going to a nearby grocery in a "nice" area, and a double column 9mm S&W when going to other places.

When I mentioned that here on THR, a member asked me to explain my reasoning. Why would it make any difference, he asked. OOPS! I had to eat crow. And I changed my carry practice,

Now, if the nature of the risk differs, so might the mitigation strategy. One would probably not carry an Sig 365 if one were concerned about attacks by large anaimals. But for lawful self defense against humans, if a handgun is sufficient in one area, it should be sufficient in another.

I hope this helps.

This has some nuggets that deserve to unpacked and considered by anyone reading this thread. (I'm not going to presume to unpack them, but wanted to post my supporting opinion. )

That said, since I was required to carry one or another specific issued weapon when wandering about my former jurisdiction, that was what I was accustomed to carrying. (i.e. my past issued weapon prior to retirement was a 4513TSW, which, for those unfamiliar with 3rd gen S&W's, is a 3.75" 7+1 compact DA/SA .45ACP.)

However, on my own time, when visiting some places in the same jurisdiction, but not where I was going to handling any of my caseload, I was more often carrying a 5-shot .38SPL or .357MAG snub. Admittedly, I'd not wish to have traded my compact 7+1/.45 for a 5-shot while on-duty, since the risk of becoming involved in an incident was much higher when I was actively working. On my own time, though? I wasn't going to the same locations where my cases commonly took me, nor was I having to deal with the same people who required my attention on the job. Instead of actively looking to find trouble, it was going to have to actively look to find me, and I had the advantage of awareness of where troublesome people were commonly wont to be found, going about their activities, and the hot spots for criminal activities, arrests, etc. No guarantees, of course, but it was something to consider when thinking about risk assessment and mitigation choices. (Kind of like when deciding how many detectives in my bureau to request for any particular detail for some higher risk case, or whether a detail might be handled with just 1 detective, or a 2-member team. Best guess.)

On the other side of that coin, though, when I started carrying an off-duty revolver again, I also picked up my practice running a snub through the training or Quals sessions I worked at the range each month. It certainly helped that back then we normally stocked both 'practice' (Ball) and carry (JHP) .38SPL ammo in our range inventory for the folks who carried them as secondary and off-duty choices, and I could do virtually as much shooting as I wished. If I was going to carry a diminutive snub revolver, I couldn't afford to short-change attention to being able to run those 5 rounds as fast, controllably and accurately as possible, right? Sure, there were times when there was arguably a higher credible threat assessment occurring, and I either carried my issued .45, or one of my personally-owned 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10rd 9's/.40's (since I was commonly running them at our range year round). Different strokes.

Nowadays? I don't often go back to those places at my former jurisdiction, and according to the cops I know (active and retired) from areas where I hang out and recreate, the activity levels aren't as concerning to them as other areas (which I avoid). I till make sure to include at least 1 snub revolver in every range session I schedule at my former range, but instead of doing it a few times each month, I'm only doing it a few times a year (and covid blew the hell out of that for the first 18-odd months of the 'pandemic'). Just enough to check and assess the state of my remaining skills, and usually impress the new range staff. Many of whom haven't seen or used either revolvers, or the common single stack DA/SA guns of the 80's-2000's.

I know some retired experienced cops who either choose not to carry, or carry single stacks, or have chosen to carry a .45 over a well-used 9mm they used to carry for UC work. All kinds. They've basically reverted to what worked for them in their past work lives, and what they can still shoot well nowadays. I've met some younger, newer cops who have gone the route of higher capacity little double stacks on their own time (like the G48 w/15rd mags or P365), and consider higher capacity to be the new normal. The revolver shooters of my youth (in LE) has given way to folks who think that having 'only' 6-10rd magazines puts them at a serious disadvantage. Maybe so. I still put my emphasis and preference on being able to rapidly and effectively place those first 1-5 rounds (before reloading), than worrying about where the next 5-10rds might be needed. Pick your poison. I still remember hearing the old adage that you might run out of time, before you run out of ammunition.

Suit yourself (unless otherwise directed by an employer or restricted by legislation), and remember that decisions can have consequences. Well-intentioned or not. There Ain't No Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL).

 

[fastbolt]

So if I went into an area where an attack by multiple attackers was more likely, I should stick with the same mitigation strategy? Or bring a gun with more bullets?

Kinda disingenuous. In a way, it reminds of the trick question of asking someone if they've quit beating their wife, and just wanting a Yes/No response.

How well-based was your risk mitigation strategy and preparations in the first place? Does having 'more bullets' mean you think you'll get more effectively placed hits, and/or to offset more misses because your skillset is less well developed than you'd wish?

Modern LE carry single and double stack weapons as normal sidearms because they're not only easier to carry, but because in many situations they're 'enough' to resolve a threat. On the other hand, they also have access to either Shotguns and/or Rifles because of their advantages over handguns. Private citizens and retired cops are commonly restricted to concealable firearms.

While I never presumed to influence one of our guys or gals to choose how I chose, I did ask them to justify (if only to themselves) why they chose the way they did ... and to objectively consider and examine if their choices were based on justified reasons, or simply because it made them feel better, or more 'protected'. Security blanket? Talisman? Realistic? Justified, or something more optimistic than pragmatic?

Hits may matter. Accurate hits may matter more. Effectively placed hits may matter even more. Misses are bad in all kinds of ways. Being able to do more of each, including sending missed shots onto other unintended 'targets'? Well you decide ... and hopefully a jury (criminal and/or civil) will never be passing judgment on your decision.

 

[Kleanbore]

So if I went into an area where an attack by multiple attackers was more likely, I should stick with the same mitigation strategy?

The nature of the risk should influence the mitgaiton strategy.

However, one cannot really assess in advance whether an attack by multipe attackers wou;d be more likely in one area than another. We know that a victim is as likely to be attacked by more than one attacker than by a lone attacker, and it stands to reason that a violent criminal actor will prefer doing the dead with an extra set of eyes and hands whenever he can.

One might fantasize about successfully defending onself against a mob attack with a high-capacity hangun, but that strains the limits of reality. There is no reason to expect the mob to afford the defender with the time needed to engage very many attackers and to score a sufficient number of effective hits on each of them..

Again,

...if you are attacked any place at any time the immediate physical danger will be the same if you're in Tullahassee Oklahoma (population 106) or Omaha Nebraska (population 487,300)

 

[Jeff White]

When I started in LE we were issued Model 65 and Model 66 S&W .357 mag revolvers with 2 speed loaders for a basic load of 18 rounds. I was issued a Model 65 and about a year later when an officer left the force I turned in the 65 for a 66 because I preferred the sights on the 66. I added a Colt Agent as a BUG and a speed strip of 6 .38 special rounds. We had Remington 870s in our squads. At no time did I feel inadequately armed. A few years later when the switch to semi autos became a thing in LE I carried a Beretta 92F as part of a test, other officers carried S&W autos. Ultimately the department selected the S&W5906 and I carried that on duty for several years. Around 2000 we switched to Glock 21s. This was an economic decision as Glock offered to sell us their guns for the cost of replacing the night sights on our S&W 5906s. Later I went to work for a department that approved personally owned weapons and I went back to the 1911 which is what I learned to shoot a handgun with. I never gave up on the BUG and carried the Colt Agent or a S&W snubbie until I retired. Off duty I always carried a smaller version of my duty gun. A S&W 3914 and later Glock 36. After I switched to a 1911 I just carried that off duty.

It didn't matter if I was carrying 18 rounds of duty ammo, 46 with a double stack 9mm or 32 .45s with the 1911 (3 spare Wilson 8 round mags and 8 in the gun) I never felt that I was inadequately armed for any situation I would encounter.

I don't view living in our society like I would view a combat patrol as a rifle platoon sergeant where I would adjust the basic load based on the things like the enemy I expected to encounter and the time it would take to resupply. Despite what you see on the "it bleeds, it leads" newscasts and the tons of video of criminal attacks posted on social media we don't live in the kind of place where we have to adjust our "combat load" for every foray from our home.

The best way to prepare for an encounter is to carry the weapon (.38 Special or larger) that you are the most proficient with and learn how to be aware of your surroundings and the general rhythm of the places you go, learn to "read the room" so that things that are out of place jump out at you. Learn how not to look like a victim.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I don't change my carry because of perceived danger levels. My carry is my carry for ANY incidental dangers I may involve which place me in fear for my life. I use all the other tools/assets available to me in order to minimize the potential risks of actually getting involved in a deadly encounter in the first place, and to help mitigate it if I should.

As a rule, I would only change my carry if specific circumstances did not permit me to conceal my usual carry. But honestly, I carried a full sized Colt 1991 A1 for decades with very few issues in this regard. I made the appropriate changes to ensure that I could.

I have relatively recently shifted over to a Walther CCP in 9mm, though, because I'm getting old enough to recognize that carrying the weight of my Colt was causing some disturbing symptoms.

If my perception of dangers of areas I'm considering going would make me think I may need more firepower, I'll take a step back and see what else I could do to address those risks instead. Doesn't mean I WON'T go, it just means that I know there's more to addressing risks than simply arming up more.

 

[GEM]

It would be more likely that I would stay home. BTW, is there a study of number of attackers vs. the niceness or affluent nature of an area? If one perceives upcoming urban unrest and mobs - stay out.

That being said - I always say in these debates:

1. EDC is a semi with one or two extra mags

except

2. NPE - a pocket gun and a reload, specific gun varies at times and I train with both.

Any nice area can go south with a nut rampage.

 

[mljdeckard]

I also have limited sympathy for people who are 'forced' to go into dangerous places. I have worked in places where that was literally the job, to go do things in bad places. That was my choice. It was also my choice to not do it forever, and alter my living circumstances so I wouldn't have to do it anymore. Just because it is a daunting proposition doesn't mean you don't have a choice. You choose who you live with, where you live, and what you do for a living. If your life situation is inherently unsafe, and you regularly have to go to unsafe places or associate with unsafe people. then you have to make it a priority to change, and make a plan to do so. No one is in charge of your destiny but you.

 

[Kleanbore]

I also have limited sympathy for people who are 'forced' to go into dangerous places.

I am afraid that I cannot agree.

 

[shafter]

There are notorious "bad places" that a wise person would do well to avoid at any time of the day but the idea that a grown man shouldn't stop and get gas late at night because the statistical chances of running into trouble go from almost zero to slightly above almost zero is absurd.

Life is about common sense and weighing risk in all areas of life. One would be safer by refusing to drive after dark or during rush hour or during the rain because the risk is higher. No one suggests that, we only get weird about guns.

 

[bdickens]

I also have limited sympathy for people who are 'forced' to go into dangerous places. I have worked in places where that was literally the job, to go do things in bad places. That was my choice. It was also my choice to not do it forever, and alter my living circumstances so I wouldn't have to do it anymore. Just because it is a daunting proposition doesn't mean you don't have a choice. You choose who you live with, where you live, and what you do for a living. If your life situation is inherently unsafe, and you regularly have to go to unsafe places or associate with unsafe people. then you have to make it a priority to change, and make a plan to do so. No one is in charge of your destiny but you.

What a breathtakingly sanctimonious attitude....

 

[Jeff White]

I think we’ve covered this in 6 pages….