I see a market niche! The Tactical Robe.
Is it black?
Nope, the current one is red and black checked. But, it's warm and the dark colors do make me harder to see. I do have "tactical" slippers. You know the type with fleece lining and a hard sole.
I see a market niche! The Tactical Robe.
Is it black?
Darn, you beat me to it, but I did contemplate tactical slippers too.Nope, the current one is red and black checked. But, it's warm and the dark colors do make me harder to see. I do have "tactical" slippers. You know the type with fleece lining and a hard sole.
If you wear tactical underwear you don’t need a tactical robe.I see a market niche! The Tactical Robe.
Is it black?
Alright, I confess - for 8 months in the year in Texas it might more likely be tactical underwear.If you wear tactical underwear you don’t need a tactical robe.
I see a market niche! The Tactical Robe.
Is it black?
Where is it when you are not in bed?Take this from somebody who
sleeps with a gun under an adjacent pillow IN THE BED,...
Dang, you guys are wound up like you live in Beirut. Take this from somebody who
sleeps with a gun under an adjacent pillow IN THE BED, rather than on the nightstand. Crank it down about a thousand.
It's really not healthy to live like this.
Not seeing any wound-up guys in this thread. What thread are your reading? A fairly civil discussion regarding common-sense precautions.The sad fact is many of us face a higher chance of having a AD/ND running around like Joe Craptical than
EVER running into a bad guy. So I'll answer your question with another question:
Is risking shooting yourself, while trying to "defend" yourself, or ruining your health by being so wound up with paranoia any way to live? Have a Margarita, get a massage,
relax, breathe.
Has anyone ever considered putting together a belt that has the things you might need to handle a bump in the night, all in one place?
Corporal Agarn wrote:
Any intelligent person without training will hesitate before shooting someone.
Now I like this one.Yes.
I put together a military-style pistol belt with load carrying suspenders that lives on the back of a chair in the bedroom. I first put to together when I was 17, but have updated it over the years (not the least changing out the pistol belt as my waist size grew).
It currently contains:
- Ammo pouch with two 30 round magazines loaded with 25 rounds of .223 Remington, each.
- Holster for 38 Special snub nose pistol.
- Knife in self-designed pull-down scabbard.
- LED Flashlight.
- First Aid supplies.
..(not the least changing out the pistol belt as my waist size grew).
Quite correct.
I have posted this previously, but will post it again. Starting in World War I, the army conducted trials in which grease was intentionally deposited in the rifles of soldiers going into combat. Observers followed the trial units into battle. After action, the barrels of the soldiers' rifles were inspected and the observers reported on what they observed. In round numbers, one-quarter (25%) of soldiers did not fire their weapon at all. Of those that did fire, one-third (one-quarter of the original total) were observed firing their weapons into the dirt in front of them or at angles well above the enemy's head. Thus, only about half of the soldiers were actually firing at the enemy.
These tests were repeated in World War II, Korea and Vietnam and the results were substantially the same.
Now, if only half the number of trained soldiers, in combat, were firing for effect, how can we expect untrained or minimally trained (a one-day CHL course maybe followed by a weekend-practical course) personnel to do any better?
Not only will they hesitate, nearly a century of studies with trained soldiers prove that half the people won't even shoot or if they shoot won't shoot to kill.
Very many home invasions happen in the daytime.First, we have to ask why we assume that the "bump" will happen "in the night".
Quite correct.
I have posted this previously, but will post it again. Starting in World War I, the army conducted trials in which grease was intentionally deposited in the rifles of soldiers going into combat. Observers followed the trial units into battle. After action, the barrels of the soldiers' rifles were inspected and the observers reported on what they observed. In round numbers, one-quarter (25%) of soldiers did not fire their weapon at all. Of those that did fire, one-third (one-quarter of the original total) were observed firing their weapons into the dirt in front of them or at angles well above the enemy's head. Thus, only about half of the soldiers were actually firing at the enemy.
These tests were repeated in World War II, Korea and Vietnam and the results were substantially the same.
Now, if only half the number of trained soldiers, in combat, were firing for effect, how can we expect untrained or minimally trained (a one-day CHL course maybe followed by a weekend-practical course) personnel to do any better?
Not only will they hesitate, nearly a century of studies with trained soldiers prove that half the people won't even shoot or if they shoot won't shoot to kill.
Actually, it was SLA Marshall (in inverterate liar) who claimed to have discovered that about half the men in combat didn't fire. If that's true, what happened to all that ammunition we burned up?I can't speak to WWI or WWII or Korea. But, based on my admittedly limited experience in that little fracas in South East Asia, the only ones that weren't firing their weapons weren't able to. And, no I can't speak about where those rounds went, as I was just a bit busy.
This last bit leads me to believe that no one in a combat zone is going to stick their head up and look to see if the guy on his right or left (pretty darn hard to see any farther) is shooting the ground or the sky.
Like I say, I have limited experience, maybe I'm wrong. Any of the stone cold Seal Team Six members here have better input.
Actually, it was SLA Marshall (in inverterate liar) who claimed to have discovered that about half the men in combat didn't fire. If that's true, what happened to all that ammunition we burned up?
Marshall used to claim, for example, he was the youngest Second Lieutenant in WWI -- but the Army records show he wasn't commissioned until the 1920s. Someone would shut him up with the evidence, and a couple of years later he'd start up again.Falls right in with one of my favorite quotes. “There are three types of lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics.”
I've never been in a gunfight outside of the military. What I saw in the military (I only served in specialized units) in combat- and I'm only speaking of the US personnel that were there, and not "friendly indigenous troops" was probably atypical as compared to other units. When working at close quarters, typically in structures and often in an urban setting, I saw the methodical, highly drilled tactics of shooting, moving, and communicating being performed in the same way that we trained, and trained, and trained. Were their errors and hiccups? Absolutely. However, when the distance to the enemy increased (such as an engagement in the desert) less experienced team members would sometimes not be as quick on the trigger. This was probably due to a number of reasons.Quite correct.
I have posted this previously, but will post it again. Starting in World War I, the army conducted trials in which grease was intentionally deposited in the rifles of soldiers going into combat. Observers followed the trial units into battle. After action, the barrels of the soldiers' rifles were inspected and the observers reported on what they observed. In round numbers, one-quarter (25%) of soldiers did not fire their weapon at all. Of those that did fire, one-third (one-quarter of the original total) were observed firing their weapons into the dirt in front of them or at angles well above the enemy's head. Thus, only about half of the soldiers were actually firing at the enemy.
These tests were repeated in World War II, Korea and Vietnam and the results were substantially the same.
Now, if only half the number of trained soldiers, in combat, were firing for effect, how can we expect untrained or minimally trained (a one-day CHL course maybe followed by a weekend-practical course) personnel to do any better?
Not only will they hesitate, nearly a century of studies with trained soldiers prove that half the people won't even shoot or if they shoot won't shoot to kill.