+2 Bark'n on the great post.
This is a discussion on Signature Observation within the Old Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments forums, part of the DefensiveCarry.com Forum Office category; Bark'n: Great post! That's just about how I feel about things. While I will try to present my thoughts in a reasonable way, sugar coating ...
That's just about how I feel about things. While I will try to present my thoughts in a reasonable way, sugar coating reality doesn't do anyone any good.
We speak of death, and of avoiding death. The threats faced are real, and it's ugly business. While I have not been in a gunfight, I have been physically attacked before, years ago. Each time, a quick, devastating and "offensive" reaction to the attack immediately turned the tables. I survived each situation. One instance was three-on-one, two were just one attacker. The key was as you mention: mindset, and the power/speed of response.
As a result, many of my posts, here, reflect those situations. I don't have one tithe the experience that many have, here. Yet, I've been through the cauldron and sieve a few times, thankfully surviving each time. I won't speak of those instances, because they were brutal, ugly and bloody. I was attacked. Had I not responded in the manner I did, I would not have survived any of the situations. Yet, I survived. That's enough for me.
To be PC or not PC. That is the question. Not!
+2 Bark'n on the great post.
Yoda, I am, yes.
I strongly agree with bark'n's post in general, especially that if "kill" makes you personally uncomfortable you should probably not carry a weapon designed to do just that.
All the same, I personally recommend keeping one's sig line relatively innocuous, not because it is politically incorrect or "makes me uncomfortable" or because I don't like to think in such stark terms. Instead, consider that the twelve individuals on your jury will almost certainly be sheep (the DA will make sure to weed out all the sheepdogs). What you put on the internet is public domain, and it will be used to paint you as some violent individual who'd been waiting years so he could blow away somebody and get away with it. And don't think that all the reasonable thinking in the world will be your defense (except perhaps in Texas).
Harold Fish seriously was convicted because he used a 10mm w/ hollow points. Look at the jury interviews; one girl said that she believed that Grant Kuenzli was a violent and aggressive person, and that Harold Fish was an upstanding family man. She said that the one thing that the jurors couldn't get past was that he used a big gun with hollow points, and that, to her, suggested that he wanted to kill someone. We live in a society of idiots. Be prepared to defend yourselves as well as possible; in the moment when you are threatened, there can be no hesitation. But until that moment, do what you can to mitigate the potential repercussions of that necessary act.
So, in summation, I agree with bark'n's sentiments, but one need not have some sort of extra-macho blow-his-brains-out sig line to do so. And for the record, I think bark'n's own sig line is excellent and entirely above reproach.
"War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams
If I recall, even the 9mm HighPoint carbine used at Columbine was referred to in the news as "high Powered Assault Rifle," or some such gibberish. Sounds like Mr Fish needed a lawyer more accustomed to the "gun culture." E.G., what kinds of animals (other than un-controlled dogs) are in the area he was hiking? If bears or mountains lions (Oh My!), for example, the 10mm is certainly reasonable; some would say marginal.
Of course, like most of you reading this, I believe the biggest firearm he can control and carry is the only reasonable choice.
Why do I use 230 gr. for my .45acp?
Because I can't find a source of 250 gr!
Well, my aim isn't to offend, it's merely the cold hard truth that was the feeling I had since childhood and until just a few years ago I finally found it put better than I ever could have.
Now to any future juries overseeing my trial shall there ever be one. Read it, and read it well. They are "Individual citizens" also.
"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand
Personally, I was thinking of changing my signature to, "Tight groupings mean you never have to say you're sorry."
Seems more appropriate than a burning dog alert...
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Eccl. 10:2
I like that. Tight groupings is what I call gun control."Tight groupings mean you never have to say you're sorry."
My Signature has been attacked for years, and it's future seems to be getting dark!
GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.