CreepingDeath
Member
+1|6962
OKay, Lets get real about this ..  One they will never have gun control . . I feel anyone shold be able to have a gun. Unless a major crime with a weapon like armed robbery. I got pulled over and had a box cutter from work and got a CCW a felony. This was BS but it just shows how you can be charged with anything the goverment wants.
  I was watching court tv the other day. They had a female on there that she had bought a tech 9 for her felonist boyfriend which went out with it, robbing one store and a bank ending up killing a police officer in the processe .
  I also watch and am a big fan of cops and amazing video shows. I have seen more people robbing a store with a knife, cro bar something else besides a gun. So taken guns away from the people isn't going to stop anything.
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

Burning_Monkey wrote:

If we both start out with the weapons in pockets or holsters, you will be the one dead.  A knife weilding attacker can cover the 21 feet and stab you to death before the pistol clears holster every time.  And I mean every time.  It's an example they run at Gunsite (or at least that's the name of the school) and no one has survived the test.  Not even the instructors.

Didn't you ever wonder why police make you turn around, face away, and put your hands behind your head in a high tension situation?  The 21 foot rule is one of the reasons why.  The extra time it takes you to drop your hands, grab the knife, and close the distance is just enough for the officer to drop your ass with 2 to the center of mass.
Is there anything to support that theory? I highly doubt that you can cover 21 feet in the course of the second or two that it takes me to draw. To to mention that there are some of us in the world that know full well how to defend from a knife weilding retard. It's not very hard to disarm someone with a knife if they don't know what they're doing and most criminals really really don't.
Burning_Monkey
Moving Target
+108|7055

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Burning_Monkey wrote:

If we both start out with the weapons in pockets or holsters, you will be the one dead.  A knife weilding attacker can cover the 21 feet and stab you to death before the pistol clears holster every time.  And I mean every time.  It's an example they run at Gunsite (or at least that's the name of the school) and no one has survived the test.  Not even the instructors.

Didn't you ever wonder why police make you turn around, face away, and put your hands behind your head in a high tension situation?  The 21 foot rule is one of the reasons why.  The extra time it takes you to drop your hands, grab the knife, and close the distance is just enough for the officer to drop your ass with 2 to the center of mass.
Is there anything to support that theory? I highly doubt that you can cover 21 feet in the course of the second or two that it takes me to draw. To to mention that there are some of us in the world that know full well how to defend from a knife weilding retard. It's not very hard to disarm someone with a knife if they don't know what they're doing and most criminals really really don't.
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tuel … .Close.htm

It's called the Tueller Drill.  And what most people forget is just how painful it is to be stabbed.  Even the most hardened of people tend to stop what they are doing and grab the wound.
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952
oh yea, I've heard of that. interesting but it doesn't take enough real world scenarios into consideration
Scorpian65
Member
+14|6955
While I agree with most of what you said the following I completely disagree with.

kilroy0097 wrote:

I believe that no one under the age of 25 should legally own a firearm of any sort. Hangun or Rifle.
My reasoning is this:
If a person is old enough (18yrs of age) to be given an Assault Rifle and sent out to kill the enemies of the United States as military personal then they are old enough to have their own legal weapons.
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

Scorpian65 wrote:

While I agree with most of what you said the following I completely disagree with.

kilroy0097 wrote:

I believe that no one under the age of 25 should legally own a firearm of any sort. Hangun or Rifle.
My reasoning is this:
If a person is old enough (18yrs of age) to be given an Assault Rifle and sent out to kill the enemies of the United States as military personal then they are old enough to have their own legal weapons.
yet for some reason retarded laws across the nation still won't allow that soldier to have a drink until he's 21 you can die in combat but damned if you're gonna have a beer with your buddies
Burning_Monkey
Moving Target
+108|7055

FeloniousMonk wrote:

oh yea, I've heard of that. interesting but it doesn't take enough real world scenarios into consideration
You are some what correct.  But just figuring charge distance and attack speed, within 21 feet, I'll put my money on the knife guy.  Even a little slash, while not deadly, will disrupt an attempt to draw a pistol and leave the pistol user open for the next attack.
jiggaman804
Member
+0|6942
use a slightly firm grip, keep both eyes open, squeeze trigger dont pull.
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

jiggaman804 wrote:

use a slightly firm grip, keep both eyes open, squeeze trigger dont pull.
now that is wise gun control
RKF77
Member
+1|6968

CreepingDeath wrote:

OKay, Lets get real about this ..  One they will never have gun control
Gun control exists in several places already....Chicago and Washington DC have some of the most Draconian gun control laws on the books, yet some of the highest rates of gun-relates crime, too.

Starting January 1, San Franciscans will not be able to buy, sell, or even possess a gun or ammunition within SF's city limits.  Those that currently own them will not be grandfathered in...they will have to give up their guns or they will be confiscated.  The fact that SF required gun registration previously will make confiscation easier.

Gun control is present all over the nation in different forms.
RKF77
Member
+1|6968

Burning_Monkey wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

oh yea, I've heard of that. interesting but it doesn't take enough real world scenarios into consideration
You are some what correct.  But just figuring charge distance and attack speed, within 21 feet, I'll put my money on the knife guy.  Even a little slash, while not deadly, will disrupt an attempt to draw a pistol and leave the pistol user open for the next attack.
That would be money well spent, Monkey. 

I've been in Law Enforcement for a looooong time now...in my Academy many moons ago, none of us were able to get our weapon out before we got "stabbed" by the red-man knife.  It was incredibly eye-opening.

Standing there facing off with my instructor, the first thing that ran through my head was, "this guy's got no chance".  He was on me so fast I couldn't even believe it...and I was ready for him.  =o
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

RKF77 wrote:

CreepingDeath wrote:

OKay, Lets get real about this ..  One they will never have gun control
Gun control exists in several places already....Chicago and Washington DC have some of the most Draconian gun control laws on the books, yet some of the highest rates of gun-relates crime, too.

Starting January 1, San Franciscans will not be able to buy, sell, or even possess a gun or ammunition within SF's city limits.  Those that currently own them will not be grandfathered in...they will have to give up their guns or they will be confiscated.  The fact that SF required gun registration previously will make confiscation easier.

Gun control is present all over the nation in different forms.
Handguns only, though. I'm pretty sure they'll still be allowed to keep rifles. Could be wrong.
RKF77
Member
+1|6968

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Handguns only, though.
hehe, forgive me if that doesn't make me feel any better about it. 
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Scorpian65 wrote:

While I agree with most of what you said the following I completely disagree with.

kilroy0097 wrote:

I believe that no one under the age of 25 should legally own a firearm of any sort. Hangun or Rifle.
My reasoning is this:
If a person is old enough (18yrs of age) to be given an Assault Rifle and sent out to kill the enemies of the United States as military personal then they are old enough to have their own legal weapons.
yet for some reason retarded laws across the nation still won't allow that soldier to have a drink until he's 21 you can die in combat but damned if you're gonna have a beer with your buddies
Yeah, I think that is BS.  I had a friend who went to Desert Storm.  When he came back he was like WTF, I can go to war but I can't buy a beer?!?!
IronGeek
One Shot, One Kill
+4|7011|Canberra, Australia

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Scorpian65 wrote:

While I agree with most of what you said the following I completely disagree with.

kilroy0097 wrote:

I believe that no one under the age of 25 should legally own a firearm of any sort. Hangun or Rifle.
My reasoning is this:
If a person is old enough (18yrs of age) to be given an Assault Rifle and sent out to kill the enemies of the United States as military personal then they are old enough to have their own legal weapons.
yet for some reason retarded laws across the nation still won't allow that soldier to have a drink until he's 21 you can die in combat but damned if you're gonna have a beer with your buddies
Finally something you and I agree on 

In Australia they dropped the drinking age from 21 to 18 after WW1 when returned service men were unable to attend there local RSL (Returned Service something)  They are a pub/bar for ex military personel.  I think it is rediculus that you can Vote, Drive, own a gun, at times be drafted or join the military, but can't buy a beer.
FeloniousMonk
Member
+0|6952

RKF77 wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Handguns only, though.
hehe, forgive me if that doesn't make me feel any better about it. 
Doesn't make me feel any better either, just wanted to clarify. Scary thought, isn't it?

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f … G33SM1.DTL

Amazingly enough this British woman is more concerned about it than most of the American residents in SF seem to be.
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|6989|Atlanta, GA USA
I swear!  These people that think making handguns illegal in SF is gonna make the city safer are deluding themselves!  The only people who are still gonna have handguns are going to be the criminals.  That's real fucking logical.

Last edited by atlvolunteer (2005-12-07 15:36:16)

Sondernkommando
Member
+22|6933
Who says that today's citizens have no time for serious issues? 

The aims of today's government are thus:  1)  grow its own size and 2)  make the population increasingly dependent on it.  This takes the form of registering everything from Social Security Numbers to hunting licenses.  Do you want to hunt for supper?  Get your driver's license, hunting license, firearm license, and quota tag ready!  Do you want a job?  Get your SSN, account information and background check ready! 

It has been well demonstrated in the US that, wherever Concealed Carry laws have been enacted, violent crime rates drop.  Per capita crime rates are at their lowest in 30 years overall - another published fact gleaned from the lay press.  Conversely banning all firerarm ownership in the UK has seen annual violent crime rise exponentially thereafter. 

Banning firearms is therefore illogical - but only if you consider personal safety and responsibility, not goals number 1 and 2.  Now the bureaucracy can grow to regulate, confiscate and enforce laws, while the people can rely on police services and the courts for their defence.

I have been conditioned enough to accept that firearm ownership should be subject to criminal record checks.  I will never accept the inability to defend my person or my family.
IronGeek
One Shot, One Kill
+4|7011|Canberra, Australia
I do feel sorry for Americans.  In Australia I don't feel the need to carry a gun, I don't feel that my life is endangered.

I have never come close to a violent crime.  I used to live in Brisbane the 3rd largest city in Australia with a population of about 2.5 million.  I never saw a gun crime. I have never seen a body, let alone anyone shot.
People can own gun in Australia, it is just quite strict on it.

I now live in Canberra the nations capital, though we only have 350,000 people live here and most are civil servants.  They have approx 1 Murder a year.  1!!!!

How many murders does America have per 350,000?
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7054

IronGeek wrote:

I do feel sorry for Americans.  In Australia I don't feel the need to carry a gun, I don't feel that my life is endangered.

I have never come close to a violent crime.  I used to live in Brisbane the 3rd largest city in Australia with a population of about 2.5 million.  I never saw a gun crime. I have never seen a body, let alone anyone shot.
People can own gun in Australia, it is just quite strict on it.

I now live in Canberra the nations capital, though we only have 350,000 people live here and most are civil servants.  They have approx 1 Murder a year.  1!!!!

How many murders does America have per 350,000?
Dont feel sorry for the USA we dont see to many murders or hear shots either.  The differnce is here we control our Goverment and we can do what we want to do. As opposed to what   you  are allowed to do.
RhadamanthysSCC
Member
+2|6941|Perth, Western Australia
Just a quick point on 'gun related crime' statistics. Bear in mind that virtually by definition the stricter the gun controls the more gun related offences a state/country will have. If it's illegal to even own a gun then simply having one will be a crime in State A, whereas in State B, with fewer gun control laws, no law will be broken by carrying a weapon. Hence 'hun related crime' statistics require careful evaluation ebfore stating whether gun control does or doesn't work, it's not as simple as it sounds
Burning_Monkey
Moving Target
+108|7055

RKF77 wrote:

Burning_Monkey wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

oh yea, I've heard of that. interesting but it doesn't take enough real world scenarios into consideration
You are some what correct.  But just figuring charge distance and attack speed, within 21 feet, I'll put my money on the knife guy.  Even a little slash, while not deadly, will disrupt an attempt to draw a pistol and leave the pistol user open for the next attack.
That would be money well spent, Monkey. 

I've been in Law Enforcement for a looooong time now...in my Academy many moons ago, none of us were able to get our weapon out before we got "stabbed" by the red-man knife.  It was incredibly eye-opening.

Standing there facing off with my instructor, the first thing that ran through my head was, "this guy's got no chance".  He was on me so fast I couldn't even believe it...and I was ready for him.  =o
I helped train some officers and was on both sides of the equation.  It is pretty eye opening, that is for sure.  Even me with my dislocated, arthritic knees could cover the distance on the pistol user like meth on white trash.  Or white on rice for those not of the midwest US.  And with modern retention control holsters, it doesn't take very much to disrupt the drawing of the weapon.
TheDrNailsGuy
Member
+5|6934

{SiR}_XsnipeR01 wrote:

Burning_Monkey wrote:

If we both start out with the weapons in pockets or holsters, you will be the one dead.  A knife weilding attacker can cover the 21 feet and stab you to death before the pistol clears holster every time.  And I mean every time.  It's an example they run at Gunsite (or at least that's the name of the school) and no one has survived the test.  Not even the instructors.

Didn't you ever wonder why police make you turn around, face away, and put your hands behind your head in a high tension situation?  The 21 foot rule is one of the reasons why.  The extra time it takes you to drop your hands, grab the knife, and close the distance is just enough for the officer to drop your ass with 2 to the center of mass.
OK now if I get this right if we both start with the weapons in the pockets/holsters you would kill me every time?  Ok heres the deal, first you have to take in to affect two basic rules in One on One CQB (Close Quarters Battle) or CQC (Close Quarters Combat)

1) You always keep you eyes on the enemy
2) Choose the plan off attack/defense

Now to get to what you have written, I will tell you this. I some forms of military training (I will leave out the names) you are trained for these kinds of situations. So no, he would dead or on his way out, if the right person was behind the gun. I know for a fact that if someone was going to stab me and was 21 feet away it would take him at a dead run 3.5-4 secs ( my wife timed the run )to reach me.  Now some of you say, “that is a short time wow 4 secs no way that’s too fast".  Now I will show how... 

I takes my hand .5 secs to get to my gun (sweet shoulder rig) at the same time I am turning my left shoulder towards him. I pull the my gun it takes 1.3 secs to be out and at the ready, while this is happening my right leg is slide back to support my weight,  Point ,aim, shoot .8 secs. Now all this is happening at the same time and trust me when I say this if you are shot with 40 cal bullets you will be thrown down like redheaded stepchild. Now let us add this up.

  .5
1.3
  .8
-----

2.6 secs to 3.5-4 secs    Bad guy DEAD I am alive

.5 secs can determine if you live or die.

Now for your sake ill thrown in that I am no regular "civilian".
I come from a long line of military personal
My Grandfather a Marine
My Father a Master Gunnery Sergeant in the Marines was one of the first marines to be sent to Vietnam before the war started.  Look it up and then you will understand what im telling you.
My three uncles also served in the Marines/Air force before and during the Vietnam War.
Me, Sergeant U.S.Army and by a few hints you may be able to tell what I did in the Army.

Now this test was done with controlled subjects, now i'm not saying that everyone (including me) be able to do this every time but 9 out of 10 times the outcome was the same. Then you will most likely say what if the man is tall, ok six feet per sec per step that is 3.5 secs. Now also throw in that the fact if a man is running at you, you will move back thus giving you some more time. Therefore, I will say that I will disagree with your statement.
I have to jump in here because i've seen the training films my dad brought home about edged weapons. 21 feet is correct.  One of the films was called "surviving edged weapons". They did many training sessions and found a police officer, even ready and never taking his eyes off the suspect, could not reach down and pull his sidearm out befor the suspect reached him.  we are talking about reaction time.  Yes, if the officer is told the guy 21 feet away from him is going to stab him when they blow a whisle, than i'm sure you can probly get a gun out fast enough, but just being in a regular situation and a suspect just rushes you,  your odds are very bad.    http://www.sierratimes.com/05/04/06/sheriff.htm
RKF77
Member
+1|6968

Burning_Monkey wrote:

And with modern retention control holsters, it doesn't take very much to disrupt the drawing of the weapon.
That was one of the things covered with us when we graduated...our instructors told us, "ok, now you're probably going to carry Safariland SSIII holsters...you CANNOT draw as fast out of those as you can out of the ones we used in the Academy, at least, not right now.  Train until you can, or give yourself lots of extra room when dealing with armed suspects,"

Then I got my first SSIII...hehe, spent four hours one night drawing and reholstering until my hands bled.
Burning_Monkey
Moving Target
+108|7055

RKF77 wrote:

Burning_Monkey wrote:

And with modern retention control holsters, it doesn't take very much to disrupt the drawing of the weapon.
That was one of the things covered with us when we graduated...our instructors told us, "ok, now you're probably going to carry Safariland SSIII holsters...you CANNOT draw as fast out of those as you can out of the ones we used in the Academy, at least, not right now.  Train until you can, or give yourself lots of extra room when dealing with armed suspects,"

Then I got my first SSIII...hehe, spent four hours one night drawing and reholstering until my hands bled.
Yeah, pratice helps a lot, but it's not like you are using some race rig that is ment for speed.  And I wouldn't want to try and draw out of one of those with some one coming at me.

I'd probably go for my Maglite. Maglite, the 'steel' pipe that law officers aren't supposed to be carrying.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard