5 shot snub & recent MD shooting

[steelslaver]

We are not arguing over how the victims could have stopped him.

The debate here is whether a 5 shot snub revolver would have been an effective weapon in such a incident or if a semi auto would have worked while the snub would have not.

It is very unfortunate that none of the victims was able to defend themselves, either because of laws, policies or personal belief. I am sure no one here feels anything but sorry this happened and all have sympathy for them and their families.

This is the concealed carry portion of the forum and types of weapons, reasons to carry and effectiveness is a focus. If we didn't believe carrying a gun could stop a murderous event none of us would carry.

Does looking at any kind of tragic event and discussing how it could have be diverted or mediated make one a ghoul?
Such hind sight is why we have shoulder harnesses, air bags, cars that crumble in a designed manner.

 

[hostler]

The debate here is whether a 5 shot snub revolver would have been an effective weapon in such a incident or if a semi auto would have worked while the snub would have not.

I think the legal issue arose because someone said the victims would be limited to a smaller firearm (such as a j-frame) because they would most likely be carrying illegally.
I think to be fair and with respect to that perspective the question should be, would a j frame be as effective as a "pocket sized" semi auto, basically a small single stack in 380 or some 9s.
I carry a j-frame but given the circumstances in MD I would have to say my choice would be a single stack 9 for the extra firepower.
I carry a j-frame because it carries better and easier than any of the small 9s (IMO). Isn't that always the trade off with concealed carry, otherwise we would all carry AR15s.

 

[500SNW]

Not sure what the compliance rate was but I do know it was not 100%.

Good for you. I would have done (and actually have done) the exact same thing.

 

[American1776]

HOW EASY COME EASY GO IS HUMAN LIFE---IN THIS INSTANCE, YOURS ? ? ?

Unfortunately, the reality for good people who live in NJ, NY, CA, MD, HI, and a few other hold out states, is that carrying a pistol for protection would entail an arrest, probable conviction, and then a prison term with a lifetime prohibition on legal gun ownership, not to mention the loss of any gainful employment and the right to vote.

In those places, the probability of getting caught by the police are much more likely than needing a pistol for defense. If your car breaks down, or if you have a medical crisis, or if you are searched for reasons beyond your control (a lockdown in the building you happen to be in), you're screwed for life.

 

[fredj338]

Unfortunately, the reality for good people who live in NJ, NY, CA, MD, HI, and a few other hold out states, is that carrying a pistol for protection would entail an arrest, probable conviction, and then a prison term with a lifetime prohibition on legal gun ownership, not to mention the loss of any gainful employment and the right to vote.

In those places, the probability of getting caught by the police are much more likely than needing a pistol for defense. If your car breaks down, or if you have a medical crisis, or if you are searched for reasons beyond your control (a lockdown in the building you happen to be in), you're screwed for life.

FWIW, ccw is legal in all 50 states at some level. Out here, we have to jump thru a ton of hoops in some counties. In some counties only the well connected & affluent can get ccw. I never carried until I had my permit. I make a point of carrying in LA or SF area just because the ccw is almost impossible, thus higher crime/victim opportunities imo. I wish ever legal gun owner could ccw. I feel it reduces violent crime by quite a bit.

 

[fredj338]

"Slightly" more restrictive?????
MD is a shall issue state where you need to show a specific documented cause for them to even consider issuing a permit, Maryland calls it "good and substantial reason".
There are about 17000 permit holders in a state of 6 million residents. (roughly 0.4% of the population).
Florida has 1.8 million permit holders with a population of about 20 million. (roughly 10% of the population).
The vast majority of those 17000 Maryland permits are restricted to specific places and times the permit holder can carry such as to and from the bank or a business, or after your life has specifically been threatened.
My point is, FL and MD have absolutely nothing in common as far as the issuance of permits goes. I know what I'm talking about here because I work in and live on the border of MD, I currently have a PA permit, a FL permit and I have applied for a MD permit which was returned (denied) because I didn't meet the "good and substantial reason" clause.

In practice, one stands a better chance of getting a permit in New York or CA than they do in MD.

That is MAY issue, just like Kalif. Fortunately the county sherrifs or larger city PC are in charge of issue with state guide lines. So we have about 110,000 permits in a state of 39 1/2M. That & sanctuary cities could be why our violent crime is so high.

 

[Mack_C85]

That is MAY issue, just like Kalif. Fortunately the county sherrifs or larger city PC are in charge of issue with state guide lines. So we have about 110,000 permits in a state of 39 1/2M. That & sanctuary cities could be why our violent crime is so high.

Maryland State Police Licensing Division controls CCWs in Maryland. For the average Joe, it ain't happening. A friend of mine had a crazy ex actually take a crack at him, and his renewal was denied, basically because she hadn't tried recently...they will use any reason they can to deny you meet the "Good and Substantial Reason" requirement.

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk

 

[Fastbolt]

If you don't mind, I'd like to lift part of your reply and modify it a bit (not because I disagree with most of your post, either) ...

...
The debate here is whether a 5 shot snub revolver would have been an effective weapon in such a incident or if a semi auto would have worked while the snub would have not. ...

The question here is whether some lawful owners/carries would feel they were capable of ending the attack/threat with 5 rounds.

This is what it comes down to, eventually.

Some may have less confidence in themselves.

Some may have less confidence in the design (revolver vs. pistol).

Some may have less confidence because of the smaller or larger size of the handgun, from a handling and manipulation perspective.

Some may have less confidence in a "caliber" (for whatever reason they've decided is right).

Some may have less confidence in only having 5 fast rounds at their disposal, versus 6-8, 9-10, or 20+ rounds before having to reload.

Some may just "feel" they need something large enough to also use it as portable cover.

These are the sort of things that carefully devised (and supervised) training can help sort out for many folks, up to and including properly regulated force-on-force training.

Of course, sometimes any answers obtained in increasingly realistic training may only create more questions, or deflate some previously held, cherished notion.

TANSTAAFL. Sometimes that's how it goes.

 

[eb07]

NO QUARTER to active shooters. Face shots and a 38 to the face would have ended it quick that's all I have to say.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Since it is perfectly clear that in a face to face standoff where the shotgun wielding killer has the literal drop on you it doesn't matter what your defensive weapon is. But if I am in my office (under my desk, even!) and I hear gunfire (and ignoring the fact that I have an escape route) my handgun, be it a J frame, K frame, or 9mm, will be IN MY HANDS. He might get me but a lot of rounds will be headed his way before that shotgun points directly at me. I AM PREPARED for that scenario. My company WANTS ME to be prepared for that scenario. If the killer walks into my office first, well, that's different. But if the shooting has started there WILL be a gunfight. The good news, I have colleagues who are just as ready and prepared as I am and one is a VERY Misguided Child who has seen the elephant so, well, this is Dallas, Texas, and some offices are prepared for the this. Mine is one of them. I imagine the folks in Annapolis are somewhat less prepared than we are.

 

[TomkinsSP]

As a legal CCW holder, you have ONE ADVANTAGE over Mr. Psychopath. You KNOW he has a shotgun and is intent on murder. He does not know you are armed.

Throwing shots at him will inform him you are armed. Maybe that will make him leave. But, if he planned on dying here today, it just gives away your position. Make every shot count, because even if you have a G19 with a 33 round stick, if you miss many shots, you will be too dead to fire the rest. Against one Psycho, five is plenty. And five .38 or .357 is way better balistically than seven .380s.

 

[keith44spl]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




Ya can't miss fast enough to win.




.

 

[Mister X]

It ultimately boils down to tactics and timing. There are even plenty of examples of unarmed individuals taking down active-shooters. The idea of shooting it out, especially in the open, seems rather absurd to me, regardless of the weapons involved.

There have also been a few mentions about how we carry handguns because they are concealable and convenient, but if expecting trouble, a long gun is superior. I don't see it that way, because a long gun would be next to useless for most people in the majority of civilian defense situations. It's a matter of the likely dynamics, the distances involved, and reactive vs proactive. I carry because I do have a reasonable expectation that I might actually need it and a handgun is the most effective tool for the most probable scenarios.

 

[AimHigher]

Somebody help me out here. Did someone in the newsroom actually have a snubby? Or is this just more revolver hate. News flash. You're at a huge disadvantage when it's long gun vs short gun. I don't care if the short one's a Glock 17 with a 50rd drum.

I would say that it would come down to a couple of key factors: 1. Close quarters vs. open areas and 2., who, if anyone, has got the drop on the other.

I don't believe that anyone is at a "huge disadvantage" based solely on not having a long gun. If I was taking concealment in a tight, close quarters scenario, I believe I would be better served with a handgun. Having your hands full of rifle/carbine can be a liability - especially in tight spaces such as offices / narrow corridors and alike. An effective handgun caliber and bullet in the hands of a well practiced defender can go a long way in balancing a perceived advantage of a rifle in an armed confrontation.

 

[fredj338]

Maryland State Police Licensing Division controls CCWs in Maryland. For the average Joe, it ain't happening. A friend of mine had a crazy ex actually take a crack at him, and his renewal was denied, basically because she hadn't tried recently...they will use any reason they can to deny you meet the "Good and Substantial Reason" requirement.

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk

Understood, why it is called MAY issue. They may or may not. The good cause thing is BS. Same thing here until the 2015 Peruta case.
Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court | Fox News
I live in Orange Cty. Until this case the sherrif here issued about 50 a year. Since then, 5,000 a year & climbing. If the case gets decided by the SCOTUS, it might help other may issue states like MD.

 

[fredj338]

Fred, I don't pick my off-duty/retirement weapons predicated upon only facing a certain type of attacker's weapon.

The training, quals & drills I practice for use with my J-frames are the same as those used with my larger belt guns.

Comes to that, how is this any different than the earlier days of carrying a 6rd service revolver on-duty? I fully expected I might have to use that revolver against someone armed with a shotgun. As a matter of fact, I remember one night in an "active" beat where I saw a man walking down the sidewalk carrying a Mossberg pump shotgun with an extended mag tube, and the first thing I reached for was my 6rd duty revolver.

The only difference is that I realize my diminutive 5-shot snubs require more effort on my part in order to obtain practical accuracy and controllability, compared to larger pistols and revolvers.

Yes, the inherent 5rd ammo limitation probably means the smaller weapon is likely anticipated as being sufficient to use against 1-2 attackers (although I remember learning of a case where a cop effectively and successfully used one against 3 armed robbers).

Another way to look at it is when considering one of the threat targets we've often used for some training & quals, when we use those large, full color pictures of different people holding different firearms. One of them is a "threat" wearing obvious body armor over a t-shirt and holding a subgun. Yes, I've used that particular threat target when running one of my 5rd snubs for practice drills or a qual, and when wandering out and about in public I have in the back of my mind that I might run into some nutcase who would essentially fulfill this "scenario" ... even if I'm only carrying one of my J-frame snubs.

The size of the gun can introduce training and manipulation difficulties for many shooters, and even require more frequent loading (reloading) for extended drills and qual courses-of-fire ... but it's still just a handgun.

When the rubber meets the road, it's still the skillset, mindset, training and experience of the guy/gal carrying it that's likely to mean the difference.

So, yes Fred, I still anticipate that one of the real-world threats I might encounter could be a shotgun wielding nut in some public place, and I still often choose to carry one of my 5-shot snubs as a retirement weapon, even keeping this in mind. (Ditto one of my 6-shot LCP's comes to that.)

Would I rather have my own 12GA shotgun, or even a rifle, if facing a shotgun wielding nut? Of course.

It's certainly preferable to being unarmed.

I do not disagree but the question isn't armed vs unarmed but armed vs better armed, trained & skilled vs better trained & better skilled. As a working LEO back in the day, sure you had a 6 shot revolver & speed loaders, vest, radio & you made do. Until agencies figured out that their officers would be "better" armed with as semi & faster reloads, more ammo & issued that?
I am not bashing revos, I love them, but events like this, among others recently, make me glad I carry a bit more gun & train & practice harder than most LEO. I probably never need it, but if I do, I probably need it very badly. Everyone misses, body armor, multiple attackers, what ever. So more seems better than less. JMO. My g26 is not much of a burden. It is a question to provoke thought, not meant as an attack on the guys/gals that want to carry light or practice easy.

 

[Wise_A]

Unfortunately, the reality for good people who live in NJ, NY, CA, MD, HI, and a few other hold out states, is that carrying a pistol for protection would entail an arrest, probable conviction, and then a prison term with a lifetime prohibition on legal gun ownership, not to mention the loss of any gainful employment and the right to vote.

In those places, the probability of getting caught by the police are much more likely than needing a pistol for defense. If your car breaks down, or if you have a medical crisis, or if you are searched for reasons beyond your control (a lockdown in the building you happen to be in), you're screwed for life.

Uh, New York is a shall-issue state. I carry every day. NYC is not the entire state of NY.

 

[Mister X]

I am not bashing revos, I love them, but events like this, among others recently, make me glad I carry a bit more gun & train & practice harder than most LEO. I probably never need it, but if I do, I probably need it very badly. Everyone misses, body armor, multiple attackers, what ever. So more seems better than less. JMO. My g26 is not much of a burden. It is a question to provoke thought, not meant as an attack on the guys/gals that want to carry light or practice easy.

Maybe you don't intend for it to be bashing, but you come across as a bit condescending and as if you have the perspective that choosing to carry a snub revolver equals being lazy.

I choose to carry a snub because I think it's the most effective weapon for the most probable scenarios I'll encounter and how I intend to respond.

How exactly are you better trained and practice harder than most LEO's?

 

[Fastbolt]

...It is a question to provoke thought, not meant as an attack on the guys/gals that want to carry light or practice easy.

Didn't see it as an "attack" on folks who have found reason to carry light.

Regardless of whether someone is carrying 5 rounds and a 5rd speedloader/strip, or 17rds and 50rds in spare mags, it's likely still going to come down to accurately putting rounds where they need to go, fast enough. Time-wise, having it happen with the initial 1-3 rounds is probably better in hedging things in your favor than having it happen after you've dumped a couple of mags without the desired effect.

I've listened to guys who emptied a couple hi-cap mags at an attacker, either without hitting their attacker, or not hitting their attacker in a sufficiently critical anatomical spot to prevent the attacker from being able to continue their volitional deadly force actions. (Lifted a bit of that description from the '89 FBI paper on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness, as it left an impression on me when I received a copy of it when it was new. ) In some cases they had the time to realize they needed to make a critical hit (or 3, in one case meaning 3 head shots) to try and survive.

Then, I've listened to guys who ended their encounter with 1-2 hits (and all of their extra mags and remaining ammo ended up in evidence ).

For myself, I still occasionally take one or another of my DA or DAO 5-shot J's out to 40-50yds, to make sure I can still keep them on the scoring zones of whatever silhouettes we may be presently using, or perhaps on one of the steel silhouettes at that range. I also make sure I run them just as hard as my subcompact to full-size pistols within the usual 3-15yd qual Cof's, and while they may require more loading between strings of fire, they don't get any slack when it comes to scoring the hits.

Now, I see it more from the perspective of deciding whether I'm willing to have 5 immediate rounds ready for use before having to load again ... or 8 rounds .... or 9 rounds ... or 10 rounds ... or maybe even 12 rounds (my highest mag capacity pistol).

Not because I'm practicing any "easier" for carrying a smaller gun with fewer rounds. If anything, I'm going to practice harder with the lower capacity gun, to try and improve my potential to be able get those critical first 1-3 hits with it/them.

 

[American1776]

Off-Duty Officer Shoots Armed Robber at Beauty Salon - The New York Times

Here's story about an NYPD off-duty, female officer, who shot a felon who was armed with what looked like a Ruger 44 magnum. The officer fired all 5 rounds from her model 640, hitting the guy's gun hand and disabling him.

The 5 shot snub worked in this instance.