In Light of the Recent Shootings....

Status
Not open for further replies.
After reading four pages of discussions on the posted topics and the opinions of everyone it is clear that we only agree on one basic thing. That is having a firearm on your person. If amongst us we can not agree to disagree on issues such as this, how can we as a group of pro gun owners ever educate those who stand against us and advocate stricter gun laws or worse would love to take our guns away when we cannot come together. How can we fix this? Are there any short and simple answers, in my opinion no, as a multicultural nation and with each state having their own laws the discussions become arguments because each one is passionate in their own way and belief. So situations like this escalate exponentially .

It is easy to reflect on what we will do, but the truth of the matter is our true personal character, even though we believe it in our hearts that we will do the right thing, your true character will reveal itself in a real life and death scenario and most of you will be surprised if it is the hero character, or will be ashamed if it is the survivor character that emerges.

Every time I holster my 1911 I pray to God that I never have to use it, or that I have the courage and mindset to have sound judgement at a most critical moment.
 
Just read the whole thread and have a few thoughts. None of these shootings are taking place in bad neighborhoods. Most are taking place in rural areas or suburbs. You know safe places.

Someone is going to point out Vegas was a big city which is technically incorrect because the whole strip is not in a city but rather an unincorporated part of the county. Bugsy got tired of the city giving him problems so moved out of the city of Las Vegas. But more to the point took place in the center of multi-billion dollar hotels with elaborate security arrangements. Pretty much the definition of not a bad neighborhood.

They are happening at home in nice places.
 
What's the plan here for all of these respondents above, copied here below, in keeping a weapon or ammunition off-person in the vehicle? Outside of the select scenario where they are attacked while occupying the vehicle, the implication is they intend to leave security and enter themselves into the dangerous situation which they were not otherwise involved:

I'll single myself out from that list.

I used to carry a long arm in my car before these events of the improbable possibility, but mostly because I might need the gun other than for the scenario presented to us this past Sunday.

I had to change cars a couple years ago and haven't had a long gun in my current car but sparingly. So, these recent events made me think I ought to have a long gun in my car again whether I'd actually use it for the improbable possibility, or not.

I'm not going to leave a shopping mall to go get my long gun to run back into that shopping mall. That's not my job. If I get out of the mall with my family, I'm gone.

Stuff happens in this city and I plan on the professionals to take care of it. Yet, it's too hard to predict the future where I'll be when bad things happen and how fast those professionals can be on the scene.

I remember an incident on my street a few years ago where the sheriffs' deputies took two hours to arrive due to them responding to a fatality of some sort* nearby. It took 5 of my neighbors and myself to contain the situation until those deputies arrived. Thankfully, we didn't have to resort to drawing firearms.

*a vague explanation given to us for the long delay.

(Edits made to last night's tired post.)
 
Last edited:
I haven't changed. I put thought into why I carry what I carry quite a while ago.

Wanted to mention if you or a loved one is in immediate danger from an assailant with an AR15, don't have that cause your mindset to wilt.

The media wants an AR15 to be "amazing", but .45 ACP and 10mm rounds have more momentum (a decent 10mm can have 30%+ more). I like AR15s for their capacity but the 5.56 round is not the hammer of Thor. If you're caught in that bad situation with a pistol, fight.
 
I haven't changed my carry habits as I have always considered an active killer event a possible threat, even if it is on the lower percentage side. I carry a large framed revolver with a 5.5 inch barrel in .357 magnum, and can reach out and touch from 0-200 yards with it with confidence. I could push further with a good backstop if necessary. I keep the first 3 rounds jacketed hollow points and the last three hard cast heavy for caliber lead. For my circumstances, going from the woods to the street, I feel it is the most versatile firearms.

At work I carry a 9mm 1911 with 5 10 round mags, 9mm because that is what work specifies, and a 1911 because that is what I shoot best as a semi-auto. I do get ribbed by the polymer framed carriers for capacity, and am frequently reloading mags on the range, but I'll deal with it. My job has a much higher percentage of dealing with an active killer, and I was hired to stop him (or God forbid, them). I'd rather carry my revolver, as some of the distances are longer than I am comfortable shooting with a semi auto, but oh well.
 
I don't recall them having ar's, just hunting rifles and a bow then some ak's and rpgs. And radiator fluid.
That wasn't meant to be taken seriously, of course though I'd imagine that in the case of a surprise Russian invasion an AR in the truck would be preferred over Jed's (Swazye's) Colt SAA...
 
Said by me, a cynical, pessimistic, conservative libertarian, NOT a liberal surrealist...

If only we could help connect our communities better again to support individuals in mental crisis and prevent them from reaching a point of destructive behavior, suicidal, homicidal, or otherwise.

That would be great if possible. Unfortunately, the few people I've known to be suicidal tend to finally accomplish their goal even through prior failed attempts, interventions, hospitalization, etc.

Of course, I'm not a psychiatrist, or a psychologist, and I don't play one on TV.
 
Last edited:
I suspect the major, and most effective change is to start carrying ALL THE TIME.

You hear a lot of people who say, "If I'm going into a bad part of town . . ." or asking other people, "Where is it you're going you need all that firepower?" The victims in this case were in church, and all of them THOUGHT they were safe.

And let me point out, this isn't the FIRST mass killing in a church.
 
I suspect the major, and most effective change is to start carrying ALL THE TIME.

You hear a lot of people who say, "If I'm going into a bad part of town . . ." or asking other people, "Where is it you're going you need all that firepower?" The victims in this case were in church, and all of them THOUGHT they were safe.

And let me point out, this isn't the FIRST mass killing in a church.
None of us want to ignore signs saying "no weapons" even when they don't have the weight of law behind them; we all want to follow the law as well as the wishes of the people who own the places we are going..... but none of us want to watch folks die because we left our pistol in the truck either.



Everybody is going to have to come to their own individual decisions regarding this, IMO.
 
None of us want to ignore signs saying "no weapons" even when they don't have the weight of law behind them; we all want to follow the law as well as the wishes of the people who own the places we are going..... but none of us want to watch folks die because we left our pistol in the truck either.



Everybody is going to have to come to their own individual decisions regarding this, IMO.

And there is the quandary each of us must resolve for himself.
 
When "Aloha Snackbar!" and knife jihad got to be a thing, I switched from a 2" S&W Model 36 to a Glock 19, then a 3 1/2" M1911.

I no longer have confidence in a 2" .38 for dealing with the expanded threat spectrum.
 
You may be right, but school shooters, church shooters, concert shooters seem to like to target the unarmed. Children. People at worship. These animals are purely cowards. Nothing more. The term "gunman" is insulting to gun owners. The term should be coward, or murderer.

There is an equal chance that those cowards may have seen a man open carry a weapon and pi$$ed their pants and left. We will never know.

You are correct. In almost every instance their goal has been to murder a lot of helpless people, NOT get into a gunfight.

If they were looking for a fight, they'd be attacking the JFK Center and Gunsite, not elementary schools and gay nightclubs.
 
You are correct. In almost every instance their goal has been to murder a lot of helpless people, NOT get into a gunfight.

If they were looking for a fight, they'd be attacking the JFK Center and Gunsite, not elementary schools and gay nightclubs.

It is a very good strategy. The military often uses a similar strategy. The goal is to squash the enemy with as little danger to our military. Whether it is used for good or evil depends on your perspective.
 
You are correct. In almost every instance their goal has been to murder a lot of helpless people, NOT get into a gunfight.

If they were looking for a fight, they'd be attacking the JFK Center and Gunsite, not elementary schools and gay nightclubs.
There have been a couple of cases where crazies attacked police stations, but they get shot to pieces in short order. They are looking to rack up a high body count and that's just not likely when a bunch of folks are returning fire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top