Fire

the following is somewhat long winded, and for that I appologise, but I am trying to narrow the scope of the ensuing discussion down to a few points

I heard an article on NPR today and it provoked an interesting thought- first a bit about the article, it was about the end of the assault weapon ban and focused on a guy who was buying an ar-15 with a 100 round mag- this article was decidedly anti gun, imho, and the commentator spent some time explaining the capabilities of the gun in ways that I disagree with - things like the fact that it will shoot through drywall (what gun wont) and that with this many rounds "aiming was unnesscessary" ( I am not a good shot yet myself, but lots of bullets does not fix my problem, or anyone else I know with this problem) at any rate, at the end of the article the commentator says, that with this weapon , even an armed opponent's best choice is to run- now that seems to me to be the point of home defence gun, is it not?
and that spurred the thought that caused this thread- What do you people think of the concept of overwhelming force- to me it seems natural, that if someone is trying to hurt me, then I should meet them with as much force as I have available, and the idea of a fair and chivalrous combat is simply idiotic- the point of this thread is to explore the conflicting ideals of weapons owners, on this board I have seen people who are martial artists, gun owners, swordsmen, etc, adopt a variety of stances on what is Fair and Right in a conflict, and I think that this attitude, and the aformentioned article point to an underlying cultural trend- What are your views on fighting - do they change in context? (i.e. someone hitting you in a bar V.S. someone breaking into your home) is there such a thing as a fair fight? (cant resist the movie reference) What is a true samurai, or has there ever been one? - we come from a variety of cultures, and many of us live in the great melting pot that is the u.s.a.- do we have a "warriors code" that our culture subscribes to? please discuss all of the above- I am curious to see what it generates...........

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

Sika2

I am inclined to go with the view that any attack on me or my family should be repulsed with the maximim available force. The days of treating fairly with an enemy are gone and in todays climate an attacker or intruder in the home must be considered to have the capability or capacity to inflict mortal harm and therefore should be able to be repulsed in like manner. Whilst the courts and police probably would not agree with this approach, they do not appear able or willing to provide the degree of protection to todays citizen that was provided in the past.

daswig

people who attack you deserve no consideration. If they don't like being met with overwhelming lethal force, they shouldn't attack in the first place.

"Walk softly, but carry a megawatt laser."

tropple

The spray and pray method has long been a bane upon quartermasters and armorers alike through the ages.

Rapid, aimed fire is much more effective.

"Overwhelming firepower" is enough to do the job and not one bit more. Anything else is wastefull.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

MrTuffPaws

I think what you would find is that if this guy had someone break into his house and he used AR with the 100 round mag for self defense, it is going to look to a jury that they guy is a nut case and most likely dangerous to the public (at least here in CA, but we still have a 10 round limit, so never mind).

I do agree with you though, if some one breaks into my house, they will be met with force. But, do I really need 100 rounds to stop them? No, just a few from a shot gun or hand gun.

Other than recreation, does any of use need a 100 round mag? Do any of use need more than ten?

izin

Other than recreation, does any of use need a 100 round mag? Do any of use need more than ten?

That's dangerous thinking. You've been in CA too long

ziadel

other than recreation, does anyone need a car that will go more than 75mph? I think thats the highest speed-limit in the country, so why do we need cars that will go faster than that?

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

daswig

More is better. There are plenty of gunfights on record where people died because they ran out of bullets, or got caught changing a magazine. There's no penalty for still having ammo left at the end of a gunfight...and there may be a very large penalty for running out before it's over.

In my book, the perfect home defense weapon is belt-fed. It's the only way to be sure.

MSD

From another thread:
I think he and his wife might need more than ten. I'd want at least ten shots available if someone was trying to blow up my house and kill my wife (hypothetical, since I'm not married.) Aside from that, the 10-round mags from during the ban had to be made so that they could not be converted to hi-cap, and because of that they were not high-quality.

Fire

on to the idea of warrior codes, does anyone here think there is an unspoken, warriors code in our culture- kind of like unofficial rules of engagement- What do you all think on this idea? I guess that wher I am heading is along the lines that the samurai had bushido, the cavaliers of europe rules of honor, what , if anything do you think we have today?

__________________
Thought the harder, Heart the bolder,
Mood the more as our might lessens

Suave

I'm not much for "fair" fighting in terms of personal defense, but if I had to defend myself, I'd prefer that I triumph due to superior skill rather than having bigger toys. That whole perspective is simply out of pride, but it's still the way I feel. I'd rather kick an attacker's ass with my bare hands than shoot him, or take him out with a single shot to the face than a full clip centre mass. All for glorification and pride, but just because I'd PREFER it, doesn't mean I wouldn't unload every bullet into the bastard if I doubted my ability.

MrTuffPaws

All:

Just to let you know, it was a retorical question. I wish I could get hi caps here.

nowthen

my house has good security, steel doors and window bars which are always locked. *IF* anybody gets past that, and my dog, I will assume the worst and go to town on them with everything I have available. seems fair enough to me, I mean, they are not just gonna be dropping by for afternoon tea, are they, if they have already forcefully entered your house?

__________________

"People are always blaming their circumstances for what they are. I don't believe in circumstances. The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and, if they can't find them, make them."

George Bernard Shaw

Ripsaw

I'm actually going to jump in on this one. Stopping a conflict requires only as much force as is necessary to prevent harm to yourself or your loved ones. You must always be prepared for what comes next.

The idea of warrior codes is a popular one. Instantly the chivalrous Knights of Western Europe or the Samurai of Japan come to mind. But please remember that both of these ideals are also colored by their proponents. Many people do not hear of the samurai that stood at the crossroads, testing the sharpness of their swords. On peasants. To be sure, there were honorable and kind samurai, but there were also greedy and evil ones. After all, they were human beings.

If by 'our culture' Fire means American culture, then no, there is no honorable code of conduct. Drive by shootings are not honorable. Tit for tat assassinations in the shadow of the public are not honorable. Killing a person because he is wearing the wrong color sweatshirt, or he is wearing 'your' sneakers is not honorable. Dueling was outlawed because too many sons were dying. Now physical accountability has given way to civil lawsuits. The second you harm or kill someone, you are owned. Twelve people decide the fate of you, your family, and all of your belongings. Remember this.

__________________
"We are supposed to be masters of space, but we cant even line up our shoes?"

One life, one chance, one opportunity.

tropple

I've got a couple dozen M-1A/14 20-rounders.

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

tropple

That's what remailing companies are for ;-)

__________________
+++++++++++Boom!

Baron Opal

The only fair fight is in the arena. If it's not a sporting match, it isn't a game. You put the opponent down as efficently, and, preferably, with as much style as you can muster.

Moonduck

If you fire a gun at someone, you should be actively trying to kill them, as that is the most reliable way of stopping them (ie center-of-mass, a definite attempt to kill, but used because it produces the most reliable stops). Legally speaking, you are only allowed to use a firearm if you are threatened with deadly force (in most states). If you are trying to shoot to wound, you may find yourself facing legal repercussions simply because you were obviously not under so much threat that you could take the time to make a more difficult shot in the attempt to disable.

I have no desire to shoot any human being. I have owned guns all my life and am proud to say that I have never used one in anger, and only very rarely in fear (rattlesnakes gotta go). Never want to. I know what my conscience is like and I do not trust in my ability to rationalize away the karma that mgiht be accrued from putting a bullet in someone, thus I do not treat the subject lightly. As a result, my personal guideline is to never pull a weapon unless the target needs killing to save a life, be it me or mine.

That said, America does have a warrior culture. George Washington exemplified it with his use of the nom de guerre "Cincinnatus" during the pre-Revolution phase. He was the eternal citizen soldier, reluctant to take up arms and anxious to return home and lay them back down. America culturally prefers peace, and the modern soldier also shows that in his burning desire to come home and do so through the wreckage of his enemy if need be.

To quote Patton, "Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the b*stards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home. The shortest way home is through Berlin and Tokyo. And when we get to Berlin, I am personally going to shoot that paper hanging son-of-a-b*tch Hitler just like I'd shoot a snake".

Deadly force is used as strongly and quickly as we can muster it simply because we want the war over and Our Boys (and Girls) home ASAP. Americans tend to carry this into non-military engagements as well. That's topic for another post though.

MSD

Fuck style, if someone does something bad enough to make me pull a gun, I want him dead as fast as possible, and with the lowest chance of hurting anyone else. Killing, even in defense, is not a pleasant thing, and I'd rather look reluctant but deliberate than look cool while doing it.

The_Dunedan

A "Warrior's code" refers, in my opinion, to two things:

1: Doing everything needed to avoid harming innocents/noncombatants.
2: Only drawing your weapon when you must do so in order to defend your Life or Liberty.

Once these two conditions are satisfied, all's fair in a gunfight. At that point, I'm doing whatever I have to in order to remove the threat to myself; if that means yelling at the guy, so be it. If it means dumping a whole FAL magazine into him, so be it.