I think you need to define "prepared", it depends on the probable situations. My level of preparededness depends on my perception of the possible threats I percieve there to be. If I am in Iraq, I would be prepared differrently than a day out at the mall. If the gunman pulls out a rifle fifty feet away from me at the mall, this will require a different response from me than if he is at the opposite end of the mall from me, in which case I get out of there. I train for the percieved threats, generally home invasion is primary concern, thus my primary focus. Being aware of my surroundings is the best I can do outside the home, Illinois doesn't allow for CCW.
How “Prepared” Are You…Really?
- Thread starter Geno
- Start date
- Status
Wow, folks! You're all stepping right up to the plate in this thread! I never expected this many posts, or this much detail to the answers.
You're all turning this thread into something that we could be proud to have an "anti" to read, or a non-shootist to read! Bravo on the very THR answers all! Bravo on the un-common sense!
Doc2005
You're all turning this thread into something that we could be proud to have an "anti" to read, or a non-shootist to read! Bravo on the very THR answers all! Bravo on the un-common sense!
Doc2005
Doc2005:
I think that RioShooter expressed my thoughts on the matter very well in his reply in post #12.
Having said that, it would depend on the individual situation as to what I would/might do. And of course, all of the variables in any hypothetical scenario are impossible to cover in an online forum.
Doc, while I appreciate this thread and the points you bring to it - I have to say, it's not up to you to set the terms and conditions of why I choose to have a CCW.
I think that RioShooter expressed my thoughts on the matter very well in his reply in post #12.
Having said that, it would depend on the individual situation as to what I would/might do. And of course, all of the variables in any hypothetical scenario are impossible to cover in an online forum.
Last edited:
meef:
It isn't my standard. Please read the post. That was the standard set down by our Advanced Tactical Shooting instructor, to which I too have responded in this thread that his position lies somewhere between hard-core and extreme.
That stated, it becomes a legitimate question per his standard of emotional preparedness. So, again, I ask, per my Advanced Tactical Instructor's view of emotional preparedness, are you (all of us collectively) willing to lay down their own life for someone who you do not know?
It is a legitimate question per a recent Detroit experience in which a crowd of not less than 30 people stood and watched a woman be assaulted to the point that she jumped to her death, rather than be assaulted any further. Her case was presented for our consideration.
There is a reason that I present my ATS instructor's position Re: emotional preparedness, and willingness to die, and willingness to live with the consequences, whatever they may be. It will become evident in my next post. Edit to add and clarify...there is no right answer. Whichever we answer, we lose. :banghead:
Doc2005
It isn't my standard. Please read the post. That was the standard set down by our Advanced Tactical Shooting instructor, to which I too have responded in this thread that his position lies somewhere between hard-core and extreme.
That stated, it becomes a legitimate question per his standard of emotional preparedness. So, again, I ask, per my Advanced Tactical Instructor's view of emotional preparedness, are you (all of us collectively) willing to lay down their own life for someone who you do not know?
It is a legitimate question per a recent Detroit experience in which a crowd of not less than 30 people stood and watched a woman be assaulted to the point that she jumped to her death, rather than be assaulted any further. Her case was presented for our consideration.
There is a reason that I present my ATS instructor's position Re: emotional preparedness, and willingness to die, and willingness to live with the consequences, whatever they may be. It will become evident in my next post. Edit to add and clarify...there is no right answer. Whichever we answer, we lose. :banghead:
Doc2005
22-rimfire
Member
I would say I would not be well prepared to engage a criminal with a rifle in a mall unless I was pretty close. Frankly, there is about an even chance that I would not have my carry weapon with me, especially in a gun-free mall.
Doc2005 said:
sacp81170a said:
For me, these comments speak to my biggest concern if I were to inject myself into some melee. The thought of engaging a homicidal maniac does not really bother me emotionally, more on an intellectual level. I understand the tremendous responsibility you accept and the risk to safety, financial health, and freedom. Granted I am sitting in front of a monitor right now and the only risk I currently face is that my leg may fall asleep. Other armed do-gooders greatly concern me, but I figure I could deal with them too. I would have no problem running a situation with an iron fist; showing absolutely no concern for what anyone else wanted, as long as I could control the situation. If other do-gooders were absolutely not controllable, and posed a danger to me, I would be comfortable disappearing. On the other hand, interaction with LE in this sort of situation scares me. Once they show up, I am a criminal and will be treated as such: almost complete loss of control. At that point, I am vulnerable. If I am not shot and/or killed due to my error or theirs, I am disarmed and bound. Yay, sounds like good times.
Come kill me while my hands are bound behind my back Mr. BG #1, or even you too Mr. Layoff Man. 
Survive that, and you still have some explaining to do, and it may be a good long while before you rejoin the free. The prospect of inevitable loss of control and vulnerability would stay my hand more than anything else.bsf:
First, I agree with you. Second, you're going to get a rise out of our instructor's advice Re: interacting with the LEOs following a shoot. He gives this advice because of his 27 years as SWAT director, and because he is an attorney who represents people involved in shoots. A hint, your fear of arrest is not just a fear; it is almost assured. In fact, it is 99%!
So, again, how prepared are you...really (us all collective)?
Doc2005
First, I agree with you. Second, you're going to get a rise out of our instructor's advice Re: interacting with the LEOs following a shoot. He gives this advice because of his 27 years as SWAT director, and because he is an attorney who represents people involved in shoots. A hint, your fear of arrest is not just a fear; it is almost assured. In fact, it is 99%!
So, again, how prepared are you...really (us all collective)?
Doc2005
Sir Aardvark
Member
There would be trepidation on my part if the scenario were as you described:
You would be severely undergunned in this situation.
There was a situation in Texas about a year ago at a courthouse were the badguy had a carbine and a bullet-proof vest. A gentleman with a CCW pistol gave his life trying to stop this guy.
Which brings me to this:
My CCW instructor stated that the Sheriff in Ventura County, CA also includes a Shotgun on your CCW permit. As reported to me, this Sheriff requires you to aid any Deputy in need as a condition of your permit, so he wants to make sure you have enough gun to do it with.
You would be severely undergunned in this situation.
There was a situation in Texas about a year ago at a courthouse were the badguy had a carbine and a bullet-proof vest. A gentleman with a CCW pistol gave his life trying to stop this guy.
Which brings me to this:
My CCW instructor stated that the Sheriff in Ventura County, CA also includes a Shotgun on your CCW permit. As reported to me, this Sheriff requires you to aid any Deputy in need as a condition of your permit, so he wants to make sure you have enough gun to do it with.
gunsmith
member
I do not think that Hawkins guy would be a difficult foe
some reports I've heard mention he was a hunter, but I have serious doubts.
He was a loser idiot who didn't own a rifle and had to steal one.
news reports also say 30 to 50 shots min.
So 8 hits out of 50? my guess is they were all lucky shots it was a crowded mall,an average
trained ccw could have taken him out.
I'm sure most of us here have at least tried distance shots with our carry piece and have an idea about how to make that shot, I'm also sure some of us here carry really accurate handguns and could have won that gun fight hands down.
The good thing about crimson trace is it is pretty visible indoors, I could have gotten a body shot at a considerable distance.
some reports I've heard mention he was a hunter, but I have serious doubts.
He was a loser idiot who didn't own a rifle and had to steal one.
news reports also say 30 to 50 shots min.
So 8 hits out of 50? my guess is they were all lucky shots it was a crowded mall,an average
trained ccw could have taken him out.
I'm sure most of us here have at least tried distance shots with our carry piece and have an idea about how to make that shot, I'm also sure some of us here carry really accurate handguns and could have won that gun fight hands down.
The good thing about crimson trace is it is pretty visible indoors, I could have gotten a body shot at a considerable distance.
Doc2005:
However and also - it depends.
There are probably circumstances where I'd put it all on the line, but - it depends. I'm not real keen on "what if" speculation, although that's a popular posting pastime here.
My survival is something I owe my family. Seeing to it that my wife's husband comes through the door every night is one of my sworn obligations to her.
Your hard core instructor may have another viewpoint on civic duty, but in my opinion he sounds a bit Rambo to me. More power to him if it works for him, it's just not my style.
Well, as for myself, generally speaking - no.
However and also - it depends.
There are probably circumstances where I'd put it all on the line, but - it depends. I'm not real keen on "what if" speculation, although that's a popular posting pastime here.
My survival is something I owe my family. Seeing to it that my wife's husband comes through the door every night is one of my sworn obligations to her.
Your hard core instructor may have another viewpoint on civic duty, but in my opinion he sounds a bit Rambo to me. More power to him if it works for him, it's just not my style.
Travis Lee
Member
Doc, you got me cranked up, here...
I think that police sargeant was WAY off base.
I've trained some, don't practice regularly enough...
But while I acknowledge that getting wounded or killed is a very high possibility, I consider that to be, shall I say, a very SUB-OPTIMAL outcome. If anybody's PLAN for a gun fight is to get shot or killed, I consider him to be a blasted FOOL, and if he has family responsibilities, he is an IRRESPONSIBLE fool. I don't train to get killed in a gunfight, I train to WIN. If someone else wants to be a heroic bullet-sponge, you go for it, I'll be happy to sneak up behind the bad guy and shoot him from behind, when he shoots you in the middle of your "give him a fair chance to surrender" speech.
One of the points I see LEOs say, time and again, is that their most important priority is to go home alive at the end of their shift. I don't begrudge them that. That is my priority too.
Can you explain exactly why some one with a CCW OWES anybody the sacrifice of life, limb, or assets in order to intervene in a deadly force situation? And MORE SO than sworn police officers?!
I'm just not seeing it.
We do not live in a society where you can blast a bad guy, save the virgin, get a parade and keys to the city.
We live in a society where you might well be guessing wrong when you intervene in someone else's drama, the virgin may turn out to be the bad guys wife/whore, she may well testify against you in court, and sue you to boot.
Let me repeat, SUB-OPTIMAL OUTCOME.
It has been impressed on me in more than a couple CCW classes, I have the legal right and responsibility to use deadly force to protect myself, and my kin. Not my own property, not You, your wife, and daughter, or "society"... I may be able to justify shooting to protect someone else, but I'd better have good reason to believe you didn't bring it on yourself. I may have the worst trouble in my life defending my own self defense in criminal and civil court. Your admiration for my heroism doesn't seem worth losing my house to pay for my legal defense.
If I find myself 30 yards from a spree shooter in a mall, (probably a "gun-free-zone" at that) I hope I have the skill to stop him. If the shooter is 300 yards away, and not already an immediate threat to me, and I am close to the exit... sorry, gotta go.
--Travis--
I think that police sargeant was WAY off base.
I've trained some, don't practice regularly enough...
But while I acknowledge that getting wounded or killed is a very high possibility, I consider that to be, shall I say, a very SUB-OPTIMAL outcome. If anybody's PLAN for a gun fight is to get shot or killed, I consider him to be a blasted FOOL, and if he has family responsibilities, he is an IRRESPONSIBLE fool. I don't train to get killed in a gunfight, I train to WIN. If someone else wants to be a heroic bullet-sponge, you go for it, I'll be happy to sneak up behind the bad guy and shoot him from behind, when he shoots you in the middle of your "give him a fair chance to surrender" speech.
One of the points I see LEOs say, time and again, is that their most important priority is to go home alive at the end of their shift. I don't begrudge them that. That is my priority too.
Can you explain exactly why some one with a CCW OWES anybody the sacrifice of life, limb, or assets in order to intervene in a deadly force situation? And MORE SO than sworn police officers?!
I'm just not seeing it.
We do not live in a society where you can blast a bad guy, save the virgin, get a parade and keys to the city.
We live in a society where you might well be guessing wrong when you intervene in someone else's drama, the virgin may turn out to be the bad guys wife/whore, she may well testify against you in court, and sue you to boot.
Let me repeat, SUB-OPTIMAL OUTCOME.
It has been impressed on me in more than a couple CCW classes, I have the legal right and responsibility to use deadly force to protect myself, and my kin. Not my own property, not You, your wife, and daughter, or "society"... I may be able to justify shooting to protect someone else, but I'd better have good reason to believe you didn't bring it on yourself. I may have the worst trouble in my life defending my own self defense in criminal and civil court. Your admiration for my heroism doesn't seem worth losing my house to pay for my legal defense.
If I find myself 30 yards from a spree shooter in a mall, (probably a "gun-free-zone" at that) I hope I have the skill to stop him. If the shooter is 300 yards away, and not already an immediate threat to me, and I am close to the exit... sorry, gotta go.
--Travis--
RedLion
Member
Although I beleive CCW are responsible and consciencious people I do not believe it would have helped the situation to have 20 random armed people other than the victims in the mall attempting to stop the shooter. That would have turned the situation into more of a combat situation. just imagine random people firing from different directions at someone firing back with the possibility of police coming in and joining the fray. It might have turned out worse. The number one killer in combat is friendly fire.
My point is that unless YOU are being attacked I DON'T think it is a good idea for people to take matters in thier own hands. As slow as the police department might be they at least have the ability to somewhat control the situation unlike one lone gunman.
I DO believe that if one of the victims was armed they might have changed the outcome, but as much as I am against gun control( don't even get me started on those gun grabbers!) I don't think anyone with mental or drug disorders should be given guns of any kind.
Its also incidents like this that somehow make people think no guns= safety. Obviously these people don't remember watching the news around 1997. Where two bank robbers walked into a North Hollywood bank with fully automatic (real not the public perception) assault rifles. Police were under powered because Hey the assault rifle ban is on! no one has *dangerous* guns all we need are 9mm. Gun Control puts civilians in danger and lulls the police into a false sense of security. Hillary are you listening?
My point is that unless YOU are being attacked I DON'T think it is a good idea for people to take matters in thier own hands. As slow as the police department might be they at least have the ability to somewhat control the situation unlike one lone gunman.
I DO believe that if one of the victims was armed they might have changed the outcome, but as much as I am against gun control( don't even get me started on those gun grabbers!) I don't think anyone with mental or drug disorders should be given guns of any kind.
Its also incidents like this that somehow make people think no guns= safety. Obviously these people don't remember watching the news around 1997. Where two bank robbers walked into a North Hollywood bank with fully automatic (real not the public perception) assault rifles. Police were under powered because Hey the assault rifle ban is on! no one has *dangerous* guns all we need are 9mm. Gun Control puts civilians in danger and lulls the police into a false sense of security. Hillary are you listening?
Travis:
This is me not disagreeing with everything that you just said.
Each and every instructor has his or her own agenda (it seems to me). The one instructor (I have had like 6 different instructors) would have agreed with you completely. The SWAT director, well…you've seen his views, actually two were that way. Yet others are more middle of the road.
I think it benefits us to get preparation under various instructors, but here is the key...who has to make the decision? You (use collective). Who makes the price physically, emotionally, financially? You (us). At best the instructor can give his or her take. But in the end, we have to make the call of what we can risk, and what we cannot risk.
Remember what the one instructor did for 27 years...directed SWAT. However, he was not a rush-in-blazing guy. As he said, if it seems that no shots will be fired, remain concealed and let them empty all the cash in the joint, including your own. However, if you sense that bullets will fly, now you have a responsibility to open up with all you got, reload and don't stop firing until the threat is eliminated. Why? Simple. Because if bullets start to fly, don’t assume that they will allow you to live. But, if you engage the fight, because there is seldom a one-shot kill, expect to be ducking bullets too. So, you see, there is balance. Remember, we're putting into two minutes typing the sum of 50 hours of Tactical and Advanced Tactical shooting classes that I have attended. We are barely scraping the paint’s surface here.
Here's the part that kicks me in the head. He, former SWAT Director, maintains that if you are ever in a shoot, never, ever, under ANY circumstance be debriefed by the LEOs that same day. Surrender your weapon if they request it (and they will). Advise them that you intend to comply and to assist their investigation completely, but that you are too nerved up to discuss it immediately. Be prepared to be taken into custody, and that is fine...says he. Lawyer up, then when your lawyer is there, then and only then speak.
So, for my part, having had in the range of 10 courses, and practicing as much as I can, there is one very ugly fact that strikes me. What I fear most is not so much the potential of a shoot-out, because I will never be the one who chooses to "start" something. For my part, I foresee only a defensive event, if ever. Try as I may, practice as I may, none of us can ever foresee what or where and thereby be 100% prepared. If we could, would we not choose to just remain at home that day and avoid the whole ordeal.
What bothers me, is the "Nyphongs". The "special interest" anti-groups who even if you lived, and if you engaged in a "good shoot", still call you a murderer. Check into the shooting in Detroit over the summer (I think it was). The attack was 4-on-1. The defender in the case trained where I trained, and in fact, I'll let the cat out-of-the-bag, I consider the man to be a best-friend. He is hiiiiighly train, a non-LEO, but one Hades of a shootist. He is in the firearms industry.
Even though his shoot was caught on video, he was cleared by the LEOs the same night, because he basically unloaded the pistol into one of the perps, people have since called him everything but a gentleman. He can't win. The only way he could have won was to have died! Our society has become seriously ill. I'm being serious. The media plays the blood-lettings over, and over, and over. The antis, the special interest anti, and the families will be all over any of us who ever has a defensive shot...and especially if you are fortunate enough to have some worldly goods.
If you have a CCW, and you don't engage, society and certainly the victim's family will allege you a coward. Fine if you live in the city...what if you come from a small town. "Small town; big Hell". Ever hear that? You can’t win for losing.
Here is my closing thought. I carry for me, first and foremost. I am not an LEO, and I don't play one on TV. I carry for my wife and daughter second. In the end, I have to try to get home at the end of the day. But, if I am in a setting, in which I sense someone will die if I do nothing, and it seems that I can intervene, then I would. I'm also not Rambo. I'm not a chest thumper, or a hero. I'm just me. I don't fear the occasional bank-robber...give them the money. Hell, offer them your own, and your new Corvette. It's only paper and a car. I fear the fool who wants to die…like Omaha.
Omaha brought me squarely, face-to-face with my own mortality. We may walk around with our weapon, but we can't see all points of cover. We can't observe all people. We have to have societal trust. CCWs in Omaha may have helped; they may not. That does need to change to be certain. However, there is a far, far greater change that we need to fight for. We need to force, and I do mean force the media, blood-thirty producers and talking heads to shut-the-Hades-up!! Step broadcasting these lunatics, and giving them their 15 minutes of glory!!! The lunatics are not our primary fear...the media is. The media is their vehicle to our small town. They plant the seeds into other freaks who want to take souls.
CCWs may or may not have altered Omaha, but stopping these broadcasts darned certain will reduce it. Stop it, perhaps not, but take away the platform.
So, I have told you all what my instructors have said. I have to make my own decisions; so do you all. But, reflect on Miami 1986. Would a CCW being present have helped the FBI agents?! I rest my points. A CCW would have died there, firing into massive body armor. The whole Omaha matter brought me face-to-face with my own mortality. I will continue to prepare to defend myself first, my wife & daughter, and as I said, if ever I could likely make a difference, I hope that I would. But, that I hope that I would in no way, shape or form assures that I would. And if I did, what price am I prepared to pay? If I find a Nyphong, I may go to prison...or worse, even if a good shoot.
You see, when we say "preparation", most people think classes and trigger time. No. Preparation includes what we are doing right now...facing our own mortality, and weighing costs and benefits. Making a realistic assessment of what we, as CCW-holders can realistically be expected to do, and to what extent we can help to bring about a positive end. I personally am not and LEO, and I am not going to act like one. But, there are instructors who will tell you that you should.
Prepare. Be very prepared...physically, mentally and financially. Be well, and thanks for your inputs.
Doc2005
This is me not disagreeing with everything that you just said.
Each and every instructor has his or her own agenda (it seems to me). The one instructor (I have had like 6 different instructors) would have agreed with you completely. The SWAT director, well…you've seen his views, actually two were that way. Yet others are more middle of the road.
I think it benefits us to get preparation under various instructors, but here is the key...who has to make the decision? You (use collective). Who makes the price physically, emotionally, financially? You (us). At best the instructor can give his or her take. But in the end, we have to make the call of what we can risk, and what we cannot risk.
Remember what the one instructor did for 27 years...directed SWAT. However, he was not a rush-in-blazing guy. As he said, if it seems that no shots will be fired, remain concealed and let them empty all the cash in the joint, including your own. However, if you sense that bullets will fly, now you have a responsibility to open up with all you got, reload and don't stop firing until the threat is eliminated. Why? Simple. Because if bullets start to fly, don’t assume that they will allow you to live. But, if you engage the fight, because there is seldom a one-shot kill, expect to be ducking bullets too. So, you see, there is balance. Remember, we're putting into two minutes typing the sum of 50 hours of Tactical and Advanced Tactical shooting classes that I have attended. We are barely scraping the paint’s surface here.
Here's the part that kicks me in the head. He, former SWAT Director, maintains that if you are ever in a shoot, never, ever, under ANY circumstance be debriefed by the LEOs that same day. Surrender your weapon if they request it (and they will). Advise them that you intend to comply and to assist their investigation completely, but that you are too nerved up to discuss it immediately. Be prepared to be taken into custody, and that is fine...says he. Lawyer up, then when your lawyer is there, then and only then speak.
So, for my part, having had in the range of 10 courses, and practicing as much as I can, there is one very ugly fact that strikes me. What I fear most is not so much the potential of a shoot-out, because I will never be the one who chooses to "start" something. For my part, I foresee only a defensive event, if ever. Try as I may, practice as I may, none of us can ever foresee what or where and thereby be 100% prepared. If we could, would we not choose to just remain at home that day and avoid the whole ordeal.
What bothers me, is the "Nyphongs". The "special interest" anti-groups who even if you lived, and if you engaged in a "good shoot", still call you a murderer. Check into the shooting in Detroit over the summer (I think it was). The attack was 4-on-1. The defender in the case trained where I trained, and in fact, I'll let the cat out-of-the-bag, I consider the man to be a best-friend. He is hiiiiighly train, a non-LEO, but one Hades of a shootist. He is in the firearms industry.
Even though his shoot was caught on video, he was cleared by the LEOs the same night, because he basically unloaded the pistol into one of the perps, people have since called him everything but a gentleman. He can't win. The only way he could have won was to have died! Our society has become seriously ill. I'm being serious. The media plays the blood-lettings over, and over, and over. The antis, the special interest anti, and the families will be all over any of us who ever has a defensive shot...and especially if you are fortunate enough to have some worldly goods.
If you have a CCW, and you don't engage, society and certainly the victim's family will allege you a coward. Fine if you live in the city...what if you come from a small town. "Small town; big Hell". Ever hear that? You can’t win for losing.
Here is my closing thought. I carry for me, first and foremost. I am not an LEO, and I don't play one on TV. I carry for my wife and daughter second. In the end, I have to try to get home at the end of the day. But, if I am in a setting, in which I sense someone will die if I do nothing, and it seems that I can intervene, then I would. I'm also not Rambo. I'm not a chest thumper, or a hero. I'm just me. I don't fear the occasional bank-robber...give them the money. Hell, offer them your own, and your new Corvette. It's only paper and a car. I fear the fool who wants to die…like Omaha.
Omaha brought me squarely, face-to-face with my own mortality. We may walk around with our weapon, but we can't see all points of cover. We can't observe all people. We have to have societal trust. CCWs in Omaha may have helped; they may not. That does need to change to be certain. However, there is a far, far greater change that we need to fight for. We need to force, and I do mean force the media, blood-thirty producers and talking heads to shut-the-Hades-up!! Step broadcasting these lunatics, and giving them their 15 minutes of glory!!! The lunatics are not our primary fear...the media is. The media is their vehicle to our small town. They plant the seeds into other freaks who want to take souls.
CCWs may or may not have altered Omaha, but stopping these broadcasts darned certain will reduce it. Stop it, perhaps not, but take away the platform.
So, I have told you all what my instructors have said. I have to make my own decisions; so do you all. But, reflect on Miami 1986. Would a CCW being present have helped the FBI agents?! I rest my points. A CCW would have died there, firing into massive body armor. The whole Omaha matter brought me face-to-face with my own mortality. I will continue to prepare to defend myself first, my wife & daughter, and as I said, if ever I could likely make a difference, I hope that I would. But, that I hope that I would in no way, shape or form assures that I would. And if I did, what price am I prepared to pay? If I find a Nyphong, I may go to prison...or worse, even if a good shoot.
You see, when we say "preparation", most people think classes and trigger time. No. Preparation includes what we are doing right now...facing our own mortality, and weighing costs and benefits. Making a realistic assessment of what we, as CCW-holders can realistically be expected to do, and to what extent we can help to bring about a positive end. I personally am not and LEO, and I am not going to act like one. But, there are instructors who will tell you that you should.
Prepare. Be very prepared...physically, mentally and financially. Be well, and thanks for your inputs.
Doc2005
I do not agree with what you are saying. If someone wants to play hero, I say go get em. This likely seems hypocritical, because, by the standards of many here, I probably appear to be a coward or collaborator of evil. In fact, I think it would be awesome if 20 supposed good guys drew down on the BG in one of these hypothetical scenarios. I would feel pretty good about exiting stage left in a circumstance like that, not that I would feel any remorse if there were not a bunch of supposed armed good guys dealing w/ the situation. Your comments sound like propaganda for anti-gun activists.RedLion said:
Travis Lee
Member
Doc,
Good points there, especially on not letting yourself be questioned on the day of a shoot, or without a lawyer, whatever the circumstances. Maybe he was just "over-butching" with those other comments. eh?
As we are all good law abiding citizens who would rather DIE, than violate a legally binding "gun-free-zone" sign, why do we even have these conversations?
I don't give a hoot about being branded a coward for not throwing myself into the fray at a berserker event at my local mall. It's a posted "no guns" zone. While I carry my weapon everywhere legal, I was unarmed that day. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...
Somebody here feel like taking down a berserker with a rifle, using harsh language and a ball-point pen?
I'll send flowers.
If people expect any heroes, don't make us criminals.
Otherwise, people shouldn't be surprised at the shortage of heroes.
The news reports on the Omaha shooting were that polize responde within 6 minutes... but I have read it was actually 30 minutes before they actually went in... after 911 callers had already reported the shooter being visibly dead.
One more reason to shop online.
--Travis--
Good points there, especially on not letting yourself be questioned on the day of a shoot, or without a lawyer, whatever the circumstances. Maybe he was just "over-butching" with those other comments. eh?
As we are all good law abiding citizens who would rather DIE, than violate a legally binding "gun-free-zone" sign, why do we even have these conversations?
I don't give a hoot about being branded a coward for not throwing myself into the fray at a berserker event at my local mall. It's a posted "no guns" zone. While I carry my weapon everywhere legal, I was unarmed that day. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it...
Somebody here feel like taking down a berserker with a rifle, using harsh language and a ball-point pen?
I'll send flowers.
If people expect any heroes, don't make us criminals.
Otherwise, people shouldn't be surprised at the shortage of heroes.
The news reports on the Omaha shooting were that polize responde within 6 minutes... but I have read it was actually 30 minutes before they actually went in... after 911 callers had already reported the shooter being visibly dead.
One more reason to shop online.
--Travis--
RioShooter
Member
I would sure like to see a citation for that statement.
RedLion
Member
I am sorry i did exaggerate that statistic about friendly fire. I was just trying to make a point that not all gun fights are clear cut. It is very easy to mistake friend for foe and vise versa, especially when there is no communicatino between the armed personel.
Sorry for the confusion.
And no i do not desire gun control i am just saying a simple mistake might cause a person with a CCW could change the political atmosphere in this country toward gun control
Sorry for the confusion.
And no i do not desire gun control i am just saying a simple mistake might cause a person with a CCW could change the political atmosphere in this country toward gun control
BridgeWalker
Member
Y'know, the reason I don't have a CPL in hand today is in great part the attitudes quotes in the OP. But, over it. I've realized that:
--I don't want a CPL so that I am able to defend the defendless and fight for truth, justice, and the American Way. That's why I'm getting my JD I'm getting my CPL because a free person should have the ability to not go quietly. Also, it just makes it easier to buy and transport guns.
--I am not doing extensive training, and I am ok with that. Time was I went armed so that I would have the option of dying. Yeah, I thought that one through pretty thoroughly--quiet Orthodox Jewish girl in East Jerusalem, armed with a four inch folder. I was doing some research that was personally important. I accepted the risks, but I didn't accept the risk of rape as a weapon in a religious war. So I went armed the only way I could, and accepted that if it came down to it, I could not best an armed gang with a blade. I learned some knife-fighting skills, but knew they wouldn't help much, other than giving me the option of dying. Fatalistic? Maybe, but in the context of religious war it made sense, at least to me.
With a pistol, my chances are a little better than with a knife, and a little better than with nothing. I don't want to carry a gun (or a knife) out of the conviction that I can or should intervene in a conflict or even necessarily always know that I prevent bad stuff from happening to me. Life just isn't that predictable. I want to carry a gun, and I do carry a knife, because that is what free people do.
I shoot one to three times weekly, but I focus on developing the skills that I enjoy most: trap, skeet, pistol shooting for precision, etc. Those are good skills that only translate to defensive action in very basic ways, like instinctive familiarity with firearms and a well-developed sense of danger and safe handling practices.
--I don't expend extensive time or resources on things I don't feel like bothering with. Just not part of my world-view. I guess I'm the dreaded hippie in this regard. I am unabashedly broke right now because I wanted to go to law school. Didn't bother waiting years to save up enough to do so in complete financial security. My kid sits in a middle-of-the-line carseat. I can't express the heat I've taken from other mothers for not buying a $300 premium carseat! I just don't spend resources trying to cover every eventuality. An extra $200 for extra side-impact protection didn't make sense to me. I had my baby at home. Seemed much more pleasant than the hospital and the very, very few situations where a hospital is beneficial are rare enough that I wasn't worried. I drive a 13 year old car. I'd rather spend money on things other than car payments and collision insurance. So, for me, in the context of my philosophy of life in general, extensive training for that one moment that is relatively unlikely to occur, is not a great idea. If I enjoyed tactical training, that would be different, but mostly I enjoy shotgunning, and I prefer to do my pistol shooting alone. I just like the quiet.
--People have been defending themselves well or badly since the beginning of time. This is good. Build character and enhances one's awareness of reality. The current view held my many of the women I see on a daily basis is that guns are "too negative" (yeah, I hang out wth some granola-crunchers. They're not bad, in some ways), and that the morally superior way to react to violence is to pretend it doesn't exist or can be hugged away. This attitude seriously grates on me and it reminds me of how ineffectual and ultimately effeminate we've become as a culture (speaking mostly of suburban America here). I'm of Jewish descent, so I have historical reasons as well as personal ones for feeling that way. Therefore, the point is being familiar with guns and with carrying a pistol is a reaction against that skill-less, strength-less, weakness in the culture. It is a valuable skill-set that translates well to other things, it fosters a way of thinking that is based in reality and an acceptance of the danger in daily life and the impossibility of making things "safe". It requires strength and speed, and not just of wit!
None of those things require great tactical ability. They require merely awareness and more basic skills (or very refined but somewhat translateable skills).
To me, the benefits of gun ownership and in CCW are in character and skills and enjoyment, not in keeping oneself trained enough to be able to face down any attack.
Now, I'm gonna go back to studying...
--I don't want a CPL so that I am able to defend the defendless and fight for truth, justice, and the American Way. That's why I'm getting my JD
I'm getting my CPL because a free person should have the ability to not go quietly. Also, it just makes it easier to buy and transport guns.--I am not doing extensive training, and I am ok with that. Time was I went armed so that I would have the option of dying. Yeah, I thought that one through pretty thoroughly--quiet Orthodox Jewish girl in East Jerusalem, armed with a four inch folder. I was doing some research that was personally important. I accepted the risks, but I didn't accept the risk of rape as a weapon in a religious war. So I went armed the only way I could, and accepted that if it came down to it, I could not best an armed gang with a blade. I learned some knife-fighting skills, but knew they wouldn't help much, other than giving me the option of dying. Fatalistic? Maybe, but in the context of religious war it made sense, at least to me.
With a pistol, my chances are a little better than with a knife, and a little better than with nothing. I don't want to carry a gun (or a knife) out of the conviction that I can or should intervene in a conflict or even necessarily always know that I prevent bad stuff from happening to me. Life just isn't that predictable. I want to carry a gun, and I do carry a knife, because that is what free people do.
I shoot one to three times weekly, but I focus on developing the skills that I enjoy most: trap, skeet, pistol shooting for precision, etc. Those are good skills that only translate to defensive action in very basic ways, like instinctive familiarity with firearms and a well-developed sense of danger and safe handling practices.
--I don't expend extensive time or resources on things I don't feel like bothering with. Just not part of my world-view. I guess I'm the dreaded hippie in this regard. I am unabashedly broke right now because I wanted to go to law school. Didn't bother waiting years to save up enough to do so in complete financial security. My kid sits in a middle-of-the-line carseat. I can't express the heat I've taken from other mothers for not buying a $300 premium carseat! I just don't spend resources trying to cover every eventuality. An extra $200 for extra side-impact protection didn't make sense to me. I had my baby at home. Seemed much more pleasant than the hospital and the very, very few situations where a hospital is beneficial are rare enough that I wasn't worried. I drive a 13 year old car. I'd rather spend money on things other than car payments and collision insurance. So, for me, in the context of my philosophy of life in general, extensive training for that one moment that is relatively unlikely to occur, is not a great idea. If I enjoyed tactical training, that would be different, but mostly I enjoy shotgunning, and I prefer to do my pistol shooting alone. I just like the quiet.
--People have been defending themselves well or badly since the beginning of time. This is good. Build character and enhances one's awareness of reality. The current view held my many of the women I see on a daily basis is that guns are "too negative" (yeah, I hang out wth some granola-crunchers. They're not bad, in some ways), and that the morally superior way to react to violence is to pretend it doesn't exist or can be hugged away. This attitude seriously grates on me and it reminds me of how ineffectual and ultimately effeminate we've become as a culture (speaking mostly of suburban America here). I'm of Jewish descent, so I have historical reasons as well as personal ones for feeling that way. Therefore, the point is being familiar with guns and with carrying a pistol is a reaction against that skill-less, strength-less, weakness in the culture. It is a valuable skill-set that translates well to other things, it fosters a way of thinking that is based in reality and an acceptance of the danger in daily life and the impossibility of making things "safe". It requires strength and speed, and not just of wit!
None of those things require great tactical ability. They require merely awareness and more basic skills (or very refined but somewhat translateable skills).
To me, the benefits of gun ownership and in CCW are in character and skills and enjoyment, not in keeping oneself trained enough to be able to face down any attack.
Now, I'm gonna go back to studying...
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Doc, how would it benefit you, your wife, and/or your daughter if I died?
I have a Concealed Weapons Permit so that I can carry the means to defend myself and those to whom I owe the duty of protection from imminent peril of death or great bodily harm: my family. It is not a permit to shoot anyone, only to carry the means for effective self defense against superior force. The two are completely different issues.
Anyone else who wants to have the legal ability to carry a weapon for self defense and to defend the lives of his or her family should get a CWP too. But that's a matter for individual choice. People have the right not to defend their lives or their family's. They don't have the right to expect anyone else to sacrifice their life in an attempt to do it for them.
I'm not particularly impressed by the urging of your Advanced Tactical Shooting instructor that everyone with a CWP should be a surrogate law enforcement officer. It seems bad advice to me.
Do me a favor? If I'm standing near an active shooter (in a mall or anywhere else) and you're there too, please don't try to save my life by taking a shot at him with your handgun from 75 yards away or even from 25 yards away. I beg you: don't do it.
Look at the target M2 Carbine posted. If I am ever attacked by the upper half of a two dimensional blue man in a suit jacket who is holding both hands at his sides, I will chew his blue ears off, knock him to the ground, and stomp all over his blueness. But I've never seen any such creature in real life, certainly not one who will stand facing motionless while someone shoots 26 rounds at him with a baby Kimber from 100 yards (300 feet) away.
Real people are three dimensional and they move. Of those 26 rounds fired at the blue man, only three were hits with the potential to stop an active shooter. (I have reservations about their real effectiveness.) 2 rounds missed the blue man entirely and 6 more either went through his jacket or nicked him before continuing on their way: that's 8 shots--almost 1/3 of the rounds fired--that would come to rest somewhere other than in the blue man. I would be most annoyed if I or a member of my family were in their path. The other 15 rounds are not stopping hits--only, possibly, the three that went somewhere near center of mass as it appears on the target. No one except half a two dimensional blue man would stand there to take more hits if any of the other 23 was the first shot. Double Naught Spy spoke well to the point.
If, however, I am 75 yards away from the active shooter but you are real close to him and he's about to shoot you or a member of your family, that's when you might reasonably try to save your life or theirs with a well placed shot you are sure you can make. (You are nevertheless responsible if you hit me or anyone else in the attempt.) Then you have put your CWP and self-defense firearm to proper use and--as an ancillary benefit--prevented the shooter from killing others too. That's one of the arguments I make for having as many CWP holders as possible: when a CWP holder successfully defends his own life the attacker is stopped from harming others.
I don't think it's good to argue that CWP holders will jump in and rescue everyone from a mall or school shooting. One reason why I don't think it's a good argument is that it immediately raises questions about the purpose of a CWP, the training of CWP holders to go beyond defending their own lives, their knowledge of the laws beyond those of self defense, their qualifications, and their daily supervision.
Robert:
It isn't my view. Until the closing post, I have tried to mask my own view. Tried. Here are a few points that I ponder, and that I have tried to express:
1) A CCW being present at Omaha may have changed nothing.
2) "Preparation" means more than trigger-time.
3) Not all instructors present the same training exercises, nor even the same standards (expectations). Witness one instructor's expectation to engage if you can save a life, but to expect you may likely be shot at.**
4) Society will judge us. Society has expectations...for some expect temperance; some expect engagement. **Some instructors expect temperance; some instructors expect engagement.
My point is that there is so much more to consider than trigger-time...a lot more. I question how "prepared" I am to deal with the fall-out. In the end, we all have to make our own decisions, not the instructors, and not society. While we make the decisions, society is who judges us.
I don't expect anyone die for my me or my family...but I have heard instructors expect the engagement that could result in that same. And if they heard someone say that they weren't willing to die for anyone, they would ask, "Then why are you here, and why do you have a CCW?!"
In closing, please don't assume any of these views to be my own, unless I have stated that this is what I believe.
Edit to add: Wow, I didn't have to wait long for an example to back my point Re: society's judging us: Link: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3970564#post3970564 wherein weedwhacker opens the thread with this quote:
Doc2005
It isn't my view. Until the closing post, I have tried to mask my own view. Tried. Here are a few points that I ponder, and that I have tried to express:
1) A CCW being present at Omaha may have changed nothing.
2) "Preparation" means more than trigger-time.
3) Not all instructors present the same training exercises, nor even the same standards (expectations). Witness one instructor's expectation to engage if you can save a life, but to expect you may likely be shot at.**
4) Society will judge us. Society has expectations...for some expect temperance; some expect engagement. **Some instructors expect temperance; some instructors expect engagement.
My point is that there is so much more to consider than trigger-time...a lot more. I question how "prepared" I am to deal with the fall-out. In the end, we all have to make our own decisions, not the instructors, and not society. While we make the decisions, society is who judges us.
I don't expect anyone die for my me or my family...but I have heard instructors expect the engagement that could result in that same. And if they heard someone say that they weren't willing to die for anyone, they would ask, "Then why are you here, and why do you have a CCW?!"
In closing, please don't assume any of these views to be my own, unless I have stated that this is what I believe.
Edit to add: Wow, I didn't have to wait long for an example to back my point Re: society's judging us: Link: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=3970564#post3970564 wherein weedwhacker opens the thread with this quote:
Doc2005
Here is a link to the story of the shoot of which I spoke. It seems the media isn't doing too much to push the incident public:
http://www.topix.com/metro/detroit-...jacker-killed-in-front-of-police-headquarters
Look at the quotes for evidence of a divided public regarding what police deemed a good shoot:
Violence can happen annnnnywhere, even across from the police department, and be caught on video. Even in those unreal circumstances, observe the societal divide.
Dang.
Doc2005
http://www.topix.com/metro/detroit-...jacker-killed-in-front-of-police-headquarters
Look at the quotes for evidence of a divided public regarding what police deemed a good shoot:
Note I removed the "f"-word and replaced it with #@&*.
Violence can happen annnnnywhere, even across from the police department, and be caught on video. Even in those unreal circumstances, observe the societal divide.
Dang.
Doc2005
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
