gun discharge in cockpit.

On 2008-03-29, Dan wrote:
What drove the FBI, DEA, ICE, SF, and other LE and Military
communities to bigger, faster cartridges was the requirement to shoot
through glass, car doors, etc and to take down perps high on PCP,
Meth, etc.

If those situations are in your mission profile, get something big and
fast.

I spent 17 years in volunteer EMS. I dealt with plenty of folks high on
stuff, enough to last me a lifetime. I know what they're capable of. If I'm
trying to defend myself against the risks of a perp in my house, why would I
want to run the risk that he's going to be hopped up on something? Why make
that compromise?

The goal of using lethal force in self-defense is to end the attack. More
power is going to help that cause much more effectively than multiple
rounds. Yes, the "one-shot stop" is often a myth, but why handicap yourself?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On Mar 29, 9:57 am, Jay Maynard
wrote:

The goal of using lethal force in self-defense is to end the attack. More
power is going to help that cause much more effectively than multiple
rounds. Yes, the "one-shot stop" is often a myth, but why handicap yourself?

That's fine. If your mission profile requires a cannon, drag around a
cannon.

But don't confuse "more power" with "stopping power" cause it just
ain't so.

And if you have a drugged up prep in your house why confront him with
a handgun when a shotgun is available?

This bears repeating -- a handgun is the least effective, least
powerful firearm in the civilian arsenal. The only reaosn we have
handguns is for the portability, period.

If you are in defensive mode (such as in your house), you should be
reaching for a shotgun, with the handgun as backup.

Why not a rifle? Penetration, blast, and long barrel.



Dan Mc

"Dan" wrote in message news:01050cb1-2bf4- a handgun
when a shotgun is available?

This bears repeating -- a handgun is the least effective, least
powerful firearm in the civilian arsenal. The only reaosn we have
handguns is for the portability, period.


No, it bears repeating, Dan is a clueless twit on the subject.

On 2008-03-29, Dan wrote:
On Mar 29, 9:57 am, Jay Maynard
wrote:
The goal of using lethal force in self-defense is to end the attack. More
power is going to help that cause much more effectively than multiple
rounds. Yes, the "one-shot stop" is often a myth, but why handicap yourself?
That's fine. If your mission profile requires a cannon, drag around a
cannon.

A Glock 27 is not what I'd call a cannon. It's quite concealable (not as
much as a Seecamp, but what is?), and carries only one fewer round than the
9mm version (the Glock 26).

And if you have a drugged up prep in your house why confront him with
a handgun when a shotgun is available?

Because I don't own one, and have never fired one, and am comfortable and
reasonably proficient with a handgun.

This bears repeating -- a handgun is the least effective, least
powerful firearm in the civilian arsenal. The only reaosn we have
handguns is for the portability, period.

That's like saying the only reason we have airplanes is for flying.

If you are in defensive mode (such as in your house), you should be
reaching for a shotgun, with the handgun as backup.

A shotgun is nowhere near as handy. That can make a dramatic difference in a
lot of circumstances.

Why not a rifle? Penetration, blast, and long barrel.

This I will agree with, but note that the third applies equally to shotguns.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-03-29, Dan wrote:
What drove the FBI, DEA, ICE, SF, and other LE and Military
communities to bigger, faster cartridges was the requirement to shoot
through glass, car doors, etc and to take down perps high on PCP,
Meth, etc.

If those situations are in your mission profile, get something big and
fast.

I spent 17 years in volunteer EMS. I dealt with plenty of folks high on
stuff, enough to last me a lifetime. I know what they're capable of. If I'm
trying to defend myself against the risks of a perp in my house, why would I
want to run the risk that he's going to be hopped up on something? Why make
that compromise?

The goal of using lethal force in self-defense is to end the attack. More
power is going to help that cause much more effectively than multiple
rounds. Yes, the "one-shot stop" is often a myth, but why handicap yourself?

It is only a myth if you don't use enough gun. Very few can take a .44
mag and keep on charging. Maybe with body armor, but even then I
suspect it will get their attention.