"compromise!!"

[sar]

:rant on:

I'm always stunned at the vehemence with which some folk denounce the carrying of a small weapon. What gets to me is the inconsistent logic. The way I figure it is that the likelihood of my needing the weapon is tiny. Most criminals are predators and will respond to resistance (especially armed resistance) by flight. The overwhelming data on citizen use of firearms for self defence confirm that actually firing the weapon is rarely necessary. I think most folks agree that shot placement is more important than caliber.

On the other hand, it's very clear from data that the number one cause of death of folks under 44 is trauma. Of this the number one cause of death is motorvehicle crashes. More specifically head injury from an MVC. It seems therefore a logic error to carry a full sized .45 and not ride in a 5star safety rated vehicle (these can be found at safercars.gov and also at iihs.org (IIHS, does a more severe lateral impact crash)) additionally, a nice motorcycle helmet and 5 point harness would help.

Obviously this is tongue in cheek, but the point remains that WE ALL MAKE COMPROMISES WITH OUR PERSONAL SAFETY, every day. If some of us choose to carry small guns, or heaven forbid, carry only when we feel the need, so be it. However, unless every aspect of your life is designed to minimize your risk of accidental death or that due to illness(car choice, don't smoke, no McD's, no motorcycles, no horseback riding(the single most lethal recreational activity done by Americans), etc, etc) preaching about calibers that start with 4 is kinda silly.

:rant off:

[OverEasy]

You need a bigger gun! Just go ahead and get one. You'll feel better afterward.
OE

[sar]

You need a bigger gun! Just go ahead and get one. You'll feel better afterward.
OE

LOL!
I gotta redhawk and a fullsize Kimber. I can actually easily conceal either under an untucked shirt and an IWB holster. And I carry those on my way out to hunting. Just don't carry 'em day to day.

[mr.72]

sorry, sar.

There are a few on this forum who do not allow for realistic expectations or compromise. I don't know if they are going to come out of the woodwork but the extreme point of view may be sometimes summarized like this:

- you should carry all the time
- if you are going to carry, then you should carry the most useful gun available
- this most useful gun is often of <xyz> caliber, and also of <abc> capacity
- there is some room for compromise... you may choose fewer rounds of capacity in favor of larger caliber, or vice versa
- this most useful gun has a long sight radius and is easy to handle and has other benefits
- you should change your wardrobe and lifestyle to support the strong-side carry of this most useful gun
- anything less constitutes you not taking your safety or the safety of your family seriously

While there is merit to these points, there is also merit to the counter arguments. Unless the only thing in your life you value is carrying a hand gun, then these arguments probably do not work 100% of the time.

[Commander Cody]

I do carry a small gun everyday. A Kimber UC II. Ya gotta admit it is small.

[sar]

ARGH. KIMBER I've already wasted anger and forum space on Kimber.

[Excaliber]

The way I figure it is that the likelihood of my needing the weapon is tiny. Most criminals are predators and will respond to resistance (especially armed resistance) by flight. The overwhelming data on citizen use of firearms for self defence confirm that actually firing the weapon is rarely necessary. I think most folks agree that shot placement is more important than caliber.

If one believes that he will not be a victim of violence it would be reasonable to not carry a gun at all. If he believes that he can predict the times and places when and where violence will and won't occur, it would seem most reasonable to leave it at home when going to "safe" places, and to carry in conformance with Mr.72's "extreme view" when visiting dangerous ones. If you've got this figured out, you're way ahead of me and I hope you'll share your methodology - I'd be happy not to have to lug around all that hardware all the time.

If you ever are unfortunate enough to be targeted in a criminal incident, for your sake we can only hope that the BG's involved are nice, reasonable bad guys and the dynamics of the incident fall within the parameters of your assumptions. If you come up against a drug hyped street thug who isn't intimidated by the microblaster that you hopefully got lucky and carried that day, and you pinprick him with it a few times, he's liable to get mad and hurt you. At that point you could try explaining to him about how shot placement is more important than caliber (that's generally true, but it doesn't mean that caliber is unimportant), but I wouldn't expect that to slow him down much in time to do you any good.

There are a few on this forum who do not allow for realistic expectations or compromise. I don't know if they are going to come out of the woodwork but the extreme point of view may be sometimes summarized like this:

- you should carry all the time
- if you are going to carry, then you should carry the most useful gun available
- this most useful gun is often of <xyz> caliber, and also of <abc> capacity
- there is some room for compromise... you may choose fewer rounds of capacity in favor of larger caliber, or vice versa
- this most useful gun has a long sight radius and is easy to handle and has other benefits
- you should change your wardrobe and lifestyle to support the strong-side carry of this most useful gun
- anything less constitutes you not taking your safety or the safety of your family seriously

While there is merit to these points, there is also merit to the counter arguments. Unless the only thing in your life you value is carrying a hand gun, then these arguments probably do not work 100% of the time.

Mr.72 has pretty well summarized the conclusions that many folks who recognize that the threat of violence is real, and that it can be encountered anywhere and anytime, have accepted as a reasonable response. A lot of these people didn't make this up on their own, but arrived at those conclusions after seeing violent crime up close and personal. Personally I don't think being properly prepared to handle common criminal incidents is a whole lot of trouble on a daily basis once it becomes a habit, but some don't agree and make other choices. I suspect that even the strongest proponents of the "be always prepared" doctrine make some exceptions sometimes for various reasons that seem like a good idea at the time, and I don't have any issue with that - I do it myself occasionally. There are very few things in life that are 100%.

In the final analysis, we all make our own assessments of risk and the way the world works, and then decide on what we're going to do about it. Folks select the information sources they consider to be trustworthy and reliable, and derive their conclusions from them. Some favor sources that emphasize lessons learned from multiple real life encounters. Others have confidence in only what they have experienced personally, or rely on statistical sources for their evaluations. Still others use a combination of all of these and, when sources are in conflict, give weight to whichever ones they think are best. The decisions on what action to take are up to each of us, regardless of any dissenting opinions posted on this forum. The one thing that always applies is that we'll all live with the consequences of the choices we make.

Please continue to share your experiences when theory collides with reality. There's nothing like a real world application to separate the wheat from the chaff, and there are always lessons to be learned from the results.

[yerasimos]

I'm always stunned at the vehemence with which some folk denounce the carrying of a small weapon.

I have posted some pretty strong opinions regarding reduced-size and subcaliber semiautomatic pistols, so I am likely one of the guilty parties described above.

What gets to me is the inconsistent logic. The way I figure it is that the likelihood of my needing the weapon is tiny. Most criminals are predators and will respond to resistance (especially armed resistance) by flight. The overwhelming data on citizen use of firearms for self defence confirm that actually firing the weapon is rarely necessary.

The broad statistics may corroborate this statement. However, if you are so unlucky to be faced with dedicated and competent opponents (that is to say, your probability for encountering a worst-case, nightmare criminal assault just spiked to 100%), you may quickly conclude that a double-stack .45 ACP is still not enough gun. Stated another way, if you seek the equipment and skills to best defend yourself against the criminal versions of Kevin Randleman and Brock Lesnar flanking you with handguns, you will find it much easier to handle the statistically more probable scenario of a lone 120lb crack-head charging you with a dull pocket knife from 7 yards away.

I think most folks agree that shot placement is more important than caliber.

Agreed. The bullet needs to get to the right destination before it can get the job done.

On the other hand, it's very clear from data that the number one cause of death of folks under 44 is trauma. Of this the number one cause of death is motorvehicle crashes. More specifically head injury from an MVC. It seems therefore a logic error to carry a full sized .45 and not ride in a 5star safety rated vehicle (these can be found at safercars.gov and also at iihs.org (IIHS, does a more severe lateral impact crash)) additionally, a nice motorcycle helmet and 5 point harness would help.

I agree with you wholeheatedly. That said, with all of the fast moving heavy trucks on the road in Texas, I wonder just how well a five-star rated, crashworthy vehicle will protect you from a MVC with some of the monsters I have seen on the roads, compared to less crashworthy vehicles. I conclude that while the "hardware" (passenger vehicles and their variable crashworthiness) may be suboptimal in absolute terms (ie, relative to the big fast-moving trucks), we still must do the best we can with "software" solutions such as our awareness and appropriate driving tactics and courtesy, no matter what type of vehicle we are driving. Similarly, no matter whether we choose the double-stack .45 or the .32 Seecamp, we still need to run the appropriate software (awareness and tactics) to watch out for the common as well as the less common criminal threats. If I can acquire the better hardware, though, I will take it.

Obviously this is tongue in cheek, but the point remains that WE ALL MAKE COMPROMISES WITH OUR PERSONAL SAFETY, every day. If some of us choose to carry small guns, or heaven forbid, carry only when we feel the need, so be it. However, unless every aspect of your life is designed to minimize your risk of accidental death or that due to illness(car choice, don't smoke, no McD's, no motorcycles, no horseback riding(the single most lethal recreational activity done by Americans), etc, etc) preaching about calibers that start with 4 is kinda silly.

Some of these choices are easier to unwind/exit than others. A daily McD's lunch habit can be dropped by sustaining relatively marginal costs---you just need to cultivate the discipline to pack a few Clif bars or a small cooler or paper bag with healthy food choices. Unwinding a position in a $300-$600 mousegun is not as trivial, particularly if the potential buyer lives two or three (or more) counties away or you have to wait until the next gun show two or three weeks away and you need the money by the weekend. If such a purchase is a bad idea, why not avoid it in the first place?

Speaking for myself, I do not ride motorcycles or bicycles or horses, I have never smoked, I gave up downhill skiing years ago, I drive a car that was rated five stars by the IIHS---and I have never owned any handgun smaller than 9mm Luger or .38 special.

[Excaliber]

I do carry a small gun everyday. A Kimber UC II. Ya gotta admit it is small.

Perhaps even, in the "extreme view", too small........ Just kidding!

It goes without saying, of course, that it's a .45.

[mr.72]

Mr.72 has pretty well summarized the conclusions that many folks who recognize that the threat of violence is real, and that it can be encountered anywhere and anytime, have accepted as a reasonable response.

I should point out, it is not universally-accepted that this is the only reasonable response. There is unreasonable on both ends of the spectrum and a wide range of reasonable in the middle.

In the final analysis, we all make our own assessments of risk and the way the world works, and then decide on what we're going to do about it. Some put more careful thought and consideration into it, and others are satisfied with a much less comprehensive approach,

This is a very irritating and condescending implication that making a different choice constitutes a lack of "careful thought and consideration".

There's nothing like a real world application to separate the wheat from the chaff, and there are always lessons to be learned from the results.

The reality is that virtually all of us are at nearly zero risk, and no gun is really adequate if we are unfortunate enough to beat those odds.

The thing that is often ignored is that one's way of life or lifestyle is a big part of what is worth protecting when we talk about protecting our lives. When we are talking about protecting our freedom, we need to consider our freedom of expression is a big part of that. Maybe we would all be safer if we open-carried a 12ga shotgun and wore body armor, and drove an armored vehicle or even a tank. Why not? Certainly there is some extreme case that can be presented that nearly everyone, even those big guns 24/7 kind of people, will agree is too much. So once it is conceded that some amount is too much, then it becomes a huge gray area what constitutes too much or too little.

IMHO a .22 cal derringer is way too little. A full-frame .45 auto and more than one BUG, plus many rounds of spare ammo and no recognition of how one fits into society in terms of appearance is way too much. In between is gray area.

[sar]

I take care of folks who are in MVCs ever day, and gunshots maybe every week(sometimes more, sometimes less). In the final analysis I drive a 5star crash and carry (when I feel the need) a small gun. I think I'm probably better off than a guy with a vette and fullsize auto.

Again, I have absolutely NOTHING against those carrying large guns. For those who wish to, that's great. I can certainly think of situations where a bigger gun would be better, and accuracy at some distance desirable.

The collision of theory and reality is funny, since the statistics I look at come from the CDC, DOJ, FBI, and NHTSA.

I've taken care of several folks this year alone that were instantly (and almost fatally) incapacitated by .22lrs. This is excluding head shots.

[sar]

Please continue to share your experiences when theory collides with reality. There's nothing like a real world application to separate the wheat from the chaff, and there are always lessons to be learned from the results.

My point is exactly that this is unlikely to take place. However, between the published statistics, and the vicarious experiences of the 1200-1500 patients I see each year, I'm able to make a conclusion or two.

[Excaliber]

I should point out, it is not universally-accepted that this is the only reasonable response. There is unreasonable on both ends of the spectrum and a wide range of reasonable in the middle.

I agree.

Quote:
In the final analysis, we all make our own assessments of risk and the way the world works, and then decide on what we're going to do about it. Some put more careful thought and consideration into it, and others are satisfied with a much less comprehensive approach,


This is a very irritating and condescending implication that making a different choice constitutes a lack of "careful thought and consideration".

It is never my intent to give offense, and I apologize that my quick choice of words did so in this case. I can see how it could be read that way. Thanks for calling this to my attention. Let me rephrase that thought as:

"Folks select the information sources they consider to be trustworthy and reliable, and derive their conclusions from them. Some favor sources that emphasize lessons learned from multiple real life encounters. Others have confidence in only what they have experienced personally, or rely on statistical sources for their evaluations. Still others use a combination of all of these and, when sources are in conflict, give weight to whichever ones they think are best. " I'll edit my post to reflect this more accurate wording.

The reality is that virtually all of us are at nearly zero risk, and no gun is really adequate if we are unfortunate enough to beat those odds.

I can't agree with either of these statements.

Lots of innocent people, just like you and me, going about their business, become victims every day. Our risk is not zero, nor anywhere close to it. I've already had several incidents that required tactical management as a civilian, and I was not engaged in high risk activities of any kind at the time. With history as precedent, I would expect to have more in the future. I'd of course be delighted to be wrong on this point, but I wouldn't count on it.

On the second point, armed citizens successfully defend themselves against violent criminals well over 2 million times a year. I would submit that in those instances, the weapons they used were adequate for the task at hand.

IMHO a .22 cal derringer is way too little. A full-frame .45 auto and more than one BUG, plus many rounds of spare ammo and no recognition of how one fits into society in terms of appearance is way too much. In between is gray area.

I would agree with your definition of the two extremes for most civilian circumstances, but I don't see that middle grey area as being evenly shaded between those two points. Not every position in the middle is equally reasonable. This goes back to what information sources you have confidence in, how you weight their relative credibility, and how you arrive at decisions on what to do about it.

[mr.72]

BTW I ride a bicycle to work every day, and drive a Miata when I need a car. I have always driven sports cars, some of which would be horrid in a crash. I wonder if the car-safety-rating comparison is a good analogy for whether you should carry a big gun, because many cars that typically have excellent crash test ratings may be less safe in terms of the likelihood of a collision than would a smaller, more maneuverable or responsive vehicle in the hands of a skilled driver. Certainly I am going to be in more wrecks if I am driving a mini van than in my Miata.

I don't think the analogy holds up for guns... The bigger guns only make you more likely to encounter a bad guy or increase your risk if you cannot conceal it well enough to avoid making yourself a target.

[KFP]

One of the greatest things about this forum is that members are respectful of others. Many of the other forums that I’ve frequented in the past have had members with elitist views that detract from the original intent of the forum. I believe that the intent of the OP was to say that each individual is capable of assessing their own situation and deciding for themselves which course of action is best for them. Few people will disagree that it is impossible to determine just when and where a situation might occur.

I personally carry everywhere I can with my primary carry, if that’s not feasible, I go with something smaller. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone on this forum that would disagree with carrying something smaller vs. not carrying at all. Trying to educate someone on the pros and cons of each approach is different than demeaning them