High round counts for civilians

[MandolinMan]

In the article linked below, Massad Ayoob attempts to debunk several common gunfighting myths, one of which is:

“YOU CAN NEVER JUSTIFY SHOOTING A MAN MORE THAN 7/15/25 YARDS AWAY!”

He writes, "I don’t mean to insult anyone, but this statement flunks the litmus test for cluelessness. By definition, if you were able to shoot him at that distance, he was able to shoot you at that distance."

Ayoob goes on to site specific examples of this occurrence. Like all of his writing its definitely worth a read.

http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/...rmed-and-ready

[Sharkbite]

if you were able to shoot him at that distance, he was able to shoot you at that distance."

And that should put that to rest......

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

And that should put that to rest......

Its the "why were you shooting someone 50 yards away" that is generally problematic. If the examples are Wild Bill Hickok and someone shooting someone else to support police, well I guess that could theoretically happen. So I will concede, if someone starts shooting at you from 50 yards away, or the UT tower shooter has fought through the three police officers on duty at the Tower and you want to shoot at him with your pistol from ground level, or if you come upon a police officer engaging someone 50 yards away, you could indeed argue self defense.

[MTT TL]

This is a brave new world with mass murders on rooftops with bump fire stocks and other cowards driving trucks in to crowds to kill as many as possible. Defense of self and others is allowed in every state.

Range and distance to target isn't an issue. The offenders are going to keep trying to kill people until the offenders are either dead or disabled.

Most defense, non police, shooting encounters involve a low round count because....... that is how many rounds the defender brought. Magically the round count soars in police shootings because.... that is how many they brought....

Back when the police had wheel guns round counts were much lower.

I can think of a few cases where one party to the fight (either attacker or defender) died with an empty gun. You might argue; "He shot him when his gun was empty! He was disarmed"

What should the defender do? Wait till he reloads?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The thing is, while the tenacity of your opponent is not something you can control, you can control how much ammo you carry in the event your opponent exhibits non-rational behavior (comparative to your frame of reference). If you do come across a non-rational opponent, you might find they are more tenacious than the typical scenarios you've imagined.

It doesn't need to be terrorists either. While that is increasingly more common, even much more common is the guy with three times the fatal dose of meth in his system who thinks squirrels are trying to make a nest in his brain. Those people do not respond to displays of lethal force like you imagine a rational person would and our society does a poor job of separating them from the rest of society.

Everybody thinks they won't be that person dealing with an irrational attacker; but at least once a month I see a case like that (luckily, the number requiring violence to solve is more like once or twice a year).*

*Out of about a 568,900 population.

[OldMarksman]

So I will concede, if someone starts shooting at you from 50 yards away, or the UT tower shooter has fought through the three police officers on duty at the Tower and you want to shoot at him with your pistol from ground level, or if you come upon a police officer engaging someone 50 yards away, you could indeed argue self defense.

One more time: the defense of justification may not involve self defense.

[Nanuk]

What scenario involves you shooting across a Walmart at someone? The topic is for CC. With the exception of deep rural, arguing you saw someone at 50 yards and shot them, your defense attorney is going to need a whole lot of money.

I am not the one making up scenarios. I never said "Shoot across Wal-mart" You did. Wal-mart's here are about 200 yards across(or more). We do all not live and work in the same situations.

Ok, lets play your game. Lets say I shoot someone late night in a Wal-mart from 51.3 yards in lawful self defense of a third party. The only one injured is the BG. What crime am I going to trial for? Name the statute.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

One more time: the defense of justification may not involve self defense.

Other instances are materially insignificant to a CC holder.

[MTT TL]

Other instances are materially insignificant to a CC holder.

Perhaps to you. Maybe to someone else with different life circumstances they are more important. Personally, I value the lives of my family members above my own.

[OldMarksman]

Other instances are materially insignificant to a CC holder.

If by that you man something like "other kinds of cases rarely occur for civilians", that is completely irrelevant to the validity of a defense of justification.

[MTT TL]

If by that you man something like "other kinds of cases rarely occur for civilians", that is completely irrelevant to the validity of a defense of justification.

Materiality isn't associated with probability. It is more to do with relevance.

[OldMarksman]

Materiality isn't associated with probability. It is more to do with relevance.

What does it have to do with the validity of a defense of justification?

[zincwarrior]

Ah, now I see. When I say self defense - that's covered under the self defense statutes, it's defense of yourself or others typically for reasonable fear of death or some level of harm. This also typically includes preventing a rape or kidnapping, but may include other actions. Now some jurisdictions permit lethal force in defense of property which may be covered under other statutes (in Texas it is covered by the same statute).

In Texas, coming to the defense of a police officer would fall under the self defense statutes. I am not aware of any other statute permitting lethal force by a non deputized citizen (now the wife says there is a "he needed Killin your honor" provision for annoyed wives...)

Apologies if I was unclear earlier.

[Brit]

It appears that there is miles, pages, of excuses to as we say in Lancashire UK "For duin newt!" Translation, Doing nothing.
Panic over Jury's, Police, and Prosecutors, et al.

Keyboard Commandoes live on this stuff, to each his own.

I as a person, even at my age, am more likely to break a nose or jaw, done it, been there, got the damaged knuckles to show for it.

But without being melodramatic, just me involved "Legging it, might be an option" My Wife in danger, caused by some other person. May God have mercy on him. Now we have little munchkins, wee Grandkids, as well as others in their twenties! Four of them, the oldest, 7 YOA. Now under Grandads mantle.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by Brit

It appears that there is miles, pages, of excuses to as we say in Lancashire UK "For duin newt!" Translation, Doing nothing.
Panic over Jury's, Police, and Prosecutors, et al.

Keyboard Commandoes live on this stuff, to each his own.

I as a person, even at my age, am more likely to break a nose or jaw, done it, been there, got the damaged knuckles to show for it.

But without being melodramatic, just me involved "Legging it, might be an option" My Wife in danger, caused by some other person. May God have mercy on him. Now we have little munchkins, wee Grandkids, as well as others in their twenties! Four of them, the oldest, 7 YOA. Now under Grandads mantle.

Very true, although in my case they would be the ones legging it because I can't even walk fast at this point.

That is also why I freely admit I would not do anything unless it involved protecting the family. No one is going to pay my family's bills if I am hurt, in jail, or sued for getting involved in someone else's matter. Absent a direct threat to the family (or children) I'd follow the mantra of "be a good witness."

[OldMarksman]

That is also why I freely admit I would not do anything unless it involved protecting the family. No one is going to pay my family's bills if I am hurt, in jail, or sued for getting involved in someone else's matter. Absent a direct threat to the family (or children) I'd follow the mantra of "be a good witness."

While there are a few specific additions in my case, that is also my philosophy.

[Brit]

I do have the NRA Insurance. Complete with the heavy plastic card. First, call to them.

It is very disquieting, that we have so many people, who are here, illegally! We have no idea, who they are, or where they are from!

Take me, my birth is recorded, and every stage of my life is, as well. In files, books, ledgers. Birth certificates, Passports, etc/etc! Military and School records, work-related documents!

To this last week, I shot my G lic. requal, fingerprints, scores recorded, written scores.

Our new residents from Iraq? Nothing, nothing legal anyway!

[MTT TL]

But of course, the majority of civilians would never be in comparable situations because those usually arise from police chasing, arresting and intervening with armed criminals. So I don't see the applicability of that data to the CCW case.

I failed to pick up on this false dichotomy earlier. There are plenty of examples where the police fired way more than six rounds without chasing or trying to arrest an attacker. Recently during the Scalise shooting the police had to fire more than 40 rounds to kill the attacker.

That is just a recent example, there are hundreds of other cases.

I should also note that when the police are shooting at someone they are not attempting to arrest them. They are attempting to stop a threat, the same as anyone else.

[Rachen]

Bat Masterson - originally a revolver guy - says 10 shots from a semi:


https://americanhandgunner.com/savag...n-shots-quick/



Check out these gun fights and analysis:

1. Number of assailants - do you see that many were more than one? Yes.
2. Recommendation - gun with 8 or more rounds.

Double stack? (I assume) semiauto? Endorsed by some of the most notable figures from the Old West...More than 100 years ago. That is an absolutely amazing find. Thank you so much for sharing that!

[shurshot]

I couldnt get the link to work in the above post. If I'm not mistaken , old Bat Masterson wrote about "Ten shots quick", glorifying the new semi auto pistols, for Savage, in return for compensation. I doubt if a fight broke out, and Bat had a choice, he would have chosen a small .32 or .380 ACP semi auto over a .45 Long Colt Single Action Army revolver to defend himself, even if the pistol held 4 more rounds! The difference in bullet size and power is substantial and a knowledgeable and experienced gunfighter would realize the difference. He wrote the Savage booklet as part of a marketing ploy, for money. Savage was smart to hire him on. There was an article in Gun Digest a few decades ago covering these pistols and Bat Masterson. I recall the article had an old vintage picture of a man who had shot a Florida alligator with a Savage pistol. I had one, a .380 Savage, about 25 years ago, but traded it off. Should have kept it, pretty cool old gun.

[dontcatchmany]

I did not read all of the replies/posts in this thread so it may have been touched on.

I have never had to use any of my weapons in a self defense situation as a civilian. There has been one time when I was close to pulling a weapon, but the perp must have sensed that I was armed and backed away.....Thankfully!

I almost never feel comfortable with a 7 or 8 round pistol. Having served in a war years ago I learned that even with a bunch of training that the adrenalin in a shooting confrontation can and does negate a lot of the training and that a whole pot full of firepower was the only thing that ruled the day. It ain't like being at the local gun range. And the responsibility of shooting at other humans can go with you for a lifetime afterwards.

There is lots of data that shows that even very well trained police officers only hit with a small portion of what they shoot.

During the Civil War muskets were found after battles with as many as 18 reloads in the barrel. The carrier of the weapon had loaded the weapon many times and in the "excitement" of the battle never pulled the trigger.

Me, I am not going out looking for trouble, but I want to be prepared for when trouble comes and hope I never have to. AND, I do not like to reload and like higher capacity magazines to support my laziness when I shoot. And when I run out of ammo all I have is something similar to a rock and my fist fighting days are long gone.

[MTT TL]

During the Civil War muskets were found after battles with as many as 18 reloads in the barrel. The carrier of the weapon had loaded the weapon many times and in the "excitement" of the battle never pulled the trigger.

Could have been more than that. In every war there are some whose morals or for other reasons will not take a life and therefore they will not shoot. The leader may not notice someone not shooting, but they certainly would notice someone not reloading.

[Brit]

There are many individuals, in past conversations, who can not see carrying Hi Cap pistols, over 15 rounds? As most gun altercations only need 3 or so rounds to end them?
But what if it does not? My 16 rounds in my G19 do not do any harm, just sitting there!

My spare G17 magazine, same philosophy! Next to the spare Mag. a Truglow flashlight, more used than guns or bullets, truth be told.

A concealed pistol, carried always, goes under the heading, of just in case. I have never felt the need to justify what I carry to anyone.

[fastbolt]

So, over the last few days my choice of retirement CCW's has been either my 4013TSW (9rd mag), one of my LCP's (6rd mag) or one of my 5-shot snubs (M&P 340 or a 37DAO). It depended where I was planning to go to involve myself in activities, what I was planning to wear (cover garment), and a bit of a risk assessment for the anticipated locations and involved travel. Same thing I did regarding my off-duty choices and activities before I retired.

Folks have a lot of options nowadays. More than ever before.

Hopefully, some folks who have decided that they suddenly need to be "more prepared" by having "more ammunition capacity" have also given some thought to whether their skills might also benefit from some added attention and "improvement", too.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

I've been following this thread from the start and think that some really good points have been made. I've only been into shooting for about a year and half, so deciding on capacity when carrying has been something that I've thought about quite a bit. I consider myself to be fortunate in that I have gotten very good advice from seasoned law enforcement professionals, both retired and actively serving. Because they have almost unanimously stressed the importance of shot placement and finding cover, I have settled on a 5 shot revolver with two speed strips for a total of 17 rounds (which would more than likely be considerably more than I would ever actually need). When I run SD scenarios in my mind, and when I practice shooting, I focus on accuracy because my initial volley would only be five rounds. I want each one to count, with the hope that five would be enough to end the threat or buy me enough time to find cover.

With that said, a question that keeps popping into my mind has to do with how much higher capacity magazines contribute to "spray and pray" shooting in SD situations. I think that having so many available rounds to shoot in rapid succession would basically guarantee an increase in the chances of an innocent bystander getting hit. The bad guy confronts you, you pull out your gun with 15 rounds in it, start pulling the trigger, and end up pulling it more than was actually necessary only because you had so many rounds to begin with. In my mind it's almost like a false sense of security based on a full 15 round magazine.

I know that we all have to make this decision for ourselves, and I don't criticize or fault anyone for choosing guns with higher capacity. But I can't help but wonder what affect that has in actual SD shootings. I mean, how many innocent people have been shot over someone shooting off a full magazine when that many shots weren't necessary?