I'm going to suggest that if you had posted more then that quote in your OP, you might have generated the discussion you were seeking before 23 posts were made.
if you go to guns you failed
- Thread starter Hangingrock
- Start date
- Status
Been on both sides of this. Many, Many times I have avoided confrontations bc of situational awareness. A couple of times I had to 'go for the gun' but I didn't have to shoot. Having the gun in hand made things better real fast.
The two rules I've used are:
1. Don't pull unless you are willing to shoot.
2. Don't shoot unless you have to.
The two rules I've used are:
1. Don't pull unless you are willing to shoot.
2. Don't shoot unless you have to.
Last edited:
Hangingrock
Member
We will have to agree to disagree respectfully. I wanted to see the reaction to the subject and see whom would really grasp the in depth meaning of the subject. I've had instructors do the same thing. Some individuals are more receptive to instructional information while other are not.
It is difficult to say anything that would demonstrate "grasping the meaning of the subject" when the out of context except posted is so meaningless.
You would characterize what you have posted as "instructional information"?
For one to have "failed multiple opportunities to take preventative measures", one must have been presented with such multiple opportunities in the first place. That does not always happen.
I have had a LOT of experience teaching. When you throw a premise like that out there and it doesn’t generate the discussion you are looking for in the target audience, you elaborate in order to spur the discussion. The instructor often has to guide the discussion to get the students to come to the desired conclusion on their own.
1911 guy
Member
I attended a seminar a few weeks ago. The focus was securing churches against crime. This was their general approach: If shots are fired on church property it means all other measures you should have in place have failed. Obviously, this is the real world and things go south sometimes. But for many reasons ranging from philosophical to tactical, we need to do everything we can to stay "left of bang".
Old Dog
Member
Since none of us (other than the OP) have in fact read the book, I remain puzzled as to the OP's intent in starting his thread with that drive-by quote ... So, eh, I've read through this thread and find little substance of value. And of course, our replies are opinionated, rightfully so. Finally, I reject the premise of the quote provided in the thread-starting post, and mostly for the reason Kleanbore notes below.
Exactly.
Hangingrock
Member
Reply number (23) to this subject, that individual comprehended the subject apparently with out problem that others seem to be having a problem with!
This part of Reply 23 certainly comprises very good advice: "Avoidance is better than getting in a gun fight 99% of the time. Obviously there are cases where your hands may be tied, but avoiding an armed confrontation is typically the best course of action. And, if you're practicing good situational awareness, and applying good judgment to the things you observe, many fights can be avoided. Are there exceptions? Certainly. The bad guys choose the time, place, and manner of bringing a fight to our doorstep, and in some cases fight is the only option. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have any justification for wanting firearms as a means of self defense!"
It does, however, differ materially from the excerpt in the OP.
No one here is having a problem with "comprehending the subject". The problem is that the excerpt, when taken out of context, is nonsense.
Hangingrock
Member
Your welcome to your opinion. I view it differently.
Do you really believe that the need to present or use a firearm--or to use non-deadly physical force--will never materialize except when one has "failed multiple opportunities" to prevent it?
What do you define as "opportunities"?
JeffG
Member
No amount of intelectual speculation will change the circumstances that will present themselves. Criminal actors choose the time and place for their behavior. That action places the would-be victim into a reactionary mode. The victim is catching up, as it were; to prevail one must push the circumstances (hard) to get the ball rolling the other way. I have always operated upon the fight theory that: either you are using an adversary's time, or he is using yours...I have to use my adversary's time, to win.
Using deadly force may be the last option, but may easily be the first choice, if the victim is going to survive. Yes, there well be a "failure" on the part of the victim in whatever safeguards could have been taken; the criminal only sees this as an opportunity.
Theorizing situations and casting judgements, amounts to the difference of designing and drawing plans for a hole dug in the ground, and actually picking up a shovel. Any one engaged in actually digging the hole knows how likely the plan will evolve during the excavation.
I am sure there are many volumes written on the subject of fire safety and prevention. When a fire breaks out, one would likely grab a fire extinguisher, put out the fire, and then analyze what occured to lead us to those events.
Better that we analyze an action that has already taken place, with the victim surviving, and the criminal shot; than to sit in a chair "tsk, tsk-ing" and morally judging an event and the actor's "failure" before it has ever taken place.
Stay armed, stay trained.
Using deadly force may be the last option, but may easily be the first choice, if the victim is going to survive. Yes, there well be a "failure" on the part of the victim in whatever safeguards could have been taken; the criminal only sees this as an opportunity.
Theorizing situations and casting judgements, amounts to the difference of designing and drawing plans for a hole dug in the ground, and actually picking up a shovel. Any one engaged in actually digging the hole knows how likely the plan will evolve during the excavation.
I am sure there are many volumes written on the subject of fire safety and prevention. When a fire breaks out, one would likely grab a fire extinguisher, put out the fire, and then analyze what occured to lead us to those events.
Better that we analyze an action that has already taken place, with the victim surviving, and the criminal shot; than to sit in a chair "tsk, tsk-ing" and morally judging an event and the actor's "failure" before it has ever taken place.
Stay armed, stay trained.
tactikel
Member
"if you go to guns you failed" is a foolish statement by a person unaccustomed real life. Apparently he is clueless about life in urban america. Yes, I could avoid "going to guns" by hiding behind a tree in central Montana, I work and live in urban america, I pass the homeless, gang members, druggies, the mentally ill on a daily basis before and after dark. I carry every day. I pray I never have to use my weapon but if I do it is because they failed, not me.
I
I
Going around in circles.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
