Yep, this is what going mad feels like. by Fremdfirma

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-ix

"The fact remains, you're not going to take my gun from me, and neither are you going to take it from the guy who is going to rob your house and rape your wife while the police take their time coming to your rescue."

I've lived in some very dangerous places. Had my residence broken into 3 times (once while I was at home), been assualted, stalked, had my car stolen and various other lawless acts. Never once did I feel the need to own a gun. And somehow I got through it all, still alive and well, and old enough to be your parent, if not your grandparent.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulfenstar,

Did you never consider caution ? You know, leaving enough room between your car and the one in front of you to get out of line should someone attempt to carjack you, having home / apartment alarms and an escape route (I use IR b/c they're also good for fire detection), beefing up your doors, lock and door frames, and other very simple precautions ...

Oh, BTW, the fact that you own a gun is not going to stop that random drive-by bullet from coming through your wall.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:38 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, BTW, the fact that you own a gun is not going to stop that random drive-by bullet from coming through your wall.

And you think more gun control will?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It worked in select Brazilian cities where they also had a major gun round-up. Murder rates in those areas dropped considerably - if I remember correctly, something like 20% in the first 6 months. You can't argue with success. Or maybe you'd still want to, but it would look pretty silly.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 8:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Welcome abaord Wulfenstar.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:01 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Caution? Thats my middle name. Yes, I do leave enough room between cars, just in case I get carjacked. Should I also consider armor plating? Yes, I do have strong locks at home and know where I would go if someone were trying to break in. (Straight to my gun vault, or to the shotgun I keep nearby.)

And no, a gun in my home would not stop the driveby bullet from flying through my home, hitting me and possibly killing me. Do you reccommend armor plating on my windows too? If so, where would I be able to purchase such an effect? Home Depot didn't seem to know what I was talking about when I called them.

In essence, what you reccommend is barricading myself in my home (like Will Smith in I AM LEGEND), with a phone in my hand for when the big bad thug comes calling? Wow.

But what happens when I want to go from my fort to my tank? Well, I do have a cell phone. So I guess as Im being robbed and/or shot I can call the cops. Great! But what if they take my cell phone too?

See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it.

Its easy to say "Guns kill people" or "Gun control will bring down crime/murder" when you've never had to face it one way or the other. Im sure that from on top of the hill, everything looks "shiney".

The problem is, criminals, rapists, killers ect carry guns. They carry illegal guns, stolen guns, guns they bought off the back of a truck, even guns they made themselves (Zipguns). They use these weapons to hurt, maim, rape and destroy.

My answer is simple. Fight back. Protect yourself. Have the means to counter the threat when the time comes (other than just using foul language and the fetal position). Have the means ON YOUR PERSON to fight back.

Also, it may be a cliche, but what about the grandmothers out there? The ones who watched their neighborhood deteriorate into animal filled ghettos? They don't possess the means to fortify their homes, or their cars.....so what should they do? I know in the animal kingdom, the young prey on the old, but throwing them to the dogs seems a bit cruel to me.

Shouldnt she have the right to shoot the miscreant in the face? You know, the one who is trying to rob her and maybe rape her to boot? Im sorry if that is too graphic for you, but it needs to be said. Doesnt she have the right, as a human being, as any living creature in the world does, to fight against her attackers?

But, I know. Gentrification will soon change these places. The rainbows will soon shine over all the Comptons, SE D.C's, Baltimores ect, and we will all live in peace and harmony. Until then, until this harmonious and magical day when the dogs will lay down with the cats, and all the SUV's will be in the trash heap and the hum of Prius can be heard everywhere...its still going to be a dangerous place. Shouldn't we all be prepared? Shouldn't we all have the right to carry in the open or not, a means of personal protection which has much more of deterent factor than Pepper Spray?

I think so. And until we lose the final battle for freedom, and they finally do take my gun away, I will always think so.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Did you never consider caution ? You know, leaving enough room between your car and the one in front of you to get out of line should someone attempt to carjack you, having home / apartment alarms and an escape route (I use IR b/c they're also good for fire detection), beefing up your doors, lock and door frames, and other very simple precautions ...

Oh, BTW, the fact that you own a gun is not going to stop that random drive-by bullet from coming through your wall.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it.

Apparently you didn't read Rue's post?

At one time or another, MANY of us have lived in "bad" areas. I used to live in a neighborhood where the police helicopter hovered 2-3 times a week. I found a ditched purse in my front garden. A guy was arrested in front of me on my front sidewalk. My home was broken into (while I was in it. I met the robber in the dining room). One block down, I had to pass through a police barricade on my way to work. I was harrassed at the store at the end of my block. Some dirt-bag tried to get into my car with me one morning. (I slammed the door and threatened to run him over). And this wasn't a ten-year compilation of events- it all happened within one year. So you're not the only one who knows what's going on.

And BTW- We did have a gun. (Still do.) Shortest barrel legally possible shotgun. But I never felt the need to use it. (Except once when I was extra-jittery after the break-in and almost blew away the mail carrier. Gawd! If he only knew what was on the other side of that mail slot!)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it."

Now see, that's what happens when you don't read posts and make erroneous assumptions. I lived a couple blocks from the County Hospital while at school, which is where I also worked for many years after I graduated and moved a couple of miles away. It was as bad an area as you could find in that city, which was pretty bad. There was at least one incident every week on my street, whether it was an assault or break-in or robbery. At lot of homes were abandoned, and the hood seemed to be a regular gathering place for gangs of young males. And that was in the days before cell phones and before I had a car, and got everywhere by walking, bicycle or bus (including my trips to and from school and work).
Did I mention I worked evenings, nights and weekends ?
So, to put lie to your silly assumptions, I DO know what it's like to live in a bad area, to have my residence broken into (even while I was at home), to have things stolen, to be stalked and threatened, to see people beaten-up and wandering the street. And I didn't have the most basic protections you seem to have - transportation and a cell phone. And I NEVER needed a gun. Never considered it, never wanted it. And I'm here today despite all that.

And you ? Why are YOU so scared ? Have you ever been stalked, assaulted or threatened ? Have you seen neighbors who have been ? Do you have roaming gangs on your street ? Had your place broken into ? Most people who think violence is a serious issue haven't experienced it first-hand but are assuming the TV version of life is true. Just curious.

And, no, I don't recommend barricading oneself. First of all I never personally had the opportunity - I lived in an apartment building that was half-empty and not kept in repair, had to go to work, shopping, school and such-like. So I was out there doing my stuff like everyone else. Second of all - as I tried to point out - it doesn't work.

What DOES work is developing street-smarts, taking basic precautions (which I couldn't afford at the time), and gun control along with gun-buy-backs.

***************************************************************
Oh, and control that adrenaline flow son - it gets you hyper-focused on the wrong things so you miss important details, and amped-up and liable to react stupidly. And if it doesn't kill you in the short-term the internal damage will do its work over time.

And have a nice day.

added: You seem like and OK person but on the 'fight' end of the spectrum rather than 'flight'. Maybe this will give you something to think about - if you confront you may come out ahead. If you escape, you will always come out ahead.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:58 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

You are correct about erroneous assumptions. Both of you. Now, to be honest and friendly-like, I would like to apologize for assuming that neither of you had any idea of how bad thigns could possibly get.

I, perhaps mistakenly, assumed that I was speaking with folks whose sole claim to knowing of things was from watching them on television. (Ironic that Im saying this on a Firefly board)

But back to the matter at hand. Being unarmed may be what you consider the right thing, it maybe even a bit noble. As your way of showing the youth of today that its better to handle things with your fists rather than with a weapon.

I, however, see things a mite differently. I react a bit differently too (probably that adrenaline you were speaking of? Maybe some cojones thrown in to boot)

Should someone attack me, invade my home, threaten my wife (or even one of my pets) I will use any and all means available to stop them.

Now, a gun is a responsibility like any other. It carries with it certain obligations. One of them being to use it wisely, with caution, and not as a toy.

With that said, I believe we should ALL be allowed to have the protection a gun automatically insures. And to be able to take that protection with us wherever we go. How is that wrong?

You guys still havnt explained why protecting yourself form the evil in our society is wrong. Do you want the animals to win?

Oh, and as a P.S.....

Have a nice day.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Added... Yes, I am fight over flight. Id rather take a stand than crawl away on my knees. Now, you still havn't answered my question.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Since I added some stuff as a PS, here it is. I think it explains why running is better than fighting.

Oh, and control that adrenaline flow son - it gets you hyper-focused on the wrong things so you miss important details, and amped-up and liable to react stupidly. And if it doesn't kill you in the short-term the internal damage will do its work over time.

And have a nice day.

added: You seem like and OK person but on the 'fight' end of the spectrum rather than 'flight'. Maybe this will give you something to think about - if you confront you may come out ahead. If you escape, you will always come out ahead.

***************************************************************
I've had a lot of years to think about scenarios - both ones I've experienced and possibilities. When people I knew got a shotgun for home protection I seriously considered it. But I realized that a shotgun would get me nothing extra compared to an alarm and escape route. And I would risk shooting a family member, or getting shot myself if I chose confrontation. Detection plus escape is always the best choice, and I made a concerted effort to make it happen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:19 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yes, again I get the idea of running away to, well, run away again another day. But as I said, Id rather stand up than lay down and scuttle.

So, again, why is having the means to protect yourself wrong?

Also, yes. I have seen violence. Yes, I have seen roaming gangs. Yes, I have seen drug dealers. Yes, i have been jumped. Yes, I have been robbed. (My house has never been broken into tho. Thank God, as I wouldn't want to ever have to kill someone) I also got to be quite close to the local SWAT team. (I should, as they had to bust down the doors of the apartments on either side of mine. Twice.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"why protecting yourself from the evil in our society is wrong"

I see evil differently than you do. Even the gang-banger is a simply messed-up person - a sad product of their environment - and not the evil monster you seem to think. Plus avoidance is even better than 'defense'.

As far as I'm concerned, the evil monsters have money and run the country - callously lying to start wars, bombing hundreds of thousands - so they can get even more money, more power and more influence. Protecting yourself from that evil needs social action, not a shotgun.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:30 AM

Welcome to the party, Wulf.

For the record, I grew up in Southeast Baltimore, in the no-mans-land of corrupted, chemically poisoned hell down by 10th and Stohl, in fact my apartment was two blocks from "Ground Zero" as they call that intersection.

And even now, while I live in a podunk little burg where three vandalisms in a month constitutes a "crime wave" - I drive a cab part time in downtown Detroit, one of the few that'll still pick up in Cass Corridor, in fact.

And yeah, I carry, and believe everyone who wants to pack iron should - but I also believe anyone packing should be competent with what they're carryin, too.

But that's just not enough, and while defensive tactics go pretty far, de-escalation and incident prevention do well too.

Some links you might find handy, I have posted them before, but I won't make ya dig, hereyago.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/deescalation.htm

That site is more intended for LEO, but given the nature of the ugly one runs up against in Bawlmore or DeathCity, this info is worth it's weight in platinum.

You might also have an intest in the advocacy work of Oleg Volk.
http://www.a-human-right.com/

What other folks wanna do is up to them, but anyone attempting to strip me of my primary defense against thugs and criminals, to my mind, belongs in the same mental category they do.

-Frem
(Not back to work yet, *sigh*, Jan 20th as a tenative, for that, damn this thing hurts.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi Frem !

As you can see we do disagree. Still, I hope you take with good spirit that I would be happy for you to feel better soon.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 11:40 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Amen Frem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

See, the problem is, you don't live in a bad area. You've probably NEVER lived in or even near a bad area. Oh, you might have wandered in by accident, or did it on a dare (you know, SLUMing) but you've never been forced to live in it.

You nailed me dead on. I've done my share of "slumming" but only in broad daylight. Grew up in small towns back in the days when parents didn't have to watch their kid every second. The neighborhood I currently live in has some minimal crime and that freaks me out so bad I've set up motion sensor lights around my perimeter and armed myself to the teeth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 12:49 PM

Thanks Rue.

Yeah, we're gonna disagree on this one prolly forever - but can we at least find the common ground in this one concept ?

If you're GOING to have one, have the decency to be competent, knowing proper safety, storage, cleaning, 1st and 2nd order malfunction clearing and a working knowledge of the law related to it's use, in combination with the ability to pass an actual on-range fire/no-fire decision making test.

Would you accept that as minimum level of competence for carry, if you HAD to accept that people carried ?

I figure competence-based testing would solve a lot of problems, I just don't want the Gov running it... don't trust em.

I say we make a deal with the manufacturers, require this level of competence training as a condition of sale, and offer them immunity from lawsuit regarding should they do so.

It's not a bad deal, given the realities of the situation, and would at least make a dent "impulse" based firearms incidents, cause a better trained person is FAR more likely to de-escalate than reach for iron when pressed.

Thoughts ?

As long as we seem to be gettin somewhere, I'm up for discussing it, I just bow out when we're banging heads and not accomplishing anything but pissin each other off, you must understand.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Would you accept that as minimum level of competence for carry, if you HAD to accept that people carried ?

Firearms are something like number seven on the list of leading causes of accidental death. Would you accept mandatory training in all of the other six causes of accidental death first.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulfenstar

Using the link Frem provided, clicking on "home page" and reading partway down you'll find this: "Even in these extreme circumstances, the most effective steps to ensure your personal safety are not necessarily confrontational."

What I get from your post is that you're not interested in safety, you're more interested in confrontation. What I get is that you'd rather satisfy your machismo by pounding the snot out of someone and teaching them a lesson, 'cause they're evil and they 'deserve it' and you're 'righteous' and brave.

In other words, to paraphrase the very link Frem posted, you're calculating that violence will get you something that you want.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 1:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

I'd absolutely go with competency testing. We require it for drivers, manicurists and a high school diploma. Why not for guns ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 2:45 PM

Depends on what they are, Kirk.

I am of the opinion that outside of the most extreme emergency, you should never handle or use any powerful, dangerous tool which could harm you or others without a minimum level of competence with it.

Guns, Cars, Bandsaws, Drill Presses, it's all the same to me, only makes sense to have some idea of what yer doing, doesn't it ?

But I do not want the Gov that involved, is all - the manufacturers, in exchange for lawsuit protection, is a far better real-world option with less avenue of abuse, at least in my opinion.

Rue, I think Wulfs point is that there are some folks you CAN'T reason with, can not de-escalate, like lifestyle-violent offenders or someone so wired up on drugs they're practically in outer space, mentally... and you do run into a large proportion of those in Bawlmore or DeathCity.

He also sounds frustrated, which I can fully comprehend, but a little mercy for our new poster, if ya would... we run enough of em off as it is.

Reason might work with a lotta folk, but it's not a bad idea to have a more... substantial.. argument at hand for those it has no effect on.
(See also: Andrew Vachss, crossref, Lifestyle-Violent offenders)

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 3:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Drat ! I was hoping my post wasn't too - er - confrontational. Just wanted to point out some of the logic he seemed to be following - plus waiting for some kind of reply.

Anyway, I know that you can't reason/ de-escalate every situation. Believe me, I've had enough opportunity and need to evaluate the security of many types of situations I've been in, in detail and at length. Which is why I'm a believer in avoidance and taking precautions and escape.

What I came to
- a pre-planned ambush attack with or without weapons and you're probably done for, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have
- overwhelming numbers with or without weapons and you're probably done for, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have
- attack at a distance (sniper or other l-d gun assault) and you're probably done for, it doesn't matter how much firepower you have
- grappling one-on-one and a gun probably won't help too much. However, in those situations when confronting either humans or four-legged animals I've always kept it in the back of my head that I may go down but they'll be blind for life.
- that leaves break-ins, where Wulf seems determined to go get the gun Martha, I'll hold 'em off. Personally, I think one's chances for a long and healthy life are better with detection and an escape route.
- car-jacking - avoidance and leaving enough room to maneuver away - you've GOT a one-ton weapon under your gas pedal.
- smaller (not overwhelming) numbers of unarmed people - well - avoidance is always my first choice, but that's one type of situation where you might scare them off or hold them at bay with a gun. But it would look bad if you shot any un-armed person at anything other than close range.

Have I got it covered ?

***************************************************************
BTW, people who mentally and/or physically practice (rehearse) using a gun in various situations are more likely to go for it as their first choice, not their last.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 4:14 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I thought I'd jump in here for a bit.

1) A pre-planned ambush attack with or without weapons - This largely depends on the completeness of the planning and the resoluteness of the ambushers and ambushees. There are historically documented cases of people getting ambushed and successfully defending themselves or driving off attackers. In fact, the Western Expansion of the United States is replete with such stories. (For those who insist on cited examples, let me know if you really want me to look this up, but please feel free to do your own research.)

2) Attack at a distance - The attacker may be at a distance from me, but possibly not at a distance from others. A guy on the second level of a mall who is sniping people down on the first level of the mall probably won't be stopped by people on the first level... But armed people on the second level might be in a position to stop him.

3) Grappling one-on-one - If you don't have a free hand, no weapon is likely to do you any good. Hopefully your wrestling/striking talents are up to par. If you have a free hand, then any weapon could be useful. However, in a grappling match, it is possible to be disarmed. I am prepared to agree that weapons are of dubious value while you are being grappled.

3) Break Ins - It's fine to evacuate if you can do so safely and take all home occupants with you. I advocate using a firearm to cover your escape and the escape of loved ones. If your current location and/or the location of loved ones does not enable safe extraction, then I advocate using all necessary force to counter the intruder.

4) Car-Jacking - I agree, the car is a weapon AND an escape vehicle. Use it. Only pull a gun if you have been immobilized.

5) Small numbers of unarmed people - Presenting a weapon is likely to deter this threat, and allow you to make a safe escape.

6) Small numbers of armed people - This is a shootout. The results are uncertain, and dependent on many of the same factors as the ambush above.

Finally, there was this:

A) "people who mentally and/or physically practice (rehearse) using a gun in various situations are more likely to go for it as their first choice, not their last."

If the only thing you practice (rehearse) is violence, then I agree this is likely. However, if you mentally or physically practice staged responses including de-escalation tactics and evasion, this does not seem likely.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 4:46 PM

Well, acknowledged that some situations are gonna go south no matter what ya do, such is life... but from a tactical perspective, the increased alertness and training that comes with firearms ownership tends to prevent one from getting in more of those situations than otherwise, so we must factor that in.

I'm not big on the whole mall-commando kinda "training" some folk out there offer, you'll note that Cornered Cat and No-Nonsense are the only two I think worthy of posting, mind.

So I would say it depends a lot on the training, and for reasons not much beyond boredom (did I mention I am oh so totally BORED with naught to do ?) imma give a tactical perspective on those scenarios.

Pre-Planned ambush - depends much on your attackers discipline and abilities, sure, your chances aren't good, but street thugs are TERRIBLE at this, making noise, arguing amongst themselves, talking smack, smoking on the job (old army joke) etc, and being alert and catching it early might give you those few seconds that are all you need to get outta dodge.

Overwhemling numbers - yeah, you're screwed, but that kinda thing is really, really rare, even I only ran up against that once, pulling a friend out of a beatdown (for refusing to buy drugs when offered) that was soon to turn lethal.
They didn't push when the real steel came out, but they didn't run neither, I did get my buddy out of there and to the ER though - if they had rushed me, yah, that woulda been it, but the survivors woulda thought they'd walked into Thermopylae.

Distance/Sniper - screwed, yeah, but fairly rare.

Grappling - Toss up, could go either way, I will note from a technical standpoint that if you fire an automatic pistol while you've got muzzle contact, it's VERY likely to cycle out of battery and jam, so put that one shot somewhere important like the upper body mass if possible.

Breakins - That one's twitchy, basically the BEST idea is to take cover, haul out the iron and verbally inform the intruders they should leave, while calling the cops... no need to go rambo, just bunker down and defend yourself if needs be.

Really touchy about this one since over the holidays we've busted two rings of jerks using police uniforms and gear to stage fake no-knocks and then robbing folk at gunpoint, and really recently had some folk kick in the door of some folk (who did apparently manage to call the cops), rob them, then put them on their knees and shot them both execution style... one of them is still alive last I heard with a bullet in his neck.

In light of that, my SOP is one warning only, you understand that, I hope.

Carjacking - Actually, while punching the gas is the best opinion, it's not always available, and I really don't like the angles of the initial engagement, I am ambidextrous and set up for left handed draw to cover the back seat - you see.

If you're blocked in, a good SOP, unlatch the door, fall flat and kick it into the carjacker hard enough to put him on his ass, then pop up with your weapon in a two handed grip in case he decided to hang around - never had one do so, both of em took off after the door hit em anyway.

Smaller Numbers - Yeah, but that's the primary situation that's also most likely, one to three opportunistic punks who think you look like an easy mark or something, something you can usually avoid, or even de-escalate.

The ideal is avoiding the situation, just like you try to avoid having a fire or a flat tire - but you've got a fire extinguisher and a spare just in case, yes ?

I would say the training matters, but the quality of that training matters more than having it or not.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 5:32 PM

I knew a guy years ago that carried a concealed handgun in an ankle holster at all times. Every once in a while it would come up in conversation and someone would inevitably point their finger at him and say "I've got the you covered don't move or I'll shoot". Then they would begin to tell him his gun would be of no use in a real situation. Before they could get a few words out of their mouth he would demonstrate for them what to do if someone has you covered with a gun. In a very well practiced manor he would begin to cower in the most convincing way, begging them not to shoot him. He would begin to whimper and offer to do anything if they just wouldn't shoot him. As he cowered he would take a step backward and trip over his own feet, falling backward to the ground in a clumsy way. As the person holding the finger on him was laughing at the pitiful sight he had made of himself he gets up still doing his act and points his loaded gun right at their face. He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did. He had his act down so good and had practiced drawing his weapon so much I believe he could have killed a large percentage of would be armed robbers.

In the case of overwhelming force I think in many cases one well trained man with a handgun is a good match for ten armed gangsters holding their guns sideways to look tough.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 4, 2008 10:55 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I've lived in some very dangerous places. Had my residence broken into 3 times (once while I was at home), been assualted, stalked, had my car stolen and various other lawless acts. Never once did I feel the need to own a gun. And somehow I got through it all, still alive and well, and old enough to be your parent, if not your grandparent.

That's fine Rue. And as far as you've taken that meaning in that one individual paragraph, I cannot fault you for your decisions and choices in this matter. You don't want the right to bear arms.... you relinquish it. I get it.

Guess what... I've never shot anybody either. I've never even shot at anybody, for that matter. For me, gun ownership is more of the principal of the thing. The fact that, historically speaking, anytime a government has successfully banned its people from being able to protect themselves it then starts overstepping its boundaries is also key for me. I would think with our shared fear and loathing of the current administration and how much it's changed here stateside in the last 7 years that you could appreciate that sentiment.

Either way.... just please.... don't tell me that I should, by law, agree with your way of thinking or that I should not be able to choose protect myself and instead rely on the very police force that I have never once here hidden my contempt for.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 1:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Kirkules

"As the person holding the finger on him was laughing at the pitiful sight he had made of himself he gets up still doing his act and points his loaded gun right at their face. He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did."

Wow. Just wow. I hope you never try his plan, it's a great way to get killed.

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 1:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

6-ix

"anytime a government has successfully banned its people from being able to protect themselves it then starts overstepping its boundaries"

I can think of many countries that regulate guns that don't have despotic governments - most of western and northern Europe; and many countries with despots and warlords that have no gun control - west and central Africa, and Somalia.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 6, 2008 2:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

Doesn't matter if you piss them off, the idea is just distract them for a few seconds to draw your weapon.

Quote:
And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

The guy I was talking about was a trained firearms expert. If someone was pointing anything other than a finger at him he would have shot them dead without hesitation. You're the "doofus" for pretending to know what your talking about.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 5:21 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok, folks. I think we are moving away from my original point. So let me rephrase it...

Weapons, be they guns, knives, teeth and claws, or a big rock are the inherant right of any living creature.

The use of them to defend ones life is also an inherant right.

The ability to have these weapons to defend ones life, on their person, SHOULD be an inherant right.

Discuss tactics, discuss the morality of guns, but can we please agree on the above ideas?

Also, a good point was made about the current administration. Whether you agree with its policies or not, why are some so quick to give up the last (worst-case) scenario of changing it?

It seems that everyday we give up our freedoms, an inch at a time. Whether its cameras on every corner, SpeedPass to monitor where you are driving, satelites over head, invasion of our bank accounts, monitoring our emails and blogs (ahem), or Passports that can now be read at a distance.

We are slowly giving up the freedom of annonymity.

Where does this lead? It may come to a point where noone can stand up against what the government is doing. Or theyll just (easily) hunt you down. Or take your money (which in this day and age is akin to breaking your back.)

Has anyone here ever seen "Enemy of the State"?

So why are some so quick to give up the last vestige of revolt? (And by the way, this IS a Firefly message board...small government, guns, and FREEDOM were the cornerstone of the series unless I missed my guess)

Thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did. He had his act down so good and had practiced drawing his weapon so much I believe he could have killed a large percentage of would be armed robbers.

Unlike Mal who pulls his gun and shoots, damnit. This is the movie cliche of the man who talked too much before pulling the trigger. Usually it's the bad guy; you've seen it a million times. So has your friend, but he didn't learn not to speechify before firing.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The use of them to defend ones life is also an inherant right. The ability to have these weapons to defend ones life, on their person, SHOULD be an inherant right. Discuss tactics, discuss the morality of guns, but can we please agree on the above ideas?

Every creature has the right to self defense. But sometimes that defense is fleeing, sometimes it's having lots and lots and lots of babies, sometimes it forming a herd, and sometimes it's outsmarting the aggressor. So while it may feel all manly and pumped up to to think about fighting your way through a situation, that is not the only option, nor is it always the best. I reserve the right to defend myself, but.... playing devil's advocate here... maybe the defense is through political action not individual self-defense. (To repeat: I DO own a defensive weapon.)

Quote:
Also, a good point was made about the current administration. Whether you agree with its policies or not, why are some so quick to give up the last (worst-case) scenario of changing it? It seems that everyday we give up our freedoms, an inch at a time. Whether its cameras on every corner, SpeedPass to monitor where you are driving, satelites over head, invasion of our bank accounts, monitoring our emails and blogs (ahem), or Passports that can now be read at a distance. We are slowly giving up the freedom of annonymity.

The BIGGEST barrier to fighting for our freedom is individualism. Before gun possession does any good whatsoever, you have to seriously think about organizing approximately 5% of the adult population into fighting force... that's about 1.5 million people who're able to strike in a coordinated fashion. AND you have to have another 10-15% or so of the remaining adult population to sustain them: Another 15-22 million. Otherwise you're just a nut with a gun standing off the SWAT team.

But yanno, given that we have the right to vote, isn't it just a whole lot more effective to vote in the candidate of your choice? Part of the problem here is that so many people think that guns are THE answer. They're not. They really aren't. They won't help you with an incompetent school board or oppressive laws or pot-holed roads and the theft of our money by corporations.

Before you change anything substantively, the first thing you have to change is your mind. And then you have to change the minds of others.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:33 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Thats my point exactly. These measures being set up, are to PREVENT someone from organizing 5% of the population.

I am of the opinion that it no longer matters WHO is in office.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:39 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

Doesn't matter if you piss them off, the idea is just distract them for a few seconds to draw your weapon.

Quote:
And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

The guy I was talking about was a trained firearms expert. If someone was pointing anything other than a finger at him he would have shot them dead without hesitation. You're the "doofus" for pretending to know what your talking about.

Hello,

I have been avoiding commentary on this anectdote, but your final assertion here that the guy was a trained firearms expert is appalling.

The reason this is appalling to me, is that your friend ends his dramatic play by pointing a loaded gun at the other guy's face. This violates a fundamental rule of gun safety, i.e. Don't point your gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.

Your ankle-holster expert seems to me to be immature and poorly trained. The correct thing to do would be to laugh and say, "You got me, all right," and move on with the party. Not enter into some kind of macho drama that ends with a loaded gun in some guy's face.

In real life, people's hands don't metamorph into guns. In real life, they draw their weapons from somewhere. In real life, your friends and acquaintences probably CAN kill you without much warning if they want to, but you're probably keeping your eye on strangers. In real life, you don't rely on a carefully rehearsed drama to cover your ass. In real life, an ankle holster is useless if someone IS standing in front of you, pointing a gun at you. And I hope to God in real life, trained firearms experts aren't as idiotic and immature as your example here.

I apologize if I sound caustic. I am a firearms advocate, and this story disturbed me on many levels.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:40 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Weapons, be they guns, knives, teeth and claws, or a big rock are the inherant right of any living creature."

Damn it then ! I WANT MY NUKE ! WHY CAN'T I HAVE A NUKE ???!!!

***************************************************************
Even my DOG has a RIGHT to a NUKE !!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:46 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

*sigh Lol You know the answer to that one, Rue. Because then there wouldnt be any more cats....and a lot of people like cats.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:49 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Weapons, be they guns, knives, teeth and claws, or a big rock are the inherant right of any living creature."

Damn it then ! I WANT MY NUKE ! WHY CAN'T I HAVE A NUKE ???!!!

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Hello,

Unlike some people, I am not prepared to advocate that the general populace be armed with missiles, bombs, rockets, etc.

IF the powers-that-be would agree that I have the right to arm myself in defense of my life and liberties, I would gladly work with them to enact reasonable training and destructive limits to the weapons I am allowed to carry.

I consider 'reasonable' to include force-matching to the local constabulary. My reasoning is that the constables and I must face the same criminal threats. They, by virtue of office, and me, by virtue of being the victim of criminal activity. Likewise, the constabulary is likely to be the front line in any effort to steal life and liberty from the citizenry.

I do not think it is practical or safe to force-match with the military.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 6:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Because then there wouldnt be any more cats....and a lot of people like cats....."
LOL That was funny !!

Just trying to point out the fallacy of that biologically-based argument.

There are all sorts of biological 'defenses' against predation that you (personally) don't recognize, and which have nothing at all to do with weapons. Breeding quickly, living where nothing else can, carrying around your own armor, being fast and running away, camouflage, losing then regenerating your body parts ... and so on.

And then of course, unless you specify which 'weapon' every living thing has a right to you could say a patch of moss has the 'right' to a 'nuke'. In fact, it makes the perfect example b/c they are so defensless on their own - just one little step below the helpless granny.

It's just, you know, not much of an argument.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:35 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Rue, thats circular logic and you know it. I wont spend the time debating whether lichen has the right to a nuke. (sheeesh)

I will say that every living thing has the right to whatever weapon is at hand (and best for any situation) in order to defend itself (up to, but NOT including mass genocide)

If a dog could handle a glock, and shot the dogcatcher....the dog would be in the right. But unfotunatly....no opposable thumb.

Now Rue, riddle me this....why is that so-called Liberals, are always clamboring for more government control? Shouldnt', as LIBERALS, you be crying for less? Or is it only for the things you want to have?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Wulfen

I can't help that your logic falls apart. You made a statement that you tried to back up with non-existant facts. Further, b/c that 'logic' is unbounded, you take that 'logic' to such an extreme it clearly becomes unsupportable.

When you're willing to discuss facts with logic, I'll be happy to join in. Till then I'll just keep poking holes in your silliness.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:45 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

But according to your ideas.....(1) Noone should be armed. (2) Running away is the only option. (3) We should rely soley on our government for our safety.

Do I need to even begin pointing out the holes in ALL of those?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 7:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

1) " Noone should be armed." Never said that. I was arguing against the silliness that guns solve everything - by pointing out really nice safe and free places with few guns, and really nasty violent and oppressed places with lots of guns. I've been waiting for a cogent argument FOR guns that hasn't shown up yet. I'll certainly give it a read should one be posted.

2) "Running away is the only option." Never said that either. If you're using 'self-protection' as a 'reason' for guns, I was pointing out that running away is actually the safest option and is most consistent with self-protection. If you're arguing for guns as the top pick for safety, then there are other reason besides safety for you to choose them.

3) "We should rely soley on our government for our safety." Didn't even come close to that. Have you not read any of my methods for keeping myself and family safe ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 12:32 PM

"I've been waiting for a cogent argument FOR guns that hasn't shown up yet. I'll certainly give it a read should one be posted."

Dealer takes one, stands pat and calls.
Time to show YOUR hand, M'lady.

Concealed weapons permits on the rise
Feared problems don't materialize, crime data show
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS01/80107032
5

The Lansing State Journal tried, and tried, and tried, for MONTHs, but somehow no matter how they skewed the result, they could NOT make the argument that allowing CCW here did anything BUT reduce crime and violence.

I use the LSJ as example cause the Detroit "Free" Press and Detroit "News" are rather rabidly pro-gun and not an objective source on just about anything, up to and including retaining on payroll columnists who have admitted to taking bribes to write shill pieces for the current administration.

Even if they made a better case (which they might, if they have the same initial data), I would not use it, could not use it, at least not without disclaimer - because they fail to meet any standard of journalistic integrity.

The irony is that this is a Freep (Free Press) reporter carrying the data to the LSJ for a more honest assessment instead of their own.

I am also skeptical about John Lott, while he makes a good case, some of his own deeds and excesses make me question his integrity also, so I don't take his word without the initial data in hand to compare it to.

Problem with this issue is that most of the folks doing the research have their own biases and tend to contaminate the data, something you as a scientist can understand annoys the piss outta me.

I would no more accept the unsupported word of Mr. Lott on gun ownership and violence than I would that of Sarah Brady, and for much the same reason.

Still, I think we can file this small bit from the LSJ into evidence as exhibit A and note that in spite of 1-in-65 folks packin (legally, that would admit to it) and 130,000 new CCW permits since 2001... Michigan has not become the wild west, and crime has actually DECREASED overall.

I would really love to know the crime trend of Flint in particular during that time, by the evidence of living right next to it at the time, my own eyes and perceptions from residency and keeping informed via the local police blotters, it SEEMED to drop like a rock, but I don't have any hard evidence on that to give you.

Oh, and please remember the fact that due to my bum leg (wheelchair till the 20th) and poor health, I ain't RUNNIN nowhere, and confronting a passenger IN my vehicle trying to rob me also doesn't really offer that option - so for me the safest thing to do is make THEM go away, quickly... or shoot them, and of the two, I prefer convincing them to flee for their lives, heart pounding in terror, and rarely do I have to actually draw to do it.

"GODS! Tis a madman I've hunted!" - Dwarf Assassin
"Yeah, and a real repressed one too..." - Lusiphur Malanche.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

First of all the laughing part - maybe for a buddy, at a party - but in front of killers who are out for blood and a quick exit ? It could just as easliy piss them off. And guess what happens then ?

Doesn't matter if you piss them off, the idea is just distract them for a few seconds to draw your weapon.

Quote:
And pointing a gun at an armed person and then making a manly speech about how he doesn't hesitate to pull the trigger - meanwhile, if I may point out, not pulling the trigger - ... he'd get to the second blah before he got cut down.

Your buddy is a doofus who confuses reality with US TV.

The guy I was talking about was a trained firearms expert. If someone was pointing anything other than a finger at him he would have shot them dead without hesitation. You're the "doofus" for pretending to know what your talking about.

Hello,

I have been avoiding commentary on this anectdote, but your final assertion here that the guy was a trained firearms expert is appalling.

The reason this is appalling to me, is that your friend ends his dramatic play by pointing a loaded gun at the other guy's face. This violates a fundamental rule of gun safety, i.e. Don't point your gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.

Your ankle-holster expert seems to me to be immature and poorly trained. The correct thing to do would be to laugh and say, "You got me, all right," and move on with the party. Not enter into some kind of macho drama that ends with a loaded gun in some guy's face.

In real life, people's hands don't metamorph into guns. In real life, they draw their weapons from somewhere. In real life, your friends and acquaintences probably CAN kill you without much warning if they want to, but you're probably keeping your eye on strangers. In real life, you don't rely on a carefully rehearsed drama to cover your ass. In real life, an ankle holster is useless if someone IS standing in front of you, pointing a gun at you. And I hope to God in real life, trained firearms experts aren't as idiotic and immature as your example here.

I apologize if I sound caustic. I am a firearms advocate, and this story disturbed me on many levels.

--Anthony

I knew when I posted my story that my written communication skills were not adequate to describe this demonstration of drawing from an ankle holster adiquitly. Your just dead wrong if you think an ankle holstered weapon is useless when someone is facing you with a gun. I would have believed the same thing if I hadn't seen it demonstrated in person. You are assuming that the person holding the gun on you is proficient with their weapon, this is not usually the case. The assumption is that the person on the other end of the gun is not as well trained and will hesitate just a second before firing if you act like you are being submissive.

Also I believe it was Rue not me that said that this guy was my friend. None of my friends would point a loaded gun at another person unless they intended to shoot them. The guy doing the demonstration was a firearms expert, not a firearms safety expert. I was as appalled as anyone that he would point a loaded gun at anyone. Unfortunately there are a lot of firearms experts that have been trained in efficient killing methods that believe that their expertise overrides the need for basic gun safety.

As far as being "caustic", don't worry about it, I can be an idiot at times.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 1:48 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
... None of my friends would point a loaded gun at another person unless they intended to shoot them. The guy doing the demonstration was a firearms expert, not a firearms safety expert. I was as appalled as anyone that he would point a loaded gun at anyone. ...

I award two points to Kirkules.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
He would then proceed to tell them that they were dead because he did not hesitate to pull the trigger like they did. He had his act down so good and had practiced drawing his weapon so much I believe he could have killed a large percentage of would be armed robbers.
Unlike Mal who pulls his gun and shoots, damnit. This is the movie cliche of the man who talked too much before pulling the trigger. Usually it's the bad guy; you've seen it a million times. So has your friend, but he didn't learn not to speechify before firing.

You should actually read my post for a little context before you make an idiot out of yourself like Rue. As I said, this event happened in casual conversation and the person was pointing their finger at him not a gun. Are you saying he should have shot the unarmed person in a demonstration instead of telling them they were dead. I know I'm a poor writer but it might help if you actually read what I posted.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 8:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No I read it. Your friend was describing what he would do if he'd been confronted, right? Including laughing at the "bad guys"?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 9:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Thats my point exactly. These measures being set up, are to PREVENT someone from organizing 5% of the population. I am of the opinion that it no longer matters WHO is in office.

I agree, but... What does it take ot organize 5% of the population into armed resistance, and 10% of the population into supporting it? (According to various military manuals it takes at least 15% of the population to support a successful insurgency.)

Well, you have to control the media, at least get a word in edgewise, or develop your own media. Because most people sit in front of the boob toob day after day, saturated with the message that buying a new car is akin to buying freedom.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 7, 2008 9:29 PM