Recent content by Kleanbore

Have you tried either in realistic defensive shooting drills? Visualize drawing in about a second and a half and shooting very rapidly at a target about the size of a grapefruit--upper chest "boiler room: area--at a distance of six to twelve feet? The reason for the rapidity of fire--think in...

The 'FBI Page" may be the best you can find, but the data are flawed. https://stateline.org/2023/10/27/politicians-love-to-cite-crime-data-its-often-wrong/ Whey did you choose assaults? Were the numbers on assailants comparable? Where on Earth did you come up with that idea? We have...

There is a practical maximum distance for most people to be able to use a handgun effectively. It is also possible, depending upon the circumstances, that sufficient distance might obviate the need for shooting--we are about self preservation, not winning a gunfight. But if the danger is...

That may have a lot to do with the crime rate, but it would not influence the nature of the crimes. The latter is relevant here.

That, John, is eye opening.

John, it was your analysis that caused me to retire my 642 from primary carry--that, and the facts that my 10-shot Ruger Compact was about the same size, and that i could better achieve a balance of speed and precision with it. Your extrapolations led me to decide to not carry a large-cap...

Yeah, the decrease in reported rates is illusory and misleading, and a lot of that has resulted from relaxed enforcement.

That, of course is a real possibility. I wouldn't want to bet my life on it, however, I do not. I would not expect to be abtrying to play moderatorle to change magazines during a violent criminal attack. As i have said, I carry 8+1. I would prefer 10+1. Enough/ I hope I never find out...

No. How can anyone reasonably disagree with the well established concept that what happens after an event has occurred is completely independent of the probability that the event will occur?

The subject of confusional probability, which is at the core of the discussion here, is usually covered in second level college classes on probability theory. In simple terms, it has to do with "what is the probability of B occurring given that A has already occurred.

Why do you believe that that is "the most likely scenario"? Data that we have seen here in previous discussions of this subject. indicate that one is at least as likely to be attacked by two or more people as by one. And if a one on one encounter were the most likely, would you really think it...

That's just plain silly. None of us should assume that we will ever need to use or threaten deadly force. But that can happen. Personally, I think it prudent to be prepared for an attack by two perps (two to three is most common) moving at Tueller speed (five meters per second); to need more...

That may explain a lot. True for all of us.

That was the gist of your post 96.

No, you will have to compromise. But it makes no sense at all to choose a weapon upon which your life may depend on the basis that you will likely never have to use it.