Cube from Sandcastles and Cubicles hosted a discussion (linked by the hated Instapundit) on what gun was ideal for self-defense.
Many opinions poured in, and the Glockheads were out in force (not surprising, since they have their own news group).
The Posse was (as usual) in the minority, but this only reinforces our conviction that when it comes to self-defense, many seasoned gun owners still need to get a clue.
Guns are about options, nothing more.
The goal of self-defense is, as the words suggest, to defend one's self.
It isn't to take down the bad guy with one shot, or to pour forth a stream of hot lead sufficient to suppress a battalion of the Fedayeen Saddam.
It is to act quickly, forcefully, to save a life.
For this reason the arguments that citizens should carry "at least" 20 to 30 rounds of ammunition strikes us as ludicrous, verging on paranoia.
A concealed carry gun is the last resort. If you live somewhere where you think you may need that many bullets, buy an armored car and keep a rifle on the passenger seat.
The Posse carries the eminently sensible Taurus 85 Total Titanium. We load it with .38 Special +P jacketed hollow point.
Why do we use this gun?
It fits our hand nicely.
It is easy to shoot.
It is reliable to a fault.
It is small.
It is lightweight.
We can carry it everywhere.
Some of these "experts" in Cube's comments asked what would happen if our five shots were used up - hinting that at the very least we should carry another five rounds to reload.
For a police officer or private detective, this is eminently sensible.
But the Posse isn't in law enforcement and has no intention of starting on an ad-hoc freelance basis.
Our five shots are more than enough to get us the hell away from trouble.
They are five options, nothing more.
Make no mistake: when confronted with life-threatening danger, we intend to get the hell away from it. It is only if this is not possible or safe that we will - as a last resort - use a gun.
The purposes of our humble, underpowered and underappreciated little revolver is to give us an option other than surrender or fighting against impossible odds.
Are there circumstances when we might need more firepower? Absolutely.
We wouldn't want to rely on one to get us through an infantry assault.
But that wasn't what was under discussion.
A self-defense firearm should be small and light, so you can always carry it easily.
It should be reliable and easy to maintain, so it works when you need it to.
It should be something you feel comfortable shooting, so you will practice with it. If you can't hit the target, all the firepower in the world is useless.
The last considerations should be how hard it hits and how many bullets it carries.
There are plenty of stories of old ladies fending off thugs with .22 pistols, or elderly gentlemen defending themselves with an "underpowered" .25 Auto.
If the gun suits you, go with it.
Some know-it-all on the Internet is not the person who will use this gun in extremis. The only person who matters at the moment of decision is you.
Experts have their place. Unscrupulous gun salesmen are happy to push crappy guns that aren't reliable and won't work when needed just to make a buck. As in any other market, there are some jerks out there who only want to make a quick sale.
Soliciting opinions on the Internet therefore makes sense - but only to a point.
In the end, the choice of gun is intensely personal. We know quite a few respected shooters who use almost every type of gun and we respect their choices.
Glocks, Colts, SigSauers and such all appeal to someone. If it works for you, go with it.
But there is no "one true gun" before which all others must bow down.
Self defense is an idea, not a choice of weapon. You must have the concept down first, and it need not be embroidered with vast armature. No one requires a Stinger missile in their garage next to the hot water heater.
Posted by: Deuce | December 19, 2004 at 06:09 PM
"No one requires a Stinger missile in their garage next to the hot water heater"
yea but i should would like a machine gun :)
I appericate the advice, and have taken it to heart. I am new enough to firearms that i have never actually shot a revolver before (I have rented a few guns from a rage, and have been shooting once or twice with some friends).
I want to spend some more time renting guns to see what fits and what i feel comfortable with, before i make my decsion.
thanks for the adive and the link.
"verging on paranoia."
i freely admit that i am paraniod, hence wanting the machine gun.
Posted by: cube | December 19, 2004 at 08:05 PM
This is some interesting reading. I never realized that the UK had such problems. Here in the US it seems to be the case that regardless of the constitution that "cant be changed" we can always add a bunch of rules that effectivly negate the constitution and what it was written for. Another interesting thought is on Non-lethal self-defense weapons. When I got into the business of selling them I never realized that some states and some countries regulate them more then they do firearms. For what purpose I have no idea. One of the states back east it is really easier to get a concealed gun permit then to carry a taser or stun gun. Perhaps cases where the homeowner shoots and kills a man breaking into his house is cheaper for the state then the one where the police are called to pick up the stunned or pepper sprayed criminal who then sues the state and the homeowner for mental anguish or some such crap. In the state it seems like these kinds of crimes are going up but regardless I would rather not kill a person for any reason short of child kidnappers and murderers(spell)
Posted by: Bryan Fullerton | December 29, 2004 at 07:13 PM