Part 2. Why you carry high capacity w/spare mags

[matolman1]

Since I have been told often on this forum that gang attacks rarely if ever happen, I wanted to show 2 videos that I picked up just this morning.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=44a_1250292136

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57e_1250356737


Think it can't/won't happen to you? The "odds" are against this happening?

Tell that to Adam Taylor.

Be aware. Be alert. Be aggressive. Carry a high capacity firearm with spare magazines.

Is this your "magic wand?" Nope. But, it will allow you to better fight off a group if you must.

Ok, let the flame wars begin.....

[Brian Pfleuger]

So, where's the evidence that a high cap gun and/or spare mags would have been necessary or better than anything else?


What I see here is proof that you should always carry a fishing pole that is at least 10 feet long..... since there were no fishing poles involved, you can't prove me wrong. Same with guns. No guns involved, it shows NOTHING about firearms. No proof of low cap, high cap, 45 vs 9, revolver vs auto, nothing at all.


And that second video? People running around in the street is proof you need high cap mags? Come on.

[matolman1]

like I said, let the flame wars begin...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hmm - NO. If it becomes the same old folks arguing the same thing - I predict a slap down.

We've done the Black Swan vs. It Never Will Happen to You debate into the ground.

You need to make your own risk analysis and decision.

Glenn - warming up his hi-cap shut down device or waiting for Pax or Capt. Charlie to do the same.

[Brian Pfleuger]

These threads get shut down because there is no logic based response from the high cap proponents, save Glenn and a VERY few others.

Instead of a rational discussion it becomes "flaming". Ne rebuttal of my points, just "flaming".

No actual instances wherein high cap mags or guns or spares made a difference. Just anger, accusations, speculation and name calling.

Dozens of past examples to go along with this one.

[bababooey32]

Peetza - I would submit that inorder to make the case for higher capacity firearms and/or spare mags I don't have to necessarily provide examples where it did work or would have worked. Just as critics of hi-cap/spare mags need not prove it is overkill with examples of bad outcomes.

Would specific excamples be nice? Yes. But most discussions on this board are based on extrapolations, assumptions and analysis.

The best part of this particular sublject is that there is no "right" answer - just what is best for your situation.

I think a legitimate case can be made that carrying a higher capacity weapon is advantageous IF: 1) it can be done comfortably. 2) works with your situation, and 3) you can operate that firearm proficiently. If those three conditions are met, I can see no upside to carrying a lower capacity firearm.

[Brian Pfleuger]

The best part of this particular sublject is that there is no "right" answer - just what is best for your situation.

I agree that there is no "right" answer to what a person CHOOSES to carry. (I have said so many times.) I have also said several times that one of the VERY few, maybe the only, solid reason for carrying spare mags is malfunction clearance. If malfunctions are something that someone worries about then a spare mag would be good for piece of mind if nothing else. Even so, that has nothing to do with actual capacity.

NEED is an entirely different thing. In order to "need" something there must be some demonstrated, well, need. The only way to demonstrate need is to provide examples. I have yet to see an example that wasn't based on PURE speculation, just like the videos in the OP.

If there are no guns involved then there is no proof of ANYTHING gun related. No proof ANY gun would have made things better, or worse. No proof that high-cap or low would have mattered. No proof that shots would even have been fired. The videos are meaningless for support of any firearms related theory.

I could just as easily state the they are proof that a 22 caliber Derringer is what you should carry.

I can see no upside to carrying a lower capacity firearm.

Less weight and less expense are two examples.

[ckgdrums]

I'm thinkin' you're only gonna need 2 or 3 well placed rounds anyway. After you pop the first 2 or 3, the rest are gonna run like Forrest Gump!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Going nowhere - tick, tock.



OK - I'll try:

The standard property crime - single mugger - is probably handled (if it comes to gunfire) by any competent handgun with what's loaded in it.

Or

You may be unlucky enough to face multiple or heavily armed attackers (or an attacker) or at a distance that makes hits hard to achieve.

While rare, you might end up in a Mumbai fight or a rampage with multiple shooters.

Yes, it's rare.

It is also the case, as Peetz pointed out, that your mag can go awry. Happens at matches.

So, that's all there is - a small but possible intense incident that you cannot avoid by fleeing in terror. If you want the added capacity for such, then go for it.

That's all I see to the argument.

[pax]

And, frankly, that's all there is to the argument.

Peetzakilla, the reason these threads degenerate into flames is not because your opponents have no logical arguments. It's because you start the flames with rude comments like that, and then cry foul when people respond to them.

pax