wickedsprint
Member
I find it entertaining the types that only plan for the weapon aspect of the SHTF scenario. How many have ample food,water and adequate shelter as part of their plan?
Last edited:
Who said?
- Thread starter Gary O
- Start date
- Status
SAM1911.. there you go using common sense AGAIN.. 
Well said. as usual.
This kind of came up earlier this week when I was at LGS, I picked up a Galco CCP holster, and they didn't have a "matching" magazine holster. I'm still on the fence on carrying reloads. It comes down to.. If I can't flee or hide until the police show up with 6 plus one I'm probably way deeper in trouble than I should have been.
Speaking of non reality based scenarios, watching NCIS on Wed. Denoso (sic) had another agent in a safe house. He sat in the easy chair, pulled out his pistol. Ummm big bad guy coming for you. WHERE IS YOUR M4?
Well said. as usual.
This kind of came up earlier this week when I was at LGS, I picked up a Galco CCP holster, and they didn't have a "matching" magazine holster. I'm still on the fence on carrying reloads. It comes down to.. If I can't flee or hide until the police show up with 6 plus one I'm probably way deeper in trouble than I should have been.
Speaking of non reality based scenarios, watching NCIS on Wed. Denoso (sic) had another agent in a safe house. He sat in the easy chair, pulled out his pistol. Ummm big bad guy coming for you. WHERE IS YOUR M4?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'll go on record as not in any way disparaging the idea of using a rifle, carbine, shotgun, etc. for home defense -- or, I guess, maybe as a "car/truck" gun (though the scenarios are pretty far-fetched). They can be really useful, capable tools.
My objection is to the phrasing of this old saw, which really hinges on the idea that your rifle is your "primary" weapon, and couples the idea that you "really shouldn't have set it down." Those things are true for infantry. They are NOT true for a citizen going about his life in a country at peace.
The nearest equivalent analogy that comes to mind is, "Your car is for driving back to your Mack dump truck, which you shouldn't have parked...." Sure, there are times you need a dump truck. But unless your JOB is delivery of bulk materials, a dump truck isn't your primary conveyance, it is unreasonable to believe you'd have one at any given moment, and there is no element of guilt or mistake in not accepting the detriments that forcing one into your day-to-day lifestyle would require. Your car (like your sidearm) is the capable and appropriate tool for the task at hand.
It is though we -- the armed citizen -- are judging ourselves based on the truisms of soldiers at war, like a taxi driver trying to live by the credos and requirements of construction aggregate haulers. It doesn't fit.
My objection is to the phrasing of this old saw, which really hinges on the idea that your rifle is your "primary" weapon, and couples the idea that you "really shouldn't have set it down." Those things are true for infantry. They are NOT true for a citizen going about his life in a country at peace.
The nearest equivalent analogy that comes to mind is, "Your car is for driving back to your Mack dump truck, which you shouldn't have parked...." Sure, there are times you need a dump truck. But unless your JOB is delivery of bulk materials, a dump truck isn't your primary conveyance, it is unreasonable to believe you'd have one at any given moment, and there is no element of guilt or mistake in not accepting the detriments that forcing one into your day-to-day lifestyle would require. Your car (like your sidearm) is the capable and appropriate tool for the task at hand.
It is though we -- the armed citizen -- are judging ourselves based on the truisms of soldiers at war, like a taxi driver trying to live by the credos and requirements of construction aggregate haulers. It doesn't fit.
Last edited:
to pretend to be on thread.. that saying is likely never to be pinned down to any one person or group other than sergeants of infantrymen.
I did not read your post to mean you were disparaging rifles / shotguns for their real roles. AND their usefulness IF you happen to have one. But JUST cause I can, I am goin got pick on your for..
I did not read your post to mean you were disparaging rifles / shotguns for their real roles. AND their usefulness IF you happen to have one. But JUST cause I can, I am goin got pick on your for..
Have you seen a parking lot lately????? How many full sized trucks are there out there, when you KNOW it's just their daily driver. MOST of those trucks never seen any kind of full sized load of anything. If people (MEN) carried personal defense tools, like they pick out cars, we'd see countless rifles slung across men's back as they cruise thru the Lowes.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So...how many Mack dump trucks?
Toyota Corrola = Kel Tec. Ford F150 = Beretta 92. Mack TD714 = rifle.
Your point that we aren't very smart about our vehicles may certainly be sound, but I don't think it detracts too much from my analogy.
Toyota Corrola = Kel Tec. Ford F150 = Beretta 92. Mack TD714 = rifle.
Your point that we aren't very smart about our vehicles may certainly be sound, but I don't think it detracts too much from my analogy.
wickedsprint
Member
I think the F350 is a better comparison since not to many people own a Mack truck as a hobby...the Mack is more akin to a crew served weapon.
There are however plenty of people convinced all they need is a 1 ton truck for all facets of their auto requirements, not unlike the rifle argument.
There are however plenty of people convinced all they need is a 1 ton truck for all facets of their auto requirements, not unlike the rifle argument.
DammitBoy
Member
What, you don't shower with your scuba knife strapped to your calf?
Seriously though, my carry is a Para P14 in .45 - although, I do have my Bennelli M1 Super 90 behind the back seat of my (work) truck.
Oh yeah, and my M6 scout in the bugout bag in the truck.
---
@wickedsprint - I have a months supply of food and water in my primary shelter. It came in real handy during Katrina. As did my firearms...
allaroundhunter
Member
The only common application in a civilian world that I see for this phrase would be for a landowner on the US-Mexico border. Keep a rifle either on your person or in your vehicle at all times. The chances are higher that you will need it than any other citizen in the country.
If you run into a drug runner and only have a handgun, you WILL use it to fight your way back to your rifle. But that is not the common self-defense situation that most train for.
If you run into a drug runner and only have a handgun, you WILL use it to fight your way back to your rifle. But that is not the common self-defense situation that most train for.
Last edited:
I'm going to stick my neck out and say quite possibly Charles Askins around 1939. He and other Border Patrolmen in El Paso were in fights several times a week, and they made a point of carrying either a rifle or shotgun in addition to whatever handgun they chose. Askins, who was a world-class revolver marksman, considered that only a fool would go into any fight that was foreseen without a long-gun. In private he often explained this in very blunt terms. 
DammitBoy
Member
What about the korean shop owners who protected their property during the LA/Rodney King riots? They used rifles and shotguns for self-defense and it had nothing to do with any border...
There are probably several scenarios you haven't forseen that have as much likelyhood of taking place as your border war scenario.
There are probably several scenarios you haven't forseen that have as much likelyhood of taking place as your border war scenario.
allaroundhunter
Member
Which have since ended and have not re-erupted.
I would love to know what happens as often as armed drug runners illegally crossing the border. Considering this happens every day and every night, I really don't know of anything else that poses a danger that would warrant a civilian actually having to fight his (or her) way to a rifle for self defense. At least not happening every day.
It is 3 miles from El Paso, TX to Cuidad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico; which has had one of the highest murder rates in the world for the past several years. The murders are caused by drug wars, and yes, they do spill across the border more often than LA/Rodney King riots occur.
There are other things that would warrant a civilian fighting back to a rifle with a handgun, but I would not expect any of them to have a higher likelihood of happening than a fight on borderlands. Another example would be a natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina when it made landfall in New Orleans, but again, that is not as commonplace as what I have previously mentioned.
Last edited:
DammitBoy
Member
So, you think there will never be riots anywhere in the U.S. ever again? Seems to be an unrealistic opinion.
I didn't expect to have to deal with hordes of refugees from New Orleans after a hurricane either...
Good thing I was prepared anyway, huh?
I didn't expect to have to deal with hordes of refugees from New Orleans after a hurricane either...
Good thing I was prepared anyway, huh?
allaroundhunter
Member
Not what I said. But I ask again, what has as high of a likelihood as a landowner having to defend himself from drug runners that cross his land on a near daily basis?
You confused me by answering the OPI'm going to stick my neck out and say quite possibly Charles Askins around 1939. He and other Border Patrolmen in El Paso were in fights several times a week, and they made a point of carrying either a rifle or shotgun in addition to whatever handgun they chose. Askins, who was a world-class revolver marksman, considered that only a fool would go into any fight that was foreseen without a long-gun. In private he often explained this in very blunt terms.
Coyote3855
Member
I don't know who said it first. You are taking it literally; try figuratively. It's in the same category as "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight," or "Better tried by 12 than carried by 6."
chieftain
Member
Please accept the FACT that many of us who have been in combat feel a need, because of our experiences that we should have a rifle available to us, for our own reasons if not others.
I don't believe my Colt LtWgt Commander in 45acp of course, and one additional magazine on my belt, will be the weapon I want in every case. To that end I have a Marlin 336 with an additional 40 rounds of 30-30 in my vehicle.
I guess that makes me a commando to some folks here. (I actually was attached to the 42 Commando, Royal Marines in Malta, back about 40 years ago, after I got off the Drill Field. So I use the term Commando with some reverence. "Good Lads".)
If the experience you have, tells you that you will not need or want a rifle/shotgun, don't use one or get one. Folks not owning a rifle will most likely not effect me anymore than my having a rifle will effect them.
I understand the difference between probability and possibility, perfectly. I just find it interesting that many of those that do keep a rifle/shotgun available, have actually been in combat. Does that mean something? I think so, but then I am prejudiced. No doubt those of you that feel it is important to tell us we will not need our rifles, know what you know too.
Of course I could probably live my life without firearms at all. I choose not to, because my personal history studies and experience tell me that ain't a good idea.
Go figure.
Fred
I don't believe my Colt LtWgt Commander in 45acp of course, and one additional magazine on my belt, will be the weapon I want in every case. To that end I have a Marlin 336 with an additional 40 rounds of 30-30 in my vehicle.
I guess that makes me a commando to some folks here. (I actually was attached to the 42 Commando, Royal Marines in Malta, back about 40 years ago, after I got off the Drill Field. So I use the term Commando with some reverence. "Good Lads".)
If the experience you have, tells you that you will not need or want a rifle/shotgun, don't use one or get one. Folks not owning a rifle will most likely not effect me anymore than my having a rifle will effect them.
I understand the difference between probability and possibility, perfectly. I just find it interesting that many of those that do keep a rifle/shotgun available, have actually been in combat. Does that mean something? I think so, but then I am prejudiced. No doubt those of you that feel it is important to tell us we will not need our rifles, know what you know too.
Of course I could probably live my life without firearms at all. I choose not to, because my personal history studies and experience tell me that ain't a good idea.
Go figure.
Fred
Carl Levitian
member
"This is one of those things that illustrates so well the difference between the needs and tasks of military personnel and the armed citizen self-defender.
If you're a soldier or Marine engaged in fighting an armed conflict, you are guided by rules of engagement that allow, in fact require, you to participate in extended, long(er)-range hostilities. You're going to NEED a rifle to accomplish you job/duty (unless you're tasked with using even more powerful stuff ... like radios). If you're caught in a position where all you have on you is your handgun (and you even HAD a handgun) then you're fighting your way back to a rifle so you can continue to carry the fight to the enemy until that force is vanquished.
None of that has any direct analogy to civilian self-defense. There are hints of it here and there -- mostly in the "civil unrest" fantasies of some of the more ...enthusiastic... gun guys, where they're caught out in the yard by the lead element of the approaching mob and have to fight back into the house to grab a rifle and take up defensive positions at the bedroom window and pick off the main body of the attacking gang-banger posse ... or whatever.
But citizen self-defense is almost universally defined as fast, VERY short-range engagements between some good citizen just out "minding their own business" and one, two, or maybe a handful of attackers. Attackers who are out for quick monetary gain, usually, or at worst are looking for a soft victim for some process-predator assault. In these cases, the idea of a sustained fight in which you're offering a running active defense as you maneuver back to a strong-point and access more powerful weapons with which to drive off the assailants, just has no relevance.
We had a really interesting thread about this a year or two ago. One poster held firmly that he kept a rifle (SKS, I think) in his car, with the intent that, if he was attacked while out at the store or mall, he would use his handgun to fight his way back to the rifle stashed in his car.
My counter point was, "and then what?" Because if you have fought your way clear (or simply evaded) an active shooter situation, and you've made you way out into the parking lot to your car where you can get to your rifle. ... LEAVE! You've already successfully dealt with the self-defense issue.
We went 'round about it a few cycles with various "what ifs" thrown in. (What if my family is still in the mall and I've got to go back and find them? What if the shooter pursues me out into the parking lot? Etc.) But they all approached vanishingly small probability, and/or presented other more suitable solutions.
Self-defense encounters generally follow something pretty close to the "3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds" rule -- and your duty is to survive, escape, and evade. If you can't do that with your handgun, that rifle you're "fighting your way back to" doesn't even enter the picture.
So the idea of "...fight your way back..." is pretty much just a gung-ho soundbite that doesn't mean anything in a non-military context."
__________________
-- Sam
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope
Thank you Sam for a logical and well worded approach to an often illical and crazy subject.
The truth is, a heck of a lot of the hung ho gun BS floating around has little to do with real life. Sure, a AR is a better gun than say a Ruger LCP. But, the AR is not going to fit the side pocket of your Dockers. If we follow that kind of advise, then a Brinks armored car is a better vehicle to drive around in just in case you get in an accident. It's all a game of odds. The biggest one is, your very likely to go through your whole life and not need gun. Millions of people do it every day. It's good to be careful, and carry a nice compact weapon, but going to the length of carrying a rifle around in your car so as to fight your away back to it is getting over the line into paranoid area. Or juvenile Walter Mitty fantasies. Professional help may be needed.
If you're a soldier or Marine engaged in fighting an armed conflict, you are guided by rules of engagement that allow, in fact require, you to participate in extended, long(er)-range hostilities. You're going to NEED a rifle to accomplish you job/duty (unless you're tasked with using even more powerful stuff ... like radios). If you're caught in a position where all you have on you is your handgun (and you even HAD a handgun) then you're fighting your way back to a rifle so you can continue to carry the fight to the enemy until that force is vanquished.
None of that has any direct analogy to civilian self-defense. There are hints of it here and there -- mostly in the "civil unrest" fantasies of some of the more ...enthusiastic... gun guys, where they're caught out in the yard by the lead element of the approaching mob and have to fight back into the house to grab a rifle and take up defensive positions at the bedroom window and pick off the main body of the attacking gang-banger posse ... or whatever.
But citizen self-defense is almost universally defined as fast, VERY short-range engagements between some good citizen just out "minding their own business" and one, two, or maybe a handful of attackers. Attackers who are out for quick monetary gain, usually, or at worst are looking for a soft victim for some process-predator assault. In these cases, the idea of a sustained fight in which you're offering a running active defense as you maneuver back to a strong-point and access more powerful weapons with which to drive off the assailants, just has no relevance.
We had a really interesting thread about this a year or two ago. One poster held firmly that he kept a rifle (SKS, I think) in his car, with the intent that, if he was attacked while out at the store or mall, he would use his handgun to fight his way back to the rifle stashed in his car.
My counter point was, "and then what?" Because if you have fought your way clear (or simply evaded) an active shooter situation, and you've made you way out into the parking lot to your car where you can get to your rifle. ... LEAVE! You've already successfully dealt with the self-defense issue.
We went 'round about it a few cycles with various "what ifs" thrown in. (What if my family is still in the mall and I've got to go back and find them? What if the shooter pursues me out into the parking lot? Etc.) But they all approached vanishingly small probability, and/or presented other more suitable solutions.
Self-defense encounters generally follow something pretty close to the "3 shots, 3 yards, 3 seconds" rule -- and your duty is to survive, escape, and evade. If you can't do that with your handgun, that rifle you're "fighting your way back to" doesn't even enter the picture.
So the idea of "...fight your way back..." is pretty much just a gung-ho soundbite that doesn't mean anything in a non-military context."
__________________
-- Sam
"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope
Thank you Sam for a logical and well worded approach to an often illical and crazy subject.
The truth is, a heck of a lot of the hung ho gun BS floating around has little to do with real life. Sure, a AR is a better gun than say a Ruger LCP. But, the AR is not going to fit the side pocket of your Dockers. If we follow that kind of advise, then a Brinks armored car is a better vehicle to drive around in just in case you get in an accident. It's all a game of odds. The biggest one is, your very likely to go through your whole life and not need gun. Millions of people do it every day. It's good to be careful, and carry a nice compact weapon, but going to the length of carrying a rifle around in your car so as to fight your away back to it is getting over the line into paranoid area. Or juvenile Walter Mitty fantasies. Professional help may be needed.
beatledog7
Member
I doubt if the OP asked his question so we could discuss the pros and cons of using a rifle for civilian SD or having one as superior firepower for those all-too-common mall parking lot melees.
Threads such as this one wander into bizarre "what if" self-defense scenarios because too many gun owners spend their time dreaming up justifications to shoot another person. They come up with the same scenarios that anti-gunners argue will be caused by gun ownership.
If you believe your carry handgun's primary purpose is to allow you reach the rifle in your vehicle and continue shooting, please turn in all your guns to the local police. Then go see an armed forces recruiter.
Flame shields up!
Threads such as this one wander into bizarre "what if" self-defense scenarios because too many gun owners spend their time dreaming up justifications to shoot another person. They come up with the same scenarios that anti-gunners argue will be caused by gun ownership.
If you believe your carry handgun's primary purpose is to allow you reach the rifle in your vehicle and continue shooting, please turn in all your guns to the local police. Then go see an armed forces recruiter.
Flame shields up!
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Some have. Some haven't. I don't know that I've seen any even indirect assessment of the matter. Do all/some/most guys who've seen combat feel a need to have a rifle nearby in civilian life? I don't know. Do all/some/most of the guys who DO feel that need act on that need? Again, I don't know -- but it sure doesn't seem like it.
There's a HECK of a lot of combat veterans in the US. There do not seem to be anything like that number of people going armed with rifles. Even here, where you'd expect a higher percentage than any slice of "normal" society, few claim to do so.
These guys who have seen combat and feel a need to have a rifle close at hand (though their actual civilian life emergency usage of such is statistically minuscule) may also be expected to feel a need to keep other life-saving objects on hand. Objects that were super-important never to be without in combat. Do they keep blood type identifiers on hand? CELOX? Battle dressings? Several spare pairs of eye glasses? Those could be useful for more likely life-threatening emergencies than any gun -- certainly much more so than a rifle. Or is the rifle mostly valuable as a symbol/talisman?
It certainly may mean something. It may mean several things.
Readyrod
Member
People talk about the chance of this or that happening (fight your way to your rifle, ha ha ha) and laugh at those who, they think, overprepare. I read that Katrinablog guy's blog a few years ago and did his preps. I got a lot of flack for that. Then the Tohoku earthquake hit. Sure was glad to have the bug out bags when I was sitting out in the parking lot doing the aftershock dance. A few days later I bugged out to escape the fallout. Seems that the chances of running from nuclear meltdown aren't that far fetched after all. Got a lot of flack for running but later found out that one of the radioactive plumes missed us by about 10km. We were out of town when it hit.
The whole experience totally changed my point of view of what can happen. I now carry an emergency tool with me everywhere I go. I have a compass, a whistle, and a flashlight on my keychain. I don't have a bob, I have a bob system. People can kid me all they want but low probability high risk things do happen. So having a rifle to run to may not be such a far fetched thing.
The whole experience totally changed my point of view of what can happen. I now carry an emergency tool with me everywhere I go. I have a compass, a whistle, and a flashlight on my keychain. I don't have a bob, I have a bob system. People can kid me all they want but low probability high risk things do happen. So having a rifle to run to may not be such a far fetched thing.
DammitBoy
Member
Yes, I have spare glasses in my bugout bag in the truck. I also have food/water, a first aid kit, jumper cables, sunglasses, bug spray, sunscreen, a compressor for inflating a tire, flares, tools, a fire extinguisher, several flashlights, spare ammo, maps, extra socks, and a change of clothing.
Those items do not mean I'm hoping for a fire, a flat tire, a medical emergency, or a vehicle breakdown anymore than my firearms mean I'm "hoping for a scenario where I can shoot somebody".
It simply means I've prepared more than most do for whatever life throws at me. In my experience you never know what the next thing is until after it happens. Like riots, hurricanes, earthquakes, or carjacking's.
Those items do not mean I'm hoping for a fire, a flat tire, a medical emergency, or a vehicle breakdown anymore than my firearms mean I'm "hoping for a scenario where I can shoot somebody".
It simply means I've prepared more than most do for whatever life throws at me. In my experience you never know what the next thing is until after it happens. Like riots, hurricanes, earthquakes, or carjacking's.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked