SD equipment on the job

Written by Mr. Snyder:
Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone -- the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer."

Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many. The handgun is the only weapon that would give a lone female jogger a chance of prevailing against a gang of thugs intent on rape, a teacher a chance of protecting children at recess from a madman intent on massacring them, a family of tourists waiting at a mid-town subway station the means to protect themselves from a gang of teens armed with razors and knives.
Click to expand...

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

Let's not mince words. I don't care what anyone thinks about a particular topic in reality because I don't have to live with you or next to you. What I do care about is honesty and being forthright and pulling no punches when it comes to serious topics.

In other words, if you are going to say something, then by God, come out and say it and don't beat around the bush about it.

The point I am getting at is this...

This is a world filled with predatory human beings that by their very predatory nature are violent. They use numbers [multiple attackers], firearms, knives and bludgeons to work their evil.

The only reason they continue to work their evil is because so many people do not have the means to stop them, they either make a personal decision not to or they are prevented from stopping them.

The same political class of people are oftentimes the ones who are lobbying against the death penalty and they lobby for fairy tales like trying to "rehabilitate" a Ted Bundy or Charles Manson.

If you claim that owning or yes, even carrying, a firearm is a "privilege" and not a "right," you are saying that the most effective means of Self-defense is a privilege and not a right.

By default, like it or not, friendly discussion or not, you are saying that Self-defense should a person be of that mindset to even defend their own person, is a privilege and not a right.

I don't believe that because it is simply not true.

Quite frankly, it is a contradiction that invokes painful and convoluted reasoning to justify it.

In other words, when people say carrying a firearm is a "privilege" and not a "right," where does it stop?

Greg, is carrying a pocketknife a "privilege?" If so, why? If not, why?
 
What I consider handgun range is not within range of a knife or thrown baton. The 21 foot rule has also been disproved by several highly trained individuals. Given, the average responder will fall in that so called rule.
 
Don -

Whatever...

You now remind me of the traffic violator who offers running the stop sign was okay because he could see no cars were coming...

That's when I most often smile and then issue the citation with a court date. You may share your reasoning at a later date with the Court, Sir. In the meantime, please stop at the signs for your safety and others. Thank you. Have a better day.

REF: Knife distance -

The 21-foot demonstration has been kicked out to 35 feet, I believe.

Normally the demonstration is run with no obstacles and with no Simunition ammunition for the firearm user. Highly trained individuals are irrelevant if you do the following -

Place obstacles between both parties, to include live demonstrators acting as innocents. Use either paint ball or Simunition training aids.

Both these dramatically change the original demonstration, and with good effect.

Officers, if one is teaching LE, learn to "attack in retrograde" by getting off line swiftly while drawing (if they haven't drawn already upon seeing the knife displayed) and combining good verbal instructions with commands while developing a strategy to deal with the attacker, who is by now using the obstacles and potential hostages to reach the officer, or to elude / escape him or her.

Shooting techniques will change dramatically as officers are allowed to see where their (training) rounds are striking when obstacles and other people are included in the scenario. This allows for much more refined firearms work, and the decision process is likewise honed.

At the same time the mere display of a knife is no longer considered by the courts to be legitimate justification for shooting the suspect. Likewise a change brought about by this becoming a simplistic reason for shooting. Lazy thinking, if you will.

Everything evolves or it dies.:)
 
Originally posted by Sierra912
Don -

Whatever...

You now remind me of the traffic violator who offers running the stop sign was okay because he could see no cars were coming...

That's when I most often smile and then issue the citation with a court date. You may share your reasoning at a later date with the Court, Sir. In the meantime, please stop at the signs for your safety and others. Thank you. Have a better day.
Click to expand...

Greg,

No, I did not get pulled over by you nor is that in any way a logical or even polite response. It's a dodge and if you want to dodge, that's fine. But just posting something like that is goofy in my opinion.

I see a growing elitism in your messages you attempt to convey and when you get cornered, like myself, you bite.

That's OK, I have choppers too.

In a world full of guns, knives and bludgeons, if you are not allowed to own and carry guns, knives and bludgeons, the "right" to Self-defense is a noisy version of suicide, it's a farce of epic proportions. I asked you to comment on this. I have no desire to know how you would act during a traffic stop nor are my words an accurate basis for you posting that. It's silly and you're above being silly, condescending and sarcastic with your background.

I also asked you to comment on "rights and privileges" when it comes to pocketknives. Is carrying a pocketknife a "privilege?"

The reason you went off on a tangent is because you're towing a line, Friend. We all must be incredibly careful what lines we allow ourselves to tow because sooner or later, someone yanks on the line and then there should be a response.

This is a tad confrontational, but I think being honest is a good trait when it comes to a discussion. Why don't you just come out and say it?

You're a "Black Hat" sort of LEO, meaning, if they outlaw black hats, no one better be in your area with a black hat on.

This is America. I hope it stays that way, but I don't hold out alot of hope for it.
 
Originally posted by Sierra912
Don -

Whatever...

You now remind me of the traffic violator who offers running the stop sign was okay because he could see no cars were coming...

That's when I most often smile and then issue the citation with a court date. You may share your reasoning at a later date with the Court, Sir. In the meantime, please stop at the signs for your safety and others. Thank you. Have a better day.

Click to expand...

Typical LEO response. Stop signs are put in place to make it safe when there is traffic, If there is none then there is no safety issue. 3 am no traffic what purpose is there to stopping at a a light or a sign.

The crack about the ticket is just showing the "I know you are smarter but I have the power" attitude.


Paul
 
1.Presentation of Blade and forward charge is justification to shoot. 2.The simulation even with obstacles changes dramatically when the intended victim of the blade does not plant himself in place to be nailed by the perp.

If you are unable to fire in motion maybe you should not be carrying a firearm, even if you are a LEO.
 
my, my, my...

Don, a couple thoughts on the idea that denial of the right to carry a gun is the denial of the right to self defense.

A gun is a specific means of self defense.

The act of self defense is separate. It can be done with many different tools or none at all.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great if all law-abiding citizens could carry all over the U.S.

But here's the rub on "the most effective self-defense." We're stuck in a land/world where most people (sheeple) are just not comfortable devoting the same kind of energy, study, time, training, attention, and money to personal security that most of us are. They'd rather get a little can of OC, nozzle clogged with lint, hung on the big keychain, buried in the purse, than do anything more proactive to effect their own security.

A handgun in NOT the most effective weapon available, even to civilians. It is, however, the most effective one we can easily tote around without other citizens we run into throughout the day totally freaking out. (Go ahead, pick my analogy apart:) , but... An effective method of home defense (even more sacred than the more general self defense) might be to booby trap your home with tripwire activated guns while you sleep. Bad guy forces entry, bad guy dead. Great. But what about, neighbor notices something wrong before you do (broken window, torn screen on door, small fire, etc.), calls police, policeman/fireman (just doing their job, now) comes in. Good guy dead. Not great. You will be held responsible, and rightfully so. The law draws some lines (to be interpreted by the courts) about what is and isn't reasonable self defense. If they were much more lax, us being able to shoot down human predators isn't the only thing that would happen. All of a sudden, somewhere it would be ok for little white grandma with the shotgun to blow away the black-gangsta looking kid with baggy pants who pounds on her door.

"What? He was trying to sell magazine subscriptions...Gee, officer, I was really scared. He had these big pants on... I thought he might have a gun."

"You were scared? Well, I guess it's ok then..."

As much as the law might screw people sometimes, there's got to be a standard. I think it's pretty reasonable for a country full of 280 million folks who interact in innumerable ways.

Back to the point...I do believe we have a sovereign RIGHT to defend ourselves against attack. I think guns should be legal to own/carry, but the means to that right and the right to the act itself are two different things. I don't think we should be allowed rocket-propelled grenades for self defense.

Now, I know you've stated earlier that you do avoid confrontation whenever possible, so this is not about what you would really do, but more of a discussion of the ideologies you touch on so often.

Regarding Sierra, I know him. He is not like you suggest. I've known a number of the police officers in this area, and had quite a range of experiences with them, from outright harassment for (gasp!) skateboarding, to quite pleasant ones, at the hands of, you guessed it...Sierra. He is one of two specific individuals whose very existence as police officers has me considering becoming a cop. They make me want to do this because their actions and personalities (both on and off the job) have convinced me that one can do that job with reason, compassion, intelligence, and a greater sense of justice than just "you did it, here's your court date." In short, they remain good human beings, and don't become raging A-holes all the time. I'll hazard a guess that his reference to "you're welcome to further explain your reasoning in court, here's your court date" is a specific response to persons who insist on arguing at great length...like yourself, Don:)
 
I was wondering when the rocket propelled grenade as a Self-defense weapon was going to enter the fray. Usually, it is "hand grenade" or "pocket nuke" instead of an RPG. Interesting.

Greg's words stand on their own.

No one wants to answer "rights v. privileges" because they know the answer to the question will put them at odds with the Founders of this country.

I'm not trying to be confrontational. One way to make someone confrontational is to not answer legitimate questions in an open forum, yeah?

This is...a forum, right?
 
Ok, rights vs. priveleges...

As I said earlier, I consider the free exchange of ideas and the ability to back them up important, nay, vital to "freedom".

I'm blurring the lines between posts, but I really do agree with Sierra that the only place of true freedom is in the mind, regardless of country or chosen government structure.

Rights vs. priveleges seem to be blurred by the difference between what I think SHOULD be a right, and what IS a right as described by our laws. I don't know law well enough to comment on whether knife carry is a right, although I am inclined to think it is. I certainly think it SHOULD be a right, regardless. On guns, I think it is a right to own firearms. This clearly is the intention behind the 2nd Amendment. I think the basic system for regulating concealed carry in my state is a good one. At least a modicum of training should be required. This system should be extended to other places in the U.S. I think citizens should have the right to own/carry firearms if they have not forfeited these rights from misbehavior. Clearly, the law does not see concealed carry as a right.

Blurring posts again, you speak of non-responsive posts by others. What in your last post responded to the specific arguments set forth in my last post (on this thread)?

"Rocket propelled grenade. Interesting?" Not much of a structured, reasoned, response. I think that is at the very heart of the issue. At the time of the drafting of the constitution, firearms were the state of the art in weaponry. That may be the spirit of amendment 2, but the letter of it says (fire)arms. How should we sort that one out?

Should we now follow the spirit or letter of Amend. 2? Should citizens be allowed the latest in military weaponry? I'll go on record and say no. We should stick with firearms. But then, this has defeated the premise of using our arms to defend against a corrupt, tyrannical military. I don't think we (the citizens) would very effectively repel our own military gone rogue with all their training and equipment.
 
I think you and I are on the same, basic page when it comes to Rights.

Look, let me be brutally honest, here...

I think all of the cries about this and that being a "privilege" is the cry of the Tyrant. It's nonsense. The reason I believe that is, privileges can be taken away for transient or manufactured reasons.

Rights are much harder to remove.

As for me being non-responsive to your last post, well, do you wish for me to argue the fact that a handgun is the most effective means of Self-defense further?

A handgun is the most effective means of Self-defense on the streets of America today.

Now, I can put a list of caveats in there where an edged weapon is superior in some cases, O.C. in another, an ASP Baton in another and yet another where a Kubotan would rule the day and possibly be the most safe, responsible and effective weapon for that moment in time.

When I say, "The handgun is the most effective means of Self-defense," I'm speaking about the most broad laundry list of violent altercations you could get yourself into.

Understand, please, exactly what I'm saying...

When you need the handgun desperately, it's usually because nothing else, including avoidance and running, will do.

As far as Greg is concerned, I have enjoyed, immensely, his writing and projects over the years. His books reside on my bookshelf, there is a video lurking somewhere too...in the shadows. There is a study for non-military people in what to do in the theoretical Burger King against a shooter and you have no means of escape. That's for another thread and hardly foolproof either...

This is not about, "Don don't like Greg" or "Don don't like Cops" because I do have excellent friendships with quite a few Police Officers.

Those Officers, to a person, do not display the "Black Hat Ban" mentality that has been so painfully obvious in these two threads we bounce back and forth between.

Because Greg won't express himself and instead relies on the parry and counter to deflect conversation, it leads to frustration and also leads people to believe that if Oregon has their version of "O.J." and the State Legislature decides to ban clip carried pocketknives, Greg will be taking your knives without question.

This is not Britain. Just because a bunch of wayward souls, tyrants and misinformed people wish to make it Britain, does not make it Britain.

We are Citizens, not Subjects, but increasingly, we are spoonfed the notion that everything we do is a "privilege" to be granted and rubberstamped by some Governmental Official.

It is simply not so.
 
Fair enough. Many of our rights are curtailed in too many ways. I agree. It seems to be an unfortunate fact of governmental existence that it takes constant vigilance on the part of everyone concerned to keep our rights from withering away. At least we haven't yet lost the right of participation in the legal and legislative processes.:)

By the way, I was not aware. What's happened in CA? Clip carried knives are banned? Last I saw on the subject were Lynn Thompson's statements in his Special Projects catalog, claiming all these folders are legal for concealed carry in CA.

As unfortunate as it may be, rights seem to be proclaimed by governmental bodies. As such they are also curtailed by governmental bodies, without regard to what you and I think they should be. As evidence of rights coming from governments, "rights" vary from country to country. Again, only freedom in the mind.
 
If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution—certainly would if such a right were a vital one.
—Abraham Lincoln
 
If they had such thing as a sponsorship program, where past felons with a clean record for a certain amount of time could own firearms

In New York State a criminal can get a "good conduct certificate" that will allow them to purchase a rifle and shotgun (or apply for the permit in NYC) but will not allow them to aquire a handgun. Its halfway. The Volkmer-McClure act of 1986 (FOPA) gave the states the right to allow "firearms privleges" to convicted felons. The states can notify the BATF that an individual can once again keep and purchase arms. NY state had this in the state law before this but the state has said that they will only do this for Rifle and Shotgun.
 
Please note that I did not say they "should" have a program where felons can later own handguns - the last thing the world needs is another dysfunctional beaurocratic program - what I said was I know people with past violent felony convictions that I would personally vouch for.

I know people you could say were "Reformed" through the prison experience - no one in their right mind wants to go back. These are people who went on to work hard making an honest life for themselves. Rehab is the whole premise of the penal institution.

On the flipside I'm a FIRM beleiver in the "three strikes" program - 3rd time and the cell key goes down the toilet.
 
A slight point of contention. I don't think prison is about reform. Nor is it about punishing the criminal. Rather prison is there for the purpose of keeping the community at large safe. If it was for punishment it is set up entirely the wrong way. Granted reform is a byproduct of the penal system, but not the reason. If you think about it it makes sense. it is the goal of the penal system to grant safety to each community. Even within the prison community the penal system trys to keep the community safe. When a criminal acts in a way endangering others they are transferred to solitary confinement or increased security.
 
I live in a country that is among the most corrupt. No explicit laws about weapon except for blanket : no edged and no firearm.

Even you can be arrested if you carry a stick around, that depends on the LEO's intent (which normally is after your money and then release you)

This thread has been going longer than I expected (because I visited it too late :) ), but would like to chime in on this opinion by one2gofst:
But to take a job that puts you there day after day when you cannot legally feel comfortable in the level of protection you have, why? Its not worth it to me. If someone decides it is worth it they get no sympathy from me for breaking the law.
Click to expand...
and this:
UPS is in most every city if not every city in the U.S. it is indeed a good job for many people. However, as I understand, it is fairly easy to be transferred from one city to another if you need to.
Click to expand...
UPS will end up having no one serving the 'bad city' ;)

I am not trying to flame, it's just that sometime you have no choice on life situation, but to protect yourself, even if that violates the law. Down here where legal system is obviously politically and financially influenced, it is even a more dangerous ground. You don't get to choose the area, all is that, some is worse. Criminals don't play by the rule anyway. Of course increasing your skill without weapon is important as your chances will be better, as sometime you can't have it with you (i.e. going into the parliament house, visiting embassies to apply visa, etc.)

I am not surprised that those people living in dreamland now even ban impact weapon (made of plastic!), simply because, as Don Rearic (and JohnR7 long time back) has put it before: they never face the situation themselves, being in the limo and secured building all the time, gets people to prepare their food for them (no cutting veggies).
An old Tao saying: you can't experience the wine from reading the label only.
Putting it sarcastically: We should have more pizza delivery man as our lawmaker.

Edited to add: I fully agree that as much as possible, creativity, increase awareness and abiding the law is the best. The sad truth is, sometimes, it is just not possible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top