Yes, no one really gets mugged anymore because no one is carrying cash or "valuables" around. your phone is worthless as is your wallet of cards. So broadly the need for self defense streaming from property crime has all but gone to zero. This turns self defense to more defense from violent crime which is usually easier to see coming, easier to avoid, and if imminent usually more dangerous.

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
Yes, no one really gets mugged anymore because no one is carrying cash or "valuables" around. your phone is worthless as is your wallet of cards. So broadly the need for self defense streaming from property crime has all but gone to zero. This turns self defense to more defense from violent crime which is usually easier to see coming, easier to avoid, and if imminent usually more dangerous.

In much the same way. Anti theft chips, lo Jack and car alarms cut down on auto thefts. Which made car jacking an easier way to steal a car.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
I just Feel like we haven’t really moved too far away from a well trained man with a decent six gun being fairly well armed for most instances.

I would agree with what (I believe) you’re saying, except I will quibble over the part about the “well trained man” if we’re referring to the days when revolvers were the norm for police and the (extremely rare) armed nonleo (not LEO). Were there well-trained individuals before the explosion of interest in practical shooting disciplines in the 1970s that were fueled by the likes of Jeff Cooper? Yes, but not many.

When I was a kid one of my uncles was thought to be a little odd because he owned a revolver (and for other legitimate reasons). Another had a personally-owned revolver because it was expected of him as a prison guard in the 1940s. The model? Colt Army Special in 32-20 Winchester. Was he well-trained with it? Unlikely, because he obviously acquired it used, and when I inherited it, the timing was so off that it was difficult to fire more than one shot without dealing with a malfunction.

The simple fact, however, is that any gun and any level of skill with it will be effective against the vast majority of threats the vast majority of Americans will ever face. Do we really believe that in the highly unlikely event of a home invasion if we’re not a drug dealer the invader will continue to advance and be undeterred by a blast of #7.5 birdshot, even if it’s not to the face that blinds him instantly?

How about being accosted by a man after we’ve allowed ourselves to run out of gas and had to stop near an off ramp in some big city?

Being obviously situationally aware will convince some predators that they should find another victim.
If not, acting as if we might have a gun, i.e., assuming a threatening preparatory stance will deter some of the rest.
If not, displaying a gun will deter a large number of the rest.
If not, a shot fired almost anywhere will deter all but a tiny fraction of the rest.
If the shot hits the attacker anyplace and causes any injury, how many predators will persist?
It’s almost fantasy to believe that we will require some high level of ballistic effectiveness, ammunition capacity, high speed reloading capability, or some other tactical advantage to end the a threat.

But is it conceivable that such a threat might exist? Sure, just as it’s conceivable that we could get hit by a rock falling from the sky, and far, far more likelier that the next time we catch COVID-19 it will kill us. (’Member that disease whose vaccination all the I’m-too-smart-to-pay-attention-to-influencers cool kids insisted was the only thing to worry about? And which is estimated to have killed significantly more than 1,000,000 [yes, a million] people in the US alone.)

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be armed and capable of defending ourselves and others if warranted. It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be armed in a way that makes us comfortable, regardless of what that means. I usually carry a P320 “Carry” model chambered for 357 SIG and a spare magazine, but sometimes it’s only a fully-loaded P365, and sometimes it’s an OTF auto knife. Unless someone is simply incapable of employing his defensive weapon(s), I will not criticize others’ choices.
Usually.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

I recall prob over a year ago we had this same discussion about capacity and reload round counts, and the conclusion was time have changed because of the rise in coordinated attacks by multiple perpetrators.

Now it sounds like we're backsliding. Seems there's just lots of variables to consider, and different perspectives based on previous military combat experience, LEO experience, or maybe the Hood factor in your particular neck of the woods.

I like to defer to what Mas thinks about this subject, and while I don't think he says you need a cannon with a metric ton of reload, I think he does believe it's worse now that it used to be, and advises something above what used to be considered sufficient.

I do think however the gun industry, multimedia, and youtubers have an affect.

There are several trends that have me thinking differently about self defense. The increase in active shooter incidents over the last 50 years is a game changer. If you thought not going out at night made all the difference then broad daylight shootings at churches, libraries and grocery stores should have changed your thinking.

The use of social media for everything from radicalization to coordinating violent teen takeovers is all but impossible to mitigate.

The higher risk mentally ill used to be institutionalized for everyone's safety. Now they are standing behind you in the register line.

I think Castle Doctrine legislation is a response to some of what we are seeing. Providing legal protection for people defending themselves including protection from civil litigation is a big step forward.

The guns we pull off kids routinely out-gun anything I’m carrying on a daily basis, just to clarify.

Glocks with their stupid “switches”, AR and AK pistols. Etc.

I do my absolute best to avoid areas that are questionable when I’m off work. But it’s not restricted to a side of town. These morons are everywhere. And many of them shoot more often than cops, and are involved in exponentially more shootings than cops. With almost no consequences.

My advice to self defense:

Step 1: Don’t live near a democrat controlled area.

Step 2: “I’ll have a coke”.

Great read/insights all. Thanks.

The other aspect is that we have had a couple decades of assault rifles proliferating at record numbers, totally unlike say the 1960s. People waning to do evil will have much easier access through sheer saturation of the market. Combine this with a long open southern border, unchecked immigration from the Middle East, and a deteriorating urban populace. As much as I like to carry my Glock 42, I would hate to go up against anyone with a rifle, at any competency level. My G19 or G43x with optic and light are much more capable, but still not one of my MP5 clones, or a real rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by chongosuerte:
The guns we pull off kids routinely out-gun anything I’m carrying on a daily basis, just to clarify.

The other perspective.
I interpreted the original question to refer to the nonleos among us. Law enforcement officers are not only more likely to encounter people who want to kill them and whom they must actively seek out, some of those people are also more likely to have a “I’m not quitting” mindset.

So with that in mind, I find two facts interesting.

First is the recognition that AR-type rifles are the best practical weapons LEOs can—and should—have available to deal with threats. That has become very common, albeit still not universal among law enforcement decision-makers, unfortunately.

Second, though, is the somewhat contrary attitude that the 9mm Luger cartridge is “good enough” for LE duty. I haven’t myself seen any videos demonstrating that multiple good shots were necessary to convince someone to stop being a threat, but if that’s true, then perhaps it’s time to resurrect the old “stopping power” discussions.

What if there’s only enough time or opportunity to get a single shot at a dedicated attacker of the sort who won’t run at the first sign of serious resistance and before we suffer serious injury ourselves? Wouldn’t we want that shot to be as effective as (reasonably*) possible? If so, how do we justify “Not the best, but good enough”? And whatever can be said about improvements of one cartridge can be said about others. If the 9mm Gold Dot load in my P365 is better than the Winchester Silvertip load of 1986 due to its better bullet, the same can be said of the Gold Dot bullets in my 357 SIG cartridges—and they deliver more energy to the target as a bonus.

Again, all that’s about law enforcement officers, not the average nonleo.

* I say “reasonably” because terminal ballistics effectiveness isn’t the only thing to consider when choosing a gun and cartridge. If we’re dealing with a serious, committed threat—however unlikely—then being able to control the weapon for fast, accurate hits is even more important.

Take your German Shepherd dog with you. Any need for a gun goes way down. You may need a vacuum cleaner and ear plugs though.

quote:

Originally posted by sourdough44:
Take your German Shepherd dog with you. Any need for a gun goes way down. You may need a vacuum cleaner and ear plugs though.

A SturmDerHund is an excellent option. “Don’t make me put Hans on fire….errr off the leash!”