Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

OMG CCW!!11

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
Author
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5690
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: OMG CCW!!11
    Posted: 10 September 2007 at 11:02pm
I think it's funny that everyone's mentioning Detroit too. I find that its dangers are overexaggerated by a lot of people, but that's if you stay in the main part of town. If you get down to the "bad areas," just stopping at a red light can be mildly threatening.
There are quite a few places where even the cops don't like to go. And if an armed police officer who can call for backup doesn't like the area, you can bet your ass I'd feel more comfortable packing. I'd still rather avoid those spots, even with a gun actually.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2007 at 1:31pm

Originally posted by Man Bites Dog Man Bites Dog wrote:

So, so much e-penis in this thread. 

It's funny, everyone mentioning Detroit, I had to crank up Amityville.

"This ain't Detroit, it's <> Hamburger Hill"



Edited by stratoaxe - 10 September 2007 at 1:32pm
Back to Top
Man Bites Dog View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
The forumer formely known as TKD

Joined: 04 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2059
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Man Bites Dog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2007 at 1:13pm
So, so much e-penis in this thread. 
Back to Top
Da Hui View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Guested, 9/13 Inappropiate post content

Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8442
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Da Hui Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2007 at 11:33am
Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Originally posted by DeTrevni DeTrevni wrote:

You killed it. You took it out back, shot it in the foot, and tried to throw it in the lake to drown, but it died of blood loss instead. It's dead.
Unless...
ZOMG ZOMBIES!!!
Back to Top
carl_the_sniper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 7/29, Bad Linky

Joined: 08 April 2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 11259
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carl_the_sniper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2007 at 11:17am
Originally posted by DeTrevni DeTrevni wrote:

You killed it. You took it out back, shot it in the foot, and tried to throw it in the lake to drown, but it died of blood loss instead. It's dead.
Unless...
<just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs>
Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5690
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2007 at 1:45am
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Nuclear wrote:

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:


Originally posted by carl_the_sniper carl_the_sniper wrote:

Ok, I've never had any problem with the ccw in comparison to not having a ccw. I noticed that this arguement has changed direction drastically. My origional point was that in Canada, I have no reason to carry a handgun on me and that makes me happy.


lol...it's a little offtrack. To your original point-I feel no less safe without a handgun. It's a right that I defend, but one that I'll rarely excercise. There is little reason to carry a handgun on you in most places (read:most).


when your in downtown Detroit, you want a gun.Same goes for up north and such, personally i wouldn't carry everyday all overt with me, only if i planned to go somewhere, i don't think its really smart to ALWAYS carry.


I've been all through Detroit, and no...I don't feel like I need a gun, because I don't let overgeneralizations scare me.



Really now? Because I used to live in Detroit, and there are some places in Detroit that if you're not afraid to be out at night there's something wrong with you. The 6 Mile and Livernois area is a pretty decent example. Not all of Detroit is the ghetto...

When I turn 21 I will get my CCW. And I will carry.
Why? Am I likely to need it?
No. But it's my right, and one that I support. That, and I don't want to be kicking myself in the ass one day wishing I had a gun when some dude tries to jack me with a knife, or even unarmed. I wouldn't hesitate to pull it out on a guy who had no weapon in his hand but was behaving threateningly/intimidatingly.

For me, the question isn't "Why have a gun on you," it's "Why not have a gun on you?"
I guess the Boy Scouts motto of "Always be prepared" just doesn't stick for some people.

Edited by Bunkered - 10 September 2007 at 1:46am
Back to Top
Bunkered View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
What AM I smoking?

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5690
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bunkered Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2007 at 1:32am
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

What I meant was that firearms alone are "instant death". . .
Not necessarily.  Any weapon that is concealed has this potential.  An individual with any concealed weapon that has also masked their intentions to perform violent deeds can easily achieve the "instant death" factor.


You are still taking too tactical of an interpretation.  My point has nothing to do with how fast you can kill with one weapon or the other.


I am addressing the situations where weapons are out.  Look at it from a LEO perspective, for instance.  Say you have drawn down on an arrestee who is wielding a knife, but who is 25 feet away from anybody, and is not moving towards anybody.  The cops will not shoot under this circumstance, because they know that they will have some warning before he becomes deadly.  If he starts to move towards somebody they may shoot, but not before.


If he has a gun pointed at somebody, however, it is drop the gun or the cops open fire.


It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the weapon, but its capability of causing death without warning at any range under any circumstances.  There is no "safe" gun.  Once the gun is out, every situation is potentially deadly.



A cop isn't just going to shoot you for having a gun in your hand either. If you start to point it at them, that's when you get shot. They'll offer you an opportunity to put it down first (unless they get too trigger-happy, which has happened in the past).

Oh, btw... 25 feet with my Buck knife isn't a safe distance. It's not very hard to throw if you've done it before.
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2007 at 12:03am
You killed it. You took it out back, shot it in the foot, and tried to throw it in the lake to drown, but it died of blood loss instead. It's dead.
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
Ben Dover II View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language

Joined: 25 August 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ben Dover II Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 11:34pm
We get it, you have a gun.
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 10:28pm

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

What I meant was that firearms alone are "instant death". . .


Not necessarily.  Any weapon that is concealed has this potential.  An individual with any concealed weapon that has also masked their intentions to perform violent deeds can easily achieve the "instant death" factor.

You are still taking too tactical of an interpretation.  My point has nothing to do with how fast you can kill with one weapon or the other.

I am addressing the situations where weapons are out.  Look at it from a LEO perspective, for instance.  Say you have drawn down on an arrestee who is wielding a knife, but who is 25 feet away from anybody, and is not moving towards anybody.  The cops will not shoot under this circumstance, because they know that they will have some warning before he becomes deadly.  If he starts to move towards somebody they may shoot, but not before.

If he has a gun pointed at somebody, however, it is drop the gun or the cops open fire.

It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the weapon, but its capability of causing death without warning at any range under any circumstances.  There is no "safe" gun.  Once the gun is out, every situation is potentially deadly.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
evillepaintball View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Not sexy - only dangerous to self

Joined: 08 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4920
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote evillepaintball Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 8:07pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by Horsepower Horsepower wrote:

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

 You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.

I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there...



I believe the not shooting to kill things is actually more for the Military, its stupid i think they say you shoot to remove them from the battlefield, but if they live they heal and come back.If i made the decision on that matter, they would be shooting some nice hollow points.


You wound an enemy, you remove three form the battlefield- it takes two to carry a casualty on a stretcher. you also cause a greater economic ahrm to the enemy, as they then have to care for the wounded. There's a good chance that a wound will result in a person not returning to combat any timesoon, if at all.

Since the military almost never uses handguns anyway, whether you would use hollowpoints or not is a moot point. A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.


how much do you think the militia that we are fighting care about each other? 

also, the canadian military might be different, but our soldiers are taught to put a round in the head of fallen combatants as they walk past.  something about geneva says you cant turn back to kill them or somethin like that.  anyways, got that bit of info from two seperate soldiers i talked to about their basic training. 
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 8:07pm

I used to carry a .44 Mag when I hunted, but my dad sold it a couple years back. Now that I'm 21 I may pick up another for hog hunting, not anytime soon though.

Of course for grizzly I'd probably think along the lines of .454 Casull (sp?) or .500, or carry one of the Alaskan Copilot .457 WW Magnum lever action fold aways. Can you tell I'm paranoid of bear?



Edited by stratoaxe - 07 September 2007 at 8:07pm
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 7:49pm
QUOTE=Susan Storm]What I meant was that firearms alone are "instant death". . . [/QUOTE]

Not necessarily.  Any weapon that is concealed has this potential.  An individual with any concealed weapon that has also masked their intentions to perform violent deeds can easily achieve the "instant death" factor.

The best defense is not CCW/CHL/CCP/whatever, the best defense is being alert and making intelligent decisions regarding where one goes and what one does.

Originally posted by stratoaxe stratoaxe wrote:

There is little reason to carry a handgun on you in most places


Depends on where you go.  I used to take one hiking/four-wheeling/mountain biking all the time just in case something decided that I looked like a tasty snack.  Of course, I should have had something heavier than a .357 (like that Desert Eagle from a few pages back), if I ran into a grizzly, all I'd be doing is annoying it with warning shots.


Edited by Mack - 07 September 2007 at 7:56pm
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 7:30pm

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

I'm not sure, but from the way this was put together, I took it to mean that you consider a gun to always be more dangerous than other weapons. 

Kind of.  I should clarify.

What I meant was that firearms alone are "instant death".  Swinging a sword or a bat takes half a second, and you also have to cover the distance to the target.  Guns don't give warning.

If somebody is across the room from you with a knife in his hand, but not moving in your direction, you have serious cause for concern, but you know that you will have a smidge of a warning before the violence commences, so you can temper your response.  You can stand with your knife in hand and evaluate the situation.  You are prepared for violence, but not forced into action.

If somebody is across with room with a gun pointed at you, you have know way of knowing whether you will be dead in the next second or not, and you are essentially forced to proactively defend yourself.  You no longer have the luxury of evaluation.

My point was not about the relative tactical effectiveness of weapons at various distances or the damage they cause, but simply the unique ability of guns to cause instant violence without warning.  This feature basically requires that everybody in the vincinity of the gun to take instant action, because they will not be given a warning when the killing begins.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 7:15pm
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

If somebody is standing two feet from you with a knife, you have a second to evaluate intentions and determine the seriousness of the situation.  With a gun you don't and can't.  You have to decide, basically immediately, whether you want to start the shooting.  No other common hand-held weapon in the history of man has had this ability.

Simply due to their ability to create instant death, guns can often create violence that otherwise might have been avoided.  Guns certainly have their place, but I think it is naive to believe that they don't change every situation they enter.

I'm not sure, but from the way this was put together, I took it to mean that you consider a gun to always be more dangerous than other weapons.  This is a common misconception.  The training I went through (quite a while back-perhaps someone with more recent experience can correct/update these statements as necessary) emphasized that an individual with a knife was just as dangerous as an individual with a handgun at ranges of less than 18 feet or less.  Within three feet, the person with the knife was actually more dangerous.  I don't remember the fancy terminology that was used to explain this, but it came down to the fact that most handgun bullets are low-velocity and follow straight trajectories through the body while someone with a knife can do all kinds of nasty twisting/slashing/connecting point A (groin) to point B (ribcage) type of things without ever having to remove the knife.

I actually had the benefit of a being in a career field that received both types of weapons training for the use of deadly force (military engagement and law enforcement), and neither listed warning shots as a viable option.  The key word regarding warning shots was "never."  In a situation where the OPFOR/perpetrator was not inclined to return fire, they may decide that they have no choice if they mistake the warning shot for coming under fire; in a situation where they are inclined to fire, it puts the individual firing the shots off-target.  With this said, I think someone with more recent training (i.e. Dune) should tell us the policies/training he has to work under/received regarding this.

I'm also curious about the training of other military members/LEOs regarding targeting.  (Nuclear's headshot comment brought this up.)  I'm assuming everyone is still trained to aim center of mass?
Back to Top
CarbineKid View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member


Joined: 19 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3165
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CarbineKid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 6:59pm
Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:


You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP. If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.



I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there...


Actually he is correct. I will post the reason why latter(Im pressed for time now).
Back to Top
Horsepower View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Warning: Fail is closer than it seems!

Joined: 07 September 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Horsepower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 6:36pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by Horsepower Horsepower wrote:

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

 You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.

I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there...



I believe the not shooting to kill things is actually more for the Military, its stupid i think they say you shoot to remove them from the battlefield, but if they live they heal and come back.If i made the decision on that matter, they would be shooting some nice hollow points.


You wound an enemy, you remove three form the battlefield- it takes two to carry a casualty on a stretcher. you also cause a greater economic ahrm to the enemy, as they then have to care for the wounded. There's a good chance that a wound will result in a person not returning to combat any timesoon, if at all.

Since the military almost never uses handguns anyway, whether you would use hollowpoints or not is a moot point. A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.


Where did you get pistols from ?

Come Get Some !
Back to Top
Susan Storm View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Shot at Love Contestant

Joined: 13 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Susan Storm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 6:36pm

Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

  A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.

Spoken like a man who has never seen a John Woo movie.

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 6:35pm
Originally posted by brihard brihard wrote:

Originally posted by Horsepower Horsepower wrote:

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

 You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.

I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there...



I believe the not shooting to kill things is actually more for the Military, its stupid i think they say you shoot to remove them from the battlefield, but if they live they heal and come back.If i made the decision on that matter, they would be shooting some nice hollow points.


You wound an enemy, you remove three form the battlefield- it takes two to carry a casualty on a stretcher. you also cause a greater economic ahrm to the enemy, as they then have to care for the wounded. There's a good chance that a wound will result in a person not returning to combat any timesoon, if at all.

Since the military almost never uses handguns anyway, whether you would use hollowpoints or not is a moot point. A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.

Win.

Back to Top
brihard View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Making stuff up

Joined: 05 September 2004
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 10156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote brihard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2007 at 6:33pm
Originally posted by Horsepower Horsepower wrote:

Originally posted by Susan Storm Susan Storm wrote:

Originally posted by StormyKnight StormyKnight wrote:

 You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP.  If you go into court and testify that you shot somebody to kill them, you're stringing yourself up for a murder charge.

I'm going to have to call shens on your legal theory there...



I believe the not shooting to kill things is actually more for the Military, its stupid i think they say you shoot to remove them from the battlefield, but if they live they heal and come back.If i made the decision on that matter, they would be shooting some nice hollow points.


You wound an enemy, you remove three form the battlefield- it takes two to carry a casualty on a stretcher. you also cause a greater economic ahrm to the enemy, as they then have to care for the wounded. There's a good chance that a wound will result in a person not returning to combat any timesoon, if at all.

Since the military almost never uses handguns anyway, whether you would use hollowpoints or not is a moot point. A pistol exists so you can fight your way to a rifle.
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.