Seriously intense. Are you prepared? - Page 2

Seriously intense. Are you prepared?

This is a discussion on Seriously intense. Are you prepared? within the Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I sume this up as a need for anyone in the house hold to know how to shoot and be prepared. The pistol Susan had ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39
Like Tree88Likes

Thread: Seriously intense. Are you prepared?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Gabill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,715
    I sume this up as a need for anyone in the house hold to know how to shoot and be prepared. The pistol Susan had only held ten rounds. We donít know how we will react to the same situation. If it had been a perfect situation she would of had a higher caliber weapon, several more mags. The well prepared might have not survived with a 30 round mag.
    Marine Corps 75-79
    NRA
    Florida Carry
    CCW SAFE
    Colt, Sig, S&W, Browning, Remington

  2. #17
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,948
    @OldChap : You are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am saying:
    • If we are going to use anecdotes and arguments to argue against mag limits, why don't we use effective anecdotes and arguments, rather than obtuse ones like in the OP? I am a pro-gun activist. I have had these discussions with anti-gun politicians and activists face to face. If you have an argument they can pick apart, they will. There are good arguments and anecdotes for high capacity, so why do we settle for bad ones?
    • Accuracy beats capacity. Only hits count.
    • Adrenaline levels do diminish accuracy, but that's the situation we're training for. We need to expect it and account for it or all is for naught. It can't be an excuse, only a factor. We had a saying the Navy, "They go where you point 'em." That is just as true for people who are punching paper, facing bad guys, people with experience in gun fights, people without, LEOs, military and civilians. If the sights are on target when the gun goes off, you get a hit. As Cooper said, "Blessed is HE who in the face of death thinks ONLY of the Front Sight!" If the real problem is accuracy, why does that discussion morph into a capacity argument? This is what we accuse the anti-gunners of. Taking an argument or anecdote that is not on point and twisting it into something it is not.

    I am incredulous that anyone disagrees with any of that.
    Mike1956 and Struckat like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  3. #18
    Ex Member Array xXxHeavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,990
    I see you do understand what I posted.......just lookin' for an argument I guess.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,948
    Quote Originally Posted by xXxHeavy View Post
    I see you do understand what I posted.......just lookin' for an argument I guess.
    No, just looking for effective, well thought out arguments.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  6. #20
    Ex Member Array xXxHeavy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,990
    No need to argue, nit-pic or trifle over each others perspective....you have more important things to do......carry on.
    ShooterGranny likes this.

  7. #21
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,239
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post



    Exactly who do you feel "sprays and prays?"
    NYPD


    (actually, it isn't even funny!)
    OldChap likes this.
    Psalm 144:1

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,061
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    @OldChap : You are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am saying:

    If we are going to use anecdotes and arguments to argue against mag limits, why don't we use effective anecdotes and arguments, rather than obtuse ones like in the OP? I am a pro-gun activist. I have had these discussions with anti-gun politicians and activists face to face. If you have an argument they can pick apart, they will. There are good arguments and anecdotes for high capacity, so why do we settle for bad ones?
    I could care less what motivates politicians. I KNOW what motivates the majority of politicians - a large wad of untraceable cash. Or the prospect of not getting re-elected. I don't need to adopt obtuse tactics used to argue what I know to be true with politicians. Why do you think everybody needs to use the weird tactics you need to use with a tiny segment of the world that most of us will never come in contact with? Use what you need. Just don't expect me to use the same tactics. If I were going to argue with politicians, or anti-gun activists, I know the best way, and I won't need to say a word. Come ride in a patrol car with me on Saturday night.

    Accuracy beats capacity. Only hits count.
    And the corollary is that misses don't save lives or stop threats. However many shots it takes, stop the threat.

    Adrenaline levels do diminish accuracy, but that's the situation we're training for. We need to expect it and account for it or all is for naught. It can't be an excuse, only a factor. We had a saying the Navy, "They go where you point 'em." That is just as true for people who are punching paper, facing bad guys, people with experience in gun fights, people without, LEOs, military and civilians. If the sights are on target when the gun goes off, you get a hit. As Cooper said, "Blessed is HE who in the face of death thinks ONLY of the Front Sight!" If the real problem is accuracy, why does that discussion morph into a capacity argument? This is what we accuse the anti-gunners of. Taking an argument or anecdote that is not on point and twisting it into something it is not.

    I am incredulous that anyone disagrees with any of that.
    Who exactly is making excuses? Strawman? Yes. It is a reality that everybody misses now and then - even pilots dropping "smart' weapons. That IS reality. You cannot train and expect to achieve perfection. You may strive for it and come close, but when your life is on the line, most of us have to deal with the reality that you could miss. We do try to hit the exact spot necessary to stop the threat with every shot. Nobody that I'm aware of has ever made the excuse that they need lots and lots of rounds to hit the target because they are such bad shots. Only people who like to talk about spray and pray state that.

    The people I hope to protect deserve the best of me. I used to not miss much. There are lots of competitors, military members included, who could attest to that. But I never was perfect, and now am even less so.

    The reality is you prepare for the possibilities - not because of Las Vegas odds, but because sometimes the worst thing imaginable, the thing you least expected happens. I saw that over and over and over and I heard people say repeatedly, "We never thought this could happen." That isn't something politicians or activists want to hear. I could care less. Nor will their tone deafness stop me from preparing for the worst (missing the threat) and praying for the best. If I need more ammunition than they deem reasonable, it will happen.

    My well thought out argument is that my family will survive. I could care less what politicians think about that.
    Bikenut and ShooterGranny like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #23
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,856
    The intent of mag capacity limits is a red herring. They will do absolutely nothing to actually reduce by more than a very few the number of gun deaths in this country. Nothing.
    maxwell97, Snub44 and OldChap like this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  10. #24
    Senior Member
    Array SmoothJazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    867

    Seriously intense. Are you prepared?

    Chen Fengzhu for Congress!
    She wasnít scared. She just loaded the pistol and fired it at the bad guys while on the phone to 911.
    Now thatís multitasking!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. ~Thomas Jefferson

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array maxwell97's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    9,962
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    The intent of mag capacity limits is a red herring. They will do absolutely nothing to actually reduce by more than a very few the number of gun deaths in this country. Nothing.
    Columbine proved that long ago.

    1. One of the killers had a pistol with several 30+ round magazines, five years into the nationwide ban on manufacture of such. This demonstrates how passing a law does not make objects disappear. And even if it could, it's not that hard to make a box with a spring in it.
    2. The other killer had a carbine for which only ten-round mags were ever available, yet he fired more rounds during the shooting that the one with bigger mags (93 vs 86, I believe). Nobody "rushed him while reloading," as the politicians suggest will happen, despite having at least nine opportunities to do so.

    Only willful blindness keeps the issue alive.
    Mike1956, Bikenut and OldChap like this.
    "Lots of ways to help people. Sometimes heal patients; sometimes shoot dangerous people. Either way helps."
    - Dr. Mordin Solus

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,856
    Personally, I believe arguments for when good guys might need larger mags is a futile one. The fact that eliminating them will do nothing to actually reduce gun deaths is the one to hammer on.

    Firearms suicides will not decrease at all if we adopt a two-round firearms capacity limit nationally.
    Bikenut, OldChap and maxwell97 like this.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,390
    Quote Originally Posted by SmoothJazz View Post
    Chen Fengzhu for Congress!
    She wasnít scared. She just loaded the pistol and fired it at the bad guys while on the phone to 911.
    Now thatís multitasking!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Just like a woman!!! Talking while shooting...texting while driving...making grocery lists while....nebbermind.....
    OldChap and SmoothJazz like this.

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member Array patkelly4370's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,772
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    Columbine proved that long ago.

    1. One of the killers had a pistol with several 30+ round magazines, five years into the nationwide ban on manufacture of such. This demonstrates how passing a law does not make objects disappear. And even if it could, it's not that hard to make a box with a spring in it.
    2. The other killer had a carbine for which only ten-round mags were ever available, yet he fired more rounds during the shooting that the one with bigger mags (93 vs 86, I believe). Nobody "rushed him while reloading," as the politicians suggest will happen, despite having at least nine opportunities to do so.

    Only willful blindness keeps the issue alive.
    The Parkland shooter purposely chose 10-round mags for their concealability

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    maxwell97 likes this.

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array CommonCents's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    1,083
    i say to the left, FIRST, you must PROVE that ALL criminals are disarmed or limited to low capacity mags. THEN you can talk about infringing on 2A. This is the standard we should use against the left. Put the burden of proof on THEM. Shift the narrative using Alinsky tactics.

    They should have their collective noses rubbed in every single story where a law abider saved their own life or others.

    how many violent criminals have legal guns and a permit? it's got to be miniscule. That fact should be repeated ad nauseam.
    Bikenut likes this.

  16. #30
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,856
    Quote Originally Posted by xXxHeavy View Post
    No argument here in NJ......our delusional Govenor Murphy says....anything more than 10 rounds makes us dangerous to society.

    "Don't Come Here...there's nothin' here for ya" !!!
    You're right, there is nothing there for me. I can't carry a single-shot derringer legally in New Jersey...
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •