PDA

View Full Version : Angry Mob Attacks Family... (This DOES happen!)


matolman1
July 9, 2009, 10:46 AM
I have read multiple posts here recently regarding "Carry Capacity", "Carrying or not carrying spare magazines" and "Mob Attacks."

I wanted to post this article I found today so people can see that this sort of attack, while rare, DOES happen, CAN happen and MIGHT happen...yes..even to you.

This is a logical answer to why you should carry a firearm with spare ammunition that will allow you to deal with a large group of attackers when it is your only option.

I am NOT saying that the extra ammo will help you in every instance, but I would rather have an extra 15 rounds on me in a spare magazine (totalling 31 rounds) in case I was FORCED to respond lethally to a wild gang of attackers.

You can make your own conclusions, this is simply my perspective on "Combat Mindset" and proper readiness level.

http://www.ohio.com/news/50172282.html

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 11:10 AM
Since there were NO shots fired, in fact, no guns present, I fail to see how this is evidence for anything at all. We have no way of knowing how the presence of a firearm may have changed this situation, good, bad or indifferent.

CWPinSC
July 9, 2009, 11:32 AM
Unless you're VERY good/fast, extra rounds won't help you. While shooting at the first attackers, the rest will gang-jump you and you'll be down. If one or more of them has guns, you're toast.

The only reasonable defense against mob violence is "situational awareness". Be aware of what's starting to happen and get out before it does.

Besides - the article stated the mob numbered "close to 50". With only 31 rounds, you're 20 attackers short of living.

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 11:48 AM
The fact that a mob attacked a family, violently, would call for the use of deadly force and would be considered self defense.

You have 2 options:

1) Allow your family to be viciously attacked by a mob.

You and your family can be beaten, raped, killed, kidnapped etc... The attackers have a tremendous numbers advantage on their side and you do NOT know during the attack that it will end with only punches and kicks.

For all you know, at the time of the attack, it will escalate to something of a life or death situation. As a matter of fact, you SHOULD believe that it will escalate to something worse due to the fact that you were suddenly attacked by a wild mob! Should not this be enough to justify the use of deadly force?

2) Defend your family by all means available to you, including your firearm.

Could have it ended in a different way if a firearm was used? Of course. It could have led to killing and or wounding multiple attackers. It could also have led to the firearm being taken from you and used against you. It could also have led to one of the attackers using a weapon they have against you and your family.

But, at least you have the option on you, at your disposal, to use deadly force against the mob if that mob decides to escalate the level of violence or if you feel in the immediate start of the attack that you or your families life is in immediate danger due to the mob attack.


My point is this; You either HAVE the ability to defend yourself against a group of attackers, or you do NOT have the ability.
The choice is yours to make.

This mob attack is another proof that you should prepare yourself for an attack that might go against the commonly espoused statistics. You simply never knoiw what will happen, when it will happen or how many attackers there will be. Why under prepare yourself?

Did this escalate to deadly force? No. Could it have escalated to a deadly force situation? yes, at the drop of a hat.

buzz_knox
July 9, 2009, 11:50 AM
Since there were NO shots fired, in fact, no guns present, I fail to see how this is evidence for anything at all. We have no way of knowing how the presence of a firearm may have changed this situation, good, bad or indifferent.


The OP seems directed more at the concept that such things never happen, and the absence of such events is used to ridicule concepts such as spare ammo, backups, etc. Since a friend of mine experienced a similar event here in Knoxville, I've never bought that argument.

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 11:52 AM
Unless you're VERY good/fast, extra rounds won't help you. While shooting at the first attackers, the rest will gang-jump you and you'll be down. If one or more of them has guns, you're toast.

The only reasonable defense against mob violence is "situational awareness". Be aware of what's starting to happen and get out before it does.

Besides - the article stated the mob numbered "close to 50". With only 31 rounds, you're 20 attackers short of living.

That is assuming the others wont simply scatter when shots are fired. Most people do not charge into gunfire, they run away from it. By having more ammunition on you, you have the ability to stop more threats that might come your way.

Again, this scenario, and others, have multiple assumptions and possible outcomes.

I, personally, would like to know that i have the ability to at least help to somewhat even the odds by being able to eliminate a large group of the attackers, to put them out of the fight, and to hopefully put enough fear into the others that they scatter.

Is this going to happen? I do not know. What I do know, for certain, is that I will never allow my family to be "taken" violently by anyone, mob included and I will daily carry for the worst case scenario.

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 11:54 AM
My point is this; You either HAVE the ability to defend yourself against a group of attackers, or you do NOT have the ability.
The choice is yours to make.

The only thing that gives you that ability is the mind set of the mob. If they decide to attack you, gun or no, you're SOL. A gun may give YOU the option when it's one on one or one on two, when it's one on 20 or 50 the options are all on the side of the 50. If they decide you're going to die then you're going to die, even if you take 1 or 3 or 10 of them with you.

My guess would be that a gun in this situation would have been bad instead of good, but that's just a guess. The gun may have PREVENTED the attack, but since there was no warning, no SA, I would think that the most likely outcome would be that the gun would be found and used against them.

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 11:56 AM
The OP seems directed more at the concept that such things never happen, and the absence of such events is used to ridicule concepts such as spare ammo, backups, etc. Since a friend of mine experienced a similar event here in Knoxville, I've never bought that argument.

That is correct. I am stating that this is another example as to why you SHOULD carry for just such an event.
Since you never know what type of attack or when an attack will occur, you are better off prepared for the worst case scenario (within legal means of daily concealed carry).

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 12:00 PM
The only thing that gives you that ability is the mind set of the mob. If they decide to attack you, gun or no, you're SOL. A gun may give YOU the option when it's one on one or one on two, when it's one on 20 or 50 the options are all on the side of the 50. If they decide you're going to die then you're going to die, even if you take 1 or 3 or 10 of them with you.

I disagree. Things tend to change when the "victim" suddenly becomes the "aggressor."

People who feel as if they have the advantage (numbers) are suddenly taken by surprise when their gang leader is shot in the head from close range.

Just because "they" decide you are going to die does not mean that things will change once you decide that you are NOT going to die.

It is amazing to see an animal, backed against a wall, fight for his life, against seemingly insurmountable odds...

History books are filled with situations where the "underdog" kicks the crap out of the aggressors.

TailGator
July 9, 2009, 12:20 PM
Difficult situation re tactics. If you fire, you can certainly hope that the rest will run in fear after a couple of rounds hit their pals. But what if the gunfire enrages the mob instead of dispersing it? The estimates of the mob size ranged up to 50. Even if I could carry that much ammo without my pants falling down, I certainly could not shoot fast enough to stop all of them before they got to me and/or my family. And I rather imagine that at some point the angle of attack would endanger others, as well. I am not entirely sure that I would want to try to shoot myself out of that situation, but then I am not sure that I can come up with an alternative, either.

One other comment, and I hope it is not out of line (if judged to be so by the moderators, I will not object to it being deleted): I have to wonder why the authorities are reluctant to consider this to be a racially motivated attack when racial remarks were heard to be made and there is no other motive apparent.

Sportdog
July 9, 2009, 12:20 PM
You make far too much sense to post on this forum. Each and every time someone takes a stand not to be a victim the same old critics come out of left field to badger you and try to make you look like some kind of demon out for blood and guts instead of protecting yourself, your loved ones, and your property. To try and have a civil discourse without being subjected to endless sarcastic remarks by the select few makes this site a total waste. It is interesting that one of these characters posts often on another site that I also visit and his tone is very civil and professional. I believe that is because he knows that the other site will not tolerate his BS. The best way to deal with these individuals is to totally ignore them and their posts and not be drawn into an endless, mindless debate just to satisfy their ego's.

Microgunner
July 9, 2009, 12:21 PM
Some here seem to suggest that armed defense against an enraged mob is likely impossible. In light of this I would suggest practicing your running, climbing and begging skills. To those of us who can't run or climb worth s**t anymore, I'd suggest marksmanship and a willingness to kill to survive, even in the face of insurmountable odds. I've noticed a lot of folks seeming to think the BG has a right to survive. This thinking will get you killed.

Wildalaska
July 9, 2009, 12:31 PM
I wanted to post this article I found today so people can see that this sort of attack, while rare, DOES happen, CAN happen and MIGHT happen...yes..even to you.

http://www.struckbylightning.org/

"In 2008 there were 329 people struck in the USA, with 302 injured and 27 killed."

WildiamhavingasaleonlightningrodhelmetsAlaska TM

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 12:39 PM
According to the story linked in the OP, this was a mob of teenagers, attacking with fists and feet. The outcome might have been better if Mr. Marshall, or someone else in his party, had had a gun at all, regardless of its capacity or number of extra magazines. Or, as Peetzakilla points out, it might have been worse... especially if some in the mob had been carrying as well.

What doesn't seem likely is that having 31, or 46, rounds available, as opposed to 16, would be the deciding factor here. If Mr. Marshall had pulled a gun and used it, the mob of teenagers would either have been discouraged right then and "beat feet," or they would have continued to attack, perhaps with their own (previously concealed) weapons. If a mob keeps coming in this situation, a single shooter is most likely going to be overrun no matter how much ammunition he's lugging around -- and his whole party may be at much greater risk if weapons are now involved on both sides.

There's no predicting the outcome, and there's no sure defense in this very improbable situation... So I think I won't worry about it too much.

But if I were Rachel Marshall's mom or dad, I'd be pretty proud of her for trying to defend Dad.

"In 2008 there were 329 people struck in the USA, with 302 injured and 27 killed."
WildiamhavingasaleonlightningrodhelmetsAlaska TM

saveoneformepleaseken -- v.

TailGator
July 9, 2009, 12:48 PM
I did not "badger," was not "sarcastic," and did not "demon"ize the OP. Neither did I say that I thought the situation was "impossible." I said it was "difficult" (an opinion which has not changed) and gave my thoughts, presented respectfully, about how the situation could develop if a weapon was introduced.

Great way to run people off and quash discussion. Thanks, Microgunner and Sportdog. If you want to comment on egos and sarcasm, start by looking in a mirror.

zxcvbob
July 9, 2009, 12:53 PM
If you're probably going to get killed anyway, doncha think taking a few of the bastards with you is a good thing? And you might even accidently take the fight out of the mob and survive unharmed. I don't see any down side to fighting back.

(Unless you are defending a stronghold, after 6 or 8 shots, either the mob will retreat or you will be overrun -- more ammo is always better, but not necessarily that much better.)

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 01:02 PM
I wanted to post this article I found today so people can see that this sort of attack, while rare, DOES happen, CAN happen and MIGHT happen...yes..even to you.

http://www.struckbylightning.org/

"In 2008 there were 329 people struck in the USA, with 302 injured and 27 killed."

WildiamhavingasaleonlightningrodhelmetsAlaska TM

And in this, sir, you prove my point.

I do not walk out to an open field during a lightning storm. This is one way to AVOID become a lightning victim. Just because the stats are low for lightning strikes, I won't walk out to the open field because there is a possibiltiy that I will be struck by lightning. This is called common sense prevention.

The same common sense prevention can be applied to daily carry and combat mindset. You prepare yourself for the eventuality that Mr. murphy will show up at the worst time and you will need every ounce of strength (mental and physical) as well as a proper load out of weapon/s and ammunition to get you through a worst case scenario attack against you or your loved ones.

Both examples are a form of prevention by NOT doing something foolish Case 1, not walking into the field and Case 2, not "under" preparing yourself.

I know you were attempting to show how absurd some arguments are for preparing yourself against low statistic events, but you actually did a fine job proving my point. Thanks!

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 01:02 PM
I disagree. Things tend to change when the "victim" suddenly becomes the "aggressor."

Yep, they tend to change, but what if they don't? Or what if the "change" is for the worse instead of the better? What if the beating turned into a one on six gunfight instead?

I'm not saying you shouldn't use a gun against a mob. I'm not saying you wouldn't be successful. I'm saying there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.

We can't just say "See, now, if he only had a gun...."

If he only had a gun he might be dead, he might not be dead, someone else might be dead, it might have turned into a shoot out, it might not have, he might have been saying "Thank God I had a gun.", He might have been saying "Damn it! I shouldn't have drawn my gun!"

Wildalaska
July 9, 2009, 01:14 PM
I know you were attempting to show how absurd some arguments are for preparing yourself against low statistic events, but you actually did a fine job proving my point. Thanks!

Your welcome. My lightning rod helmets look great indoors

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=14410248&ch=4226713&src=news

The odds of a law abiding citizen getting attacked by an angry mob are probably the same as getting hit by lightning in your kitchen...

But thats OK, hey after all each side has their agenda..its just a shame that some gun lovers play as fast and loose with the truth as does the ones I would expect would have to lie to win hearts and minds....

WildandthatscomingfromatargetAlaska ™

Mike Irwin
July 9, 2009, 01:15 PM
ONLY 31 rounds?

But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 01:19 PM
...there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.

:eek::eek:
Peetza, this is blasphemy. They'll revoke your gunwoobie license.

Microgunner
July 9, 2009, 01:21 PM
I'm saying there's a big difference between a gun and a magic wand. It's not a "Presto!" device, some sort of "Get Out of Trouble Free" card. It's not even guaranteed to make the event go your way.


Sounds like you've already resolved yourself to die. Me? Not so much.

ONLY 31 rounds?
But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????


That's right. I draw the line at 31. :D

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 01:21 PM
Since you don't know for certain if your house will ever burn down, is the proper course of action to not have fire insurance?

Simply because you do not know what the outcome of a specific situation might be does not mean you should stick your head in the proverbial sand and HOPE that the outcome will be one where you did not need proper prevention in the first place.

When I go out on patrol in Israel, I dont carry one magazine in my M4 and leave all of my other gear on base since the odds are I won't need to use more than 29 rounds, or stun grenades, or my helmet or any other peice of gear.
Rather, I load up to full combat load, each time, every time because this builds discipline, instills confidence and keeps my combat mindset in check. To do anything else is simply stupid.

You can also apply this path to the civillian world. Be prepared for the worst case scenario. Buy fire insurance. Walk tall and carry a large stick. Discipline yourself to be prepared for multiple worst case scenarios. You simply cannot go wrong with this mindset.

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 01:23 PM
NEVER delude yourself into thinking that "Hey, it's never happened to me, so it never will happen! I'm the golden boy!"

Mr. Irwin, I find your comment to be ironic since your signature line above seems to say the opposite of your sarcastic comment regarding carrying 31 rounds rather than "300."

ONLY 31 rounds?

But what if you're attacked by more than 31 people? What do you do then? Don't you care enough about your life to carry at least 300 rounds of ammo???????

zxcvbob
July 9, 2009, 01:30 PM
There's a diminishing return to having more ammo. You'll have to decide for yourself where the line is, and unless you can predict the future there's not enough information available to make the decision. So you do your own risk assessment, prepare the best you can, and quit worrying about it. (prepared for an unknown risk *and* quit worrying is a hard combination)

A_McDougal
July 9, 2009, 01:34 PM
Anyone who feels sure a group of teens will continue attacking into gun fire, should try shooting their gun without hearing protection.

If I were the investigating police, I'd start at the University of Akron, and follow up at the Akron Masjid, both right close to the stadium. Besides gangs, where do groups of young male extremists congregate?

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 01:40 PM
Sounds like you've already resolved yourself to die. Me? Not so much.

Whoa, whoa now. Easy there, big fella. No one's saying don't have a gun... no one's saying don't use it if you do have it. What some of us are saying is that this is a situation in which having or using a gun doesn't guarantee a good outcome, and may make things worse. Using the gun may still seem like the best option, but we have no way to predict what will happen. It's not magic.

And the OP is suggesting that having more ammunition would be likely to improve the outcome. Some of us are questioning that assumption, which is not the same as not wanting to be (reasonably) prepared.

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 01:45 PM
When I go out on patrol in Israel, I dont carry one magazine in my M4 and leave all of my other gear on base since the odds are I won't need to use more than 29 rounds, or stun grenades, or my helmet or any other peice of gear.
Rather, I load up to full combat load, each time, every time because this builds discipline, instills confidence and keeps my combat mindset in check. To do anything else is simply stupid.

What correlation does that have to the streets of America? We're not in a war zone, we don't have suicide bombers, we don't have people targeting our markets with car bombs, we don't live in a tense standoff with our neighbors.


There's two things here. First, what effect we can expect our drawing, or even firing, a gun to have on the aggressor(s) and secondarily, one of what level of threat we are willing to prepare for.

My point is, and has been all since my first post in this thread, that we should have ZERO expectations of what will happen when we draw a gun. The BG(s) may run, they may grovel, they may attack physically, they may draw their own gun..... we can't not know and we should not pretend that we might now. We do not know if having a gun will be good or bad in any given situation. Part of being a reasonable and responsible gun owner, and carrier, is having put some thought into what we're going to do if having the gun turns out not to be helpful, or worse, causes the situation to go from bad to SHTF. Having a gun DOES NOT give you an advantage. Having a BRAIN gives you an advantage. An advantage that a tool like a gun can enhance or diminish, depending on your actions.

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 01:47 PM
Correct. I am not advocating carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition with you every time you leave the house to go out in public.

I believe that it is reasonable to train people to carry at least 1 spare magazine whenever they are carrying their semi-auto with them.

If you carry a revolver, you should carry at least one speed loader with you.

This builds confidence and combat mindset. "I know I can engage multiple targets." "I know I can provide cover fire during an active shooter situation." etc...

Glenn E. Meyer
July 9, 2009, 01:53 PM
Old argument - Ben's right!

No need to replay it. If you don't want to, don't.

BTW, I have been:

1. Hit by lightning
2. Avoided more than 5 opponent - no - I scuttled away and wasn't a gun guy then but these were murderous folk and a reload or higher cap would have been nice if it didn't go that way.

But here's the bottom line - if you don't want to plan for the extreme event - just don't. That's it. Insisting others are somehow incorrect for doing it is just getting plan old silly.

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 01:58 PM
Glenn says it right.

I guess I am just more combat mindset oriented than others due to where I have fought terrorists for 12 years and where I currently live (Memphis, the highest violent crime rate in the Country).

Thats the way I train others to be. "Always expect the unexpected" is a matter of life for me and those I train. Anything less and I am not earning my paycheck.

Master Blaster
July 9, 2009, 02:00 PM
The mob didnt seek out the nearest Karate DoJo, they didnt look for a college football team, or a couple bar bouncers to attack, they didnt storm the police station, or the national guard armory. They didnt go to a redneck bar to challenge 50 drunk Crackers. They didnt seek out the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Pagans, or the Hells Angels MC club to pick a fight with.
They looked for the most helpless victims they could find who they vastly outnumbered, and didn't know. Its what a bunch of high, scared, cowards do to make themselves look brave.

They were a mob of COWARDS.:)

Had the victim pulled a gun and fired one shot they would have been gone instantly.

BTW if I were the Police I would check the cellphone twitter traffic in the area that night similar stuff has happened in Philadelphia Pa, and it was traced to Twitter inspired "Wilding"

Mike Irwin
July 9, 2009, 02:01 PM
"Mr. Irwin, I find your comment to be ironic since your signature line above seems to say the opposite of your sarcastic comment regarding carrying 31 rounds rather than "300.""


Mato...

It's not irony, it's humor.

Any logical, rational person realizes that going from 30 rounds to 300 is truly jumping from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Not to mention that to carry 300 rounds of ammo would require 20 or more magazines.


As for what I TRULY believe?

I believe I'll take my chances with the decisions I make, and not depend on others to dictate scenarios to me as a "decision making aid."

I believe I'll also take responsibility for the decisions I make, and not try to blame someone else if my decisions get me into hot water.

Finally, I also believe that this story is false, and that it wasn't Akron inner city youths who attacked this family, but that it was an extended tribe of Hottentots and that this family has only itself to blame for not calling the 5"/cal. 38 guns into service.



If you're lucky, maybe someone will explain that last cryptic remark.

Tennessee Gentleman
July 9, 2009, 02:12 PM
but that it was an extended tribe of Hottentots

Not the fuzzy wuzzies? You know they broke the square!

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 02:12 PM
Mr. Irwin, It most CERTAINLY could not have been the Hotentots as the Hotentots were busy shopping in Narnia that evening.


I believe I'll take my chances with the decisions I make, and not depend on others to dictate scenarios to me as a "decision making aid."

A person can really learn from others experiences and scenarios and I think it is prudent to tailor my decision making based on new information or scenarios that have happened to others. History repeats itself.

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 02:13 PM
Insisting others are somehow incorrect for doing it is just getting plan old silly.

Except, I have not insisted that it is "incorrect" to prepare for an extreme event. I said that it is unnecessary, yes. Incorrect, no. I have, in fact, said the opposite, that whomever feels that they need to prepare for such an event should just go ahead and do it. Those who feel I am wrong have rarely afforded me the same consideration.

As for a "combat mindset". Well, I have no need for such a thing. I can be vigilant and prepared without being ready for "combat".

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 02:18 PM
But here's the bottom line - if you don't want to plan for the extreme event - just don't. That's it. Insisting others are somehow incorrect for doing it is just getting plan old silly.

I don't think anyone's saying "Don't plan for it." And yes, that would be silly. I think there are a couple of genuine questions that get lost in all the "is too/is not" posturing, once that gets going. First, a very concrete one: would a gun and a couple of magazines have helped in the situation reported in the OP's article? The answer to which, I think, is a big "Who knows?" At the same time, it's not clear that two magazines would have been better than one -- especially when the point of comparison is not having any.

The second question is how "extreme" an event do you plan for, where planning equals how much ammunition do you carry, or perhaps, in general, how heavily you're armed on a daily basis? The answer, so far, seems to be somewhere between 16 and 300 rounds... and 31 rounds hardly seems excessive, as compared to 300. :)

But the more important point is that if your "plan" revolves around hardware, and if you think that, in some magic way, having the right hardware is going to guarantee a good outcome, you're probably going to be disappointed. And I'm sure that you and Mr. Goldstein would both agree with that... ;)

As for a "combat mindset". Well, I have no need for such a thing. I can be vigilant and prepared without being ready for "combat".

Well said. It's not the way I choose to meet the world, given that I'm fortunate enough not to live in a war zone.

Tennessee Gentleman
July 9, 2009, 02:26 PM
The classic conundrum of all contingency planning is whether to plan for the most likely or the most catastrophic event. Often you cannot do both. I vote for most likely.

Doc Intrepid
July 9, 2009, 02:27 PM
When you think about it, that would have been an event that caused high anxiety - particularly because of the proximity of one's wife and children.

I certainly don't envy the victim - Marshall.

One reason that I don't envy him is that it would certainly seem to me (in the calm of retrospection) that he was never in imminent danger of losing his life (or the lives of his family).

He was facing an angry crowd of teenagers, yes, but none of them apparently had or brandished or even displayed a firearm, a stick, a golf club, a ball bat, or any weapon at all, as far as I can tell.

I'm not a guy blessed with a great deal of ability to predict the future, but I supect that had Marshall pulled out a pistol and killed 4 or 5 of the unarmed teenagers a couple things would have happened. First, the rest likely would have run away. Second, Marshall would have more to fear from the survivors than he has now to fear from them (assuming they get away with the assault). And third, Marshall would find himself in a world of crap as he would be facing not just hospital bills but lawyer bills, court appearances, and possibly jail time and a felony record, after the 4 or 5 unarmed teenagers are buried and then promptly made into Saints in the media. Marshall would lose not only his job and his savings accounts, but possibly his home, his freedom, and any future potential to get a job where a felony record would not impact his employability.

Because, as far as I can see, at no time was Marshall legally justified in killing a half-dozen or so of the unarmed teenagers.

Like Glenn and Pete have said, if you want to carry dressed for war, more power to you.

If you don't want to, thats your choice too.

But I don't think that packing a pistol and two spare magazines necessarily prepares you to deal with an angry mob; and if they are unarmed and you open up on them - absent any clear and present threat to your existence of that of your loved ones - you will eventually understand why that was a bad idea.

IMHO. YMMV.

Tennessee Gentleman
July 9, 2009, 02:34 PM
He was facing an angry crowd of teenagers,

Which would I believe constitute disparity of force and therefore legally justify SD. Any of you lawyers like fiddletown could corrrect me. However, you other pointsto the aftermath are pretty straight. Might not be successfully sued civilly depending on state law. Retribution would definately be a concern.

cracked91
July 9, 2009, 02:39 PM
I think mob attacks would be much more likely in some kind of SHTF scenario, blackout, natural disaster, etc. As for me, being that I am still a teenage boy (19) I am willing to bet that after a single gunshot everyone one of those kids would have scattered.

Mobs are made of cowards. The reason they bring 50 people to do a simple thing is because not a single one of them is prepared to be possibly hurt or killed. So when they start hearing bullets flying, every single one of their brains has the same thing pop up on screen "OH **** :eek:" In all honesty I would say a few firecrackers would scatter most of a mob. And remember, the bigger a mob is, the more confusion there is going to be which transforms into fear very quickly.

skifast
July 9, 2009, 02:56 PM
The guy is lucky he wasn't seriously hurt or killed. Sure, there is no guarantee that pulling a gun and shooting the guys in front would make them run. There is also no guarantee that the guy would not have been killed and his wife and daughters raped and killed.

If it is me, I empty my mags shooting at their heads, while trying to get in the house and grabbing the AK and throwing my wife the Mossy.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 9, 2009, 03:03 PM
Choosing most likely is a criterion for some. Most likely in the gun world will be solved with an unloaded gun as most DGUs are deterrent in nature with no shots fired.

As I have said many times (big yawn by now) - the issue is not the modal incident but a reasonable cut off in the extremes or consideration of whether the incident distribution is really multimodal.

One modal lump is the one mugger, no shots, deterrent usage. Thus, that's the one that folks say they can handle with a limited gun.

Another modal lump of lesser probabilities is the extreme, higher intensity incident - such as rampage shooting, large group attack.

It's rare but does happen. What is a reasonable set up for this kind of incident that is comparable with normal dress and gives you reasonable options? It is not an outfit that goes to war. I've hung out with people with such rigs in regular old restaurants, etc. and we don't look like a SWAT time. Just folks with a casual vest or floppy shirt.

I opine that a semi with one or two hicap mags works. Also, from experience and from the people I train with, it is not hard to do and can be comfortable.

About the mob scene - mobs have been fairly well studied. They stratify into:

1. Leaders in the attack
2. Close followers who are right after the leaders
3. Pack - that usually hangs back until they see the leaders being successful.

Taking out #1 and 2 with some hits in 3 would probably turn them around. 2 and 3 usually stop if 1 is removed.

Can you do it in real time? Time and distance, cover, etc. - you will have to be there.

You can plan for reasonable criterion cuts, so that the 300 round cliche is just rhetoric.

Also, as pointed out before - the extra mag is for the rare event of a malfunction (not so rare with some guns).

Many clearance drills are to rip out the mag and toss it and reload. Low probability but it's low p that you even need bullets.

As far as the argument just revolving around hardware - that's also silly - it's not a magic wand so if you don't train and just carry a gun and talk about tactics - that's posturing from my point of view. As a FOG - I don't train and practice because I think the gun by itself is Green Lantern's power ring.

But why train - there's a modal, most likely scenario that I just wave the gun around without firing a shot. Who gives a crap about sight picture, trigger re-set, grip, fast reloads, off hand drills, one hand drills for injured shooters, clearance, etc. It's most likely it will never happen - what a waste of time! Thus, buy a gun and practice waving it at the single mugger. That's all you need according the misapplied view of risk and statistics.

That's the arguments - carry what you want based on your view of probabilities. Such a bore.

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 03:13 PM
One reason that I don't envy him is that it would certainly seem to me (in the calm of retrospection) that he was never in imminent danger of losing his life (or the lives of his family).

The guy is lucky he wasn't seriously hurt or killed.
I think the article said Mr. Marshall spent five days in a critical care unit with a head injury, which I'd say was evidence that he was in "imminent danger" of losing his life. (And is looking at thousands of dollars in medical bills.) He's lucky he's not dead, but that's a far cry from walking away.

Doc, you may be right about what would have happened if he'd shot before anyone hit him, but once he was on the ground, I'd say he or anyone else in his party would have been in "reasonable fear of his life."

And I think TG's point about disparity of force is a good one. A mob of 50??

Mobs are made of cowards.

Mmm... Not an assumption I'd put to the test, if I had a choice. They're probably made of some cowards, and some braver dudes, and some just plain idiots who care more about looking good in front of their buddies than about doing the smart thing...

I think this assumption is sort of a corollary of the one about the magic power of the gun...

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 03:25 PM
Thus, buy a gun and practice waving it at the single mugger. That's all you need according the misapplied view of risk and statistics.

That's the general response to my argument, the standard sort of "make the argument seem silly". Looking down on it from my perch in academia, with a sneer and sniff, or, by those who simply choose to ignore all the facts of every kind, they call it silly, wrong, unprepared, signing my own death warrant, ready to die, but never refute it.

Except, that's not my argument. That's the big problem there. Not a single person has yet addressed my argument.

and then there's this:

Insisting others are somehow incorrect for doing it is just getting plan old silly.

Old argument - Ben's right!

So, it doesn't go both ways, I suppose, which has been the general flow of these discussions. I am wrong for saying that there is such a thing as over prepared, and the line is lower than some people think but those same people are not wrong for saying that I am under prepared, "prepared to die", etc....


Not that any of this has to do with my original point about the OP, which was that having a gun, of any capacity, would not have automatically made this a better situation. Believing that having a gun will make things better for you is a very dangerous assumption. Maybe more dangerous than believing that NOT having a gun will make things better.

That's my big beef here. If he had a gun it would have been better for him. That is an unbelievably enormous and dangerous assumption.

NWPilgrim
July 9, 2009, 03:34 PM
Thanks to the OP for the post. For those of us who want to defend ourselves in the face of daunting odds it is a good reminder that there are situations where the threat may be more than one or two attackers. We all have to judge the particular circumstance at the time and chose our own actions that seem appropriate.

For some, obviously, they prefer to fight only when the odds are in their favor and that is their choice. In that case I don't understand why you would carry at all (perhaps you don't) since you are likely to be surprised and at an initial disadvantage in most threat scenarios. Sometimes we may see things unfold, but the nature of legal defense means the other party has already initiated his plan of action against you before you can draw and fire.

For me, I choose to have the tools at hand to exercise a range of responses, and decide which option to execute. Thanks for the reminder and a real life scenario we can consider.

fisherman66
July 9, 2009, 03:41 PM
I want to prevent this from happening to me. What do you suggest?


Weather rocket kills man and blows up his body at cremation
A Chinese man originally thought to have been struck by lightning was in fact killed by a small weather rocket whose existence was only discovered when his body exploded during his cremation.


By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Published: 1:07PM GMT 16 Dec 2008

The body of Wang Diange, from the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia, was found in the wreckage of a house where he had been overseeing the wake of a previous family funeral, after mourners felt a loud explosion which took off half the roof.

As it was raining and thundery, they decided that the house, and Mr Wang in particular, had been struck by lightning. The police came to the same conclusion.

Further inquiries were made a few days later after Mr Wang's own funeral. As his body was being put into the cremation chamber, it blew up spectacularly, bursting the doors off the oven.

When the fire had been put out, the only clue as to what had happened was a small twisted piece of metal, which seemed to be the glowing remnants of a screw.

At first, local metallurgists were unable to determine what it was, though they noted it bore a military serial number. After a lengthy investigation, however, it was suggested it might be part of a shell casing.

Inquiries revealed that the rainfall on the day of the original disaster was triggered by the local weather bureau, which had been firing shells into the atmosphere to break up hail in order to protect the local tobacco crop.

Inside the shells were silver iodide, a chemical that helps to break up hail into rain.

Their own investigators concluded that one shell must have failed to explode, hit the house, and lodged in Mr Wang's body. There it passed unnoticed because of his extensive injuries, according to local newspaper reports.

As a result, and three years after Mr Wang died, his family have now received 80,000 yuan (£8,000) in compensation from the weather bureau.


Me Chinese, me play jest, me put weather rocket in yer chest.



wow

Mike Irwin
July 9, 2009, 03:42 PM
"I want to prevent this from happening to me. What do you suggest?"

Stay inside where the big, bad, rokkitz can't get at you.

Mike Irwin
July 9, 2009, 03:43 PM
"For some, obviously, they prefer to fight only when the odds are in their favor and that is their choice."

Sometimes the difference between life and death is knowing when to fight and when to run.

There are LOTS of dead people throughout the ages who chose unwisely.

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 04:05 PM
I want to prevent this from happening to me. What do you suggest?
Weather rocket kills man and blows up his body at cremation
Stay inside where the big, bad, rokkitz can't get at you.
Well, that didn't work for Mr. Wang, did it? He was inside.
The body of Wang Diange, from the Chinese province of Inner Mongolia, was found in the wreckage of a house where he had been overseeing the wake of a previous family funeral, after mourners felt a loud explosion which took off half the roof.
A bunker... Must... have... a bunker.

And I want to be buried in it, which will solve the not-blowing-up-when-I'm-cremated part of the problem.

Wildalaska
July 9, 2009, 04:16 PM
Not the fuzzy wuzzies? You know they broke the square!

Fuzzy Wuzzies were Hadendoa, not Hottentotts...

O my Gawd.......FUZZY WUZZY!!!!!!! Where is my Solar Topee! I must emote! Emote emote emote

WE'VE FOUGHT with many men acrost the seas,
An' some of 'em was brave an' some was not:
The Paythan an' the Zulu an' Burmese;
But the Fuzzy was the finest o' the lot.
We never got a ha'porth's change of 'im:
'E squatted in the scrub an' 'ocked our 'orses,
'E cut our sentries up at Suakim,
An' 'e played the cat an' banjo with our forces.

So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
We gives you your certificate, an' if you want it signed
We'll come an' 'ave a romp with you whenever you're inclined.

We took our chanst among the Khyber 'ills,
The Boers knocked us silly at a mile,
The Burman give us Irriwaddy chills,
An' a Zulu impi dished us up in style:
But all we ever got from such as they
Was pop to what the Fuzzy made us swaller;
We 'eld our bloomin' own, the papers say,
But man for man the Fuzzy knocked us 'oller.

Then 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' the missis and the kid;
Our orders was to break you, an' of course we went an' did.
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.

'E 'asn't got no papers of 'is own,
'E 'asn't got no medals nor rewards,
So we must certify the skill 'e's shown
In usin' of 'is long two-'anded swords:
When 'e's 'oppin' in an' out among the bush
With 'is coffin-'eaded shield an' shovel-spear,
An 'appy day with Fuzzy on the rush
Will last an 'ealthy Tommy for a year.

So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, an' your friends which are no more,
If we 'adn't lost some messmates we would 'elp you to deplore;
But give an' take's the gospel, an' we'll call the bargain fair,
For if you 'ave lost more than us, you crumpled up the square!

'E rushes at the smoke when we let drive,
An', before we know, 'e's 'ackin' at our 'ead;
'E's all 'ot sand an' ginger when alive,
An' 'e's generally shammin' when 'e's dead.
'E's a daisy, 'e's a ducky, 'e's a lamb!
'E's a injia-rubber idiot on the spree,
'E's the on'y thing that doesn't give a damn
For a Regiment o' British Infantree!

So 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, at your 'ome in the Soudan;
You're a pore benighted 'eathen but a first-class fightin' man;
An' 'ere's to you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your 'ayrick 'ead of 'air -
You big black boundin' beggar - for you broke a British square!


WildcorblimeyAlaska ™

markj
July 9, 2009, 04:24 PM
ONLY 31 rounds?

A good marksman will "line up" his targets allowing him to get 3 or 4 at a time with one single shot.

In this scenario, I tried to find the ultimate CCW to protect me and anyone close at the time of the event. I decided on a belt fed .50 but the casings keep tickleing me when placed in the IWB CC holster I had specially made. Maybe I need to put the belt in the back of my pants? ........


Now if that group of guys came upon us on our 4th celebration they would have faced 4 large dogs already upset over the firecrackers and would love the chance to bite back.......

Mike Irwin
July 9, 2009, 04:24 PM
The rokkitz didn't get him inside the house...

The Illuminati did, and BLAMED it on the rokkitz.

Mike Irwin
July 9, 2009, 04:25 PM
"A good marksman will "line up" his targets allowing him to get 3 or 4 at a time with one single shot."

That's COD:WAW Nazi Zombies.

Let's stick with something that vaguely resembles reality...

Donn_N
July 9, 2009, 04:26 PM
It seems to me that the main point of the OP was as an example of why one should carry copious amounts of spare ammunition. In that respect, I would opine that it fails as such an example. If drawing your weapon and firing does not immediately disperse the crowd (in which case you need no reloads) and it becomes necessary to shoot your weapon until it is empty, the odds that you will be able to reload before the mob overwhelms you are pretty much zero. One guy with one handgun against a determined mob of 50 is dead no matter how many reloads he is carrying.

However, the thread seems to have morphed into a discussion more about using a gun against a crowd. Personally, if I have 50 ****** off teenagers attacking me and retreat is not an option, I'll have little problem (morally, that is) drawing my weapon and firing. I'm not naive enough to think that it would guarantee a more positive outcome, but I think it would be better than laying there in the fetal position until I took a fatal blow to the head. It is just pure luck Marshall survived.

In this particular case, if I were Marshall, I think I'd be looking for some new friends as well since they seemed to have treated the whole thing as a spectator sport.

Anybody else annoyed that this isn't being classified as a hate crime?

Donn_N
July 9, 2009, 04:30 PM
One reason that I don't envy him is that it would certainly seem to me (in the calm of retrospection) that he was never in imminent danger of losing his life (or the lives of his family).

He was facing an angry crowd of teenagers, yes, but none of them apparently had or brandished or even displayed a firearm, a stick, a golf club, a ball bat, or any weapon at all, as far as I can tell.


You're joking, right?

TailGator
July 9, 2009, 04:40 PM
Anybody else annoyed that this isn't being classified as a hate crime?

Yes, Donn N, I brought that up and it didn't attract a single comment. With this group, I am pretty sure that political correctness is not the reason.;)

I agree with you on your comments on reloading, too.

One of my concerns in this situation would be having the gun taken away from me and used on myself or the other innocents nearby. Again, I don't think I am good enough to rapid-fire through a magazine, reload, and rapid-fire through the second that I usually carry - I'm not sure anyone really is. If a first shot or two doesn't make the others run, there is a real danger that I will be overwhelmed and lose the gun.

So, am I better off not pulling it and hoping that concealment holds? Or, to take the other extreme, is this one of the rare instances where a warning shot or two is a good idea?

I'm still say that I am not sure there is an excellent tactic for this situation. Like some other recent posts, I have to think that facing 50 hostile people who eventually beat a man down and put him in an ICU for 5 days would constitute a justifiable use of lethal force to defend oneself. But legally justifiable and good tactics aren't always the same. It seems like whatever you do in this situation you are going to have to get a little lucky to get out of it.

Wait, I'm Reloadin'
July 9, 2009, 04:53 PM
capacity problem could have been solved if wife and two adult buddies had ccw along with him, and covered each other! this is too much to think about in the USA right now people. gosh its sad what might:barf: happen:(

overkill556x45
July 9, 2009, 04:59 PM
Here's a practical question from a small town Iowa boy: how do "dozens" of angry young men flood into your back yard without you noticing? Even through half a bottle of Maker's Mark, I can still tell when things are approaching (I know from years of camping).

I'd be pretty tempted to use the gun just to make space to get the girls inside and bunker down (it says they were at someone's house). That way I really would have access to hundreds of rounds of ammunition and lots of firearms.

Weird stuff happens I guess. I'll be on the lookout for angry mobs and Nazi zombies now too.

Vanya
July 9, 2009, 05:01 PM
Anybody else annoyed that this isn't being classified as a hate crime?
Based on the article cited, there isn't enough information to say whether it was or not. The one quoted reference to a remark about race doesn't seem sufficient, and we don't know who the teenagers who made up the mob were, where they came from, or what set them off.

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 05:02 PM
Based on the article cited, there isn't enough information to say whether it was or not.

That may be true, and I doubt we want to go down this road with this thread, but if the races had been reversed it would have been ASSUMED to be a hate crime unless shown otherwise.

patriotthad
July 9, 2009, 05:09 PM
I Sir, agree with you. Mr.Marshall did not only have the right but the responsibility to protect his family. I will not go in to the stats of the presence of a gun acting as a deterent. Reading some of the opposing posts make me realize that posting on this forum does not make one a supporter of the second ammendment.

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 05:17 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how people can take the simple, obvious, common sense argument that having a firearm does not automatically make a bad situation better and twist it into "not supporting the second amendment".

Yes, I am clearly a person who does not support the second amendment. Yep, me, the guy who is wearing a gun as I type this, is first in line to buy a hunting license on the first day it's possible every year, writes to my senators and assemblymen in opposition to anti-gun legislation... obviously I don't support the right to keep and bear arms.

How could I be so blind? It's not awareness that matters. It's not possible that having a gun could turn into a bad thing, or make a bad situation worse. A firearm is the end-all, be-all of personal protection, smarts don't matter, de-escalation doesn't matter, don't try to evade and elude, ENGAGE and DESTROY! You hold the weapon of life and death in your hands! Wield it as a mighty god!

Does that sound better? More in line with the second amendment? Do I sound more prepared? More willing to defend my family and property?


Let's get over the rhetorical nonsense shall we? Let's take a real, common sense look at some of the defensive shootings with which we're all so familiar and truly ask ourselves "Were these guys better off because they had a gun?"

How about the pharmacist up on murder charges?
How about Fish who went to jail for killing an unarmed man?
How about Tyler, TX where a man tried to be intervene and ended up dead.
How about the guys that chased a guy out of their house and shot him, who may now be charged with murder?

Are they all better off because they had a gun? Can we not concede that it's possible to make things WORSE with a defensive firearm?

dresden8
July 9, 2009, 05:20 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzWSoFszn9U

The power of a mob.

The people behind scatter, the determined individuals win.

No comment on the right or wrong.

jon_in_wv
July 9, 2009, 05:34 PM
A met a guy who was carrying a Ruger 9mm with its 15 rounds and TWO 15 round spare mags. He said he never used to carry so much ammo but he stopped to help a motorist one night and as he got out of his car to walk up and offer help a group of guys (he said 7-8) walked out of the woods straight towards him. They were armed with tire iron, shovel and whatever else. He drew his weapon and backed up to his car and escaped. He said he'll always carry more ammo in the future. I told him that if he shot the first couple I doubt the rest would have been motivated to keep coming but I do see his point. Personally I like my M&P with one back up mag (25 rounds) or my P7 with two spare mags (25 rounds) sometimes with just one spare mag in my pocket which is still 17 rounds. I feel pretty well armed with that.

Heck I even carry two spare mags with my LCP for 18 rounds.

I guess if 50 violent teens attacked I would desperately wish for more though.

Donn_N
July 9, 2009, 06:15 PM
A met a guy who was carrying a Ruger 9mm with its 15 rounds and TWO 15 round spare mags. He said he never used to carry so much ammo but he stopped to help a motorist one night and as he got out of his car to walk up and offer help a group of guys (he said 7-8) walked out of the woods straight towards him. They were armed with tire iron, shovel and whatever else. He drew his weapon and backed up to his car and escaped. He said he'll always carry more ammo in the future. I told him that if he shot the first couple I doubt the rest would have been motivated to keep coming but I do see his point. Personally I like my M&P with one back up mag (25 rounds) or my P7 with two spare mags (25 rounds) sometimes with just one spare mag in my pocket which is still 17 rounds. I feel pretty well armed with that.


7 or 8 guys or 50 guys. Doesn't matter. If the first 15 rounds don't do it and the BGs are close enough to warrant shooting in the first place, you're not going to have time to reload. It is amazing how many folks think carrying a semi-auto without a round in the chamber is akin to carrying a brick because it takes too long to charge the pistol but then seem to think the BGs will agree to a time out if they have to reload during a SD situation.

How many people practice reloading while a BG or multiple BGs with impact weapons are bearing down on them? I suspect it is far fewer than those who just stick a couple extra reloads in their pocket and feel safe.

Reloads? Meh. If I have to take on multiple attackers, an extra gun or two is going to be my best chance at survival.

Brit
July 9, 2009, 06:24 PM
Matolman1

Interjecting reality into this medium? Could be classed as a bit of a stretch,
but having been in a few big punch up's, me! Not this friend of mine, or I heard this story... Me!

This kind of a group could have been carved up with two or three wild men from the sixty's, good solid punches, shin kicks, head butts, we waded into street crowds, a boat full of drunks on the Royal Iris a River Mersey cruise/Ferry boat.
And really enjoyed it! But different times, and as Bouncers, we got paid as well!

Different times, different situation.

The first sound of a +P+ 9mm (my favorite carry round) with the muzzle flash (not seen by the shooter) vividly seen from the front, the possible, in fact very likely result, panic retreat. Anyone forgot their ear protection? With a target load? Try 30% more bang for your buck! Coming in your direction.

Have you ever seen some one (or more than one) kicked and stamped to death?

And before the never had a fight as an adult crowd jump in with "How do you justify this" who gives a tinkers cuss! You are White, the crowd is black, or you are black, and the crowd is white? It makes no never mind, it's a mob! You shoot them, a lot! Four shots? Five? The area is clearing, mobs sway left, right, forward or back. That is the nature of a mob.

My carry pistol and load, every day working, or concealed carry... Glock 19, with 16 rounds up, a spare mag, 17 rounds, small bright flashlight.

Good knife clipped to pocket, watch and cell phone.

Expect a riot? Know, do I feel I need a gun? I might, so I have one.

This is really one for the "It could not happen" crowd, or the "5 shot snubby is good enough"

NWPilgrim
July 9, 2009, 06:27 PM
I only carry three rounds.

Statistics indicate 90% of armed confrontations are resolved by show of force, without firing a shot. Of those involving shooting, the AVERAGE number of shots fired is three.

I want to be average. I don't want any advantage the average armed civilian doesn't have. If I can't solve the situation in the first three rounds then I am done for. No use carrying all that extra weight of a loaded mag.

Anyone that carries more than three rounds is a fool. Their gun will be used against them. That scares the heck out of me. :eek:

In fact, I am thinking that 90% is good enough. Maybe I shouldn't carry any ammo, just the sound of racking the slide on my Glock will scare the attackers off 90% of the time.

What do you all think?



:D

Microgunner
July 9, 2009, 06:36 PM
ENGAGE and DESTROY! You hold the weapon of life and death in your hands!

Woo...Hoo...Now you're talking like an American. ;)

Nnobby45
July 9, 2009, 07:26 PM
Unless you're VERY good/fast, extra rounds won't help you. While shooting at the first attackers, the rest will gang-jump you and you'll be down. If one or more of them has guns, you're toast.

Not ruling out the possibility, but I'd be more inclined to bet they'd scatter like cockroaches when the lights come on at the first shot or even the sight of a gun. To suggest they'd attack into gunfire, knowing some would be shot, is more of a tribute to their bravery than deserved. I'm talking about gang members, not a large mob gone wild in the street.

It depends on the size of the mob and their mentality. Saw two British officers armed with BHP's surrounded and dragged from their car and beaten to death by a mob in N. Ireland. Don't believe they fired a shot, or that they could have saved themselves. The mob was motivated by pure hatred and was determined. The first part of the incident was shown on the news decades ago.

On the other hand, who could, with a straight face, say that Reginald Denny couldn't have saved himself if armed with a G19, P226, etc.-- spare mag. or not?

Instead of opening his door and seeing a G19 pointed at them, they just dragged him out of his truck and damaged his brain to the extent that, later on when he could walk and talk again, he said he didn't have any hard feelings.

Just my thoughts on the matter.:cool:

B.N.Real
July 9, 2009, 07:33 PM
It is amazing how an angry mob stops dead in their tracks when one of their leaders falls flat on his face with a bullet in his forehead.

This whole family is very blessed just to be alive.

Even a big can of bear pepper spray or foam would have been priceless in this incident.

Very scary indeed.

matolman1
July 9, 2009, 07:45 PM
A gun is simply a tool. You are the weapon. You are the radar that is constantly scanning for information, processing that information and deciding if and when to act on that information.

Nobody needs to explain to me that a pistol in hand is not a cure all magic wand..."POOF" and everything is OK.

The need for constant training and discipline, for constant awareness and following up with your instincts when your brain alerts you to trouble, is the absolute majority of importance.

You should prepare yourself to acquire a combat mindset. When attacked, it is nothing short of millenium old close combat where the man with the most perseverance, physical and mental prowess and combat ruthlessness will win the day.

You cannot expect to overcome a deadly adversary that will use any tool at his disposal to destroy you or those you are sworn to protect, or an adversary that will just as soon kill you for a dollar at the local gas station, unless you yourself have trained your mind and body to be alert and aware and to react to this aggressive attack with extreme violence of action.

If you truly believe otherwise, you are delusional. You are the Sheep.
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Read the above link, let it sink in. Then ask yourself if the Combat Mindset is unnecessary.

We live in America, the greatest country that has ever existed. Yet, people on this forum seem to like to mention how "I don't live in a war zone" or "I don't live in a place where there is a constant threat."
I ask you, are you living in the same country I am? in the same USA? This country has the highest prison population on earth. It has the highest violent crime rate on the earth. You DO live in a war zone.

Imagine what happens when the power goes out for a month and the riots begin. Anyone remember Katrina? It was a free for all. Mob rule.

BE PREPARED for the worst case scenario and always expect the unexpected.

I have enjoyed reading the various posts here, it helps me learn how people think and I enjoy learning about people. The more I know about how to average person thinks, the better prepared I can be.

Wildalaska
July 9, 2009, 08:03 PM
I ask you, are you living in the same country I am?

Yep.

It has the highest violent crime rate on the earth

:rolleyes:

You DO live in a war zone.


You have spent waaaaaaaaay too much time in Eretz Yisroel:p You are here in the US now, you can relax*

If you truly believe otherwise, you are delusional. You are the Sheep.

Baaaah baaaah

WildtheforegoingquotessayitallAlaska ™

*My cousin spends hours trying to convice me to go live in Israel with him...I tell him I have enough stress trying to buy .380 ammo ;)

Brian Pfleuger
July 9, 2009, 08:11 PM
I ask you, are you living in the same country I am? in the same USA? This country has the highest prison population on earth. It has the highest violent crime rate on the earth. You DO live in a war zone.

Apparently not. Where I live, almost everyone within miles knows almost everyones else, at least in passing. We have not had a murder for miles around in more years than I can remember. Never heard of a rape that didn't involve an acquaintance. No armed robberies, no muggings, no gangs, no drive-bys, no mob violence after football games, nothing, really, at all.

In fact, in America as a whole, the one that exists outside of the vigor of the internet, 99% of the "sheeple" live their entire lives in peace. Completely unprepared as they may be, they manage just fine. They don't die violent deaths in shootouts. They die of old age and heart disease.

So, no, we do not live in a war zone. Not even close.

As prepared as I am to defend myself and my family, should the need arise, I am also fully aware that the need will most likely NEVER arise. Just like it never has for every one I know and every one I have EVER known.

BE PREPARED for the worst case scenario and always expect the unexpected.

BE prepared for the "worst case"? Please, we can't even define "worst case". What would it be nuclear war? Meteor strike? Surely nothing less would qualify as "worst case". What should we all be doing? Underground bunkers, air purification, hundreds (thousands?) of MREs and canned food, water purification systems, dozens or hundreds of guns, hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammo, HAM radios, CBs....

More useless rhetoric.

It has the highest violent crime rate on the earth.

That is just absolute crap. Ever heard of.... Somalia, Sudan, Darfur, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq?

Want a few more?


Do some reading:

http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World

and relax a little. The stress will kill you faster than a violent mugger.

Sportdog
July 9, 2009, 08:18 PM
Hey, I tried to warn you!:barf:

Nnobby45
July 9, 2009, 08:45 PM
Read the above link, let it sink in. Then ask yourself if the Combat Mindset is unnecessary.


Interesting that a high % of citizens who survive deadly force encounters have no training with re: to tactics or mindset.

Often times, the victim, or their loved one, was injured by their assailant before they even remembered they had a gun--- which they eventually got to. As often as not, they had a .32ACP, .25 Auto, .38 Special, .22 RF, etc. They didn't use cover and likely didn't have time to use it, anyway. Reloads are almost non existent. Many fired out of fear while they, or a loved one, were already under assault.

Yes, they're own lack of awareness and training allowed things to get to that point.


You can read Chris Bird's "Thank God I Had A Gun" or John Waters' books about such citizens. While Waters' books are well done with regards to the details of the incidents, including the tactics used by criminals, his frequent faux pas related to the opertion of firearms is a little embarassilng at times.:o Still worth reading.

While ordinary citizens operating on pure adrenalin and no training prevail more often than one might think, they only emphasize the huge advantages of proper training and tactics. And also awareness of tricks folks use to gain entrance to your home, or attack you on the street.

As far as mind set is concerned, some of the citizens mentioned above survived because they had it. They sure didn't survive because of training.:cool:

FyredUp
July 9, 2009, 08:56 PM
It's funny how most people believe protecting themselves is carrying a gun and all is solved. I preached situational awareness to my ex for years. She just never got it. So many times the little voice in my head say this is a bad situation or a bad place to be and I acted on that instinct. Avoiding trouble is a successful engagement, having to react usually means a failure in tactics somewhere.

My current girlfriend is a great believer in details and is very good at situational awareness and listening to that same warning voice in her head. Add to that the fact she is a great shot and she is better prepared to rotect herself than many are.

The most curious thing to me about the original post is how did such a large group sneak up on this family? They had to be making a ton of noise. the lesson learned should be don't be so oblivious to your surroundings.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 09:07 PM
They wouldn't have to sneak up. The family was at a fireworks display on the 4th. They were unlucky enough to be in an area where a group passing through was hostile. Nothing would particularly stand out about lots of people transiting after a fireworks display.

You could just as well ask why the crowd out celebrating Mardi Gras in Seattle in 2001 didn't realize a bunch of people in their midst would start a major brawl. Sometimes, when things start, you are already in the epicenter.

I'm all for situational awareness. However, unless you avoid all crowds, there is no way to guarantee a brawl won't break out in any given crowd event you may attend.

Note: In Georgia, where CCW laws are very liberal, I cannot legally carry at an event such as a 4th of July gathering. FWIW.

FyredUp
July 9, 2009, 09:33 PM
Sorry, I am not buying that. If I am at a celebration or event and a crowd is moving directly my way I am on alert, whether they look dangerous or not. There is a difference between transitioning places and pruposely moving on someone or invading their space. If a large group is moving in my direction my radar goes on alert and I begin looking for a reason and then a way out.

I don't have the choice of concealed carry in Wisconsin so for me being hyper aware is really my only defense when I am in public.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 09:41 PM
... but you can see similar situations on the news, any given week. So, it happens.

Funny thing about those who think "it can never happen to me." They tend to be grossly unprepared when "it" happens.

FyredUp
July 9, 2009, 09:46 PM
Where in what I posted did i say it couldn't happen to me? In fact it has happened, the difference in both situations is that I ended up walking away unscathed. Luck of the draw.

I just don't understand standing there unaware of a group of roughly 50 people moving in my direction and not taking defensive actions or simply leaving. Waiting to see what they want does nothing but make you a victim.

skydiver3346
July 9, 2009, 09:48 PM
Matolman1, (as Sportbob mentioned earlier in his #11 post to your thread)
"you make far too much sense to post opinions on this forum"...

:( Its true what Sportbob said: Each and everytime someone posts comments about taking a stand (TO NOT BE A VICTIM), the same old critics come out of the woodwork to demonize your suggestions. It has happened to me numerous times and I just let it roll off my back. My attitude is to always defend myself and more importantly, defend my family. That will always come first and the rest of it can take the back burner as far as I'm concerned.

Each of us should do what they think best in a crisis situation (within reasonable legal boundries of course) when you feel your life and/or family's life is threatened.

Just a note: 50 teenagers with fists and feet can kill you easily. They don't need a gun. Just ask the truck driver who was almost killed by the thugs in L.A. (when they drug him out of the truck and beat him to within an inch of his life) during the big riot a few years back. Having a gun (with extra ammo), sure as hell may have made a difference in that situation. No, you may not have enough ammo to take them all out but its sure better than just getting your butt stomped to death for doing nothing. Besides, the threat of getting shot more than likely will stop most folks and is sure better than than just standing there and taking whatever they dish out to you.

I also agree: What the heck does lightning strikes really got to do with anything? Not too bright an analogy in my opinion. Bottom line: You tell the story! But you gotta be alive in order to do that.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 09:51 PM
If there are thirty or forty people around, a group of 50 moving is noticeable.

If there are several hundred to a few thousand around, which is typical of 4th of July fireworks displays, or any number of beach events, or holiday street festivals, a group of 50 will barely register.

It's not like 50 people walking through your neighborhood on a Tuesday night.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 09:52 PM
... If I tried to leave the area every time 50 or so people walked my way, I could never stand around on the sidewalk on Broadway, 5th Avenue, etc. It all depends on the background.

FyredUp
July 9, 2009, 10:05 PM
Look, you can play this as cutesy as you want and pretend you don't know what I mean if it makes you feel better.

There is a clear difference between 50 people moving in the same direction and 50 people purposely closing on someone or closing on a group of people. If nothing else the facial expressions should tell you something. Usually, a group moving through a crowd that has no intent other than to get from point A to point B does not focus on one specific person or group as they pass through. They are generally looking for the fastest easiest way out of the crowd to their destination.

So pretend you don't understand what I mean if you need to, I can't say it any clearer than that.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 10:10 PM
... but your point is only valid if they decide to target you BEFORE closing. If you happen to already be in the middle of a group, and then 1 or 2 idiots decide it would be fun to hassle you, and then their friends start jumping in...

I think this is a lot closer scenario to what happened to the victims in this case. I'm pretty sure ALL of us would notice a mob in chase and attack mode. But most instances I've seen in the news, and one or two I found myself in, developed in the manner I described. Crowd was not a threat, until a small subset of the crowd triggered events.

Sorry if you think that's cutesy, but I find your interpretation to be unlikely in the extreme.

Wildalaska
July 9, 2009, 10:17 PM
Each and everytime someone posts comments about taking a stand (TO NOT BE A VICTIM), the same old critics come out of the woodwork to demonize your suggestions.

Naw its more like everytime the testosterone gets flowing over some incident in the newspaper and the sheepdogs come out to remind us that life in the USA is more dangerous than West Beirut, us sheeple try to bring folks back to earth.

But then again and regardless, some folks, for ego needs, want to walk around suburbia in body armour packin MP5s and ready for mobs of teenagers or Zombies or whatever:p

Me? No self respecting mob would ever attack a fat guy in a Hello Kitty Thong and pink platform pompom mules:D

WildlightenupfrancisesAlaska TM

skydiver3346
July 9, 2009, 10:30 PM
:rolleyes: Who knows Wild, the streets of America (nowadays) may be more dangerous than West Beirut... The city where I live in here in Florida is the murder capital of the state!

By the way, its not testosterone that makes us want to defend our life and family, its our obligation and our duty! No MP5's, just a Glock 21 this week.

Wildalaska
July 9, 2009, 10:39 PM
The city where I live in here in Florida is the murder capital of the state!

Maybe you have too many guns there...look at NYC's crime rate:p

WildseewhatimeanAlaska TM

FyredUp
July 9, 2009, 10:39 PM
MLeake...

And I made it clear my intent is to never let anyone into my circle of comfort without seeing them and attempting to guess their motive for being there. I have been in mob situations and walked away both times unscathed.

Just because you find my idea different from yours does not make it wrong.

MLeake
July 9, 2009, 10:45 PM
I was in Seattle when the mob violence broke out at Mardi Gras in 2001. My then-girlfriend was working publicity for Seagram's liquor promotions in Pioneer Square. For one thing, everywhere you went, the sidewalks were crowded. You couldn't possibly tell if a bunch of people moving en masse were a homogenous group, or just swept along in the ebb and flow of the crowd.

When violence broke out, it started with a fairly small group, and then it exploded. A lot of people tried to leave the area, but could not because they couldn't break through the crowd. So, at first nobody could tell what was happening. Then, when people could tell, they still couldn't leave very easily.

In another example, that same former gf was leaving a bar one night, in company with some police officer friends of ours, who were in uniform. A group that was in the parking lot outside the bar suddenly erupted into a brawl, as she and the two cops were in the middle of the lot. She caught an errant punch to the face, and came home with a swollen cheek and a bloody nose. The crowd in the parking lot was nothing unusual, didn't raise her hackles or those of the two cops, until somebody threw a punch and a bunch of idiots joined in.

It's nice that in your experiences you had both ample warning and avenues of escape. I'm here to tell you that this will quite often not be the case.

FyredUp
July 10, 2009, 12:05 AM
Well, first of all, the last place you would find me would be at a Mardi Gras Celebration. Why go looking for trouble? A bunch of drunken out of control idiots looking for a reason to act like *******s. No thank you.

Walking thru a parking lot of a bar at night, with 2 uniformed police officers, and they see a group in the parking lot. You expect me to believe they had no indication of any trouble? And they were blindsided by the fight? Okay those cops are either fools or oblivious if they would walk into the midst of a group of people in a parking lot of a bar, at night.

Both of these incidents have plenty of indications of trouble...IF the participants had been paying attention.

Doc Intrepid
July 10, 2009, 12:06 AM
"You're joking, right?"

Actually, Donn, no.

I was noting that this particular set of circumstances was pretty close to a 'no-win' situation. Firing on unarmed teenagers might very well drive them off, however, (a) it might not; and (b) even when you 'win', you lose.

I was also agreeing with the logic of Vanya and Peetzakilla as Vanya described it in post #14:

"According to the story linked in the OP, this was a mob of teenagers, attacking with fists and feet. The outcome might have been better if Mr. Marshall, or someone else in his party, had had a gun at all, regardless of its capacity or number of extra magazines. Or, as Peetzakilla points out, it might have been worse... especially if some in the mob had been carrying as well.

What doesn't seem likely is that having 31, or 46, rounds available, as opposed to 16, would be the deciding factor here. If Mr. Marshall had pulled a gun and used it, the mob of teenagers would either have been discouraged right then and "beat feet," or they would have continued to attack, perhaps with their own (previously concealed) weapons. If a mob keeps coming in this situation, a single shooter is most likely going to be overrun no matter how much ammunition he's lugging around -- and his whole party may be at much greater risk if weapons are now involved on both sides.

There's no predicting the outcome, and there's no sure defense in this very improbable situation..."With respect, I don't know how much time you've spent in courtrooms. (And I'm not an legal expert.) But a good lawyer, if the AG decides to prosecute, would just take Marshall apart had he opened fire, and no matter how bruised Marshall's life may appear today - I suspect that had he shot and killed a number of the unarmed teenagers, (or paralyzed them,) his life would today be considerably more 'complex'.

You made an excellent point when you asked whether anyone was annoyed that this (hasn't yet been) classified as a hate crime - and that can be spun both ways. If a white guy had opened fire on a crowd of unarmed black teenagers, and had perhaps killed 3 or 4 of them, maybe put 1 in a wheelchair for life, and sent 2 or 3 more to the hospital with gunshot wounds - you don't need a law degree to know that that guy's life would be a steaming puddle of dung shortly thereafter. Rev. Al Sharpton would only be the first in the conga-line of haters who would lead the circus to your front door.

As Peetza argues, there simply isn't any guarantee in a situation like this one that producing a firearm is going to resolve the situation in your favor. As Vanya notes, it could in fact lead to significantly more risk to your own loved ones if the crowd returns fire.

That's why I described it as a tough call.

Marshall was never knocked to the ground (per the report). He willingly 'waded in to the fight' when his friend was struck by one of the teens (e.g. he himself was not struck, his friend was and he then intentionally confronted and engaged the teens): "They said it started when one teen, without any words or warning, blindsided and assaulted Marshall's friend as he stood outside with the others. When Marshall, 39, jumped in, he found himself being attacked by the growing group of teens."

A lawyer might point out that this is not necessarily a defensive act.

Had Marshall then produced a pistol and shot and killed a number of the unarmed teens, he would need to explain at which precise point he felt his life to be in danger and why, etc. and no matter how he explained it, in the press it would still read that a white guy initially jumped into the fight, and then shot and killed a number of unarmed black teenagers.

There is just no way this is going to end well.....

No matter how many rounds Marshall carried with him.

A big cannister of pepper-spray may have been useful, or possibly a Taser, but I don't see how lighting these kids up would have produced a "more optimal" outcome for Marshall. It would have been a tough call, either way.

Just the humble opinion of a guy who has spent more time in courtrooms than he ever wanted to...

Kyo
July 10, 2009, 01:20 AM
I would just like to point out that it takes less then a second to pick up a mag from a pocket/mag holder, and reload. If you aren't shooting by the time they are within that 20-30 foot range, then I don't know. If this whole thing about not being able to reload was true, why haven't gunmen in large population areas been stopped in the midst of reloading? Because it takes less than a second.

Brit
July 10, 2009, 03:18 AM
That must be Jacksonville? Below, quote from an other forum...

I am not trying to put a pretty light on this...if you are one of those 30 victims or are related to them it's terrible. But get real...30 out of 2 million+ people in the greater Orlando area! Almost all these crimes took place among people involved in shady activities in bad areas of the city.


That is kind of true, yes? And Drugs are the basic catalyst for 90% of the 30 murders? Most of the incidents in the late night, early AM?

Now as a 73 year (transplanted) old Brit, who has never taken a puff of drugs, or a needle except to donate blood, what is wrong with 16 to 21 year olds that they need a nose full of illegal substances, to "Feel good man!" Such activity's just so happen to peak, late nights, early AM!

My lovely Wife likes live firework displays! Not me, the bangs are caused by black powder don't you know, and the big show in Washington DC (on TV) seen on our 47" TV did not have any trauma attached, thank you very much.

I carry a pistol because I can, and just in case, the same reason I carry a spare wheel, and vehicle, and fire insurance.

Kyo
July 10, 2009, 07:29 AM
I carry a pistol because I can, and just in case, the same reason I carry a spare wheel, and vehicle, and fire insurance.
that is exactly what the gun is

carolmo
July 10, 2009, 08:48 AM
I do appreciate all your posts. I am a retired woman and do not seem to have the testosterone problem the others keep mentioning.

Over 40 years ago I was a target of 2 bad guys, survived thanks to husband with shotgun, and bought my first gun from another state because local sheriff did not believe in women defending themselves.

I now have a CCW and practice every week on free women's range day - bless their hearts. I carry most of the time; I cannot in daycare area when I pick up grandkids about once a week. I certainly do not have the strength to fight (never did) or now run away. I will shoot and if it so works out, die while defending myself and others. I did agree with all your posts. Thanks again.

mpage
July 10, 2009, 08:50 AM
Here are a some more incidents of this type, which have happened recently; what's interesting is that some in Philadelphia appear to be coordinated through the racially-oriented "ourspace" site:

Man arrested in 'flash mob' beating

By DAN GERINGER
Philadelphia Daily News

geringd@phillynews.com 215-854-5961

Police have made an arrest in what one detective called the "vicious" and "brutal" beating of a 53-year-old maintenance mechanic who was bicycling home from work during the May 30 "flash mob" attacks on South Street.

Stephen Lyde, 21, was one of eight males who knocked the victim off his bike and "brutally beat him to unconsciousness," leaving him with internal injuries and skull, rib and facial fractures, said Capt. Laurence D. Nodiff, commander of South Detective Division.

They robbed him and left him to "bleed in the street," Nodiff said.

The victim was on life support at Hahnemann University Hospital for days, Nodiff said, and two weeks after the attack, he remains hospitalized in stable condition.

Lyde was charged with aggravated assault, robbery and related offenses. In 2005 he was charged with aggravated assault and robbery, but the charges were dismissed, according to online court records.

Praising the "hard investigative work" of the eight detectives and warrant officers who stood with him yesterday at 1st District Police Headquarters, Nodiff said that police expect to make additional arrests soon.

No severe injuries were reported in initial media accounts of youthful "flash mobs" - numbering in the thousands and organized via cell phones and online social networks - that overran South Street, terrorizing pedestrians and motorists.

A city employee and a taxi driver incurred minor injuries when they were pulled out of their cars and assaulted. About the same time, a swarm of teens looted a convenience store at Broad and Catharine streets, according to video surveillance released days after the near-riot.

But the case of the beaten cyclist - by far the most severe incident - was first brought to public attention this week by Daily News columnist Ronnie Polaneczky, who detailed the man's fight for his life in Hahnemann's intensive care unit after suffering a frontal-lobe injury.

Yesterday, the mother of the man, whom Polaneczky referred to as "John," said that she was pleased about the arrest.

"We feel great that the cops got him and hope they get the rest of them," she said. The police "need to get them off the streets and keep them off the streets.

"You don't want to be a prisoner in your own home while the riff-raff run the streets."

John's close friend, Marcia Houston-Leslie, said: "I am glad. You don't want crime like this to go unpaid for. If people do this to someone, they need to be held accountable for it."

"The police have been very wonderful," John's mother said. "They have called us and been up to see [John] and really been on top of this."

Capt. Nodiff said he hopes this arrest sends a message to those who assaulted people during the May 30 "flash mob" turmoil.

Nodiff said that on South Street last weekend, extra police were deployed and no serious incidents were reported. Again this weekend, he said, police will be out in force continuing to show "zero tolerance" for violence.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/47984426.html

New York:

A white Valley Stream man remained in critical condition Monday after police said he was beaten by a group of young African-American assailants in what authorities are investigating as a possible hate crime.

The 30-year-old victim, a Long Island Rail Road worker, was not identified by police, who said the attack was unprovoked.

The victim was repeatedly punched and kicked in the face, head and body at about 12:30 a.m. Sunday by a group of about 12 to 15 male and female assailants, said Nassau police Det. Sgt. Anthony Repalone. The man had gone outside to move his car off the street during a July Fourth party when he was attacked, Repalone said.

He sustained a concussion and fractured eye socket, Repalone said. "There is no motive at this time," Repalone said Monday.


Investigators are looking to see whether the assault was motivated by race, he said.

"A witness heard someone in the crowd make a comment that the police will follow up to determine whether or not this attack was racially motivated," Repalone said. "It's too early at this time to make that determination."

Repalone would not describe what was said that could lead police to determine that the man was beaten because of his race.

Monday, a woman, who did not want to be identified but said the victim was her brother, said he has multiple fractures in his face and jaw.

She said a fight in the group of teenagers had started before her brother went to move his car.

"They were having a conflict," she said. "I assume maybe they thought he was getting involved."

The mother's 911 call was picked up by New York City emergency services and redirected to Nassau County, Repalone said. The call was disconnected and the Nassau operator called back, Repalone said, but was unable to reach anyone.

The man did not seek medical treatment, and his family did not call police again until more than 13 hours after the attack, Repalone said. Police said the man and his family may have underestimated the extent of his injuries. He was eventually taken to South Nassau Communities Hospital in Oceanside, where police said he remained in critical but stable condition Monday.

He parked his car in the driveway and that's when the teenagers approached him, police said.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/cr...,2473140.story

Re4mer
July 10, 2009, 08:53 AM
Thanks for the info OP. Its good evidence that mob attacks do happen. Not sure if having a gun would have helped him or not it really depends if the mob was willing to sacrifice a few people to get in close or not.

38 Special
July 10, 2009, 09:18 AM
You have to assume that they are going to kill you. Shoot the leaders of the mob and the rest will flee...I hope.

If we all carried guns this would not happen, kids would be in school instead of out on the street, and we would all speak the king's English and be polite to each other.:)

matolman1
July 10, 2009, 09:43 AM
And the funniest thing was yesterday evening, the headline on Yahoo news was "Lightning Strikes Mother In Her Kitchen."

I bet she didnt expect that either! The statistics are so against that ever happening to her....Yet, it happened. To her.

My original point was that I have been reading in various threads about statistics, about how unlikely this or that scenario is to occur..etc...

If you only train for and set your mind towards scenarios that occur more often statistically than others, you will be at a grave loss when you happen to be shopping at the Mall on Saturday and become involved in an active shooter situation.

What is that you say? You don't carry more than 5 rounds on you while carrying your firearm? Well, you better be very good at pleading and hiding because it will take SWAT at least 20 minutes to "come to your rescue." You can bet your last breath (and those of your wife and children) that the attacker will most likely be suicidal in his attack and will be better armed than you. You either try to even the odds a bit by constant training and by carrying for this worst case scenario (not a nuclear attack, just a plain old "Active Shooter") or you don't and suffer the consequences. Your choice.....I have made mine.

OK, I admit...Maybe I am wired differently than most due to "boots on the ground" experience and due to my aggressive training and tactics on responding to being attacked. BUT, rest assured, when I do get involved in an active shooter scenario at my synagogue, or at the mall, I will respond with extreme violence of action, speed and firepower. Not because I am a hero or superman, but because I am trained to run TOWARDS the violence while you and the others are running AWAY from it. I do not blame you for running away. I do not expect you to save me or others. That is my job.

I have learned long ago that aggressors show no mercy to those that beg for there life or come under prepared.

OK, so you happen to live in an area of the country where everyone knows the name of every cow and chicken...Good for you! I suppose you have nothing to worry about...Except swine flu!!! And the avian flu!!! Time for you to buy a tacticool face mask I guess.

Tennessee Gentleman
July 10, 2009, 09:59 AM
O my Gawd.......FUZZY WUZZY!!!!!!! Where is my Solar Topee! I must emote! Emote emote emote

Ken, of course I knew the hottentots are not the fuzzy wuzzy and since you're a Kipling fan here's my favorite;

When the 'arf-made recruity goes out to the East
'E acts like a babe an' 'e drinks like a beast,
An' 'e wonders because 'e is frequent deceased
Ere 'e's fit for to serve as a soldier.
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
Serve, serve, serve as a soldier,
So-oldier ~OF~ the Queen!

Now all you recruities what's drafted to-day,
You shut up your rag-box an' 'ark to my lay,
An' I'll sing you a soldier as far as I may:
A soldier what's fit for a soldier.
Fit, fit, fit for a soldier . . .

First mind you steer clear o' the grog-sellers' huts,
For they sell you Fixed Bay'nets that rots out your guts --
Ay, drink that 'ud eat the live steel from your butts --
An' it's bad for the young British soldier.
Bad, bad, bad for the soldier . . .

When the cholera comes -- as it will past a doubt --
Keep out of the wet and don't go on the shout,
For the sickness gets in as the liquor dies out,
An' it crumples the young British soldier.
Crum-, crum-, crumples the soldier . . .

But the worst o' your foes is the sun over'ead:
You ~must~ wear your 'elmet for all that is said:
If 'e finds you uncovered 'e'll knock you down dead,
An' you'll die like a fool of a soldier.
Fool, fool, fool of a soldier . . .

If you're cast for fatigue by a sergeant unkind,
Don't grouse like a woman nor crack on nor blind;
Be handy and civil, and then you will find
That it's beer for the young British soldier.
Beer, beer, beer for the soldier . . .

Now, if you must marry, take care she is old --
A troop-sergeant's widow's the nicest I'm told,
For beauty won't help if your rations is cold,
Nor love ain't enough for a soldier.
'Nough, 'nough, 'nough for a soldier . . .

If the wife should go wrong with a comrade, be loath
To shoot when you catch 'em -- you'll swing, on my oath! --
Make 'im take 'er and keep 'er: that's Hell for them both,
An' you're shut o' the curse of a soldier.
Curse, curse, curse of a soldier . . .

When first under fire an' you're wishful to duck,
Don't look nor take 'eed at the man that is struck,
Be thankful you're livin', and trust to your luck
And march to your front like a soldier.
Front, front, front like a soldier . . .

When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . .

When shakin' their bustles like ladies so fine,
The guns o' the enemy wheel into line,
Shoot low at the limbers an' don't mind the shine,
For noise never startles the soldier.
Start-, start-, startles the soldier . . .

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!

CWPinSC
July 10, 2009, 10:02 AM
If you only train for and set your mind towards scenarios that occur more often statistically than others, you will be at a grave loss when you happen to be shopping at the Mall on Saturday and become involved in an active shooter situation.

But you can't train, and be prepared for, EVERY situation that MIGHT occur. Very few people can carry 4 or 5 weapons with several mags for each, nor will they have the training to use them.

During a lightning storm, I realize lighting is more likely to strike a solitary tree in a field than my kitchen, so I take shelter in my kitchen, not under a tree. Since I can't go down into a earth tunnel to avoid ALL lighting strikes, I prepare for the highest percentage of occurrence.

As I pointed out previously, even at 31 rounds, the guy would be 20 attackers short of living. True, most attackers will turn and run at the sound of gunfire, but some may be armed and/or crazy enough to continue the attack.

You have to prepare for the highest percentage of situation.

matolman1
July 10, 2009, 10:12 AM
I have stated my opinion and that works for me.

My weekly combat training and my constant awareness and my aggressive combat mindset allows me to have the confidence to not only protect myself, my loved ones and others, but also to train others to do the same. It is not stress or paranoia. For me it is simply my way of life.

The end.

zxcvbob
July 10, 2009, 10:25 AM
You have to assume that they are going to kill you. Shoot the leaders of the mob and the rest will flee...I hope.


And even if they don't, you still shot their leader (and maybe one or two others before they overran you) Isn't that worth something? :cool:

Wildalaska
July 10, 2009, 10:31 AM
BUT, rest assured, when I do get involved in an active shooter scenario at my synagogue, or at the mall, I will respond with extreme violence of action, speed and firepower. Not because I am a hero or superman, but because I am trained to run TOWARDS the violence while you and the others are running AWAY from it. I do not blame you for running away. I do not expect you to save me or others. That is my job.

LOL...so when you are charging towards the firefight "Mr Boots on the ground", think of folks like me, cowering, covering and cell phoning behind the potted palms, and if you are running towards me keep in mind that all I see is an armed man running in my direction.....you may never make your objective...

But hey I bet you learned all about things like cover and ambushes and suchlike in the IDF...:cool:

You keep being noble, me I'll survive. Being dead and brave is still dead. And I'll save myself thank you, it would truly suck if I had to live the rest of my life with the guilt of having capped some schnook playing superhero

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

I'll say Kaddish at your funeral

WilddowereallyneedtheposturingAlaska TM

ps:
My weekly combat training and my constant awareness and my aggressive combat mindset allows me to have the confidence to not only protect myself, my loved ones and others, but also to train others to do the same. It is not stress or paranoia. For me it is simply my way of life.


The more credible folks dont puff

TailGator
July 10, 2009, 10:40 AM
As usual in these discussions, tiresome as they are starting to become, there are two sets of people with two sets of goals:

The first have the goal of survival.

The second have the goal of finding an excuse to shoot somebody.

There seem to be few among the latter group that are willing to admit that the two don't always coincide.

Tennessee Gentleman
July 10, 2009, 10:41 AM
Most likely in the gun world will be solved with an unloaded gun as most DGUs are deterrent in nature with no shots fired.

Not sure I follow that one. However, I see your point (at least what I have read from Gary Kleck) that merely producing the firearm may deter the BG from coninuing his assault but to do so with an unloaded gun (basically a bluff) would be a rather foolish thing to do IMO.

the issue is not the modal incident but a reasonable cut off in the extremes or consideration of whether the incident distribution is really multimodal.

OK, you are getting perfesser-like here. What do you mean? Aren't we saying the same thing? I train and prepare for what I am most likely to face not just based on probability but maybe that common sense gene? I don't prepare for Hurricanes in TN but I do for a car-jacker or an armed robber or burglar. Likewise, nuclear war is not high on my list cause if it happens I will probably be dead and glad of it.

So, for me that translates into a S&W J-frame with five shots and one reload.

pax
July 10, 2009, 10:46 AM
This one's been going in circles for awhile now, is precariously close to personal attacks in a few places, and stopped being a discussion of the OP's topic a long time back.

Closed.

pax