TMF

Let your conscience be your guide. With that, keep in mind that not every one sees things the way we do. I would like to go back to a time when I didn't feel the need to carry a gun everywhere I go. Unfortunately I've seen the true nature of man enough times to know that there are no safety nets in life, and it all could change in a matter of seconds at the hands of someone else. Also, I'm responsible for the lives of my family now, and I have a duty to protect them. However, not everyone sees the world through our eyes. I guess you could call it ignorance, but just think of how many don't really know the evil lurking inside folks. I think of my daughter. No matter how well I teach her, she would never truly know until she saw it for herself, and I never want that day to come. Even my wife still believes in the goodness in all of us even when I tell her she might as well believe in unicorns and fairy dust. Does that mean she deserves to die when I'm not there to protect her? Not to say that the onus is on any of you to protect her, but saying that she should have protected herself and therefore deserves no protection from anyone else is a little heartless. I think of a story that happened right here in Clarksville last year of a 17 year old girl who was almost abducted at gunpoint in the Walmart parking lot. The man forced the young girl out of her car at gunpoint and was forcing her into his truck when an unarmed 42 year old woman intervened, as she felt that something was wrong. Apparently her involvment spooked the would-be kidnapper and he fled. The same guy tried this not too long after in Providence but the girl got away. What if this woman hadn't intervened? I'm sure that he wasn't planning on taking her to the zoo. I'm pretty sure he had some rape on his mind, and maybe even murder. Who knows? What I do know is that if someone hadn't intervened we would have that answer. Perhaps that 42 year old mother was putting herself in danger. Perhaps it could have went down differently and the gunman would have shot her. Lotta maybes. But if we play the "what if" game let's say that she did nothing. What if she decided to ignore it, or just call 911 and wait for the police? It would have been too late to catch him most likely. What if the man killed the girl? What do you think life would be like for that 42 year old mother? Like I said, let your conscience be your guide. Every scenario is different. I don't judge anyone that puts their family's needs first, but also keep in mind that some people just can't defend themselves. It's not that they made a choice to be a victim, they just don't know any better, or are too afraid. They certainly don't deserve to be lumped into a category of "well, too bad... they shoulda defended themselves like me."

The opposition killed their equivalent to our SECDEF yesterday. I'd be interested to know how the UN inspectors were blown up. The rebels have been welcoming of them since the UN is getting word of atrocities out. Just the other day they put out a report that implied Syrian military were executing folks. If the attack on the UN inspectors can be traced back to a Syrian order that would could be a game changer.... ya know, if the UN actually did anything.

I also once shared an unhealthy obsession for Ms. Russo in the '90s.

I run a magwell on my EDC 1911 and don't have issues with concealment or printing too bad... plus you're right, it gives it a slick look. I dig the flat trigger on that model. Somethin' about the way the designed the front end of the slide with the extended length receiver. It gives it a very unique look. Contemporary would be how I'd describe it. Looks like it belongs in an IKEA ad.

Right. I think all sorts of things too. I happen to think the exact opposite you do. I also entertain the idea that I might be wrong, although I don't think I am. The folks that are going to get to the bottom of it will be the jury.

I go straight to Lethal Weapon any time I need life advice.... WWMRD? But seriously, I'm glad that someone has stepped in to make me feel better about using my M1817 flintlock pistol as my EDC and point out that you "high cap" folks are just a danger to those around you. Who needs more than one round anyway? Whew! Edit: That was supposed to be a joke, by the way.............................................................................................................. Tough crowd ...............................vvv

I've flown with a firearm about two dozen times. I've never had a problem or had to pay more. I always check bags and Southwest doesn't charge.

Well yeah. There is a 9mm hole in one person and a cut up scalp on the other.... pretty hard to deny that. Beyond that there is evidence that an altercation took place on the ground. I don't know of any physical evidence that says for sure who or how it started though.

I'm unaware of physical evidence other than the evidence of the altercation, such as Zimmerman's wounds and Treyvon's wounds. Other than that I know of no such evidence that suggests Martin intentionally ambushed Zimmerman in an unprovoked attack.

That is a really good idea. Never had an issue before, but you never know when you're gonna get the "new" guy.

I check a pistol all the time at BNA. In fact, I flew last year on Southwest (first time on that airline, good experience) and checked my pistol. You don't have to show up earlier than normal. I've had a few different experiences there over the years. Sometimes they took my checked bag with pistol in it at the counter. Other times I was required to take it to a TSA agent in a separate baggage area near the front desk. Neither way was an inconvenience in regards to time. Just make sure you check with Southwest on their policies. I've seen that some airlines require that you have your mags unloaded and the rounds in a secure box of some kind (such as the ammo box) and locked. I just travel the same way every time... I bring just enough ammo to load 2 mags and put it in a small ammo box with the dividers. I place that box in my pistol case along with the firearm. I also put the mags in there just to be safe, in case an ignorant TSA screener decides suddenly that magazines can load themselves. I also put a chamber flag in the weapon so the slide is slightly ajar when they put it through the xray. I was questioned once by a TSA agent if I was "sure" that it was unloaded, so to be safe I do this now. I don't want them to have any reason to open up my case when I'm not there and start finger-effing my gun and figure out a way to damage it.

We don't know that he didn't try to. We only have one side of the story and the rest is speculation.

Martin Riggs always carried 15+1 and he was doin' mag changes all the time!

Thank you for the insight DMark. I absolutely agree with him in that respect. My concern is a little two-fold. First I don't think there should be any ordinance banning carry in parks unless they plan on staffing them all day with LEOs. They've been having bike patrols down at Liberty since its opening, which is fine, but I doubt they'll keep that up once the luster fades off. Even for major events at Riverside I feel pretty comfortable not carrying due to the level of law enforcement presence. For the most part, however, there is not any law enforcement presence at these parks. I would feel more comfortable taking my kids to these places if I knew I could defend myself. Some parks in Clarksville tend to have a vagrancy problem, albeit not in the big three on the list, but that could change. The other issue is the murkiness of the law. There is no easy way for Clarksvillians to find out that carry in certain parks is banned. I just happened to read an article a long time ago that mentioned they had repealed the choice to "opt out" but were still going to restrict certain parks. Had I not read that article I would have just assumed that all parks are good for carry when they decided to "opt out". I think I am the minority of HCP holders in Clarksville that are actually aware of the law. This leads me to be concerned for the HCP community if the CPD decides they are going to enforce that law or a MWG call comes in on some poor fella that had no idea he was doing anything wrong. Bringing attention to it might disrupt the status-quo and have an opposite effect of what I'm trying to achieve, but then again, it won't be a problem until it's a problem. I don't see the harm in making our elected officials get proactive about it. Of course, if it is clear that our elected officials are opposed to it then we'll just couch it and wait until next year instead of making a stink. The problem with that is hardly anyone here is willing to find out from the people that represent them. I'm aware of two that are for and two that are against. If there are 4 more Councilmen out of the remain 8 that are cool with this I think we should move forward.... how to get there without participation?

Well let's Monday morning quarterback this for a second... it's what we do and there isn't anything wrong with using these examples at what to do or not do in a situation by determining what was probably right and what was probably wrong, so long as we give the respect of context to the individual that did the shooting. After all, we don't know what was going through his mind, and if I was sitting on a jury the prosecution would have a hard time convincing me beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, unless there is some sort of extenuating evidence or aggravating factor... such as the shooter was drunk, or had recently bragged about wanting to shoot some punks. With that said, let's look at what was probably the best choice in his situation. I've said many times that I ain't gonna get in a gunfight over other people's money. However, I don't have a moral objection over someone defending their property with deadly force. After all, what's mine is mine. If someone wants to take that from me I have the right to say "no", and if they decide to imply deadly force as an alternative to my response then I should have the right to respond in kind. The only thing that would get me to pull my weapon in that scenario is if it was very clear that they were intending to shoot someone, or have already shot someone. In that event I would feel morally obligated to do my best to stop it. Once again, I wasn't there and I wasn't the old man. Perhaps that is how he perceived it and felt that these guys were acting violently enough that they intended to shoot someone. There are plenty of robberies where the thug will just shoot people for no reason even after they've achieved their goals of theft or rape. Another reason that I would not pull my weapon is the number of people inside. I would be more concerned that a bystander would be hit by my rounds or the criminal's rounds during the exchange than if the criminals just got their money and left. By pulling my weapon I have entered a known quantity. At that point I know that there is going to be shooting. However, to let the criminals do their thing is an unknown quantity. Will they shoot someone or not? I don't know. Whether or not one believes that the criminals would shoot someone unprovoked is a matter of perception. Of course, sitting behind my keyboard looking at the video, I can clearly see that one of them has a firearm and is threatening people with it, so I don't think it is some kind of great leap in logic to figure they intend on using it. I certainly would feel the same if I was sitting on the jury hearing that argument from the defense. In regard to him following the criminals and continually engaging them: By this point this old man was probably acting on pure fear and adrenaline. This guy probably has never been in a scenario in his life such as this. Although his actions may look blatently aggressive, this is a natural response to fear; fight, flight or submit. He chose fight. When you choose fight it is biologically wired to take the offensive. He took the offensive, and the fear prevented him from backing down. In fact, based on how he manuevers himself within the establishment, it appears that he is continually positioning himself to avoid having bystanders in his line of fire. So I think that it could be interpreted either way. The only shot that is damning, IMO, is the final one through the doorway. At this point it should be pretty clear that the criminals are trying to just get away. However, keep in mind that the shooter is still acting on extreme fear, so if that criminal is still armed he may feel as if he will return fire. I guess what I'm saying is that I know what I would do if I had the ability to think it out as I'm sitting behind a keyboard. I realize, though, that this all occurred in a matter of seconds, and the defender here was not expecting this to happen. He was just playing poker on a computer when two armed men came and threatened his life and the lives of the people around them. If anyone here thinks that in those few seconds you will make all the "right" decisions then you are kidding yourself. You can plan all you want in your head to consider all the ways you would react in various circumstances, but let me leave you with one of the most true statements I have ever heard, and have seen it play out in real life more times than I can count: "No plan survives first contact."

Nice. One of the best shooters I've ever met ran with a flat trigger on his Caspian and swore by it. I tried it out but it messed me all up... takes a bit of getting used to I'm sure.

Two things: 1. When I was a child and heard the story of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" my take away was that the boy deserved to get eaten. 2. If Infowars reported tomorrow that the sky was blue and the Earth revolved around the sun I would start to doubt those as facts.

Infowars.

I was saying for the sake of the scenario posed since this is being decided in a bubble. The OP wasn't posing a "what if", he was posing a "what would you do". If it is a "what if" then I could wonder if perhaps the victim is a lizard person, and will quickly recover from her stab wounds and could handle the assaulter on her own. Geez, I didn't know it was that difficult of a concept to grasp.

Well that defeats the purpose of the scenario here. The question wasn't whether or not you would save someone's life that "might" be in danger. It is a question of saving someone's life that is unmistakably in danger.

We still have a Constitution and we still have voting rights and elections. No matter how bad it gets the people are still in control. If you don't like the direction this country is going, blame your neighbors not our politicians. And yes, it is "the messenger" that gets the brunt of it from us "non-believers". Every month since I can remember there is always some crackpot theory about how Nazi Germany is going to happen here, or Y2K, mayan calendar, rapture, American dictatorship. There is a common denominator; it never happens and the messengers are always crackpots. The people who believe them are the ones that want to believe. Those that don't believe them recognize them as crackpots.

I didn't take it as rude at all. I genuinely feel as if I miss interpreted what you said. If you say that's what you mean, I believe you and didn't take it the wrong way at all.

Sure, it should be every HCP holder's duty to know the relevant laws. As I understand it you can defend yourself, or others, using deadly force if threat of death or great bodily harm is imminent. Seems pretty clear. I think it is also something that can be used to Monday morning quarterback. I think that your perception of what is an imminent threat would change drastically if a firearm was just pulled on you or you were shot at. Understanding that these laws aren't quite the same, having been in a few gunfights over the years and even more "near shoots" I've taken away the experience of what it feels like to ask myself "should I shoot right now?" That answer always answered itself as "no". In the dozen or so occasions that I've fired my weapon I can't recall ever asking myself that question, because it was immediately obvious that my life or the lives of others were in danger. Applying this to carry, I understand the laws, but I also understand how quickly things happen in those scenarios and that if the situation ever occurs that I have to shoot, I won't be considering laws at the time, because I will be in fear for my life. It is quite the simple equation.

I'd rather watch MSNBC for several hours than watch another Infowars segment for even a couple of minutes. At least I can laugh at MSNBC. Infowars just raises my blood pressure. And I must be in denial. Give me a reliable source that isn't wearing a tinfoil hat.

Money, power, ego... it all falls into the same category for me as one usually feeds the other.