Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: A handgun isn't enough

  1. #21
    mr.anonymous's Avatar
    Senior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    411
    Liked
    2197
    Reputation
    2331816
    Name:  ugly.jpg
Views: 36
Size:  39.4 KB


    No.......


    You need feminism to be validated as a victim. Otherwise nobody would pay attention to you.
    Last edited by mr.anonymous; 07-02-14 at 12:00 AM.

  2. #22
    Deepthinkindude's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    194
    Liked
    991
    Reputation
    727503
    I'm not sure I understand this post. There are many points I agree with and the reference to Grossman's work is invaluable. I know it changed my mindset. In fact, I thought about doing a post about his work but worried that the reference to violence would be too unrelated to the forum and perhaps overly focused on violence. Some cold hard truths about human nature are revealed in "On Killing".

    What I don't understand is just declaring with certainty that a handgun wouldn't have helped. How the hell can anyone know such a thing!? There are so many variables that no one here knows! How far away was the attacker, was he threatening her and if so, how and with what? Did she have training? What objects/weapons could she have used? What did she have on her?

    Claiming to KNOW FOR SURE that some technique of self defense would, or would not have worked is pure guess, nothing more.

    Full disclosure here, I am far from an expert. My experience is a lifetime of martial arts training, including placing second in state in one of many tournaments (that's the highest medal I can remember). Roughly 10 years of training with firearms, including professional training. I regularly practice what I was taught to keep my skills sharp. I've trained with knives/guns and am fully aware of the "21 foot rule". Squirt guns and knives marked with ink or lipstick work great for practice.

    Claiming some object would or would not have helped is like claiming a right cross must always be thrown before a left straight. Where the hell do such declarations of absolute certainty come from?!

    My apologies if this sounds hostile. I suspect that the points made here didn't need to be made on me. I'm guessing that the wisdom imparted in this thread is wisdom I learned through the school of hard knocks years ago and have assimilated into my world view. Of course a gun is no more protection than a good front kick or the proper fighting mindset or a large group of people or whatever works in a given situation! So much depends on circumstance that we, sitting in front of our keyboard are entirely unqualified to make declarations of certainty about an emergency situation which we get second or third hand from MSM which has been fluffed up by some twats hateful opinion of men!

    Even within the 21 feet, facing a knife, with a gun, the gun wielder often wins, sometimes, without getting cut once! It happens guys! I've been on both ends of this in training. It's a messy, nasty business. Making some statement of absolute certainty like "a gun wouldn't have helped" is as silly as saying a gun would save anyone at any time in any situation no matter what!

    The issue of self defense is a big one. Each person's body is different. Different tools may be available (or not) and may be useful (or not) in any number of situations. Much of this thread reeks of armchair commando.

    Train realistically, with people better than yourself or you will not improve.

    To refute another point about being within the 21 foot bubble and drawing a gun. I believe it was James Yeager who showed me that a simple side step, combined with a decent draw allows one to get the drop on a person who is ALREADY HOLDING A GUN TO YOU! It may not always work, but I have tried this specific technique in training at it works MOST OF THE TIME!

    Nothing says I will have the balls to do this in a life threatening situation, however, I HAVE trained my muscles to respond appropriately so I have a better chance than I would have lacking this training. The point is it works. The professionals say it works, it's taught to people, I've trained with it and proven it's effectiveness to myself, my sparring partners have learned it and proven it to themselves. IT CAN WORK, I've seen it and so have many others!

    The point is, don't go declaring that such and such absolutely WILL or absolutely WILL NOT work. We can talk about what works MORE OFTEN in a given situation based on OUR OWN experience or based on some one else's experience but these definitive statements seem a step too far to my mind.

  3. #23
    obmon's Avatar
    Veteran Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,265
    Liked
    4788
    Reputation
    677082
    Quote Originally Posted by daves0311 View Post
    It was a good, interesting read.
    Yeah. it certainly changed my perspective on the matter. Suddenly, you realize that most crimes are acts of desperation or loss of emotional control. Most people can't take the life of another.. and be able to sleep afterwards.

  4. #24
    ppfd's Avatar
    Experienced Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    673
    Liked
    2529
    Reputation
    300437
    Great opening post.

    If you can afford a firearm, you can afford a simple training class as well. I seriously do not want joe citizen that just bought a gun and picked up his concealed carry license "protecting me".

    As far as detecting danger. Your average citizen is oblivious to their surroundings. Time has shown as of recent danger can happen in movie theaters, and shopping malls. Assholes place more priority on posting and taking pictures and video on face book and tweeter than running for cover.

    Then you have the citizen group that actually believes the police are there to protect the them. First clue should be the police usually show up after the crime has been committed.

    You are never going to know when an attack will happen. And how you choose to deal with it is a personal choice.
    As far as the other thread ladies, sorry I'm not here to protect you. How about a little self initiative first, then maybe I'll help you out. Maybe take your face off your phone for 5 seconds and look around and then you'll see the danger about to hit.

  5. #25
    BeijaFlor's Avatar
    MGTOW Skilled

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,505
    Liked
    6308
    Reputation
    3175357
    Quote Originally Posted by NonNegotiable View Post


    Girlie-girl, you're going to need patriarchy when some tough takes that knife out of your lily-white hand and ...

    (No, that would violate the TOS on this board.)

  6. #26
    Darth Sin's Avatar
    Experienced Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    698
    Liked
    3795
    Reputation
    3326956
    One of the best threads for a while.

    Even when I took self defense classes (good ones), the first thing they taught us to do is run, fast. If there is trouble or you can expect trouble, gtfo of there asap. Don't sit around trying to be a hero.

    & the second thing they taught us was if you find yourself in a fight, either perform a kick to the groin / eye jab / nose smash (nose is a weak body part) and then run.

    In fact the main thing that the class taught me was :- "Mind your surroundings and disengage as soon as possible."

  7. #27
    Rouleur's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    173
    Liked
    854
    Reputation
    701580
    Good thread guys. I've read both of Grossman's books. They're ok. Some of his claims about hit rates have been debunked. The connections he makes with video games and violence I find silly. A wider internet search will reveal a range of opinions about his books.

    In my area, we have weekly IDPA and USPSA pistol matches, short and long range rifle matches, short and long range 3-gun. Monthly there are formal training opportunities and informal gatherings. There's a really cool group that gets together on a private ranch and one or two people step up to teach the others what they've learned at formal training, then we all practice shooting for the day.

    If you want to lay a foundation for pistol shooting, then you want to get and read Practical Shooting by Brian Enos. Then go to a two day basic handgun class by a reputable instructor where 1000 rounds or more are put down range.

    But really, you want a good rifle and know how to use it. Pistols suck. We only carry them because we have to.

  8. #28
    echhijoker's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    154
    Liked
    748
    Reputation
    461247
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepthinkindude View Post
    I'm not sure I understand this post. There are many points I agree with and the reference to Grossman's work is invaluable. I know it changed my mindset. In fact, I thought about doing a post about his work but worried that the reference to violence would be too unrelated to the forum and perhaps overly focused on violence. Some cold hard truths about human nature are revealed in "On Killing".

    What I don't understand is just declaring with certainty that a handgun wouldn't have helped. How the hell can anyone know such a thing!? There are so many variables that no one here knows! How far away was the attacker, was he threatening her and if so, how and with what? Did she have training? What objects/weapons could she have used? What did she have on her?

    Claiming to KNOW FOR SURE that some technique of self defense would, or would not have worked is pure guess, nothing more.

    Full disclosure here, I am far from an expert. My experience is a lifetime of martial arts training, including placing second in state in one of many tournaments (that's the highest medal I can remember). Roughly 10 years of training with firearms, including professional training. I regularly practice what I was taught to keep my skills sharp. I've trained with knives/guns and am fully aware of the "21 foot rule". Squirt guns and knives marked with ink or lipstick work great for practice.

    Claiming some object would or would not have helped is like claiming a right cross must always be thrown before a left straight. Where the hell do such declarations of absolute certainty come from?!

    My apologies if this sounds hostile. I suspect that the points made here didn't need to be made on me. I'm guessing that the wisdom imparted in this thread is wisdom I learned through the school of hard knocks years ago and have assimilated into my world view. Of course a gun is no more protection than a good front kick or the proper fighting mindset or a large group of people or whatever works in a given situation! So much depends on circumstance that we, sitting in front of our keyboard are entirely unqualified to make declarations of certainty about an emergency situation which we get second or third hand from MSM which has been fluffed up by some twats hateful opinion of men!

    Even within the 21 feet, facing a knife, with a gun, the gun wielder often wins, sometimes, without getting cut once! It happens guys! I've been on both ends of this in training. It's a messy, nasty business. Making some statement of absolute certainty like "a gun wouldn't have helped" is as silly as saying a gun would save anyone at any time in any situation no matter what!

    The issue of self defense is a big one. Each person's body is different. Different tools may be available (or not) and may be useful (or not) in any number of situations. Much of this thread reeks of armchair commando.

    Train realistically, with people better than yourself or you will not improve.

    To refute another point about being within the 21 foot bubble and drawing a gun. I believe it was James Yeager who showed me that a simple side step, combined with a decent draw allows one to get the drop on a person who is ALREADY HOLDING A GUN TO YOU! It may not always work, but I have tried this specific technique in training at it works MOST OF THE TIME!

    Nothing says I will have the balls to do this in a life threatening situation, however, I HAVE trained my muscles to respond appropriately so I have a better chance than I would have lacking this training. The point is it works. The professionals say it works, it's taught to people, I've trained with it and proven it's effectiveness to myself, my sparring partners have learned it and proven it to themselves. IT CAN WORK, I've seen it and so have many others!

    The point is, don't go declaring that such and such absolutely WILL or absolutely WILL NOT work. We can talk about what works MORE OFTEN in a given situation based on OUR OWN experience or based on some one else's experience but these definitive statements seem a step too far to my mind.
    Hey DeepthinkingDude, I think they were basing it on the average women, not someone who has trained in , martial arts, or shooting at the range, hell even conflict resolution, and although it could help most people understand the odds of it helping are drastically less than of it being helpful. So they say these things not to give people a false sense of security. Yes her having a gun is a plus and it's an option but if you're already staring at a gun being trained on you, you're in a really bad spot and they have the advantage. And if it's in your purse and they take it, you just gave them another gun.
    Just like you've been through your experiences it seems like dave and G.I.T have been through there own experiences. Hell I know I've been through my fair share. Just like we admonish twats for thinking their perception of the world is what everyone experiences, we cannot be guilty of the same thing. I'm read your post and it seems like you agree one thing is more likely to happen than the other.

  9. #29
    goldenfetus's Avatar
    Experienced Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    633
    Liked
    2611
    Reputation
    260515
    I don't disagree with a lot of your points, or conclusions, or the argument about mindset, but those statistics on hesitation to fire are, frankly, ludicrous and offensively absurd. They fail the common sense test as bad as the claim that humans only use 10% of their brains, but in order to add weight to my claim I've done some googling. As far as I can tell, that claim originated with Brigadier General Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, a man who simply pulled them out of his ass and published them as fact without conducting any real research.

    From Wikipedia:

    Certain professional soldiers have publicly cast doubt on Marshall's research methodology.

    Professor Roger J. Spiller (Deputy Director of the Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College) demonstrated in his 1988 article "S.L.A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire" (RUSI Journal, Winter 1988, pages 63–71) that Marshall had not actually conducted the research upon which he based his ratio of fire theory. "The 'systematic collection of data' appears to have been an invention." This revelation called into question the authenticity of some of Marshall's other books, and lent academic weight to doubts about his integrity that had been raised in military circles even decades earlier.

    The controversial figure Col. David Hackworth, writing in his 1989 memoir About Face, described at length his initial elation at an assignment with a man he idolized, and how that elation turned to bitter disillusionment after seeing Marshall's character and methods firsthand. Hackworth described Marshall as a "voyeur warrior" for whom "the truth never got in the way of a good story," and went so far as to say "Veterans of many of the actions he 'documented' in his books have complained bitterly over the years of his inaccuracy or blatant bias".
    From here:

    Marshall had no use for the polite equivocations of scholarly discourse. His way of proving doubtful propositions was to state them more forcefully. Righteousness was always more important for Marshall than evidence....

    The foundation of his conviction was not scholarship but his own military experience, experience that he inflated or revised as the situation warranted. Marshall often hinted broadly that he had commanded infantry in combat, but his service dossier shows no such service. He frequently held that he had been the youngest officer in the American Expeditionary Forces during the Great War, but this plays with the truth as well. Marshall enlisted in 1917 and served with the 315th Engineer Regiment—then part of the 90th Infantry Division—and won a commission after the Armistice, when rapid demobilization required very junior officers to command "casual" and depot companies as the veteran officers went home. Marshall rarely drew such distinctions, however, leaving his audiences to infer that he had commanded in the trenches. Later in life, he remarked that he had seen five wars as a soldier and 18 as a correspondent, but his definitions of war and soldiering were rather elastic. That he had seen a great deal of soldiers going about their deadly work was no empty boast, however. This mantle of experience, acquired in several guises, protected him throughout his long and prolific career as a military writer, and his aggressive style intimidated those who would doubt his arguments. Perhaps inevitably, his readers would mistake his certitude for authority.
    Here's another good article that better explains the history of that false belief about hesitation to fire, including an excellent explanation for why many soldiers in combat might not fire their weapons:

    A unit could be in a no-fire zone, an area in which using weapons was prohibited. Poor training that improperly prepared soldiers for combat underlay other cases of failing to engage. In at least one instance a man turned to point out an enemy soldier rather than firing as he should have. Finally, one veteran recalled his simply being outgunned as he stood 'naked on top of a shower stall put-ting water in. I threw the water can at the enemy, but the round fell way short.'
    If there's some other source for this claim than the discredited bullshitter S.L.A. Marshall I'll be happy to reexamine the evidence. As is, it's far easier to believe my gut that it's a sensationalist, liberal fabrication than it is to believe that MASSIVE changes in fundamental human nature have raised the willingness-to-fire rate from 10% to over 95% in 3/4 of a century....

  10. #30
    daves0311's Avatar
    MGTOW King

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,030
    Liked
    16845
    Reputation
    9308496
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenfetus View Post
    I don't disagree with a lot of your points, or conclusions, or the argument about mindset, but those statistics on hesitation to fire are, frankly, ludicrous and offensively absurd. They fail the common sense test as bad as the claim that humans only use 10% of their brains, but in order to add weight to my claim I've done some googling. As far as I can tell, that claim originated with Brigadier General Samuel Lyman Atwood Marshall, a man who simply pulled them out of his ass and published them as fact without conducting any real research.

    From Wikipedia:



    From here:



    Here's another good article that better explains the history of that false belief about hesitation to fire, including an excellent explanation for why many soldiers in combat might not fire their weapons:



    If there's some other source for this claim than the discredited bullshitter S.L.A. Marshall I'll be happy to reexamine the evidence. As is, it's far easier to believe my gut that it's a sensationalist, liberal fabrication than it is to believe that MASSIVE changes in fundamental human nature have raised the willingness-to-fire rate from 10% to over 95% in 3/4 of a century....
    Now I'm going to have to re-read the books and check to see that I didn't spread a load of hogshit.

    Personally I have no problem believing that the fire rate went up. We went from cavalry, horse-drawn artillery, and cloth-covered biplanes to tanks, self-propelled guns with computerized aiming, and planes like the F/A-18 Hornet in 75 years. I doubt that we made that kind of technological leap without also making leaps in the methods of training. But it is possible.

  11. #31
    womanhater's Avatar
    Banned

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,245
    Liked
    43451
    Reputation
    10288365
    Quote Originally Posted by NonNegotiable View Post
    So much fail it's hard to know where to start...

    I guess I'll offer this question -

    Can feminism help me feel safe in the massive huge urban rapidly decaying borderline feral metropolis in which I'm currently domiciled? I've always carried a handgun with me since before I turned 18 regardless of the laws or policies regarding same, and yet now, despite the fact that I'm 6' tall, have the classic stout build of a Scotsman, and am actually trained and capable of self-defense certainly to include threat assessment and avoidance, I do NOT feel safe where I am.

    The other day I was going to the grocery store a mere three blocks away and when I pulled into the parking lot I realized that I'd left my pistol on the table where I'd cleaned it. I actually drove back home and got it rather than go to a grocery store in the middle of the motherfucking day without it. So, how can feminism help me with that?

    ESPECIALLY since the anti-family, anti-father, pro-single mother, pro-socialism, pro-welfare, pro-illegal immigration, pro-criminal and anti-child policies of feminism are DIRECTLY MOTHERFUCKING RESPONSIBLE for the feral savages I was forced to walk among in order to merely purchase needed supplies...

  12. #32
    Deepthinkindude's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    194
    Liked
    991
    Reputation
    727503
    Quote Originally Posted by echhijoker View Post
    Hey DeepthinkingDude, I think they were basing it on the average women, not someone who has trained in , martial arts, or shooting at the range, hell even conflict resolution, and although it could help most people understand the odds of it helping are drastically less than of it being helpful. So they say these things not to give people a false sense of security. Yes her having a gun is a plus and it's an option but if you're already staring at a gun being trained on you, you're in a really bad spot and they have the advantage. And if it's in your purse and they take it, you just gave them another gun.
    Just like you've been through your experiences it seems like dave and G.I.T have been through there own experiences. Hell I know I've been through my fair share. Just like we admonish twats for thinking their perception of the world is what everyone experiences, we cannot be guilty of the same thing. I'm read your post and it seems like you agree one thing is more likely to happen than the other.
    Let me put it another way. On one side we can make a list of objective facts, on the other side we can make a list of subjective statements about those facts. I'm happy to move to either column and have a discussion about an item on either list but this statement "a handgun is not enough" seem to take one objective and one subjective item and smash the two together and conflate them.

    The objective facts are;

    1) guns are self defense tools that CAN, HAVE, WILL and DO, help a person to defend them selves.

    2) training is generally more effective than not training and more is better than less.

    When talking about self defense, the above two points are as close as were are going to get to hard and fast rules. The above two points shouldn't really be argued with.

    Now, the SUBJECTIVE points are;

    1) guns will or won't help in this or that situation that I am imagining in my head.

    Any statement like the above is just a guess. There are just too many variables during emergency/life threatening incidences to make definitive statements like that.

    If the above statement were changed slightly to be more like this;

    - For a woman with no training and no mental fortitude and no situational awareness with a gun buried deeply in her purse, drunk late at night who gets caught off guard by a criminal who is physically stronger, better prepared than she, and absolutely intent to do her serious bodily harm...a gun might not be enough to save her life

    Now THAT statement I would agree with. Just declaring that a "gun isn't enough" needs some qualifications, that's all. For plenty of people it damn sure HAS been enough! There are between a few hundred thousand to OVER TWO MILLION cases of self defense with a handgun every single year. That's a lot of incidents, a lot of variables.

    Yes patterns emerge and we can talk about those but just waving a hand saying a handgun DEFINITELY isn't enough is a step too far. It is not backed up by anything.

    Martial arts training for 10 years might not be enough in a given situation either! who knows?

    A gun is better than no gun. Some training is better than no training. More training is better than some training. These statements are not hard and fast rules but they come as close as you're going to get.

  13. #33
    Deepthinkindude's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    194
    Liked
    991
    Reputation
    727503
    Quote Originally Posted by goldenfetus View Post
    If there's some other source for this claim than the discredited bullshitter S.L.A. Marshall I'll be happy to reexamine the evidence. As is, it's far easier to believe my gut that it's a sensationalist, liberal fabrication than it is to believe that MASSIVE changes in fundamental human nature have raised the willingness-to-fire rate from 10% to over 95% in 3/4 of a century....
    As I understand, nothing about "fundamental human nature" changed. Something about TRAINING for combat while taking into account the "fundamental human nature" did change. Does that make sense?

    You seem to have some very valid criticisms of Grossman's work and I am inclined to accept many or all of them. Still, I think his work shows an angle that possibly hadn't been discussed as deeply prior to his coming along.

  14. #34
    Jso's Avatar
    MGTOW Master

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,831
    Liked
    13737
    Reputation
    3054304
    this is also why I don't trust women to have guns and would not suggest that a woman buy a gun if she fears becoming a victim. women are still more likely to harm innocents than actually take responsibility for their own protection.

  15. #35
    goldenfetus's Avatar
    Experienced Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    633
    Liked
    2611
    Reputation
    260515
    As I understand, nothing about "fundamental human nature" changed. Something about TRAINING for combat while taking into account the "fundamental human nature" did change. Does that make sense?
    In my opinion, willingness to kill is an innate animal trait that humans, as animals and predators, simply possess. I don't think it has anything to do with training - that's just what the guy filled in to support his bullshit claims. I mean, are we really to believe that the military is being trained to kill, even today?? If so, I missed that part of our training. We learned to pay attention to detail, work together as a group and follow orders blindly, practiced shooting and physical conditioning, etc, but there was never a time anyone sat us down and taught us how to kill. How would that even work - make soldiers kill captives or squealing pigs or something?? My point is that the willingness to kill is so fundamental to human nature that the military doesn't have any need to instill it. They just give soldiers the tools of killing and put them in the situation and they do it on their own.

    Why would it have been different in World War II than in Vietnam or later wars?? I mean, in the first place, World War II was seen as a noble war, and the generation that went to fight there wanted to fight, and they had more guts, duty, and ability than any generation since. Vietnam was full of spoiled hippies who were there against their will. Why would they fight harder by even a slight margin, much less going to a 95%+ shoot rate from a 10% one? If it's training - which I don't believe for a second - then what specifically changed about training in that time period, and why isn't it documented?

    It's a lot easier for me to believe that one dude made up a bunch of bullshit and became popular because the masses aren't particularly discerning or perceptive than it is to believe that in any war in any time in history that 90% of the soldiers were unwilling to fight, and the facts I've found so far seem to support me in that.

    Sorry if I'm coming across as belligerent, I'm not trying to be. It's like, every time I hear someone say "humans only use 10% of their brains" or "daddy long legs are actually the most poisonous spider" or some other 'fact' that fails the common sense test I just flip out.

  16. #36
    EnglishEscapeArtist's Avatar
    Junior Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    200
    Liked
    891
    Reputation
    177150
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam I Am View Post
    As soon as I read this in the preview pane:


    .. I was coming to post the same thing on mindset.

    Anybody who doesn't realize that the mind/-set is the #1 weapon doesn't know what in fuck he's talking about. End of story.
    On two other forums I frequent, one which I no longer use there was a prevailing attitude that those mall shooters wouldn't have gotten very far if joe public were all armed to the fucking teeth with guns.

    I challenged them to the mindset game. The man shooting at defenceless men women and children has nothing to lose, he is passed the point where he cares about life, including his own and I asked each and every one of them who laughed at me about how they would go about being the hero.

    The average civilian has seen more combat in battlefield/COD games than a soldier would in any real life conflict and become "experts on the matter".

    They actually believe they wont shit themselves should a man with an AK, 12-gauge or pistol shoot at them or in their general direction. I understand there are a select few who would go toe to toe with such a lunatic but the outcome still isn't favourable.

    People are ignorant of the reality involved with exchanging gunfire. Ive played paintball and by all means it is similar but you can get pinned down by paintballs quite easily, I dont have a clue on how bullets behave when you're in front of them but it usually doesn't end well.

    Joe public thinks he can dirty Harry the murderers and thieves, they usually end up dead.

  17. #37
    zed's Avatar
    MGTOW King

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,304
    Liked
    27945
    Reputation
    16980580
    Quote Originally Posted by EnglishEscapeArtist View Post
    The average civilian has seen more combat in battlefield/COD games than a soldier would in any real life conflict and become "experts on the matter".

    They actually believe they wont shit themselves should a man with an AK, 12-gauge or pistol shoot at them or in their general direction. I understand there are a select few who would go toe to toe with such a lunatic but the outcome still isn't favourable.

    People are ignorant of the reality involved with exchanging gunfire.

    Joe public thinks he can dirty Harry the murderers and thieves, they usually end up dead.
    Astonishingly, dangerously, ignorant.

    The vast majority of cops who are forced to kill someone in the line of duty quit the force within 5 years. A percentage of them experience sexual dysfunction, and lose the ability to remain in emotional contact with their families.

    After The Gun Goes Off

    Years ago I went through a very fucked up situation when a woman I knew and put in the friend zone got angry at me for rejecting her and lied to her husband that we were having an affair, at which point he showed up at my house at 1:30 in the morning threatening to kill me. I met him at the door with my 1911 "insurance" in my back pocket, and went to the place in my head that if he came through that door at me it would end very quickly and very badly for him.

    Simply coming that close to having to shoot someone fucked up my head for nearly a month. I experienced many of the symptoms that actual shooters do - tunnel vision, time distortion, loss of short term memory.

    Unless someone is actually combat trained, they are in no way prepared to take someone's life. Some of the kinds of practice people engage in is extremely counterproductive. Several years ago a couple of cops were killed in a confrontation. Their shirt pockets were filled with their brass. They had been pocketing brass when they should have been reloading. And, these were Law Enforcement Officers who supposedly had some training.

    I seldom go to gun forums any more, because the bragging overshadows any real information.

  18. #38
    stewie's Avatar
    Veteran Member

    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,038
    Liked
    4527
    Reputation
    1358689
    The problem for whatever reason is for lack of a better word...people today are fucking silly.

    The gun won't help is because people won't pay attention to what's around them. A bunch of wide-eyed optimists who probably never hit or shot at a man in anger or had to fight a mob with a ball bat.

    You have to have yours ready way early, that takes constant assessment and forethought that most people cannot seem to manage. They never developed any kind of emotional maturity or the healthy paranoia of the constantly hunted.

    Like someone said part of it is not going to certain places at certain times. Battles are usually won before they are fought.

    I snuck up on a couple gun owning friends yesterday at work, a man and a woman. Stalked them for about 100 feet hiding behind building columns and then ran up behind them screaming nonsense just to see if I could scare the crap out of them. I could have easily killed them gun or no gun with bare hands. Why? The other friend was a co-worker he wants to nail and he was too busy listening to her nonsense. He would never be able to draw in time and since it was at work he wasn't carrying anyhow. He got his hands up and had his fist in my face but it was too little too late. I wouldn't give him a chance.

    Perhaps I was fortunate to grow up in a bad neighborhood with a bunch of dumb animals and had to learn how to turn the tables on them, someday I think it will be an asset.

    People, specifically white people, don't ask me why, mostly don't have that killer instinct so I don't know what is going to help them.

    You could train some for 10 years give him a shiny pistol and they still can't make it happen and others take what little half assed things they know, a rusty fork and ruin your shit with it.

Similar Threads

  1. Handgun in Vagina
    By PointermanKS in forum Shits 'n' Giggles
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-01-14, 08:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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