|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 7, 2015, 09:47 AM | #126 | |
Member
Join Date: December 4, 2004
Posts: 96
|
Quote:
Imagine that. |
|
May 7, 2015, 10:22 AM | #127 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by Moomooboo:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But you are going about it wrong. First, you decide whether or not to carry a weapon, based on assessment of likelihood, severity of consequences, and what would be involved in doing so. Then you look, independently, at the next tier of risks. In this case, a malfunction. Let me try to put it simply for you using an example that you should be able to understand. A fire in the kitchen is very unlikely, right? But you might like to be able to handle it. You might, or might not, choose to keep a fire extinguisher handy. I do. But would you select one that would likely handle fires in a very limited subset of circumstances, simply because the risk is unlikely to ever materialize? No. No one would responsibly do so. One does not buy an extinguisher that may not function reliably just base fire are unlikely. Should a fire occur, one will want a very good one. That's obviously not a perfect analogy, but perhaps it will help get the point across. Regarding your assertion that you are basing anything on "situations which have occurred", you have no idea at all what has occurred and what has not. No one does. There are only two small data sets containing any details of civilian defensive shootings, and only one can be verified by the public. There are reasons why the data are not available, and I have explained them. |
|||||
May 7, 2015, 08:44 PM | #128 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,032
|
A lot of folks seem adamantly opposed to carrying a spare magazine. The focus of the objection seems to be a spare mag is unnecessary. But, are there any good reasons not to carry a spare?
The reason I have not been carrying a spare mag is it is convenient not to do so. A more brutal way of phrasing my rationale is I am being slothful. Sloth and a minor convenience are not good reasons. In the recent failed self-defense trial in ME the fact that the shooter was carrying two spare mags was used against him as a sign of premeditation, which, despite sounding scary, is not a good reason, because carrying a gun even without reloads could also be deemed evidence of premeditation. I endorse a person's choice to arm himself or not and to carry as much or as little ammo as he wants. Many good reasons have been offered for carrying reloads, but are there any good reasons (other than non-necessity) to carry no reloads? |
May 7, 2015, 10:50 PM | #129 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 4,615
|
Quote:
^ good one. I am one of those that don't. and I can honestly say "no", there isn't really a good reason NOT to...... that short post was probably the only one of six pages to make me actually consider doing it tomorrow.
__________________
My head is bloody, but unbowed |
|
May 8, 2015, 02:33 PM | #130 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 2014
Posts: 203
|
Weird,
I can't do a quote and reply. In response to Oldman. "Even a quick and incomplete review of other fora, established training companies and academies, books, and articles will show rather conclusively that many--not all, but most--of those who "think differently" have simply not made the effort to inform themselves." -And again you go saying people are wrong and ignorant because they don't believe in what you have to say. Please stray away from this. "Statistical analysis, performed properly, is the very basis of risk management." - Sure, and there are different ways to look and interpret statistics. Statistics are numbers, how you choose to interpret and analyze them are different. You have one, I have another, but you are stating that I am wrong. "All risk management involves deciding whether, and if so how, to mitigate a situation that may not occur. But you are going about it wrong. First, you decide whether or not to carry a weapon, based on assessment of likelihood, severity of consequences, and what would be involved in doing so. Then you look, independently, at the next tier of risks. In this case, a malfunction. Let me try to put it simply for you using an example that you should be able to understand. A fire in the kitchen is very unlikely, right? But you might like to be able to handle it. You might, or might not, choose to keep a fire extinguisher handy. I do. But would you select one that would likely handle fires in a very limited subset of circumstances, simply because the risk is unlikely to ever materialize? No. No one would responsibly do so. One does not buy an extinguisher that may not function reliably just base fire are unlikely. Should a fire occur, one will want a very good one. That's obviously not a perfect analogy, but perhaps it will help get the point across. Regarding your assertion that you are basing anything on "situations which have occurred", you have no idea at all what has occurred and what has not. No one does. There are only two small data sets containing any details of civilian defensive shootings, and only one can be verified by the public. There are reasons why the data are not available, and I have explained them." -Sure I will agree, all these factors are independent and should be analyzed independently as they are not dependent on the other. However, the chances of all of that happening can be combined to provide the odds of all that happening. No offense, but please use a different analogy than the fire extinguisher. So, by your assertion that I have no idea what has occurred due to small data sets, I am wrong in my statistics. Taking your claim that the basis of risk management is statistics, there is no way you can be correct either. The foundation of your risk management is null and void if my statistics cannot be used due to lack of data. I can't see who wrote this but this is my response. "A lot of folks seem adamantly opposed to carrying a spare magazine. The focus of the objection seems to be a spare mag is unnecessary. But, are there any good reasons not to carry a spare? The reason I have not been carrying a spare mag is it is convenient not to do so. A more brutal way of phrasing my rationale is I am being slothful. Sloth and a minor convenience are not good reasons. In the recent failed self-defense trial in ME the fact that the shooter was carrying two spare mags was used against him as a sign of premeditation, which, despite sounding scary, is not a good reason, because carrying a gun even without reloads could also be deemed evidence of premeditation. I endorse a person's choice to arm himself or not and to carry as much or as little ammo as he wants. Many good reasons have been offered for carrying reloads, but are there any good reasons (other than non-necessity) to carry no reloads?" On the same note, is there really a good reason to carry reloads? If you're going to say that you'll never know you may never need it, we'll go down this slippery slope of needing a kevlar helmet and bulletproof vest again. Sure it's 1 or 2 reloads, but then again its just a helmet or bulletproof vest. They have some nice unnoticeable bulletproof vest nowadays too and comparing the cost of the vest vs your life, is really, priceless. On the note of risk management, you might as well never leave your home to mitigate risks, its easy with the internet delivering goods and food to your home. (no offense oldman, I do appreciate your input). |
May 8, 2015, 02:54 PM | #131 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
On the slippery slope, if you really do understand statistics and risk management, you would understand that you establish a reasonable cutoff or critical value for acceptable levels of risk.
The slippery slope is really a distribution of possible incidents and errors. Many experts have decided (you can denigrate experts) that looking at the continuum of possible problems, an extra mag is not so far out to be a silly action to take. As far as sloth and not being able to do it with comfort, well - that's your choice and many have found they can.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 8, 2015, 03:06 PM | #132 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2014
Location: Missouri
Posts: 661
|
Uh. No it's not a slippery slope. A couple extra magazines are something that probably all semi-auto owners have. Nobody but you has suggested that sticking a couple mags in a pouch is going to lead to leaving the house in full battle gear to provide for every contingency. If you really believe that there is no reasonably possible situation that could occur that would necessitate carrying them then fine. I, and a lot of people who carry just can't see the resistance to a practice that takes zero effort to accomplish just in case. Like I said in a previous post, "I've gone nearly 59 years without needing a gun." It's easy to carry and it's fun to train. It's a hobby and a lifestyle. I hope no one here ever needs even a single round but even more than that I hope no one here needs an extra magazine and doesn't have it.
__________________
"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
CASTLE DOCTRINE STRONGLY ENFORCED "Happiness is a warm gun" |
May 8, 2015, 03:12 PM | #133 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 2014
Posts: 203
|
Quote:
Also i have never denigrated any experts. Please use the proper word. Last edited by Moomooboo; May 8, 2015 at 03:25 PM. |
|
May 8, 2015, 03:34 PM | #134 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by Moomooboo:
Quote:
You were claiming to base your assessment on cumulative probabilities that would combine the likelihood of a defensive shooting with the likelihood of a failure to function--both happening at the same time. You do not have the data and neither do I, but if we had them, we would not use them. That would be the wrong way to go about it. Read Post #54 again, as many times as it takes you to grasp the basic concept. In its simplest form, here it is again: You first assess the risk of being attacked, and decide whether to mitigate it by carrying a weapon. Some people decide to do so, and many others decide otherwise. Then, if you have decided to carry a firearm, you assess, separately, the risk that your firearm may fail. There are plenty of ways of assessing that marginal probability--the risk that the firearm will fail when you need it most. You could ask some instructors, or devote some time observing some two-day training sessions, or better yet, you could enroll in one. After making the assessment, you decide whether and how to mitigate that risk. We have discussed two ways. Capisci? Quote:
Quote:
Here's the process:
No helmet or vest for me, thank you. Quote:
|
||||
May 8, 2015, 03:55 PM | #135 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by momooboo:
Quote:
Well, should Glenn happen to believe that that inane request is worth the time of day, we'll see how his list compares with mine:
Claude Werner recently opined that if he had to make a choice, he would rather carry a less lethal weapon than an extra magazine. Whether you believe that you have denigrated any experts, I think that do you seem to do so. And that is the proper word. |
|
May 8, 2015, 04:19 PM | #136 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Add John Farnam, Gila Hayes, Lynn Givens, Marty Hayes and Jim Cirillo to that list. Although Jim was better known for suggesting an entire second gun, eg the "New York reload" which was named for him.
pax |
May 9, 2015, 08:02 AM | #137 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 25, 2014
Posts: 203
|
Ok Old Marksman. I have disparaged experts even though ive said that you can carry extra magazines even though i do not choose to. Seems you guys dont understand what denigrate means, just because i dont believe what you preach does not mean that ive belittled you.
As for these experts. They all fall under the same organizations. At the top is massad and then the armed citizens network. Your claim for them being experts is that theyve simply been shooting and getting trained for years. Just because ive taken some car driving course and been driving courses, driving for 20 years and am a member of nascar federation does that make me an expert? These people, some seem to have LEO Backgrounds which indirectly leads to some research. But these arent people who have been poring over cases to come to their conclusion. Last edited by pax; May 9, 2015 at 08:23 AM. Reason: Removed gratuitous insult |
May 9, 2015, 08:17 AM | #138 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Posted by Moomooboo:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you suggesting that many, most, or all of the people whom pax and I have listed are not experts? Are you intentionally trying to denigrate them? |
||||
May 9, 2015, 08:27 AM | #139 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
And....
This one is done. Just a reminder: TFL's Forum Rules can be found here. They include the following: Quote:
Closing the thread because it appears the meat of the discussion is over in any case. pax |
|
May 9, 2015, 12:54 PM | #140 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
On the Subject of Experts
People can and should look into the backgrounds, qualifications, and reputations of "expets" and anyone else when considering their advice.
For the convenience of those who have followed this discussion, I'll list those of just an arbitrary few. This what one finds on John Farnham's website: One of John's students is Kathy Jackson (pax, here): Kathy mentions Tom Givens: I have left out a lot about Tom, including championships, authorships and so forth, but it is relevant here that he has lectured and written about over sixty real defensive use of force encounters that his students experienced. I have studied under Rob Pincus. A few highlights: If you have watched The Best Defense, you have seen Mike Seeklander. If you have not , you should. Search and read about his impressive background. Massad Ayoob should need no introduction. I have studied under Mas, too. Understand that this is a business. Some people may try to pass themselves off as experts, but if they cannot deliver, they will not succeed. Again, I have arbitrarily chosen just a few. |
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|