Interesting News on Open Carry.....

[AresV]

white space?

I think that I speak for most when I say this but not starting a new paragraph from time to time makes it quite difficult to read through a long post.

When they begin to resemble large bricks of words strung together, that's usually when you should go back and separate it into different paragraphs to make it easier to read.

 

[majormadmax]

I work Randolph AFB. A lifting of employer parking lot bans has absolutely no affect on me. I also can't freely carry to/from work because I can't enter the base with a weapon.

Which is bullshit because if anyone bothered to actually read US Code Title 18 Section 930, they'd realize that it only prohibits the carrying of privately-owned firearms in government facilities (defined as "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties")!

I work on Lackland and they cite the above code as the reason weapons aren't allowed on base. I guess the commander doesn't have the cojones to admit it is his decision.

By the way, since there is no sign at the Randolph gate that I ever noticed, how do they make it illegal to possess weapons? Lackland has a sign at every gate, whereas Camp Bullis (where I shoot) only prohibits loaded weapons.

Cheers! M2

 

[Wolfwood]

icantbeleiveyougusyarestilltalkingaboutthisitimeanitisthesameguyssayingthesamestuffoverandoverandijsutcanttakeitanymoreomfgparagraphs!!?whyshoudlihavetoconformtowritinglegiblyonlinewhenicantevenwritelegiblybyhanditismyconstitutionalrighttowritelikethisandifyoudontliekitwhydontyoucomepickupmygunswhuileyouareatitifthetimecomeswillyoubetherewheniahaverunoutofthingstosayandamjsuttryingtogetthissentanceaslongasicanatthispoint!!


>=) sorry guys.
jsut an illustration, mike is using spaces, give him a little credit. his posts are kinda hard to read but once your eyes adjust it inst to bad

it could be worse lol



weird the system adds spaces in randomly after i post. sad day.

 

[txinvestigator]

<sigh> It's also true that they've been stopped by a single .22 round. Is a rifle round that's going to overpenetrate and continue on downrange a better choice?

Who says that is going to happen?

 

[Wolfwood]

Who says that is going to happen?

that would be me.

i say that is going to happen.

but then again i say alot of things.

 

[mike75925]

when i was around 14, my neighbors went deer hunting. i do not recall the range, or the caliber of the bullet, but, the bullet ricocheted inside the deer ruining the deer. (the shape of the cartridge was similar to that of a 7.62x54r, though it wasn't nealy as long.) if the deer was a good distance away, and the bullet had not struck a bone, the bullet would have passed through. if, the deer was significantly closer, that deer's bones must've been really good.
from what i understand of modern bullets/projectiles is, they have all sorts.

from beanbags, sabots, shotshells in pistol calibers, and softer lead bullets which are used to limit damage, reduce range, and reduce the possibilty of collateral damage from the projectiles. of course, aiming at the chest should aid in preventing a through and through, but, there will always be a chance of collateral damage. sometimes allowing the BP to get away, is better. depending, of course, on the circumstances.

when, i was reading up on various things, i came across someone who suggested using tire balancing weights for bullets. the tin and antimony content was higher in the wheel weights. he stated that added content of the two made the lead less pliable. to me, less pliability means more chance of ricochet and a better chance of a through and through. i do not recall, if he was jacketing these bullets of his.

in a mall situation, if said shooter was using a silencer or hiding, the public would not know where to run away from. it would be chaos. that being the case, finding the target quickly would be nigh impossible. if, said shooter were out in the open and or not using a silencer, the people would run from said shooter. the shooter would be readily available, but would you be in the right place, at the right time to take the shot? chances are, not. if he knows what he's doing, he will be scanning for 'heroes'. people who go into places to commit mass murder, if they've done their homework, don't pick a spot out in the open. or if they do, they will have an exit plan and get out as soon as possible. they tend to be on the lookout for officers, and people carrying weapons. if too many weapons are present, they will either abandon their task, or pick off the armed and continue on. if only one target or target area, they will accomplish the task, pickoff the threats and exfiltrate. the best one could hope for in a situation like this, is, to discourage such action by a show of arms. this does not guarantee that the shooter will not try a different mall or other public venue. provided that other venues do not allow open carry.

better guys? or should i double space as well?

 

[Wolfwood]

better guys? or should i double space as well?

you are alright man!

 

[Texan2]

<sigh> It's also true that they've been stopped by a single .22 round.

you also reference only needing 2-4 rounds?

so a 2 shot .22 derringer should be the perfect carry weapon!!!

 

[TexasRedneck]

you also reference only needing 2-4 rounds?

so a 2 shot .22 derringer should be the perfect carry weapon!!!

No....you're absolutely right. I'm gonna build me an AR pistol and tape a pair of 30-round mags to it!

What I'm trying to do is interject some reasoning - pointing out that a non-LEO engaging a PERCEIVED threat is likely to be as dangerous to others as the threat itself. Bear in mind that several of my weapons are "available" to LEO's if they should ever need 'em, as is an operator - but there's NO way I'd engage in a long-range firefight without KNOWING what was going one.

Having said that, I'm fully aware that there are always "what-if" scenario's. And frankly, I'm not interested in exploring them, because you turn into a buncha wanna-be armchair commando's, IMO. I have GENERAL RULES OF ENGAGEMENT - they're all subject to modification at my whim, based on specific circumstances at any given time. There's just WAY too many variables and differing scenario's to make ANY of 'em "hard-and-fast" rules....other than not shooting myself!

 

[Fisherman777]

you also reference only needing 2-4 rounds?

so a 2 shot .22 derringer should be the perfect carry weapon!!!

That's cool! A lot easier to carry. Think a western style holster rig for the NAA 5 shot like the one below would look cool when we get open carry?

 

[San Antone RR]

Those 45 Long Colts are nearly as big as the pistol itself...

 

[Texan2]

....other than not shooting myself!

#1 rule!!!

 

[Texan2]

That's cool! A lot easier to carry. Think a western style holster rig for the NAA 5 shot like the one below would look cool when we get open carry?

View attachment 4384

Now that guy is secure in his manhood!!!

 

[Fisherman777]

Now that guy is secure in his manhood!!!

Ha ha, I just Photoshop'd that real quick.

 

[AresV]

No....you're absolutely right. I'm gonna build me an AR pistol and tape a pair of 30-round mags to it!

What I'm trying to do is interject some reasoning - pointing out that a non-LEO engaging a PERCEIVED threat is likely to be as dangerous to others as the threat itself. Bear in mind that several of my weapons are "available" to LEO's if they should ever need 'em, as is an operator - but there's NO way I'd engage in a long-range firefight without KNOWING what was going one.

Having said that, I'm fully aware that there are always "what-if" scenario's. And frankly, I'm not interested in exploring them, because you turn into a buncha wanna-be armchair commando's, IMO. I have GENERAL RULES OF ENGAGEMENT - they're all subject to modification at my whim, based on specific circumstances at any given time. There's just WAY too many variables and differing scenario's to make ANY of 'em "hard-and-fast" rules....other than not shooting myself!

Why are people so quick to assume that only LEO's should take action in these type of situations and that anyone else should just bug out and run for the hills?

I know lots of people who aren't in LE (and never have been) who are more than capable of addressing (and stopping) such threats if they are unfortunate enough to find themselves in a bad situation. Should they just throw their hands in the air and wait for the police to arrive?

Again, as a LEO I would hope that someone with the means to stop the threat would not sit and wait until we arrived on scene. Too many lives can be lost in the meantime. I for one could not sit idly by and wait. That's not something that I was trained to do, it's something that was instilled in me by my father.

No one is going to come down from the Heavens and give you permission to stop evil when you are staring it in the face. It is up to you to decide to do what is right in whatever situation is at hand. If you can live with knowing that you may have saved others' lives by intervening and chose not to, then that's your choice and you must live with it.

 

[TexasRedneck]

AresV - how many years on the force, and what kind? With all due respect, I'm in awe that you would advocate such action without encouraging someone contemplating such action to first be DAMN SURE that they knew what they were doing - because if they're wrong, innocent folks could be hurt or killed. As an EX-LEO, I'm concerned with that - and you don't seem to care or be worried about it at all.
I've interceded in the past, will again under the right circumstances - but it'll be at MY discretion, and not just because I *think* something is wrong.

 

[Texan2]

AresV - how many years on the force, and what kind? With all due respect, I'm in awe that you would advocate such action without encouraging someone contemplating such action to first be DAMN SURE that they knew what they were doing - because if they're wrong, innocent folks could be hurt or killed. As an EX-LEO, I'm concerned with that - and you don't seem to care or be worried about it at all.
I've interceded in the past, will again under the right circumstances - but it'll be at MY discretion, and not just because I *think* something is wrong.

I tend to agree with TXredneck...i am not a fan of joe civilian deciding to track down the "mall shooter" and trying to take him out. Example would be me being in plain clothes intevening in a robbery and a CHL carrier shooting me because of what he THINKS he sees. I am not a big fan of strapping an AR on my back when I go to the mall either...I believe there is a place for discretion.
That having been said I wouldn't take it as far as saying if you cant stop them in 2-4 shots you have no business taking the shot. Most LEOs cant even do that....look at FBI stats.
I think AresV has the advantage of youth and energy on his side and does not approach issues the same way as guys like us with some gray hair and years under our belt. Doesnt mean he's wrong....just a different approach. We need good guys like him on our side to carry the torch.

 

[AresV]

AresV - how many years on the force, and what kind? With all due respect, I'm in awe that you would advocate such action without encouraging someone contemplating such action to first be DAMN SURE that they knew what they were doing - because if they're wrong, innocent folks could be hurt or killed. As an EX-LEO, I'm concerned with that - and you don't seem to care or be worried about it at all.
I've interceded in the past, will again under the right circumstances - but it'll be at MY discretion, and not just because I *think* something is wrong.

Just over 4 years experience, most of it at a large municipal department in a city of 1/2 million or so.

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Yes, responding in plain clothes puts you at risk of being shot by someone who doesn't know what's going on and believes you to be the threat. Am I willing to take that risk - yes - because I don't want to live with the knowledge that my lack of decisive action could have cost innocent folks their lives.

It should go without saying that someone should be damn sure they know what they're doing before using deadly force, I agree completely. If they're wrong, yes, innocent folks could die. If they're right they could die also. But if that person sits back and does nothing innocent people will lose their lives.

The thing I take issue with is the larger societal issue that people have forgotten how to be fierce and fend for themselves when confronted by a serious threat. Most just want to call the police and let us handle it. If people weren't this way I believe we'd see much fewer active shooters and much less crime. Instead, we will continue to see crime rise until the majority in society learn to not get trampled on by those who would prey upon them.

 

[AresV]

I tend to agree with TXredneck...i am not a fan of joe civilian deciding to track down the "mall shooter" and trying to take him out. Example would be me being in plain clothes intevening in a robbery and a CHL carrier shooting me because of what he THINKS he sees. I am not a big fan of strapping an AR on my back when I go to the mall either...I believe there is a place for discretion.
That having been said I would take it as far as saying if you cant stop them in 2-4 shots you have no business taking the shot. Most LEOs cant even do that....look at FBI stats.
I think AresV has the advantage of youth and energy on his side and does not approach issues the same way as guys like us with some gray hair and years under our belt. Doesnt mean he's wrong....just a different approach. We need good guys like him on our side to carry the torch.

I would rather Joe Civilian track down the mall shooter and stop him before I arrive than to have to notify 10 more families that one of their loved ones was murdered that day.

I am not going to strap an AR on my back to go to the mall either. My comments merely reflect my resentment for how soft we've become as a society. I wish we lived in a society where it was acceptable and almost normal for men to have rifles. I can assure you it would cut down on a lot of crime very quickly.

It's similar to what they say about tyrannical governments - you will only live under the tyranny that the society will tolerate.

It is equally true for crime. We have gotten soft on criminals, both in the justice system and with what the average citizen will tolerate. Again, not advocating vigilante justice, just saying that people are much more fearful of criminals now than ever. People won't even go to their neighbor's house to ask them to turn down their loud music or to let their barking dogs inside anymore because THEY ARE AFRAID. That's sad IMO.

And I don't know if I have youth on my side, I'm over 30 (not sure what you consider youth). I do have a lot of energy, that's for sure. Anyone who's met me will tell you that. I'm very passionate about everything I do and was raised that if you're going to do something there's no point in doing it half-fast.

And thank you for the kind words

 

[Texan2]

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

Indeed, it often is...