Oddly enough this guy was one of the people who absolutely insisted that a citizen concealed carrier had no need to carry a gun with a round in the chamber.Originally Posted by Ed L
Oddly enough this guy was one of the people who absolutely insisted that a citizen concealed carrier had no need to carry a gun with a round in the chamber.
I remember as a kid we never locked our door. I don't know that my mom ever did. When I was 15 or so someone stole my wallet out of my coat pocket at work and that's when I started to learn.
I really think that's the only way some people learn is by their mistakes. Someone stole my wallet and I made a point of never leaving my wallet in my coat or my coat unsecured again. Someone stole my soft cap out of my wall locker at Ft. Sill when I walked away to use the bathroom and I never walked away without locking my wall locker again.
I think working as a security guard on crappy sites is what taught me how to read people. Crackheads really don't change their motivations and I can tell if someone is trying to BS me and I can tell if someone is trying to get inside my defenses.
I've said this before but I became very good at reading preassaultive indicators working in a group home and being attacked again and again and again and again.
The thing is that some people don't learn from their mistakes. I have a neighbor who walks her barky, little, dog at night and the first thing she says to anyone who gets close is "Don't worry, he doesn't bite." I've told her MULTIPLE times that if anyone asks she should tell them "You better stay the Hell away. My dog will take your leg off." She honestly does not understand why I would tell her that
Wow. Somehow that is par for the course.
So this guy who is indignant about not locking his doors and is surprised that a crackhead ignored his beware of dog signs and walked into his house could probably not gotten his gun into action to save his life if the crackhead chose to attack him.
What type of response did he get from the other people on the forum?
There are certain stupid people that float from forum to forum, and some forums that themselves attract stupid people. There seems to be a sociological phenomenon where like attracts like and you get a bunch of people posting stupidity attracts more people who support that stupidity and post stupidity of their own. I am not going to name any forums, but those are the ones that seem to have a lot of those types of stupid posts and a larger than normal number of locked threads.
I am glad that we have almost none of that on this forum. If those people lurk here, they tend not to post, and hopefully become more knowledgeable. This is one of the few gun forums that I follow.
This was his response to my suggestion that he lock his door.
Did you say that I could use a class in home security? Junior, I teach home security; and I've, also, been repeatedly told that I teach the subject well. The day when that huge filthy dirty street vagrant walked into our home he walked straight past a large sign by the front door that read: 'DO NOT ENTER!' 'ATTACK DOGS ON PREMISES!'
Yes, I was scared! I was only three days out of the hospital, on crutches at the time, and I couldn't walk. (Couldn't defend my home, either!) Nevertheless, because I was prepared for such an event that home intruder came within a small fraction of a second of losing his life to two of my largest Pit Bulldogs! I couldn't have helped him, either. Those Bulldogs KNEW our family was in danger; and, if they had made body contact, then they would have gone through that home invader like an 'angry chainsaw'!
Worse, with all the tubes and stuff they'd had down my throat in the hospital I didn't have the voice to call them off, either. As I said, our home invader almost lost his life; and it was my PRIOR ATTENTION to home security and other life-saving details that saved both my wife and I from what I suspect would have been serious harm that day.
Long post warning
This is him on condition 3 carry
[I] The American handgun-user mentality I encounter most often on internet gun forums is what I would describe as a remarkably myopic and ill-informed, ‘ambush mentality’; and, ‘the thicker’ the board membership’s mentality is, then, the more of it you’re going to see! Basically, the underlying rationale seems to be that: If a gunman isn’t, somehow, instantly ready to draw and fire his pistol with one hand then it is popularly assumed — very popularly assumed — that the individual gunman is NOT ready to deal successfully with any largely unexpected CQB exchange of gunfire.
The primary focus of most (but not all) American pistol carry is for a gunman to be instantly ready to engage with as few physical body movements and in the shortest amount of time possible. In many other parts of the world, though, emphasis is equally divided between BOTH user safety, as well as upon the (too frequently presumed) personal ability to skillfully perform lifesaving handgun self-defense procedures at a moment’s notice!
Yet, these procedures ARE very difficult for a great many gunmen to correctly perform; but, ya got ‘a remember, ‘The world is full of half-baked wannabes!’ For more than 30 years, now, I’ve carried my own semiautomatic: Colt 1911’s, Browning P35’s, and Glock pistols in C-3; and, miracle of miracles, a ‘dirt magnet’ like me is still here!
During these years there WERE occasions when C-3 carry saved either myself, or someone in close proximity to me from being placed in unexpected jeopardy from the pistol I was carrying. (Like the time I was tripped, and my pistol was pulled out of its holster as I fell forward. Unexpected events like these can and DO happen!)
Early in life I had the advantage of associating with several individuals who had served in more advanced details of the IDF. They learned a lot of different things from me; and I learned a lot of different things from them, too. I’ll share a few of those lessons now:
Is C-0/C-1 carry, in any kind of holster, actually worth the risk? Quite possibly not! The usual popular rationale for C-0/C-1 carry is for the carrier to be able to achieve as near-as-possible instantaneous, one-handed control over his ready-to-go, ‘pure combat pistol’.
(Give me a break, Marshall Dillon; will ya, please!)
The problem, then, becomes: What good is gaining rapid, almost instantaneous one-handed control over your ‘pure combat pistol’ going to do if you’re suddenly caught up in an unexpected CQB pistol or knife ambush? Voilą, for a majority of civilians who seem to take some sort of machismo delight in carrying in C-0/C-1 it’s now ‘Fredo Corleone time’!
SNIPPED
Quite frankly I know of only one exception to the general precaution of not going about in either C-1 for most pistols, or C-0 for striker-fired pistols; and, a majority of the time, this exception does NOT apply to civilians: If a gunman’s daily life and routines are such that the probability of becoming suddenly caught up in an AMBUSH SITUATION is unusually high, then, and only then, is routine C-0 or C-1 carry: socially, empirically, and tactically justified.
Make no mistake, though: C-0 or C-1 carry and/or using a handgun that too many, ‘internet gun forum heroes’ like to describe as being a, ‘pure combat pistol’ (There is no such thing! ) is NO GUARANTEE that someone is going to survive a CQB pistol gunfight — No guarantee at all. (It takes a whole lot more than merely carrying a pistol in C-0 or C-1 in order to survive one of these events!)
Alternatively the very real possibility exists that someone who keeps his, ‘pure combat pistol’ (I love that expression!) in C-0/C-1 all of the time might actually be constituting himself as more of a threat to: himself, his family, his friends, coworkers, acquaintances, and neighbors. (In short, EVERYBODY with whom he comes into daily contact, including himself!)
Just like the, ‘blooded’ (I love that word, too!) IDF soldiers I used to know, C-3 carry was NOT a life-threatening tactical anomaly to any of them; and neither should it be to anyone else who is even half as practiced with a pistol, but still every bit as alert as he ought to be. When used correctly and within the aforementioned physical and psychological parameters, the vast majority of the time C-3 carry should not produce any sort of tactical disadvantage, at all.
Now, does a C-3 gunman need to use two hands in order to draw and charge his pistol? Yes! You bet he does; but, at the same time, anybody who has already taken a serious wound to one of his upper limbs is, more than likely, going to be substantially out of the fight, anyway! The solution? Don’t take an early hit to any of your upper extremities.
Is time going to work against a C-3 gunman? .25 to .40 second? Probably not! Personally, I think that if a gunman has done everything else right, then, I very much doubt that a 1/2 second, or less, will make any sort of appreciable difference in the engagement’s outcome. (Accuracy might, though!)
OK, then, how about that much ballyhooed, ‘loss of fine motor control’? (Ooooh, another internet gun forum, ‘biggie’ — Right!)
Know what? At risk of appearing to brag, I’m going to speak, now, with complete candor: When I first met my Israeli friends, they didn’t teach me anything about guns that I (and a whole lot of other gunmen) didn’t already know. They didn’t teach me anything about using a knife that I hadn’t seen before, either. What they taught me was,
THE RIGHT WAY TO (INSTANTANEOUSLY) READY ONESELF TO ENTER INTO MORTAL COMBAT.
My Jewish friends clearly understood the necessity of having finely honed survival instincts much better than I did; and, once I realized this, I began to carefully observe how they, both, thought and moved. It was also evident to me that we had each, respectively, grown up under very different home circumstances and in very different cultures. Compared to these former kibbutz youths, my own home life had been quite secure; and, early in life, my own personal survival instincts were not all that well developed.
Before I met these fellows I thought I knew how to fight; but, as things turned out, I was seriously mistaken. Simply being skilled to whatever degree with a weapon isn’t enough. Being focused and determined to, ‘get the job done’ isn’t enough. Neither is having a mean and nasty attitude, a ‘willingness to do harm’, sufficient to guarantee your survival; moreover, you can’t even rely upon being better with a weapon than the other guy is because sometimes — ‘pure combat pistol’, or not — the other guy is going to be better, quicker, more accurate, or maybe even just plain luckier than you are!
So, …… what is important? What is enough? What is likely to genuinely improve your chance to survive? I’ll tell you, now:
NOT STEPPING INTO, OR PROMPTLY GETTING OFF OF ‘THE X’ IS IMPORTANT — VERY IMPORTANT! GETTING, ‘AHEAD OF YOUR OPPONENT’S REACTION TIME’ AND, THEREBY, DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS PREFERRED METHOD (OR ABILITY) TO ACT — ALL OF THESE THINGS — ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO SUCCESSFULLY SURVIVING EVERY CQB PISTOL GUNFIGHT ENGAGEMENT.
Exactly, ‘How’ does or should a combatant accomplish each of these confrontational goals? Because circumstances vary I am unable to offer a precise answer to this question. Each person is going to have to correctly anticipate and analyze his own particular dilemma, and subjectively discover and apply his own answers. (I will add, though, that: Surprise, subterfuge, and MOVING FIRST often help!)
What I’m going to say next is sure to shake some people up. It’s information that NOT everybody is going to be either ready for, comfortable with, or willing to accept. Any presumed, ‘Loss of fine motor control’ is (Ready?) complete internet gun forum (and contemporary medical) bullhooey — BULLHOOEY! To believe this sort of rationale is little different from handing a fully loaded, ‘machine gun to a monkey’. ‘Why?’ Because, sooner or later, something is going to go wrong!
ANY ‘LOSS OF FINE MOTOR CONTROL’ IS NOT INDICATIVE OF THE CORRECT WAY FOR A SAVVY COMBATANT TO EITHER THINK, OR FIGHT AT CLOSE QUARTERS — IT IS NOT!
What am I saying? I’ll try to clear away some of, ‘the fog’. Have you ever watched an athlete perform on a subconscious level? Did you notice: the smoothness, the grace, ease, and flow of his body movements? Alternatively, have you ever watched an athlete give a very conscious, very stiff and deliberate, ‘wooden’ physical performance?
Both athletes might perform well; but it’s only the one who’s moving his body on a relaxed, more or less unconscious, level of physical movement that seems to be the most natural, the most well coordinated, the quickest and smoothest performer.
THIS is what I’m talking about! I watch performances like these all of the time in ice skating events and, sometimes, on a football field. The same fluid, committed, unworried and unconcerned, (unconscious) control that works to win football games and figure skating contests can also work to win gunfights. The physiological AND the psychological reactions are the same — the same!
(Yeah, I know! Neither ice skating, nor football games are likely to kill you; but, hey, let’s keep things real: Anyone who isn’t able to accept the possibility of having his body damaged, or having to confront the experience of his own death, really shouldn’t be PLAYING with guns; now, should he!)
Fear responses are NOT fight responses. Fear responses inhibit the body and require very deliberate and intense conscious control in order to be overcome. On the other hand, fight responses require little or no conscious control at all. (Only knowing ‘When’ to stop is about it!)
There are distinct psychological and physiological differences between human FIGHT, AND FEAR reactions. One type of response (fight) will help you; and the other type of response (fear) will hurt you. The one reaction does NOT produce the same, ‘body chemistry’ as the other.
This — THIS – is, in part, what those Israeli soldiers taught me. The desire and personal ‘will to win’ have to be greater than the contest itself! Once a combatant has entered into this state-of-mind all he have to do is to, ‘visualize’ his opponent’s defeat in order to greatly increase the probability for it to actually occur!
A FRIGHTENED MAN WITH A GUN IN HIS HAND WHO’S, ‘LOST HIS FINE MOTOR CONTROL’ IS NOT THE SAME THING AND IS NOT GOING TO MOVE AS WELL AS AN ANGRY MAN WITH A GUN IN HIS HAND WHOSE MIND IS MADE UP THAT HE IS, AT THE VERY LEAST, GOING TO TAKE HIS OPPONENT (OUT) WITH HIM — NO IF’s, NO AND’s, AND NO BUT’s!
Dave Spaulding’s seminal and now famous analysis of gunfighting: tactics, psychology, and the comparative results of numerous confrontational events he obtained, actually touch upon the validity of what’s just been stated. Spaulding comes right out and articulates much of what my Israeli friends taught me about how to effectively engage an opponent (or opponents) in deadly physical combat with a much higher than usual chance of success; and,
THESE THINGS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE’S, ‘PURE COMBAT PISTOL’ IS IN: C-0, C-1, OR C-3 BECAUSE WHEN A GUNMAN, OTHERWISE, HANDLES HIMSELF PROPERLY IT’S NOT GOING TO MATTER!
A savvy pistolero is either ‘off the X’, or he is not. He is either ‘ahead of the time continuum’, or he is not. He is either able to prevent an opponent from successfully gaining a tactical advantage, or he is not.
Last edited by Cypher; 05-20-2018 at 08:39 AM.
So, it was exactly as I suggested above, but instead of using his gun, he wants to use his dogs. This guy is practically begging for someone to come in and get mauled.
As for the rest of your post, it is exactly that sort of forum member that has me not visiting most gun forums any longer.
Chris
Last edited by mtnbkr; 05-20-2018 at 08:50 AM.
Assuming the incident actually happened. He told it on a couple different forms and details changed every time. Once his wife was upstairs once she was standing right there in the living room, once the dogs got behind the guy. Once they were on the landing.
Last edited by Cypher; 05-20-2018 at 09:10 AM.
Take a look at the attached picture. This is what I found at a relatives house yesterday. There was no visible damage on the exterior of the double walled door. The door is bowed out slightly toward the exterior. The door has a typical opener attached that locks the door in place from the top panel when shut. There is a matching lift handle on the exterior of the door opposite the inside handle. The relative was recently in the hospital for a few days and there have been break-ins in the neighborhood recently. I saw this door not too long ago and that crease wasn't there.
I'm thinking someone really yanked hard on the exterior handle trying to force the door open. Any other explanation you can think of? I do not think she backed into the door without opening it, I asked. Plus I think the damage would have been different.
The first panel hinge up from the floor has damage on the side away from the vertical crease. Possibly from more bending on the panel as the handle is on this panel.
Attachment 26421
There's that too. Though, it hasn't been my experience that annecdotes on gun forums are normally exaggerated or entirely fabricated. Not at all...
Chris
That's as plausible as any I can think of. When we replaced our garage door a few years ago, I specified no external handles and a non-keyed mechanical deadbolt-style lock inside both for a cleaner look externally and to mitigate against leverage attacks from outside (not perfect, you can still get a lever under the door itself, but will defeat random passers-by). When we go out of town for extended trips, I lock the garage door itself from inside.
Chris
I was watching the local news and there was a story about a woman who left her car unlocked in the driveway, with a garage door opener in it, and when they woke in the morning, surprise, some of their shit was missing. This after every PD in S. FL has been issuing warnings about car break-ins for years.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Reply With Quote
