Changing Carry Gun - Paris etc.
- Thread starter SpecRacer
- Start date
Or the terrorists with AK's, loaded with 7.62x39 steel core ammo, that will penetrate the wall you're hiding behind and will stitch you before you can fire a shot. If carrying a bigger, higher capacity handgun placates your conscience, go for it. Just know that regardless of what you're packing, if it's a terrorist situation, in all likelihood you'll be outgunned.
Last edited:
Hey, everybody, pay attention!
This article really hits the nail on the head. Everyone who's bothered to post in this thread ought to read it. Thanks, Mister X!
This article really hits the nail on the head. Everyone who's bothered to post in this thread ought to read it. Thanks, Mister X!
snowman.45
Member
As someone mentioned earlier, your choices may be: fail to engage and die in the subsequent explosion or gunfire, engage and die in the explosion or gunfire, or engage and possibly stop the terrorist before he/she can detonate or kill additional victims with gunfire. Seems like a pretty simple choice to me. Maybe I spent too many years as a cop and don't have the witness only mentality, or the "maybe they won't see me and leave me alone" mentality. Seems to me an armed person has a duty to protect their family first and anyone else that they can reasonably save next.
Insofar as the choice of firearms go, I like both autos and revolvers and often carry one or the other. I maintain my proficiency and feel confident with both. However, no one ever complained about having too many bullets, and the auto will often out-capacity the revolver. Reloads can be fast with either, but with a higher capacity auto, they can be less frequent. Any of the revolver reloading techniques from the video above will work with practice; they just may have to be more frequent in a bad situation.
In my mind, being the most prepared you can be for any situation is preferable to to being of the "good enough" mindset. I'm not suggesting that we deal in fantasy, but being reasonably prepared for the worst-case scenario that you can imagine might be where you want to be in the event that you're forced to protect your family, yourself, and possibly others.
Having said all of that, I don't carry ten magazines with my Glock 19 (although I may carry two spares), I don't wear a bullet-resistant vest while shopping in the malls, and I don't go anywhere with the expectation that there will be a terrorist attack. Nor do I wear a backpack containing all of my survival and armament needs, wear "tactical" pants to do my shopping, or carry a gee-whiz folding carbine/pistol under a vest for concealment, but having been in law enforcement for 37 years, I know there are no absolutes, and that includes safe places.
I don't blame anyone for paying attention and wanting to be more prepared for a potential problem. Those of you who find fault with those who do try to think ahead should step back and take a look at their motivations and concerns, rather than criticize them for their thoughts.
Insofar as the choice of firearms go, I like both autos and revolvers and often carry one or the other. I maintain my proficiency and feel confident with both. However, no one ever complained about having too many bullets, and the auto will often out-capacity the revolver. Reloads can be fast with either, but with a higher capacity auto, they can be less frequent. Any of the revolver reloading techniques from the video above will work with practice; they just may have to be more frequent in a bad situation.
In my mind, being the most prepared you can be for any situation is preferable to to being of the "good enough" mindset. I'm not suggesting that we deal in fantasy, but being reasonably prepared for the worst-case scenario that you can imagine might be where you want to be in the event that you're forced to protect your family, yourself, and possibly others.
Having said all of that, I don't carry ten magazines with my Glock 19 (although I may carry two spares), I don't wear a bullet-resistant vest while shopping in the malls, and I don't go anywhere with the expectation that there will be a terrorist attack. Nor do I wear a backpack containing all of my survival and armament needs, wear "tactical" pants to do my shopping, or carry a gee-whiz folding carbine/pistol under a vest for concealment, but having been in law enforcement for 37 years, I know there are no absolutes, and that includes safe places.
I don't blame anyone for paying attention and wanting to be more prepared for a potential problem. Those of you who find fault with those who do try to think ahead should step back and take a look at their motivations and concerns, rather than criticize them for their thoughts.
HereSinceTheLongHunters
Member
HBO recently played a full length documentary. The defenders did a great job of containing the perps and allowing victims to flee. Lucky for them there were no suicide vests and they had effective cover behind mall structures. The police were unbelievably unwilling to engage and almost more of a problem in the end than the attackers...! Learning that people just laid there and bled out was disturbing. No one seemed to have a clue about first aid.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have the second amendment for a reason! IMHO every citizen who can lawfully do so should carry as much fire power was they are able. At times like these more so than ever.
We have the second amendment for a reason! IMHO every citizen who can lawfully do so should carry as much fire power was they are able. At times like these more so than ever.
Not Going to Worry About It
The terrorists struck at Paris. Not Tours, Marseilles, Cannes, or Brest. They hit Paris, because that's what would cause the biggest splash. Everyone knows about Paris. Who the hell ever heard of Dijon; if the terrorists hit there, the talking heads on the news would spend time explaining that no, Daesh didn't blow up a mustard factory.
While some crazy-butt lone-wolf might shoot up anywhere, the Pros from Dover in the terrorist game are going to attack places that are known around the world: NYC, Washington, DC, Chicago, Los Angles and San Francisco. They're not going to hit Toledo or Tulsa.
IMO.
The terrorists struck at Paris. Not Tours, Marseilles, Cannes, or Brest. They hit Paris, because that's what would cause the biggest splash. Everyone knows about Paris. Who the hell ever heard of Dijon; if the terrorists hit there, the talking heads on the news would spend time explaining that no, Daesh didn't blow up a mustard factory.
While some crazy-butt lone-wolf might shoot up anywhere, the Pros from Dover in the terrorist game are going to attack places that are known around the world: NYC, Washington, DC, Chicago, Los Angles and San Francisco. They're not going to hit Toledo or Tulsa.
IMO.
TexasArmed
Member
I will call them ISIS myself. I tire of the name changes and
the government's reclassification and redefining them to terms
which fits someone in power's agenda. On a smaller scale they
attacked in Garland, Texas, Ft. Hood Texas, Little Rock Arkansas, Knoxville, Tennessee which comparatively are smaller areas than NY or DC. All these cases were not called what they were
but something else, and calling them instead "workplace violence", "drive by shooting", "depression".
I missed the one in Oklahoma that included a beheading.
When the government is busy bringing in criminal illegals or fails to prevent criminals who have long
rap sheets, and multiple deportations, and brings in numerous
refugees that cannot be background checked, but are interviewed by social workers the landscape is changing, and we have to change with it. It has taken me a long time to finally buy a semi automatic since i prefer only revolvers. If I am to be surrounded biker gangs some of which are criminals, criminal illegals, sanctuary cities, and young refugees who are the right age to turn to jihadist activities, I will gun up, not gun down. If i feel the need for an AR 15 I will get one. I don't plan on overcoming a bunch of them like happened in Paris, but if I am to be taken out, i prefer to take some of them with me when I go down.
Last edited:
Think I'll be changing from a Glock 26 to a S&W 638 J-frame 
.
At the range, I've always favored my larger Smith revolvers over my smaller carry semis for their greater accuracy - I always assumed it was the longer barrels/sight radius and added weight.
The Paris thing pushed me over the edge to buy my first snub nosed revolver, which I had been thinking about for a while. Well, only one day at the range so far, but surprisingly, in my hands, the 638 was significantly more accurate (DA or SA) than my G26, in side-by-side shooting. I also have a G19, which shoots about the same as the G26 for me, and an LCP that I find terrible.
Not exactly sure what it is (crisper trigger perhaps?), and I need more range time, but perhaps I'm just turning out to be a revolver guy.
Tough decision for me now - accuracy/shot placement vs capacity and reload ("spray and pray?").
. At the range, I've always favored my larger Smith revolvers over my smaller carry semis for their greater accuracy - I always assumed it was the longer barrels/sight radius and added weight.
The Paris thing pushed me over the edge to buy my first snub nosed revolver, which I had been thinking about for a while. Well, only one day at the range so far, but surprisingly, in my hands, the 638 was significantly more accurate (DA or SA) than my G26, in side-by-side shooting. I also have a G19, which shoots about the same as the G26 for me, and an LCP that I find terrible.
Not exactly sure what it is (crisper trigger perhaps?), and I need more range time, but perhaps I'm just turning out to be a revolver guy.
Tough decision for me now - accuracy/shot placement vs capacity and reload ("spray and pray?").
Yeah, well, you can make the same argument that when a white guy shoots up a place, he's "mentally ill" or a "disaffected loner" or some similar commentary. Killing nine people in a church in the hopes of sparking a race war isn't "terrorism". Black or Hispanic shooter = gang activity; white shooter = crazy person; Muslim shooter = terrorism.
But that's neither here nor there.
All of the ones you cited were pretty much lone-wolf crazies, just like the church-shooting clown in Charleston. Terrorist attacks by organized groups are going to target well-known locations. So if your only fear is terrorism, you're safer in Red Hook than Times Square.
TexasArmed
Member
I have not lost anything in Times Square, i am not interested in doing a thing to protect Times Square but i will do whatever i have to do to protect me, my family and Texas. Each one I
mentioned was an act of Global Jihad. Ask the victims at Ft.
Hood and Knoxville. At least there were some patriotic Americans who offered and protected recruiting stations after
the Jihadist attack in Knoxville.
No i will not allow the leader of Jihadist Lives Matter to define
what is a terrorist attack and what isn't. So far I have bought
a shotgun, two semi automatics this year. If i feel the need
I will buy an AR-15. I was behind someone in line buying
a similar gun this morning trying to pick up another Glock
45 caliber magazine.
Worthwhile article from Greg Ellifritz on the subject...
I just got this in my inbox. Pretty good analysis on the idea of up-arming.
Great line in paragraph 6 (seems to apply to many of us):
"An old dude with a .38 snub could have stopped the Paris theater hostage siege if he was smart and planned his moves well. More guns aren't the answer; better training and more adaptive thinking is."
?Counterinsurgency? | Active Response Training
I just got this in my inbox. Pretty good analysis on the idea of up-arming.
Great line in paragraph 6 (seems to apply to many of us):
"An old dude with a .38 snub could have stopped the Paris theater hostage siege if he was smart and planned his moves well. More guns aren't the answer; better training and more adaptive thinking is."
?Counterinsurgency? | Active Response Training
Last edited:
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
I might one day be that "old dude with a .38 snub", but it's wildly unlikely.
I'll make no change for now. The .38, and maybe a speed strip, same as I've done for years. I have only me and a little rat terrier to protect. I spend very little time in crowded places and almost none at high-profile events.
I'll try to be alert and observant, as I always have. I won't make major changes in my routine, and won't live in perpetual Condition Orange. That's no way to conduct a life, at my age.
Unless the buggers are killing people in the next block over, I think I'm going to continue to feel pretty safe.
I'll make no change for now. The .38, and maybe a speed strip, same as I've done for years. I have only me and a little rat terrier to protect. I spend very little time in crowded places and almost none at high-profile events.
I'll try to be alert and observant, as I always have. I won't make major changes in my routine, and won't live in perpetual Condition Orange. That's no way to conduct a life, at my age.
Unless the buggers are killing people in the next block over, I think I'm going to continue to feel pretty safe.
Whitwabit
US Veteran
What ever the round or the weapon I think the need to be able to do head shots at 30 to 50 feet to someone that may be wearing armor !!
Your only chance and maybe the many others around you according to the situation. May hinge on whether you are that accurate .. bad guy's will be wearing armor and when all you have is your pistol accurate headshots from round one is the only way you and others will survive !!
Your only chance and maybe the many others around you according to the situation. May hinge on whether you are that accurate .. bad guy's will be wearing armor and when all you have is your pistol accurate headshots from round one is the only way you and others will survive !!
Cal44
Member
I'm 66. Say I'm walking around carrying a gun for another 20 years.
Suppose there is one San Burnadino type event each year.
And each incident involves 50 people.
Then 1000 people will be involved in this type of terrorist incident over the rest of my life as an armed citizen.
Given about 350 million people in the US, the odds or my being involved in a San Berdu incident are 350,000 to one.
On the other hand, my chances of being mugged, robbed, or inadvertently involved in a store hold up is probably something like 1 in 100 or so.
So I don't think changing anything is required at this point.
If things get much worse, and we have terrorist events happen weekly then my view may change.
This could happen, but seems unlikely.
My numbers above are rough, but my point is "conventional" threats are way more likely to occur than being involved in terrorism.
Suppose there is one San Burnadino type event each year.
And each incident involves 50 people.
Then 1000 people will be involved in this type of terrorist incident over the rest of my life as an armed citizen.
Given about 350 million people in the US, the odds or my being involved in a San Berdu incident are 350,000 to one.
On the other hand, my chances of being mugged, robbed, or inadvertently involved in a store hold up is probably something like 1 in 100 or so.
So I don't think changing anything is required at this point.
If things get much worse, and we have terrorist events happen weekly then my view may change.
This could happen, but seems unlikely.
My numbers above are rough, but my point is "conventional" threats are way more likely to occur than being involved in terrorism.
Last edited:
Similar threads
