And that is at the heart of it, isn't it?Skiprr wrote:But it happened in Paris. And ISIS promises it again......
Like you, in "normal" times, I don't feel particularly under-armed with a single-stack pistol and a total of 15-20 rounds available on hand. There's that famous old statistic that says only 3-5 rounds are fired in a typical exchange of gunfire in the civilian world, and I'll admit right up front that I can't find any documentation of that, so it may be apocryphal. In any case, if there is any option available to urgently decamp for parts more distant with less lead pollution in the air, I intend to make use of it. So I've always tried to find the balance between number of rounds I can comfortably carry (and therefore will carry), and the number of rounds necessary to win a protracted gunfight. I used to only put an AR or a shotgun in the car if I was traveling any kind of longer distances, and my premise was that it would be nearby at hand, and so I still didn't have to carry a lot of pistol rounds on body.
But, given that ISIS could try some shenanigans inside our homeland, and if they do there is no reason why Texas should be immune, and in keeping with that old dictum that a handgun is for fighting your way back to the long gun you should have never put down, I don't leave the house that often without an AR anymore. And where it isn't convenient to bring it along, I carry a third 19 round magazine and three 33 rounders for the G17 in my daypack.
I also might pickup a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 9mm carbine, which doesn't weigh much, will fit in my daypack, and takes the Glock magazines. It has two advantages...... [1] if an LEO wants to confiscate it, I'm not out that much money, as opposed to losing my AR which would put me out well over $2K; and [2] the extra 12" of barrel will give quite a bit more hitting power for a 9mm. Either that, or get myself a junky AR carbine that I won't mind losing too much.....like an inexpensive basic patrol carbine, for instance.
