Leadslugga
Well-Known Member
Ever since I first got into guns, especially since I have first started carrying, I've learned a lot, but of course one also hears an unquantifiable amount of BS.
When I first got my CCW permit two months after my 21st birthday, my dad was a bit concerned. I recall what he said to me: "I just worry that a criminal could take that gun so easily and shoot you with it."
I hear this sort of thing all the time, and it kind of burns me up. My dad never expressed any fear when I went out into public TOTALLY UNARMED, but when I decide to carry a gun (in New Orleans, for obvious reasons), he is suddenly concerned for my safety. Firstly this bothers me because there is a presumption of incompetence on my part. Secondly, it bothers me because of this broadly held assumption of SUPER COMPETENCE on the part of all criminals.
That is only peripherally the point, however. Basically, I want to stir up some crap/arguments here about that oh so mystifying aspect of the gun fight; when the attacker is in hand-to-hand range.
A few points to ponder:
There seems to be a general presumption that if the BG gets in close it is all over, as well as a presumption that all criminals have years of ninja training in disarming people and that every attacker's first instinct when faced with a gun is to charge like a bull. That being said, there is the very real chance that an attacker can be much stronger than you (or on all kinds of drugs).
Even if the thug is your physical superior, how much of an edge does everyone feel the gun still gives you at close range? There is always the threat that the bad guy will get the gun, but this doesn't always happen. Thoughts on making effective shots at close range? There is also the difference in survivability between gunshot wounds and wounds inflicted by one with a knife or unarmed. I read somewhere that only 2.5% of stabbing victims die, which I assume is why most knife murders I hear about involve dozens of wounds. And if your attacker is unarmed, just how hurt can he get you before you plug him with a few? Personal experiences? I know you LEOs probably have things to say.
In sum, I am not advocating any particular strategy nor am I attempting to minimize the seriousness of these kinds of encounters. I think it is always a good idea to have a plan for these sorts of things, and training in unarmed combat never hurts (not that I have any). I just get a little bothered by anyone who takes Karate or something with a purpose of self defense but don't also carry a gun.
I just want to start a spirited discussion here about all the things to consider in this scenario that comes up in every discussion. There is always the point brought up in the 9 vs. 45 and other debates about "stopping power" when the proverbial assailant is attacking you, but there is never enough discussion of all those things in the equation not related to how big your gun is.
Discuss.
When I first got my CCW permit two months after my 21st birthday, my dad was a bit concerned. I recall what he said to me: "I just worry that a criminal could take that gun so easily and shoot you with it."
I hear this sort of thing all the time, and it kind of burns me up. My dad never expressed any fear when I went out into public TOTALLY UNARMED, but when I decide to carry a gun (in New Orleans, for obvious reasons), he is suddenly concerned for my safety. Firstly this bothers me because there is a presumption of incompetence on my part. Secondly, it bothers me because of this broadly held assumption of SUPER COMPETENCE on the part of all criminals.
That is only peripherally the point, however. Basically, I want to stir up some crap/arguments here about that oh so mystifying aspect of the gun fight; when the attacker is in hand-to-hand range.
A few points to ponder:
There seems to be a general presumption that if the BG gets in close it is all over, as well as a presumption that all criminals have years of ninja training in disarming people and that every attacker's first instinct when faced with a gun is to charge like a bull. That being said, there is the very real chance that an attacker can be much stronger than you (or on all kinds of drugs).
Even if the thug is your physical superior, how much of an edge does everyone feel the gun still gives you at close range? There is always the threat that the bad guy will get the gun, but this doesn't always happen. Thoughts on making effective shots at close range? There is also the difference in survivability between gunshot wounds and wounds inflicted by one with a knife or unarmed. I read somewhere that only 2.5% of stabbing victims die, which I assume is why most knife murders I hear about involve dozens of wounds. And if your attacker is unarmed, just how hurt can he get you before you plug him with a few? Personal experiences? I know you LEOs probably have things to say.
In sum, I am not advocating any particular strategy nor am I attempting to minimize the seriousness of these kinds of encounters. I think it is always a good idea to have a plan for these sorts of things, and training in unarmed combat never hurts (not that I have any). I just get a little bothered by anyone who takes Karate or something with a purpose of self defense but don't also carry a gun.
I just want to start a spirited discussion here about all the things to consider in this scenario that comes up in every discussion. There is always the point brought up in the 9 vs. 45 and other debates about "stopping power" when the proverbial assailant is attacking you, but there is never enough discussion of all those things in the equation not related to how big your gun is.
Discuss.
