Any gun control cultist will tell you that the "rarity" of needing a gun AT ALL "makes it all but useless for one to carry" a gun AT ALL.
Agreed with this here. One thing though, a lot of what you are calling "high capacity magaZines" are actually just standard capacity magazines. These 15, 16, 17, 19 etc round magaZines for double stack semi autos are what the firearm was designed to run in the first place. A 100rd aftermarket drum is a high capacity magazine, a 17rd Glock 17 or 19rd XD mag is a standard capacity magaZine. The reason I myself carry a double stack Glock 19 is not because I don't plan to aim or consider myself an above average shot. I am well trained and continue to train on a weekly basis, however I still like to give myself every advantage I can. If carrying a double stack (Glock 19/32) was u comfortable and kept me from carrying it then I would carry my M&P Shield single stack 7+1 or my airweight smith as a primary carry weapon. For me though at 6ft and roughly 190lbs I have no issues carrying my mid size Glocks with the right holsters. I also carry a folding knife in each side pant pocket, my wallet, keys, and a small 120 lumen surefire light each day. None of this bothers me and with exception to the Glock, I tend to use each item almost daily so they aren't carried for no reason. If im doing a business transaction with cash, going to a questionable area or traveling in general and other higher risk situations I may even carry a backup/auxiliary weapon (like my Shield or airweight) aside from my double stack. I am also a "truck gun" guy; I built a 10.5" AR pistol that rides with me at all times along with 210rds of 62/77gr ammo, one of my CATI Plate carriers, and a sizeable medical/trauma kit. These are all just things that, for me, fall under the category of "I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.". Times are different this day in age and at any moment you could find yourself in the middle of a very dangerous situation out of nowhere. For me it's better to stack the odds in your favor when you can and be prepared whenever possible. Every man is different, though. If you feel a 5 shot revolver is enough for your daily protection then the odds are it probably is. So long as you practice with it, any firearm can save your hide so training with what you carry is much more important than how many rounds you choose to carry. However that being said I don't think you will ever find anyone who has been involved in a firefight that says they wish they had LESS ammo at their disposal, so I carry as much as I comfortably can. As always, YMMV.
First of all, when law enforcement officers employ their firearms in defensive encounters and and are not attempting to otherwise pursue and subdue violent criminals who are in the act of committing crimes, there is no reason to distinguish between civilian and police shootings. Second, yes, six or eight rounds depended may describe the majority of incidents, but (1) it is usually not prudent in risk mitigation to plan for majority coverage only, and (2) most of us would not like to end up holding an empty gun while looking around for other attackers. I, for one, would not board an airplane that was thought to be able to arrive safely in "the vast majority" of cases. I carry high rounds. I think ten would be better, but I have selected a firearm with a capacity of eight rounds after having considered several parameters.
It's all about people with no skin in the game telling OTHER people what they need.
Piers Morgan would certainly agree that using a handgun for self-defense at all is far from the ordinary "Joe" out enjoying life. That assertion would be as "valid" as yours.
Unless you have assigned police bodyguards or you're attacked INSIDE a police station, that is almost INVARIABLY the case.
If I had the ability to unerringly predict the future so that I would know when I'd need a firearm, and how much ammunition I'd require, I'd instead play the stock market and the horses. In a couple of weeks, I'd have enough money to buy a private island and an army and navy to protect it and me.
Whether or not an officer has responded to an alarm or report of a crime in progress or a report of domestic violence, a sudden an unexpected attack by a violent criminal actor on the officer differs little from an ambush on a civilian in terms of what happens after defensive firearms are brought into play.
I was just concurring.
It's perfectly clear, but in my mind it is not pertinent to the subject at hand, in that it does not result in differences in the number of rounds likely to be fired i nee defensive part of the encounter. The LEO may draw upon arrival in some kinds of responses, but he or she will not necessarily know whether an attack will occur, or from whom, or from where. Now, the officer cannot threat the encounter as being over if the criminal tries to get away, and in trying to apprehend the subject, he or she is likely to need additional capacity and maybe even additional magazines.
And why do you not think so?
