I agree;
If a CCW civilian carries a 15 rd. firearm & spare magazines, their intent, and reasonableness may be called into question. If you truly feel, you need this level of sustained response to perceived threats perhaps you may consider; either moving to a safer neighborhood or forego re-enlistment after your last tour in Mosul. Just a thought!
Why is this the case?
Is my intent questionable because I carry "self-defense insurance?" Is my intent questionable because I carry automotive or homeowner's insurance?
Do I have suspicious intent because I applied for a concealed handgun license? Or that I've undertaken training over and above what is mandated by the state to meet the standards for such licensing?
Or would the fact that I chose -not- to undertake such additional training imply that I am intentionally incompetent versus some higher standard?
We saw George Zimmerman accused of both having sought self-defense training -AND- supposedly being less-than-proficient at such. That's damned if you did, damned if you didn't, isn't it?
There is no "safe neighborhood." Safety is an illusion that is shattered every time someone says "Wow, that happened just around the corner from me." The strangest statement I hear from folks who choose to arm themselves for self-defense is the admission that "if I were to go somewhere where I didn't feel safe, I'd choose to bring X with me instead." Why would any of us deliberately choose to not be in safer surroundings?
This is really akin to suggesting that seat-belts are best utilized just prior to merging onto the highway...when in-reality, most motor vehicle collisions and injuries occur only a short distance from one's home.
But at the same time, the other end of the equation can be said to have validity as well - yes, living where the crime rate is low is great, but some law abiding citizens end up coming to firearms for self-defense simply because their circumstances have made it impossible or difficult to move to better living conditions, even if temporarily (think of a newly abandoned single parent, whose previous partner has left no monetary resources and is not able to be found for child/spousal support).
Legally speaking, use-of-force in self-defense simply must to meet the criteria of Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion.
Physiologically speaking, the attacker(s) simply must be stopped - and this is accomplished only via disabling the CNS or by dropping the target's blood pressure sufficiently so as to stop their ability to cause the defender further harm. The defender's marksmanship as well as the terminal effects of the cartridge will both come into play.
It's always easy for those of us who subscribe to modern defensive/duty pistols with double-stack magazines (
https://www.policeone.com/police-he...5-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/) to deride those who would say something like: "If I can't get it done with my 5-shot J-frame...." It is also of-course just as easy to make light of the same, the other way around.
But the truth of the matter is that as long as our actions are legal - both in terms of what we carry (legal restrictions of firearm choice and ammo capacity) as well as, God forbid, the actions we undertake for self-defense in such dire circumstances (AOJP) - to make fun of that other party is really no different than someone who refuses to see the wisdom of armed self-defense suggesting that anyone who carries a gun either "must be afraid of something" or have "a lust for blood."