Paris Really Reinforced My Thinking...

[actaeon277]

sub-2000 baybay

This.
You can put a sub-2000 into a briefcase, tote bag, or gym bag.
Different ones take different magazines. If you can get one to take the same mag as your pistol, then your spare mag can go either way.
It's not an elegant gun.
But it shoots.

 

[Bfish]

I'm late to the party here but I am with the guys saying rather than carry more ammo/different gun etc, etc. Basically get some training and more than anything the ability to have medical supplies and the skills to use them are much more important. Think more "saving" not more fighting to save, if that makes any sense to you...

 

[Amishman44]

For me it has reinforced carrying at least a compact and I am seriously considering a rifle package for the car. When I travel, I have a folding AK with several mags in a discreet bag. That may be with me more often.

I have been comfortable with my Glock 36, a 6+1, .45 acp as my EDC pistol for the past 3 years. While I've never felt the need to carry a rifle in the vehicle (although that's not a bad idea if one is comfortable in doing that)...I have picked-up a G-29/30 SF frame and transferred my G-36 slide to the new SF frame, increasing my round count from 6+1 to 10+1...with my standard '2-mag' back-up carry!

Basically, I'm carrying an additional 12 rounds...and while that doesn't seem like much, it may be the difference between being able to extend and escape or being stuck/caught-up in the melee! My goal is to survive + extend and escape...not to be a 'hero'!

With my smaller hands...what I carry is important for comfort and the G-29/30 SF frames have done just that for me!

 

[KittySlayer]

I am a husband. I am a father with three small children. I carry to protect them. I carry because they depend on me. Part of my EDC is a pistol and 50 rounds.

I am starting to think when I am with my family and we are in a vulnerable place, part of my EDC should be an AR pistol with 4-5 mags, with the intended purpose to get out and away...

So you think you need more rounds for your intended purpose to "get away"? How about instead doubling your firepower. If you and your wife both carry you now have 100 rounds with two pistols and two shooters protecting your family.

As an added bonus the two of you can more easily conceal carry two pistols and a couple spare magazines. With kids there will be many places you go that will require you to have your guns well concealed. In addition to legal GFZs there are many posted places that will ask you to leave plus all the mommies that will not let their kids play with your kids if they know you carry.

 

[88E30M50]

I've toyed with the idea of an AR after the Paris attacks, but when I get right down to it, I have trouble finding a way where it would be brought into play. One long time INGOer has a nice 9mm AR based pistol that is exactly what I was thinking I might need, but as much as I like that gun, I realize that my needs are different. I'm actually working towards the other direction now. Instead of toting bigger firepower, I'm looking to improve the weapons I can deep conceal. I just ordered a Sig 938 to use as my base line gun. I will go no smaller than that, but I think that will have to do in the gun unfriendly places I need to go.

For day to day carry, I prefer a CCO sized 1911 with a spare pair of mags. When I'm heading to the store or other busy public places, I'll usually toss on a shoulder holster with a full size 1911 and another pair of spare mags. If two 1911s with a combined 47 rounds of .45 does not give me the tools I need to get out of a situation, then it was just not my day and an AR pistol would not have made it better.

 

[Alamo]

The most likely threat for one of us is indeed a simple mugging or robbery, and most training and thinking should be about that.

But the risk of being in a Paris/Nairobi/Mali/Mumbai scenario is not zero either, and if you go to big cities here and abroad, then obviously your risk increases. It's not always possible or desirable to just stay away from the cities and places where these are likely to happen. It's dogma to say use your situational awareness, read body language etc to stay away, you can see threats coming, etc, which is important, but also pretty weak defense, really - lots of examples where it just wasn't possible. I do think some version of this will come to the US... I also think it will most likely occur in a city where, as it stands, carrying your own firearm is probably not legal, at least not for the not-well-connected outsider.

Marcus Wynne has some interesting thoughts on this, https://marcuswynne.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/random-thoughts-and-software-questions-post-paris/
and while he focuses on Paris, Paris was not an outlier -- it has a lot of similarities to the other large-scale events.
I think Greg Ellefritz has some good info, and he links to others with good info for these types of things, both in this post: The Six Best Resources for Surviving a Terrorist Attack | Active Response Training and elsewhere on his blog.

If you have decided you are going to do something to prepare for one of these besides count on the probability it won't happen to you, then do some reading on what actually happened in these types of attacks. Bamako (Mali), Paris, Nairobi, Mumbai were not identical attacks, but they follow the same general plan and use very similar tactics. Spraying rounds into streetside businesses and cafes, explosives, setting fires, taking hostages --- if someone tosses a grenade into the patio where you are eating, what's the best way to deal with that besides not be there? If someone sticks a gun in your face and asks you to recite the Shahada, what do you do? if your hotel is burning, would you rather be on the 2nd floor or the 10th?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But the risk of being in a Paris/Nairobi/Mali/Mumbai scenario is not zero either,

Let's do that math. Risk=_________ (remember I taught you this in the MRAP thread)?

Paris scenario is zero here. This does not mean you have no risk, but Walter Mitty/Tommy Tactical fantasies of multiple gunmen are simply rationalizations of precatory gun purchases or goofy gun purchases already made.

 

[LP1]

Let's do that math. Risk=_________ (remember I taught you this in the MRAP thread)?

Paris scenario is zero here. This does not mean you have no risk, but Walter Mitty/Tommy Tactical fantasies of multiple gunmen are simply rationalizations of precatory gun purchases or goofy gun purchases already made.

^this.

The risks and hassles of off-body carry also need to be considered.

Do you get a percentage when the word "precatory" is googled?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Do you get a percentage when the word "precatory" is googled?

It goes hand in glove with "testator" which sounds dirty but apparently isn't. With apologies to David Letterman:

TOP 10 EXPRESSIONS THAT SOUND DIRTY BUT AREN'T

Frosting the pastry
Shooting Hoops
Jumping the turnstile
Checking your oil
Tethering the blimp
Sending out for sushi
Picnic on the grass
Quarter-pounder at the Golden Arches
Shaking hands with Abraham Lincoln
Wind-surfing on Mount Baldy

 

[jamil]

It goes hand in glove with "testator" which sounds dirty but apparently isn't. With apologies to David Letterman:

TOP 10 EXPRESSIONS THAT SOUND DIRTY BUT AREN'T

Frosting the pastry
Shooting Hoops
Jumping the turnstile
Checking your oil
Tethering the blimp
Sending out for sushi
Picnic on the grass
Quarter-pounder at the Golden Arches
Shaking hands with Abraham Lincoln
Wind-surfing on Mount Baldy

I expected "taking ol' one-eye to the optometrist" to be on the list.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Let's do that math. Risk=_________ (remember I taught you this in the MRAP thread)?

Paris scenario is zero here. This does not mean you have no risk, but Walter Mitty/Tommy Tactical fantasies of multiple gunmen are simply rationalizations of precatory gun purchases or goofy gun purchases already made.

I'm not sure I can completely agree here, Kirk.
Full disclosure: I've bought no new guns since Paris, nor have I, nor do I intend to change my current carry from what it was 2-3 months ago. I say this to point up the fallacy of the "simple rationalizations" thought.

The risk of a Paris scenario here is not zero. It is small, but it is not zero, any more than the risk was zero at the Murrah building or at the Twin Towers that once were located at what's now known as "Ground Zero". Add to that the fact that there have been threats to attack within our borders again, and the people could easily be here and ready to do it. We thus have ability and jeopardy, and opportunity is easily found. Long distance shooter with a rifle. (and there's no way my pistol is going to hit a long distance shooter.) Didn't the Columbine shooters discuss picking off targets when their homemade bombs drove people out of safer areas?

Now, again, I'm not doing anything any differently. Maybe a wee bit more alert, more aware, but I have no fantasies of being the hero. If something I do saves a life, great, but if I commence to shooting, I expect to stop a threat. No more, no less.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not sure I can completely agree here, Kirk.
Full disclosure: I've bought no new guns since Paris, nor have I, nor do I intend to change my current carry from what it was 2-3 months ago. I say this to point up the fallacy of the "simple rationalizations" thought.

The risk of a Paris scenario here is not zero. It is small, but it is not zero, any more than the risk was zero at the Murrah building or at the Twin Towers that once were located at what's now known as "Ground Zero". Add to that the fact that there have been threats to attack within our borders again, and the people could easily be here and ready to do it. We thus have ability and jeopardy, and opportunity is easily found. Long distance shooter with a rifle. (and there's no way my pistol is going to hit a long distance shooter.) Didn't the Columbine shooters discuss picking off targets when their homemade bombs drove people out of safer areas?

Now, again, I'm not doing anything any differently. Maybe a wee bit more alert, more aware, but I have no fantasies of being the hero. If something I do saves a life, great, but if I commence to shooting, I expect to stop a threat. No more, no less.

Blessings,
Bill

I'd agree the odds are greater than zero, if only .000001%. The question I would have is this: Does having something you must off body carry make you safer or less safe? Can you keep up with it and keep it from being stolen while you are distracted? Is the total a net gain or loss to your community's safety?

I'd also ask again, can you make shots with an AR/AK pistol you can't make with a traditional pistol? They seem offly ungainly to me, and without the ability to shoulder them securely I just don't see where they are an improvement on a standard duty pistol. If I were going through all that trouble, I'd probably just take a traditional AR and break it into its two halves other than play around with a giant pistol.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'd agree the odds are greater than zero, if only .000001%. The question I would have is this: Does having something you must off body carry make you safer or less safe? Can you keep up with it and keep it from being stolen while you are distracted? Is the total a net gain or loss to your community's safety?

I'd also ask again, can you make shots with an AR/AK pistol you can't make with a traditional pistol? They seem offly ungainly to me, and without the ability to shoulder them securely I just don't see where they are an improvement on a standard duty pistol. If I were going through all that trouble, I'd probably just take a traditional AR and break it into its two halves other than play around with a giant pistol.

Fair questions. Too, I have to comment that while the expression, "a difference that makes no difference is no difference" comes to mind, I don't think that with a viable threat such as what happened in Paris and has come to our shores already as noted upthread, the Paris thing "makes no difference" here, nor does the .000001%, which I consider to be an underestimation. Be that as it may, I'll treat it as hyperbole, minimized to express your belief that such an attack here is "unlikely".

As to the off-body AR pistol... I'm not carrying one. Hell, I don't even own one. Having a long gun may work for some. If you can pull it off and not get more tired of carrying the darn thing around, more power to you. I was only addressing the idea that there is no threat.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jhelmsing]

The AR pistol idea seems excessive to me. My preference is to carry the comfortable, easily concealable, and in a generally effective caliber with one extra mag and practice/train frequently. I don't aim to go into a full blown firefight when protecting my family; engage the immediate threat and clear the area. Active shooters don't generally expect bystanders (victims) to respond readily with violence and it throws them off. The Paris train attack is a good case point IMO.

 

[yepthatsme]

The problem I have with carrying something like an AR pistol is the fire power. I think that it would be more likely that you would face a shooting situation in close quarters, which I would prefer to use a smaller firearm, that would be easier to maneuver. I would also be concerned about shooting rifle rounds in close quarters. I would be worried about shooting through someone or possibly missing my target and shooting through a wall and possibly endangering others. I know these same things could occur with a pistol as well, but I feel better about the lesser fire power and still accomplishing the task at hand. Just my

 

[The Bubba Effect]

wouldn't a pmr30 be comparable to an ar pistol? just easier to conceal

An AR pistol is 5.56 vs the pmr @ .22 wmr.

My Ar pistol has a 12" barrel and I am good with it at least to 200 yards. It is much more gun than a 9mm, .45 acp, or .22wmr.

That said, it is not practical for me to carry something that big around with me.

The Paris attacks just reinforced what the Boston Bombings drove home to me. A tourniquet and an H bandage and sit/stand near an emergency exit.

I carry more stuff in my truck to deal with a car wreck than I carry to deal with an active shooter.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

any more than the risk was zero at the Murrah building or at the Twin Towers that once were located at what's now known as "Ground Zero".

And a pistol, even a goofy AR pistol, would have been ineffectual in OKC and NYC. Medical training saved lives in both instances.

The risk of a Paris scenario here is not zero.

The closest we have come is when Muslim converts terrorized Washington D.C. with a single Bushhamster rifle.

Paris was organized, not just free radical lunatics bouncing around in life like D.C.

The Base looked into Paris scenarios here after 9/11 (white utility vans, AKs, frags, inter alia) to hit malls, etc. They ruled it out as it would use too many assets without enough damage inflicted on the enemy and it could have been interrupted by cops or citizens carrying guns.

 

[KG1]

The AR pistol idea seems excessive to me. My preference is to carry the comfortable, easily concealable, and in a generally effective caliber with one extra mag and practice/train frequently. I don't aim to go into a full blown firefight when protecting my family; engage the immediate threat and clear the area. Active shooters don't generally expect bystanders (victims) to respond readily with violence and it throws them off. The Paris train attack is a good case point IMO.

It was 4 years in the making but I like your first post and agree with it. Well done.

 

[Opie]

Beyond a quality high capacity handgun in 9mm/40/45 (Glock, Sig, etc), I think a couple CAT tourniquets could do you more good than extra firepower.

 

[longbarrel]

What's wrong with cowboys?

They are make believe