Gun Philosophy Internal Conflict

This is a discussion on Gun Philosophy Internal Conflict within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Guys there are some falacies in some of this - not surprising. One is that if one has too many rounds in his gun, he ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 105

Thread: Gun Philosophy Internal Conflict

  1. #31
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,685
    Guys there are some falacies in some of this - not surprising. One is that if one has too many rounds in his gun, he will spray and pray and not hit anything. The implication is that if you carry less rounds you have a better chance of hitting your threat???? That suggests that we'd all be better off carrying less ammo than more ammo because more ammo makes you shoot less accurately??? I suppose the ultimate effectiveness comes when we only carry one round in our gun????

    And I'll ask this, if the only way to save my life or the life of a loved one is to lay down suppressing fire, given the background permits it, should I shoot suppressively or not?

    Another suspect issue is carrying two guns. I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm saying if you're not practicing transitioning to the second gun, you may be in for some surprises. If you're not practicing reloading, esp. a revolver, you may be in for a big surprise. If you want some reality, get three paint ball guns, load one with 15 rounds and two with five. One participant gets the two with five rounds, the other participant gets the one with 15 rounds. The 'second' five rounder has to be holstered just like a second gun would be. Blow the whistle and watch what happens.

    The whole concept of reloading in the midst of a gunfight seems, well, very optimistic. It is very, very likely you'll finish the gunfight with the rounds in the gun when it started. E.g. if you've just fired five rounds and need more, why do you need more? Because the gunfight isn't over! Why isn't it over? Because the BG is still shooting at you. What's he doing while you take the 2- 3 seconds (semi) or 4-6 seconds (revolver) to reload?

    All I'm saying guys, is gunfights are typically over in 2-3 seconds. One can empty a revolver in probably 1.5 seconds and a 15 round semi in about 4 seconds. Now add a reload into that time frame, or for that matter the time to transistion to a second gun. It's one thing to bet your life on five rounds, it's quite another to bet your life that you can reload fast enough to survive. I, as do many others, esp. those that train or have a lot of training, believe you'll finish the fight with the rounds in the gun.

    As far as overthinking - - I'd much rather over-think it than under-think it.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Ex Member Array jtmoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by CajunBass View Post
    Get a gun you like and can shoot. It's that easy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MNBurl
    In the end, I would shoot what I brought till the threat goes away period.
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm
    If you are shooting at someone in self defense, you should and better make the shot. If we take the 7 yard theory that is so common, if you cant hit someone at that distance, you should not be shooting. As the range increases, as a private citizen, your reasoning diminishes also, and the more it is expected that you remove yourself from the situation, hypothetically of course. I don't know what kind of crap the new gurus having been teaching, but if you cant make your first shot a hit, you should leave the guns at home and go back to video games.
    Perhaps my ignorance is not so ignorant; have A gun and shoot IT well.

  4. #33
    Distinguished Member Array AKsrule's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,387
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    No you understood correctly. If you are shooting at someone in self defense, you should and better make the shot. If we take the 7 yard theory that is so common, if you cant hit someone at that distance, you should not be shooting. As the range increases, as a private citizen, your reasoning diminishes also, and the more it is expected that you remove yourself from the situation, hypothetically of course. I don't know what kind of crap the new gurus having been teaching, but if you cant make your first shot a hit, you should leave the guns at home and go back to video games.
    Everyday there are credible news stories telling about TRAINED POLICE (plural ) who fired multiple shots at a suspect(s) some shots missing entirely.

    Should we disarm all LEO until they pass a test up to YOUR Standards ?

    .
    -------
    -SIG , it's What's for Dinner-

    know your rights!
    http://www.handgunlaw.us

    "If I walk in the woods, I feel much more comfortable carrying a gun. What if you meet a bear in the woods that's going to attack you? You shoot it."
    {Bernhard Goetz}

  5. #34
    Moderator
    Array bmcgilvray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,064
    If the standard is set at 7 yards and yet they can't hit at 7 yards then yes, law enforcement officers should be disarmed until they gain more proficiency.
    Charter Member of the DC .41 LC Society

    “No possible rapidity of fire can atone for habitual carelessness of aim with the first shot.”

    Theodore Roosevelt, The Wilderness Hunter, 1893

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    I'm a proponent of the "some gun is better than no gun" argument. Most people will never have to use their weapon in a defense situation (even on duty although it's more likely to come up) but having something is always going to be better than nothing.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array GunGeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,249
    I shoot regularly. I'm not an expert by any means but more often than not I hit what I aim at. I practice accessing my gun from wherever and however I'm carrying it. But I'm not and never have been in a life or death situation where adrenalin is flowing and testosterone is raging. In such a scenario, I likely would be trying hard not to fill my pants as trying to hit something. I just don't see any way to train for this. LEO's have a distinct advantage in that they face the enemy every day. Every confrontation, every traffic stop, every time they stand in front of a closed door and knock, they face the possibility of having to shoot. Not getting somewhat used to it would give them a coronary.

  8. #37
    Member Array xpertz1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northeast Pa
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by fudo View Post
    I've been carrying a 1911 for 35 years. I've never felt under gunned.
    To Quote Col. Jeff Cooper

    Favorite Quotes from Jeff Cooper

    It has never been clear to me why increased magazine capacity in a defensive pistol is particularly choice. The bigger the magazine the bigger the gun, and the bigger the gun the harder it is to get hold of for people with small hands. And what, pray, does one need all those rounds for? How many lethal antagonists do you think you are going to be able to handle? Once when Bruce Nelson was asked by a suspect if the thirteen-round magazine in the P35 was not a big advantage, Bruce's answer was, "Well, yes, if you plan to miss a lot." The highest score I know of at this time achieved by one man against a group of armed adversaries was recorded in (of all places) the Ivory Coast! There, some years ago, a graduate student of mine laid out five goblins, with four dead and one totaled for the hospital. Of course there is the episode of Alvin York and his eight, but there is some dispute about that tale. (If you read it over very carefully you will see what I mean.) Be that as it may, I see no real need for a double column magazine. It is all the rage, of course, and like dual air bags, it is a popular current sales gimmick.”
    Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading.

  9. #38
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,685
    In todays tactics, more is better. All the classes I've been to, and that includes the Cooper founded, Gunsite, all now teach, shoot until the threat isn't a threat. The implication of that is huge. If there are two threats, you need twice as much ammo as for one, maybe more.

    Why would a person that has never been in a gunfight where someone is shooting at them, the defender is moving, the threat is moving, the threat may be only partially exposed, think they won't miss a bunch? Add two threats to the picture and.....

    Again, go get two paint ball guns, load one with five shots and the other with 15 shots. Square off and blow the whistle. You will immediately see that you miss a lot. So yes, I plan to miss and I plan to hit a lot.

    Clever cliches won't help you a bit in a gunfight but here's another: Clint Smith, Director of Thunder Ranch, "When you run out of bullets, the gunfight is over for you."

    We might ask some guys that have been in gunfights if they decided to load fewer rounds in their guns from that point on.

    Why would anyone carry a reload, a second gun? Because with incoming rounds, getting hits may be far more difficult that imagined.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,167
    "And I'll ask this, if the only way to save my life or the life of a loved one is to lay down suppressing fire, given the background permits it, should I shoot suppressively or not?"

    In a self defense situation, involving a civilian, there is no such thing as "collateral damage." If you fire and hit anybody but your threat you have committed manslaughter. If you even hit another BG with the threat and that individual is not armed or posing an immediate threat to you, you can be charged with manslaughter. (This can be different for an LEO in the same situation.) The other factor is that you are prompting return fire and placing anybody with you in increased danger. You might consider cover as a better option to extra ammo at this point. We are talking SD in this forum and not Combat. Combat presupposes you are a co-respondent and part of the firefight. If you become co-party to a open gunfight you have probably just thrown SD justification right out the window.
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  11. #40
    Distinguished Member Array Gideon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,764
    I agree; this get's "over thunk" alot! When things get complicated, make them simple. Statistically 2-3 is enought but everythign about CCW is a question of compromise and give and take.

    99.9% of the time a civilian in a self defencse scenario won't reload. Still it's comfortating to have.

    Carry what you can carry comfortable, shoot well, and like so you're more likely to carry it all the time. Big key is to have it versus not and try to pick a caliber that's the largest youi can comfortably carry and shoot.

    If I were you, I'd get a semi in 9mm that was DAO so the manual of arms is similar. Try as I might, I can reload a semi twice as fast as my revolvers and I like the comfort of an extra mag on the left hip.

    Make the call get on with it and enjoy life

    Gideon

  12. #41
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,685
    Quote Originally Posted by wjh2657 View Post
    "And I'll ask this, if the only way to save my life or the life of a loved one is to lay down suppressing fire, given the background permits it, should I shoot suppressively or not?"

    In a self defense situation, involving a civilian, there is no such thing as "collateral damage." If you fire and hit anybody but your threat you have committed manslaughter. If you even hit another BG with the threat and that individual is not armed or posing an immediate threat to you, you can be charged with manslaughter. (This can be different for an LEO in the same situation.) The other factor is that you are prompting return fire and placing anybody with you in increased danger. You might consider cover as a better option to extra ammo at this point. We are talking SD in this forum and not Combat. Combat presupposes you are a co-respondent and part of the firefight. If you become co-party to a open gunfight you have probably just thrown SD justification right out the window.
    That's not at all what I said. Notice I said, "...the background permits it...", or IOW, I have a safe background to stop bullets WITHOUT endangering human life in any way. E.g A large earthen bank behind the BGs.

    Prompting return fire? My life is at stake or I wouldn't need to shoot at all.

    No, SD isn't combat, but if one finds oneself in a situation where escape is about the only option left, suppression fire, and here I don't mean shooting wildly, and again, given that the background allows it then capacity is important. Suppressive fire might be one round a second, maybe faster or slower depending on the situation.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array wjh2657's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,167
    Tangle

    Sent you a PM.

    wjh2657
    Retired Marine, Retired School Teacher, Independent voter, Goldwater Conservative.

  14. #43
    Distinguished Member Array Rexster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SE Texas
    Posts
    1,772
    In a fight, there is more to consider than the number of shots fired, or available to fire. On duty, on the street, there were times when about to wade into a close-range mess in which I wanted a gun in hand, but might well be a hands-on melee, I have left the bigger duty pistol holstered, and drawn the snubby, whether the SP101 since 1997, or the J-snub before then. I can HOLD onto a snubby better, all the more important because I have medium-length index and middle fingers, with the rest of my digits being quite short. With the currently-mandated fat-handled double-stack primary duty pistols, and the felons in prisons practicing their gun take-away skills, this is a concern for me. Nothing locks into my grip quite like a Ruger SP101, and they are large and hefty enough to behave more like a service weapon than a pocket gun when shooting them.

    Both on duty, and on my own time, I have reached into a pocket and obtained a firing grip on a snubby, then let go when a suspicious situation had passed. A snubby without a hammer spur is better for this tactic than any other firearm I have tried. To be clear, I do not believe one's only weapon should be down inside a pocket, as drawing from a pants pocket can be problematic once a fight starts, if one is bent at the waist or hips, and reaching into a jacket pocket may not be so easy, either, during the dynamics of a physical fight.

    OTOH, I don't buy the thing about most gunfights lasting two to three rounds. I have seen more recent figures that indicate this has changed. Many incidents involve just one shot, which causes the other side to flee; that is not a real gunfight, but such incidents figure into the stats. (How many who fled were not armed with functional weapons?) Shootings in which the bad guy fired once or twice, disabling the unarmed good guy, are not a comforting scenario, either. If we are going to look at statistics, the meaningful incidents are not all discharge of firearm incidents, but gunfights WON by the good guy(s), when both sides used real guns.

    Once again, I am neither anti-auto, nor anti-revolver, and I am not recommending that anyone be content with one five-shot weapon, nor being scornful of those content to do so.

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,957
    FWIW...interesting bit of data presented a few weeks ago on the "Don't Be a Vctim" TV shows on Spike TV:

    When a gun was drawn for self defense, there was 1 attacker 25% of the time; 2 attackers 50% of the time; and 3 or more attackers 25% of the time.

    So, 75% of the time a gun was drawn, there were multiple attackers.

    Just something to consider.
    The more good folks carry guns, the fewer shots the crazies can get off.
    www.armedcitizensnetwork.org - member
    Glock 30, 19, 26; Ruger SP101, LCR, LCP (2), Mini 14; Marlin 336 .30-30; Mossberg 500
    CT Lasers

  16. #45
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,685
    Let me clarify what I said about suppressing fire. It seems that suppressive fire means something quite specific to some and that's not what I was meaning. By suppressing fire I meant keeping a BG pinned down in order to escape. I did not and am not in anyway suggesting we recklessly spray bullets or endanger innocent lives. Suppressive fire in a civilian situation may be a shot a second maybe faster, maybe slower to just enable one to escape a deadly situation.

    I thought I was making it abundantly clear by, '...given the background permits it..." that we could only do that if the background is sufficient to stop rounds in such a situation. Some got the idea that I was referring to a 'wall of lead' or recklessly spraying bullets around endangering innocent life. Of course that's not what I meant at all.

    And sure, that's not a likely scenario that we'd encounter, but then a gunfight isn't a likely scenario either, nor is having to do a one-hand clearance drill, but most SD schools teach them, and a lot of people practice them. Likely to happen? Of course not, in fact, when have you ever heard of a civilian prevailing in a gunfight by doing a one-hand clearance drill or a one-hand reload? I haven't ever heard of it.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. AK and AR peronsal conflict
    By PRSOrator in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: July 28th, 2010, 05:47 PM
  2. HD philosophy change and new AR
    By jbum in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 10th, 2010, 10:33 AM
  3. .357 Sig Philosophy Sig Sauer P229
    By SaddleSC in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 16th, 2009, 08:25 AM
  4. A Local Politician's Philosophy on Freedom
    By BigEFan in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 30th, 2008, 03:17 AM
  5. Philosophy Of Concealed Carry Gun Selection
    By QKShooter in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2005, 05:32 PM

Search tags for this page

business philosophy for gun business
,

gun philosophy

,
gun philosophy forum discussion
,
guns philosophy
,
j frame gunfights
,

marine shooting guns

,

philosophy

,
philosophy of guns
,
real gunfights involving j frames
,
self defense, philosophy and guns
,
two gun philosophy
,
what distance do leo's use rifles in conflict
Click on a term to search for related topics.