Signature Observation

[Ram Rod]

So, small emoticon graphics are allowed in signatures still?

[dukalmighty]

Here in Texas All that matters is if you were justified to use deady force,remember Joe Horns own words I'm gonna kill em I'm not gonna let em get away

[QKShooter]

No...the name will probably get changed to Come&TakeIt.org

Originally Posted by mr.stuart

So, if guns become illegal, will this be DefenseLessCarry.com I have no idea if I am offended.

[Bark'n]

I put a lot of hard work and thought in developing my signature line even though part of it came from somewhere else, and hopefully it is thought provoking...

However what we do is in fact talk about killing people here. It is a deadly and serious business to discuss using lethal force against someone trying to kill you.

It is a down and dirty, ugly act that comes from desperate people who may or may not have just soiled themselves who are more afraid of dying right now than at any other moment of their lives.

It's "in your face" and often happens in the blink of an eye.

There is Nothing... Nothing politically correct about using lethal force against another human.

I have a mind set. It's kill or be killed! It's ingrained in me! Taught to me years ago by my great uncle and cultivated by serving my country in the Marine Corps. It's what keeps me alive and on my toes and there's nothing pretty about it.

If I am attacked or threatened, I counter attack and attack quickly. It is not defensive... it's definitely offensive and aggressive. I don't think in defensive terms. When you think defense, to defend, or try to block an attack, you brain is subconsciously telling you that you are weak; and that places you behind the curve. The bad guy will be the first to make his move, (by law, he has to) but I will have the first strike. Be it unarmed or armed with a weapon. I will attack with overwhelming rage and violence in order to keep him from killing me. I am under no delusion that I am going to be the one who survives either. But I am going to make sure I stand a better chance than he does.

And as law abiding citizens, we are already WAY behind the curve by having to wait and verify that the threat we face is immediate and life threatening and unavoidable... That's already a lot for a brain to process... then to have to think I have to try and block this punch, counter this swing, defend myself, etc is a losing proposition.

Having an offensive mindset is often misunderstood. That is not my problem. I can articulate it well enough to a cop, prosecutor or jury as needed, if needed. An offensive mindset is not to be construed as the same mindset a predator uses or in a negative manner.

I think we can talk about adult topics and still have room for a little humor or off color quips and some political incorrectness in order to relieve some of the mental stress that accumulates from discussing such an unnatural and unpleasant act as possibly killing someone in order to stay alive. Essentially, it's a form of gallows humor.

I do my best not to be rude, vulgar, indecent or use foul or obscene language, but I don't feel I should have to check my beliefs, theories or attitudes when stating my opinion or experience to someone who may choose to stake their life on information I put forth in a post. Obviously they do so at their own risk, but I am not going to sugar coat reality.

I agree certain phrases or uses of the word kill may be inappropriate when used in certain statements. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it should be used gratuitously.

But by the same token, if the word kill or a phrase like "to kill someone" gives you the willies, then may I suggest you get rid of your gun and choose some other way or method to stop your attacker, because I'm thinking maybe you haven't quite thought things through. I'm not going to mentally weaken my survival mindset in order to be politically correct.

I certainly hope I didn't offend anyone!

Rant Off... Carry On!

[Bumper]

Originally Posted by Tally XD

So, small emoticon graphics are allowed insignatures still?

Yup

[ccw9mm]

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 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!

[Yoda]

+2 Bark'n on the great post.

[biasedbulldog]

Clarification:

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.

[SatCong]

Originally Posted by biasedbulldog

Clarification:

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.

Then my 45 & hollow points would do me in too, being a 45 is bigger then a 10mm, with that jury.

[chuck brick]

Originally Posted by SatCong

Then my 45 & hollow points would do me in too, being a 45 is bigger then a 10mm, with that jury.

As would my .45 +P SXT or my 9mm +P SXT loads. I carry the most "punch" I can; the harder I can stop them, the less likely I'll have to shoot them multiple times, the higher their chances of survival. The point is to stop them. Fast. Without me getting hurt. If they die, that's a regrettable result of their poor judgement, but I stopped them the best way I could, because I had to.
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.

Stay safe,

Chuck Brick