I've been mulling this question around to the point where it might not even be a question, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Is there a point where you decide whether to carry an offensive handgun v. a defensive one, or, do you just carry the most handgun you can, based on the environment, clothing, etc.?
I have two main carry guns, a 1911 and a G30 (old style). I also have a "church gun" a .380 PPK. I've been on the fence about getting a 442/642. The reason being, it would be about the same footprint as the .380, but pack more death power , and be more of a warm weather clothing option. It could also act as a more viable BUG. However, I would consider it only a defensive gun, based on it's range of accuracy. I'm more confident in the range of the G30, and of course much more so with the 1911. I'm obviously not in an environment where I'm expecting a long range shootout, but, there's always the Nairobi Mall scenario, or even the Aurora theater. I wouldn't be comfortable relying on a snubby revolver to engage offensively in either situation, but only as a last ditch means of defense.
I think we all fall into the situation where we say, "I'm only going to ... it's a pain in the ass to grab a blaster", so less gun is better than none. OTOH, there are days when I go get more gun before leaving the house based on where I might end up.I understand that a handgun should never be considered a truly offensive weapon as a long gun is, but some do have an advantage over others.
Anyone else ever do this "what if", or am I way overthinking things, and I should just work top down instead of bottom up?