The car's insured and it's not worth killing someone or dying over. Property is not worth killing or being killed over, period. There's only one legitimate reason for fighting and that's as the last option of self defense when all others, such as leaving, have been exhausted. Something that many seem to forget is that in a gun fight you have a 50:50 chance of losing. Not very good odds when considering the car is easily replaced but a person's life cannot be replaced. As for using a knife that takes a lot of training and you never want to show up with a knife at a gun fight.
I spent some (very nice) time in London and Paris and Switzerland, Gemany, Italy.... in my brief days with Interpol.
"Something that many seem to forget is that in a gun fight you have a 50:50 chance of losing. Not very good odds when considering the car is easily replaced but a person's life cannot be replaced. As for using a knife that takes a lot of training and you never want to show up with a knife at a gun fight." ************************ I do not know if 50/50 is a proper statistic on Gunfights, even getting shot does not mean you will die, and so far, I have been victorious in all of my Gunfights, wounded, hurt, but still alive.... Favorite sidearm ? S&W model 10 w 4" heavy barrel, Federal 125 grain SWC +P ( original FBI loads ) Or a Mil Spec 1911..... I have successfuly defended myself from knife attacks from a very early age, unarmed too. At age 9 I was attacked in a very personal and nasty way by a Church athletics coach, and I was defenseless from that horrible predator. I swore I would never let that happen again, that is why at age10, I was determined to defend myself by any available means, legal or otherwise. One of my early mentors was an NYS special patrolman, and clued me into firearms and later on, becoming a Police Officer.
Pray tell what are these exaggerations you are referring to? And yet those that are willing to compromise are drowned out by the extremists, insuring there is no middle ground. They will not stand for anything less than what they want being what is in place, and they will not stop trying to push the issue.
I have heard the various niche shooters, the SxS crowd, skeet, trap, hunters, dedicated bullseye shooters, or bench rest shooters etc.... all defend their shooting niche and yet they were quite willing to throw concealed carry, machine guns, "assault weapons" etc.... Under the proverbial Bus. This is the Pro Gun Anti Gunner I always talk about, hates and condemns NRA as too extreme and Radical, and defends a very limited role for civilian firearms, in the home only and other ineffiable twaddle. The Pro Gun Anti Gunner is just a bit removed from the other Anti Gun advocates, yet benefits richly from NRAs efforts.
I don't begrudge someone not wanting to go armed. Some don't have the self control and know they might misuse a weapon in a heated argument of words. Some because deep inside they know they lack the will and fortitude to effectively defend themselves. In any fight, winning requires the will to win and I have seen people of skill fold because they didn't have the will. I have also seen those without skill because they had the will not only to resist being victimized, but the will to win emerged from somewhere.... sometimes these folks may not have known they had it in them. Frankly, prior to my first live or die experience I don't think I knew it was in me. When accosted by an armed assaint, it is very likely the person with the greater will may win. I am not sure it can be learned, but I like to think the more training one has, the more confidence one accumulates and I think that can help one tap the inner will. So 50:50... depends on the person. I thus far am batting at 100.
You guys are funny, and have proved my suspicion, that civilians who carry are not only not zipped all the way up, but have a tendency to be ahh, less then honest with themselves and everyone else. Everyone with a license certainly has permission to carry, but in most cases commonsense would suggest that it's unnecessary at best, and in many cases foolish. It's catch22. You can carry a weapon, but if you do, in most cases it proves you aren't stable enough to be carrying a weapon.
Perhaps you aren't aware, but almost everyone I know with a permit to carry, doesn't carry. Myself included. Having the permit just makes moving guns around, buying what you want, etc., easier. Particularly in a state like Massachusetts with its draconian gun laws.
I don't carry all that much. but being a top flight competitive shooter it means I can travel with all of the magazines for my CTS competition pistol or my Czechmate unlimited race gun loaded. that would be an issue if I didn't have a CCW. I can leave a loaded SIG 938 in the console of my Lexus legally. I can even had a SIG piston Driven "AR15" pistol with the "support brace" loaded in the passenger seat of my car. best car gun ever invented since its basically a AR 15 carbine with a 7" barrel. BTW I doubt there is any aspect of gun use or guns in a civilian environment that you could think up that I would be unaware of.
Yes it is worth killing and/or dying over. Plus when you kill perps you keep prison populations down and you reduce recitivism.
hmm, the second amendment is properly seen as a blanket prohibition on federal action what exactly do you think the Federal government has the proper power to do as to privately owned arms
In my state, if you lock yourself in your car, and they try to break into it, it is the same as if they would be breaking into your house, and you can shoot them.
Take "assault weapons" that are defined based upon appearance characteristics. The gun control crowd wants to ban them because of the appearance and the pro-gun crowd wants to keep them because of the appearance and neither argument makes any sense. Functionality, not appearance, is what matters when addressing firearms. And both of them lie about the opposition to really make matters even more confusing. But I agree - both extremes are so full of themselves that they take the oxygen out of the room. For me it's really about two issues: First is private safety vs public safety. The government has a responsibility for the public safety but not for the private safety. Next is that with liberty comes responsibility. A person that owns a firearm must be held to a very high standard of responsibility.
I was around for both attacks on the World Trade Center, 1993, and their destruction on 9/11/01, at Ground Zero. I lost many friends in EMS, NYPD, FDNY etc....
I carry most of the time under LEOSA, and can carry in any State or territory even Hi or PR etc .... It is a tool of the trade for LE ...
And functionally they are no different from semi-automatic rifles that have been available to the public since the beginning of the twentieth century. And yet it has never been demonstrated just how the various programs of government do anything to actually promote true public safety. They present the notion that firearms being registered and permitted will somehow help, but no explanation as to how is ever given. Registration, permits, waiting periods, and various other firearm-related restrictions do not prevent firearm-related incidents from occurring, nor do they reduce the instances of such occurring. And so far there has yet to be any evidence to show that those who legally own firearms, are in any way responsible for a significant number of firearm-related deaths in the united states. The majority of them are suicides which are of no relevance, and of those attributed as homicides, the majority are the fault of those who cannot legally possess firearms to begin with. Such would suggest a high standard of responsibility to begin with.
Smith actually has an impressive resume. He was a street cop, SWAT team member and automatic weapon expert and trainer for H&K. He was also a trainer for the SAS. Interesting guy, not real friendly, but I didn't go his classes to be his buddy. Out of all the new guys out there, I think Rob Pincus may be head and shoulders above the rest, especially for civilians. Certainly not a Cooperite, he's pragmatic, not dogmatic and a big advocate of DAO systems and KISS.
