Fastbolt
Member
I sometimes wonder if some people expect for there to be a "routine" defensive shooting incident, like some people talk about LE making a "routine traffic stop" (which becomes anything but "routine").
The cop has a better chance of surviving the "routine" traffic stop - (which isn't routine) - if not caught too much by surprise, and if he/she can better respond to rapidly unfolding events based upon training, experience, awareness, mindset and being able to effectively use any and all equipment, and tactics, at hand which may be necessary.
As far as trying to differentiate between the potential need for more than the original 'on board' ammunition load-out in the gun, based upon whether it occurs inside or outside someone's residence?
Some people wear running shoes when running or engaging in another sporting activity. Some wear them as a fashion accessory or statement. Some just like their comfort. Who's "right"?
Arguing about ammunition capacity, and the amount of any spare ammunition carried on someone's person, may be a minor footnote in the overall picture of any particular shooting incident which involves the lawful use of deadly force.
If it's a personal choice (versus agency policy to carry a "minimum" number of mags or spare ammo), then it's also a personal risk.
With most decisions comes the potential for unfavorable consequences.
The cop has a better chance of surviving the "routine" traffic stop - (which isn't routine) - if not caught too much by surprise, and if he/she can better respond to rapidly unfolding events based upon training, experience, awareness, mindset and being able to effectively use any and all equipment, and tactics, at hand which may be necessary.
As far as trying to differentiate between the potential need for more than the original 'on board' ammunition load-out in the gun, based upon whether it occurs inside or outside someone's residence?
Some people wear running shoes when running or engaging in another sporting activity. Some wear them as a fashion accessory or statement. Some just like their comfort. Who's "right"?
Arguing about ammunition capacity, and the amount of any spare ammunition carried on someone's person, may be a minor footnote in the overall picture of any particular shooting incident which involves the lawful use of deadly force.
If it's a personal choice (versus agency policy to carry a "minimum" number of mags or spare ammo), then it's also a personal risk.
With most decisions comes the potential for unfavorable consequences.