I totally disagree.
I don't think it's impossible at all to say what one is willing to do.
(After you make the decision to be willing, that is)
I totally disagree.
I don't think it's impossible at all to say what one is willing to do.
(After you make the decision to be willing, that is)
Years of experience by LE agencies and the military show that when people encounter stressful situations, they tend to revert to training rather than a decision-making process. It's not opinion, it's real world experience.
That's why training training is so repetitive, you need to act, not think, but act and act properly. Eric at OPS told me a story about a trooper in N.Y. who, while transitioning to semi's, was taught that, on the range, if they had a malfunction to lift a hand and the range boss would come clear the weapon. They were briefed on clearing stoppages but, that was not how they practiced. During a traffic stop the trooper was attacked and had to use his weapon, it jammed, and before he was gunned down, he raised his hand. He was not a coward, nor was he a fool, he simply had been conditioned to respond a certain way.
Most survivors of deadly force encounters are lucky, not good. Just my opinion, albeit an opinion based on experience.
I'll take "good and lucky" any day over "just lucky." And, you won't get good by hoping you'll be lucky.
I'll take "good and lucky" any day over "just lucky." And, you won't get good by hoping you'll be lucky.
Michael,
A very thought-provoking post, and one those who use weapons to defend themselves should carefully consider. I am past 70 years in age, and after some debilitating illnesses, very much weaker than I was years ago. A couple of years ago, I thought it was a good idea to switch from a revolver for self-defense to a tiny automatic (Warthog 45). After buying the pistol, I discovered the recoil spring was so powerful that I had difficulty in pulling the slide back to chamber a round. I got rid of the pistol as a self-defense weapon that same day. The point is--and the one you make so well--is to consider all areas of your life as realistically as you can, and try to make realistic decisions related to your personal defense on CURRENT situations. I spent my young active years as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army, and I was willing to stake my existence on the fact that I could take on all comers and probably win. That day is long gone. Be sure of your PRESENT capabililities, and make decisions related to your life or the lives of those you love accordingly.
Dutch McAllister
A very thought-provoking post, and one those who use weapons to defend themselves should carefully consider. I am past 70 years in age, and after some debilitating illnesses, very much weaker than I was years ago. A couple of years ago, I thought it was a good idea to switch from a revolver for self-defense to a tiny automatic (Warthog 45). After buying the pistol, I discovered the recoil spring was so powerful that I had difficulty in pulling the slide back to chamber a round. I got rid of the pistol as a self-defense weapon that same day. The point is--and the one you make so well--is to consider all areas of your life as realistically as you can, and try to make realistic decisions related to your personal defense on CURRENT situations. I spent my young active years as an infantry officer in the U.S. Army, and I was willing to stake my existence on the fact that I could take on all comers and probably win. That day is long gone. Be sure of your PRESENT capabililities, and make decisions related to your life or the lives of those you love accordingly.
Dutch McAllister
"It is my belief that 99% of people who carry guns are not prepared to survive a violent assault (including police officers). While this may offend a lot of carriers, I feel its important to address."
99%? That's quite a high percentage. Have you any factual support for your belief? I don't practice my self-defense daily. I have no option to shoot other than paper targets. I DO check my mental and emotional readiness. I AM prepared to defend myself or others by using lethal force. I AM a good (very good) shot. And I will do the best I can if the occasion arises.
How often does one face a "violent attack"? I have not yet, and I am old. But I have been aware of my surroundiings, have made my weapon available, and have made certain I am ready to shoot to kill any assailant. Y'know what? If I miss...if I am killed or wounded...if I am not successful in removing my assailant...I will have tried. I will have been courageous. I will not have been a lame-brain who has a weapon but has not the will nor knowledge to use it.
I suppose your post struck me as being important in reminding all that a license to carry does not protect one on its own. But also it seemed elitist. We are in this together. The good, the clumsy, the prepared, the skilled, the practiced, all the individuals who either meet or do not rise to your criteria. We should take from you the necessity of preparedness, and ask of you that your requirements be extrapolated to instruct those 99% that, as of now, do not measure up.
99%? That's quite a high percentage. Have you any factual support for your belief? I don't practice my self-defense daily. I have no option to shoot other than paper targets. I DO check my mental and emotional readiness. I AM prepared to defend myself or others by using lethal force. I AM a good (very good) shot. And I will do the best I can if the occasion arises.
How often does one face a "violent attack"? I have not yet, and I am old. But I have been aware of my surroundiings, have made my weapon available, and have made certain I am ready to shoot to kill any assailant. Y'know what? If I miss...if I am killed or wounded...if I am not successful in removing my assailant...I will have tried. I will have been courageous. I will not have been a lame-brain who has a weapon but has not the will nor knowledge to use it.
I suppose your post struck me as being important in reminding all that a license to carry does not protect one on its own. But also it seemed elitist. We are in this together. The good, the clumsy, the prepared, the skilled, the practiced, all the individuals who either meet or do not rise to your criteria. We should take from you the necessity of preparedness, and ask of you that your requirements be extrapolated to instruct those 99% that, as of now, do not measure up.
Is there something wrong with being elistist when in comes to realistic preparation?
I don't think so.
Is there something wrong with being among the lowest common denominators?
Not unless you delude yourself into believing you're not an LCD simply because you carry a pistol.
Being well-prepared won't make you a better person, won't make you more popular, and won't make you anything other than more prepared.
The only part of your post that is incorrect is your statement that you don't have any other choice than to shoot at paper targets.
You have CHOSEN only to work this aspect because it is either enjoyable or convenient. Since you posted nothing about your training background I cannot assess which.
There is nothing wrong with that, it is simply incomplete if you wish to be prepared.
As far as factual information to support my position, I'd do a lot more reading here and that should answer your question.
Michael Brown
Similar threads
