1) Engaging threats at distances that make a pistol less effective/accurate;Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
2) Placing precision fire on a threat while avoiding hitting non-threats/others;
3) Some threats may also be armed with rifles.
That all being said, as Massad said, his first weapon of choice is a pistol, but he would want to have a rifle handy as well.
Cody
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
That was my experience. The AR is loud enough outdoors, and I can't imagine how loud it would be when fired inside. I truly wondered if it would be debilitating due to the extreme report, but several have responded that they felt no ill effects other than hearing loss. I can accept the hearing loss when I realize the safety benefit of limiting over penetration through walls.
1957
As I write this with tinnitus ringing merrily in one ear, and some mild hearing loss in certain ranges... I wouldn't be too quick to accept hearing loss as an OK outcome. If I don't have time to put on my ear protection, then it is what it is. If I have the extra 10 seconds, though, the ear pro is going on.
Looking for a gun blog with AARs, gear reviews, and the occasional random tangent written by a hardcore geek? trevoronthetrigger.wordpress.com/
Latest post: The Rogers Shooting School Experience (15 Jul 2014)
I have a M1 Cabine set up with Remmington JSP's (just took a look). Still made of wood 2 15 round mags at the butt. I have do have a 15 round mag in the gun.
I just got a 870 and need to get a new stock on it for better use.
Last edited by ffhounddog; 03-13-2014 at 03:35 PM.
Just wandering by and noticed the discussion of my article. Just a couple of points:
1. The police opinion of guns part of the study wasn't done in TX. The person who shared that with me is a well known police trainer but not in TX. He asked me NOT to give specifics. I stand by that. But the results are telling.
2. Your defense lawyer is an idiot. That wasn't part of that study. The guns were described factually with no polemics, speeches about assault weapons or the like. The simple exposure to the type of weapon did it. Not being a lawyer but no one has told me that you can object to the simple presentation of the gun into evidence and its technical description to the jury. Such presentations in other studies influencing sentencing also but they didn't do gun type.
Jury decisions are complex decisions, the literature says the best model of a decision is the story model. The side that gives a strong first impression starts a Gestalt that lasts through the interpretation of the following evidence. If you are in court, you have passed the point of a 'good shoot'.
An interesting nuance is that folks say that your lawyer might explain the gun - it's a modern sporting rifle, etc. The risk is that jurors aren't that sophisticated. Your lawyer belaboring the gun's properties might just keep on priming the negative attitudes if originally formed by the prosecution's presentation. This will be especially true if the jury isn't gun sympatico. You can't trust 'hunters' to be such, BTW. From the anecdotal Zumbo affair to a study out there which shows some 'hunters' are quite negative on EBRs.
The gun isn't the only factor that convicts you, obviously but you need to have a lawyer who can deal with such. BTW, I gave a talk to the Texas State Bar for a CLE. 181 lawyers seemed to pay attention and didn't discount it as a factor.
Thanks for chiming in, Glenn. I've enjoyed your presentations at Rangemaster and other venues.
Noted, thanks for the clarification. I was summarizing from memory.
I think this is key. People in our little subculture spend a lot of time shooting, thinking about shooting, and talking about shooting. We're used to firearms and discussions about them. That colors our judgment about whether and what types of guns are scary. But there are huge segments of the population who didn't grow up around guns, don't own a gun, think guns are scary in and of themselves. They are going to bring their own notions to the table, whether they are cops, judges, attorneys or jurors. Sometimes those notions include a belief that anyone who owns an "assault rifle" wants to kill someone - I've heard that one myself, recently, from a gun owner and hunter. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that a good lawyer can convince those folks to disregard those preconceived notions is fooling themselves.
Quote: "Here is an interesting view from Massad Ayoob:"
I used to read his articles and spoke to him on the phone a couple of decades back, when I was 'younger'...
Massad Ayoob? REALLY?!!!
Went offline... did some more thinking... came back...
Whether to choose a rifle or shotgun?
LE in this area carry both in their cars. I think this is a wise approach for LE.
For civilians? You have to look at the 'lay of your land', the people in your home,
the neighborhood setting, etc. etc.
What might be right for one... may not be right for all. Your skillset, mindset, training, etc. etc.
This is something I had to decide for myself, and I think we all need to evaluate our own situation.
OK... I'm going back offline again...
Sweet dreams...
He's still an active homicide investigator and remains front and center on the LE side of OISs. I know you dont agree with some of his views on terminal effects, but that is a small section of the man's experiences.Quote: "Here is an interesting view from Massad Ayoob:"
I used to read his articles and spoke to him on the phone a couple of decades back, when I was 'younger'...
Massad Ayoob? REALLY?!!!
I had followed Ayoob's writings for years back in the 1980's before learning through the gun magazines of a Dr. Fackler. I took the initiative to contact Fackler when he and DocGKR were still at Letterman Army Institute of Research (LAIR). I spoke with Fackler over the phone, after which he sent me an entire wound ballistics packet (which I still have). It was then that I began to realize the fallacy of some of Ayoob's views, as well as Marshall & Sanow's, and several others. I joined the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA) as an associate member in 1993, and eventually became an ammunition tester, journal contributor and full-member. After all of that, I find it difficult to take many of the gun magazine folks seriously. Most of the folks here are of a far higher 'caliber'.
Reply With Quote