RobertNashville

I agree with bkelm18 (surprise ) It's very true that an experienced shooter can pass on a lot of good information to a newer/less experienced one and I certainly appreciate all the guys who have passed along their knowledge to me; I try to do the same thing. However, after having taken a few classes with professional trainers, I can say that it really is true that a good class taught buy a professional is worth every penny.

MCSC is my favorite outdoor range in Tennessee; actually one of the best I've been to anywhere. It's a bit of a drive for me from M'bobo but it's good enough that I still make the drive a few times a year!

Maybe I'm wrong but I think the OPs question was answer satisfactorily a long time ago...the rest of us were just talking.

I've not taken classes as ether CCA or FF. I will day that FF staff have always been friendly and accommodating when I've been there but I haven't really had any problems with CCA either for that matter. As far as training, there are certainly good places to train in Tennessee but the two I tend to recommend is "Rangemasters" in Memphis and "Tactical Response" in Camden. Both are a bit far from Knoxville but I don't think they are far enough away to take them out of consideration. Also, at Tactical Response, you can stay in the team room for free when taking a multi-day class.

You might think so; the law won't

That's interesting...and it may well be true. I've been more concerned about a "have" vs "have not" war/unrest/rioting than something based strictly on race (although there would almost certainly be a racial component to that as well).

I'm glad the charges were dropped but I do think this guy was in the wrong. I've always been taught and I've always operated under the concept that in Tennessee and in most locations in the U.S.; if you aren't justified in using deadly force and shooting the bad guy to stop the threat then you aren't justified in pulling your weapon at all; that certainly leaves firing a warning shot out of the equation.

Hey folks! I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread or just continue this one but I've noticed something about the show that I'd like to discuss... Each show usually has three families and each family seems to be preparing for only one particular "disaster"; super volcano, shift of the magnetic polls, pandemic, financial collapse, etc. I've never even considered preparing for just "one" kind of event...am I being stupid or are these preappers on the show the dumb ones? Starting about two years ago I've been preparing on a "scale" of most likely to least likely event; i.e...I consider it much more likely that my area will suffer a natural disaster than, say, an EMP from a nuclear weapon detonation. I'm not saying the EMP can't happen or that a complete financial collapse can't or won't happen; just that those problems are not the most likely scenarios. My plans include "bugging in" and staying in place if I can but being prepared to bug out if the situation calls for it. I realize that preparing for any specific situation is going to help you be prepared for any emergency but it seems to me you are at risk if you concentrate all or most of your efforts on just one kind of event. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

The best way to get people to agree with you about anything is to make them think it was their idea and I think you can help them think it was their idea just by pointing out the obvious. We all know that disasters happen, be they man made or natural and it just makes sense to have essentials put away for such emergencies - I think if you start "there" the rest could well follow of its own accord. I thought about prepping for a lone while but about a year ago I went from thinking about it to doing something and it was what has happened in just the past few years that got me moving...I SAW an F5 tornado pass a 1/2 mile form my house...I saw the results of major flooding in Nashville and the results of Katrina in New Orleans...after a while a person would just have to be a bit crazy to not prepare (either that or they simply refuses to accept reality) and preparing for possible emergencies is not "nutty"; it's just common sense. I can pretty much guarantee that if you start out with "end of the world" talk you'll almost certainly lose them and they will think you are nutty.

Is it a Barrett? If so, I would think a good starting point would be to look at what they offer at the factory (at least I think you can have a scope installed at the factory).

Keep in mind, while not true here, I am fairly certain that at least in some states, you do have to have a specific permit for each gun you own or even have to get "permission" to buy one before you can do so.

Not at all...it's just that I have an S&W 29 8 3/8th and when I think 44 Magnum, I tend to think "Dirty Harry" and revolver.

Yeah; it is a bit more expensive but my practice ammo is $22/box of 50 (I buy online).

What's not affordable about it??? If memory serves my G20 wasn't significantly more expensive than any of my other Glocks and ammunition cost for just about any Man-sized caliber is pretty much the same no matter what caliber you buy.

I love my 1911s; I've carried them and I still sometimes carry one but I came to the conclusion some time ago that in most cases, the Glock is a better choice for a carry weapon. I'm not saying that a Glock or any other more modern design is necessarily better than a 1911 or that the 1911 can't get the job done; it's just that I've found my Glocks to be more dependable and less complicated and you get a "bang" almost every time you pull the trigger which is what you need if your life is on the line.

Which is why REAL men carry 10MM in an auto pistol/44 MAG in a revolver, right?

And just what exactly are you trying to say????

You didn't say that but you seem to imply that...you keep alluding to the "pointy stick" so what did you mean to imply if not that a "mousegun" is no better than that? And if it's no better than that it follows that the "mousegun" is not worth carrying. If that's not what you mean you haven't said so; you just keep talking about the pointy stick. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "same level of service" but I am quite sure I never said that a small caliber is equal to (provides the same level of service) as a "big caliber". My personal experience jives with the experience of the 92% in the study I cited that had a similar outcome; that would indicate that my experience is not unusual nor simply due to luck. I've neither denied or as far as I know, even hinted that there aren't plenty cases where it was necessary to shoot; of course there are; but that doesn't mean doing so is the most frequent use of a defensive firearm. What's important to me is that anyone reading this thread not come away thinking that if they don't carry a large caliber that they are wasting their time - it's important because a little 22, 25, 32 or 380 can most certainly save a person's life one day if it's with them and not not sitting in a nightstand drawer somewhere. Arguing about the effectiveness of handgun calibers can be entertaining but is otherwise a bit useless anyway and sort of misses the point...people should carry the largest handgun in the biggest caliber that they are willing to carry, able to carry given their circumstances and are competent using regardless of how "big" the handgun or the caliber that might be. However, let's be clear; if we ever are in a confrontation and we have a CHOICE of weapons, it would be rather stupid to depend on ANY handgun of ANY caliber rather than a good rifle. The best ballistics of any handgun is pitiful compared to a good fighting rifle; we carry handguns because of the convenience and because in most places; you can't just walk around with a AR on our shoulder. P.S. "You are only outgunned if you miss" - Col Jeff Cooper

So a "mousegun", as you call it, is inadequate and that, therefore, someone shouldn't bother to carry at all if that's all they are going to carry??? Please tell me the last time you volunteered to be shot with one and if you have never volunteered, why not? I mean...it's only a "mousegun" after all.. Actually, I didn't say it was the "mere presence"; I was assuming a willingness to not just "flash" a weapon but to show the intent and ability to use it. In any case, your opinion seems to be just that, opinion. I've actually had to pull my weapon twice in my life and both times I've avoided what I believed was going to be a life-threatening situation; I didn't need to discharge my firearm but I was most certianly willing to do so and had the thugs not backed down I am sure I would have been justified in shooting...beyond that, I'd encourage you to do some research on your own. "Despite this stated willingness of gun owners to shoot under certain circumstances, most defensive uses of guns do not in fact involve shooting anyone (emphasis mine). Data from the National Self-Defense Survey indicate that no more than 8% of the 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses involved a defender who claimed to have shot their adversaries, or about 200,000 total." - Source; Guns and Self-Defenseby Gary Kleck, Ph.D.

Maybe I'm missing something but just because there is no law specific to discharging a firearm in an unincorporated area; I don't think that means you can do whatever you want anytime you want on your property. I would think that if someone is creating a disturbance (excessive noise on their property from a loud party, firearms, music, etc) and especially if doing so at appropriate times (evening/normal bedtime, etc.) I would think a deputy could do something about it, not because it's discharging a firearm but simply because the person is disturbing his neighbors. We don't need more laws, what we need is for people to exercise a little common sense and compassion for their neighbors and their enjoyment of their property.

Hardcore Pawn is one of those shows that l don't really want to admit I watch but I DO watch it...it may be scripted...it may all be fake...but I watch it anyway (sort of like professional wrestling)

So what are you trying to say; are you implying that if you don't carry a large caliber why bother? My usual carry piece is a G31 (357Sig); and if not that one then it's almost certainly a 45ACP or a 10MM. But, sometimes because of who I'm with/where I am/what I'm wearing I only have a lowly 38 snubby in my pocket...should I just not carry at all because the 38 isn't a powerful caliber??? Your average young (or older or old) woman (or man for that matter isn't a police officer and isn't putting her(his) life into harm's way on purpose as part of her(his) job...police officers do and as such should probably carry the biggest, baddest caliber their agency will allow. The old adage "any caliber you have with you is better than ANY caliber locked in your safe" is an old adage for a reason - it's because IT'S TRUE. I also believe it's true that many (perhaps even most) defensive use of a handgun is simply showing that you have a gun, not actually needing to shoot a would-be thug...if so, then what "caliber" a person has on him is FAR less important than the fact that she/he has a firearm with them. Maybe a man can't turn her (wife/daughter/girlfriend) into a sheep dog but at least she many become an armed sheep that's a hell of a lot better than being a disarmed one.

That doesn't negate my point. 25s and 32s and lowly 22s can kill and any of those are a hell of a lot better than any caliber you aren't carrying.

Tactical Response is a great place to train...I'm definitely going to take at least one course from them this year but haven't decided which on yet...I'm leaning toward their medical course for my next one; after than, I may take fighting pistol again.

Far be it from me to disagree with the Great One but at least with my comments, I was speaking more of what the founders gave us than I was what we have left today. However, I think we have enough of a republic left that we can and should and should be able to avoid the need for an armed rebellion. I think there is still time to get back on track without the need for arms...I also think that if we don't get back on track, we won't have an armed rebellion; just a continued erosion of our freedoms until there simply are not...with "1984" arriving a few decades later than might have originally been thought