5 ms·

Don't off-body carry. Or if you do, have an on-body pistol (in this situation, 10mm, ammo loaded to full pressure, pretty long barrel), and a rifle off-body. E

by Vecr 3y ago

Don't off-body carry. Or if you do, have an on-body pistol (in this situation, 10mm, ammo loaded to full pressure, pretty long barrel), and a rifle off-body. Edit: off-body weapons can be used against you pretty easily, or you can forget them/get separated. It's a relatively uncontroversial point, except in the military, and even then my advise was eventually followed in Afghanistan. Edit 2: oh yeah, he used 5 rounds, pretty good evidence for having a semi-automatic like a 10mm.

willis936 3y ago
>off-body weapons can be used against you pretty easily Somehow I don't think the giant ruminant is capable of firing a firearm. This race takes place in one of the most remote places on the planet. The firearm was for survival situations like this.
- Vecr 3y ago
  Yeah, I was suggesting in general. I don't want to single out women (anyone can have the problem, including people in a professional military), but carrying a gun in a purse is not usually a good idea. I'd go as far as saying that if I don't know your scenario it probably has negative expected value.
  - JackMorgan 3y ago
    I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I know firearm companies love to talk about stories of it saving a life, but I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good.
    - Vecr 3y ago
      For most people I think it matters if you think probabilistic deterrence is a real thing or not. Think about it like this, do you vote, even if your vote has almost zero chance of changing the outcome by normal lights?
    - mhb 3y ago
      I think you would want to factor in to your gut feel the deterrent effect conferred by the increased likelihood that possible victim targets are armed even if they aren't.
      - myrmidon 3y ago
        This is not necessarily net positive. Increased gun prevalence is a strong incentive to escalate (and by "escalate" I mean someone getting killed in a situation where it would not be necessary or helpful for ANYONE involved), even if only one party is armed. It does not even matter which "side": Police, criminals and victims are all more likely to fire because of perceived threat (compared to nations where it is vanishingly unlikely for anyone to be armed with a firearm).
    - Ancapistani 3y ago
      For context, I'm something of an absolutist about arms and self defense; I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've been completely disarmed in the past decade. That said, I also strive to be as introspective as possible and enjoy challenging my own biases. > I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I've read studies showing both positive and negative net value, so it's not exactly clear from a data standpoint. Anecdotally, I'd say it's highly dependent upon the person. I tend to avoid situations with the potential for escalation, and see the use of a firearm (to include brandishing, or even implying to the other party that I am armed) as an absolute last resort. In my mind, there is exactly one reason to employ a firearm against a person: to defend human life in a situation where deadly force has already been introduced by a hostile party. I argue that someone who is predisposed to seeing a firearm as a means to force their will on others is going to be the type of person who would do so anyhow, and who is accustomed to being able to do so due to their physical stature relative to the people around them. They are also not the type to carry whether or not their actions are legal or ethical. On the other hand, the type of person that buys a gun, trains to some degree, and spends the time and money to learn to be comfortable carrying it in public is not interested in hurting anyone. > I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. I'm 100% certain that it happens. The real world is chaotic, and outcomes aren't clear. Every action you take - and every time you choose inaction - is a roll of the dice. You can't know the outcome with certainty beforehand, and you can't know the outcome after the fact if you had made different decisions. To put it in D&D terms, someone threatening you with a knife has rolled a d6, with the stakes being your life. Drawing a firearm on that person is like rolling a d20 with those same stakes. It's absolutely not a guarantee of the outcome you wnat - but it heavily influences the odds. > My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good. I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it. I can think of more (but still not many) where it could improve things. The vast majority of the time, the other person is never aware of its presence. The fact that you, as the carrier, are aware tends to cause you to recognize situations for what they really are. That influences your thinking about it. I would never, under any circumstances, "fight" someone while carrying. I'm a 6'2" guy who is at least moderately capable of defending myself, but the only way someone would be able to get me to employ force is if they leave no other option available to me. In my experience, this is the way the _vast_ majority of people who carry firearms for defense think about things.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  > I don't think the giant ruminant is capable of firing a firearm That's cuz you haven't watched enough cartoons!
GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
No offense, but as a hunter, military "tactics" don't really apply here.
- Vecr 3y ago
  This guy was not hunting. Hunting puts weird restrictions on firearms and ammo, but you don't have to follow them for self defense. It's only a moose that I'm talking about for 10mm, good quality 9mm defensive ammunition is good against pretty much everything else in North America, except some large bears.
- menacingly 3y ago
  Also as a hunter, I can envision a scenario or 4 where an animal might surprise me
  - GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
    Hog hunting springs to mind, that's the only sport hunting where I'd carry a .45 sidearm in addition to my primary rifle
myrmidon 3y ago
> oh yeah, he used 5 rounds, pretty good evidence for having a semi-automatic like a 10mm. Why would him shooting 5 rounds be good evidence for a 10mm handgun? The article explicitly says he shot a revolver (chambered in .357).
- Vecr 3y ago
  No, I mean it's evidence for the proposition that having a 10mm handgun is a good idea. The Glock 40 has 15+1 rounds, as a comparison.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    [dead]

by Vecr 3y ago

willis936 3y ago

>off-body weapons can be used against you pretty easily Somehow I don't think the giant ruminant is capable of firing a firearm. This race takes place in one of the most remote places on the planet. The firearm was for survival situations like this.

Vecr 3y ago
Yeah, I was suggesting in general. I don't want to single out women (anyone can have the problem, including people in a professional military), but carrying a gun in a purse is not usually a good idea. I'd go as far as saying that if I don't know your scenario it probably has negative expected value.
- JackMorgan 3y ago
  I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I know firearm companies love to talk about stories of it saving a life, but I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good.
  - Vecr 3y ago
    For most people I think it matters if you think probabilistic deterrence is a real thing or not. Think about it like this, do you vote, even if your vote has almost zero chance of changing the outcome by normal lights?
  - mhb 3y ago
    I think you would want to factor in to your gut feel the deterrent effect conferred by the increased likelihood that possible victim targets are armed even if they aren't.
    - myrmidon 3y ago
      This is not necessarily net positive. Increased gun prevalence is a strong incentive to escalate (and by "escalate" I mean someone getting killed in a situation where it would not be necessary or helpful for ANYONE involved), even if only one party is armed. It does not even matter which "side": Police, criminals and victims are all more likely to fire because of perceived threat (compared to nations where it is vanishingly unlikely for anyone to be armed with a firearm).
  - Ancapistani 3y ago
    For context, I'm something of an absolutist about arms and self defense; I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've been completely disarmed in the past decade. That said, I also strive to be as introspective as possible and enjoy challenging my own biases. > I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I've read studies showing both positive and negative net value, so it's not exactly clear from a data standpoint. Anecdotally, I'd say it's highly dependent upon the person. I tend to avoid situations with the potential for escalation, and see the use of a firearm (to include brandishing, or even implying to the other party that I am armed) as an absolute last resort. In my mind, there is exactly one reason to employ a firearm against a person: to defend human life in a situation where deadly force has already been introduced by a hostile party. I argue that someone who is predisposed to seeing a firearm as a means to force their will on others is going to be the type of person who would do so anyhow, and who is accustomed to being able to do so due to their physical stature relative to the people around them. They are also not the type to carry whether or not their actions are legal or ethical. On the other hand, the type of person that buys a gun, trains to some degree, and spends the time and money to learn to be comfortable carrying it in public is not interested in hurting anyone. > I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. I'm 100% certain that it happens. The real world is chaotic, and outcomes aren't clear. Every action you take - and every time you choose inaction - is a roll of the dice. You can't know the outcome with certainty beforehand, and you can't know the outcome after the fact if you had made different decisions. To put it in D&D terms, someone threatening you with a knife has rolled a d6, with the stakes being your life. Drawing a firearm on that person is like rolling a d20 with those same stakes. It's absolutely not a guarantee of the outcome you wnat - but it heavily influences the odds. > My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good. I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it. I can think of more (but still not many) where it could improve things. The vast majority of the time, the other person is never aware of its presence. The fact that you, as the carrier, are aware tends to cause you to recognize situations for what they really are. That influences your thinking about it. I would never, under any circumstances, "fight" someone while carrying. I'm a 6'2" guy who is at least moderately capable of defending myself, but the only way someone would be able to get me to employ force is if they leave no other option available to me. In my experience, this is the way the _vast_ majority of people who carry firearms for defense think about things.
HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
> I don't think the giant ruminant is capable of firing a firearm That's cuz you haven't watched enough cartoons!

GaryNumanVevo 3y ago

No offense, but as a hunter, military "tactics" don't really apply here.

Vecr 3y ago
This guy was not hunting. Hunting puts weird restrictions on firearms and ammo, but you don't have to follow them for self defense. It's only a moose that I'm talking about for 10mm, good quality 9mm defensive ammunition is good against pretty much everything else in North America, except some large bears.
menacingly 3y ago
Also as a hunter, I can envision a scenario or 4 where an animal might surprise me
- GaryNumanVevo 3y ago
  Hog hunting springs to mind, that's the only sport hunting where I'd carry a .45 sidearm in addition to my primary rifle

myrmidon 3y ago

> oh yeah, he used 5 rounds, pretty good evidence for having a semi-automatic like a 10mm. Why would him shooting 5 rounds be good evidence for a 10mm handgun? The article explicitly says he shot a revolver (chambered in .357).

Vecr 3y ago
No, I mean it's evidence for the proposition that having a 10mm handgun is a good idea. The Glock 40 has 15+1 rounds, as a comparison.
- jstarfish 3y ago
  [dead]