J-frame: Enough?

[Nanuk]

I'm left wondering what other scenarios you might conceive that would necessitate more discreet carry?

I know I can think of many. By the way, I'm also a retired city police officer. If I understand correctly, you are too?

No worries, I get jarhead humor, have several friends that are jarheads.

I was a big city cop in Texas after the Army. I retired from the Border Patrol.

I normally do not need to be any more discreet than a full size Glock, but many people work in NPE's.

[reteach]

I went from an LCRX .38 [almost a J-frame] to a Glock 42. My Glock has been flawless, with a one-round extension on all magazines. But, I really like wheel guns, so when the LCRX came out in .327, I got one. It's a six-shooter, and still not exactly a J-frame. I am very comfortable carrying the LCRX with .32 H&R mag ammo.

I decided this a long time ago, when I started carrying: If I ever do get into a gun fight, the only thing I have to do to win is not lose. There was a member on this forum whose tag line was a quote from Mike Irwin. It went something like "My carry gun is really just the starter pistol for the old guy mad dash tactical retreat." [I bet Mike can correct my inexact memory.] As a civilian, I do not need to, and do not want to, run toward the sound of gunfire.

Sure, I have enough imagination to picture a scenario that would require me to be more aggressive, but the chances of such a scenario actually playing out are slim. Certainly nothing like that has happened in the 40+ years I've been carrying a gun.

So my vote is that a J-frame is enough for a normal civilian.

[Nanuk]

Sharkbite - In those incidents, were you a civilian or law enforcement?

Not Sharkbite, but, what difference does it make? The only difference LE makes is what you are doing leading up to the fight, maybe.

LE gets in gunfights with the same criminals that non LE gets into gunfights with.

[reteach]

The difference to me is that we require law enforcement to go toward the fight. They have to seek out the bad guys and face them down. They're not supposed to run away. Civilians can run away and in most cases probably should.

[Sharkbite]

Sharkbite - In those incidents, were you a civilian or law enforcement?

The first i was working for the Brinks armored car company, the second was a LE setting.

Thats not the point. The issue is how the numbers are a false sense of security. In my example a 1911 gets you over the avg, but would leave you empty in the 2nd shooting.

I dont understand folks that want to carry the minimum gun and hope its enough. Why try to frame a house with a ballpeen hammer?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If I could have carried at work, a college was a nice place for a rampage. In our building, the long corridor was about 100 yards long. There have been school shootings with more than one assailant. That's the kind of extreme incident that would make me consider having the semi and extra mags. Of course, fleeing in terror is a plan but I'd want more than a J frame for that kind of trouble.

When I suggested faculty and staff carry, people were appalled.

[reteach]

Why try to frame a house with a ballpeen hammer?

That's kinda my point. If I were going to frame a house, I'd be sure to have a 22 oz overstrike hammer. But I'm not a professional carpenter. I just do a little bit of diy around the house, so I can get by with a smaller, lighter hammer. I might even drive a nail with a ball peen hammer. I would hire a professional if I needed a house built.

As a guard or an LE, you didn't have much choice about backing away from those fights. You were required to stay put and battle it out. For which, by the way, I say Thank You.

But I can back away before I've used up my 5 or 6 shots and get away to safety. I can leave it to the professionals to handle any more than that.

[Lohman446]

But I can back away before I've used up my 5 or 6 shots and get away to safety.

I'm curious about this. While I am not as adamant about the "oh its not enough" idea and realize it may be for most (extremely rare anyways) gun fights if the option to back away to safety was available was a gun even necessary in the first place?

The vast majority of people on this earth will NEVER need to use lethal force. Of those that do some of them will not even have a firearm with them. This makes the justifiable use of lethal force with a firearm and extremely rare occurrence for an individual.

I'm making numbers up but its like preparing for the 1 in 1000 chance and then declaring preparation for the 1 in 2000 chance to be going too far. Sure there is a cut-off line somewhere but I'm not sure wear.

To each there own but the question posed might as well be "is not carrying any gun at all enough" and for the vast majority of individuals the answer is going to be yes.

[Mike Irwin]

"if the option to back away to safety was available was a gun even necessary in the first place?"

When the gun is first needed/drawn the option to safely retreat may not be feasible. It may give you that ability.

Years ago I observed that my CCWs are my "starter guns for the fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."

While I said that largely in jest, it really does outline my philosophy. If one becomes involved in a shooting situation, you should always be looking for avenues for retreat away from the threat.

[briandg]

Some people say that using a gun as a threat is a stupid idea, that you had better not draw a gun except to use deadly force to defend your very life or safety.

erm, where do people get that idea? a drawn gun is a clear sign of danger to life and limb for whoever sees the bore end. People will usually back down to presentation of superior strength. Once the handful of dangerous looking punks have halted in their steps, retreat becomes a viable option. There's not a chance in the hot place that most of us could outrun a bunch of kids who spend their lives walking around looking for trouble and running like prairie dogs when they find it, especially if the intend victim is carrying a brief case, groceries, or even wearing bad shoes.

If one or a group of people present a threat that merits a show of force, you can draw the gun to use as a warning, and not have to use it. You can then visually clear the adjacent areas in case his droogs are tiptoeing up behind them. Then, run, walk, even fly away if you can.

"starter guns for the fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."

The first time I saw that, it was enlightening and I hoped that every person who read it would contrast it to "stand your ground" You don't have to, really, if you can just walk away. There is wisdom in that deeply buried under the humor.

Watched a movie once in the past. First guy said 'if you want to proceed you will have to go through me'. Other guy said 'maybe i'll just walk around you.'

[Lohman446]

The lawyer who taught part of a class I attended awhile ago was very clear that you may only escalate as far as is needed to end the threat if at all tactically possible.

He was very clear. One must first commit brandishment (justified) in the display of the firearm as a means of intimidation, then assault (justified) the use of the firearm as a direct threat (IE stop or I'll shoot), and only then use deadly force (justified) by pulling the trigger.

He did caveat out that in some situations the above may occur in a time frame that makes distinguishing harder but he was clearly making the point. I'm all for evasion and if a pistol makes that easier or more likely wonderful.

I guess my hang-up on the J-frame is the question "is it a pocket gun" If it is for you it is likely among the best pocket guns available. If it is not there are much better options (including revolvers) for a concealed belt (or wherever) gun. Opinions will vary.

Personally I believe in the ability to bring disproportionate force of arms. In this case not so much about the force of my opponents but about me. If I am in a gun fight I want to be able to use 2 or 3 shots in a rapid manner rather than concerning myself with only having 5. Yes I get the "you are responsible for every shot fired" mantra but even in the event of my retreat I want my opponent to believe, should he pursue, its not just going to be a shot or two coming at him.

[briandg]

The lawyer who taught part of a class I attended awhile ago was very clear that you may only escalate as far as is needed to end the threat if at all tactically possible.

He was very clear. One must first commit brandishment (justified) in the display of the firearm as a means of intimidation, then assault (justified) the use of the firearm as a direct threat (IE stop or I'll shoot), and only then use deadly force (justified) by pulling the trigger.

This is what a common, sensible, thinking man will ordinarily say. This is what some people who disagree with stand your ground are looking at.

If you truly go through this course of actions intending only to save your own life, in the eyes of the all knowing god you're fine. It should be this way in the minds of anyone else involved as well.

[reteach]

its like preparing for the 1 in 1000 chance and then declaring preparation for the 1 in 2000 chance to be going too far

That is an excellent observation.

And to combine it with your post #111, in a situation where I am threatened by some bad guys, I could display a SIG 226 and intimidate the bad guys into leaving me alone just as readily as I could display a J-frame. But then, if the bad guys weren't intimidated and I had no way to get out of there, I would have 16 rounds in my hand instead of 5 to continue my defense.

But for a civilian like me, that scenario is very unlikely to occur. And for me, carrying 2+ pounds in a 6X8 inch package is not a pleasant thought. So yes, I am compromising by carrying half the weight in a package that's 30% smaller. And still carrying something so I'm not completely defenseless.

[dahermit]

And to combine it with your post #111, in a situation where I am threatened by some bad guys, I could display a SIG 226 and intimidate the bad guys into leaving me alone just as readily as I could display a J-frame. But then, if the bad guys weren't intimidated and I had no way to get out of there, I would have 16 rounds in my hand instead of 5 to continue my defense.

Here in Michigan, we CCW holders know that we may be charged for "brandishing" a firearm. Therefore, my CCW piece will never be used to intimidate (A.K.A., "brandish"), a bad guy...if it comes out it will be because it is necessary to save my life, it will be used...just as the law allows. My little 5-shot .38 is not likely to intimidate as well as it is likely to be a useful lifesaver at point blank range.

[K_Mac]

Here in Michigan, we CCW holders know that we may be charged for "brandishing" a firearm. Therefore, my CCW piece will never be used to intimidate (A.K.A., "brandish"), a bad guy...if it comes out it will be because it is necessary to save my life, it will be used...just as the law allows. My little 5-shot .38 is not likely to intimidate as well as it is likely to be a useful lifesaver at point blank range.

I'm not sure why this always comes up. Brandishing a weapon to stop a potentially lethal attack is a far better option than trying to justify use of weapon on someone who has had a change of heart and turned to break off the attack. The idea that "if it comes out...it will be used" is the equivalent of explaining to police, prosecutor and jury that you had drawn your weapon and had no choice but to use it. Good luck with that.

I don't carry a j-frame, but I sometimes carry an LCP. I do so understanding it is a compromise that is not without risk. I accept the risk and move on. We all have to come to our own conclusion based on our assessment of risk. Hopefully we will never have to field test that conclusion.

[Lohman446]

Here in Michigan, we CCW holders know that we may be charged for "brandishing" a firearm

Of course you may. Just like if you shoot someone you may be charged with a crime. I think we are missing the use of justified - you can present justification for what would otherwise be a criminal act and make it not a criminal act.

The use of brandishment to stop an attack, in MI, that would result in forcible sexual penetration, kidnapping, severe bodily harm or death IS justified as those are the same requirements to justify deadly force.

What is a prosecutor going to argue? "It would have been ok had he shot him but since he didn't we are going to charge him with a crime?"

[reteach]

charged for "brandishing" a firearm

I understand that concern. Here's what I mean by "display" and "intimidate." A person moves toward me with clear intent to do me harm, by whatever means. I draw my gun to defend myself. The sight of my gun causes the other person to stop threatening me. I do not have to shoot the person, and I can put my gun away and leave before any more trouble develops. It seems reasonable to conclude that that was the best outcome. I'm safe and the other guy didn't get shot.

If I had been the aggressor and displayed my gun to intimidate someone who was not attacking me, I would be guilty of brandishing and assault and probably some other things. But in a defensive situation, if drawing my gun stops the attack but I shoot anyway because I had already drawn my gun, seems to me I'd be in trouble for shooting a guy who had already ceased the attack.

[reteach]

While I was typing K Mac and Lohman446 answered it better than I could.

And before we all get a whack with the edge of a ruler for being off track, this is all explaining that a J-frame is enough.

[seeker_two]

After reading all this, I think I'll go with a LCR 9mm instead of a LCP II .380 when I want a lightweight carry alternative to my G26......

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[JohnKSa]

One thing to consider is that not everyone always has rapid retreat as an obvious option. For example, when I am out with my wife, my ability to rapidly retreat is compromised by her much more limited mobility.

[briandg]

That is exactly why the laws are written as they are now, and the reason that we have a legal system of several levels. With many current laws saying that retreat is not required and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor even before charges can be laid, there is protection for you and your wife on the legal prosecutorial front.

If you have done something that sends you to trial, we then have a jury of "intelligent and rational" people who decide whether you acted properly, and a judge that will have the last word on your punishment.

Caught in circumstances beyond your control, you cannot expect 'justice' to fall into your lap, it quite often fails.

[Lohman446]

I've been thinking about this more than I should. Is the .38 enough? It depends what enough means. The vast majority of law abiding civilian individuals will not actually use a firearm in their lifetime. Someone noted above, and I will accept it as true, that most uses of a firearm in self defense will involve less than three shots.

Enough for what? Its not about being enough to overcome any possible attack on your person or those you are willing to protect with deadly force. Face it we cannot do that and our best chances of overcoming an attack involve a long gun and if were discussing long guns no doubt someone would point out travelling in a Bradley combat vehicle would be within reason.

I am not a "carry a gun everywhere I go every time" though I do tend to carry a gun virtually everywhere I take my children. As noted above retreat can rapidly become less of a viable option when others are involved.

Few of us are ever going to actually need that firearm for self defense. Fewer still will need to fire a shot as the show of the firearm will end the threat or make retreat possible. Even fewer will need to fire more than one, two, three... well you get the idea. The people who will need more than 5 shots in a gun fight? An extremely rare group. Its made even rarer when you consider "need more than five but less than X" with X being the amount of rounds they actually carry.

But back to the question: enough for what? I believe we actually carry are guns for comfort. It is highly likely I am never going to use my gun and yet I go through the trouble of carrying it many places. When I take my kids hiking or to the playgrounds I carry a firearm because it gives me a level of protection that I feel more comfortable with than if i was unarmed.

So if carrying a gun is really about making you feel comfortable with the level of protection you have for yourself and those you would defend the question becomes far less empirical. It changes from being quantitative in nature (will X shots be enough) to being qualitative (am I comfortable enough with this gun) and becomes, even more than it was, a personal decision.

Is the J frame enough? If you answered yes to the question than it is. If you really had to think about it, wonder, and it still nags at you? Nope.

[Mike Irwin]

Reteach, I just now saw this... Sorry...

"I decided this a long time ago, when I started carrying: If I ever do get into a gun fight, the only thing I have to do to win is not lose. There was a member on this forum whose tag line was a quote from Mike Irwin. It went something like "My carry gun is really just the starter pistol for the old guy mad dash tactical retreat." [I bet Mike can correct my inexact memory.] As a civilian, I do not need to, and do not want to, run toward the sound of gunfire."


I made that comment back in 2009, that my handguns are really just my "starter pistol on the fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."

That's still a philosophy to which I adhere.


I believe that it was mavracer who made my quote part of his signature linen.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's Ayoob's take on this debate plus some interesting comments on other carry issues:

https://gundigest.com/handguns/conce...y-myths-busted

We've really just gone around the same issues here which boil down to:

1. The gun for deterrence and the single mugger-ish confrontation.
2. The more intense incident based on number of opponents, difficult of shots and malfunctions.

I assume we will do this topic again in a month or two with the same results and opinions. Just remember, Gov. Cuomo, Nancy, Chuck and Diane will see that common usage and reasonable restrictions will make 5 is enough the mantra for self-defense and kiss your higher cap semi handguns and rifles good bye if they have their way.

[Chainsaw.]

How many scoops in a shovel? How many bl8nks in an eye? Enough? Or not? But you'll know if the moment comes along.