Quote:
|
Just a few months ago we had the exact same argument going on for page after page. P. Killa seems to have a lot invested in his argument that, since the odds are against needing one, it isn't necessary to carry a reload.
|
Apparently, the "investment" goes both ways, as I see your still making your argument also.
Quote:
|
Don't want to carry a reload? Well, don't carry one and give the rest of us a break.
|
It's really quite interesting that, in both threads regarding this topic, certain members of the "high capacity" crowd are the ones telling the others to essentially "Shut up and go away."
I've personally stated numerous times that anyone who wants to carry a reload should go right ahead and do so. I've also never once told anyone that they should stop discussing their opinions.
Here's another interesting twist (which was also addressed in the other thread):
Who's better armed? The guy with the 5 shot snubbie and 4 reloads or the guy with the 18 shot Glock and NO reloads? If "capacity" matters, then the guy with the snubbie is better off. Except for the dang reload time. Since logic dictates that the same capacity with no reloads should be better, well, I guess all the pro-capacity guys also advocate carrying nothing but high-cap autos?
One other thing: Two threads running over several months time, I've still never seen a single actual link to an incident wherein a civilian actually NEEDED a reload.