Do recent events alter your perspective?

[American1776]

The short answer to the OP: Yes.

20 years ago, any 'civilian' who carried a gun could reasonably expect that any situation requiring its use would be over in the first few rounds. The mugger would run away as soon as the gun appeared.

Today, two 'newer' types of conflicts occur more than ever before: 1) Mass public shootings committed with a rifle. 2) Jihadist attacks

In both cases, the threat is not going to run away at the sight or sound of your gun. In fact, opening fire to protect yourself in these cases will draw fire to yourself. Also, the threats in both cases expect to die, so they will not break off the attack until they run out of ammo or they are killed.

I no longer carry a revolver, and it used to be all I carried. A Beretta 92 loaded with a 17 round magazine plus 1 is about the same size and weight as a 3 inch K-frame magnum. The 92 holds *Three times the ammo*. In its most recent TN plant testing, Beretta pulled a dozen random M9's off the factory line, and on average, they fired 19,000 rounds before a malfunction. It's as, or more, reliable as a revolver.

Carrying a hi-cap nine or 40, instead of a 5 or 6 shot revolver, is not the equivalent of wearing body armor and carrying a rifle. That's a strawman argument.

6 shots in a heavy and bulky carry gun is easily swapped out by a pistol of equal size and weight, but with 3 times the firepower. No increase in inconvenience. Why disadvantage oneself with zero benefit in return these days?

 

[Kurusu]

What I really think about these "events"

They are becoming way "to frequent" for my taste.

Got a little set of rules.

First time something " unpleasent" happens. It's bad luck.

Second time it happens in a short period of time. It's a coincidence.

Third time it happens (and all the following times after for that matter) in a short period of time. It is enemy action.

You folks take care. You are under attack(we, all free citizens in this World, are).

Edit. As for the OP question. Don't change what you carry because of that. What you may need to do is choose well "your politicos".

And here I am skating on very thin ice again.

If need be I will take the "ding". And will not complain.

 

[URIT]

This morning, my neighbor lady asked me how these mass shootings could happen. I replied, "Because the shooter was the only one with a firearm. Imagine how many lives would've been saved if everyone was armed."

 

[Borderboss]

I've been rethinking what I carry for a while, like over the past year.

My normal during the warm months and then all year during the week to/from work has been a Kahr PM-9 with a spare magazine. So that's 13 rounds of 9mm with a small gun. With crime escalating generally, for the past year I've wanted to carry larger, not necessarily caliber or capacity, but larger gun that's easier to shoot well.

My cool weather EDC is my 1911 .45 with a spare magazine, making for 16 rounds of .45, so I'm covered there. When it comes to warm weather carry, I've gone two two different options that I alternate on depending on the situation.

Option one is a fanny pack from Elite Survival Systems containing a S&W Sigma 9mm with a spare magazine, making for 33 rounds total. I don't subscribe to the notion that a fanny pack screams "gun". That's only the thinking of us gun geeks. The other 99.999% of the population are so unplugged from what's going on around them that they wouldn't give a fanny pack a second look.

Option two is a one-shoulder back pack carry pack, also from Elite Survival Systems. It's royal blue in color with no molle stuff on the outside, so it doesn't look tactical in the least. In the built in carry pocket is a S&W Model 69 L-frame .44 magnum loaded with five rounds of Speer "Short Barrel" lite magnum 200gr Gold Dot that is easy to shoot with the 2.75 inch barrel. I carry two speed loaders that are easily accessible, giving me 15 rounds total.

I'm now feeling much better with my ability to respond to a threat.

 

[JJEH]

I preach vigilance, no exceptions. And btw, my revolvers will do just fine.

Vigilance yes, absolutely. Still prefer to carry my full size semi though.

These are going to be my only comments because otherwise I'd get banned for life if I spread my political opinion. But I'll write a facebook comment soon, so....

 

[oldiesradio1560]

I've had a Concealed Carry License since the 70's and I've Never met a gun that woke up one day and said "I'm going to kill somebody today." As we know, it's who's evil finger on the trigger.

 

[Texas40]

IMO any gun is better than no gun. Carry what works for you.
Practice for proficiency with it.
Pray your never required to use it but be confident you could if the need arises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnB]

Plus one for proficiency with whatever you choose to carry. Now that I’m no longer required to run toward the gunfire, my philosophy has become much simpler: Take cover. Take a breath. Wait for an opportunity. Put your shots on target. More holes are good and bigger holes are better, but none of that matters unless you can actually put the holes where they’ll do some good. The absolute BEST firearm for self defense is the one you practice with often.

 

[bigggbbruce]

Imagine how many lives would've been saved if everyone was armed."

and imagine how many confused shooters you will have..not a good idea..

 

[Okie21]

Carry whatever you want, for whatever reason you want. But, whatever you carry, train with it. Mine is small enough to conceal well and large enough to accommodate a 15 round magazine. And there's a 17 round mag spare that goes along with it.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[V0OBWxZS16]

Today, two 'newer' types of conflicts occur more than ever before: 1) Mass public shootings committed with a rifle. 2) Jihadist attacks

In both cases, the threat is not going to run away at the sight or sound of your gun. In fact, opening fire to protect yourself in these cases will draw fire to yourself. Also, the threats in both cases expect to die, so they will not break off the attack until they run out of ammo or they are killed.

IIRC, this is not quite true. When active shooters start receiving effective resistance they strongly tend to hunker down, forfeiting their mobility and reducing their ability to continue committing murder, or they tend to commit suicide, ending the problem right then.

 

[loknload]

Getting ready for the grocery store,,,yeah my habits changed a little!

In reality no they haven’t, still carry my LCP + one spare mag and a knife, that’s it

 

[URIT]

and imagine how many confused shooters you will have..not a good idea..

My point is if everyone there was known to be armed the shooter would not have even considered what he did.

 

[LCC]

frustrated, loner white kids (at least in the ghetto they only shoot each other), angry from their inability to socially integrate, self-isolated in their rooms, playing video games where the objective is to AK-47 as many of the 'bad guys' as possible, and in their mind, everyone in the society which they feel rejected by is a bad guy...mix that with easy access to assault rifles, and here's what we get.

As an elder in a low threat environment, I quit carrying semi's for a 642 with a CT grip, can hit center at 30 feet fairly well. In front of a target with proper grip and stance. While being shut at by a maniac with an assault rifle? Best I could hope for is a doorway to hide behind, shoot the ******* in the head as he walks by. If I died with all 5 rounds expended, however, at least I had the chance to fight back.

Regarding assault rifles. I'm a vet and former marine law enforcement. This is no longer about the 2nd amendment "if they take those, they'll take this"..this is about families getting massacred by weapons that make it easy to do so...the right to blast targets rapid fire at 100 yards, or the 'need' to have a loaded assault rifle by the bed 'just in case', does not override the right for good Americans to live their lives without getting mowed down at the mall.

 

[Doug M.]

Maybe. One cannot apply rational thought processes to the irrational. Although they seem to get more attention in the US because the viewpoint is far outside American historical views, jihadist attacks (or others based on non-mainstream US religious/political views) are not common in the US. It's just easier for most of us (myself included) to associate such offenses with people are farther from what we are. However, the history of political violence/terrorism in the US simply does not match that. (Assuming that the Gilroy and El Paso attacks are based at least partially in political/social views as asserted so far.) Regardless of views, these people are almost always home grown. If you have not yet bought "Days of Rage" and read it, do so.

All that aside, and hoping I trod carefully and did not cross the forum line - when a violent criminal acts like a violent criminal, and even assuming that they might well have mental health problems, NONE OF THAT MATTERS. All that matters is their behavior, and the only proper response is superior countervailing force. I too no longer have the duty, but I am not sure I have fully overcome the mindset and trained inclination to respond.

I almost never go where I cannot be armed. I truly cannot remember the last time. It is simply not possible not make an appointment for an emergency; it is no different to me than wearing a seatbelt. In the interest of reducing the likelihood of detection and attracting attention form the sheeple, my EDC is a pocket carried G33, and I carry a spare magazine (and a flashlight, etc.). If discretion/lack of detection is less important, I tend toward a full size 9mm and at least one spare magazine. If you are able to be lawfully armed and ever go without, you need to look at the person in the mirror and have harsh words with him/her until you fix your behavior. For a suitable consulting fee, I can get a couple friends together and teach you how to talk to that person.

I was truly amazed that no one in the mall in El Paso shot back. History shows that almost all of these attackers fold as soon as they are confronted by people who are prepared enough to apply protective violence with enough vigor. I'll admit that I dislike people and contact with them enough that I am rarely in places where I have to deal with crowds. I rarely socialize after work; etc. I don't have kids, so soccer leagues and Disney have no meaning to me. My exposure to such risk is thus much lower. When I have to shop, I make a list, do my tasks, and don't dawdle. My goal is to be in and out of the store(s) as fast as possible. Regardless, I am always vigilant and try to stay aware of odd behavior, and generally move away from it.

(A side point in response to LCC, above: I am glad you have thought out the idea of hiding and ambushing. It's a potentially valid tactic.) However, I cannot agree with you on the issue of "assault rifles", which are in civilian reality, a non-existent concept. Constitutional rights must always trump public safety. Spend a bunch of time reading Scalia's opinions (both majority and dissent) on the issues of the 2nd and 4th amendments when those came before SCOTUS.)

 

[ralph7]

get.

Regarding assault rifles. I'm a vet and former marine law enforcement. This is no longer about the 2nd amendment "if they take those, they'll take this"..this is about families getting massacred by weapons that make it easy to do so...the right to blast targets rapid fire at 100 yards, or the 'need' to have a loaded assault rifle by the bed 'just in case', does not override the right for good Americans to live their lives without getting mowed down at the mall.

If we let them outlaw "assault" rifles like you seem to favor, then yes, they will not just stop at them.
I disagree with your thinking.

 

[Frogwalking]

Russia cares nothing for human deaths, ours or theirs. What better way is there to pit Americans against each other. Don't buy into it.

 

[Backlighting]

My perspective has not changed. If I'm stuck in the middle of a mass shooting my priority is to flee away from where the fire is originating. Why engage a shooter who may have body armour on and using a rifle. I'm severely outgunned. With a handgun you'd have to hit him in the head, which depending how far you are from him, is quite difficult, or in his legs, which won't guarantee the fight is over.
Additionally, if someone is firing at you you won't be calm and deliberate, as in target shooting at a range. The closest I've come to live fire directed at me was going thru the infiltration course while in Army basic training. As all veterans and active military will confirm, you low crawled while hugging the ground and may have peed in your pants, while a 30mm machine continuously fired rounds about 10 ft. above you. No joke.
To all the Rambo wannabees: If you're in the middle of a SHTF scenario you cannot predict how you will respond. Confusion will rule.

 

[LCC]

If we let them outlaw "assault" rifles like you seem to favor, then yes, they will not just stop at them.
I disagree with your thinking.

It's my values, not my thinking that you disagree with..as I do with yours.

 

[BB57]

.../
/....In an event like El Paso, my first responsibility is to get my family to safety. My second responsibility is to get myself to safety. .../

A few years ago I looked research into mass shootings in the US versus mass shootings in Australia.

There were of course fewer overall and even fewer per capita in Australia, which is a low population density country with very few metropolitan areas. There are only 5 with more than a million in Australia and the largest is just over 5 million (compared to 53 over 1 million, and 9 over 5 million in the US). Australia has only 17 with over 100,000 (compared to 354 in the US). Given that violence is closely correlated with population density, it's no surprise that the US is violent.

But..what was interesting was the shootings and violent attacks in Australia that ended well short of the mass shooting criteria. WHen you read into those you find a much greater tendency for the would be victims to take down the assailant, even when he is armed with a firearm.

Here in the US we seem to default to:

"my responsibility is to defend my family and myself". What's left unsaid is "screw any idea of a social contract where I might feel I have a moral obligation to try and defend or save the lives of innocent civilians being gunned down".

Just food for thought, but if we're going to admit on one hand that when seconds count the police are usually minutes away but on the other hand claim the only responsible thing to do is wait for the police to arrive, then we're going to continue to have mass shootings with high death tolls. Meanwhile in Australia, they've established a significant deterrent by making it clear that if you want to attempt to launch a mass attack, your would be victims are going to beat the ever livin' bejeezus out of you.

We've become a nation of sheep and I'm starting to think we deserve what we get.