Page 18 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 LastLast
Results 205 to 216 of 263

Thread: Guns...

  1. #205
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,211

    Re: Guns...



    Well I hope the ammo hoarders stop soon. lol I go to Wal Mart (only ammo store in town) every morning before 7am(when they can sell it) to see if there are any 9mm, 40Ss&w, or 22 LRs in stock. So far I've only gotten 2 boxes of 9mms and that's because a friend of mine was first in line and he got them for me. It's pretty bad that you can't even get 22's anymore!!




  2. #206
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,250
    Quote Originally Posted by nickh0801 View Post
    Well I hope the ammo hoarders stop soon. lol I go to Wal Mart (only ammo store in town) every morning before 7am(when they can sell it) to see if there are any 9mm, 40Ss&w, or 22 LRs in stock. So far I've only gotten 2 boxes of 9mms and that's because a friend of mine was first in line and he got them for me. It's pretty bad that you can't even get 22's anymore!!
    I hear ya.

    Try buying a not as popular caliber. I recently purchase an NFA weapon -- 8" AR 15, fully suppressed and chambered to 300 AAC Blackout.

    I found a guy in Dallas that had some in 500 round boxes. The cost? $775.00 a box. They are self defense / hunting rounds as Remington stopped making the plinking rounds so they can concentrate on the more popular rounds.

    This time next year, it will be back to normal, but my patience is running very thin.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #207

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Yes, in the reader's digest version being armed wouldn't have made a difference...
    Youll have to expand on your definition of "Readers Digest version".

    If youre implying you think after getting unexpectedly hit by a car, ran over twice, that hes going to be able to immediately pull a gun and take out two guys, id beg to differ.
    -JAB




  4. #208
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,250

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Youll have to expand on your definition of "Readers Digest version".

    If youre implying you think after getting unexpectedly hit by a car, ran over twice, that hes going to be able to immediately pull a gun and take out two guys, id beg to differ.
    I cannot begin to understand why your immediate reaction to any sort of situation where someone can defend themselves is always "not a chance" when there are literally hundreds of examples every year of people doing just that.

    5+ years working traffic in law enforcement tell me it's totally possible. You're assuming the victim is immediately incapacitated from the moment of impact. Some of the witnesses state the guy was alive and kicking after the car stuck him. It doesn't take much to pull a 1lb gun and pull the trigger a few times. Even if you don't strike the person, the mere presence of the weapon is going to give any attacker a moment of pause.

    Second, any of the witnesses, had they been armed, could have ended it right then and there, sparing the victims life. He was alive after he was struck. The use of the vehicle to attack someone is deadly force and responding in kind is 100% legal.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  5. #209

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I cannot begin to understand why your immediate reaction to any sort of situation where someone can defend themselves is always "not a chance" when there are literally hundreds of examples every year of people doing just that.

    5+ years working traffic in law enforcement tell me it's totally possible. You're assuming the victim is immediately incapacitated from the moment of impact. Some of the witnesses state the guy was alive and kicking after the car stuck him. It doesn't take much to pull a 1lb gun and pull the trigger a few times. Even if you don't strike the person, the mere presence of the weapon is going to give any attacker a moment of pause.

    Second, any of the witnesses, had they been armed, could have ended it right then and there, sparing the victims life. He was alive after he was struck. The use of the vehicle to attack someone is deadly force and responding in kind is 100% legal.
    first off theres plenty of times i feel there is an ability, but to counter I do not understand why your reaction to any given situation is start shooting immediately without leaving a moment of time to consider the situation. This notion that a gun solves every problem is just not correct. Murder will happen regardless from time to time. this is one of those situations.

    you just got hit by a car AND ran over and apparently your first instinct is to pull out your gun and start shooting? Thats completely unrealistic to the situation of just being hit unexpectedly without reason and ran over (apparently twice). even if he was alive and kicking that doesnt mean he was coherent or had an ability or was on alert to actually defend himself from an attack. Im also not seeing that in any story i read so far as far as witnesses saying he was fighting back or alive/coherent initially. They all said they ran him over and immediately started hacking him with their knife and clever. As a bystander, again, seeing somebody get run over and immediately hacked up, there isnt much youre going to do at that point to save that person, which ultimately was the only victim.

    IF they continued to try and kill others, than there would be more reason to say a gun could have prevented further death/injury, but that wasnt the case. infact theres plenty of stories that said people did try to stop them despite having knives and a rusty gun.

    The notion that the victim could have saved himself if only he was carrying a gun is completely unfounded. The notion that a bystander after seeing a car accident would immediately pull a gun and defend the victim is shakey at best. In that moment nobody is reaching for their gun, their first reaction is to help or call help or run/watch. If a persons reaction is to pull a gun out after seeing a car accident than i just feel sorry for them. Certain incidences are just not going to alter whether youre carrying or not.
    Last edited by JAB1985; 05-24-2013 at 09:37 AM.
    -JAB




  6. #210
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,250

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    This notion that a gun solves every problem is just not correct. Murder will happen regardless from time to time.
    I've never claimed such and I agree that sometimes there's nothing you can do to stop an attack.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    you just got hit by a car AND ran over and apparently your first instinct is to pull out your gun and start shooting? Thats completely unrealistic to the situation of just being hit unexpectedly without reason and ran over (apparently twice). even if he was alive and kicking that doesnt mean he was coherent or had an ability or was on alert to actually defend himself from an attack. Im also not seeing that in any story i read so far as far as witnesses saying he was fighting back or alive/coherent initially. They all said they ran him over and immediately started hacking him with their knife and clever. As a bystander, again, seeing somebody get run over and immediately hacked up, there isnt much youre going to do at that point to save that person, which ultimately was the only victim.

    IF they continued to try and kill others, than there would be more reason to say a gun could have prevented further death/injury, but that wasnt the case. infact theres plenty of stories that said people did try to stop them despite having knives and a rusty gun.
    Complete and total conjecture on your part on every level.

    I know a BaltCo officer who was run over 5 times and still had the wherewithal to pull her weapon and fire off 3 shots. She had broken both femurs and her hip.

    You're automatically assuming, based on ???? I don't know, that someone run over would immediately and permanently be unable to defend themselves.

    I think you vastly underestimate the natural reaction of humans and self preservation.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    The notion that the victim could have saved himself if only he was carrying a gun is completely unfounded. As if carrying a gun would protect you from somebody shooting you in the back of the head as you walk down the street. Certain incidences are just not going to alter whether youre carrying or not.
    Again, a claim I never made.

    The fluidity of being attacked and the uniqueness of each and every time someone is attacked is something you don't seem to fathom.

    What's unrealistic is to say with certainly that because X, Y and Z happened, there's not way someone could have defended themselves. Yet, as I stated before it happens hundreds, if not thousands of times every year.

    Could it be unlikely that this soldier could not have defended himself? Sure. But I will never jump to the conclusion it's impossible and I'd like to see people prepared for that scenario.
    Last edited by HoustonRaven; 05-24-2013 at 09:53 AM.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  7. #211
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    first off theres plenty of times i feel there is an ability, but to counter I do not understand why your reaction to any given situation is start shooting immediately without leaving a moment of time to consider the situation. This notion that a gun solves every problem is just not correct. Murder will happen regardless from time to time. this is one of those situations.

    you just got hit by a car AND ran over and apparently your first instinct is to pull out your gun and start shooting? Thats completely unrealistic to the situation of just being hit unexpectedly without reason and ran over (apparently twice). even if he was alive and kicking that doesnt mean he was coherent or had an ability or was on alert to actually defend himself from an attack. Im also not seeing that in any story i read so far as far as witnesses saying he was fighting back or alive/coherent initially. They all said they ran him over and immediately started hacking him with their knife and clever. As a bystander, again, seeing somebody get run over and immediately hacked up, there isnt much youre going to do at that point to save that person, which ultimately was the only victim.

    IF they continued to try and kill others, than there would be more reason to say a gun could have prevented further death/injury, but that wasnt the case. infact theres plenty of stories that said people did try to stop them despite having knives and a rusty gun.

    The notion that the victim could have saved himself if only he was carrying a gun is completely unfounded. The notion that a bystander after seeing a car accident would immediately pull a gun and defend the victim is shakey at best. In that moment nobody is reaching for their gun, their first reaction is to help or call help or run/watch. If a persons reaction is to pull a gun out after seeing a car accident than i just feel sorry for them. Certain incidences are just not going to alter whether youre carrying or not.
    JAB you're mixing this scenario and hypothetical scenarios mixed with huge amounts of over looking specific details to come to your opinion.

    Saying you'd feel sorry for someone who just witnessed a car accident if they immediately went for their gun is over loooking that they ran this guy over (apparently twice) and then got out and started hacking off his head is way different.

    Continue to think that once any attack starts that there is nothing no one can do to stop it, that's your prerogative. I would hope that if I was that soldier and someone around me was armed and witnessed me get run over and then the people get out with knives and guns that said armed person would try to step up and stop it.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  8. #212

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I know a BaltCo officer who was run over 5 times and still had the wherewithal to pull his weapon and fire off 3 shots. She had broken both femurs and her hip.

    You're automatically assuming, based on ???? I don't know, that someone run over would immediately and permanently be unable to defend themselves.
    personal experiences vs personal experiences. not to mention endless youtube videos to support that people getting hit by cars very rarely jump right up unless its under extremely slow circumstances. looking at the damage done to the car, its not hard to conclude this was not a slow impact to begin with, being run over at that point is just icing on the cake so to speak. based on your own they had him pinned against a tree at first. (note: your reference that if only HE had a gun he could have defended is mainly where i disagree in all of this).

    The victim himself could have been armed and not necessarily everyone else. The attackers first struck him with a car, pinning him against a tree. There's opportunity right there to take out a weapon and defend himself. Then they drug him into the street before stabbing him. Again, another opportunity for someone to pull out a weapon and end things right there.
    even by looking at the photos you can tell the second part is wrong. He wasnt taken and then initially stabbed.



    the blood trail leads to the street meaning he was stabbed at the tree. please show me where people were saying he was coherent after it and even remotely defended himself and ill gladly say a gun could have been, at the very least, an option if he wasnt "pinned" from getting to it. Im not using conjecture, im using whats been stated photos and physics. they hit him, they ran over him, they stabbed him immediately afterward and simply looking at the car damage to come to that conclusion.

    The fluidity of being attacked and the uniqueness of each and every time someone is attacked is something you don't seem to fathom.
    I look at each individually. which is why we disagree on the outcomes of these. I think having a gun to protect is a good thing its the effectiveness per situation and when to use it are where we typically disagree. i feel per situation youre not taking into account circumstances your end result is always, "better to have a gun than not". which is fine and id agree for the most part, i just dont agree that it always matters.

    Could it be unlikely that this soldier could not have defended himself? Sure. But I will never jump to the conclusion it's impossible and I'd like to see people prepared for that scenario.
    if youre on that much of an alert at all times. that in a dazed state after an accident your first thought is to start processing if your in an attack thats fine. I just dont believe that to be the case with most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Saying you'd feel sorry for someone who just witnessed a car accident if they immediately went for their gun is over loooking that they ran this guy over (apparently twice) and then got out and started hacking off his head is way different.
    Ive seen video of a lady run over a guy. twice. she then got out of her car and walked over to look at him and got back into her car and tried to drive off again. people were around, nobody jumped to pull out a gun and shoot her but she had every bit as much time to start knifing the victim if she was going to. FTR, they did try to stop her from driving off again. Is that because she was female? maybe. i just dont think its everyones instinct to be ready to shoot at all times. It seems like you guys are always looking for a reason to use your gun, which at least at the basis of the argument i can understand, because a gun is worthless if youre not ready to use it. I just dont think certain situations thats realistic.

    Continue to think that once any attack starts that there is nothing no one can do to stop it, that's your prerogative. I would hope that if I was that soldier and someone around me was armed and witnessed me get run over and then the people get out with knives and guns that said armed person would try to step up and stop it.
    I dont think ANY attack cannot be stopped once started. thats not remotely how i feel. There are plenty that i feel have no effect regardless though. hoping to be saved and the effectiveness/likelihood you are, are two different things. in this instance i dont think a gun mattered much at all. Id hope as well somebody would have one to try or prevent further if need be but in this instance, nor further attack was made, so no further action was needed, making a bystander having a gun, moot.
    -JAB




  9. #213
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,356

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I just dont think certain situations thats realistic.

    I dont think ANY attack cannot be stopped once started. thats not remotely how i feel. There are plenty that i feel have no effect regardless though. hoping to be saved and the effectiveness/likelihood you are, are two different things. in this instance i dont think a gun mattered much at all. Id hope as well somebody would have one to try or prevent further if need be but in this instance, nor further attack was made, so no further action was needed, making a bystander having a gun, moot.
    That's fair, I think where we got off on this one was applying this situation to others or others to this situation.

    But it is possible that had there been folks who were just standing around watching this, that had they been armed could have stopped the killers before they finished and maybe saved the guys life. But since that's not even an option over there, we'll never know.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  10. #214
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,250

    Re: Guns...

    Again, I don't see how you can look at any situation and say with certainty that defending yourself is futile or impossible.

    For someone with actual experience in this, it simply doesn't compute, particularly your last paragraph. That's the height of Monday morning QBing.

    I guess we will never see eye to eye on this topic.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #215

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Again, I don't see how you can look at any situation and say with certainty that defending yourself is futile or impossible.

    For someone with actual experience in this, it simply doesn't compute, particularly your last paragraph. That's the height of Monday morning QBing.

    I guess we will never see eye to eye on this topic.
    Id still like the link to where witnesses say he was alive and conscience after the initial hit or basically had an ability to use a gun. you say you heard it, i say i didnt. thats pretty much the difference in this whole argument. youre saying in this exact situation there was a chance to defend himself. from what ive read/heard there was no mention he was able even if he did have one. Could be conjecture on either or both of our parts seeing we clearly have not read the same things. given that its this particular situation were talking about one should be looking at it in hindsight, no?

    its possible we agree on this very incident. probably not the likelihood of its benefits in the same scenario over and over again however.
    -JAB




  12. #216
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,250

    Re: Guns...

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Id still like the link to where witnesses say he was alive and conscience after the initial hit or basically had an ability to use a gun. you say you heard it, i say i didnt. thats pretty much the difference in this whole argument.
    It was a Daily Mail article that I cannot locate. It went along with how folks were feeling powerless to help. There've been so many articles since it's difficult to skim everything and locate it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    given that its this particular situation were talking about one should be looking at it in hindsight, no?
    No. Once either the victim or someone in the crowd introduced a firearm to the scenario, every event after that point is certainly and irreversibly changed.

    Keep in mind it took 20 minutes before armed cops got there. We also know this nut job actually walked up to people with knives in hand and hands covered in blood. At any minute, this loon could have killed someone else. And, at any minute, someone could have neutralized him by shooting him.

    Maybe we are saying the same thing but for one or two small details. But I still can't apply the relative certainty you seem comfortable using.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland