Snowflakes points to a case where the police insist on testing a gun that the owner handed over after a traffic accident.
I think it is a waste of time and resources for the police to run a ballistics test on any firearm that happens to come into their possession, especially from situations that are not crime scenes.
From the article it seems to me that the police have a “policy” that is at odds with the law.
Some other results that surprised me from the Private Citizen Equipment Poll is the number of people that are carrying multiple handguns and multiple reloads.
Redundancy vs. capability. We carry a primary firearm to engage deadly force threats at distance, this is a capability we wouldn’t have without a firearm. Adding a backup firearm doesn’t increase this capability, but it adds a level of redundancy that should something happen to the primary handgun (malfunction, disarm, etc.) so that we will still have a deadly force capability at distance.
Magazines add redundancy, but not capability. Having an extra magazine is the same as having a redundant ammunition supply and feeding mechanism for the firearm. The extra magazine doesn’t increase our capabilities, it preserves the deadly force at distance capability under a certain set of conditions: shooting the gun empty, dropping the primary magazine, or a failure of the primary magazine.
Back up guns add redundancy, but not capability. Having an extra firearm has pretty much the same benefits as having a spare magazine and will maintain the deadly force at distance capability in the event that the primary gun should break, or get lost in the scuffle.
Back up gun deployment speed. There is a lot of conventional wisdom that a second gun is the fastest reload or that transitioning to another firearm is faster than clearing a malfunction. A lot of this is dependent upon the operator, the firearms involved, and where they are positioned. Drawing a second gun might be faster than reloading a revolver, but is it faster than reloading a semi-auto assuming some reasonably ergonomic placement of the reload?
Ammunition capacity. There is a balance between how much ammunition we can carry versus the nature of the threat we believe that we will reasonably face. We can invent scenarios where no practical amount of ammunition will be sufficient, but in reality a gunfight that goes to even a single reload is a pretty rare occurrence for private citizens, especially with the prevalence of handguns with more than ten round capacities. Two reloads is almost unheard of in self defense shootings by private citizens.
Extreme circumstances. There are extreme circumstances where simply having a gun and a reload is not going to be enough to solve the whole problem. Putting effective fire on an assailant and/or securing an escape route is a pretty good (if not complete) solution to active shooters or similar situations. Considering that the role of the private citizen is self defense (or protecting a third party) we cannot really expect to stop a Mumbai style attack, but we might be able to mitigate the damage in our immediate area.
Conclusions. Balancing the need for redundancy against all of the other things I need to carry I don’t feel that I have a use for more than one reload on my body. That reload is really not for the extra ammunition as it is for having a redundant feeding system for the gun. I believe that the most likely case for needing a spare magazine would be a fumbled remedial action clearance.
If you believe that you need more than a reload or two as private citizen, I question what other pieces of useful, capability enhancing, equipment are you sacrificing to make room for extra magazines and/or back up guns.
I found Conservative Scalawag had linked to my post about pepper spray, and I think his post exemplifies what people do not understand about pepper spray and use of force in general.
While yes, pepper spray does have its place in the self-defense arena, it would not be my first choice.
Until we have a scenario we can’t make any judgements about what our choices should be. Leaving is generally my first choice, but even that isn’t always viable. There is no “pepper spray or gun” argument, because they fill different roles.
Yet, Mostly Genius believes that pepper spray can fulfill the non-deadly force niche.
There isn’t a “non-deadly force niche”, there are several. Pepper spray fills the niche right before we start striking people because if we can solve the problem at that level we will not have any need to escalate further.
Thing is, criminals are not going to tell you if their intent is deadly, or if they just want your watch. Therefor, you must treat all incidents with bad guys as possibly life-threatening to you. Sorry, but not a mind reader.
(Emphasis mine)
All incidents are potentially life threatening, but the law requires that we have an immediate and credible threat to our lives (or a third party) before we can apply deadly force. Again there is no “pepper spray or gun” argument. Deadly force is the correct response to lethal threats, but we can’t pretend that all threats are lethal or that “potential” is the same as “actual.”
However, I will admit there are times pepper spray comes with me. Those are the times when I cannot carry a gun,due to silly rules, or Byzantine rules. Otherwise, I carry a gun, and with the full intent of using it to STOP the bad guys from victimizing me or my family.
Keeping in mind that pepper spray is basically a step above strong language, it is not a suitable handgun replacement. Pepper spray fills an entirely different role than firearms do. The perfect role for pepper spray is reinforcing a verbal command. We can pepper spray belligerents for continuing to approach when told to stop, it would be very hard to justify shooting them.
For while pepper spray may work a certain percentage, guns, when used properly, work 100% of the time.
Without quibbling about proper use, guns certainly do not work 100% of the time or anything approaching it. Most criminals do quit without any shots being fired, but some require multiple good hits to be put down and those criminals sometimes inflict a lot of injury and trauma before they finally do stop. I certainly agree that handguns are better fight stoppers than pepper spray, but we can’t use handguns in the same situations where we could use pepper spray.
So there has been a lot of discussion about this Tactical Response video that shows an instructor standing between two targets during a live fire exercise. James Yeager responds to the criticisms of his detractors. Below I will examine the major points of his response and justification for having an instructor taking photos in front of the firing line.
Evaluating Risk. Yeager explains that driving to the range is more dangerous than standing between the targets. While it is true that there is some risk associated with driving there is a benefit (transportation) that we deem to be worth the risk. I fail to see what the benefit is for the students (or the instructor) by having the instructor stand down range.
Stress Inoculation. Yeager explains that this practice better prepares students for ‘real world’ gunfight pressures. I certainly believe that if a skill is going to need to be performed under stress then some portion of the practice of that skill should be performed under stress. There are a lot of ways of inducing stress such as time pressure, distracting noise, testing, ambiguity, sleep deprivation, etc. None of these require putting somebody in the position taking a bullet should a student make a mistake or stumble. If the goal is to simulate a gunfight for stress inoculation purposes then why not have two parallel berms and have the instructor shoot at targets that are behind the students while they are on the firing line? If ‘realism’ trumps safety then wouldn’t that be a better drill?
Safest Training. I am not going to dispute the safety “record” of Yeager or his staff, but I fail to see a procedure or system that makes this training inherently safe, or at best any more safe than that of any other shooting school. A person getting shot during training is a big deal, and some of the larger training schools have had people get shot. Generally they shoot themselves holstering or drawing the gun and in rare circumstances a student will shoot someone else. If you have cycled through 50,000 or more students one of them is bound to be an idiot – regardless of how strict the range rules might be.
Makes People Safer. I am sure it makes people think and focus a lot more about keeping the gun on target, and where the muzzle is pointing when the instructor is a foot away from the target. The student that trips over his own feet is an open question as far as “safety” goes. Safety is a process, not an event.
Jabbering of Internet Commandos. Having discussed this video with some actual (non-internet) commandos they don’t see any utility in the increased risk of this particular training “method” because it doesn’t meet any particular training objective. I don’t think the risks are worth the benefits unless you are going to be shooting targets in close proximity to your teammates – and have gone through a slow progression building up to running the drill live.
I don’t believe this training accomplished anything other than stir up some controversy, and generate some potential marketing buzz. My overall impression (based solely on the videos) is that Tactical Response isn’t particularly concerned with safety, and that Yeager’s response was more of an attempt at justifying an unsafe act.
Subscribe to 