Planting a seed

Status
Not open for further replies.
In another realm, some professional level folks were discussing carrying a J frame. They acknowledge the problem of limited capacity and that the gun is basically an one opponent gun. Avoidance of trouble is a mantra to live by. However, one had a funny take:

J frames keeps me from doing stupid stuff.

Now the other day, I shot a 32 round, 16 target USPSA stage. Quite fun. Want to try that against 16 real opponents with firearms - or who could charge you, no thanks.
I will draw my weapon when my life or that of a loved is in danger AND I think the weapon is the best solution. If fleeing or handing over the wallet is a better bet, that's it.
In another thread, someone pointed to Grandpa Pug who was pointing a NAA 22 Pug at demonstrators, some of whom had modern sporting rifles (LOL). It was claimed that they were deterred. Not hardly as the video shows at least one chambering a round until cooler heads had the group move on and the spouse took Grandpa Pug inside. Did Grandpa Pug think about his weapon's capacity, his capacity or even think this through. Probably not. He might have just waved at the group or gone inside.
 
Yeah I get it, I'm still fumbling with the proper way to word my question.
So for example, you're carrying your high cap 9mm full size with the stippling and cut-out slide, threaded barrel and rmr mounted. (You know the type) the one you've trained with, the envy of your combat classmates ....
You find yourself in a serious confrontation vs.......

You find yourself in the same confrontation. Under the same circumstances EXCEPT your carrying your jframe....or lcp...or (fill in subcompact...)

Do you react differently?

Are you insinuating that you would be more likely to take some kind of action based on the weapon you are carrying? For me the answer is no. Guns are defensive tools, not fashion accessories. The only time my choice of weapon would figure into it was if I was planning offensive action. I don't plan offensive action since I retired. Tactics might change based on what was available but the decision to engage would not.

I don't mean to insult anyone but if you are basing your decision to engage based on the fact you have your race gun on your belt then you really need to rethink the whole thing.

In another thread, someone pointed to Grandpa Pug who was pointing a NAA 22 Pug at demonstrators, some of whom had modern sporting rifles (LOL). It was claimed that they were deterred. Not hardly as the video shows at least one chambering a round until cooler heads had the group move on and the spouse took Grandpa Pug inside. Did Grandpa Pug think about his weapon's capacity, his capacity or even think this through. Probably not. He might have just waved at the group or gone inside.

Grandpa Pug had no reason to draw any kind of weapon. If he had Armored farmer's race gun in his belt it would have been a stupid decision.
 
This is the great point here.

Sorry, but I gotta agree, I don't get the other question at all. If you're carrying a "barbecue gun" or your plainest EDC, how can that be a factor when you're forced to defend your life? OR are you saying that the gunslinger fantasy mindset might smack right up against reality when you second guess how the LEOs or a DA will view that Anime fantasy pistol with "stippling and cut-out slide, threaded barrel and rmr mounted"?
Yes
I'm considering the eagerness of some to want to put their training and high end gear to use.. (eagerness may not be the proper word. But it's close)
It wasn't my intention, but now I'll use the young man in Wisconsin as an example of my concern. He didn't have to be there. He wasn't wrong for being there. He was acquitted. Was he too eager? Too confident?
Dare I say it....would he have gone there with a bolt action .22? I doubt it.
Now, that being said...right or wrong...
Don't misunderstand me.. I'm not saying ANYTHING AT ALL about his right, or your right to carry the baddest ccw made. (I personally think I do.)
I'm just wondering if your choice of weapon might have bearing on whether you choose to engage. ....or choose to take the Nike express.



This example wasn't on my mind when I started this thread. But it fits....sorta.
 
I'm considering the eagerness of some to want to put their training and high end gear to use.. (eagerness may not be the proper word. But it's close)

If that's the case then there is somethi8ng wrong with the training they received.

It wasn't my intention, but now I'll use the young man in Wisconsin as an example of my concern. He didn't have to be there. He wasn't wrong for being there. He was acquitted. Was he too eager? Too confident?
Dare I say it....would he have gone there with a bolt action .22? I doubt it.

We aren't going to have that discussion here. It's currently a big political issue. The left is currently pushing for a change in self defense laws based on this. I just read an article on it this morning. We don't do politics here.
 
There is long and ongoing debate in the psychological literature that presentation and presence of weapons primes aggressive thoughts and aggressive actions. The power of such effects is controversial. Some claim the nasty guns do that even more. Thus, if the presence of a more capable or powerful weapons primes aggressive ideation and emotions leading to ill conceived actions, you might argue that
Does the capability of your ccw have ANY bearing on whether or when you might draw your weapon?
is an argument for weapons type bans as the more capable, lethal, higher capacity guns prime more aggressive and reckless actions.

Action decisions are made on two process flows - emotional, reactive, quick vs. cognitive, rational, slower (note this second process can be quick if one trains it). The big gun, you chose for its emotional appeal - which way does it lead you, if you haven't dealt with the rational component.

Thus, as Jeff stated training in evaluating situations is prime and more important that gun drooling talk we see so much off. A recent study has shown that competent FOF training led to less inappropriate firearms usage.

Thus, the never ending best carry gun threads from those who don't put in the realistic training time are rather silly. OMG, three pages to say - I chose a 10 mm for stopping power. Bah. I always post this:
A thought for today from John Holschen:
Amateurs think (or talk) equipment,
Students think techniques,
Masters think tactics!

If you have trained with John and the Insights crew - avoiding the fight is prime. Yes, they teach Intensive handgun usage but that's just a part of the package.
 
I see this ending soon and that's OK by me.
My original thought for this thread was for caution.
Whether you are carrying a Barlow knife or a glockenspiel 17, or just your martial arts...you're obliged and well advised to walk away from trouble if you can.
I hadn't seen that posted in a while.
 
. I hope some of it lands on fertile ground, although I'm certain some will land among the rocks and thistles
Sounds Biblical....

Yeah I get it, I'm still fumbling with the proper way to word my question.[/QUOTE

Get your point.
Was once confronted on a bike trip in Colorado upon leaving a great hometown Mexican restaurant.
The "dude" (much bigger than I) was showing me and the Mrs. his tattoos, asking for money.
Gave him $5.00, he "robbed" and ran, we walked....phew.
Did not know about identifying "gangs" by tats at the time. Another lesson learned.
BTW, weapon was in the trunk of the Harley, not on person........another lesson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top