Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Firearms
#21
Here's an example of a law abiding citizen that is armed:

Customer with concealed carry permit fatally shoots ax-wielding attacker at 7-Eleven
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#22
(03-13-2016, 11:02 PM)Motivation Wrote: Okay, looks like shotguns and rifles.  So I'm going to assume that handguns are prohibited for carry by law abiding citizens?  If so, then you have to put your safety and security in the hands of someone else while you're outside your home.  
Have you ever been to Australia? Do you know anything of our culture?

Quote:Your statement isn't correct.  In order to purchase any firearm (handgun, shotgun or rifle) the purchaser goes through a background check prior to taking possession.  In the majority of states that have concealed or open carry a background check is required prior to the permit being issued.  That's two checks right there.  
Is it possible to circumvent that by buying a firearm in some dark alley?  Sure, that's what criminals do.  But then they're the problem and no amount of gun control laws matter to them.  
It is also possible to buy weapons at gun shows with no checks.

Quote:On the contrary, there was forced compliance and you just confirmed it.  If someone didn't comply with the government confiscation then they had to hide the weapon(s).  Why would they have to hide them?  Because it was mandatory i.e. forced and failure to submit means they have committed a crime.  So it isn't my definition, it is the arbitrary definition of your government that a law abiding citizen is no longer a law abiding citizen if they want to have the means of self protection. 
The compliance was mandated, not forced. Additionally it is a very small number we are talking about and many of the weapons retained were for sentimental reasons, not to defend ourselves against the government. That, to me, is a concept so far from reality that it's a joke. In Australia we live in a democracy. We can simply vote out a bad government and have done that peacefully several times. 

Quote:So if it is mostly contained, that means that some isn't.  Which means that it affects private citizens right?  Or do bad guys in Australia refrain from attacking, mugging, raping, murdering private citizens?  If the bad guys in Australia don't pass on the courtesy of not harming citizens then that means citizens, outside the home, don't have a reasonable means of defending themselves.  
Good grief! You know nothing about our country.

Quote:Arming citizens does make a huge difference.  I've detailed the differences in this THREAD
Since law enforcement is reactionary, by it's very nature it almost always arrives after the crime has been committed.  Even with outstanding response times, bad stuff happens quickly.  This means that the responsibility of personal protection falls on the private citizen.  Simply put, an armed man has options available that an unarmed man does not.  Doesn't make the firearm magic, nor is it a guarantee.  But it is a option that law abiding citizens in the U.S. have available.  And since bad guys are the issue and law abiding citizens aren't, it makes no sense to disarm the good guys.  
Since it is obviously working so well for you in the US, why is there so much violence and so many shootings?
Quote:Australia, like most other countries (and some in the U.S.) think that disarming the good guy will somehow magically stop the bad guy.  By definition, the bad guy doesn't give a rip about laws and will always find a way to illegally purchase a firearm if they chose.  And we both know that a bad guy in Australia can illegally purchase a firearm if they chose to do so.  Bad guys in France and London and Moscow and Chicago can get a gun....but the good guys can't.  Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Fine, it's a different mind set. You have your ideas and I have mine. Bad guys can always get firearms ... so what? That has always been the case. We also have professional police to deal with the issues of law and order.

As was written in an article here yesterday quoting CBS ....

It's just bizarre the number of people getting killed in the United States and you have these ridiculous arguements, "well people carry guns so they can defend themselves".

You guys have your society with your gun culture  and we have ours without the gun culture. If you're happy, just leave it at that. Why do you even care about how we live?
Reply
#23
(03-14-2016, 09:55 PM)K-man Wrote: Have you ever been to Australia? Do you know anything of our culture?
Well I've watched Crocodile Dundee and Quigley Down Under several times  Wink
Quote:It is also possible to buy weapons at gun shows with no checks

You can?  Who told you this?  The truth is that you cannot purchase a firearm from a gun show without going through the BG check and applicable waiting period.  The 'gun show loophole' is a liberal media created term that doesn't actually jive with reality.
Now a private citizen can sell a firearm to another private citizen without a BG check.  But normally the seller asks for the buyers CCW prior to the sale and to obtain a CCW you had to go through a BG check.  
Quote:The compliance was mandated, not forced

What's the difference?  Are you telling me that if the authorities found out you (as an example) had a firearm they considered prohibited that they would not use force (if necessary) to confiscate it from your possession?  
Quote:That, to me, is a concept so far from reality that it's a joke. In Australia we live in a democracy. We can simply vote out a bad government and have done that peacefully several times.

People in Germany thought the same way.  They were a democracy until a totalitarian dictatorship took power and confiscated their weapons so they could not resist.  Would that happen in Australia?  Probably not.  But history demonstrates that this is a pattern of force whether it is Europe, Asia or Africa.  
Quote:Good grief! You know nothing about our country.

I know that bad guys, regardless of the country, use means to enforce their will over others.  
Quote:Since it is obviously working so well for you in the US, why is there so much violence and so many shootings?

Gangs and drugs mainly.  
Quote:We also have professional police to deal with the issues of law and order.

Sure, but they're not your body guard.  And I've already demonstrated that they are a reactionary force and not normally a proactive force.  Simply numbers.  
It is the private citizens responsibility to protect themselves.  We have a greater freedom to do so than most countries.  
And again, good guys with firearms aren't a problem.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#24
(03-14-2016, 12:11 PM)Kong Soo Do Wrote: Here's an example of a law abiding citizen that is armed:

Customer with concealed carry permit fatally shoots ax-wielding attacker at 7-Eleven
And here's one that wasn't ... http://www.3aw.com.au/news/75yearold-exp...ng4pp.html

and another ... https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/30476795...ns-arrest/
Reply
#25
I think that's great when a good guy takes down a bad guy.  Big thumbs up.  Personally, if facing an armed attacker (regardless of the weapon), I'd prefer to be armed with a firearm.  And I'd add that I always have a good knife on me as well.  

And this will be a bit of a thread drift, but I'd offer that a very good flashlight of sufficient lumens (and perhaps strobe) to temporarily blind an attacker is a plus as well.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply
#26
And here's one that wasn't ... http://www.3aw.com.au/news/75yearold-exp...ng4pp.html

and another ... https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/30476795...ns-arrest/

Well, got to give it up for the thunder from down under. Don't know if I would have embraced the headlocks, but more power to them. Me personally, I think I would have gone walk about............
Reply
#27
(03-15-2016, 09:28 PM)sidekick Wrote: Me personally, I think I would have gone walk about............

Man! Have you been watchin' those old Crocodile Dundee movies again?
Tongue
Reply
#28
Huh Naw!.......Just watching some TV bank commercials done by a Kiwi Bloke that plays basketball for the local pro team. They have to translate what he's saying on the screen, but it's entertaining.  Big Grin
Reply
#29
We have the same problem with Kiwis. They can't even count to ten without talking about sex.
;-)
Reply
#30
Back on topic, a firearm is a legitimate tool for the martial artist.  I've taught numerous folks this year on the proper use of firearms.  Some considerations:

First, a compact or sub-compact pistol is very capable of head shots at 25 yards. I've done them consistently using a Glock 26. That's the pistols capability, the actual shooter is another thing. We need to examine what a typical CCW holder is likely to face and what their level of training is likely to be. Statistically, most shootings are in dim light and the distance is less than 7 feet. Even seasoned Officer's miss at that distance (though to be fair, the majority of Officers are like the majority of shooters which means they shoot once a year for qualification and are simply not 'gun' people). The reasons are simple, adrenaline dump affects manual dexterity and can cause auditory exclusion and tunnel vision. As noted earlier in the thread, the problems increase as the distance increases. 

So that brings us to the second consideration which is training. There is something called the O.O.D.A. loop (observation, orientation, decision, action). We are all going through the loop, all day long. If something 'new' or unexpected happens it throws us back to the beginning of the loop as we try to navigate the stimulus, thereby slowing response time (in addition to the affects of adrenaline). However, if we've had the same or similar experiences in the past it helps us stay on track as we negotiate the loop thereby reducing lag time. So, how do we train? If we only shoot in an air conditioned range that is well lit on stationary targets while under little or no stress then you're already behind the 8-ball when 'it' happens. However, if we train for as many possibilities as is reasonably possible then it only aids us if we need to use that training.

* Do we train to quickly and automatic to clear various types of malfunctions? 
* Do we train to use either hand to fire, reload or chamber a round?
* Do we train to do the above one-handed? Important consideration if one limb is injured or otherwise occupied.
* Do we train to quickly draw from whatever method of holstering we use?
* Do we always train to shoot standing up or do we go prone or on our sides or other odd positions? Important consideration if you've been knocked down, injured or are behind some sort of odd shaped cover and/or concealment.
* Do we train in dim light conditions?
* Do we train under stress?
* Do we train under as many flashing/loud/adverse conditions as possible?
* Do we train at various realistic distances?
* Do we train to continue fire until the threat has ceased?
* Do we train on what to do AFTER the shooting? Such as check for self-injury, call the authorities, clear the scene, be aware of surroundings, how to interact with first responders coming to the scene?

As you can see, there is a lot that goes into training other than buying a gun, loading it up and carrying. The more you do now, the better you'll perform later. 

Let's use the Orlando shooting as an example of an active shooter situation. Things to consider: Screaming people running for their lives in all directions. Loud music blaring. Probable lights flashing on and off or sparkling disco balls or whatever. And of course the sound of gun fire. All of that will get any CCW holder (or professional) pretty jacked up. Now let's factor in distance to the shooter. Now let's honestly access our current skills. If you feel you're maybe lacking, well now is the time to do something about it. Statistically you'll be shooting at less than 7 feet...but what if you're not? Different scenarios, unfortunately, are becoming more and more likely.

Just things to think about.
Two thousand years ago wise men sought Christ, wise men still do.

Techniques are situational, principles are universal.

Fast as the wind, quiet as the forest, aggressive as fire, and immovable as a mountain.

He who gets there first with the most...wins!

Minimal force may not be minimum force!

We don't rise to the occasion...we sink to the level of our training.


Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)