[OldMarksman]

This [he ran back in to get another gun to shoot the guy on the floor] was not shown on the video I watched and it was not shown or discussed in the news release.

See the animated sequence here (How it happened; "retrieved a second gun"):

http://newsok.com/pharmacyshootings

That extra step was probably the key to being able to charge him with murder in the first degree.

Had the street thugs continued to use the six shooter, likely that would still be the standard issue.

That could well be, but the choice of weapons is not the only thing that has made the perps more threatening.

The Illinois State Police went to single column semi-autos about three decades ago.

Our County police did not carry AR-15 rifles in their cars until fairly recently. I do not think that the fact that perps have some double-column pistols drove that. I think it was because the perps are meaner and more desperate and there are more of them working together. There are said to be more meth labs around here than there were whiskey stills in Appalachia years ago. In nearby counties, the sounds of labs exploding are not all that uncommon.

I carry a S&W model 686 when I am not working. It carries six rounds and I do not feel inadequate with it. All it takes is one shot...

Ideally, yes, one shot on target per violent criminal actor just might suffice. However, there's enough in the literature (Ayoob, for axample) about perps continuing to shoot and kill after absorbing several shots to center mass and to the pelvic area to put the one shot scenario into the category of the ideal.

I like the 686 but I cannot conceal one.

Personally, I stay away from Magnum rounds for reasons of controllability (in lighter guns) and potential danger to others.

The remark about cell phones is a cheap shot...

Not intended as such, but your discussion was excellent.

Having used a sidearm three times in 38 years, I shot twice in one shooting, once in another and three times in the remaining shooting.

Seems it does sometimes take more than one shot.

I've been very lucky. I have necessarily produced a weapon three times in forty five years and have never had to fire a shot.

Accuracy is still better than capacity.

Absolutely, and for reasons we have agreed upon: only hits stop the attacker; and misses can hit someone else.

I do not need fifteen shots...

Nor do I--I am not sworn to enforce the law, and I have difficulty visualizing a scenario in which fifteen shots would be needed in a justifiable use of force by a citizen. I do not have and will not buy any handgun with that capacity. It would be hard to conceal; I don't need it; and the public perception might not be helpful.

I do like the idea of seven or a little more. Two perps times three shots each, should that prove necessary, would not leave much of a reserve. Personally, I don't think that a single perp around here is likely to persist against a man with a weapon unless he gets the jump on his victim, and many crimes around here do involve two or more assailants.

I switched up from a five shot revolver (for carry some of the time) after about a dozen young gang members pulled a man from his car last spring in a good neighborhood at night. Friends of mine who were nearby heard the ruckus and called the police, whose station was less than two blocks away. The victim survived and no one was caught, but it could have turned out a lot worse.