OC Sends a Message

imported post

JDriver1.8t wrote:

I live in a condo, and am the secretary of the HOA. I'm also the head of the security committee for the property. I do monthly building inspections for the exterior lights, fire extinguishers, vandalism, illegal parking, and many other things.

My friend and I are getting back from a friends house when a car pulls up into the handicapped spot slashed line area, right beside the actual handicapped spot. They procede to get out and have a conversation that was half curse words.

I then tell them that they can't park there, and if they don't move the vehicle, it will be towed. At this point the Alpha Male syndrom kicked inand both guys pushed their shoulders back and stood up a bit taller. At this point they started walking closer to me and asking if I was the one that would call the tow company.

As they get closer (20 feet or so) they notice the G23 on my side. They very quickly inform me that they didn't realize they couldn't park there and that they would move it. I told them to have a nice evening.

My friend and I go inside my place and he just starts laughing. The cause of his laughter is how fast they guys attitudes changed once they saw that I was armed.

An armed society is a polite society.

Click to expand...

One of my G23's is my primary carry piece and goes with me pretty much wherever I go. Great little friend to have.

imported post

Some more examples of how OC has been a useful filter and deterrant.

I was at a Circle K to get gas and went in to pay cash. The line was dreadfully long with about ten people already cued up. About half of the line was white and maybe the otherhalfHispanic. About the time I get in the line, I hear a disturbance if you want to call it that. A black family of a dad, mom, and about six kids of various ages and genders were in all areas of the store yelling and screaming at each other. Every other word was a four letter word and some kids were aggressively handling the merchandise as well as opening and slamming the glass cold-storage doors. Suddenly the mom froze for about a half second as she was hurrying past me and the reason was obvious. Within ten seconds and even this is a stretch as it probably was about five, the whole family was orderly, quiet, and standing virtually perfect in the line behind me. Another classic example of uncivilized people who only know the hint of force to encourage them to behave.

The other example was at a McDonald's. I met up with a friend to have a quick bite to eat and conversation. As this was late at night, hardly anyone was in the restaurant. Regardless of the fact that nothing we were saying was controversial and we weren't that loud, a white man about ten seats away was clearly straining to hear every word. Next thing you know, he gets up and decides to move to the seat right next to us. I've noticed this so many times in so many places that a lot of times I will just outright move to get away from the person and I've almost said something to people. Apparently, people's lives are so empty that they would prefer to be inmy business andmy space and I don't have to put up with it. He didn't notice the gun at this point. I then get up to get my order and he follows me up toward the counter even though he had no order at all and was just wanting to watch my every move. His eyes were glassy and looked like he was on drugs. When I turned to go back to my seat, the man let out a scream (literally) to which a couple of employees noticed. He then goes to one of the McDonald's employees and mumbles something (probably the gun) and I'm sure this was the reason he screamed. The employee then immediately comes over to me and asks me the make and model of the gun and then proceeds to tell me how he owns guns, his dad carries, and he is thinking about getting a CCW permit although he is interested in OC himself as well. The weirdo then quickly leaves the establishment to which all of us including the employee nodded a "good riddance" motion.

Then a black man who also seemed drugged up enters and sits down without ordering anything and just stares endlessly at us. Every five minutes the man has to get up and switch seats. He would also stare down some of the young girls who were coming in. The man clearly seemed like he was casing the place. When we leave as I'm walking to the car, I just happen to notice the same man standing behind a bush about ten feet away from the car. I said, "There he is again" to which he starts walking through the school grounds located right next to the McDonald's. Just as I'm about to think he is out of sight, I can still see his oversized shadow displayed on the wall preceding a corner he went around. My friend was concerned about the girls inside and mentioned calling the police but I told him that I would handle it. So I wentthrough the school lawn towards him and suddenly the shadow disappears and when I carefully round the corner by the classrooms, I see him already off of the property and heading toward a bus stop. Again, problem solved.

imported post

Great stuff. I agree.

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

The Brady Bunch, for one, would have fifty thousand different kinds of conniption fit at what I would love to see; an United States where law-abiding citizens could openly carry everywhere and where it would be impossible to sue one of those citizens if he/she used deadly force in self-defense or defense of another.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see it, too, but I think Sarah Brady might actually have a stroke or something at the very thought.


edited to make it a bit clearer

imported post

Theguy wrote:

I'd love to see it, too, but I think Sarah might actually have a stroke or something at the very thought.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

ETA: Sorry, thinking of the wrong Sarah.

imported post

BoomBoom wrote:

protector84,

All I have to say is "Thank You" for your post. It is very well written and exactly how I feel as well.

Click to expand...

I second that.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, be in reasonable fear of harm, attempt to withdraw.

Click to expand...

Except in Michigan. This was recently amended to state that if one has a legal right to be in a particular place, there is no longer a need for retreat / withdrawal.

This state is more liberal that I thought concerningfirearm laws.

imported post

So then - is this what the OC movement is all about? Strapping on a firearm to handle the mischief of kids? Or, even strapping it on in anticipation of a confrontation with the parents? That's pretty much bordering on premeditation. I hardly see either case warranting deadly force.

And the views of the Wild West? They can't be honestly that naive. Perhaps one too many "Quick and the Dead" movies teaching US History? Please do not rely on the liberals in Hollywood to teach us History! The Wild West was the farthest from being a polite society.

If we are living with a desire to go back to the Wild West times, think about how it would really happen. Wealthy criminals would soon buy the latest weaponry when average citizens could only afford mere self defense weapons. Having more firepower, the organized criminals would then be extorting money from you for protection. You wouldn't be free and things certainly wouldn't be polite.

And "armed society is a polite society", even as conservative as I am, I can't believe 100% with that statement. Look at Somolia. Warlords carry extreme firepower. The sheeple in that country aren't being polite, they are being oppressed. Lawlessness is rampant. They have no "Bill of Rights", if the ruling warlord wants your property - you're walking in the street homeless They don't vote for Presidents, the ruling warlord is the one who is evil enough to victor over the last one. They don't have a right to free speech, keeping quiet is a survival technique. That's not freedom.

Just be careful for what you ask. You might get it.


I don't open carry for defense. I can conceal carry for that. I do open carry to help bring about awareness of firearms and their positive benefit to society. If I cause the general public around me to be fearful, then it's opression and that builds up the strong emotions against firearm ownership. The more uneducation and irrational fear of firearms that is out there, the more opposition to the 2nd amendment that arises.

If Open Carry is going to be successful, it needs to incorporate strategy and a knowledge of those that oppose us.

imported post

Mungo wrote:

If I cause the general public around me to be fearful, then it's opression[sic] and that builds up the strong emotions against firearm ownership.

Click to expand...

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

imported post

Mungo wrote:

So then - is this what the OC movement is all about? Strapping on a firearm to handle the mischief of kids? Or, even strapping it on in anticipation of a confrontation with the parents? That's pretty much bordering on premeditation. I hardly see either case warranting deadly force.

And the views of the Wild West? They can't be honestly that naive. Perhaps one too many "Quick and the Dead" movies teaching US History? Please do not rely on the liberals in Hollywood to teach us History! The Wild West was the farthest from being a polite society.

If we are living with a desire to go back to the Wild West times, think about how it would really happen. Wealthy criminals would soon buy the latest weaponry when average citizens could only afford mere self defense weapons. Having more firepower, the organized criminals would then be extorting money from you for protection. You wouldn't be free and things certainly wouldn't be polite.

And "armed society is a polite society", even as conservative as I am, I can't believe 100% with that statement. Look at Somolia. Warlords carry extreme firepower. The sheeple in that country aren't being polite, they are being oppressed. Lawlessness is rampant. They have no "Bill of Rights", if the ruling warlord wants your property - you're walking in the street homeless They don't vote for Presidents, the ruling warlord is the one who is evil enough to victor over the last one. They don't have a right to free speech, keeping quiet is a survival technique. That's not freedom.

Just be careful for what you ask. You might get it.

Click to expand...

Wow. You are thinking completely backward. Armed citizenry means that war lords will not have extreme firepower. When the people have the firepower, no one can approach the jewel of public liberty. The more arms, the more freedom.

imported post

hansolo wrote:

Mungo wrote:

So then - is this what the OC movement is all about? Strapping on a firearm to handle the mischief of kids? Or, even strapping it on in anticipation of a confrontation with the parents? That's pretty much bordering on premeditation. I hardly see either case warranting deadly force.

And the views of the Wild West? They can't be honestly that naive. Perhaps one too many "Quick and the Dead" movies teaching US History? Please do not rely on the liberals in Hollywood to teach us History! The Wild West was the farthest from being a polite society.

If we are living with a desire to go back to the Wild West times, think about how it would really happen. Wealthy criminals would soon buy the latest weaponry when average citizens could only afford mere self defense weapons. Having more firepower, the organized criminals would then be extorting money from you for protection. You wouldn't be free and things certainly wouldn't be polite.

And "armed society is a polite society", even as conservative as I am, I can't believe 100% with that statement. Look at Somolia. Warlords carry extreme firepower. The sheeple in that country aren't being polite, they are being oppressed. Lawlessness is rampant. They have no "Bill of Rights", if the ruling warlord wants your property - you're walking in the street homeless They don't vote for Presidents, the ruling warlord is the one who is evil enough to victor over the last one. They don't have a right to free speech, keeping quiet is a survival technique. That's not freedom.

Just be careful for what you ask. You might get it.

Click to expand...

Wow. You are thinking completely backward. Armed citizenry means that war lords will not have extreme firepower. When the people have the firepower, no one can approach the jewel of public liberty. The more arms, the more freedom.

Click to expand...

Give me an example or are we speaking of a theoretical utopian society here?

Most all males in Somolia are armed as soon as they can pick up an AK-47. Yet they comply with the warlords or they overthrow the warlords in a coup. Very similar to feudal England.

The example was given to the Wild West. The error here is that not everyone was armed. There were outlaws, gunmen, and your everyday citizen. Which is why stage coaches, trains, banks, etc were still robbed. The only men who were gunmen back in that day were the ones who could stomach killing someone. They were borderline outlaws themselves. So you still had about as much of an armed society as you do today, except far more people that couldn't pull the trigger own a firearm.

My argument is that to have a peaceful society, you have to have a balance of government and laws with an armed society. (Today we are far out of balance with the scales tipped towards the government). Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping someone from killing someone else because they pissed them off.

If you have a society in which everyone was armed, you will still have societal stratification where the more wealthy would be more heavily armed. (i.e. a wealthy citizen with a 50 cal sub machine gun, versus your poor with a Saturday Night Special) Wealth does not always come to those innocent of nature, it also finds itself in the hands of evil men. So it is on this basis that I cannot agree with the statement that an armed society is a peaceful society. It would only work if munitions could be distributed evenly and equally. Which reeks of Socialism. Something else I would like to avoid.

I am an open minded kind of guy. Please correct me where I am incorrect.

imported post

Mungo wrote:

hansolo wrote:

Mungo wrote:

So then - is this what the OC movement is all about? Strapping on a firearm to handle the mischief of kids? Or, even strapping it on in anticipation of a confrontation with the parents? That's pretty much bordering on premeditation. I hardly see either case warranting deadly force.

And the views of the Wild West? They can't be honestly that naive. Perhaps one too many "Quick and the Dead" movies teaching US History? Please do not rely on the liberals in Hollywood to teach us History! The Wild West was the farthest from being a polite society.

If we are living with a desire to go back to the Wild West times, think about how it would really happen. Wealthy criminals would soon buy the latest weaponry when average citizens could only afford mere self defense weapons. Having more firepower, the organized criminals would then be extorting money from you for protection. You wouldn't be free and things certainly wouldn't be polite.

And "armed society is a polite society", even as conservative as I am, I can't believe 100% with that statement. Look at Somolia. Warlords carry extreme firepower. The sheeple in that country aren't being polite, they are being oppressed. Lawlessness is rampant. They have no "Bill of Rights", if the ruling warlord wants your property - you're walking in the street homeless They don't vote for Presidents, the ruling warlord is the one who is evil enough to victor over the last one. They don't have a right to free speech, keeping quiet is a survival technique. That's not freedom.

Just be careful for what you ask. You might get it.

Click to expand...

Wow. You are thinking completely backward. Armed citizenry means that war lords will not have extreme firepower. When the people have the firepower, no one can approach the jewel of public liberty. The more arms, the more freedom.

Click to expand...

Give me an example or are we speaking of a theoretical utopian society here?

Most all males in Somolia are armed as soon as they can pick up an AK-47. Yet they comply with the warlords or they overthrow the warlords in a coup. Very similar to feudal England.

The example was given to the Wild West. The error here is that not everyone was armed. There were outlaws, gunmen, and your everyday citizen. Which is why stage coaches, trains, banks, etc were still robbed. The only men who were gunmen back in that day were the ones who could stomach killing someone. They were borderline outlaws themselves. So you still had about as much of an armed society as you do today, except far more people that couldn't pull the trigger own a firearm.

My argument is that to have a peaceful society, you have to have a balance of government and laws with an armed society. (Today we are far out of balance with the scales tipped towards the government). Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping someone from killing someone else because they pissed them off.

If you have a society in which everyone was armed, you will still have societal stratification where the more wealthy would be more heavily armed. (i.e. a wealthy citizen with a 50 cal sub machine gun, versus your poor with a Saturday Night Special) Wealth does not always come to those innocent of nature, it also finds itself in the hands of evil men. So it is on this basis that I cannot agree with the statement that an armed society is a peaceful society. It would only work if munitions could be distributed evenly and equally. Which reeks of Socialism. Something else I would like to avoid.

I am an open minded kind of guy. Please correct me where I am incorrect.

Click to expand...

I have highlighted your errors of societal armament. These societies are more armed than today, but still do not classify as an armed society.

You are misconstruing the stratification of society and saying that the wealthy will be more deadly. A rich man with a .50 cal is no more deadly than a smart man with a Saturday night special. I would not feel invincible because I have better arms than the next guy. 1000 villagers with AK's against a warlord and his thugs will win: they fight for freedom.

It would only "reek of socialism" if we gave people arms. Encouraging people to work must reek of capitalism. Encouraging armament reeks of freedom.

imported post

Mungo, your arguments don't make sense. First, weapons and especially firearms help balance power. Even if a wealthy person had superior weaponry, if the poor person had at least some type of weaponry they stand a much greater chance than no weaponry at all. A military deploy of 1,000 ground troops with heavy firepower and even with the help of an air force will not stop a million people with pistols who are determined to fight.

Second, the purpose of wearing a gun is not to "scare kids" as you suggested. However, teaching a lesson to people who fail to respect my freedoms is a good secondary reason for carrying. The primary reason is to protect myself and my property and those around me. As to the secondary reason, I have several freedoms that I expect others will respect. Those include the right to be left alone, the right to privacy, and the freedom to associate or not associate with the company I choose. Sadly, there are a lot of uncivilized people who don't respect that which brings me to another point.

When someone is violating your bounderies, you tend to have to deal with that person at a level they can understand. In a civilized world with civilized people, your freedoms would be rarely violated. You wouldn't have nosy neighbors constantly following you around wondering what you are up to at all times. You wouldn't have parents who allow their kids to vandalize your property right under their nose, and people would not be overtly disturbing your peace with excessive noise, staring, and obnoxious behavior. A civilized person who steps out of line would only require one to politely ask that the behavior stop. That person would likely apologize for the behavior and it would discontinue. In today's world, that is rarely the case. People are so crazy that simply asking someone to control their kids in a grocery store is not unlikely to result in them pulling out a gun themselves and shooting up the place. Therefore, as said earlier you have to treat people on their level. If a person is acting like an adult, simple adult politeness works. If they are acting like a child or an animal, then the only thing they will understand is force and consequence. As sad and disturbing as it may be, if sitting in front of my apartment with a shotgun in my lap is the only way to get other people to respect my boundaries, then I will do it. However, that should bring about more concern on what the hell is wrong with society than me.

Not to go on and on but I must re-iterate the point that most of the time we aren't dealing with "normal" people. We are no longer in a "normal" society where people grow up learning respect, honor, courtesy, bravery, and piety. This is a nation with pigs and pig behavior where sloth, gluttony, and complete moral bankruptcy are the norms and even the expectations. Yelling at some kid to stop bothering you could well result again in the parents who may be on drugs and in a gang themselves threatening you with one of their guns or at least using the "I'll beat you up" mentality. As long as people act like animals, I will treat them as such. I am not a vigilante looking for trouble and quite the oppositeand just as a business reserves the right to refuse service, I asa human being reserve the right to be left alone especially on my own property.

Enough said.

imported post

protector84 wrote:

Mungo, your arguments don't make sense. First, weapons and especially firearms help balance power. Even if a wealthy person had superior weaponry, if the poor person had at least some type of weaponry they stand a much greater chance than no weaponry at all. A military deploy of 1,000 ground troops with heavy firepower and even with the help of an air force will not stop a million people with pistols who are determined to fight.

Second, the purpose of wearing a gun is not to "scare kids" as you suggested. However, teaching a lesson to people who fail to respect my freedoms is a good secondary reason for carrying. The primary reason is to protect myself and my property and those around me. As to the secondary reason, I have several freedoms that I expect others will respect. Those include the right to be left alone, the right to privacy, and the freedom to associate or not associate with the company I choose. Sadly, there are a lot of uncivilized people who don't respect that which brings me to another point.

When someone is violating your bounderies, you tend to have to deal with that person at a level they can understand. In a civilized world with civilized people, your freedoms would be rarely violated. You wouldn't have nosy neighbors constantly following you around wondering what you are up to at all times. You wouldn't have parents who allow their kids to vandalize your property right under their nose, and people would not be overtly disturbing your peace with excessive noise, staring, and obnoxious behavior. A civilized person who steps out of line would only require one to politely ask that the behavior stop. That person would likely apologize for the behavior and it would discontinue. In today's world, that is rarely the case. People are so crazy that simply asking someone to control their kids in a grocery store is not unlikely to result in them pulling out a gun themselves and shooting up the place. Therefore, as said earlier you have to treat people on their level. If a person is acting like an adult, simple adult politeness works. If they are acting like a child or an animal, then the only thing they will understand is force and consequence. As sad and disturbing as it may be, if sitting in front of my apartment with a shotgun in my lap is the only way to get other people to respect my boundaries, then I will do it. However, that should bring about more concern on what the hell is wrong with society than me.

Not to go on and on but I must re-iterate the point that most of the time we aren't dealing with "normal" people. We are no longer in a "normal" society where people grow up learning respect, honor, courtesy, bravery, and piety. This is a nation with pigs and pig behavior where sloth, gluttony, and complete moral bankruptcy are the norms and even the expectations. Yelling at some kid to stop bothering you could well result again in the parents who may be on drugs and in a gang themselves threatening you with one of their guns or at least using the "I'll beat you up" mentality. As long as people act like animals, I will treat them as such. I am not a vigilante looking for trouble and quite the oppositeand just as a business reserves the right to refuse service, I asa human being reserve the right to be left alone especially on my own property.

Enough said.

Click to expand...

You make an assumption with regards to the million people. You assume they all have the same level of resolve and warrior mentality. Your battalion of infantrymen are trained, armed with full automatics equipped with body armor and hand grenades. Not to mention the ballistic difference between a rifle and a pistol. So, if that battalion in your scenario were to drop 1% of that million pistol yielding citizens, what do you think would happen to the resolve of the remaining 990,000? How many would be left still willing to fight? You see, not only are we failing to teach and foster the traits you mention, but we are also failing to teach the resolve to do what
is right and see something through regardless of the price. Would today's complacent citizens have the willpower to do what it took to create this country? I sincerely doubt it.

And balanced. Really? This is the part that gets me. I think the 2nd amendment argument is 100 years behind the times. Here we are struggling to keep the right to own sidearms with the semi-automatic technology invented in the late 1890s. Would you feel comfortable, or balanced, taking on a street gang armed with Mac-10s with a 1911 .45 ACP with an 8+1 round capacity? That's not balanced. The 2nd amendment is about protecting ourselves from an oppressive government, either foreign or domestic. This should also allow us to keep some sort of technology alignment with our military. But yet, politicians have us distracted on the argument just to keep antiquated technology. Bad guys and governments have the advanced technology already.

My father was strict. He taught me a lot of good things including all of the traits you mentioned. However, they didn't sink in until I hit a level of maturity that didn't come until well after my teenage years. I've been shot at for drag racing on back country roads and I've even had a shotgun pointed at me by a mad farmer because I was parked in his field trying to get in the pants of my high school girlfriend. (Not his daughter) Would have either of those offenses deserved a death penalty? Kids make mistakes and fall to peer pressure, even God fearing, appropriately raised straight A honor students as was I back then.

Carrying a firearm, to me, is not a right, but a responsibility. However, I'll never condone threatening with deadly force until faced with a rational perception of a deadly threat. The only exception is that I believe a woman has the right to defend her "virtue" with deadly force. Therefore, strapping on a firearm as a show of force when running off kids from your property ? Uncalled for.

Take it a step further. Suppose it was your kids. Your out in your front lawn chatting it up with another neighbor, you didn't see the mischief of your children and an angry and armed man confronted you about the conduct of your children. You're an armed man. What happens? Are you actually listening to him, or have you already deemed him as a threat of deadly force and respond appropriately?

imported post

Mungo wrote:

You make an assumption with regards to the million people. You assume they all have the same level of resolve and warrior mentality. Your battalion of infantrymen are trained, armed with full automatics equipped with body armor and hand grenades. Not to mention the ballistic difference between a rifle and a pistol. So, if that battalion in your scenario were to drop 1% of that million pistol yielding citizens, what do you think would happen to the resolve of the remaining 990,000? How many would be left still willing to fight? You see, not only are we failing to teach and foster the traits you mention, but we are also failing to teach the resolve to do what
is right and see something through regardless of the price. Would today's complacent citizens have the willpower to do what it took to create this country? I sincerely doubt it.

And balanced. Really? This is the part that gets me. I think the 2nd amendment argument is 100 years behind the times. Here we are struggling to keep the right to own sidearms with the semi-automatic technology invented in the late 1890s. Would you feel comfortable, or balanced, taking on a street gang armed with Mac-10s with a 1911 .45 ACP with an 8+1 round capacity? That's not balanced. The 2nd amendment is about protecting ourselves from an oppressive government, either foreign or domestic. This should also allow us to keep some sort of technology alignment with our military. But yet, politicians have us distracted on the argument just to keep antiquated technology. Bad guys and governments have the advanced technology already.

My father was strict. He taught me a lot of good things including all of the traits you mentioned. However, they didn't sink in until I hit a level of maturity that didn't come until well after my teenage years. I've been shot at for drag racing on back country roads and I've even had a shotgun pointed at me by a mad farmer because I was parked in his field trying to get in the pants of my high school girlfriend. (Not his daughter) Would have either of those offenses deserved a death penalty? Kids make mistakes and fall to peer pressure, even God fearing, appropriately raised straight A honor students as was I back then.

Carrying a firearm, to me, is not a right, but a responsibility. However, I'll never condone threatening with deadly force until faced with a rational perception of a deadly threat. The only exception is that I believe a woman has the right to defend her "virtue" with deadly force. Therefore, strapping on a firearm as a show of force when running off kids from your property ? Uncalled for.

Take it a step further. Suppose it was your kids. Your out in your front lawn chatting it up with another neighbor, you didn't see the mischief of your children and an angry and armed man confronted you about the conduct of your children. You're an armed man. What happens? Are you actually listening to him, or have you already deemed him as a threat of deadly force and respond appropriately?

Click to expand...

By your logic, Somalia would have been completely tamed during the various military interventions since the 1990s. The fact is 1% loss has never stopped any force to my recollection. Americans are weaker willed today than in the 18th century, but not to that degree.

Who would feel comfortable or balanced in any real world application of matching deadly force with deadly force? I wouldn't care if I had a AA12 or something similarly badass. Only a fool is 'comfortable' in a fire fight. However, to address your example, broadly speaking I might take on a street gang with MAC-10s with only a 1911. Reasons are manifold: a) gang bangers rely on luck and volume to hit anything. They don't practice, they don't target shoot, so at medium range and beyond, their efficacy is significantly diminished. b) Gang bangers don't clean or maintain their guns, and don't know what to do about jams. The Ingram MAC-10 is not a particularly high quality sub-machine gun (compared to say an Uzi) and is likely to jam if not properly cared for. c) Gang bangers don't know anything about the conservation of ammunition. If they can be goaded into firing without hitting anything, especially in full auto, by the time they are done 9 rounds from a reliable, clean, well-handled and well-aimed 1911 can clear a street. I'd like to think that I haven't wasted thousands of dollars on ammo and range time putting metal through paper for nothing.

There are of course larger concerns about location/cover, number of enemies/innocents and their relative position and distances, known and assumed states of mind of all involved, reason for time and place of confrontation etc. etc. The fact of the matter is a small force, even one man, outnumbered and outgunned, can succeed over a larger and better equipped force if he/they do all the right things at the right times in the right place. That's why Rangers/Berets/SEALS can succeed when outnumbered. It's about thinking everything through and maximizing everything knowable or assumable in an environment. Quite simply, to be Horatius, one first needs a bridge. If a larger, more modern example is needed, I'd point to the Finns during the Winter War.

Where you speak of interpersonal exchanges, in public spaces or on the property of a 3rd party whoever draws first is the aggressor. The ethical details can get worked out after threats have been neutralized. Force by itself is amoral, only the initiation of force is wrong. However the owner of private property is given some due deference. If a stranger is on private property uninvited, I think a property owner would not be out of line to be drawn until such time as the nature of the incursion is understood.

imported post

users/31387.htmlusers/31387.htmlElectricTurtle wrote:

By your logic, Somalia would have been completely tamed during the various military interventions since the 1990s.

Click to expand...

Assuming that the bureaucratic dance governments and politicians have to take doesn't have an effect on the efficacy of the military intervention. Killing one person in a church has the unfortunate effect of negating the fact that the military strike killed 30 insurgents hiding in a basement along with a major munitions store. Military interventions are under so much scrutiny they have practically rendered themselves ineffective.


ElectricTurtle wrote:

Who would feel comfortable or balanced in any real world application of matching deadly force with deadly force? I wouldn't care if I had a AA12 or something similarly badass. Only a fool is 'comfortable' in a fire fight.

Click to expand...

I can't disagree with this statement as written. The question was posed to me about firearms bringing a balance. The statement that firearms bring about a balance disregards the differences in firearms and training.


ElectricTurtle wrote:

However, to address your example, broadly speaking I might take on a street gang with MAC-10s with only a 1911. Reasons are manifold: a) gang bangers rely on luck and volume to hit anything. They don't practice, they don't target shoot, so at medium range and beyond, their efficacy is significantly diminished. b) Gang bangers don't clean or maintain their guns, and don't know what to do about jams. The Ingram MAC-10 is not a particularly high quality sub-machine gun (compared to say an Uzi) and is likely to jam if not properly cared for. c) Gang bangers don't know anything about the conservation of ammunition. If they can be goaded into firing without hitting anything, especially in full auto, by the time they are done 9 rounds from a reliable, clean, well-handled and well-aimed 1911 can clear a street.

Click to expand...

All your points are agreeable, yet you can't deny, shooting a single round takes more skill and an ability to accurately place a round under intense pressure and intense stress.

ElectricTurtle wrote:

I'd like to think that I haven't wasted thousands of dollars on ammo and range time putting metal through paper for nothing.

Click to expand...

Wasted? No, range time is fun. I would never suggest range time is wasted. However, this is practice under absolute ideal circumstances.

• At a range, you're wearing eyes and ears. Muzzle flash at night will temporarily diminish your ability to see and report deflection from differing surrounds can temporarily (some studies say permanently) deafen you.
• At a range, you have time to properly set up sight alignment and sight picture.
• At a range, you are almost guaranteed of what lies beyond your target.
• At a range, you have time to reload. Even something as simple as changing out a magazine can be challenging under stress as stress diminishes fine motor skill ability.
• At a range, paper doesn't move, grab a hostage, or shoot back.
• At a range, you've made the decision to go and practice. Meaning you're prepared mentally and are feeling up to going to the range. A fire fight may not offer that same luxury.
• At a range, accuracy is desired, not required.

I'm a big supporter of IDPA, I think it goes a lot further to train a person to reload, ready and fire under pressure, but even in an IDPA match, there's not bullets whizzing by you, richochet, or the intensity of stress that a fire fight will produce.

So, no, I'll never say range time and ammo are wasted, but has it prepared you? That's the real question.

ElectricTurtle wrote:

There are of course larger concerns about location/cover, number of enemies/innocents and their relative position and distances, known and assumed states of mind of all involved, reason for time and place of confrontation etc. etc. The fact of the matter is a small force, even one man, outnumbered and outgunned, can succeed over a larger and better equipped force if he/they do all the right things at the right times in the right place. That's why Rangers/Berets/SEALS can succeed when outnumbered. It's about thinking everything through and maximizing everything knowable or assumable in an environment. Quite simply, to be Horatius, one first needs a bridge. If a larger, more modern example is needed, I'd point to the Finns during the Winter War.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Where you speak of interpersonal exchanges, in public spaces or on the property of a 3rd party whoever draws first is the aggressor. The ethical details can get worked out after threats have been neutralized. Force by itself is amoral, only the initiation of force is wrong. However the owner of private property is given some due deference. If a stranger is on private property uninvited, I think a property owner would not be out of line to be drawn until such time as the nature of the incursion is understood.

Click to expand...

Drawing a firearm is an explicit threat. Aggression has been defined in many court cases as implied. A person approaching me in an angry fashion is an implied threat and is easily labelled aggression. Add a weapon, holstered or drawn, adds the probability of the use of deadly force.

This thread has taken so many tangents. My whole intent in posting originally was the fact that I was appalled that so many people would actually condone arming one's self with a weapon to intimidate families and children, especially when there was no evidence of a deadly force threat. That's precisely what's wrong today. Too many people escalate to deadly force when a conversation or even an good old fashioned fist to cuffs fight can settle the situation.

Well, that and the fact that the Wild West was not as prim and proper as Hollywood makes it out to be.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

protector84 wrote:

People may cry "I don't want to go back to the Old West" but the truth is that the Old West in certain degrees was far more civilized.

Click to expand...

There were many thing about the "old west" that were better than today.

It was not only a more polite and curtious society, but a more self-reliant, self-motivated, and resourceful society.

RE-adopting the "SPIRIT" of the old west would be the best thing this country could do.

Click to expand...

+1 to that!

imported post

Huck wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

protector84 wrote:

People may cry "I don't want to go back to the Old West" but the truth is that the Old West in certain degrees was far more civilized.

Click to expand...

There were many thing about the "old west" that were better than today.

It was not only a more polite and curtious society, but a more self-reliant, self-motivated, and resourceful society.

RE-adopting the "SPIRIT" of the old west would be the best thing this country could do.

Click to expand...

+1 to that!

Click to expand...

I live inwhat was the heart ofthe 'old (WILD) west'... in Open Range country. As a student of history... people here went armed outside of the towns... or where there were no 'Earp' style gun-grabbers. The desert and (at the time) Apache and the various bandito'sdictated that necessity. The desert still does. If you had an encounter... it was usually from ambush by numerous bad guys. Mungo is well intentioned... but skewed. Bearing arms is a RIGHT that requires responsibility. Not the reverse. The US ain't Somolia by a long shot... Somolia is tribalism and anarchy.

That said... the visual presence of a openly carried firearm generally has a 'calming' effect'upon those predisposed to acting up. I've experienced that effecttimes more numerous than I care to count. Where the Right toself defense is denied (such as Baltimore)... the criminal element predates at will with relative impunity. Baltimore recently became #1 in homocides. Those cities which forbid citizens to defend themselves are worse than Tombstone, Dodge, El Paso, Deadwood 'n Lincoln County combined in the worst of times.

I'll tell ya tho... I'd rather live out here in the wilds along with 'armed citizens' of similar disposition than any damn city I could think of.

imported post

Hmm.. didn't Afganistan kick the Russians butts.

Just food for thought.