Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:23:35 PM
Kalimata, I have all respect for your pops and respect his judgment. Without knowing the specifics of his mission or what he was doing, I can't really comment on the wisdom of it, other than to say that he surely wasn`t going in to combat unarmed.
I can`t say I`ve gone my 25 years in life without any conflict, though I wish I could. I can say however that though I have almost always had a gun or access to one, and I have never resorted to using it to solve them under threat or usage. It all depends on how you are raised and if you are taught a real respect for the weapon.
A real adult can solve problems without the resort of physical force, but some people have other ideas. No reason to leave yourself vulnerable to some idiot who thinks a gun makes him a man.
You can never put the bullet back in the gun. It is a one way trip.
Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:58:20 PM
My dad once told me something. He spent the bulk of his life employed in hostage rescue, sniper/counter sniper actions, V.I.P security, and many other tactical activities which would fall under the classification of "commando". He taught courses to several of the "Elite" military units from several countries, and could be called an expert in armed conflict and use of deadly force. He went to former Ugo with CivPol just at the tail end of the war. I asked if he was going armed and he said no. After listening to me rant he said; "When you are armed, you have the tendency to forgo all other options of conflict resolution in favor of using your weapon." Made sense to me
Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:36:52 PM
Matt that is a tough question of philosophy. Would an unarmed populace be better? Definitely for the Gov't. Maybe for the citizens. But at this point in our history guns are too pervasive, and to remove them only harms the people who have never done anything wrong with them such as myself.
Homeslice missed because he was a poor shot and terribly nervous, so nervous in fact that his shaking hand caused him to accidentally shoot the floor. In that situation, there is no way I would miss, but I also would have dealt with the security guard first, and then turned my attention to the school board.
As for Sweden, they are definitely an interesting case. I would say that the answer is a little of both. A well regulated militia, coupled with a very old country that was once a sizable military force. But notice they make all males serve, and I think that the US in this case could learn from that example.
Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:31:53 PM
I concur. That chairman had balls. I can only hope that I can remain that cool if I'm caught without my gun. Also, I`m aware that I won`t always be able to draw/fire on a bad guy without endangering myself/others. The example situation was purely hypothetical, using the basic assumption that I`d have the element of surprise due to my firearm being concealed. I`m not a physically threatening guy. I`m 6`1" and weigh about 165lbs. I also look like I`m about 16-17 years old, so that`s in my favor as well(since I don`t look old enough to own a gun, much less carry one).
I`ve only come close to drawing once, and that was enough for me. Walking up to a restaurant, there were two idiots fighting in the parking lot, one of them grabbed a metal pole from a nearby truck. The other guy ran up to a group of 6 bystanders(myself included). Guy with the pole kept coming, swinging it like a madman. Had he not dropped the pole when he did(right at 25ft), I would have drawn(who knows after