In Light of the Recent Shootings....

[Sam1911]

When lawful, yes.

I spend large portions of my week without a gun, and other sizable portions with one.

 

[Tallball]

Math is math. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning than shot in some sort of mass shooting incident. Do you insist on wearing rubber boots all of the time? Concealed carry is to protect yourself from normal muggings or carjackings or whatever. And if that lightning strikes, your concealed handgun isn't going to do much to protect you from some maniac with an AR or AK.

 

[grampajack]

I was kind of already there, so not really. I never leave the house without a gun, and I've recently replaced my revolver with a G19. I certainly wouldn't go anywhere that could be considered a christian conservative target unarmed. I just keep waiting for Antifa to go all Bill Ayers on us.

 

[Old Dog]

My comments in red.

No, you miss my point.

The thread was about the decision of whether or not we would up armor ourselves in some way (most specifically either by carrying a higher powered handgun, or by going about our daily lives with a rifle stowed in our car trunks) in response to recent mass shootings and/or terrorism.

No, the original poster simply asked if, in light of recent events, people here had changed their carry habits.

So I started to look and try to find out if there were numbers available which would indicate whether or not such a response makes sense. Because truly if this threat is at all likely to impact me personally, then I should prepare. And if so, HOW should I prepare? What responses are likely to actually improve my odds?

Throughout this entire thread I have repeated that it is perfectly reasonable to carry a heavier handgun, or to carry a rifle around in your car, just because you WANT to.

But the more I have looked into the matter, the less and less present and likely any of these risks appear to be. And the more I have tried to explore how some of the suggested responses to these threats, such as carrying a rifle around in our car trunks, might help us in those situations, the less useful such plans appeared.

This is an open forum: any member is welcome to post whatever statistics they can find which would support their assertions. I would very much appreciate it in fact. Somebody post something with some actual mathematical logic to it that says wow yes this is a pretty serious problem that we all might face. So far we've had a lot of people basically say I don't care about statistics or I don't like these statistics that you keep bringing up, but nobody's been able to say why they're wrong or why my view of them is wrong.

Not how I interpreted the responses. Some posters simply posited perfectly reasonable ideas on why statistics are not the reasons they carry or the basis on what or how they carry.

So far I can't find any means by which I can accept that this is a pressing need. That this is a reasonable and useful response to something that is a common enough problem in our society for anyone to make a personal effort to prepare for, or that the rifle in the trunk idea is actually a good and useful response even if the problem was significant and likely.

Many of us believe that a rifle in the trunk is, in fact, useful -- some of us have utilized that rifle in the trunk (if only to dispatch a large mammal hit by a vehicle) -- and stating that a rifle in the trunk is statistically speaking, useless, is, well, simply not logical.

To say that those who consider preparing for their personal defense, "don't obsess about statistics," really highlights why I've become involved in this thread.

Statistically, I'm highly unlikely to to have a tree fall on my house, have my house collapse during an earthquake (statistically probable in my neck of the woods), have my house burn to the ground or washed away by a tsunami ... yet I feel pretty good about the fact that I've got a great homeowner's insurance policy.

We gun owners talk about how our positions are rational, our fears and concerns are realistic, it's the other guys who don't understand science or don't understand statistics or don't understand logic. The antis are all idiots, just ask us.

The antis are using EXACTLY the same statistics YOU have used in this very thread to tell us why we need not own or carry firearms and why there's a pressing need to pursue legislation to STOP us from owning or carrying certain firearms (gosh, only the effective ones).

But when we start to try to dissect whether or not there is a realistic problem that we should be worried about, and that we should lift a finger to prepare for in our own lives, well now we really don't want to talk about whether or not a threat is common or uncommon, or galactically unlikely. Now statistics is some kind of Hokum, some kind of enemy. Not to be trusted.

Did anyone here say that? Why do you feel compelled to say that?

Human beings are really not wired to understand how to think about numbers that are very small or very large. We can't grasp the context of things that are microscopic, or atomic, or sub-atomic, and we can't really get a practical hold of the size of a solar system or galaxy or the universe. We understand a gallon or a mile, or a hundred miles, or a cubic inch, but not what a population of 323,100,000 looks like. What an individuals place in such a mass really is. Similarly, we don't commonly have the ability to relate our own lives to chance happenings on the order of magnitude of 1 in 17 million. 17 million sounds big, but somehow, if that thing happened to someone, it COULD happen to us. At least that's how our brains react. But from a pragmatic point of view, that's not really true.

When one cannot come up with a rational argument ... obfuscate.

And now I'm told to believe that a person who has volunteered a fair chunk of the last 10 years of his life to helping shepherd along an internet forum devoted to promoting a very hard line interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, is touting the anti-gun platform if he dares take a scientific look at actual rates of risks and deaths, or tries to speak plainly about how one might really be able to use a rifle in the circumstances under discussion.

Yep, from where I sit ... pretty much.

When you tell me that I should not report the statistics that I find, or should not speak my mind about whether or not those statistics point to a threat anyone should feel the need to prepare for, or you tell me that it isn't appropriate that I pursue the discussion of how useful a rifle locked in a trunk is when in the face of one of these attacks that have been brought up as a reason to carry such a thing -- because saying those things might give aid and comfort to the other side -- then that is arguing against truthfulness out of political expediency.

Never said that you shouldn't report statistics, nor speak your mind on whether same points to a thread someone should prepare for. Nothing political on my agenda. You're the one making the argument for the "uselessness of storing away that rifle or high-capacity handgun" for that statistically unlikely situation. I simply don't believe the 2nd Amendment speaks to whether or not there needs to be a statistically probable threat to justify one's right -- or desire -- to carry around the most effective arms they can afford.

Old Dog, if that's what you meant to say, then I say that's the act of a coward.
You know, I used to hate it when my teenage daughters responded to some great point I was trying to make with that bored, "Whatever." But "act of a coward?" I've been to war; I've been a serving law enforcement officer; I have stared in the face of evil, responded to evil acts and comforted survivors and victims. Coward? Label me however you want.

Whatever.

 

[Sam1911]

No, you miss my point.

The thread was about the decision of whether or not we would up armor ourselves in some way (most specifically either by carrying a higher powered handgun, or by going about our daily lives with a rifle stowed in our car trunks) in response to recent mass shootings and/or terrorism.

No, the original poster simply asked if, in light of recent events, people here had changed their carry habits.

Distinction without difference.

If what was wanted was a simple show of hands, a poll would have sufficed. This is a discussion forum. We discuss.

This is an open forum: any member is welcome to post whatever statistics they can find which would support their assertions. I would very much appreciate it in fact. Somebody post something with some actual mathematical logic to it that says wow yes this is a pretty serious problem that we all might face. So far we've had a lot of people basically say I don't care about statistics or I don't like these statistics that you keep bringing up, but nobody's been able to say why they're wrong or why my view of them is wrong.

Not how I interpreted the responses. Some posters simply posited perfectly reasonable ideas on why statistics are not the reasons they carry or the basis on what or how they carry.

Then you're only reading SOME responses. I've already expressed many times that there are lots of reasons why you might choose to do these things, and I'm all for them. I completely support your right to carry what you wish. Others have made cases that it is practically irresponsible not to be on high alert and up-armed to resist this pressing threat. I've been speaking to that point, primarily.

Many of us believe that a rifle in the trunk is, in fact, useful -- some of us have utilized that rifle in the trunk (if only to dispatch a large mammal hit by a vehicle) -- and stating that a rifle in the trunk is statistically speaking, useless, is, well, simply not logical.

That was disposed of long ago in this thread. Of course there are reasons you might use a rifle for general tasks, occasional plinking, dispatching varmints on your ranch, etc.

That's NOT the point to which I directed the adjective "useless," and you very well know it.

YOU quoted me thus, "Actually, my numbers include all such shootings, both foreign and domestic, and STILL illustrate the rarity of these events and the uselessness of storing away a rifle (or extra powerful handgun) to respond to them."

That has nothing at all to do with whether you need a rifle to deliver a coup de grace to a deer you happen to hit with your car. Don't play bait-and-switch with my words and then act all huffy about what I DIDN'T say.

To say that those who consider preparing for their personal defense, "don't obsess about statistics," really highlights why I've become involved in this thread.

Statistically, I'm highly unlikely to to have a tree fall on my house, have my house collapse during an earthquake (statistically probable in my neck of the woods), have my house burn to the ground or washed away by a tsunami ... yet I feel pretty good about the fact that I've got a great homeowner's insurance policy.

Again, a problem with understanding scale and statistics. And again, why I've tried to do some comparisons. Fires, floods, etc., are NOT uncommon risks to a home. Not uncommon like 1:17 million odds.

While the rates have fallen dramatically in our lifetimes, there are still about 365,000 house fires a year in the US. There are about 126 Million homes in the US. So you have a 0.2% chance of suffering a house fire next year, on average. That's 2 tenths of one percent. Not a 0.0000002% -- a two ten millionths of one percent chance.

Do you detect a slight difference between those sets of odds?

We gun owners talk about how our positions are rational, our fears and concerns are realistic, it's the other guys who don't understand science or don't understand statistics or don't understand logic. The antis are all idiots, just ask us.

The antis are using EXACTLY the same statistics YOU have used in this very thread to tell us why we need not own or carry firearms and why there's a pressing need to pursue legislation to STOP us from owning or carrying certain firearms (gosh, only the effective ones).

And if a statement is TRUE, we must not shrink from it, be afraid of it, or refuse to admit it.

My stance on gun rights is not so weak and pathetic that it falls apart in the face of numbers like this. It isn't threatened AT ALL by the fact that we are not actually at any personal risk of being murdered by a terrorist of any flavor.

Yours shouldn't be, either. Then it wouldn't scare you so bad when I report what actually happened in the world, i.e. statistics.

But when we start to try to dissect whether or not there is a realistic problem that we should be worried about, and that we should lift a finger to prepare for in our own lives, well now we really don't want to talk about whether or not a threat is common or uncommon, or galactically unlikely. Now statistics is some kind of Hokum, some kind of enemy. Not to be trusted.

Did anyone here say that? Why do you feel compelled to say that?

Yes. You did.

When you assail ME because I say "these are the statistics. These are the facts. This is what actually happened in the world," and you chastise me for daring speak numbers that anti-gunners would use to bolster their points, and say "we don't obsess about statistics," or when another member says with a sneer, "I know the numbers mean a lot to you," that's exactly what's being said.

Everything is so logical for us, so uprightly factual and scientific and rigorous. Until we find a fact that doesn't directly bolster a point we're making. And then we shouldn't say that out loud. Shouldn't talk about that. That's not important. Those are dirty anti-gun numbers. Not good and proper numbers.

And when I bring up statistics as the scientific means by which risk and benefit are calculated in factual ways, that's seen as an attack. Don't talk to people about the reality of what will happen. They should be encouraged to perpetuate they myth of the grave danger of our times. Apparently because blowing risks out of proportion is good for our cause... ?

Human beings are really not wired to understand how to think about numbers that are very small or very large. We can't grasp the context of things that are microscopic, or atomic, or sub-atomic, and we can't really get a practical hold of the size of a solar system or galaxy or the universe. We understand a gallon or a mile, or a hundred miles, or a cubic inch, but not what a population of 323,100,000 looks like. What an individuals place in such a mass really is. Similarly, we don't commonly have the ability to relate our own lives to chance happenings on the order of magnitude of 1 in 17 million. 17 million sounds big, but somehow, if that thing happened to someone, it COULD happen to us. At least that's how our brains react. But from a pragmatic point of view, that's not really true.

When one cannot come up with a rational argument ... obfuscate.

I apologize for using explanations you didn't understand. Hopefully other members were able to grasp my meaning.
When one uses factual numbers to prove a point, that's not obfuscation. When one is encouraged to hush up about those numbers because they're inconvenient, unfortunately that is the definition of obfuscation.

And now I'm told to believe that a person who has volunteered a fair chunk of the last 10 years of his life to helping shepherd along an internet forum devoted to promoting a very hard line interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, is touting the anti-gun platform if he dares take a scientific look at actual rates of risks and deaths, or tries to speak plainly about how one might really be able to use a rifle in the circumstances under discussion.

Yep, from where I sit ... pretty much.

So the facts don't support our cause? So I should lie about them or hide them because THAT's somehow a good way to promote our goals?

Old Dog, that's just pathetic. If your plan here is our best hope for saving our rights, then they deserve to fall. I do NOT pin my hopes and my efforts on lies and exaggerations. These numbers -- the TRUTH as far as I've been able to uncover -- do NOT threaten our right to bear arms. And I will not cover up the truth nor refuse to say it out loud, just because it makes you uncomfortable.

Never said that you shouldn't report statistics, nor speak your mind on whether same points to a thread someone should prepare for.

Ehhhh, really? You called me out as promoting the anti-gun agenda. And impugned my statements as unworthy of a Moderator here. If you meant something else, you sure wrote it out poorly.

Nothing political on my agenda. You're the one making the argument for the "uselessness of storing away that rifle or high-capacity handgun" for that statistically unlikely situation. I simply don't believe the 2nd Amendment speaks to whether or not there needs to be a statistically probable threat to justify one's right -- or desire -- to carry around the most effective arms they can afford.

At what point in this entire thread have I said this is a 2nd Amendment question? Have I EVER said that the 2nd Amendment right is based on whether or not you're in immediate or likely danger? Have I ever said there's a tie between statistics and our rights?

In fact, I almost wrote THIS EXACT PARAGRAPH of yours that I've quoted here, myself, in response to your approbation about my statistical investigations.

The RIGHT to bear arms is NOT tied to whether or not carrying one in any given hypothetical scenario is "useless" or "necessary." Therefore, discussing in real world terms whether or not there's a pressing need to do so DOES NOT harm our rights. It can't.

Part of the reason this forum exists is to discuss law and rights and the underpinning philosophy behind an armed citizenry. Part of the reason this forum exists is to discuss strategies and tactics for responding to realistic lethal threats in our world. Discussing why having a rifle stored in your trunk doesn't really represent a realistic response to certain kinds of dangers, or whether those dangers really exist at all in personal terms, does not impact our rights or our fundamental RKBA.

Old Dog, if that's what you meant to say, then I say that's the act of a coward.

You know, I used to hate it when my teenage daughters responded to some great point I was trying to make with that bored, "Whatever." But "act of a coward?" I've been to war; I've been a serving law enforcement officer; I have stared in the face of evil, responded to evil acts and comforted survivors and victims. Coward? Label me however you want.

I didn't say your are a coward. I described covering or refusing to speak plainly about these things, out of fear that we'd be giving aid and comfort to the (political) enemy, as cowardly. And it would be.

I do not think you want that. But be careful not to get so bothered by my statistical analysis that you go down that road.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Math is math. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning than shot in some sort of mass shooting incident. Do you insist on wearing rubber boots all of the time? Concealed carry is to protect yourself from normal muggings or carjackings or whatever. And if that lightning strikes, your concealed handgun isn't going to do much to protect you from some maniac with an AR or AK.

Actually, in the cases of most such shootings, a simple handgun may. Most mass shootings are not like Vegas or University of Texas. They are much shorter distance affairs, usually indoors and at indoor distances.

 

[BSA1]

.
If this is how you feel, I hope you're REALLY suspicious of swing sets, party balloons, bedsheets and all the other things that are comparable in lethality.

Sam1911,

That is a totally off-topic cheap shot.

I think the wheels have fallen off our discussion. It was a good one while it lasted.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How can someone deal with a violent attack if they haven't even taken the basic step of having a gun to defend themselves with?

It happens surprisingly often. Of the workplace and school shootings in GFZs where the shooter is stopped by someone other than the police, it is often by people tackling the shooter or with some sort of improvised weapon. Just the other day, a guy used his car to stop a violent attack...http://www.wral.com/the-latest-mom-of-shooting-suspect-son-wife-broke-up/17116294/

Remember that just because you don't have a gun does not mean you should consider yourself to be defenseless.

 

[danez71]

Let me try to refocus this.

I go back to my statement that so much in life is about risk management.

The fact they we carry or have smoke detectors is because we are trying to mitigate the risk of being killed.

Both of those carry various levels of risk of actually happening and most of us take some preparation.


If there were 10 more house fires this year than last year, I wouldn't put twice as many smoke detectors in my house for several reasons.

Keeping it simple, I don't perceive the increase significant enough to change what I do in terms of the number of smoke detectors I have nor do I think that adding a few more will even help in all but the rarest of rare circumstances. If the number tripled, I might feel differently.


Others may feel differently and add more smoke detectors because they perceive the risk to warrant some additional preparedness in their part.

More power to them. It certainly can't hurt and can only help. They are safer and more prepared than I. Maybe their smoke detectors will save my butt some day; thank you kind neighbor.


Now I'll say it this way too about this whole squabble.

Seriously... this squabble amounts to a personal choice of preparedness. To question their choice is questioning their character to a degree.


Not cool regardless of side of the debate you're on.

 

[BSA1]

It happens surprisingly often. Of the workplace and school shootings in GFZs where the shooter is stopped by someone other than the police, it is often by people tackling the shooter or with some sort of improvised weapon. Just the other day, a guy used his car to stop a violent attack...http://www.wral.com/the-latest-mom-of-shooting-suspect-son-wife-broke-up/17116294/

Remember that just because you don't have a gun does not mean you should consider yourself to be defenseless.

I agree completely.

In fact a vehicle (the bigger the better) is such a excellent, hard to disable tool that is one of the weapons of choice by ISIS and terrorists to cause mass injuries and deaths.

LEO's will attest how hard it is too disable a vehicle The only sure way is to disable the driver or hopefully using another vehicle to ram the attackers vehicle. Again having a vehicle bigger that the attacker's increases the chances of disabling it. (The NYC terrorist vehicle was disabled when he crashed it into a school bus).

There is overwhelming proof of how hard it is to cause enough physical injuries to attacker(s) to cause them to stop their actions. In the infamous Miami shootout Matix and Platt had no drugs in their system, were not intoxicated (I think they also did not have alcohol in their system) and did not have protection from body armor yet Platt was able to wound and kill agents despite being hit multiple times.

But this is a gun forum not a self-defense one.


British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[Sam1911]

But this is a gun forum not a self-defense one.

We have a dedicated sub forum for all sorts of self-defense topics. Please don't feel, or believe, that we would only talk about guns in relation to self defense.

However the point about how hard it is to disable a vehicle with any firearm, seems to reinforce much of what I have said throughout this thread, about the utility of being able to do something proactive about a mass murderer, because you have a rifle stored in your car.

 

[Nuclear]

I lost track, at what point did this veer into carrying a long gun in your car? The OP asked if the readers of this forum if we had considered changing or had changed our carry guns as a result of the recent mass murders. It is not unreasonable to re-evaluate one's decisions when presented with evidence of changing conditions. In the recent past we have seen an uptick in riots and mass murders. It just isn't the absolute numbers of deaths and injuries, but the trends that you have to pay attention to as well.

Also, as humans we tend to lock onto these low probability, high impact events, it is just how we are wired. It is how we got the NFA and GCA imposed on us.

If someone wants to carry a rifle for defense in their vehicle, doesn't everyone say it is more effective than a handgun? So what's the problem?

 

[Armored farmer]

Some people Are determined to prove their intelligence.
As for me, I know I am a dummy or else I wouldn't have chosen to be obsessed with a dozen different shooting disciplines as my hobby.
I could have picked up a guitar, but noooooooo......

This thread has about bled out.

 

[Fiv3r]

While I haven't changed my day to day carry habits as I have stated earlier, I have started to worry about participating in softer targets.

My medium size city is having their Christmas parade today where they light one of the parks for Easterseals. It's over a mile long going past block after block, and really can't be made totally secure.

My daughter's Brownie troop is marching in it as are some of parents to help wrangle our little goofballs and keep them from getting run over by Hadi Shrine clowns. I can't think of a softer target than a bunch of 7-8 year old girls. Now there really probably isn't much I can do in a situation, but I'll be there smiling and waving jingle bells and tossing out candy to all the kids lined up down the street...with a full size p320 9mm and spare magazine tucked into a belly band just in case.

 

[Sam1911]

Fiv3r,

I live with some of the same worries that you do, having young kids of my own. And, some of those kids like to participate in some very large scale public gatherings (like 60,000+ attendance) in big cities.

The way to deal with the anxiety is to keep risks in perspective. We blithely accept the serious and pretty common risks of the deaths of our children in an auto accident on the way to that parade or concert or game. Or of death due to medical malpractice, or due to choking or drowning in the pool. But we gun-centered folks will fret over the tiny, tiny, TINY chances of a mass shooter or truck murderer showing up.

If we can get on with our lives without undue worry in the face of very serious and easily calculated lethal risks from day-to-day events, then we should be able to assuage our own fears enough to not take more than our usual precautions when dealing with soft target situations like this.

 

[SteadyD]

I periodically oscillate between a concern for capacity (semi auto) and reliability (revolver). Whichever has become my current concern tends to dictate my answer to a question such as this. If Smith and Wesson would make a PC 327 with no lock that would make deciding a bit easier

 

[Armored farmer]

I peridocially oscillate between a concern for capacity (semi auto) and reliability (revolver). Whichever has become my current concern tends to dictate my answer to a question such as this. If Smith and Wesson would make a PC 327 with no lock that would make deciding a but easier

I am a revolver guy, and have shot revolvers much more than autos. I have had as many (if not more) failures with my revolvers (comparitively speaking) as I have with my autos. Fwiw.

 

[Elkins45]

Because in reality, they can't be "used more effectively" in the scenarios you're describing as the justification for employing them. The net reaction time, including retrieval, access, and deployment (run to the vehicle, access the weapon, run back to the danger) takes far too long. It also involves a logical fallacy - in most of these situations of PROLONGED danger, in which the above lengthy reaction time may still be serviceable, this process involves defensively retreating from danger to safety, then returning offensively to the danger. If a guy thinks they're going to play hero, great, but it's an illogical construct.

10 pages of this, it's pretty obvious some folks just won't yield their position, whether it's logical or not... The horses have all been lead to water...

I'm late to the discussion and didn't read it all, so I may be behind the discussion curve.

I have a rifle in each of my vehicles simply because it's legal and I'm fortunate enough to own enough rifles that I can spare them just for sleeper duty. I've been carrying one for about 15 years now. Having said that, in some sort of mass murder or terrorism situation, should I be lucky enough to make it back to my car I'm about 99% sure I'm just going to hop in and drive far, far away. Not a leisurely Sunday drive but just as fast as it will go, including across lawns and on sidewalks if necessary. I'm not a trained counter-sniper and I see little upside in escaping the first volley only to catch a round on the return. My duty is to myself and my family.

Regarding daily carry: that's largely dictated by my dress and by the season. I can 't really change anything beyond maybe bringing a spare magazine. Well, with one exception: now that I'm retired I don't have to wear a tucked-in shirt all the time, so I'm not sure if I will ever have to pocket carry a very small gun again.

 

[SteadyD]

I am a revolver guy, and have shot revolvers much more than autos. I have had as many (if not more) failures with my revolvers (comparitively speaking) as I have with my autos. Fwiw.

My own experience has been just the opposite of yours. I have (fortunately) never had a revolver fail in a manner that created a stoppage. I've certainly had some with issues in need of repair, but it didn't prevent them from firing. I realise my own experiences help bias my thinking on this subject.

 

[Armored farmer]

My own experience has been just the opposite of yours. I have (fortunately) never had a revolver fail in a manner that created a stoppage. I've certainly had some with issues in need of repair, but it didn't prevent them from firing. I realise my own experiences help bias my thinking on this subject.

Some of the more notable stoppages:
SP101 firing pin stuck down. (Yikes
Taurus 669 ejector rod unscrewed and the gun wouldn' open
Taurus 617 tracker out of time.
Naa mini light strikes
Naa broken Pawl
Ruger blackhawk cylinder locked up due to some thick rimmed federal ammo.

I prefer revolvers.....but they are not foolproof.

I have been debating on carrying my 4inch .357 lately, because it is target gun accurate.

 

[freyasman]

Math is math. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning than shot in some sort of mass shooting incident. Do you insist on wearing rubber boots all of the time? Concealed carry is to protect yourself from normal muggings or carjackings or whatever. And if that lightning strikes, your concealed handgun isn't going to do much to protect you from some maniac with an AR or AK.

Not necessarily true.... I will always want more and better gear against a threat, but skill and will beats gear 99% of the time.
https://www.policeone.com/active-sh...S-inspired-Draw-the-Prophet-terrorist-attack/

 

[freyasman]

I am a revolver guy, and have shot revolvers much more than autos. I have had as many (if not more) failures with my revolvers (comparitively speaking) as I have with my autos. Fwiw.

See, my personal experience has been the opposite; I have never had a malfunction with my wheelguns. And I have put literally thousands of rounds through my 586... (my Colt SAA is an heirloom, I have put less than 50 rounds through it.) Now, I worked for a couple years in a gun repair shop and I have seen all manner of malfunctions with revolvers, and I don't believe the old saw about them being more reliable, but my personal one has been. Probably one of the reasons it's my favorite.

 

[Elkins45]

Not necessarily true.... I will always want more and better gear against a threat, but skill and will beats gear 99% of the time.
https://www.policeone.com/active-sh...S-inspired-Draw-the-Prophet-terrorist-attack/

99%? Really? What skill could have stopped the rain of bullets out of a Las Vegas hotel window 500 yards away? Unless you were attending the concert with your trusty Remington 700 slung across your back the only useful skill was finding something solid to put between you and the shooter.

Sometimes skill, will and gear all take a backseat to pure, blind luck. And I'm betting it's more than 1% of the time.

 

[freyasman]

99%? Really? What skill could have stopped the rain of bullets out of a Las Vegas hotel window 500 yards away? Unless you were attending the concert with your trusty Remington 700 slung across your back the only useful skill was finding something solid to put between you and the shooter.

Sometimes skill, will and gear all take a backseat to pure, blind luck. And I'm betting it's more than 1% of the time.

And sometimes, the guy is in a window 30+ stories up, what do you want me to tell you?
Okay, you think it's more than 1% of the time; roger, got it, I understand.... Would you like to tell us what percentage it is then, since you have been so heartily offended at my estimate of 1%?
Is it 2%?
Is it 98%?
What is it, and how did you arrive at your magic number?

 

[Sam1911]

I again feel like there's a problem we're overlooking that really hangs up on the infrequency of some of these attacks.

Trying to sort out the intersection of skill, will, and gear makes some sense -- for phenomena that happen in statistically significant quantities, and which have skill, will, and gear remedies.

With these hyper-rare (in terms of numerical odds) mass shooting events, it is quite difficult to draw any realistic lessons because:
a) skill, will, and gear don't seem to actually be able to help us (e.g.: we aren't actually going to HAVE a rifle, nor grab one and shoot back at the guy dozens of floors up and hundreds of yards away in an occupied hotel, or we aren't actually going to HAVE a rifle and be able to stop the terrorist's truck, etc.)
b) the actual risks, per capita, from this type of threat are dwarfed by other massively more present dangers we actually can prepare for, maybe should, but often don't.

I.e.: if our goal is to survive, there are lots of things we should spend our time and money on to increase our chances of a long life. If our goal is more specifically to prevent violent death at the hands of a bad guy, there are lots of things we should spend our time and money on to decrease our chances of running afoul of one, or increase our chances of prevailing if we do. If analyzing and preparing and gearing up to deal with a mass killer takes one second away from our time spent working to combat common life-ending phenomenon (not due to violence), or even working to prepare for dealing with common violent criminals, then in a way we're killing ourselves. Penny wise and pound foolish.