[OldMarksman]

This current thread is one of MANY that I have personally seen in which there is a request made for actual circumstances wherein "high-cap" or multiple magazines was the determining factor (or even played a part) in a civilian defensive scenario. To date, I have seen ZERO.

There's a good reason for that.

There is no rigorous activity in place for reporting the details of civilian shootings, justified or otherwise. There is no comprehensive data set, verified or not, containing such details of handgun shootings as the number of rounds fired, the type of amuntion, the number of hits (or the location of same), the type of gun or its capacity, the distance, whether or not the person hit was armed or dangerous or ran or drove away or was incapacitated immediately, and so on.

The data are just not reported and compiled. News reports may sometimes mention the number of shots fired or say that there were several; they rarely mention the effectiveness of the shots unless, and to the extent to which, there is a homicide. If the intended victim is wounded, reports do not specify whether he or she was shot before or after having shot the assailant. Personally, I don't put a lot of stock in news reports, anyway.

After the fact police reports will contain as much of these data as can be gathered, to the extent that they would be necessary to support prosecution or to analyze law enforcement shootings. However, they are neither made public (except in summary form or in the case of the notorious FBI encounters, etc.) nor entered into a retrievable data set.

So--who could provide you with the data requested? No one!

That's why I stated earlier that historical data cannot provide a reliable basis for conclusions here. One must use another method of analysis.

We are conditioned to think we can find anything we want by using a search engine. Unfortunately (except in terms of privacy concerns), that's not true.

History and facts indicate that high-cap carry is unnecessary. Hell, history and facts indicate that ANY carry is unnecessary.

I contend that there is insufficient history and facts available to make a meaningful judgment about high-cap carry, but I'll grant that, since the number of forcible felonies in particular areas is recorded and published, one can make an educated personal judgement about whether prudent risk management would entail carrying a weapon.

The likelihood of needing one is remote at most, but that's not the entire risk equation. The potential consequences of not having one when it is needed are severe. Put colloquially, "it ain't the odds, it's the stakes." However, as in most areas of risk management, we do not always all come to the same conclusion. I conclude that carrying a gun is prudent; I don't know how the term "necessary" would apply.

The same concept applies regarding high-grade dead-bolt locks, alarm systems, outdoor lighting, carbon monoxide detectors or smoke alarms, etc.. The likelihood of needing any of them is remote. I've never needed any of them. However, that does not support a blanket conclusion that they are unnecessary. I have all except the alarm system, and I'm thinking about getting one of those.

I have lived for just under sixty four years without needing a gun on the street (that fact is tempered somewhat by the fact that I was once a very fast runner). Most of my neighbors have lived for years without having one in the house, but if I had not had one on any one of three occasions in the past, I would most probably not be here today.

And, or course, there are (names of) people who are not here today because they did not have a gun or a smoke detector when they need one. For them, one cannot reasonably conclude that having one was unnecessary, regardless of what facts and history might seem to indicate.