It's interesting to learn what gun he was using. However, I'm not impressed with some of the comments:Lumberjack98 wrote:I've been trying to find out the gun and ammo used in this shooting and came across this: http://www.examiner.com/article/the-mou ... hat-roared" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The article mentions that is was a TCP, but not the type of ammo.
Regardless of what folks think of the 380, in this case it stopped the BGs from doing what they were doing.
Really? "Mall ninjas" . . . "internet bravado?" What a combination of firearms ignorance and arrogance.Examiner.com wrote:In the firearms community, a small pocket-sized pistol chambered for the .380 ACP, .32 ACP, .25 ACP or the .22 Long Rifle are generically alluded to as “mouse guns” because of their small caliber and mediocre stopping power. One will find them frequently disdained by “mall ninjas” – the twenty- and thirty-something types who dress in cargo pants, “tactical” vests and other accoutrements associated with internet bravado . . .
Here's another one:
What does volunteering to get shot have to do with stopping a deadly threat as quickly as possible? Nothing, that's what!Examiner.com wrote:In short, the .380 ACP may get sneers from keyboard gunslingers, but – as in the case of a load of birdshot fired at close range by a homeowner – nobody is going to volunteer to get shot with one.
There may be people and circumstances that make a .380 the only choice, but to imply that they are as effective in a defensive situation as larger calibers is absurd.
Chas.
