Not saying this about you, it's just that most people i've talked to through other message boards about carrying guns always implied that since they had a gun they have the upper hand in a situation. Which I think is a bit ridiculous, because I think assuming that you have the upper hand in a situation you don't regularly encounter is dangerous, especially with a gun.
To an extent they're right, mostly because about nine out of ten people faced with a gun will suddenly remember there's somewhere else they ought to be -- as I said, I've never even had to draw, when I was threatened.
But if they haven't trained in self-defense situations, they're not as right as they think they are. The Pink Pistols here sponsors courses in such things a how not to get your gun taken away (rule #1: don't get that close!), how to respond to a home invasion, ways to shoot and hit when there's no time to think, how to approach an armed invader outside your home, etc.
Foremost in mind, I keep a principle taught by a very, very good survival instructor: a gun makes most people cocky, and some it makes downright stupid. A lot of people who neither clue nor training have the notion that a gun makes them invincible. In self-defense situations, though, every now and then it will make you a target, and that's what you have to be prepared for, every time. There is
never a situation in which you skip thinking about cover, retreat, and collateral; for that matter, you always have to think about background and backdrop (e.g., a shot in Miami when I was there went just past the bad guy, through a flimsy wall, out into the alley, through another wall, and hit a baby's crib [which I call having "more firepower than you need"]).
That latter is something too many people don't think about, either: so many are into getting the biggest gun they can carry/conceal, but that puts others at risk, because bullets from big guns just don't enjoy slowing down. When I go armed for self-defense with a .357, I use .38 special in it, which are less powerful than the gun could fire -- but as several generations of police officers could tell you, a .38 will stop the threat -- and stopping the threat is not only just what you want to do, it's
all you want to do. There was an instance not too long ago where a guy defended himself (properly, given the circumstances) with a .50 caliber handgun; fortunately for him, the shot that kept on going hit a brick wall and splatted. Now, if that round had hurt anyone, and he'd been sued, if I'd been on the jury I would have voted for the plaintiff almost no matter the other circumstances, because he had obscenely excessive firepower for the situation. About the only circumstance I can think of that would change my vote would be if he'd been sitting at home, cleaning and caring for his firearm, and been interrupted by someone with violent intent. Common sense says you just don't put yourself in a situation where a .50 is what you have for defense -- with the possible exception of using shot rounds, which I can see if the citizen has poor eyesight.
I don't even think I'd feel safe at night carrying a .50 caliber -- I'd be too bloody nervous about collateral if I did have to shoot, to even think clearly.
In the home, though, I load the .357 with .357 mag wadcutters, which expand when they hit paper, let alone flesh; if I have to defend my home, the jerk with the audacity to invade my castle isn't going to get any second chances -- some people will/can keep coming in spite of a .38 wound, due to adrenaline -- and getting double-tapped with something that hits like a pneumatic drill on crack and turns about half a cubic foot of internal organs into pudding (per shot) will guarantee he isn't going to harm me, my dog, any visitors, or the property.
Anyway... TMI?
