A Real Life Example of "High" Capacity Magazines Being Needed.

[threegun]

If I used the information provided by the armed citizen I would not have to do the following.......Train with my firearm, carry a larger caliber handgun, carry a spare mag or speed loader, develop tactics and practice them, and much much more.

So peetza do you train?
Is your carry gun a 22 or 25?
Do you have any tactical training either self taught or professional?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

So peetza do you train?
Is your carry gun a 22 or 25?
Do you have any tactical training either self taught or professional?

What do any of those questions have to do with a real life example of high capacity magazines being needed?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by threegun

So peetza do you train?
Is your carry gun a 22 or 25?
Do you have any tactical training either self taught or professional?

My carry gun is a Glock 33.

I have no professional training. My personal "training" consists of semi-rapid fire at paper targets at very typically SD distances.

That said, my personal training has no bearing on this discussion. Facts are facts. History is history. Opinions are opinions. Facts are not opinion, opinion are not facts.

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

I carry because I can and I want to. Some people can hi-cap mags because they can and they want to. Either way is fine and dandy, but the facts do not support the necessity for high-cap carry. It is easily arguable that the facts do not support ANY carry, there is no doubt that the facts do not support hi-cap carry.

[Maromero]

My carry gun is a Glock 33.

That is high capacity. You're carrying 10 .357Sig bullets with you.

[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.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by OldMarksMan

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."

Clever, and entirely inaccurate, cliche.

Of course it's the odds.

We've been down this road before. It's not "the stakes" at the exclusion of the odds. If it were, we'd all be planning for airplanes to crash into our houses, stashing kevlar vests at work in case of a rampage shooter and building bomb shelters in case of nuclear war.

Almost none of us do those things. Why? The stakes are the same, if you're wrong, you're dead. Why don't we prepare? It's because of the odds.

I don't buy the argument that the reason that no one can come up with ONE SINGLE INCIDENT is because the events are not tracked. Look at the number of posts on these forums. Look at the number of people. Look at the unbelievable amount of esoteric knowledge. Yet, no one can name a single event. None. Zero. It's NOT because the events are recorded and reported. It's because it doesn't happen.

Think of it. What if we could point to 10 occasions wherein it was beyond ANY doubt that high-cap or spare mag carry was a contributing factor? What if it was 100?

Even with 100 occasions the odds would be VANISHINGLY small. Atomically tiny.

We can't point to ONE. Not a single one.

All we have is "Yeah, but if it happens...."

Well, you'd better reinforce your house, like with 15 feet of concrete, because if a 757 crashes into it, you're a goner. The stakes are awfully high.

[OldMarksman]

My discussion with Peetzakilla, with whom I usually agree on most issues, is intended to be constructive and to provide others with some useful discussion of risk assessment and risk management techniques as they may apply here. I worked in an area (several of them, actually) in which one could not properly rely on historical data for answers, for compliance analysis, disaster preparedness, financial projection and reporting, or other critical decision making.

I'm not sure how much we actually disagree in practice. He carries a gun with a ten shot magazine. I either carry one with a seven shot magazine or one with a twelve shot magazine loaded with ten cartridges. I don't see the point of "17+1", etcetera.

The idea of carrying an extra magazine has come up in this and previous threads. Until fairly recently, I thought that was overkill, but after hearing what Fiddletown, who has had much more training than I have, and the instructors in my recent tactical pistol course, who have seen a lot more malfunctions than I have, have to say about this, I am reconsidering, but not because I see any likelihood at all that I would ever allow myself to get into an extended fire fight. It doesn't seem to add that much convenience. I have not yet started carrying one.

So--training (though not professional training) is influencing my thought processes here. I used to rely entirely on semi-rapid shooting at one paper target. Shooting very quickly and moving very rapidly from one target to another (to simulate a moving assailant or two of them) proved eye-opening, and showed me that Peetzakilla is not overdoing it with his ten shot magazine.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by OldMarksMan

My discussion with Peetzakilla, with whom I usually agree on most issues, is intended to be constructive and to provide others with some useful discussion of risk assessment and risk management techniques as they may apply here.

Hm. Yes, we do indeed agree more than not.... which makes it very hard for me to hate you when you cross me!

Originally Posted by OldMarksMan

Until fairly recently, I thought that was overkill, but after hearing what Fiddletown, who has had much more training than I have, and the instructors in my recent tactical pistol course, who have seen a lot more malfunctions than I have, have to say about this, I am reconsidering, but not because I see any likelihood at all that I would ever allow myself to get into an extended fire fight. It doesn't seem to add that much convenience. I have not yet started carrying one.

Here is an area wherein we agree. I admit, I actually tried carrying a spare mag, for exactly the reason that you describe. I do consider the only logical rationale for spare mags to be malfunction clearance. So, I decided to carry one. Remember when I mentioned how much I hate things in my pockets? Yeah. I HATE it. All capital letters HATE. So, again, I decided that the risk was simply not worth the annoyance.

Originally Posted by OldMarksMan

So--training (though not professional training) is influencing my thought processes here. I used to rely entirely on semi-rapid shooting at one paper target. Shooting very quickly and moving very rapidly from one target to another (to simulate a moving assailant or two of them) proved eye-opening, and showed me that Peetzakilla is not overdoing it with his ten shot magazine.

I, too, have had "my eyes opened" in this regard, but my conclusions are different. I agree that I'm pretty much SOL if a multiple assailant, multi-shots per assailant situation ever comes up. However, I'm also SOL if there's a nuclear war instigated by rogue AI computers.... and I consider the odds to be about the same.

[2damnold4this]

That said, my personal training has no bearing on this discussion. Facts are facts. History is history. Opinions are opinions. Facts are not opinion, opinion are not facts.

History and facts indicate that high-cap carry is unnecessary.

The plural of "anecdote" isn't "data."

We don't use some sort of compilation of local newspaper's crime blotters to measure crime in the country. We use the UCR because it gives us uniform answers in uniform categories.
The armed citizen isn't a uniform collection of police reports where specific questions are answered methodically. It's a collection of newspaper articles.

That said, I only carry the ten shots in my G26. I used to carry a spare G19 magazine in my pocket but I had an incident where a foreign object got into the magazine and ended up in the chamber of the pistol while I was firing it. Now the spare G19 mag stays in the truck and I have two spare G17 mags at the shop.

[threegun]

Peetza, You base your decision to not carry a spare mag or a firearm with high capacity on information that says it will likely not be needed. This same information says your training and choice of larger caliber will not be needed either. Why choose to go against the statistics on one hand and with them on another?

I'm just trying to poke a hole in the less is ok because of stats deal. Please don't take this as a knock on your choices.

What do any of those questions have to do with a real life example of high capacity magazines being needed?

Bartholomew, Nothing at all. It does suggest that the same folks who provide stats to defend low capacity, ignore the same stats in other areas.

So if I'm made to look like I'm doing something unnecessary by carrying high capacity firearms so should those who train, carry a larger caliber, and anything else the stats show as unnecessary.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by 2damnold4this

The plural of "anecdote" isn't "data."

There's another one of those clever, and entirely inaccurate, cliches.

Turns out, the singular of "data" is exactly anecdote.

Now, an "anecdote" is an incomplete data SET, to be sure, but EVERY set of data is made of of singular "anecdotes".

In this case, our "data set" is made up of ZERO anecdotes. How exactly does one describe a set of data with zero points of data? It's like arguing that it's possible to divide by zero.

[OldMarksman]

It's not "the stakes" at the exclusion of the odds.

Of course it's not. It's a balance among the likelihood, potential consequences, and the cost of mitigation. One will choose to accept a risk if the odds are sufficiently low and mitigation is impractical even if the potential consequences are very severe. On the other hand, if mitigation is no big deal, one would choose to mitigate rather than accept the risk. That's why the sale of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers is not uncommon.

Different people may well make different decisions even with the same analysis.

Some people stash survival rations to use in the event of a natural disaster. I do not. Some people have two way radios. I do not. I do keep extra medicines and a first aid kit on hand.

Here's a case in point: having a means for a space flight crew to escape a booster failure is extremely expensive, both from the standpoint of development cost and the payload weight capacity that is sacrificed, and the likelihood of ever needing it is very low. There was a crew escape system on the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecrafts, but no booster ever exploded. The Shuttle didn't have one, but the new Orion (which is on the chopping block) does. The Astronauts insist on it.

I don't buy the argument that the reason that no one can come up with ONE SINGLE INCIDENT is because the events are not tracked. Look at the number of posts on these forums. Look at the number of people. Look at the unbelievable amount of esoteric knowledge. Yet, no one can name a single event. None. Zero.

You are, of course, entirely correct. My point, albeit poorly stated, was that one cannot find sufficient reliable data for meaningful analysis.

Why no examples at all? Consider this: if I had been involved in a shooting and had not yet been acquitted in a criminal trial court in a jurisdiction in which said acquittal protects me very strongly from a civil tort case, I would not be saying anything at all about the incident, much less posting anything. Nor should anyone else.

It's NOT because the events are recorded and reported. It's because it doesn't happen.

That is of course a possibility, but I doubt it, and it is impossible to prove a negative.

Without being specific, I know of careers and lives that were ruined because someone made a bad decision on the basis that no one could "document a single incident in which someone had [won't go into detail here]."

Know what? It can happen again. A few more of us now know of one incident, but no one else is going to be able to find out about it.

I agree that I'm pretty much SOL if a multiple assailant, multi-shots per assailant situation ever comes up. However, I'm also SOL if there's a nuclear war instigated by rogue AI computers.... and I consider the odds to be about the same.

The odds of your being attacked are very slim, but I'd put them a lot higher than those of a nuclear war. If you are attacked, however, the likelihood that the perp may have an accomplice may be enough to worry about. Most importantly, from what I've been able to learn, the likelihood of one hit (much less one shot) effecting an immediate stop are apparently rather low.

I would hope to be able to stop one attacker, and maybe two, should that terrible eventuality ever occur, and I would not expect to necessarily do so with one shot per assailant.

Since what we carry are not all that different, and since you are skilled, do you think I'm overly optimistic?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by OldMarksMan

Since what we carry are not all that different, and since you are skilled, do you think I'm overly optimistic?

Hm. I would not describe myself as "skilled".

I do believe that I have a solid understanding of the likelihood and consequences of the various scenarios.


Here's my basic thought process:

The odds of my ever needing a firearm in a defensive situation are slim. Roughly 2% in a lifetime, nationwide. (The link to that data has been posted before). Considering that I live in an area with FAR below "average" crime, I know no one who has ever been physically attacked and know almost no one who even carries a gun, I believe that my true odds are less than half of that number, so 1%-ish.

The odds of needing to fire a shot in that 1% scenario are approximately 72%, according to the Armed Citizen. I see no reason to doubt that number. So, I'm down to a .72% probability.

The odds of my having to fire more than 2 shots are slimmer yet. Out of 347 incidents (72% of 482) involving shots fired, only 3 required reloads. One of those was killing a lion. I personally discount that probability entirely.

So, I'm left with 2 out of 347 of .72%, or .00414%, if I'm doing the math correctly.

Those are odds that I simply choose not to prepare to mitigate. End of Story.


On the flip side, how many of you guys who advocate hi-cap carry or spare mags:

1)Smoke
2)Drink alcohol
3)Drive motorcycles
4)Maintain an unhealthy BMI

All of those things are FAR more likely to kill you than not having enough boolits in your gun, yet you partake of them VOLUNTARILY.

If one is TRULY concerned about probabilities in that realm, one would be very hard pressed to justify such activities. Even riding in a car would be suspect.

Heck, I'd bet that the odds of getting struck by lightning while playing golf are considerably higher than .00414%! How many of us play golf?

[threegun]

I for one am not concerned with probabilities. I decided to carry a firearm to protect myself and family. I feel that putting all the odds that I possibly can into my corner in advanced is the way to go. Others may feel differently. I purchased the finest high capacity fighting handgun (imo) I could find and conceal. I chose as large a caliber as I could fire effectively. I stoked it with the finest ammunition (imo) available. I practice presenting this firearm regularly to ensure the smoothest, fastest draw. I practice shooting this firearm with both hands. I practice tactics which should reduce my adversaries effectivness while increasing mine. I practice reloading with strong, weak, and one hand (either). All these things are statistically unnecessary according to most of the data available yet they all could play a role in an armed encounter. Lacking in anyone of these categories listed above could change the outcome for the worst.

That said all the above is probably for not. Good thing its fun also LOL.

[TXGunNut]

Two lessons learned from the training film about the FBI shootout in Miami. #1 The fight was ended by deliberately placed shots fired from a revolver. #2 Surviving agents recommended LEO's carry as much ammo as possible. Yep, it's ambiguous. Life's funny that way. Deal with it. Hopefully by avoiding ugly situations and if all else fails fall back on your training and prevail with as few rounds as possible.

[TXGunNut]

With all due respect, threegun, I've gotta agree with PK and OldMarksman. Sometimes I carry an extra mag, don't own any hi-cap handguns. I don't disagree with your choices but these guys see it my way. I'm lousy at throwing rocks and I live in a free state so I carry a little .380 in my pocket most days. You're not gonna tell anyone, are you? I'd hate for some mean guy with lots of bullets to pick on me. All the ammo in the world won't keep me out of trouble, likely won't get me out either.
Kudos for your practice work ethic and thoughtful equipment choices. If the ugly stuff happens some day you'll be well served by your efforts. I pray you'll never have to use your skills to protect yourself or your family.

[threegun]

Thanks TXgunNut. It really boils down to do what you feel is best. If you feel secure with a 380 thats cool. Statistically you are in pretty good shape. My thinking is if I have to use this gun to save myself or worst my children, I want to bank every advantage possible. I want all the variables that I can control in advance place squarely in my court. Kinda anal I know but the idea or potential of failing due to something I could have changed earlier eats me up inside. But thanks for the nice words.

[2damnold4this]

There's another one of those clever, and entirely inaccurate, cliches.

Turns out, the singular of "data" is exactly anecdote.

Now, an "anecdote" is an incomplete data SET, to be sure, but EVERY set of data is made of of singular "anecdotes".

You are mistaken. The singular of data is datum. Datum is defined as something given or admitted especially as a basis for reasoning or inference.

Anecdote is defined as A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.

If you put anecdotes together, you have a collection of anecdotes. You don't have data.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by 2damold4this

The singular of data is datum. Datum is defined as something given or admitted especially as a basis for reasoning or inference.

Anecdote is defined as A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.

Semantics.

There are certainly some well educated sorts who disagree, http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/a...gular_of.shtml , regardless, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If there were "data" regarding hi-cap or spare mags being necessary for civilian carry then there WOULD be anecdotes. There are NO anecdotes because there is NO data.

See? It goes both ways.

Want to use your semantics? There is no "data" without "datum".

[2damnold4this]

If there were "data" regarding hi-cap or spare mags being necessary for civilian carry then there WOULD be anecdotes. There are NO anecdotes because there is NO data.

There is no data because no one has collected it. A collection of Armed Citizen accounts doesn't give us data one way or another.

If we take a quick look at the accounts for May 26, we see two incidents that occurred on May 24. All we know is two different citizens used firearms to defend themselves. We don't know how many or what type of firearms were involved, the caliber of the firearms and we don't know the number of shots fired. We don't know if there was a reload involved. We have no useful data.

Another problem with using the Armed Citizen to draw conclusions is we don't have accounts of citizens that were unsuccessful in defending themselves. Did they lose their fights because they ran out of ammo or other factors such as poor aim or hesitation? We don't know because these accounts aren't included in the collection.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by 2damold4this

There is no data because no one has collected it.

Come on.

TFL is positively FILLED with data that no one ever "collected". I'm not asking for a database. I'm asking for an EXAMPLE.

ONE example of a civilian, out on the street, that *needed* a hi-cap magazine or a reload.

ONE example.

As I said before, even if there were 10 or 100 examples, the odds would still be vanishingly small. There are ZERO examples.

I simply do not play "what if" with something so rare that there is not a single documented example in modern American history.

We're on the 6th page of a thread started SPECIFICALLY ASKING for an example. We have none. Zero.

Have I mentioned NONE?

All we have are "what if".

What if we could point to 100 incidents?

Estimates are that there are 2,000,000 DGUs a year. Let's say these 100 hypothetical examples all occurred in the last ten years. You would have 1:200,000 odds.

Yet, we don't have 100 examples in the last 10 years. We have ZERO.

[OldMarksman]

The odds of my ever needing a firearm in a defensive situation are slim. Roughly 2% in a lifetime, nationwide. (The link to that data has been posted before).

I have absolutely no idea what that means.

I suggest that if one is the victim of a violent crime or an attempted violent crime (assault, robbery, rape, and so on), one would be well served to have a firearm. This quarter-century old report puts the odds of someone who is forty years old being attacked during his remaining lifetime at 36%; for someone fifty years old the percentage is said to be 22%. (Eliminating those that do not result in actual injury, should one want to do that for academic reasons, reduces the numbers to 11% and 7% respectively, but that wouldn't enter into my decision process).

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/15/we...-a-victim.html

Considering that I live in an area with FAR below "average" crime, I know no one who has ever been physically attacked and know almost no one who even carries a gun, I believe that my true odds are less than half of that number, so 1%-ish.

I do to, and the fact that I am now over sixty five should reduce my risk, also. In addition, I avoid going to places where I would feel uncomfortable without a gun.

As a matter of fact, because of those things, the stats in the above report seem surprisingly high to me, but even if you reduce them by half an order of magnitude, they are still high enough to motivate me to mitigate the risk.

The odds of needing to fire a shot in that 1% scenario are approximately 72%, according to the Armed Citizen. I see no reason to doubt that number. So, I'm down to a .72% probability.

The validity of the data are suspect, but the factor would seem to be reasonable in terms of order of magnitude. Does that take the odds for that forty year old down to 25%?

The odds of my having to fire more than 2 shots are slimmer yet.

By some amount, perhaps, but with the general consensus of the experts being that at least two hits on center mass are probably needed to stop a VCA effectively, and with their being a fair likelihood of missing a moving target or hitting him in an extremity or in one of those places where you get a "zero" for your score, I should think the odds of having to fire more than two shots, if you have to fire at all, are not insignificant.

Out of 347 incidents (72% of 482) involving shots fired, only 3 required reloads. One of those was killing a lion. I personally discount that probability entirely.

I do not believe the data source to be at all scientific, and I do not think the number means anything. If someone has an AR-15 or one of those nineteen shot handguns and it does not malfunction, he would never have to reload. If he has an old High Standard Derringer or a Smith and Wesson Chief's Special, he may have to, or he may be unable to do so and be in a world of hurt. One with a Ruger LCR that does malfunction at an inopportune time may need to reload, but whether he is able to is another question.

Whatever the statistics may be, people make different decisions based on their evaluations of perceived risk levels. I know people who frequent popular places in areas that have high violent crime stats; most of my friends do not. I know people who choose to carry and those who do not. One former police officer who only carried when he had to go into a "bad neighborhood" on business now carries all the time. He doesn't expect to ever use it, but no longer thinks it worth the risk to leave it at home.

A number of the people I know who carry are content with five shot revolvers, and I started out with one. That started to change when a man in a very good neighborhood was pulled from his car by several violent youths. The fact that police were converging on the scene at the time saved him.

My first defensive strategy is retreat.

Should something happen, I think it most likely that it would happen at the ATM, at a filling station, or in one of the parking lots adjacent to one of the major drug arteries of the country, which happens to provide ready access to and from the city with the second highest violent crime rate in the country. Attempts at criminal action by someone needing a different car or money have been happening often enough to worry me, according to what comes over the scanner.

I do not expect to ever have to draw, much less fire, even though I have had to produce a weapon three times in four-plus decades. One reason is that I also carry a pepper blaster. I haven't had to use it, either.

I'm not asking for a database. I'm asking for an EXAMPLE.

Again: anyone who has used a gun and has not already been charged, tried, and acquitted, and who is not somehow completely protected in terms of civil liability, has no doubt been responsibly advised to say absolutely nothing about the details of what happened. That's the way the world works.

I simply do not play "what if" with something so rare that there is not a single documented example in modern American history.

I've known, or been very aware, of situations in which people erroneously concluded that, because they were not aware of a single documented example of something having happened, it had not. Said documentation existed, but in locked files as privileged legal communication, or in notes not available for retrieval.

Awfully hard to prove a negative....

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by OldMarksMan

I've known, or been very aware, of situations in which people erroneously concluded that, because they were not aware of a single documented example of something having happened, it had not. Said documentation existed, but in locked files as privileged legal communication, or in notes not available for retrieval.

Awfully hard to prove a negative....

I'm asking the believers to "prove a positive", as it were. Certainly, if someone believes in something so strongly, and wishes to convince others of their belief, it should be reasonable to provide *some* evidence supporting the viewpoint.

"What if" is not evidence. "What if" aliens invade tomorrow? So what? Do you have any evidence that they will?

I'm asking the "believers" to show a single documented example of what it is that they claim to believe. Now, I'm not saying that you would actually need proof in order to believe it. This is a free country. There are plenty of people who believe in Sasquatch and alien abductions that can't provide any evidence either. It's just that I refuse to make preparations for an event that is so rare that there is not a single verifiable instance.

Your argument of "current cases" is neither here nor there. Possible, yes. Unprovable, either way. It would seem unlikely that such an event has occurred so recently that we are unaware of it but has also not occurred one other single time that we are aware of.

Even if it were true, the news story would be out. The speculation would be there. Think Harold Fish, think OK pharmacist. Word gets out.

[Mello2u]

The following is a link to an article by Ayoob about the Lance Thomas shootings.
The Ayoob files; An urban gunfighter: The lessons of Lance Thomas
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_82533205/

If you want more details you can read the book "Deadliest Men: The World's Deadliest Combatants Throughout the Ages" by Paul Kirchner which contains one story about Lance Thomas among many others.

[Edward429451]

They gave you an example peet

The harry Beckwith incident.

How about the shop keepers on the roofs protecting thier stores in the LA riots with hi cap rifles? Not good enough?