- Joined
- Sep 13, 2007
- Messages
- 79,903
- Reaction score
- 20,981
- Location
- I love your hate.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Yep, and over penetration. Basically knowing what is beyond your target
If you can gaurentee hitting your target, yep. My nightmare would be missing and the round going through a plasterboard wall and into the next room.
A middle school teacher? cocktail waitress? Anywhere where it could be difficult to conceal, or if carrying may be frowned upon.
The point is stilll somewhat valid even if the analogy isn't I believe.
It's not and never was illegal exactly... Basically you needed to show that your life was in danger. Lead to all sorts of issues did that.
For example if you shot someone who was armed with a less than leathal weapon you were in trouble.
But what is a less than leathal weapon I hear you ask?
That's a good question...
If you shot someone outside your front door, or halfway through your window, you were in trouble.
That is changing again at the moment to make the homeowner less culpable and to put the burden of proof more on the intruder.
I agree. And seeing as I don't know what the lady in questions circumstances actually are I suggested that she speaks to a good instructor in person. I don't know any substute for personal advise in that respect.true. know what you are shooting.
If thats what you think works for you, i wouldn't suggest anything else. To me however, knowing you have the firepower to end the threat and the training to use this force appropriatly is the solution.
Though I would say, if you live in an apartment townhouse adjoining community type housing. overpenetration is a risk
Again the ladys specifics are a mystery here. That's why I suggested something you can conceal anywhere, and have it on you most of the time regardless. I simply believe that if one feels threatened enough to think about concealed carry, one must have the tools available at any given time. And as G. said, it's better than throwing rocks.Cocktail waitress maybe... a school teacher can wear something that could conceal even a large frame pistole.
I don't drink that much.not really. a month without going to the pub and you'd have enough.
Depends how you look at it.scary....
While I oppose legal restrictions on munitions, I do agree with selecting a round with less penetration for home invasion.
You can know what you're shooting at and be aware of your background, and miss. You can miss-fire. The gun can fire in unintended directions during a struggle. You could not notice a family member's movement and think the room behind your target is empty when you fire. More powerful rounds can go through your target.
I realize that it's easy to deny all of this in an online setting and claim that your plan is perfect, that you will never make a mistake, that you are better than any criminal who could ever assault you and that you will always have complete control over every situation; but that's not actually real.
all plans are perfect until the first 7.62 whizzes by.
There are pros and cons to both. Me im concerned with a rou d that wont penetrate sheetrock penetrating a thick leather jacket for example
You should have no problem with a 9mm hollow point or similar, considering the close range you would be at.
Should? Id rather have a .45 hydrashock and remove all doubt.
Well, again, I would never support legal bans on munitions so what I say were is just opinion.
The .45 hydra-shock is a decent round and personally I don't have much of a problem with it. If you know ****'s going down in advance then innocents should get the **** outa there asap. I personally proffer the weaker 9mm hollow point for my comfort zone as I'm in a a home situation where my children would have to stay near me, but I wouldn't fault someone for using the .45 in their situation.
I take issue with retards who think the AK-47 is acceptable home defense, especially in a rural setting. While I wouldn't legally ban you owning one, don't be surprised if I put one in your head when you shoot through you walls, my walls, and strike one of my family.
There are pros and cons to both. Me im concerned with a rou d that wont penetrate sheetrock penetrating a thick leather jacket for example
Did u mean urban? In a rural setting you have little fear of an errant 762 flying through your barn and into your farmhouse.
:rofl my bad :doh yeah I meant urban :lol:
dood you keep throwing out insults, is there a reason for this? I mean, you claim you don't show disrespect then you do just that....
Taking from your statements such as taking aikido is a good way to defend oneself in a gunfight or ever, I can only surmise that you are ignorant to what it takes to survive in a life or death altercation.
Sorry Ed, but that is not the issue. The problem is that you have demonstrated a pre-judged prejudice against those who CCW, and despite stats proving you wrong you refuse to acknowlege that your prejudice has no basis in reality.
Drills? Lol. If having a gun against an armed attacker always gets you killed, why do cops carry them? :mrgreen:
Could you quote the part where I said people take what I've said miss my points, or inflate them beyond belief. I get it, everyone should carry, it doesn't decrease the safety of anyone else. Feeling scared to walk down the street unarmed, is a legitimate reason to carry.
You found two studies, (the Ohio one is the first to pop up in google) and the real break down is that few each year get a license revoked. Its hard (I couldn't find them) to find relevant statistics on how many permit holders Fired their weapon, how many hit the intended target, and how many if any were wounded or killed as a result, the wiki article itself states 9 officers were killed by ccw holders. However nothing is laid-out to say if the ccw holders were law breakers, or missed their intended target.
Seems like a topic that people just havn't explored. Having a permit is one thing, which I fully support (and wish my state had tougher standards then "sign here"). But carrying on a daily basis, out of fear...yawn, guess I'm just an anti-gun liberal because I believe in tougher restrictions in handgun ownership and use!
Its hard not to throw insults when my points are either missed, ignored, or inflated beyond reason. As stated, its my "personal" feelings based both on experience (which I've been berated for being only 22) and general reasoning, specifically the state training guidelines I had to take to carry a gun as part of my employment.
Sheesh, I don't think everyone should carry, and I will second guess anyone who feels the need to carry, and to go beyond that its perfectly in my right to challenge anyone who chooses to carry (check out one of those first amendment deals). I suppose my confrontational style of debate can be taken as disrespect, so be it. If I question someone as to why they carry, and all it does is make them more resolute in their choice, well at least I know how serious they're taking it.
I have constantly run Drill after Drill, where having a gun against an armed attacker just gets you killed. I've trained with a FATS. You guys put too much into the notion, that having a gun Will save your life, or that the world would be a safer place if everyone was armed, I disagree.
As for the Aikido comment, the thread starter is a woman in her 40s, who's stated multiple times she works in an elementary school. Depending on the state even with a Concealed Carry Permit (or license) she probably can't carry it into work, or leave it in a car parked on school property. That for some people alone would rule out having a gun 5x a week. Now onto aikido, as an Introduction into martial arts, can you think of something better? (Karate? ROFLMAO) I don't expect someone who is new to martial arts to jump right into a Krav Maga course.
So what can we take from this?
1. you admit to insulting people.
2. you think that "1st amendment deals" apply only to you.
are you seriously suggesting you can disarm someone with a gun before they can shoot you? seriously?
yes, I can. tons of things. Aikido is not an effective martial art. And I am telling you this as a shodan, under Yamada Sensei, from the NY Aikikai. USAF. I stopped training Aikido seriously when I came to the realization that most aikidoka are self delusional about the practicality of thier art.... Oh i still practice it with some friends time to time, because it is fun at the higher levels, but i am not deluded into thinking its an effective art....
Collusive fakery does not translate into effective self defense.
In other threads he has said that he is working his way towards becoming a Police officer. Perhaps he has an issue with the idea of ordinary citizens possessing the same "power" (ie being armed) as he would as a cop. He wouldn't be the first to think that way... this is just speculation on my part though.
It can be done, Rev. I do happen to know one guy who pulled it off successfully. I teach it in some of my self-protection classes as a last-ditch desperation option. However it isn't remotely as simon-simple as many people like to paint it : "oh, that hardened criminal will just snatch your gun away from you!" --- uh, not so much, this takes a lot of training and some luck, OR an enormous amount of luck and a very incompetent opponent.
It also depends on the guy holding the gun. There are methods I also teach of handling extreme-close-quarters shooting problems using the "retention position" which makes it extremely hard for the other guy to disarm or muzzle-avert you. (credits to my instructor, I didn't invent it.)
Anyway, as a primary defense option it isn't such a hot idea. I prefer being armed, and for the record I know what I'm talking about --- I've defended myself both armed and unarmed before.
Well, there's Aikido and there's Aikido. Some forms are more real-world oriented than others. Some instructors are more real-world oriented than other instructors, even within the same "style". I trained in a self-defense oriented form of Aikido for the better part of a decade, and found it useful as an LEO... but you have to bear in mind that my instructor was also a cop with plenty of real-world experience.
From what I've seen a majority of Aiki schools do not practice in a manner that would give their techniques utility against anyone other than Joe Schmuck the John-Wayne-roundhouse-puncher... but there are exceptions.
Granted, there are a lot of martial arts I'd recommend to a newbie looking for something street-effective long before I'd recommend a "generic" Aiki school....MMA, Brazillian 'jitsu, Vale Tudo, Muay Thai, boxing/kickboxing, etc.
But yeah, I suspect Ed doesn't have too much real world experience with serious violence. His suggestions are not very practical on the whole.
I used to teach it all the time, different sorts of disarms, etc..... I also teach the reality of it..... Take a paintball gun. Disarm the person pointing the paintball gun before he shoots you....
99 out of 100 times.... you got shot....
Yes there is always a possibility it would work, but in reality. Usually imo its foolish. Give em your wallet already.
+1 fully know what you mean. in aikido, that's an example of proper Mai-ai.
Ive trained yosinkan, akikai, tawama style. Chiba, ikeda, saotome, yamada, and on and on.... If you found a real world oriented Aikido, its far removed from the Aikido taught by hobu dojo (been there as well. )
That said, let me correct my self, it works great for defending oneself against charging drunks.
Boxers, not so much as there is no momentum to deal with.
exactly, not realistic attacks, too much reliance on momentum of an unlikley scenario.
This part I agree. As you can tell, I am less than impressed with most "aiki" style teachings as a practical self defense. It has uses, and I do benefit from my years of doing it. But it was the application of other martial arts such as BJJ and boxing that made whatever "aiki" style movements and mind set a reality.... my experience anyway...
you gotta tell me more about your "aikido" school. While I will trash Aikido relentlessly, I do so from a position of experience, and would love to find a system that proves me wrong.... (I put a lot of years into it. )
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?