Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/8/2006 8:02:23 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I routinely practice 100 yards with a handgun figuring if I can do that, the rest will take care of itself.



Hello A/all,

I have never been shooting (I love killing paper) on a target range where the target shot back.  Accuracy with a firearm is a fine motor movement which uses cognitive ability.  Adrenaline (such as one experiences in a combat situation) turns off the ability to do fine motor movements and cognitive processing, which is why 12 policemen can shoot a guy in a car on the streets of New York with handguns using 72 bullets from distances up to 10 feet away and hit him twice.  And these are people who work under adrenal stress conditions professionally.

Our resident gun expert pointed out that 1 in 36 was a low percentage (albeit successful) gunfight for those 12 policemen, whereas a high success was more like 1 in 12.  Make sure your weapon of home defense has 13 bullets in it to guarantee your own personal safety.

I teach self defense under the adrenalin state.  I dont own a gun.  I have some swords, and lots of knives, but there really is not time in a fight to get one out, except in Hollywood.  Grab the perpetrator, knee kick (large motor movement) to the testicles and/or head, fight is over.

I have been in a knife fight (I was attacked by a drunken lunatic who decided I had eaten his peanuts in a bar) and walked away leaking from an injury I did not care much about and not having to explain why the other person was dead.  He spent the night in jail with a huge knee shaped bruise on his groin.  I got patched up with tie wraps and bailing wire and the doctor sent me in for the second half.

I really have an aversion to both violence and killing, and I did not want to have to try to sleep knowing I had killed somebody.  I have a love / hate relationship with knives built over years of training with them.  Then learning the poignant intimacy they represent in a life or death struggle really gave me pause.

Im always a trifle amused by people who post their weapons proficiency.  The average number of people who fired their gun in World War 2 in combat was something ridiculous like 2%.  With extensive psychological conditioning in our military training we are now approaching something in the 90% who fire their weapon in combat.  Although our actual hit percentage might be in the tweens, which is why there is such a preference for semi and fully automatic weapons in combat zones.  Why shoot one bullet and hope for a hit when you can shoot dozens or hundreds of bullets per minute at your target?

The most dangerous weapon is your brain.  The most effective deterrant to combat situations are your verbal skills and ability to interrupt patterns.

Want to be safe in your house, buy a dog.  Not an attack dog, something that will hear somebody breaking in and make an enormous amount of noise.  The perpetrator will think "gee, dog, I dunno" and go somewhere else most of the time.  Then if you are so inclined you can go unlock your gun safe (which you own because you dont want your kids to blow their own heads off), get out the gun, load it, get into position, etc., and then try to hit a moving target in the dark while under the effects of adrenaline.

Good luck!

On the other hand, I learned to never point a gun at something I was not willing to destroy.  And people need to understand that pulling a gun on somebody ups the ante in the confrontation; somebody is going to end up dead at the end of your contact with that person.  I hope for your sake that you are better at it then they are, or you will find yourself carried by six.

Not me, but go for it if thats what gets you through the day.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 4:19:07 AM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I routinely practice 100 yards with a handgun figuring if I can do that, the rest will take care of itself.



Hello A/all,

I have never been shooting (I love killing paper) on a target range where the target shot back.  Accuracy with a firearm is a fine motor movement which uses cognitive ability.  Adrenaline (such as one experiences in a combat situation) turns off the ability to do fine motor movements and cognitive processing, which is why 12 policemen can shoot a guy in a car on the streets of New York with handguns using 72 bullets from distances up to 10 feet away and hit him twice.  And these are people who work under adrenal stress conditions professionally.

Our resident gun expert pointed out that 1 in 36 was a low percentage (albeit successful) gunfight for those 12 policemen, whereas a high success was more like 1 in 12.  Make sure your weapon of home defense has 13 bullets in it to guarantee your own personal safety.

I teach self defense under the adrenalin state.  I dont own a gun.  I have some swords, and lots of knives, but there really is not time in a fight to get one out, except in Hollywood.  Grab the perpetrator, knee kick (large motor movement) to the testicles and/or head, fight is over.

I have been in a knife fight (I was attacked by a drunken lunatic who decided I had eaten his peanuts in a bar) and walked away leaking from an injury I did not care much about and not having to explain why the other person was dead.  He spent the night in jail with a huge knee shaped bruise on his groin.  I got patched up with tie wraps and bailing wire and the doctor sent me in for the second half.

I really have an aversion to both violence and killing, and I did not want to have to try to sleep knowing I had killed somebody.  I have a love / hate relationship with knives built over years of training with them.  Then learning the poignant intimacy they represent in a life or death struggle really gave me pause.

Im always a trifle amused by people who post their weapons proficiency.  The average number of people who fired their gun in World War 2 in combat was something ridiculous like 2%.  With extensive psychological conditioning in our military training we are now approaching something in the 90% who fire their weapon in combat.  Although our actual hit percentage might be in the tweens, which is why there is such a preference for semi and fully automatic weapons in combat zones.  Why shoot one bullet and hope for a hit when you can shoot dozens or hundreds of bullets per minute at your target?

The most dangerous weapon is your brain.  The most effective deterrant to combat situations are your verbal skills and ability to interrupt patterns.

Want to be safe in your house, buy a dog.  Not an attack dog, something that will hear somebody breaking in and make an enormous amount of noise.  The perpetrator will think "gee, dog, I dunno" and go somewhere else most of the time.  Then if you are so inclined you can go unlock your gun safe (which you own because you dont want your kids to blow their own heads off), get out the gun, load it, get into position, etc., and then try to hit a moving target in the dark while under the effects of adrenaline.

Good luck!

On the other hand, I learned to never point a gun at something I was not willing to destroy.  And people need to understand that pulling a gun on somebody ups the ante in the confrontation; somebody is going to end up dead at the end of your contact with that person.  I hope for your sake that you are better at it then they are, or you will find yourself carried by six.

Not me, but go for it if thats what gets you through the day.

Sinergy


You raise some interesting points, some of which I agree with and some I wonder about.

I agree to an extent about the stress, but most cops do not train, or at least not very well. It seems as though there are the "Dirty Harry" types who would be getting down and dirty whether a cop or not, and on the other end of the extreme there are cops who don't seem alarmed their weapon is literally rusting in their holster. I have seen my share of both, No matter what happens, it all comes down to one's commitment ot training and the quality there of (and outside of those top dollar training seminars, there are few options). Nevertheless, I certainly concede stress serves as a damper, but how significant the damper varies with the individual.

Your wartime speculation is a bit dubious, however. The danger of statistics is that they can be tweaked to mean anything. If I concede to your 2% statistic, I must give pause and wonder about what 2% actually means. I vividly recall a History channel excerpt on logistics and the statistic that in WWII it took 18 service men to support a single US combat troop in the field, so by that number alone, you have only 6% who have had regular occasion to NEED to fire a weapon, and 2% or 1/3 is a pretty significant number after all. The higher percentage of troops today who fire would more likely come from improved logistics which require fewer support personnel as well as a (dangerously) streamlined military, thanks to the Clinton administration. I am not sure what to make of your semi-full auto assessment, however. We favor(ed) semis & fullys because our hit percentage "might" be in the tweens? The mainstay of the German army was the K98 mauser, which was bolt action, and ours was the M-1 Garand which was an 8-shot semi. You would think the solution would be to arm every troop with a M-3 Grease gun (a dirt cheap submachine gun) but that was not the case, nor was it in Korea. The rifle Ruled/s supreme and with good reason, and the US didn't take an automatic rifle seriously until after the Korean conflict when they issued M-14s (unwieldy to most in automatic mode) and later M-16A1s in Vietnam. Top brass was disappointed with troop fire dicipline which necessitated a 3 round trigger burst with the advent of th A2s (and then a switch back to full with the A3s accompanied by training NOT to spray and pray). Today our better-trained troops have understood the dynamics of offensive fire and as often (or more so) fire semi automatic volleys in with controlled aim. Nowadays, auto fire is essentially rellegated to CQB, where precise aim is not required. This last point seems to agree with your statement about stress and less precision. The point about semiautomatics and automatics however, is that they have as much to do with engaging multiple targets as they have to do with engaging a single target multiple times.

Your brain assessment is dead-on, but your home defense advice MIGHT be completely half-baked with respect to certain points. Manstopping dog always trumps lil yipper (especially when the perp knows you aren't home as more break-ins are occuring in suburbs at daylight when everybody's out of the house except for "Buttons" the wonder mutt). If "killer" is too much a liability for small children then "Buttons" certainly makes for a good alarm provided it occurs when you are home. As far as the way you have set up the "get your gun" setup, the person might as well not have one at all.

Safes: having kids means locking it up is a must, but they make specific lightning access safes that mount to the bed or beside it that can be accessed by fingerprints or finger touch combo (instead of 36 left, 28 right, 16 left while squinting with sleep swollen eyes under the lamplight while hell breaks loose downstairs).

Guns to save your ass: BETTER BE LOADED. The point of the safe is to keep hands that don't belong off it. You know you have a gun, you know it's loaded, and you respect and treat it according ly. you just wasted at least 2 min snapping on the lamp and twisting the combo, now you propose to waste more time fumbling around with a magazine or speed loader? I think "beep beep Boop!" of the specialized safe and a grab of the loaded weapon (all accomplished in fewer than 30 seconds) is the only way to go if you actually NEED the gun. This is moot as well because a hand gun is the "oh shit" someone's at the door or in the room already. You SHOULD be reaching for the shotgun if you hear it downstairs, and they make flashlights for both.

Your closing words definitely hit the mark in my book.


(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 7:13:07 AM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline
Pulp, it was the "dangerously thin" Clinton military that swept through Iraq in days.  It is the incompetent and corrupt bush administration that has done everything it could to screw up Iraq so we would be forced to stay, NOBODY is that incompetent by accident.  Everything they have done stengthens are enemies from Osama to China and fucks America and Americans.

And if you think bush and his crew want you to have weapons, you are on crack.  The bans put in place under raygun and bush's dad are still in place, ATF has put severe limitations on imports of barrels, receivers, and other parts.  The machinegun manufacturing ban is still in place.  All the above with a Republican controlled congress.  These people are fascists of the worst sort and as someone who has spent a lifetime in and around the arms business, I know exactly of what I speak of.

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 10:29:36 AM   
agirl


Posts: 4530
Joined: 6/14/2004
Status: offline
What an interesting thread.

Reading through it really brought home the culteral difference between USA and UK. Guns are owned by VERY few people and our legislation is extremely strict.

To own a gun in the UK, the police have to be convinced that you have *good reason* and they are limited to people who use them for legitimate sporting or work reasons. Even for these people, conditions are strict and storage is checked each time the  licence to own the gun is renewed.

Even for people having obtained a gun licence,there's a restriction on the amount and type of ammuntion that can be bought and owned at any one time and it's also recorded. ( Apart from on a firing range, where it's bought and used at the same time)

That apart.......there ARE killings involving guns in the UK  but they are extremely rare and always shocking.

I have no experience of having to live with protection in mind ....if anyone was even mildly determined to rob me, they'd succeed.

agirl



(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 12:47:55 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Pulp, it was the "dangerously thin" Clinton military that swept through Iraq in days.  It is the incompetent and corrupt bush administration that has done everything it could to screw up Iraq so we would be forced to stay, NOBODY is that incompetent by accident.  Everything they have done stengthens are enemies from Osama to China and fucks America and Americans.


While tempted to bite at this apple, it is irredeemably off topic, so I will leave it at the facts and the facts are that Clinton gutted the military.


quote:

And if you think bush and his crew want you to have weapons, you are on crack.  The bans put in place under raygun and bush's dad are still in place, ATF has put severe limitations on imports of barrels, receivers, and other parts.  The machinegun manufacturing ban is still in place.  All the above with a Republican controlled congress.  These people are fascists of the worst sort and as someone who has spent a lifetime in and around the arms business, I know exactly of what I speak of.


With respect to the so-called Raygun/Bush I bans you speak of that are still in place, you show your lack of understanding of the facts as well as the political process.

1. The 1986 Machine gun ban this was enacted by a (liberally dominated) congress, not Regan END OF STORY. Now you cite this occuring under a Conservatively dominated congress. Clearly your command of legislative membership (along with facts) is lacking. the 99th congress was liberally DOMINATED (See wikipedia 99th congress).

2.  The 1989 ban was the product of overzealous ATF agents who have no understanding about what their job really is, not the president. Bush I directed ATF to review the firearms being imported to ensure they meet the "sporting" clause in the '68 CGA. ATF set up the "features" that military firearms have and "sporting" firearms do not have and determined which ones were "useful" as "sporting" firearms. Everything else was denied importation. ATF identified the various parts of a firearm and decided that any firearm that did not contain more than 10 of these foreign made parts would be considered "Made in USA." This entire list of guns prohibited from importation can go away simply by the Director of ATF changing what ATF considers a "sporting firearm. This is the same EXACT BS with the barrel ban. The ATF has chosen to expand its interpretation to include barrels as elements of what is "sporting:" and what is not. I challenge you to show me any directive issued by Bush II to ban barrels.

Now we go to the 1994 Assault weapons ban, which again, occurred under a liberally dominated congress (see 103rd congress). Note I don't even mention Klinton here. People that blame the president for this crap are fools that do not understand the seperation of powers.

So today we have a conservatively controlled congress and all this nonesense hasn't been repealed so the Republicans are therefore gun control advocates? what a ridiculous premise. Once the 1994 AWB passed liberals took it between the eyes from their blue collar shooting constituents and it cost them a lot of seats next session. Politicians have learned from this: Don't meddle with gun laws unless you have some shitstorm of media support (like Miami Vice depicting columbians with Uzis and TV with gang bangers running the streets with Tec-9s). This exactly why the AWB died with a with a whimper on a Republically controlled floor (oh wait, Bush and his cronies don't want me to have guns... wonder how that happened then). The FACT is that Liberals knew their goose would be cooked so they shut up and let it die and the Republicans don't see an upswelling of POPULAR support to repeal machine guns thanks to the media portrayal of guns, so they leave that alone as well.

You may know what legislation has passed and under which presidents the bills were born, but you have much to learn about the details. Proof positive that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 1:10:44 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
Actually you maybe interested to know that it was under Bush the First that the base closures and the recommendations for the closures were first made. This was something that none other than Dick Cheney was involved with... who wudda thunk it? Yes, Dick Cheney was involved with the recommendations to close bases. It was a plan that Clinton implemented from his predecessor, just like NAFTA.

I am not a Clinton lover, he was much too free trade/pro corporations for my taste, and the base closure thing is just one of the many myths surrounding the Clinton years.. he did not think it up, he just followed through because we were living in a post cold war world, and if those bases were needed in the fight on terror then why not reopen them? Because the government really doesn't give a rat's ass about your saftey.

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 7/9/2006 1:11:38 PM >


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 1:36:50 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Actually you maybe interested to know that it was under Bush the First that the base closures and the recommendations for the closures were first made. This was something that none other than Dick Cheney was involved with... who wudda thunk it? Yes, Dick Cheney was involved with the recommendations to close bases. It was a plan that Clinton implemented from his predecessor, just like NAFTA.

I am not a Clinton lover, he was much too free trade/pro corporations for my taste, and the base closure thing is just one of the many myths surrounding the Clinton years.. he did not think it up, he just followed through because we were living in a post cold war world, and if those bases were needed in the fight on terror then why not reopen them? Because the government really doesn't give a rat's ass about your saftey.


Again, blame congressional deadlock, not the president http://http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/97-305.pdf#search='military%20base%20closures%20clinton' for the closures. Nevertheless, Klinton's program to balance the budget led to substantial cuts in the military that exceeded mere real estate, such as maintenance and repair expenditures, and respectfully, with regards to this topic, it does not interest me to know who closed bases, or who cut what program because it is an irrelevant tangent that threatens to swallow the whole thread. It is worthy of its own posting and should not take away from this topic which is worthy in its own right.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 2:34:07 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
It wasn't me who veered the topic this far off the mark.. I should have highlighted what I was responding to within the context of your post

"US combat troop in the field, so by that number alone, you have only 6% who have had regular occasion to NEED to fire a weapon, and 2% or 1/3 is a pretty significant number after all. The higher percentage of troops today who fire would more likely come from improved logistics which require fewer support personnel as well as a (dangerously) streamlined military, thanks to the Clinton administration"
 
I was just responding as were others to your post, if you thought that it wasn't valid as a form of discourse in the context of this thread I am perplexed as to why 1) you responded to my post, and 2) you made value assessments about the Clinton administration and streamlining the military in the first place.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 2:49:50 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline
Julia,

Remember, it is always the Democrats fault, whether they are in charge of something or not.  If Clinton signed it it is his fault, but if Bush signs something it is someone else's fault.

Imagine a bratty child for whom everything is someone else's fault and you have a picture of your average knee jerk Republican.

I mean this guy is trying to defend poor Bush because he doesn't have the power to affect a tiny federal agency.  You can bet your ass if that agency impacted oil or pharmaceutical companies, heads would roll and you wouldn't recognize the agency within 24 hours of any adverse action against his corporate sponsors.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 3:25:10 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

It wasn't me who veered the topic this far off the mark.. I should have highlighted what I was responding to within the context of your post

"US combat troop in the field, so by that number alone, you have only 6% who have had regular occasion to NEED to fire a weapon, and 2% or 1/3 is a pretty significant number after all. The higher percentage of troops today who fire would more likely come from improved logistics which require fewer support personnel as well as a (dangerously) streamlined military, thanks to the Clinton administration"
 
I was just responding as were others to your post, if you thought that it wasn't valid as a form of discourse in the context of this thread I am perplexed as to why 1) you responded to my post, and 2) you made value assessments about the Clinton administration and streamlining the military in the first place.


I responded to your post just as I responded to Crappy's Klinton counter-offensive:

1. what you put out as a premise is only half the story
2. what you put out is irrelevant to the topic (Bush's bungling in Iraq or base closures) 

As to why I made my value assessments in the first place, you can call that creative license that collored in a FACTUAL background I mentioned the reason why combat troop percentages increased which was a product of better logistics and a largely reduced military (under the Klinton adm). This was in response to the an assessment that everybody needs auto fire since nobody can fire under stress (I oversimplify the OP's comment for brevity) and that (simplified) statement is false.


OP: Crapy

quote:



Julia,

Remember, it is always the Democrats fault, whether they are in charge of something or not.  If Clinton signed it it is his fault, but if Bush signs something it is someone else's fault.

Imagine a bratty child for whom everything is someone else's fault and you have a picture of your average knee jerk Republican.

I mean this guy is trying to defend poor Bush because he doesn't have the power to affect a tiny federal agency.  You can bet your ass if that agency impacted oil or pharmaceutical companies, heads would roll and you wouldn't recognize the agency within 24 hours of any adverse action against his corporate sponsors.


I wonder if you know how ridiculous you sound. Every body with an agenda, R or D takes pains to make the other look bad, wartime, peacetime, poverty, or prosperousness. Yes, Reps do this as do Dems and to make mention of this as if it is some unique Republican tactic is about as assinine as it gets. 

Then you cite the fact that the ATF is some pissant agency. Looks like you (along with your arguments) have blown all credibility about your "lifetime experience" in the arms business (at least the quality thereof, as there are hundreds of dipshit gun store clerks who spout disinformation daily). The ATF (along with the DEA, and the FBI) are ANYTHING BUT some piss-ant federal agency. Ruby Ridge? Waco? Illegal governmental intrusions conducted by these paramilitary forces that resulted in the deaths of US citizens who were denied their constitutional rights of due process. The ATF interprets what is legal and what is not legal with ZERO constitutional authority to do so. The power of this agency is immense, and if you had any legitimate experience with weapons culture outside of popping some rounds off in a field, you'd know this (although I believe you do know this and are trying to mimimize the agency for the sake of your point).

I find it amusing that Mr Lifetime experience has nothing to say about the facts I brought up regarding the 86 the 89, the 94, and the 04 legislation, so instead he shifts gears to Republican behavior, oil, and anything else that gives him a smug and deceptive sense of triumph.

Sorry to suck the wind out of your sails, but all politicians are assholes, the political parties are liars who don't give two shits about their constitutents (although gun-grabbing IS a pillar of the democratic party platform and has been throughout the last 30 years). I neither care for nor about your Bush or Republican bashing. It doesn't hurt me and it doesn't change the FACTS that I have outlined to rebut your half-baked premises. So now that we (the sensible) agree that politicians are aout to screw everybody regardless of affiliation there is nothing more to say about politics, so you can drop the childish emotion-baiting tactics. If you don't have any facts to dispute what I said about firearms legislation, or something else related to the topic of having, training, or lobbying for firearms to protect one's property, then I suggest you quit while you are this far behind.

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 3:40:50 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
What you posted about Clinton admin cutting back the military had nothing to do with accuracy of rounds fired in the field, nor did it have anything to do with the amount of troops actually handling a weapon in the field today, since the republican congress and the Bush admin have had ample time to rebuild the military. I am not into partisan bickering... both sides suck as far as I am concerned. It was a bipartisan effort to cut back the military... read Alan Toffler's "War and Anti-War" if you would like to inform yourself about where a streamlined military concept comes from.

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 6:16:46 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Manstopping dog always trumps lil yipper (especially when the perp knows you aren't home as more break-ins are occuring in suburbs at daylight when everybody's out of the house except for "Buttons" the wonder mutt). If "killer" is too much a liability for small children then "Buttons" certainly makes for a good alarm provided it occurs when you are home. As far as the way you have set up the "get your gun" setup, the person might as well not have one at all.


I specifically said that it was not an attack dog.

I generally follow the guideline that I will not ask somebody else to do something I am not willing to do myself.

I wont insist my submissive allow me to anally ravage her if she is against it; I wouldnt let some dude stick his johnson in me.  So if she has a limit to this, I am willing to go along with it.  The parameters of my sex life tend to be trumped by the parameters of my intellectual connection to my partner.  Just me, but the little head is not in charge.

Besides which, I am far more dangerous than my dog ever thought of being.

I said get a dog because their senses are a lot better than human senses, it will wake up before I do,  and it will make a hell of a lot of noise (to wake me up) if there is a problem.

quote:


Safes: having kids means locking it up is a must, but they make specific lightning access safes that mount to the bed or beside it that can be accessed by fingerprints or finger touch combo (instead of 36 left, 28 right, 16 left while squinting with sleep swollen eyes under the lamplight while hell breaks loose downstairs).



Of course, those squinting, sleep swollen (not to mention adrenalized) eyes under a lamplight will be the same ones AIMING THE GUN at a perpetrator.

Good luck hitting the target ;)

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 6:27:20 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Political twaddle.



Interesting how a discussion of self defense in the home has suddenly become a pedestal for airing political opinions with
no supporting evidence.

Enjoy your evenings.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 6:31:00 PM   
Pulpsmack


Posts: 394
Joined: 4/15/2004
From: Louisiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

quote:


Safes: having kids means locking it up is a must, but they make specific lightning access safes that mount to the bed or beside it that can be accessed by fingerprints or finger touch combo (instead of 36 left, 28 right, 16 left while squinting with sleep swollen eyes under the lamplight while hell breaks loose downstairs).



Of course, those squinting, sleep swollen (not to mention adrenalized) eyes under a lamplight will be the same ones AIMING THE GUN at a perpetrator.

Good luck hitting the target ;)

Sinergy


Like I said... right preparations = no fumbling or blinding light needed. An instant, tactile-operated safe that delivers a loaded pistol equipped with tritium night sites and flashlight makes for zero night blindness and minimal fumbling. Moreover, the better plan would be a shotgun which presents even more power and less-exacting placement.

ETA: I believe that I provided (at a minimum) some basis to the "twaddle" spouted, and substantially more than anybody else who has joined the fray. So my post worth pointing out above the other less-substantiated assertions because I called out some of your statements, or because you don't see "twaddle" when it tends to agree with your political sensibilities?

< Message edited by Pulpsmack -- 7/9/2006 6:40:34 PM >

(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 7:27:41 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack

Like I said... right preparations = no fumbling or blinding light needed. An instant, tactile-operated safe that delivers a loaded pistol equipped with tritium night sites and flashlight makes for zero night blindness and minimal fumbling. Moreover, the better plan would be a shotgun which presents even more power and less-exacting placement.



"Daddy, I need a glass of water"

*eep!, sleep fumbling, locked and loaded shotgun, adrenalin*

BLOOOIE

Go for it.  I will stick with the dog making noise and my adrenalin self defense training using nothing but the weapons I was born with.

As far as your political opinions are concerned, you are willing to believe whatever Clear Channel wants you to believe.  Shrub invaded Iraq with the military he inherited from Clinton, so go ahead bash the Clinton military all you want.  I would bet you dollars to donuts that if the military was asked to do something (like rescuing survivors of a level 4 hurricane overtopping the levees in New Orleans, hypothetically, of course) which didnt involve invading a country to protect US oil interests, the US military would not be capable of doing it.

And no, I would not blame the Clinton administration for providing Monkey Boy with a military capable of conquering a million man army in a matter of days, any more than I would blame whoever inherits the military from the Simian In Chief for the military being unable to find it's ass with both hands in future conflicts.

But as usual, that is just me and I could be wrong.

As Bush Sr. said after Desert Storm, "The President inherits their military from their predecessor"

It is like all the people who came out and screamed about how a President should never lie to the American people.  The silence from those same people now is simply deafening.

Sinergy


_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to Pulpsmack)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 7:30:27 PM   
IrishMist


Posts: 7480
Joined: 11/17/2005
Status: offline
I have several guns throughout my house. Both my daughter and I know how to use them. And yes, she knows where the ammo is, how to load it, and how to shoot it.
In additon to this, my job provides me with self-defense training; which I in turn have taught to her.


_____________________________

If I said something to offend you, please tell me what it was so that I can say it again later.


(in reply to BitaTruble)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 7:44:21 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
LOLOL,

If you are in a home defense situation, you are better off to try to do the duty with your self, on the order of what Sinergy is advocating....

Barring that you need the biggest pumpkin slinger that you can lay your hands on quickly, the army 45 by example..  They make llittle coking extensions that you can put on them so you can slam it into a wall or whatever to cock it (for the ladies and so on)

The biggest room in your house is maybe 14 feet, 24 if you live in a manson. which you don't.  Numbers suggest that you will be awakened from a deep sleep and will be disoriented.  Accuracy and your sharp and facile mind will not be entering into the mix at that time.  Plus the fact you will probably have shit in your pants that will cause you to walk rather askancely.  So a 45 or its type will blow a hole in the doorframe about the size you could throw a rooster through and come out the other wall about the size of a garbage can  (I assume wad cutters) you will be deaf as a post and have painful ears, as will the alleged burglar.....believe me they will get on the floor and start unbuttioning the buttons on their shirt to get closer to it.  Assuming that it is not your wayward teenager coming in a little after curfew, it is a small matter to walk up and plug the  fucking guy.  Some super accurate laser titanium 9mm glockenschpiel is a piece of shit in a situation like that, you would be wiser to shoot your jizz at them.

For the most cases, burglars are not armed or have a real reluctance to use a gun.  They can go rob houses where they ain't going to get no guff.....

On the other hand, if you got someone in the middle of the night who is coming specifically to fuck you up, your killing them is only going to piss off the rest of the boys and they will send in a larger and better force.......


If packing, it would be much better to carry a frypan or baseball bat.

Ron 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sinergy)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 7:52:05 PM   
cuddleheart50


Posts: 9718
Joined: 2/20/2006
From: Kentucky
Status: offline
I own a gun and I always will own a gun.

_____________________________

Dance like no one is watching,
Sing like no one is listening.
Love like you've never been hurt
and live like it's heaven on Earth.


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 7:56:06 PM   
Sinergy


Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

If packing, it would be much better to carry a frypan or baseball bat.



The problem I have with those who "pack heat", read frypan or baseball bat, is similar to the issue I posted about when somebody several years ago wanted advice since he had just purchased a single tail to use on his girlfriend the following weekend.

How many people have actually hit a human sized object with a frying pan, baseball bat, sword, single tail, etc?  Weapons recoil from impact or firing.  That single tail he just used to rip the eyes out of his submissive is also the single tail he just blinded himself with. 

Who drives to the ER?

If you dont understand what I am saying, spend 3 months learning how to use a pair of Nunchaku (I taught those weapons for 4 years) on a punching bag effectively.  Those moments of clarity you experience between the times you hit the bag and the times you knock yourself out will be a classic indicator of the need for a) protective headgear and b) more practice.

Just me, could be wrong, etc.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle


(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours - 7/9/2006 7:56:12 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
General reply:

I own somewhat over 10,000 dollars worth of guns(one a colt commander which is a modified army 45), so I am not an anti gun advocate,to clear up any misconceptions that may be inferred by my post. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to cuddleheart50)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master >> RE: Weaponry, protecting what's yours Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.176