I knew this was coming just by you parroting every single one of that egotistical asshat's talking points.

The moron that hosts ASP loves to say that spare magazines don't matter in civilian defensive gun use.

I won't act like John is faultless, but my issues with him are almost entirely related to his bootlicking view of cops. My general view of him is that given any random opinion of his from ANY of his videos (that I've seen, at least - and that is thousands), he's right about 90% of the time. The 10% of the time he's wrong in my experience is almost exclusively him giving cops a double standard and benefit of the doubt which he doesn't afford to private citizens. When he's right, he's completely right. When he's wrong, he's usually dead wrong. His advice on holsters, carrying, legal advice, and self defense in general are almost universally spot on. Your opening with ad hominem against him isn't a good look in the slightest for you, especially since you open doing the same exact things you accuse him of doing.

He always fails to consider the possibility that, in some of his videos where the defender unfortunately lost the fight, they may have benefitted from and may have actually used a reload if they had the option and hadn't been killed before getting the chance.

Point me to a single example of this being the case. Just one. In every video I've seen, the fight is over long before a reload would be relevant. And that is really his entire point on this topic. You can't point to an example of it being relevant in >40,000 videos because it simply isn't the reality of DGU's.

There have been several people die while fumbling with a reload, but since those haven't been successfully used, they apparently don't count.

You do realize this hurts your case, right? You do realize this is literally his entire point? You're only going to have access to what is in the gun, and what isn't already loaded and ready to go isn't going to be relevant to make the difference. This is why capacity matters.

I would say that the four instances he has covered where someone did successfully reload after the initial threat was stopped, actually did matter. Those people may not have needed a reload for the number of times they actually shot their gun, but in that situation, there is always a possibility of additional attackers, and the four people that reloaded would have then been able to defend against them also - If additional attackers did show up. He also fails to acknowledge this scenario because he hasn't seen it himself.

If he hasn't seen it himself, who has? He is BY FAR the most experienced on the topic of combing through video evidence on gunfights. What evidence would you suggest exists which he hasn't seen? Who could have possibly scrubbed through more videos than he has? As I said above, I have serious issues with his bootlicking - I am in no way saying he is perfect. But the facts are the facts, and credit is due where it is earned.

More to your point - he speaks to multiple attackers all the time. That's one of the core tenants of his holster requirements - it must provide secure and reliable access to the holster, and reholstering is an important consideration here. All the time on Reddit I'll see people justify having a holster that cannot be reholstered without taking the stack off your person, but the reality is that reholstering is an important thing to consider. You don't want the police to arrive when you have a firearm in your hand, and yet at the same time you want to retain access to your firearm in the event of multiple attackers. He speaks to this point all the time - about 1/3 of attacks have multiple attackers. That still doesn't mean a reload is making the difference here. In almost every single case recorded of multiple attackers, they either split when the shooting starts (probably >90% of cases, easily), or they will immediately make themselves known. In either case, we're back to square one - there's just one singular continuous gunfight. Reloads aren't a relevant point here. Again, they've literally never done it out of tens of thousands of recorded DGU's.

He also fails to acknowledge videos like this, where a fight is started with one gun, and a different gun is used to finish it. There's been a couple like this video, where police get a rifle out of their car, or a clerk gets a shotgun out of a back room, or here where the guy had a long gun slung but started with his handgun, or whatever.

He acknowledges this all the time. What are you even saying? You claim that you recognized I was, "parroting" him by repeating his claims, but yet you're now acting like his claims don't exist? Which is it? Are you familiar with his claims, or are you just lying out of your ass? He frequently speaks to LEO's and related having a different mission than private citizens and that they should have 3 or 4 reloads minimum.

If that second gun wasn't available, though, what would they use in their empty handgun to continue the fight?

1. You're conflating different points here - LEO's and the related are again a different mission set and couldn't be less relevant to the discussion, and
2. As I've already addressed MULTIPLE TIMES (and you clearly didn't read - thanks for outing yourself), the smart play is NEVER to have an optional gunfight. If you have time to go and retrieve a gun, you almost certainly have the time to retreat from the fight. Sure, some edge cases may exist, but that doesn't determine the rule in the slightest.

He also fails to consider that there are millions of defensive gun uses all around the world every year, and that he hasn't seen a percentage of one percent of them yet, any of which a person may have reloaded, but since he hasn't seen it, it doesn't count.

The overwhelming majority of DGU's don't involve a shot even being fired, so your point is completely moot. You either didn't think this one through even slightly, or you're just trying to willingly manipulate facts here. Even if your point was valid, the sample size is far more than significant enough for us to have seen reloads if they were anywhere even remotely near common. It's a wholly moot point.

He also fails to consider that a spare magazine isn't just there for a reload, but also for malfunction clearance. Why fiddle-fuck around with a half-empty magazine that didn't feed properly? Drop it and use the full spare magazine.

He literally addresses this verbatim. Now I know you aren't actually familiar with his views and positions - I had my suspicions earlier and I alluded to as much, but you're straight up confirming it now. If you're carrying a magazine that doesn't feed properly, you failed step one. Don't carry faulty untested equipment and this isn't a realistic concern. The data overwhelmingly points to real life private citizen DGU gunfight failures typically only requiring a rerack of the slide to remedy. In the majority of cases, you wouldn't have time to reload anyways. Again, the mission is different and so is the context. It is not a hard concept.

I would also point out that you don't want to shoulder a long gun at the distance those two were standing, or the perp could just grab the barrel and start fighting over the shotgun. Perp already had a pistol in his other hand; How do you think that would have turned out? Fact is, it's a relatively common practice to draw a pistol, which you can shoot from an extremely compressed position, and use it to make room for your long gun to be used. Exactly as seen here.

You're an absolute fool if you think that you have to or would ever allow the perp to have a reach to the shotgun. You're an even bigger fool if you think he'd be fighting our guy for the shotgun at the same time that is is firing his pistol. There's such a thing as a retention position.

Fact is, a long gun is a fight stopper, while a side arm is a compromise between convenience and safety. You'd have to be an idiot to choose a pistol over a shotgun at this range, especially when the perp has a firearm in their hands already with zero indications of things becoming a grappling match for your firearm(s).

I would also point out that the security guard in this video WAS injured, and may have been dealing with shock, causing accuracy issues.

If private citizens can handle it far better than he can on an extremely reliable basis, then there is no excuse as to why a professional security guard would behave in such a way. You can make up any excuse you want, it doesn't make it anything more than a bad excuse.

I would also point out that you DO NOT KNOW where the avenues of escape are in this video. The door we're looking at may be the only viable option, depending on the size and age of the building.

I guarantee you it is NOT. ALL PUBLIC BUILDINGS REQUIRE FIRE EXITS - at minimum two. This isn't complicated. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that the only other exit is within perfect view of the outside of the door here. You're absolutely reaching at straws to suggest that the most unlikely outcome is the reality.

You're taking the words of some dingbat on YouTube that has never been in a firefight, as concrete, unwavering gospel.

Stop it.

Learn to think for yourself.

Brother, I'm the only one thinking for myself in this entire thread. I'm the only one who has actually brought something to this discussion. You're in second place, but you clearly have ousted yourself several times as not even being familiar with the views in which you are objecting to. You haven't brought up a single valid criticism of John - in fact, I'm the only one who has done that.

I would implore you to at least watch the claims to which you are supposedly objecting. That'd be a good first start. Then maybe you could respond with something of substance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0tst9-_pPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOYLSvg5hqE