User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:02:33 PM EDT
[#1]
35 is mine.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:25:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bcauz3y:
This happened to a buddy of mine. Keep your gun strapped on your person. http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/Police-Man-Shot-After-Catching-Burglar-Break-Into-His-Vehicle-283727841.html If I'm reading that right, his car was unlocked, had valuables left in plain view, including cash and a wallet, and a gun in there too? That's just about all the things NOT to do to avoid a burglary. Was he shot with his own gun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:44:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Tag
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 11:47:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By primuspilum:
35 is mine. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:18:21 AM EDT
[#5]
Best thread ever on Arfcom
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:18:21 AM EDT
[#6]
Best thread ever on Arfcom
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:29:15 AM EDT
[#7]
Good post. I was held up twice at a job back in the early 1980's where policy did not allow firearms. You never forget and the world around you becomes a different place later in life. I have been carrying since around 1994 and cannot imagine not being able to now and avoid nearly any situation that requires me to leave it at home.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:32:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DukeSilver:
If I'm reading that right, his car was unlocked, had valuables left in plain view, including cash and a wallet, and a gun in there too? That's just about all the things NOT to do to avoid a burglary. Was he shot with his own gun? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DukeSilver:
Originally Posted By bcauz3y:
This happened to a buddy of mine. Keep your gun strapped on your person. http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/Police-Man-Shot-After-Catching-Burglar-Break-Into-His-Vehicle-283727841.html If I'm reading that right, his car was unlocked, had valuables left in plain view, including cash and a wallet, and a gun in there too? That's just about all the things NOT to do to avoid a burglary. Was he shot with his own gun? And he chased after the burglar, while unarmed. |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 1:41:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By phb1gt: And he chased after the burglar, while unarmed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By phb1gt: Originally Posted By DukeSilver: Originally Posted By bcauz3y: This happened to a buddy of mine. Keep your gun strapped on your person. http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/Police-Man-Shot-After-Catching-Burglar-Break-Into-His-Vehicle-283727841.html If I'm reading that right, his car was unlocked, had valuables left in plain view, including cash and a wallet, and a gun in there too? That's just about all the things NOT to do to avoid a burglary. Was he shot with his own gun? And he chased after the burglar, while unarmed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:06:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 6winchester2:
Thank you for sharing this. This is excellent. It is worth sifting through hours of foolishness in GD when you find a gem like this. +1. good read! |
|
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:17:45 AM EDT
[#11]
Very insightful and educational.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:21:02 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nick1983:
The part highlighted in red is something that is so true. So many people might be able to use a gun effectively in a scenario that requires deadly force, but far too many people find themselves in a gray area, where force is required to defend oneself, but deadly force could well be interpreted by a prosecutor as "unreasonable". Far too few people can protect themselves with less-lethal force AND STILL RETAIN THEIR WEAPON in less lethal scenario. Very sadly, when you carry a handgun, if you are presented with a situation that initially requires less-lethal force, it will always be portrayed by a prosecutor as "less lethal or reasonable force" was ALL the situation ever required. IF the assailant ever knows you are carrying a handgun, the situation that dictates the use of "less-lethal" force, just became a situation where your assailant has decided to try use deadly force against you by trying to take your weapon off you. How many cops get killed every year with their own gun? You now find yourself, literally in a "life or death physical struggle" and your response can only ever be less lethal force against an adversary who will be using or attempting to use deadly force. For CYA, always try and de-escalate a situation where you assailant does not have a weapon. This is what screwed George Zimmerman. Think about yourself and your assailant too, a 100 pound woman could probably get away with using a gun against a 300 pound monster who was unarmed. Two equally sized guys, then there is a possibility of getting indicted for manslaughter if he does not have a weapon. For these unfortunate gray areas, it would probably do everyone good to spend less on guns & ammo and take a course on weapons retention. Going to the gym and working out and being physically stronger and learning some sort of martial art doesn't hurt either. There is no one thing that can guarantee your coming out on top in one of these terrible situations, but there are many little things that together, can better the odds in your favor. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nick1983:
Originally Posted By 1911SFOREVER:
This is a very good dissertation on disparate force from Andrew "The Law of Self Defense" Branca. I just wanted to point out that my views of disparity of force in the context of lawful self-defense were forged when I attended Mas' LFI-I course way back in the early 1990s (or so, I'm getting old). I've seen nothing in 20 years since and many thousands of studied self-defense cases to change my mind on those fundamental principles. So if you've already heard what Mas has to say on the issue, you're unlikely to hear something substantively different from me. I did want to add one observation to the thread, however. (The nature of the GATES forum prevents me from doing so in the original thread, hence this separate thread.) That observation is that over the last 20 years, and especially the last 5-10, while the fundamental principles of disparity of force have not changed, the vigor with which the criminal justice system is punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens who violate these principles has grown CONSIDERABLY less forgiving. Today in most jurisdictions there is VERY LITTLE slack cut for the use of disparity of force even by the "good guys" like us. This is in part a function of the explosion of CCW over that same time period--a LOT more normally law-abiding people are carrying handguns around with them, and thus a lot more defensive uses of handguns are occurring. It is vital to keep in mind that deadly defensive force cannot be used unless one is facing a deadly offensive threat (meaning, of course, death or grave bodily harm). FBI statistics tell us that we are 5 times more likely to face a simple assault or battery (one NOT justifying a deadly force response) than an aggravated assault or battery (one that would justify a deadly force response). This means, obviously, that most attacks are non-deadly force. If you respond with your pistol (deadly force) against a non-deadly force threat you are increasingly likely to be found to have deployed disparate force outside the bounds of lawful self-defense, AND TO BE PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR IT. Keep in mind that even merely threatening someone with the use of a gun is in itself aggravated assault, good in many jurisdictions for as much as 15 years in prison. What's it take to "threaten someone with the use of a gun"? Any behavior that would put a reasonable person in fear of the imminent use of a gun against them. Is simply putting your hand on your pistol while facing a potential threat enough to meet this standard, under such circumstances that they can perceive an imminent threat? In many states, YES. Certainly displaying a pistol in a "defensive manner" (meaning, a manner intended to intimidate) is more than sufficient. Even worse, in many states such conduct, absent lawful justification, can make YOU the deadly force aggressor against whom THEY can use deadly force in self-defense. Another lesson (among hundreds) that has stuck with me from LFI-I those 20 years ago is to not have a stupid-simple defensive toolbox. Not every problem is a nail, not every solution is a hammer. Give yourself options to move up the force continuum gradually as circumstances warrant, particularly including the ability to defend yourself effectively with non-deadly force. Speaking in my own words now, anybody who is carrying a pistol for personal protection who has not also prepared themselves for NON-DEADLY self-defense is a fool, and putting themselves in great legal peril. They've left themselves with no effective defensive option between "ZERO FORCE" and "DEADLY FORCE," even though MOST attacks occur precisely within that gulf. I see a great many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for example, display their pistol to a perceived threat before that threat has reached the level of reasonably perceived death or grave bodily harm, and who are getting prosecuted and convicted for having done so. These citizens were in GENUINE FEAR when they acted, and because the only defensive tool in their toolbox was the gun, that's what they went to. And, no, I'm not speaking merely of deep-blue jurisdictions like Massachusetts. I speak all over the country and have had a great many prosecutors concur with this observation--they are convicting people for such conduct (technically, usually accepting pleas to avoid jail time). 20 years ago it was far more likely that prosecutorial discretion would result in these cases not being pursued. That is less and less the case today. These are increasingly seen today as good busts, good prosecutions, and good convictions. OK, that's it. Stay safe out there. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense The part highlighted in red is something that is so true. So many people might be able to use a gun effectively in a scenario that requires deadly force, but far too many people find themselves in a gray area, where force is required to defend oneself, but deadly force could well be interpreted by a prosecutor as "unreasonable". Far too few people can protect themselves with less-lethal force AND STILL RETAIN THEIR WEAPON in less lethal scenario. Very sadly, when you carry a handgun, if you are presented with a situation that initially requires less-lethal force, it will always be portrayed by a prosecutor as "less lethal or reasonable force" was ALL the situation ever required. IF the assailant ever knows you are carrying a handgun, the situation that dictates the use of "less-lethal" force, just became a situation where your assailant has decided to try use deadly force against you by trying to take your weapon off you. How many cops get killed every year with their own gun? You now find yourself, literally in a "life or death physical struggle" and your response can only ever be less lethal force against an adversary who will be using or attempting to use deadly force. For CYA, always try and de-escalate a situation where you assailant does not have a weapon. This is what screwed George Zimmerman. Think about yourself and your assailant too, a 100 pound woman could probably get away with using a gun against a 300 pound monster who was unarmed. Two equally sized guys, then there is a possibility of getting indicted for manslaughter if he does not have a weapon. For these unfortunate gray areas, it would probably do everyone good to spend less on guns & ammo and take a course on weapons retention. Going to the gym and working out and being physically stronger and learning some sort of martial art doesn't hurt either. There is no one thing that can guarantee your coming out on top in one of these terrible situations, but there are many little things that together, can better the odds in your favor. So, it appears that this is the bottom of the reason why nowadays scumbags are getting the upperhand over normal people and even the police is falling victim of this mindset (as we are witnessing by latest events). So, even considering that punches on the head can knock one person defenseless or even kill her, using a gun to stop the assailant either by displaying it or using it can land the normal person in hot water. Politics now dictate ethics instead of the contrary. What can folks who are older and in no way to get physically fit as the criminals in their 20s and 30s preying on them that spend most of their time in gyms and planning pack assault? I can hardly imagine myself letting an assailant punching first or even getting close enough for that, which would render a gun almost useless mostly if the criminal spends most of its time in a gym or practicing martial arts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:29:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nick1983:
I agree 100%. That's why an assailant without a weapon is such a legal grey area. You need to be totally certain you can use less-lethal force in a physical confrontation and come out on top or you will very probably end up dead or on trial for your life. Ever been in a fight you thought you were going to win and didn't? Which is why de-escalating these types of situations is always the best option. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nick1983:
Originally Posted By 2tired2run:
Originally Posted By nick1983:
Originally Posted By 1911SFOREVER:
This is a very good dissertation on disparate force from Andrew "The Law of Self Defense" Branca. I just wanted to point out that my views of disparity of force in the context of lawful self-defense were forged when I attended Mas' LFI-I course way back in the early 1990s (or so, I'm getting old). I've seen nothing in 20 years since and many thousands of studied self-defense cases to change my mind on those fundamental principles. So if you've already heard what Mas has to say on the issue, you're unlikely to hear something substantively different from me. I did want to add one observation to the thread, however. (The nature of the GATES forum prevents me from doing so in the original thread, hence this separate thread.) That observation is that over the last 20 years, and especially the last 5-10, while the fundamental principles of disparity of force have not changed, the vigor with which the criminal justice system is punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens who violate these principles has grown CONSIDERABLY less forgiving. Today in most jurisdictions there is VERY LITTLE slack cut for the use of disparity of force even by the "good guys" like us. This is in part a function of the explosion of CCW over that same time period--a LOT more normally law-abiding people are carrying handguns around with them, and thus a lot more defensive uses of handguns are occurring. It is vital to keep in mind that deadly defensive force cannot be used unless one is facing a deadly offensive threat (meaning, of course, death or grave bodily harm). FBI statistics tell us that we are 5 times more likely to face a simple assault or battery (one NOT justifying a deadly force response) than an aggravated assault or battery (one that would justify a deadly force response). This means, obviously, that most attacks are non-deadly force. If you respond with your pistol (deadly force) against a non-deadly force threat you are increasingly likely to be found to have deployed disparate force outside the bounds of lawful self-defense, AND TO BE PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR IT. Keep in mind that even merely threatening someone with the use of a gun is in itself aggravated assault, good in many jurisdictions for as much as 15 years in prison. What's it take to "threaten someone with the use of a gun"? Any behavior that would put a reasonable person in fear of the imminent use of a gun against them. Is simply putting your hand on your pistol while facing a potential threat enough to meet this standard, under such circumstances that they can perceive an imminent threat? In many states, YES. Certainly displaying a pistol in a "defensive manner" (meaning, a manner intended to intimidate) is more than sufficient. Even worse, in many states such conduct, absent lawful justification, can make YOU the deadly force aggressor against whom THEY can use deadly force in self-defense. Another lesson (among hundreds) that has stuck with me from LFI-I those 20 years ago is to not have a stupid-simple defensive toolbox. Not every problem is a nail, not every solution is a hammer. Give yourself options to move up the force continuum gradually as circumstances warrant, particularly including the ability to defend yourself effectively with non-deadly force. Speaking in my own words now, anybody who is carrying a pistol for personal protection who has not also prepared themselves for NON-DEADLY self-defense is a fool, and putting themselves in great legal peril. They've left themselves with no effective defensive option between "ZERO FORCE" and "DEADLY FORCE," even though MOST attacks occur precisely within that gulf. I see a great many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for example, display their pistol to a perceived threat before that threat has reached the level of reasonably perceived death or grave bodily harm, and who are getting prosecuted and convicted for having done so. These citizens were in GENUINE FEAR when they acted, and because the only defensive tool in their toolbox was the gun, that's what they went to. And, no, I'm not speaking merely of deep-blue jurisdictions like Massachusetts. I speak all over the country and have had a great many prosecutors concur with this observation--they are convicting people for such conduct (technically, usually accepting pleas to avoid jail time). 20 years ago it was far more likely that prosecutorial discretion would result in these cases not being pursued. That is less and less the case today. These are increasingly seen today as good busts, good prosecutions, and good convictions. OK, that's it. Stay safe out there. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense The part highlighted in red is something that is so true. So many people might be able to use a gun effectively in a scenario that requires deadly force, but far too many people find themselves in a gray area, where force is required to defend oneself, but deadly force could well be interpreted by a prosecutor as "unreasonable". Far too few people can protect themselves with less-lethal force AND STILL RETAIN THEIR WEAPON in less lethal scenario. Very sadly, when you carry a handgun, if you are presented with a situation that initially requires less-lethal force, it will always be portrayed by a prosecutor as "less lethal or reasonable force" was ALL the situation ever required. IF the assailant ever knows you are carrying a handgun, the situation that dictates the use of "less-lethal" force, just became a situation where your assailant has decided to try use deadly force against you by trying to take your weapon off you. How many cops get killed every year with their own gun? You now find yourself, literally in a "life or death physical struggle" and your response can only ever be less lethal force against an adversary who will be using or attempting to use deadly force. For CYA, always try and de-escalate a situation where you assailant does not have a weapon. This is what screwed George Zimmerman. Think about yourself and your assailant too, a 100 pound woman could probably get away with using a gun against a 300 pound monster who was unarmed. Two equally sized guys, then there is a possibility of getting indicted for manslaughter if he does not have a weapon. For these unfortunate gray areas, it would probably do everyone good to spend less on guns & ammo and take a course on weapons retention. Going to the gym and working out and being physically stronger and learning some sort of martial art doesn't hurt either. There is no one thing that can guarantee your coming out on top in one of these terrible situations, but there are many little things that together, can better the odds in your favor. I'll play devils advocate on this one. My problem with this advice is that guy may be equal size but have a bad attitude and does MMA for a hobby for an instance. Or maybe he just likes to go around picking fights because he's good at it. What about age difference that's not necessarily an obvious thing either. My gimpy shoulder and bad back up against a guy my size 10 years young may not work out well for me. I personally am not going to get locked up in a fist fight with someone, if I can't walk away then I can only assume they mean to do me harm. I think with the above you are assuming the other side won't escalate from a wrestling match or minor beat down. Also, what happens if you start winning there's a good chance the other side goes from fists to 2X4, knife bat etc. My opinion...if you're fighting fair you're not fighting to win I agree 100%. That's why an assailant without a weapon is such a legal grey area. You need to be totally certain you can use less-lethal force in a physical confrontation and come out on top or you will very probably end up dead or on trial for your life. Ever been in a fight you thought you were going to win and didn't? Which is why de-escalating these types of situations is always the best option. That the problem. How to deescalate a situation where the criminal chose you as its victim? It's similar to deescalating a scenario where a pack of wolves encircled you. These criminals are not a normal person one can reason with. Now add the current racial issues to the mix. The pack is coming for the kill and know they are covered all the way to the White House. How does one deescalate that? The times we are living in are unprecedented. How to defend against this? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 3:34:23 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rossi:
That the problem. How to deescalate a situation where the criminal chose you as its victim? It's similar to deescalating a scenario where a pack of wolves encircled you. These criminals are not a normal person one can reason with. Now add the current racial issues to the mix. The pack is coming for the kill and know they are covered all the way to the White House. How does one deescalate that? The times we are living in are unprecedented. How to defend against this? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rossi:
Originally Posted By nick1983:
Originally Posted By 2tired2run:
Originally Posted By nick1983:
Originally Posted By 1911SFOREVER:
This is a very good dissertation on disparate force from Andrew "The Law of Self Defense" Branca. I just wanted to point out that my views of disparity of force in the context of lawful self-defense were forged when I attended Mas' LFI-I course way back in the early 1990s (or so, I'm getting old). I've seen nothing in 20 years since and many thousands of studied self-defense cases to change my mind on those fundamental principles. So if you've already heard what Mas has to say on the issue, you're unlikely to hear something substantively different from me. I did want to add one observation to the thread, however. (The nature of the GATES forum prevents me from doing so in the original thread, hence this separate thread.) That observation is that over the last 20 years, and especially the last 5-10, while the fundamental principles of disparity of force have not changed, the vigor with which the criminal justice system is punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens who violate these principles has grown CONSIDERABLY less forgiving. Today in most jurisdictions there is VERY LITTLE slack cut for the use of disparity of force even by the "good guys" like us. This is in part a function of the explosion of CCW over that same time period--a LOT more normally law-abiding people are carrying handguns around with them, and thus a lot more defensive uses of handguns are occurring. It is vital to keep in mind that deadly defensive force cannot be used unless one is facing a deadly offensive threat (meaning, of course, death or grave bodily harm). FBI statistics tell us that we are 5 times more likely to face a simple assault or battery (one NOT justifying a deadly force response) than an aggravated assault or battery (one that would justify a deadly force response). This means, obviously, that most attacks are non-deadly force. If you respond with your pistol (deadly force) against a non-deadly force threat you are increasingly likely to be found to have deployed disparate force outside the bounds of lawful self-defense, AND TO BE PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR IT. Keep in mind that even merely threatening someone with the use of a gun is in itself aggravated assault, good in many jurisdictions for as much as 15 years in prison. What's it take to "threaten someone with the use of a gun"? Any behavior that would put a reasonable person in fear of the imminent use of a gun against them. Is simply putting your hand on your pistol while facing a potential threat enough to meet this standard, under such circumstances that they can perceive an imminent threat? In many states, YES. Certainly displaying a pistol in a "defensive manner" (meaning, a manner intended to intimidate) is more than sufficient. Even worse, in many states such conduct, absent lawful justification, can make YOU the deadly force aggressor against whom THEY can use deadly force in self-defense. Another lesson (among hundreds) that has stuck with me from LFI-I those 20 years ago is to not have a stupid-simple defensive toolbox. Not every problem is a nail, not every solution is a hammer. Give yourself options to move up the force continuum gradually as circumstances warrant, particularly including the ability to defend yourself effectively with non-deadly force. Speaking in my own words now, anybody who is carrying a pistol for personal protection who has not also prepared themselves for NON-DEADLY self-defense is a fool, and putting themselves in great legal peril. They've left themselves with no effective defensive option between "ZERO FORCE" and "DEADLY FORCE," even though MOST attacks occur precisely within that gulf. I see a great many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for example, display their pistol to a perceived threat before that threat has reached the level of reasonably perceived death or grave bodily harm, and who are getting prosecuted and convicted for having done so. These citizens were in GENUINE FEAR when they acted, and because the only defensive tool in their toolbox was the gun, that's what they went to. And, no, I'm not speaking merely of deep-blue jurisdictions like Massachusetts. I speak all over the country and have had a great many prosecutors concur with this observation--they are convicting people for such conduct (technically, usually accepting pleas to avoid jail time). 20 years ago it was far more likely that prosecutorial discretion would result in these cases not being pursued. That is less and less the case today. These are increasingly seen today as good busts, good prosecutions, and good convictions. OK, that's it. Stay safe out there. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense The part highlighted in red is something that is so true. So many people might be able to use a gun effectively in a scenario that requires deadly force, but far too many people find themselves in a gray area, where force is required to defend oneself, but deadly force could well be interpreted by a prosecutor as "unreasonable". Far too few people can protect themselves with less-lethal force AND STILL RETAIN THEIR WEAPON in less lethal scenario. Very sadly, when you carry a handgun, if you are presented with a situation that initially requires less-lethal force, it will always be portrayed by a prosecutor as "less lethal or reasonable force" was ALL the situation ever required. IF the assailant ever knows you are carrying a handgun, the situation that dictates the use of "less-lethal" force, just became a situation where your assailant has decided to try use deadly force against you by trying to take your weapon off you. How many cops get killed every year with their own gun? You now find yourself, literally in a "life or death physical struggle" and your response can only ever be less lethal force against an adversary who will be using or attempting to use deadly force. For CYA, always try and de-escalate a situation where you assailant does not have a weapon. This is what screwed George Zimmerman. Think about yourself and your assailant too, a 100 pound woman could probably get away with using a gun against a 300 pound monster who was unarmed. Two equally sized guys, then there is a possibility of getting indicted for manslaughter if he does not have a weapon. For these unfortunate gray areas, it would probably do everyone good to spend less on guns & ammo and take a course on weapons retention. Going to the gym and working out and being physically stronger and learning some sort of martial art doesn't hurt either. There is no one thing that can guarantee your coming out on top in one of these terrible situations, but there are many little things that together, can better the odds in your favor. I'll play devils advocate on this one. My problem with this advice is that guy may be equal size but have a bad attitude and does MMA for a hobby for an instance. Or maybe he just likes to go around picking fights because he's good at it. What about age difference that's not necessarily an obvious thing either. My gimpy shoulder and bad back up against a guy my size 10 years young may not work out well for me. I personally am not going to get locked up in a fist fight with someone, if I can't walk away then I can only assume they mean to do me harm. I think with the above you are assuming the other side won't escalate from a wrestling match or minor beat down. Also, what happens if you start winning there's a good chance the other side goes from fists to 2X4, knife bat etc. My opinion...if you're fighting fair you're not fighting to win I agree 100%. That's why an assailant without a weapon is such a legal grey area. You need to be totally certain you can use less-lethal force in a physical confrontation and come out on top or you will very probably end up dead or on trial for your life. Ever been in a fight you thought you were going to win and didn't? Which is why de-escalating these types of situations is always the best option. That the problem. How to deescalate a situation where the criminal chose you as its victim? It's similar to deescalating a scenario where a pack of wolves encircled you. These criminals are not a normal person one can reason with. Now add the current racial issues to the mix. The pack is coming for the kill and know they are covered all the way to the White House. How does one deescalate that? The times we are living in are unprecedented. How to defend against this? Yup not only are you up against the criminal but also the Fed Gov, the State Gov, the Media and scores of "dindu" sympathetic supporters who convict you before even hearing a shred of evidence. Still, you gotta do what you gotta do. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 5:38:00 AM EDT
[#15]
I am glad I live in conservative rural Ohio,
I don't have to de-escalate anything. You attack, I kill you? No bill. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 12:24:03 AM EDT
[#16]
Always worth re reading. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 1:19:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ohio:
I am glad I live in conservative rural Ohio, I don't have to de-escalate anything. You attack, I kill you? No bill. +1. We do have meth cookers and the like in rural areas to deal with though... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 1:40:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Here is a guy who "saw G coming," but lacked the will or means to do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 4:52:37 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheGrayMan:
Here is a guy who "saw G coming," but lacked the will or means to do anything about it.  http://youtu.be/ttF9nabxvTgPretty much need both, I'd say. I mean, will without means in this situation still leaves you behind the power curve. Outgunned and outnumbered. All he could have tried was run. It was a better bet than just standing there, granted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 7:37:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheGrayMan: Here is a guy who "saw G coming," but lacked the will or means to do anything about it. http://youtu.be/ttF9nabxvTg |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 7:42:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Marie]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rockdiver:
BLACKFLAGTRAINING.COM Next Force on Force workshop is Nov. 15th in Morton Grove, IL. It is taught by 5 ITOA members and LE instructors with years of shoothouse and simunitions experience. It is a haul from TN, but the course is worth it, the LE version has been adopted by 21 Departments across the US as a supplement course for officer readiness. Rocco Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rockdiver:
Originally Posted By HermanSnerd:
There are so many instructors that teach shooting skills. I wish there were more instructors teaching mindset and force on force scenarios so that maybe you could avoid having to shoot in the first place. These classes wouldn't require a range or real guns. BLACKFLAGTRAINING.COM Next Force on Force workshop is Nov. 15th in Morton Grove, IL. It is taught by 5 ITOA members and LE instructors with years of shoothouse and simunitions experience. It is a haul from TN, but the course is worth it, the LE version has been adopted by 21 Departments across the US as a supplement course for officer readiness. Rocco I've taken Rocco's Force on Force I class, which uses Airsoft pistols. Well worth the $$. I learned a great deal. Plus, it was loads of fun. Being able to actually "shoot" at someone was a valuable experience. ETA: taking a weapons retention class next month that Rocco is teaching. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 4:57:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SPQM]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fooboy:He's starting you should have other options between 0 force and lethal force, not that you should be slow to use whatever force is appropriate. His assessment is wrong. Once you've decided that force is needed; it should be sudden, immediate, and turned up to 12 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Messing around with less than lethal is a good way to die or get messed up. Escalate massively, and keep a good lawyer on speed dial. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 5:04:16 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By OKnativeson:most of the assaults I have worked on have been brutal, leaving the victim unable to move or defend with extremely long lasting physical issues. I don't even want to think about the psychological issues related to them.
you do not want to be beated by a street thug. they do not stop when you are down. they do not stop when you give up or become submissive. their goal is to render you useless for life. I got "lucky" in that the two youths (14 yrs and 15 yrs old) halted their second assault once I became submissive; and I got "lucky" again when *something* caused them to spook and take off running across a field with my wallet before they could get my phone in my other pocket, or inflict any further damage on me for "making them work for it". But yes; I must wholeheartedly endorse the "do not want to be beat by a street thug" bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 5:34:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SPQM:
His assessment is wrong. Once you've decided that force is needed; it should be sudden, immediate, and turned up to 12 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Messing around with less than lethal is a good way to die or get messed up. Escalate massively, and keep a good lawyer on speed dial. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SPQM:
Originally Posted By Fooboy:He's starting you should have other options between 0 force and lethal force, not that you should be slow to use whatever force is appropriate. His assessment is wrong. Once you've decided that force is needed; it should be sudden, immediate, and turned up to 12 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Messing around with less than lethal is a good way to die or get messed up. Escalate massively, and keep a good lawyer on speed dial. having never been in a gunfight, but having been a bouncer for several years, and having been involved in 2 serious street fights, one of which included getting mildly stabbed, I will echo what SPQM said, if you determine it's time to react, you react as fast as possible and with everything you can bring to bear. Whether it's a table leg or a SAW or a Tank. Almost every time I've either tried to rationally escalate force, or seen other people try to "respond in kind" it's almost always gone badly. When it's time to react, don't try to be fair, try to be as overwhelmingly unfair and vicious as possible given what you have. the OP post was fantastic and mirrors what I've personally seen from over my life. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 7:12:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DukeSilver: If I'm reading that right, his car was unlocked, had valuables left in plain view, including cash and a wallet, and a gun in there too? That's just about all the things NOT to do to avoid a burglary. Was he shot with his own gun? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DukeSilver: Originally Posted By bcauz3y: This happened to a buddy of mine. Keep your gun strapped on your person. http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/Police-Man-Shot-After-Catching-Burglar-Break-Into-His-Vehicle-283727841.html If I'm reading that right, his car was unlocked, had valuables left in plain view, including cash and a wallet, and a gun in there too? That's just about all the things NOT to do to avoid a burglary. Was he shot with his own gun? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 8:31:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: tnriverluver]
[#26]
This happened to one of my customers today and is an avid gun guy that always carries. Guess early in the A.M. it would be quite a surprise. Sad part is his business caters to the low income people are in serious need of health ins. http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Man--287099741.html
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2014 8:33:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tnriverluver:
This happened to one of my customers today and is an avid gun guy that always carries. Guess early in the A.M. it would be quite a surprise. Sad part is his business caters to the low income people are in serious need of health ins. http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Man--287099741.html No good deed goes unpunished. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2014 11:52:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tnriverluver:
This happened to one of my customers today and is an avid gun guy that always carries. Guess early in the A.M. it would be quite a surprise. Sad part is his business caters to the low income people are in serious need of health ins. http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Man--287099741.html Wow. I usually feel much safer before 0700 because I assumed that criminals were too lazy to wake up that early. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2014 11:55:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By H46Driver:
Wow. I usually feel much safer before 0700 because I assumed that criminals were too lazy to wake up that early. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By tnriverluver:
This happened to one of my customers today and is an avid gun guy that always carries. Guess early in the A.M. it would be quite a surprise. Sad part is his business caters to the low income people are in serious need of health ins. http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Man--287099741.html Wow. I usually feel much safer before 0700 because I assumed that criminals were too lazy to wake up that early. No kidding. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2014 12:08:14 PM EDT
[#30]
I worked at a local fast food joint in the early 90s. Me and an older lady just opened up (1030am). A Hispanic dude, real little guy, came in to fill out a job application. No bells were going off for either of us, I mean its 1030am not night, right?. He parked just off to the side of the window, with a partner driving, Im assuming. I am doing the morning paperwork and next thing I know, this dude is behind the counter with a .22 in my face. He took the money bag (around $40 in cash and coins) and was gone. This store was 2 minutes from a mjaor highway and 15 minutes from 2 different states. Looking back, the location was perfect for a robbery.
What would I do different? Not sure. Im sure I missed something. I was just a teenager. This was a rare case that if I had a weapon, it wouldnt have done any good - the dude was on us before I even knew what was happening. Moral of the story is mornings and daytime may mean the threat is less than night, but not zero. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2014 1:21:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By H46Driver:
Wow. I usually feel much safer before 0700 because I assumed that criminals were too lazy to wake up that early. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By H46Driver:
Originally Posted By tnriverluver:
This happened to one of my customers today and is an avid gun guy that always carries. Guess early in the A.M. it would be quite a surprise. Sad part is his business caters to the low income people are in serious need of health ins. http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Man--287099741.html Wow. I usually feel much safer before 0700 because I assumed that criminals were too lazy to wake up that early. They haven't gone to bed yet, dude. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2014 9:44:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By toothandnail: Tag |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2015 2:09:20 PM EDT
[#33]
My question about defending yourself is: If I end up having to defend myself, do I explain it to the cops or keep my mouth shut until I have an attorney present?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2015 2:31:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gndmepyon: My question about defending yourself is: If I end up having to defend myself, do I explain it to the cops or keep my mouth shut until I have an attorney present? "I was in fear for my life, I thought he was going to kill me" Followed by "sir ill cooperate fully once I have an attorney present"
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2015 2:33:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Currently]
[#35]
1. "I was in fear for my life."
2. "I need to speak to my lawyer." 3. " I don't feel good, I need to go to the hospital." Repeat ad infinitum... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/2/2015 3:18:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cda97:
Best thread ever on Arfcom I think the same thread content was the first thing I read on AR15.com... in 2003 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2015 11:10:26 AM EDT
[#37]
Time for a bump.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2015 11:41:06 AM EDT
[#38]
Thanks for the bump, first time I've seen this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2015 1:01:41 PM EDT
[#39]
So glad I took the time to read this today, some really good info, always looking for good stuff like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2015 1:08:21 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
having never been in a gunfight, but having been a bouncer for several years, and having been involved in 2 serious street fights, one of which included getting mildly stabbed, I will echo what SPQM said, if you determine it's time to react, you react as fast as possible and with everything you can bring to bear. Whether it's a table leg or a SAW or a Tank. Almost every time I've either tried to rationally escalate force, or seen other people try to "respond in kind" it's almost always gone badly. When it's time to react, don't try to be fair, try to be as overwhelmingly unfair and vicious as possible given what you have. the OP post was fantastic and mirrors what I've personally seen from over my life. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By crashburnrepeat:
Originally Posted By SPQM:
Originally Posted By Fooboy:He's starting you should have other options between 0 force and lethal force, not that you should be slow to use whatever force is appropriate. His assessment is wrong. Once you've decided that force is needed; it should be sudden, immediate, and turned up to 12 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Messing around with less than lethal is a good way to die or get messed up. Escalate massively, and keep a good lawyer on speed dial. having never been in a gunfight, but having been a bouncer for several years, and having been involved in 2 serious street fights, one of which included getting mildly stabbed, I will echo what SPQM said, if you determine it's time to react, you react as fast as possible and with everything you can bring to bear. Whether it's a table leg or a SAW or a Tank. Almost every time I've either tried to rationally escalate force, or seen other people try to "respond in kind" it's almost always gone badly. When it's time to react, don't try to be fair, try to be as overwhelmingly unfair and vicious as possible given what you have. the OP post was fantastic and mirrors what I've personally seen from over my life. descalation only works on rational humans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 6:54:12 AM EDT
[#41]
This thread needs to be a sticky.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:12:24 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Finnbear:
+1. We do have meth cookers and the like in rural areas to deal with though... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Finnbear:
Originally Posted By Ohio:
I am glad I live in conservative rural Ohio, I don't have to de-escalate anything. You attack, I kill you? No bill. +1. We do have meth cookers and the like in rural areas to deal with though... Yeah, it's the drawback to all the other awesome things about living where we do. It's also why I use an AR for home defense. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:24:50 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Currently:
1. "I was in fear for my life."2. "I need to speak to my lawyer." 3. " I don't feel good, I need to go to the hospital." Repeat ad infinitum... 3 is overlooked. Do,it. You are having chest pains |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 10:26:25 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FlyNavy75:
I worked at a local fast food joint in the early 90s. Me and an older lady just opened up (1030am). A Hispanic dude, real little guy, came in to fill out a job application. No bells were going off for either of us, I mean its 1030am not night, right?. He parked just off to the side of the window, with a partner driving, Im assuming. I am doing the morning paperwork and next thing I know, this dude is behind the counter with a .22 in my face. He took the money bag (around $40 in cash and coins) and was gone. This store was 2 minutes from a mjaor highway and 15 minutes from 2 different states. Looking back, the location was perfect for a robbery. What would I do different? Not sure. Im sure I missed something. I was just a teenager. This was a rare case that if I had a weapon, it wouldnt have done any good - the dude was on us before I even knew what was happening. Moral of the story is mornings and daytime may mean the threat is less than night, but not zero. Was the car running? Did he have hands on the wheel!0? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2015 11:01:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Gator]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rossi:
That the problem. How to deescalate a situation where the criminal chose you as its victim? It's similar to deescalating a scenario where a pack of wolves encircled you. These criminals are not a normal person one can reason with. Now add the current racial issues to the mix. The pack is coming for the kill and know they are covered all the way to the White House. How does one deescalate that? The times we are living in are unprecedented. How to defend against this? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Rossi:
Originally Posted By nick1983:
Originally Posted By 2tired2run:
Originally Posted By nick1983:
Originally Posted By 1911SFOREVER:
This is a very good dissertation on disparate force from Andrew "The Law of Self Defense" Branca. I just wanted to point out that my views of disparity of force in the context of lawful self-defense were forged when I attended Mas' LFI-I course way back in the early 1990s (or so, I'm getting old). I've seen nothing in 20 years since and many thousands of studied self-defense cases to change my mind on those fundamental principles. So if you've already heard what Mas has to say on the issue, you're unlikely to hear something substantively different from me. I did want to add one observation to the thread, however. (The nature of the GATES forum prevents me from doing so in the original thread, hence this separate thread.) That observation is that over the last 20 years, and especially the last 5-10, while the fundamental principles of disparity of force have not changed, the vigor with which the criminal justice system is punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens who violate these principles has grown CONSIDERABLY less forgiving. Today in most jurisdictions there is VERY LITTLE slack cut for the use of disparity of force even by the "good guys" like us. This is in part a function of the explosion of CCW over that same time period--a LOT more normally law-abiding people are carrying handguns around with them, and thus a lot more defensive uses of handguns are occurring. It is vital to keep in mind that deadly defensive force cannot be used unless one is facing a deadly offensive threat (meaning, of course, death or grave bodily harm). FBI statistics tell us that we are 5 times more likely to face a simple assault or battery (one NOT justifying a deadly force response) than an aggravated assault or battery (one that would justify a deadly force response). This means, obviously, that most attacks are non-deadly force. If you respond with your pistol (deadly force) against a non-deadly force threat you are increasingly likely to be found to have deployed disparate force outside the bounds of lawful self-defense, AND TO BE PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR IT. Keep in mind that even merely threatening someone with the use of a gun is in itself aggravated assault, good in many jurisdictions for as much as 15 years in prison. What's it take to "threaten someone with the use of a gun"? Any behavior that would put a reasonable person in fear of the imminent use of a gun against them. Is simply putting your hand on your pistol while facing a potential threat enough to meet this standard, under such circumstances that they can perceive an imminent threat? In many states, YES. Certainly displaying a pistol in a "defensive manner" (meaning, a manner intended to intimidate) is more than sufficient. Even worse, in many states such conduct, absent lawful justification, can make YOU the deadly force aggressor against whom THEY can use deadly force in self-defense. Another lesson (among hundreds) that has stuck with me from LFI-I those 20 years ago is to not have a stupid-simple defensive toolbox. Not every problem is a nail, not every solution is a hammer. Give yourself options to move up the force continuum gradually as circumstances warrant, particularly including the ability to defend yourself effectively with non-deadly force. Speaking in my own words now, anybody who is carrying a pistol for personal protection who has not also prepared themselves for NON-DEADLY self-defense is a fool, and putting themselves in great legal peril. They've left themselves with no effective defensive option between "ZERO FORCE" and "DEADLY FORCE," even though MOST attacks occur precisely within that gulf. I see a great many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for example, display their pistol to a perceived threat before that threat has reached the level of reasonably perceived death or grave bodily harm, and who are getting prosecuted and convicted for having done so. These citizens were in GENUINE FEAR when they acted, and because the only defensive tool in their toolbox was the gun, that's what they went to. And, no, I'm not speaking merely of deep-blue jurisdictions like Massachusetts. I speak all over the country and have had a great many prosecutors concur with this observation--they are convicting people for such conduct (technically, usually accepting pleas to avoid jail time). 20 years ago it was far more likely that prosecutorial discretion would result in these cases not being pursued. That is less and less the case today. These are increasingly seen today as good busts, good prosecutions, and good convictions. OK, that's it. Stay safe out there. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense The part highlighted in red is something that is so true. So many people might be able to use a gun effectively in a scenario that requires deadly force, but far too many people find themselves in a gray area, where force is required to defend oneself, but deadly force could well be interpreted by a prosecutor as "unreasonable". Far too few people can protect themselves with less-lethal force AND STILL RETAIN THEIR WEAPON in less lethal scenario. Very sadly, when you carry a handgun, if you are presented with a situation that initially requires less-lethal force, it will always be portrayed by a prosecutor as "less lethal or reasonable force" was ALL the situation ever required. IF the assailant ever knows you are carrying a handgun, the situation that dictates the use of "less-lethal" force, just became a situation where your assailant has decided to try use deadly force against you by trying to take your weapon off you. How many cops get killed every year with their own gun? You now find yourself, literally in a "life or death physical struggle" and your response can only ever be less lethal force against an adversary who will be using or attempting to use deadly force. For CYA, always try and de-escalate a situation where you assailant does not have a weapon. This is what screwed George Zimmerman. Think about yourself and your assailant too, a 100 pound woman could probably get away with using a gun against a 300 pound monster who was unarmed. Two equally sized guys, then there is a possibility of getting indicted for manslaughter if he does not have a weapon. For these unfortunate gray areas, it would probably do everyone good to spend less on guns & ammo and take a course on weapons retention. Going to the gym and working out and being physically stronger and learning some sort of martial art doesn't hurt either. There is no one thing that can guarantee your coming out on top in one of these terrible situations, but there are many little things that together, can better the odds in your favor. I'll play devils advocate on this one. My problem with this advice is that guy may be equal size but have a bad attitude and does MMA for a hobby for an instance. Or maybe he just likes to go around picking fights because he's good at it. What about age difference that's not necessarily an obvious thing either. My gimpy shoulder and bad back up against a guy my size 10 years young may not work out well for me. I personally am not going to get locked up in a fist fight with someone, if I can't walk away then I can only assume they mean to do me harm. I think with the above you are assuming the other side won't escalate from a wrestling match or minor beat down. Also, what happens if you start winning there's a good chance the other side goes from fists to 2X4, knife bat etc. My opinion...if you're fighting fair you're not fighting to win I agree 100%. That's why an assailant without a weapon is such a legal grey area. You need to be totally certain you can use less-lethal force in a physical confrontation and come out on top or you will very probably end up dead or on trial for your life. Ever been in a fight you thought you were going to win and didn't? Which is why de-escalating these types of situations is always the best option. That the problem. How to deescalate a situation where the criminal chose you as its victim? It's similar to deescalating a scenario where a pack of wolves encircled you. These criminals are not a normal person one can reason with. Now add the current racial issues to the mix. The pack is coming for the kill and know they are covered all the way to the White House. How does one deescalate that? The times we are living in are unprecedented. How to defend against this? I'm far from an expert, but I'd have to say know your state's laws, and having some sort of legal retainer on hand. There are a few out there and the price is pretty darn reasonable. 1911SFOREVER sounds like really good and really bad advice at the same time. If you're carrying, and give any shit at all about not landing yourself in jail, know when you are justified in using it. Not all states are the same. Some are as bad as 1911SFOREVER posted. Some aren't. BurnedOutLEO's advice sounds like great advice. Know when you're justified, if you got a gun and you're gonna second guess shit, you could easily wind up dead. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2015 10:54:41 AM EDT
[#46]
Time for a visibility bump.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:15:11 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1911SFOREVER:
Time for a visibility bump. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:34:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gndmepyon: My question about defending yourself is: If I end up having to defend myself, do I explain it to the cops or keep my mouth shut until I have an attorney present? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2015 10:34:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tnriverluver:
This happened to one of my customers today and is an avid gun guy that always carries. Guess early in the A.M. it would be quite a surprise. Sad part is his business caters to the low income people are in serious need of health ins. http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Man--287099741.html Jackson is a Little Memphis. I work at the hospital, but live in Gibson County. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 1:40:40 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gator:
I'm far from an expert, but I'd have to say know your state's laws, and having some sort of legal retainer on hand. There are a few out there and the price is pretty darn reasonable. 1911SFOREVER sounds like really good and really bad advice at the same time. If you're carrying, and give any shit at all about not landing yourself in jail, know when you are justified in using it. Not all states are the same. Some are as bad as 1911SFOREVER posted. Some aren't. BurnedOutLEO's advice sounds like great advice. Know when you're justified, if you got a gun and you're gonna second guess shit, you could easily wind up dead. Virginia, while an overall great state in terms of gun rights, has terrible self-defense laws in some ways. One of those is that the only acceptable defense to brandishing is imminent fear of death or grievous injury. |
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
