Nine rounds of .380 vs five rounds of .38

[Radny97]

^^^^^^^^

Haha!!! Yep

[TimSr]

Worst case civilian event that I can imagine offhand would be along the lines of being the wrong race and caught up in the middle of a race riot involving several thousand people trying to beat you to death. You really believe that you would prevail with 9 rounds of .380 as opposed to 5 rounds of .38 Special? The Abrams tank mentioned earlier would seem most appropriate.

Funny but I posted a question on TFL about what to do if you found yourself in the Reginald Denny position of traveling through an unscheduled riot during the Ferguson rioting days and was told by the experts that I shouldn't go anywhere that a riot might happen, and the thread was closed and locked as a "Zombie thread" so maybe thats how this one will end.

[OldMarksman]

^^^^

The original question here was acceptable.

The comment about the riot involving several thousand people was way off base.

[mavracer]

The comment about the riot involving several thousand people was way off base.

Why? there are many places that getting caught in a large riot is far more likely than 3 BG's mugging somebody here.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

Why [(was the comment about the riot involving several thousand people was way off base)]?

It is quite obviously not at all relevant to a discussion of the relative merits of a .380 vs. a .38.

There are many places that getting caught in a large riot is far more likely than BG's mugging somebody here.

I'm not sure about "many" places, though it does happen here and there from time to time, and our discussion is not centered on "here".

And the comparative likelihoods here and there are not relevent to the discussion at hand.

[amd6547]

It does enter into my thought process, though.
I live on the west side of Cleveland and work on the east side...my wife works right in the central city.
When we were having our issues, I asked my wife what her plan was in case of riot.
Her answer was "call you".

[mavracer]

And the comparative likelihoods here and there are not relevent to the discussion at hand.

What kinds of danger a person is likely to face is most relevent, Knowing the psychology of criminals is paramount to dealing with them.
You want to blow it off cause it doesn't support your position, very weak.

I'm not sure about "many" places

Do we really need to argue the definition of "many" Mr Clinton?

our discussion is not centered on "here".

Wherever "here" is, it should most certainly factor into the decision.

[Guv]

Has anyone thought that in the case of an average shooter, the first two rounds out of the Smith, shot double action, are much more likely to find their mark than the first two shot, double/single out of the Bersa? If this indeed, can be factored in, then the effective total round capacity will change a little. After all, isn't this consistent trigger action one of the biggest appeals of the striker fired semi autos?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by mavracer:

What kinds of danger a person is likely to face is most relevent, Knowing the psychology of criminals is paramount to dealing with them.

Well, yes, in risk management, the first step is to identify the risks. after that. one assesses the likelihood of occurrence. After that, one assesses the severity of the potential consequences. After that, one assess possible mitigation approaches and either the selects one of them or decides to accept the risks unmitigated.

In the case of evaluating concealed carry for self defense by someone other than a sworn officer, the following things come to mind, at least to me:

• Tactical and euipment considerations limit the analysis to one addressing the kind of threat that can reasonably addressed by a concealable handgun--to wit, a threat of attack by a small number of assailants; and
• The fact that the defender is charged only iwith self=preservation, and not with the pursuit and apprehension of suspects, will influence the equipment requirements.

The second of those points means that we can reasonably decide against carrying handcuffs and Tasers. It also tells us that we can probably decide against carrying a 19+1 firearm and several extra magazines of the kind that we might find in the equipment list of an LEO.

That has been the basis for my thinking here all along. We select what it would reasonably take to defend against the most plausible of the extremely unlikely situations, which would be an unexpected and violent criminal attack by one, two, or three assailants.

The likelihood of occurrence can vary a great deal. If it is really high in some locale or other, or at night, the first mitigation approach is to stay out.

The next decision is to decide whether and/or when to arm oneself. I generally opt to do so wherever I can.

That takes us to whether the nature of the possible threat might vary enough to influence what to carry. Yes, things could really get tough in some areas, but if we are limiting ourselves to concealed handguns, I don't see how one would vary the response very much unless we really think we could prepare for a riot.

And as we have discussed, the fact that a violent criminal attack might well be very unlikely indeed would not give us any reason to expect that the nature of the attack would be materially different.

The difference would boil down to whether to carry not in the first place.

That's very basic risk management.

I frequent s small high end grocery with a small parking lot in good neighborhood that is accessible only by congested two lane roads. No one in his right mind would start anything there.

Or would they?

I blundered in to a robbery about to happen there once, and I caused the perps to think twice.

What I had with me was an Airweight Centennial, and after I had availed myself of some throning on how to get out of scrapes like that on, I decided that that was not the best choice--in that neighborhood or anywhere else--except for backup.

The nature of the encounter would not a have differed materially, only the likelihood of occurrence.

[mavracer]

Has anyone thought that in the case of an average shooter, the first two rounds out of the Smith, shot double action, are much more likely to find their mark than the first two shot, double/single out of the Bersa?

If you're talking the average owner, I'm quite sure the odds are very low that either one will. If a shooter can really shoot platform won't make much difference.

[Guv]

Except a S&W revolver is a step up from the typical Bersa.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

.38 Special kills and wounds out of proportion to its size and velocity, due to the wide nose (hollowpoint or meplat as the case may be), and ability to be semi-jacketed.

Having said that, it's still a very close call. Capacity is also important in my view. I voted .38 special, but I'm now doubting my vote.