Posted on 10/24/2014 6:52:26 AM PDT by Maceman
It seems to me that concealed carry is one of the most critical ways of protecting lives given the new "normal" of "lone wolf" Islamist terrorist attacks.
I wonder that I haven't heard the NRA and concealed carry groups start to argue that point. Why aren't they pushing for the "homeland security" that would be greatly enhanced by average citizens keeping watchful eyes and carrying concealed weapons, almost as a civic responsibility?
Theres lots of guys who are alert and ready. About 1% of us are warriors by nature.
No, simply repeating your words would be pointless.
You’re failing to communicate. What’s your point?
More people should carry? Fewer people should carry? More people should get more practice and more training? Don’t bother to carry unless your training is up to some unspecified standard?
Something else?
Seriously: What’s your point? Do you even HAVE a point?
Concealed carry and/or open carry would certainly be very effective as a defense against these “jihadists”. As a side note, isn’t it amazing that for all the clamor from the left to ban guns that there’s been not a whisper about knives and hatchets. “Jihadists” seem to be doing well with or without guns.
I realize that with the terror threat brought about by Al Qaeda affiliate Al Shabaab, I realized the absolute need for my training to be absolutely cutting edge. It's not just about having a firearm, but being able to absolutely dominate any terrorist (or thug). Absolute dominance, because in Kenya the threat is either a terrorist or a dedicated thug ....Both who tend to wield Kalashnikovs with relish and definitely don't leave you alive even if they get what they want. With a compact pistol I am already at a disadvantage, thus I try to do everything else that I can be able to do to even the scales.
To this point I have done several trainings. I started with simple DVDs from Magpul, Viking (Kyle Lamb) and Travis Haley. Then I graduated to training ....first with the Kenyan army, then a private Israeli contractor, then the Recce team (Israeli and American trained). Trained shooting while running, while walking (a treadmill helped with metal plates). I trained to use the same type of weapons the bad guys may have (rifles). Drilled and re drilled weapons malfunctions with snap caps. Fired from inside a vehicle through the windshield. Had to pass a pistol qualification taught to Recce by the American FBI HRT. Learned how to do casualty under fire, tying a tourniquet on myself when engaging an enemy, and how to do critical first aid to any good guys and/or victims.
Why?
Because having a firearm is a great responsibility, and I needed to ensure that if my country ever needs me to step up to an attack, I will be prepared. I shoot IDPA, but the various trainings I've done have made me understand the difference between sport shooting and combat shooting to save your life and those of your fellow countrymen.
I think that is that 556 was trying to say.
Tends, past tense, and I suspect you're referring to the example of America's domestic experience, which is limited when it comes to acknowledged terror attacks. Despite their draconian gun laws, in Israel there are numerous examples of armed attacks being stopped by armed citizens. Often teachers, cab drivers, security guards and the like. Had yesterday's attack in NYC been carried out against 4 citizens rather than LEOs, you'd have more mayhem than two injured and a dead perp. Ft Hood, a firearm would have stopped it earlier. Seattle Jewish Center, and multiple school shootings, same thing. Looking forward to non explosive lone wolf or small group attacks, an armed citizen is a major plus. We're not exempt from attacks on restaurants, bus stops, shopping centers and the like.
1) Is that 2500 US Dollars? I assume so, since the Kenyan currency unit is apparently a "Kenyan Shilling". And that price is insane ... it can only be the result of an oppressive government policy against a personal right to keep and bear arms. Oh, yes: "I am a licensed firearms holder in Kenya, which is something that is almost ludicrously difficult to attain." So there it is ...
2) Your training sounds great. And IDPA is a fun game; I play it as well. So what's your point? Are you saying that if someone's training isn't up to your standards, he shouldn't go about armed?
I think as long as they were trying it counts. I recall a couple cases or murdered Arabs, looked like Jews, which the terrorists simply wrote off explaining the victim had become a martyr, a wonderful thing.
Right, Im not saying it is. Im saying that having a weapon w/o the training or mind set to use it is almost always worse than nothing at all. Im not trying to make a case for required training. If you carry its up to *you* to prepare. If you arent mostly likely youll screw up. Is that really what you want? If youre unprepared:
Youre a hazard to noncombatants (and yourself) and thatll get you put in jail for sure if you shoot them. Any time you must draw your weapon its guaranteed to be stressful. Do you really believe youll perform w/o training? If you answered yes please stop carrying in public, youre a hazard to yourself and everyone around you.
Second, if you havent mentally prepared to pull the trigger (if necessary) you run the risk of having your weapon used on you and others. Youll also very likely to wind up dead or wounded.
Third, its always better to not shoot and situational awareness along w/ having a dominant position are the means to accomplish this. You only get this by training. The worst of all worlds is having to shoot. Even if theres no criminal trial its almost certain there will be a civil trial (wrongful death). Then theres the dead/wounded guy’s buddies seeking revenge.
Your brain is your most important weapon. If it isnt ready how could an inanimate object compensate?
I should note that I am not at all saying someone shouldn't be armed if they don't have training. Even a weakling carrying a .380 with white box FMJs can still be able to stop a violent crime, and many crimes stopped by civilians with firearms have been done so by civilians with little dynamic training. Thus, carrying without training is better than not carrying at all.
My point is that it would be a huge force multiplier to have civilians train for a dynamic persistent disadvantageous situation, which is what would be at play during a terrorist attack. A typical Mumbai/Nairobi terrorist attack will have several men armed with automatic rifles hitting a soft target. The more (dynamic) training people have, the better the potential set of outcomes.
But with that said, an ill - trained man is better than an unarmed man.
Thanks for that...pretty much where I was trying to go.
Works in Israel.
Yes! "American Rifleman" magazine every month has a page full of news clippings relating armed self-defense incidents. It's only a digest, but it makes a clear point: most of the defenders have little or no training, but were able to prevail against an aggressor because they were armed.
My point is that it would be a huge force multiplier to have civilians train for a dynamic persistent disadvantageous situation, which is what would be at play during a terrorist attack.
YES!!!! More training is better than less training, and quality matters. I encourage my friends to practice, learn, and practice more. Even 'games' like IDPA are helpful in improving comfort and proficiency.
But with that said, an ill - trained man is better than an unarmed man.
I agree ... all the training in the world won't put holes in the bad guys if the recipient of the training is unarmed.
Someone without training nor situational awareness can still shoot & stop an attacker IF s/he in fact has a gun handy.
Someone with advanced training and extreme situational awareness can’t if not.
Having a firearm may be the least of all constituent requirements (for sake of argument), but it’s still a _necessary_ constituent.
I agree! We are going to need our weapons to take care of our Families considering the coming Jihad and Obama’s Martial Law.
The GOOD people of Ferguson may need their weapons sooner rather than later.
>Someone without training nor situational awareness can still shoot & stop an >attacker IF s/he in fact has a gun handy.
Yes, it is possible but almost cosmically improbable. If this is how you view a gun fight youre in real trouble and a probable danger to everyone around you.
>Someone with advanced training and extreme situational awareness can’t if not.
I never said go unarmed. I said dont go armed and untrained. Youll know bette than to go unarmed.
>Having a firearm may be the least of all constituent requirements (for sake of argument), but it’s still a _necessary_ constituent.
Agreed to a point. Sometimes being armed isnt possible but you always have your brain. If its unprepared you have nothing.
I don't agree. Say you're walking down a city street and a guy pulls out a gun and starts shooting, trying to kill as many people as possible before he dies and goes to Allah.
Having an armed citizen on the scene makes the difference between him killing many people and only getting one or two before he dies. I think that's a BIG difference in outcome.
Moreover, it became even an urban legend that more citizens are carrying, and that they are coating their bullets with pork fat, I think that even if the reports weren't true, it would have a chilling effect on these Jihadi attacks.
Yet, from past experience we have seen that citizens are much less likely to have any 'collateral damage' associated with a defensive shooting than from the so-called 'professional' police who apparently have such training.
It's always better to have and not need than to need and not have. Will everyone be capable of effective use of arms in all given scenerios? Probably not, but some will. It's always better to have an armed citizenry than a disarmed one.
Agreed all around. Good post.
Another benefit of armed civilians during a potential terrorist situation is that the bad guys expect civilians to be sheep, not sheepdogs. The jihadis would be looking for uniforms and other high-force opponents and would (probably) pay little attention to their hostages and victims.
‘Yet, from past experience we have seen that citizens are much less likely to have any ‘collateral damage’ associated with a defensive shooting than from the so-called ‘professional’ police who apparently have such training.’
I think its statistics...the police are involved in more situations where shooting occurs. I think police are more prone to shoot when non-police would show restraint. Im not sure I could comment on that beyond it being an artifact of the type of training.
‘It’s always better to have and not need than to need and not have. Will everyone be capable of effective use of arms in all given scenerios? Probably not, but some will. It’s always better to have an armed citizenry than a disarmed one’
As I stated before I never said dont go unarmed. I said dont go armed and untrained. Yes, an armed citizenry can be good. However, the idea didnt stop there. The Founders were thinking along the lines of a TRAINED and armed citizenry. They also envisioned an generally well educated population too that was mentally engaged. Its not all about the weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.