Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
Eli
Senior MemberPosts: 3,074 Senior Member
And this is why...
Eli
Senior MemberPosts: 3,074 Senior Member
http://www.inquisitr.com/1293042/st-louis-dad-saves-his-daughter-shoots-attackers-who-held-a-gun-to-her-head/
Admittedly a rare occurrence, but when we get into specifics, what isn't?
The mouse gun that's in your pocket (or center console) might be very comfortable to carry, but do you trust yourself to make this shot with it?
To reiterate my sig-line....We do not get to decide the level of precision required to end our shooting problem. We only get to decide the level of precision we are capable of.
Admittedly a rare occurrence, but when we get into specifics, what isn't?
The mouse gun that's in your pocket (or center console) might be very comfortable to carry, but do you trust yourself to make this shot with it?
To reiterate my sig-line....We do not get to decide the level of precision required to end our shooting problem. We only get to decide the level of precision we are capable of.
Replies
I agree, I would rather be "uncomfortable" all day long with a larger gun, than be comfortable with a possibly inadequate gun, when wearing a gun the correct way, even a full size gun is comfortable, yes even with shorts and a t-shirt and flipped flops lol...
I want the more accurate gun, since my accuracy will likely drop somewhat, I want high capacity as well.
The article says he hit both men inside a home, OK, great job, where is the awesome marksmanship?
He did great, and he landed three rounds in a 30"x20", (chest, thigh, thigh) area at a likely distance of under 15 feet on the guy who lived, and it doesnt say where the room temp guy was hit.
As a function of protecting the home? Fantastic. As a marksmanship guide, not so much. Yes, I can do that with the rat gun.
I am not thrilled with the idea of using a .380 acp in that scenario.
Not enough precision for so called "home defense" encounters/ hostage, other friendly people nearby.
Shotgun / buckshot..
The whole .380 acp prospect / problem leaves me somewhat apathetic.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
Its a handgun, a compromise. Yep the guy did good, and IMHO it is WHY you practice at longer distances. If you can hit it far, the short ones aren't so bad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then you've nothing to worry about.
A full size handgun is what I prefer to cover most of my sidearm needs.
This is only my opinion based on my personal experiences.
Your mileage may vary.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
If it is the only firearm available, however, if it is a Beretta Bobcat .22 LR, the tiny tip up barrel model, hopefully the shooter has enough practice.
Just saying, and the wife is anti gun.
Find a new wife?
No citation (and no badguy continuing to do what badguys do) but there was a news story posted here before one of our many crashes about a soldier over in the sandbox who took a shot to face with a 9mm (upper lip area, bullet lodged under his nose, IIRC) who ended up making the other guy die for his country...admittedly not a braincase shot, and almost certainly a complete fluke, but still impressive.
George Carlin
Then, in my opinion, this is exactly the scenario you should prepare for. I also feel inadequate to the task, but the alternative is trusting the bad guy.
This is the reason I do most of my practice on small targets with a subcompact .45 or 9mm. As much as I would be afraid of having to make such a shot, I have convinced myself it is the right thing to do, so I work to improve my chances of success by working for tight groups at 10 yards. On my good days, when I can shoot 2" groups at ten yards, I can shoot cloverleafs at five or less, which is a more likely scenario in a real life event. It's just a matter of challenging yourself with your practice - not just wasting ammo with shots that you already do well.
Besides, when I am shooting a subcompact well, it then seems very easy to hit well with a full sized handgun, which is what I will have if I'm expecting trouble.
Er, this occurred in the person's home, not in the car. So the father had access to whatever firearm he kept there. For me, it's a Springfield XD Tactical w. 13+1 of .45s.
So the question is moot.
The truth is still true, no matter how uncomfortable the truth may be.
The ostrich hides its head in the sand, yet the lion can see and eat it, tender parts and all.
That gun left behind in the center console may as well be on the moon, for all the good it will do you, even left in a nightstand table, I don't trust myself to move fast enough to retrieve it, should the need arise.
Just reinforces what we already know to be true.
Makes great sense to me. Getting hooked up with an anti-gun woman is wrong in the first place. I fondly remember by former girlfriend (with whom I'm still friends) and I was working at the time and had bucks in the bank, and asked her what she wanted for her birthday, and she said "A gun for self protection" which made my heart sing.
Note: set this up on a range and try it for yourself....use a balloon for the bad guys head and tape it to the back of the hostage's head....then get back with me....
What I know to be true is this: The thread question was NOT about home defensive weapons. It took a home defense situation and asked about vehicle / on person carry weapon, not home defense.
Head in the sand is not the issue. The issue is answering the thread question, and it dealt with vehicle or personal carry weapon, not home defense weapon, regardless of the fact that the story was a "home invasion" type of scenario. So the question posed is moot. Moot means not that the question is wrong, but that it's irrelevant.
If the question is the type of weapon carried on person or in vehicle, then we can debate this. And if the question is about the type of weapon for home defense and how it's accessible or not, we can debate that, too. What we can't do realistically is debate a moot point.
Now as to that point, it's implying that the gun left in the center console is the only gun owned. And it cannot be BOTH left in the console and sitting on the night table.
For accessible guns for home self defense, I am within quick reach of a .45 where I sit to write and watch Tv, and at the bedside. And no, I don't have a shoulder holster to carry while in the shower or the john.
Some folks live in a seriously dangerous area or neighborhood where they need to carry a weapon on their person while at home at all times. I myself do not live in such circumstances, so for me, having a .45 at hand for about 95% of my home stay is okay with me. Others need lots more home protection and need a sidearm on their person at all times. Which is their choice depending on their home neighborhood or area circumstances and I've got no gripe about that. They apparently have decided they need immediate and constant protection at all times. I don't live in such a dangerous environment and so I do not think this necessary. Each person has that choice to make.
How is having a pistol strapped to your recliner and having a pistol on the night stand any different from wearing your CCW pistol in the house?
In post #41 you say "...having a .45 at hand for about 95% of my home stay is ok with me."
I don't see a difference from your situation and the people who carry at home.
Dad 5-31-13
You only practiced 3 times !!! Joke !!
Yes, you're being a blatantly obtuse little girl.
Yes, I'm calling you names.
Yes, you're being unfairly persecuted.
Yes, anything you say regarding self defense is automatically wrong.
...there, I think that about covers them.
From the article...
"KTVI reports that the dad was visiting his daughter and her mother that night, and he saw what was happening. He and the teen’s mother both sprang into action. He pulled his own gun, and she got a gun as well."
I suppose it's theoretically possible to write without being able to read, but that is, as far as I know, a unique condition. Congratulations Sam, you're a special snowflake.
What is actually a moot point in this situation, is the setting entirely. The question I put forth is in the situation at hand, traditionally known as a "hostage shot", can you make the shot with your CURRENT CARRY GUN, especially if it is some sort of sub-compact or pocket pistol, or would you be better off with a more shootable gun, that's still appropriate to carry?
Since the article is over a year old, and I'm sure that somehow negates it's relevancy entirely, so let's go with something much more recent. The theater shooting in Louisiana a few days ago...you're in a dark theater, someone comes in and starts murdering people, are you confident in your ability to get yourself, and possibly your loved ones out of that situation with what you currently carry?
The point of this thread was simply to ask that question.
His modified Glock 17 is proof enough.
Threat level and anticipating threats is really "MOOT" if anything is indeed moot, since you can never really know when a threat is imminent, because I sure can't predict anything now that I no longer have a working Crystal ball, ever since both my balls were broken in the same accident, leaving me without balls......lol....
So carrying 1 bit of minimal hardware is not my choice to cover all my bases or what may happen, unknown to me, I prefer to be prepared, as much as possible, within reason.
I don't want a major oh crap ! moment, as a bad guy has somehow gotten in, and is standing between me and my sidearm tucked away in my __________ safely, even from me !!!
I prefer to have at least one full size easy to shoot gun on me at all times.
Yes, even showering / or in the crapper, another great reason to have a Glock............